Hello, a very good evening. It's five minutes past seven on LBC. Welcome to the show. It's Ian Dale with you until ten. We're going to talk in the last hour of the programme about the fact that a Scottish MSP wants to ban the sale of sex in Scotland, so there'll effectively be a phone-in about legalising prostitution, I guess.
subject which I have covered before in the programme but not for quite a few years so I'm quite looking forward to that. We have a brilliant panel for you on cross-question. But I want to start off with, I think, the biggest, certainly international political news of the day, the seeming change in the UK government's attitude towards Israel.
Because it was announced today by the Foreign Secretary David Lammy that Britain is suspending talks on a trade deal with Israel, he summoned the country's ambassador and imposed fresh sanctions on West Bank settlers. So my question to you in this hour, I mean, is Really, is the government going far enough in your view or have they got this wrong? Are they providing... Effectively sucker to Hamas, that's what some people some MPs are saying
I wonder what your view will be. You won't be backward in coming forward with your views on this, I suspect. 0345 6060 973. Let's talk to Natasha Clark, LBC's political editor. She's been across what's been happening. Today, Natasha, very good evening. A very strong sense of change in the UK's rhetoric on the Israel-Gaza conflict. Yes, good evening Ian. Absolutely. You really heard from David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary today, when he was speaking in the House of Commons, giving this update.
to MPs and you know I think actually the British establishment Westminster wasn't quite ready prepared. or expecting what he was about to say. And it's clearly the situation in Gaza and with Israel and Netanyahu's government this week that has absolutely been something that's been a straw that's broken the camel's back we have been slowly sliding towards this
for arguably months ever since the government, the Labour government suspended those arms sales to Israel and there was a big discussion at the time about whether the government was right to do that. David Lammy says, you know, I've looked at all the evidence and there was you know i had to take action there and you know today in the house of commons he was incandescent with what he was seeing from israel in the way that he uh was describing the number of trucks
9,000 trucks, he says, waiting at the borders, being denied entry to Gaza. You know, we've heard warning after warning from the UN, from the EU, from body after body in the last few days and weeks. that the situation in gaza is becoming absolutely intolerable with the amount of people that they fear could die of starvation because aid and food is being withheld and not
being let in. David Lammy had this very clear message to the Israeli government today. There are brave humanitarians ready to do their jobs. There are over 9,000 trucks at the border. Prime Minister Netanyahu, end this blockade now and let the age in. Regrettably, Madam Deputy Speaker, despite our efforts, this Israeli government's egregious actions and rhetoric have continued.
They are isolating Israel from its friends and partners around the world, undermining the interests of the Israeli people and damaging the image of the state of Israel in the eyes of the world. And in response, the shadow foreign secretary, Priti Patel, questioned whether the UK government's non-participation would actually achieve anything at all. The UK has consistently been a leader when it comes to world aid delivery.
So we should be at the forefront of finding practical solutions, supporting the delivery of aid of those in need. So has the foreign secretary, with the approach that he has just outlined towards Israel, done all he can to secure an increase in aid? And has the UK's influence actually fallen now when it comes to this entire aid discussion and also the dialogue we've had with Israel?
But it's fair to say that really prompted a furious response from David Lamey. The Foreign Secretary stressed the need to call out the Israeli government in the strongest possible terms. I think the whole house should be able to utterly condemn the Israeli government's denial of food to hungry children. It is wrong. It's appalling. Will she condemn it? Well, the whole house is sin. Opposing the expansion of a war that has killed thousands of children is not rewarding Hamas.
Opposing the displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians is not rewarding Hamas. On this side of the house we are crystal clear what is happening is morally wrong, unjustifiable and it needs to stop. And that's why we've taken the actions we have. She knows that hostage families are deeply concerned with what is happening. They're deeply concerned with their loved ones. She knows that.
She knows that we oppose the blockade on aid. Does she? It wasn't clear from her statement whether she does oppose the blockade of aid to children. So it's fair to say, Ian, after that exchange, it very much feels like there's been a huge shift in British foreign policy today towards Israel. It feels like the relationship between the Israeli government and the UK government has changed in a very, very dramatic way after what we heard from David Lamy.
summoning the ambassador, suspending that arms deal, some very, very, very strong language. I think that there is probably quite a lot more where this is going to come. Natasha, thank you. That's Natasha Clark, LBC's political editor. Let's get some interpretation of this with Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding. Chris, very good evening.
I've never heard David Lammy speak like this about Israel in those terms. What do you think has prompted this shift in British policy? Well, I think first of all, it's that 77 days of blockade of Gaza, denial of food, water, medicine, fuel to a civilian population under occupation. That is extraordinary. And I think that it...
Isn't really an Israeli explanation that carry holes any water and I think the foreign secretary is articulating that I think a lot of people I was watching this with two Palestinian human rights would ask why there hadn't been this sort of language before now because we're in a situation we had the UN aid chief today Going on the today program on the BBC and saying that there are 14,000 babies in Gaza at risk of dying of starvation within 48 hours I mean that's extraordinary
And so, yes, we have seen definitely a change in tone and policy from David Lammy. I mean, it has been very rare over the last 19 months and I really looked at this to hear a British minister use the word condemn in terms of Israeli behavior directly attributing blame to them for specific actions.
and against that i think also as extraordinary is that the shadow foreign secretary priti patel uh wasn't in the business of even criticising the blockade and what is going on and as it happens I was writing an article about the Conservative position on this over the weekend In her whole time as shadow Foreign Secretary, during all of these atrocities and the blockade, she has not once expressed in Parliament a scintillious sympathy for Palestinian civilians in Gaza.
Nor has she criticized the Israeli government for anything. It's quite an extraordinary position and I think that certainly riled up David Lammy as you heard in that exchange.
Hasn't though, the emotional way in which he expressed himself today, hasn't he in a single speech ruined any chance of having any influence in the rest of this conflict however long it lasts with the Israeli government because I think that's been the strategy so far both him and Keir Starmer have tried to engage with the Israeli government in a
less than emotional way that went out the window today I'm wondering whether that's wise and that it means that whatever little influence we might have had we certainly won't have in the future I think it does actually spell out that they have grown tired of it. They've made these representations. Keir Starmer in Prime Minister's questions in March was condemning this blockade.
And yet nothing has happened. So I think it is actually the end of the road for that idea that engagement like diplomatic engagement on this.
was going to work and last night we saw the precursor to this which was a joint statement of France, Britain and Canada that was using extremely strong language in that statement which was why i wasn't so surprised to see some of the comments of the final secretary today i think it is a view and bearing in mind what you've heard certain israeli ministers and the prime minister say recent weeks talking about the annihilation of Gaza, the destruction of Gaza and even the cleansing of Gaza.
and that therefore that they called time on the idea that you could have a business as usual relationship with Israel and took these steps like suspending all talks on a free trade agreement etc. I think they've had enough And I think what you'd also seen in the Commons was more and more MPs who had said nothing from all parties.
beginning to speak out voices you wouldn't necessarily have expected to So I think the mood in the house was how long are you going to let this carry on for because what we are seeing here with starving babies and children let alone adults. scenes that we should not be witnessing. It's been brought about as a deliberate stated policy of a government that was meant to be our ally. Chris, thank you. That's Chris Doyle, Director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding.
Well, let's get a contraview to that. Well, I imagine it's going to be a contraview to that from Ruth Bloom, who is former advisor at the office of the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, now a columnist and senior contributing editor at the news agency JNS. Ruthie, very good evening to you. David Lammy, our Foreign Secretary, being, I would say, quite brutal in the use of his language today, not something we've seen before. How significant the development is this?
Well, thank you for having me, Ian. And you're right that this is a counterpoint to your previous guest. I don't think that David Lammy's tone is the problem. I think it's the content of his words. It's, yes, a terrible shame that allies such as Britain, France and Canada and others have turned against Israel right now, especially.
as the war is hopefully nearing a conclusion. And why am I saying that? It is true that the situation in Gaza is dire, though there is a dispute about whether there's actual famine. The issue of the humanitarian aid is part of the strategy of war, not to cleanse, not to ethnically cleanse Gaza. But yes, to cleanse. Hang on a minute, because that word was used by, was it the Israeli Foreign Secretary actually used that word, so you can't just dismiss it like that.
No, no, we use the word cleanse in relation to clearing out the terror. The jihadis, not the baby. Okay, that is not the word cleanse. Yes, it's used in Hebrew. It's even partly a military term when you're clearing out an area, a terrorist base. Okay. But this was interpreted by the way it's been written up, and this is in respectable publications, not anti-Israel publications. It's been written up as him wanting to cleanse Gaza of Palestinian people.
No, no, that actually is not true. Prime Minister Netanyahu has never said such a thing. And it is true that President Trump... I don't know, proposed plan for Gaza includes relocating Gazans. to other countries. That's not cleansing them, not killing them, it's relocating them to places where they can have a better life and homes and not live in rubble. Now here's the problem. War is hell, as we know. And this war is particularly difficult because the enemy, it's not a country.
The enemy is a terrorist organization, or several, by the way. It's not only Hamas in Gaza, there's also Islamic Jihad and Fatah. But the problem here has been that Hamas, of course, hides and embeds itself within civilian areas. Israel has been extremely careful about that, as careful as possible, by warning civilians to get out of the way whenever the IDF strikes.
Also, by even endangering IDF soldiers who have to be extremely careful on two counts. One, not to kill civilians in Gaza, and two, not to kill hostages by accident.
I'm sorry, again, I have to pick you up on that because we see pictures every day of whole communities destroyed not not the odd building that could have contained a terrorist literally every building has been destroyed that is not targeting is it Now, well, you see, those places that are completely destroyed, the population was warned to move, given locations to move to.
And you're right that those places look completely destroyed. They are completely destroyed. But what you don't, what you forget to point out, is that those destroyed buildings were complete terrorist bases. There were weapons, rockets, rocket launchers. Well, all of the ones that Israel targeted, yes, under, under, by the way, under children's bedrooms, under cribs, everywhere, tunnels leading into people's homes. There is plenty of footage of it. The IDF has it and releases it all the time.
Now, what you also don't see is that there are parts of Gaza where new restaurants are opening up and ice cream stores and all that. It is true that we are seeing photos out of there, but what I'm trying to point out is... This war could have ended on October 8, 2023, if Hamas had just released the hostages and put down its weapons.
Well, that is true, but we know that didn't happen. Can we just turn to the question of aid? Because as I understand it, over the last 24 hours, nine trucks have been allowed into Gaza. There are hundreds of trucks waiting to go in with aid. Now, I understand the argument that Hamas have intercepted a lot of the aid and used it for their own methods.
But it's got to the point, it seems, according to the UN, that we are at a situation where a famine is about to break out. 14,000 babies, they say, are at risk of dying over the next 48 hours. and still the trucks aren't really allowed in to the degree that they need to be with medical supplies and food. Okay, so two things I have to say.
This isn't just that they're merely not being allowed. There was a decision made as part of the war strategy, since Hamas wasn't budging on its insistence on remaining in power, etc. that there was going to be, were trying to sort of strangle Hamas. And one way is militarily. The other way is through negotiations brokered by Qatar and Egypt and now the United States, of course.
uh to release the hostages and to at least uh to as many as possible at least and part of the recent strategy was to withhold the aid And now, because the United States has requested of Israel. that it at least give aid to the people who need it. Israel reconsidered, and by the way, much to the dismay of many of the families of the hostages,
who are saying that we are feeding the enemy and that is going to make it even harder to return the hostages. But what I want to say about the aid is that wasn't just, this was a purposeful part of the war plan. and that this aid rather than and what we're doing here is having the army monitor who can get to the aid station.
Why don't you let journalists into Gaza to actually monitor where this aid is going? Because that would be a very simple way. If Hamas are intercepting it all, or 80% of it, which is the rumour, are certainly being claimed by the IDF. then let journalists in, let them see it for themselves and report it because a war strategy is all very well and good.
But part of a war strategy surely has to be about winning hearts and minds as well as killing people. And Israel, to those of us who have supported Israel right from the start of this on October the 7th, we feel hung out to dry at the moment. And it's the Israeli government that is doing that because I can't sit here and defend to my listeners.
The effective banning of aid to people who need it. I want to back Israel. I understand the effects of October the 7th. But you don't have to make it hard for us. I understand that it's very hard seeing those pictures out of Gaza, because ironically, Israel is not good at propaganda, or what we call Hezbollah, explaining our position. We could, on the other hand, be filming every day the atrocities the Hamas commits and we don't do that.
But what I wanted to say about the aid is that this time the strategy is to prevent Hamas from stealing. by monitoring it. Now, when you said journalists aren't allowed, that's not true. It is true that journalists have been allowed into Gaza since the beginning of the war a company. Yes, accompanied by IDF spokespeople and things like that because it's a dangerous war zone.
The aid that is going in now, first of all, it isn't just Israel saying that the aid was stolen by Hamas. It's Gazan saying it. I'm not doubting that, but there are ways of ensuring that that doesn't happen. If Israel wants to stop being accused of war crimes and genocide, then whatever strategy it's following, it needs to change it.
Well, first of all, that is the new policy starting a few days ago. Much to the dismay, I have to add, many, many Israelis, including in Netanyahu's coalition and among citizens. have said that this is going to be a disaster because they don't believe it won't get into Hamas's hands.
and the government. Yes. Ruthie, we're going to have to stop because I'm 10 minutes late for going to a break, and I'd love to continue. But thank you very much indeed for joining us. That's Ruthie Bloom from the news agency JNS. Let's go to Paul in Twickenham. Paul, what would you like to say? Thank you, Ian. I think as a preliminary point in answer to your question, I think the penny is beginning to drop.
for the British government and about time to One second point is I can think of a long shopping list of things that where we should be going further or the British government should be going further to try and halt this carnage. The most obvious one is to stop the sale of parts for the F-35 fighter jet. because that is what is used to drop bombs onto tents and blow children apart.
I hear the argument the government makes that that would affect other F-35 fighter forces around the world. Well, as far as I know, there's no other F-35 fighter force around the world. currently bombing people or engaged in a war. I don't think Ukraine is using F-35. fighter jets at the moment. All weapons sales should cease. But what I want to say is rather than that, rather than focus on that, you put at the start of the program
You know, do you support Israel or Palestine? I know you didn't put it as crudely as that, and I'm not suggesting that. But I just think of these three short points. And I think they are relevant. When American students in the 70s protested against the Vietnam War, They did so because they weren't supporting the Vietnamese and they weren't supporting the Americans. They were supporting the Vietnamese and the Americans. They said, stop it. We've had enough of this. Stop it.
and they were regarded by the American authorities as... pro-vietnamese they weren't they were as much concerned with the welfare of the vietnamese people as the american troops who were being killed and there's many jews obviously this point has been made often around the world who take exactly the same view. They don't want Gazans killed and they don't want Israelis killed and they're not on one side or the other, they're on the side of peace.
And I know time is short here. My final point, I remember hearing on a program about the... Holocaust years ago, the Holocaust being the worst example of evil that has happened in the last 2,000 years and an eternal stain that can never be. never be forgotten. I remember there was a report of a group of Jewish people about to be shot by an Einsatzgruppen group of, you know, German executioners because they shot. as many people
a lot of people before they started gassing them. And an elderly Jewish man spoke out to these Einsatzgruppen people and said, simply said, God is watching what you do. And they were all shot, including the elderly man who'd said that, the elderly Jewish man. And what I would say to Netanyahu, person to person, if I had the opportunity, is this. God is watching what you do. Thank you Ian for letting me say that.
Paul thank you very much indeed we'll take more of your calls in a moment don't forget cross question you may want to ask a question On this very subject, Stephen Flynn will be on at 8 o'clock, the SNP Westminster leader, Conservative Shadow Health Minister Dr Luke Evans, Rachel Cunliffe from the New Statesman, and Charlie Downs, political strategist and commentator. 7.33 on LBC. Let's go back to your calls. We're talking about
Today's development in the House of Commons, where David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, has really laid into the Israeli government over its failure to let aid through into Gaza and the latest ground operations. Tina is a new caller in Beckenham. Tina, hi. Hi, thank you for taking my call. I'd just like to say I feel like the government is taking way too long to make this statement. You know, over 70,000 children and people have died.
I heard what you said earlier. You said, I want to defend Israel, but Israel's making it hard. Why would you want to defend Israel? There were 700 children in these rooms being abused. Very simply, because 1,200 of their innocent residents were killed by a terrorist organisation on the 7th of October who also took hostages.
Yes, I agree. It's absolutely awful. But what about October the 6th, October the 5th, October the 4th? Do you know how many Palestinians died? Do you know how many children died? Do you talk about them? Why are you so focused on October the 7th? I don't need to justify what I'm concerned about October 7th. Any normal person would be equally as horrified by what happened.
on October the 7th. We've covered the Gaza conflict many, many times before October the 7th, so I don't need to spend time here justifying my views. No, you don't. Of course you don't. But the thing is, you're on the radio and you're saying I want to defend as well. Why?
What would it take for you to see what they're doing? Why do you want to defend them? For cops, they are murderers. They are slaughtering children in front of you, on your TV, on your screens, on your phone. The evidence is there. What will it take for people to understand what is going on? You cannot carry on defending Israel. You clearly won't listen to what I said. My granddad is Jewish. I have family in Israel. This has got nothing to do with religion, but enough is enough.
You cannot carry on defending Israel. Look what is happening. Does it have to take the whole of Palatine to be wiped out? It's under a list. I mean, you can have a monologue if you like, Tina, but it doesn't get us very far. You've put lots of questions to me. You're asking me, why do I want to defend Israel? If you were listening to what I said,
I said, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to defend Israel, partly for the reasons that you say, but also because they won't let aid into Gaza. So I start off this. somebody who defends the right of Israel to exist, to defend the right of Israel to exist in peace. You haven't mentioned at all over the last 10 or 15 years all of the rockets that have been sent from Gaza into Israel killing innocent Israelis. So that needs to be factored into the equation.
So I want both sides to live in peace. I'd love there to be a two-state solution. How can there be peace when one side is in a prison? They cannot do anything. If someone kept attacking you and your family constantly and you kept saying Stop, stop, stop. But they kept doing it and doing it. You are going to fight back.
Of course you are. And that's why the Israelis have fought back because you have just exactly articulated the reason why Israel fights back because they have had to contend with these rockets every day coming in from Gaza. Injuring and killing their citizens. What do you think they should have done just turn the other cheek?
She's gone. Anyway. Okay, let's talk to Alistair Byrd, former UK, Middle East and North Africa minister. Alistair, very good evening. You heard there from Tina that the strength of feeling there is on the subject, I mean, on both sides, let's face it. Do you think today will be seen, when the history books are written about Britain's reaction to what's happening in the Middle East, do you think today will have been a significant day?
I think it could be. It will depend on what happens next, but there's no doubt that the statement made by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon and the comments of the Prime Minister are really quite different in tone from what we've seen and it articulates very well what you have just been saying. There is of course enormous sympathy in the United Kingdom for Israel and what happened on October the 7th.
and support in the United Kingdom for the existence of the State of Israel. It is only a few weeks ago the planes were in the air defending Israel from Iranian missiles. So that should not be disregarded. But the point is, I think the United Kingdom believes that the way in which Israel is prosecuting the conflict in Gaza is not going to lead to security for Israel. It is leading to a massive humanitarian catastrophic situation.
Israel is no more secure than it was and the prospect, having been enunciated by Israeli far-right ministers of clearing Gaza, destroying it further, clearing the population. puts allies of Israel in a position from which they cannot defend anymore and they want to see a different outcome they want to see negotiations succeed and that two-state solution which has been on offer for so long
and being rejected by both sides, unless we move towards that, then the disaster will continue for another generation and another generation beyond that. It's just unconscionable. Do you think though that by what David Lammy said and also the way he said it in the House of Commons today means that Britain will have lost any influence in Israel whatsoever?
I was constantly told while I was minister that any criticism of Israel meant you weren't in the room and that was one of the things that constrained. conversations with Israel. Now, I'm yet to see any evidence over the last 18 months that Friends of Israel have been able to gain a serious audience through still being involved and still being engaged. There's a point you can't go beyond and simply being told, if you're critical, then nobody will listen to you. I don't believe that's true.
I think there are plenty of voices in Israel, including inside the Israeli establishment, deeply concerned at what is happening. I hope they will welcome that friends who want to see Israel safe and secure, who want to see the hostages returned, who want to see an end to the threat to Israel, will recognize that here is a country that believes that as well, but thinks there is a different way of going about it.
And that ought to give the United Kingdom government an audience. And it would be unwise of Israel to shut it out completely. We are still a friend. Alistair, thank you very much. That's Alistair Baird, the former UK, Middle East and North African minister. Right, back to your calls. Simena in Tooting. Simena, very good evening. Hi, good evening. Just quickly before I make my point, Ian, I wanted to say your caller Ruth Bloom was talking to you after about the press getting into Gaza.
Well, just today, well tomorrow actually, the Israeli High Court was due to hear the Foreign Press Association's petition about getting international journalists into Gaza, and it's been postponed for the sixth time. And so that just goes to your point, they just do not want foreign journalists. What justification have they given for that? Well, it's just a delaying tactic. So there's been 308 media trips into it for Israeli journalists, but only 36.
foreign journalists, but they've all been embedded. which is obviously you only get to see what they want you to see so it's just making that point that they're just delaying it and that's that's on the times of israel by the way on their website so anybody can look into that um just in terms of the source but going on to um
the british government and your question today well i think that um they need to be looking at sanctions similar to what they're doing in russia and not just suspect suspending trade talk I think we need to recognise Palestine. as a state, which was something that David Cameron, when he was the Foreign Secretary, said that they could do that. It didn't have to be right at the end. It could be at the beginning of the process.
the discussions. Definitely there's issues around military equipment and the other thing is there are lots of ideas reserved for either British citizens or dual citizens and some of them are going to be charged for war crimes. It's inevitable. Well, there's a lot to... Sorry. Excuse me. There's a lot to talk about, lots of points that you've made there. Maybe some other callers will want to respond to them. Thank you very much. Let's go to Sam, who's a new caller in Enfield. Hello, Sam.
Hi, Ian. I just want to add on the issue of Israel and God. I think the government's statement has come far too late. I think even when they came into power last July, I think that was a great time to do it then. Because even then, aid had been offered to Gaza. I think the death toll in Gaza by July of 2024 was at least 40,000. But also, I...
You're saying the tide is turning. I think I'm not looking at the Labour government when I saw the tide turn. I was looking at last week on the Tory backbenchers when... Sir Edward Lee was speaking last week. It was a very interesting speech where he said that he's been a member of Labour Friends of Israel for over 40 years, and Edward Lee himself, the father of a house,
the most senior tori politician in the country really said that israel was committing genocide that's not coming from diana but or someone like that came from edward lee himself so that really struck me of how Israel's reputation is in Britain, but also I think in terms of the right-wing Israelis.
Obviously, Benjamin Netiha needs to prolong this war in order to keep himself in power. But also today, I think you've had him on your show countless times. I mean, Jake Wallace Simmons today in the Jewish Chronicle. Today the David Lammy statement is rewarding her mask, which I think is completely ridiculous. and another column on the Jewish Chronicle that I think someone on the Israeli right wrote in a column that now is the time to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
which I think will not only cause more tensions, I think will drag in more countries into the war and will essentially kill any hope of a two-state solution. Obviously, Kimi Bainock's speech, I think, is an absolute embarrassment. I think Kiriti Patel, what she has said today is an absolute embarrassment. And I think David Lamy, although I'm his biggest critic, in my opinion, he has every right to get very angry at the Tory bench for... really being I'd say 50-50 on this issue as of right now.
Well, again, like the last caller, you've raised a huge amount of points there. I haven't interrupted because I wanted to let you make them, but again, somebody may want to follow that up in their calls a little bit later. Sam, thank you very much. Indeed. Well, let me remind you across question at 8 o'clock, we have Stephen Flynn, Westminster leader of the SNP, Conservative MP Dr Luke Evans, New Statesman's Rachel Cunliffe,
and political strategist and commentator Charlie Downs. They'll be wanting to take your questions. The lines are open for that. 0345 6060 973. Britain's conversation. Ian Dale. to LBC. 7.47 on LBC. Anna's in Norfolk. Good evening, Emma. Oh, hi Ian. Thanks for taking my call. I'd like to say that I'm a white British I was rave, Church of England. You know, I'm just a normal person.
Normal for normal for camera, that's what you are. Well, I'm a transplant from London. Many are. It's probably not that normal. Anyway, you know, over the years, obviously, you know, you've watched this on the TV and, you know, we've all formed our opinions.
I'd like to say that Samara made a really good point that they're not allowing independent journalists into Gaza, which I think is... questionable to say the least but my take on this whole thing not that it matters of course but sides have you know done horrendous things and yet our government is supporting Netanyahu who Isn't he accused of war crimes? Well, it clearly isn't supporting him anymore, is it? I mean, given the language and the emotion which David Henry used today.
Yeah, but we've supported them for, what, 30 years? 40? I don't know. How long has this been raging? And also, did you what? Have you seen that Louis Theroux documentary? No, but I must do. I haven't seen it, but I will do. You really must watch it. And what was the lesson you learned? Well, my whole understanding of it is it's all to do with the settlement. And Israel believes that it's their God-given right to possess that land.
That's the whole issue. That is the whole issue, is these illegal settlements. Yeah, it's certainly part of it. You're absolutely right. Emma, I want to move on to James in air. Thank you very much indeed. James, good evening. Oh, Holly, nice to speak to you again. I mean, in terms of the question you asked your listeners, I think what the UK has done just now is...
I don't have any problem with it, such as that we might have any influence anyway in the Israeli state. I'd just like to make a kind of much deeper, if you don't mind, political and historical point. The European Holocaust of the Jewish people was an awful thing, absolutely awful, and quite rightly it was said, never again.
Now, the European Holocaust of the Jewish people wasn't conducted by Arabs. It was conducted by European Christians, I presume, if you could call the Nazi Party and the German population at that point. And I think that... our attitude towards Israel in the West, mines as well. deep down is influenced by this historical event, which I think reverberates still right through history.
And that can be a problem, actually, in seeing a dispassionate view of what's happening in the Middle East and the activities of the Israeli government. Because I still think that many people in the democratic West... have a kind of still a deep sense of guilt about what happened to the Jewish people in Europe. possibly quite right like And I think this kind of colours the whole view of the future of Israel, if you like.
And it's not a subject that I've heard talked about much. It might be a bit fanciful in my point to pick this up in terms of practicalities of what's happening in the Middle East, but I genuinely believe. that many Western democracies' views of the Israeli people is fashioned by this quite right statement that this will never, ever happen again. And I don't know if you think of me a bit kinder.
theoretical about this but I think there's something in it actually. No I think there's something in it too and that's why many people are quite shocked at some of the actions of the Israeli armed forces given the the historical background to the creation of the State of Israel. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I tend to agree with that. And I gave a couple of your other contributors that if you kind of go down this pathway, you're kind of almost instantaneously branded as an enemy of... of Israel.
People at me aren't, you know. We recognise it as one of the few really true democracies in the Middle East. But as you say, you would have thought that actions would have been informed by their past as well. Although I understand that they perceive almost any aggression as an existential threat to their existence. Nonetheless, there's a kind of historical thing reverberating through time here.
And I don't know if that's ever going to go away, to be honest with you. And I think it might cause a lot of people in Western democracies, you know, in the free West. So for example, the South Africans and the Chinese don't have this kind of history. They weren't involved at all in that European. Holocaust. So they kind of view, to me, view the whole thing differently. They don't have this kind of of involvement, if you like, with the Jewish diaspora.
And it's quite apparent that they have a completely different take on this. I think you've kind of undermined your argument there because the moment I take seriously the South African government on this issue or indeed the Chinese government will be, well, a very long way away. James, thank you very much. Now before we come to tonight's cross-question, let's hear a little of the latest episode of the Where Politics Meets History podcast.
And following Sunday's election victory in Romania for the centrist pro-EU candidate over the populace, seen as being sympathetic of both Trump and Putin, my co-host Tessa Dunlop drew upon her close family ties to Romania to explain why this election was pretty fascinating to observe. The passion on the streets was fascinating and I was on Matt Fry's LBC show talking about this. is that he wins. Both of them, by the way, are antisemitism.
So the centrist who's, you know, pro-EU and into NATO and stuff is actually a maths professor who happened to be a rather ineffective mayor of Bucharest. Dan Nickashaw, who's now the new president, against him, former football hooligan, head of Far Right Party Hour. He's actually really a football hooligan. Yeah, genuinely. He encouraged people to go and sort of do whatever you do. So he had managerial skills, one likes to think. Right.
and he went it was quite funny he went to hang out with Maloney in this last part of the campaign and she didn't even endorse him so our little baby for Shisto in Italy was like yeah hi she had a photo with him but she didn't endorse He played it very badly in the last furlong. But what's fascinating is the diaspora, and proportionally Romania has one of the largest diasporas in the world, nearly five million, voted heavily or relatively heavily compared to Romania.
in favour of the right-wing anti-EU. That is really weird, isn't it? Because if you'd said to me which one do you think they would vote for, I would have automatically assumed they would vote for the more centrist one. Well, it's fascinating. So I go to a couple of polling stations. Car washes. Yeah, I did go to a car wash, and they were all going to vote for their headbanger, but of course none of them were registered to vote. A few Romanians, it'd be fair to say, that are under the wire.
but they were heavily yeah indeed outrageous but there's well over 200 000 that are fully legit that vote So that is 300,000 that aren't? That's quite a few who don't bother to vote. If you think the turnout within Romania was 64%. A large number of people don't vote. It's not much, is it? But it's quite a lot compared to, what was our election turnout? 69. I always think that the countries that are new to democracy tend to have bigger turnouts than others. We sort of take it for granted.
You see cues in other countries that have only recently converted to democracy because they generally understand how important it is. But I think also there's... There's a lot of disenfranchisement in Romania. They had their election cancelled. People feel there's no point in saying what they want or voting for who they want because it's going to get snatched away from them. They've had systemic corruption. They've had their two main Labour and Tory equivalents in bed together.
which again means you disconnect because there's no real choice which is why these two randoms have ended up in the runoff for president. But just to quickly go to what I saw at the weekend, and it just reminded me so much of Braxton. First of all, I was in a polling station in town off Tottenham Court Road where it's predominantly educated sort of high-end NHS workers and office workers, Romanians or tourists.
who are coming to vote, all of them for the Liberal player, Dan Nickashaw. You could just tell who was going to vote for him. They had clean clothes, they looked like any other European metropolitan player. And then as soon as a guy came in, he was off a building site, one of Keir Starmer's engine drivers, by the way, for the 150 million houses he's going to deliver.
You knew straight away they were Simeon voters. But the sneering that has gone on from the metropolitan, let's call it the Remain vote within Romania and the way in which They've vitriolically attacked these uneducated Simeon voters. But do these people learn nothing from history? It's extraordinary. They will retaliate one big television anchor.
put up two pictures of two pairs of trousers, one clean, neat jeans, and the other, your tracky bombs, filthy. And, you know, basically said, which are you, the barbarians? I mean, I was like, you can't do this. And then I go out because I was told by the Romanians, you know, to have a real sample, you need to go further out either to Harrow or Stratford. So I schlep out to Stratford. Sure enough, that was where it was 70, 80% pro-Simeon, the right winger.
And 54% of the diaspora vote for Simeon against Romania, where 45% of Romania vote for him. And it's because they don't belong anywhere, these They are belittled by their own... They feel sneered at in Romania. They leave Romania quite early. As Kirsten might put it, a country of strangers. Indeed. Yeah, they are strangered everywhere. Okay, often they've worked in Italy before they've come to Britain.
and they're sneered out here let's not pretend they live normally four or five to a room in fairly shoddy conditions do you think that's the same now as it was maybe 10 or 20 years ago because I think you were right 10 or 20 years ago But I do think... that Romanians are seen in a rather more positive light now than they used to be. What do you mean 20 years ago? The Brexit, the nadir of the conversation around Romania was just very recently around the time of Brexit.
I think arguably since Brexit, we felt a little bit softer and more grateful to workers who have remained in the country. But there's huge numbers of them who aren't assimilated in any way, shape or form and don't really want to be. And at the same time, they feel angry with Romania. That was
from the latest episode of Where Politics Meets History. You can download that on Global Player or wherever you get your podcasts from. Coming up in the next hour is Cross Question. We have with us the leader of the SNP in Westminster, Stephen Flynn. his MP for Aberdeen South
Dr. Luke Evans is Shadow Health Minister and Conservative MP for Hinkley and Bosworth. Rachel Cunliffe is Associate Politics Editor of The New Statesman. And Charlie Downs is making his debut on the programme, political strategist and commentator and YouTuber, he's just informed me. So we'll be
hearing from our panel assuming you've got any questions for them it's been a heavy news week this week lots to talk about 0345 6060 973 is the number to call you can whatsapp us on that number you can text 8485 course you can watch us on Global Player. This is LBC. From Global, leading Britain's conversation cross-question with Ian Dale.
Hello and welcome to Tuesday's Cross Question, I'm Ian Dale. With me on the panel, sitting to my left, the leader of the SNP in Westminster, Stephen Flynn, who knows he may be leader of the SNP more generally at some point in the next few years, just saying.
Dr. Luke Evans is Shadow Health Minister, he's got a good chance of becoming Tory leader because let's face it, they all have. He's Conservative MP for Hinckley and Bosworth in Leicestershire. Rachel Cunliffe to my right, Associate Political Editor of the new statesman. I'm never quite sure what associate means but I'm imagining it's very important.
As I said on this programme before, it means I'm a little bit important, but not as important as Andrew Marr, who is our political minister. Exactly. and to her right Charlie Downs who is a political strategist and commentator it's his debut on the program so we'll keep him in order or you will with your questions 0345 6060 973 you can whatsapp us on that number you can text 84850 And of course you can watch us on Global Player. Call 0345 1, 2, 3, Tweet.
Let's go to our first question. It's from Peter in West Hampstead. Peter, very good evening. What would you like to say? We need to do something sharp and that will attract attention. And I'm wondering if there's anything better that we can actually do. closing down the Israeli embassy and sending all the staff back to Israel. Well, that would be quite a radical thing to do. Stephen Flynn. I actually, perhaps to Peter's surprise, given my long-standing views in relation to this, I wouldn't
close down the Israeli embassy. I would have the Israeli ambassador in the foreign office every day like has happened today and in fact I would be considering bringing her to the bar of the House of Commons.
to answer questions from... But she was sent by a junior Foreign Office Minister, not the Foreign Secretary, which seems to me a bit old. Yeah, well indeed, I mean, I could probably get a meeting with David Lam, I'm so surprised that she wasn't... taken in front of him perhaps that's a reflection maybe David thinks that Hamish is more adept at his job I think there's a lot more that we can and should be doing. Firstly we should be sanctioning.
those ministers who are making these absurd and disgusting statements. We should end the sale of component parts to weapons which are undoubtedly bombing civilians in Gaza. We should recognise the state of Palestine and we should do that immediately and the UK government should be very clear that now is the time to back the work of the ICJ and the ICC. because there's undoubtedly war crimes that are being undertaken and our desire to sit silent in this leaves us complicit.
that needs to end. David Lamy today was angry about this for probably the first time I'd seen since Of course, the abhorrent attacks on October 7th, it's taken him quite a while to get angry, but he is angry, so maybe he can channel that. But I think what's unfolding in front of us is so stark. We're being told that 14,000 babies could die in the next couple of days. We know there's a disgusting humanitarian crisis unfolding because Israel is using water and food as a weapon of war.
And, you know, this is our ally. This is our ally that's doing that. That's not good enough. And I think the government has finally got to the end of its tether. It should have happened long before now, but, you know, we're here. So perhaps we can use that.
that anger to move things forward at a pace and whilst I would disagree with Peter's suggestion I would have many alternatives we need to do more than what we're doing now because it's obviously not making a difference Luke Evans When I see where Peter's coming from and Lisa's thinking outside the box, I agree that actually dialogue is going to be helpful in this case. What I'd like to see I guess is
The urgency is there. People are waking up to that. It's whether we can bring America back into this. Donald Trump is erratic. He managed to start the talks about peace, and we did see a ceasefire on that start to move. Whether we can engage him back in, what I haven't heard.
the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary talk about whether that's an option to get that leverage and I think it's important that we have called the ambassador in but at the end of the day two wrongs don't make a right the terrorists need to amass need to release their hostages and israel need to stop moving into the west bank and let that aid in i think those two things
are not mutually exclusive and could solve the problem quite quickly on doing that, but clearly people are entrenched. The rumour is Donald Trump has got frustrated by this in Yahoo as well, having seen him as a major ally.
apparently he's become quite irritated with her, so it'll be interesting to see where that goes. I think you're spot on. I think the fact that in this case, Donald Trump being slightly erratic might be of use because if he says he's going to do something about Israel or Hamas, actually people might believe him.
Whether that's the case, I'm not privy to that information, but I think that is an avenue that we as the Brits could be saying, look, what is going on here? What conversations are America having with Israel to open these borders to let more aid in? Rachel, if we don't have a Labour MP on the panel, I'm not suggesting that you should be substituting for a Labour MP, but you do work for a left-of-centre organisation. How do you read today's change in at least rhetoric?
It is a change in rhetoric, and I should say, you know, personally, David Lammy and I probably had quite different views on Israel before October the 7th. The Labour position... after that was very very clear and it was clear because it was a terrorist atrocity and the world was united with Israel in that moment and in the 18 months
The situation has deteriorated to quite an alarming degree. It's impossible to look at the scenes in Gaza with anything other than despair and horror, whatever your view of the politics may be and I think it is true that there has been a turning point in how the international community is viewing the humanitarian crisis and it's not just the UK we've seen. uh france and canada make this joint statement as well apparently 22 other countries have now signed up to it
And I think you're going to be seeing more of a concerted global effort on that front. But I think Luke is right that the key to this really is the US and Donald Trump. shouldn't forget that Donald Trump came into office saying that he could, that October 7th would never have happened if he had been president and that he could sort it all out very, very easily in 24 hours. I think that was, to be fair, I think that was Ukraine.
He said both of them. He had a lot of opinions on what he could do in 24 hours. He had Netanyahu with him in the Oval Office. was talking about Gaza Riviera and sort of taking over the Strip and that rhetoric has emboldened what is a very right-wing authoritarian Israeli government, a government that many Israelis disagree with. And I think Trump is losing patience with the situation as it develops and his tour of Middle Eastern countries in the last week has put increasing.
pressure and strain on his relationship with Netanyahu. He didn't go to Israel during that term. He didn't go to Israel, JD Vance didn't go to Israel, so I think patience is wearing thin, but we shouldn't forget that Netanyahu was emboldened by the Trump White House at the beginning. Tchau, gente. Well, first of all, Ian, thank you for having me. It's a great pleasure to be here.
The first thing I would say is this conflict in Gaza I think is It embodies so many of the fundamental questions certainly that we're asking in post-national Britain and Western Europe more generally about where a state derives its legitimacy from, what constitutes a state, and what rights states have. when it comes to acts of aggression and self-defense. Now, I think that
Not any moral person can see that the response to October 7th by the Israeli state has been disproportionate, to say the least. Half a million Gazans are now facing famine imminently if aid is not able to be delivered to them. As Stephen said, as many as 14,000 babies may die in the next 48 hours if that aid is not delivered. 54,000 Palestinians have died since October 7. And we have the finance minister, Smoke saying that the area needs to be conquered and cl...
I mean, this is the language of genocide, let's be real. Just on that, I interviewed an Israeli journalist earlier in the program, and she explained that by saying it's cleansed of Hamas. I didn't interpret it like that myself, I have to say. And anybody reading this or hearing this, I think there's certain, it's not undertones, it's overtones, right, with language like that.
And so I think the question we have to ask in Britain is how much more do we want to be involved in this conflict? Because I think those people who have been cheerleaders for the Israeli state since October 7th, At this point, I think history will remember them very badly because I think as the truth of what's going on in Gaza comes to light,
I can't help but think those people who should be shown. Those people who have defended the actions of the State of Israel no matter what. Those people who have run cover for them no matter what they have done. whether that's because they are true believers. I mean, the interesting thing is I'm a Christian.
And I've met many Christians who in some way think that it's the Christian's responsibility to speak in defense of Israel no matter what they do, which I think is absolutely absurd. Because I think if any self-respecting Christian can see... that the actions of the Israeli state are abhorrent and have been abhorrent and have been disproportionate, most importantly. Because let's be clear, October 7th was a catastrophically violent, despicable act.
And you know, I don't think anybody doubts that but the response to it, you know, it's it's been disproportionate That's all that's what we can say about it and disproportionate responses of the nature that the Israeli state has carried out I just don't think are logistical That word disproportionate is interesting because what's disproportionate to one person might be disproportionate to another.
And I suppose every state, every prime minister or president has to draw a line somewhere. They draw a very different line to that. I think that we have a very real-world example of a disproportionate response in the other sense, and that's on British soil, the rape gangs. There has been no response.
There has been no real justice on this topic. I don't think it is, because crimes of a similar nature have happened on British soil, as happened on October 7th. We have no question on that, but I'm not going to go down that road on this, Stephen. Just to take a step back, if we may, I don't think a lot of what was said there by all the panellists was correct. I was kind of carrying a loan or borrowing a loan furrow in Parliament for quite a long time with my...
my former SNP colleagues and some of whom are still there prior to the last general election on this issue. I mean I stood up in the House of Commons on a Wednesday and asked the Prime Minister straight of shooting someone. who's walking under a white flag was a war crime or not, and the Prime Minister then, Rishi Sunak, couldn't say that it was. That was how absurd...
the position was in the UK at that time. I remember David Lamme, Emily Thornberry, Keir Starmer justifying the actions of Israel. in the weeks and months that followed the atrocities on October 7th as if it was okay at that moment and the thing I guess that frustrates me is that throughout this time
starvation, denying people access to medicine, to water, the ability to leave Gaza. We've seen the doubling down of encampments and settler movements in the West Bank. All of that has happened and continued to happen.
and it's only at this point now that there seems to be some sort of moral compass landing in westminster and i think that's what i got a little bit more can and should be done let's just bring in a follow-up caller nick in elstree because i think nick is posing a question which to all of israel's critics need to have an answer to nick go ahead
Yes, good evening. Thank you very much for having me online. What I'm interested to know is what would you do if you were Israel? That's my first question. Israel's been condemned for everything it does. It tries to conduct... Peace talks with a terrorist organisation that Point Bank refuses to release all of the hostages that... So what would they all propose to do if they were an Israel's physician?
The second question is if this was to actually, if God forbid, October 7th was to repeat itself in the UK, how do you think the UK government would deal with an organisation such as Hamas that wants the elimination of a whole thing? That is actually a true genocide, not what Israel is actually currently doing. Very difficult questions there, but let's try and be as brief as we can Luke let's start with you
Oh, thank you. No, but I think that the point is Hamas is a terrorist state. That is number one. That makes it very different. It's not a terrorist organization. Sorry, a terrorist organization within that state. I guess I'm going to answer the question of what has changed and I think it was why have we seen a change now
I think when the Foreign Minister starts talking about needing to move the population out, there's a difference between having a response to deal with terrorists to changing the nature of what that function is you're trying to do and take over the area. If we were to use the same example in the likes of Afghanistan and Iraq, the reason we went out there was to deal with terrorism was not to occupy those areas.
The same with the argument we use with Russia. We don't like what Russia are doing in Ukraine because they're trying to take sovereign territory. I'm worried that this sounds like there could be a move on that basis. the difficulty is when you're dealing with a terrorist organization who isn't playing fair it is very hard for Israel to get it right but I worry about that doesn't excuse them to not be able to allow the aid in and that support to try and
and give as much support in a hellishly difficult situation. Just to play devil's advocate. they say they're not allowing the aid in because most of it's going to Hamas, it's not going to where it's needed, and that there is some evidence for that. But then again, they don't let journalists in, Rachel, to prove that. Your response to Nick and Elstree? I think it's a really important question and I think it's really important when we talk about this too.
try and put ourselves in the position of the Israeli government and try to imagine how the UK or America would react if a terrorist organization that was in charge in a state on our borders killed 1200 people and took a whole load of hostages and I can't see any country
response to that being anything less than we must make sure this can never happen again and that is what the Israeli government is really trying to do it is trying to ensure that Hamas is destroyed not temporarily but for good unfortunately and there are some really depressing figures on this that Hamlas has been able to recruit enough people. to basically make up for all of the desk 15,000 new recruits.
it's becoming increasingly obvious that the Israeli government strategy is not working towards that aid, which is its stated aim, not to mention what should be first and foremost its aim, which is to get the remaining hostages returned, and we know how those two... those two agendas are actually in conflict but we do I think have to think of it from the starting point that
They need to make sure that an atrocity like this cannot happen again and any solution that leaves the possibility of Hamas' return is going to be unacceptable to the Israeli government and indeed to the Israeli people, as it should be.
Yeah, I think there's a number of points to make here. The first thing I will say is, just returning to the point I started to make before, is that we have already seen acts akin to the events of October 7th on British soil, whether that's the Manchester Arena attack.
or the rape gangsters, as I've already talked about. And we've seen the way our government has responded to those things, which is don't look back in anger, which is let's not allow this to dethrone the great ideological project of multiculturalism. And I think that fears of an October 7th style attack happening in British soil are not unfounded, given the fact that we have over a million illegal migrants in this country from We Know Not Where, given that recently a plot was foiled.
by Iranian illegal migrants to commit a terrorist attack in this country. I think that it's something that's far more likely, far more possible than I think anybody's willing. to admit. And so I think that... What should Israel be doing? Well, this is the point. It's just interesting, isn't it, how Israel is the only state in the modern world that's considered Western, that is permitted to be explicitly nationalist.
Because in Europe or in Britain, for example, if you say that you want a government that governs explicitly in the interests of the indigenous British population, you want one that is uncompromising in its commitment to British interests, you know you're called far right and you're called a racist and all the rest of it and so i can't help but think that if
I think it's a sickening comparison. Genuinely, I don't mean to be original. I have no idea what you're on about, pal. What part of it do you not understand? Do you not think, look, I'm not here to defend the British state by any means, but you try to tell me they'll look here.
I can say I've been like, oh, I'm not here to defend the Tories or the Labour Party or Lib Dems or those who believe in the British state but nobody can reasonably say to me that the members of parliament in Westminster aren't interested in defending the territorial integrity and the values whatever they are of Britain and I'm the Scottish nationalist that I'm here telling you that so that should maybe calm your jets and leave it on that one.
What do you base that assertion that the British state is interested in defending British interests on? Is it the fact that we've had millions of illegal migrants out of the country? Is it the fact that we've had mass immigration for the better part of 30 years that has made it almost impossible for people my age to afford housing?
where we feel so dispossessed of our own culture when we walk through our own high streets, we don't see our own country. What else is it? Is it the fact that British identity... What do you say there? What do I see? When you're walking down the high street you say, I don't see my own country. What do you see? I see a country that has been so poorly governed for really as long as I've been alive. that it has been essentially the inheritance of the country that was built
cultivated by my ancestors has been given away to anybody who would come here and the government has been the midwife to that project and I think that it's only going to lead to destruction. You have very strange eyesight. Well, I don't know if you've been to a town like Swindon recently, Ian. Fun enough, I am about... What do you think of it?
Two months ago. Well there we go. And what did you think when you were walking down the high street when you saw the graffiti, the letter, the boarded up shops? And you blame that on immigrants, do you? I don't blame it on immigrants. I blame it on the government, who has permitted this incredibly destructive policy of mass migration, which has... You do blame it on immigrants. No, there's a real difference between blaming immigrants and blaming immigration policy.
Because I think that the people who have come here over the last 30 years are just following incentives. Why wouldn't you want to come to Britain? It's the greatest country in the world. It's a land of opportunity, or at least it was. But because of the lax approach of the government for the last 30 years,
they have essentially sold out that inheritance to all of the world. Okay, well we might come on to some of those issues. You might want to have some questions on those in a few moments time. Crossquest with Ian Dale on LBC. It's 23 minutes past eight on LBC. On our panel tonight, Stephen Flynn from the SNP, Luke Evans from the Conservatives, Rachel Cunler from the New Statesman, and Charlie Downs, political strategist and commentator. Right, let's go to a text question from Jamie.
If we believe today's poll reform are going to get hundreds of seats at the next election and the Tories will be fourth behind the Lib Dems, has Reform UK replaced the Tory party as the official opposition for good? Now, today's YouGov poll puts reform on 29% versus the Tories on 16%. According to electoral calculus, in a general election this would leave the Conservatives with just 17 seats.
while reform would have a majority on 346. We are four years away from a general election but it's always fun to do this, Charlie. Yes, I mean, this is most interesting. I've been in reforms orbit for a few years, as it will be no surprise. Well, I haven't worked for the party, but I've supported and I've worked around the party.
And I've known the leadership. And I think that it is not surprising that reformed polling so well. Because I think there are many who... I would say mostly rightly call out reforms, thin policy offerings at this stage.
But at the same time, the fact that they're polling so well tells you just how dissatisfied the majority of people are with the current two-party offering. Because from the perspective of many people, including myself, There's more or less no difference between the Conservative and Labour parties.
globalists, they're both essentially Blairite, they both offer the same vision of Britain which is this kind of global Britain idea that we were sold during the Brexit days and I think that has resulted. is a country that many young people want to leave. They want to leave for places like Dubai. It's a country that doesn't offer much in the way of opportunity or indeed identity because we wonder
why so many young people have been so drawn to the kind of identity politics peddled by the left for the last 10 or so years. And it's because Britain, certainly in Britain's case, British identity has been reduced to being a very thin, very abstract, kind of meaningless thing where we just talk about British values like democracy and tolerance and all the rest of it and actually that's pretty thin gruel that's not much in the way of an identity
And I think that the, you know, as it stands, the Conservative and Labour parties basically offer a continuation of that project. And I think that project has failed. So reform is occupying that space that is, well, at least hopefully offering something different. I think reform is definitely occupying the space of voter dissatisfaction with the establishment. There is a question on
whether there's a ceiling on that and how that changes as we come towards an election. As you said, we're four years out from an election but we love polls like this and we love sort of poring over them.
There are a couple of interesting things that stood out to me on that poll. One is that if you combine support for Labour and the Conservatives in that poll, you get to 38%, which means that more than half... of people contributing to that poll of voters aren't satisfied with either of them, which is a really interesting question when you have a two-party, well, essentially a two-party voting system and you've had two parties.
running the country for the last hundred years, switching between each other. And what we're seeing is the fragmentation of the electorate. You're also seeing a surge in the support for the Liberal Democrats. The Greens are on 10%. It's the first time ever we've had five parties on more than 10% of support.
Definitely the case that the electorate is fragmenting. Does this mean that reform are the de facto opposition? Well, let's wait for the election for a start. The Conservatives have, oh God, I can't do much. What's 120 divided by 5? That many times more MPs than reform. does and what we also haven't seen and what's impossible to capture in polls like this is as we get closer to election thank you so much are we going to start to see an anti-reform
coalition emerging. We know in the last election there was a sense of anyone but the Conservatives, voters looking and seeing who was most likely to beat the Conservative candidate and their constituencies. If it looks like reform are a serious contender, are you going to see something like that? Is that going to be the story of the next election? And it's just far too early to tell.
And of course in Scotland it's now six party politics isn't it? Putting your political pundit hat on and taking your SNP hat off for a second, I don't know if that's possible Stephen. Wear both hats at once. But reforms seem to be making quite a headway in Scotland. But look, firstly I think the premise of Nigel Farage is as Prime Minister, which these polls would indicate, isn't implausible. It's quite a nice motivating tool for Scottish independence, as at Knox we were told.
that Boris Johnson would never be Prime Minister, and he was, and now we're told that Nigel Farage will never be. time and stuff and he might be. So I think that the He's a great believer in independence. I don't know if he's got any on-the-record comments on Scottish independence. I think we perhaps differ in our views.
of Scottish independence without having asked him. He couldn't deny a referendum, could he? Well, no, of course he couldn't. He might try, though. It's something which is unbecoming of all of the main party leaders in Westminster. The landscape in Scotland is slightly different. The SNP is comfortably ahead in the polls. We take nothing for granted in that context and we're still working hard to recover the trust that we lost in the general election.
I certainly think that for the Conservative Party and for the Labour Party in Scotland they're rightly fearful right now of the fact that People were promised something under Brexit that wasn't delivered, the irony being of course it was Nigel Farage who helped to deliver those broken promises. But they were promised by Keir Starmer that things would change at the general election.
And in his own words, things have only got worse. So the main two parties in Westminster, Labour Conservative, have got a lot to... a lot to reflect on in that context and it's certainly I don't think anyone who's chapped a door in recent times, as I've done in the by-election, chapped a door. Chapped a door. Yeah, knocked on a door. Knocked on a door.
There's a by-election in Scotland at the moment, so I've been knocking on lots towards chapping. Don't mention where it is. No, no, I'm not. But anyone who's done that can fail to be. aware of the fact that the public are completely disillusioned with Westminster politics right now and when that happens a vacuum is created and a reform have walked into the challenge for Keir Starmer.
political pundit hat on is to recover that lost trust which is difficult after winter fuel limits energy bills so on and so forth the challenge in scotland is to get on and deliver which i think we're doing which is why we're comfortably ahead in the polls right now Canada is probably the best way I could answer that if you look what happened in Canada only in the last couple of months
The Conservatives there were 20 points ahead. It was inconceivable that they would lose. And what happens in the result? It gets swung on its head. And not only that, the leader of the party actually lost his seat. So I think we shouldn't get too carried away. We're four years out from a general election. Doesn't mean we, the Conservatives, can be complacent. I think what we've actually done is a moderately good job of proving how hard bad Labour are. I'm glad we've done that.
fairly well themselves to be honest this early on the difficulty is as yet the Conservatives haven't come forward and given the platform yet to say what it is we stand for. We know the broad values but the public don't see that and they're not ready to listen to us and nor should they be. They kicked us out because they weren't happy in record numbers. But if you look at what happened to Keir Starmer, if we go back to this time in 2021.
They'd lost the Hartlepool election, which was unthinkable. They'd had their worst council results, and he was thinking of resigning. Four years later, he comes in on a wave of Labour seats and one of the biggest majorities ever. So, it is kind of helped by the fact that Boris was...
boozing it up and down the street when people were supporting their families during the pandemic and Liz Truss crashed the economy. I'm not Keir Starmer cheerleader, but I would suggest that he's not going to be holding such parties.
Well, no, and you're absolutely right. What we do know about Keir Starmer is that he promised change and then changed his promises. And that's exactly what we're seeing. And so, therefore, it's what does that space look like? The one thing about reform taking councils on and things like that is having some leadership. They can't just skim along the surface in slogans. They've actually got to have some depth.
what they need to deliver in policy We all as politicians know the slogan, you campaign in poetry, you govern in pro. We don't see any pros of what it looks like. It's a problem though when you're governing limericks, isn't it? Yeah, well that's very true. I'm not saying he is, obviously. I wouldn't do that. Right. to LBC.
8.34 on LBC. We have with us Stephen Flynn from the SNP, Luke Evans from the Conservatives, Rachel Cunliffe from the New Statesman, and Charlie Dance. I don't know where to describe you from, Charlie, but... independent freelance commentator whatever right Oliver is in the world On the Wirral? In the Wirral? I think it's on the Wirral. Anyway, he says, Does the EU deal, along with the previous deals with the US and India, prove that this Labour government is starting to work?
Keir Starmer today heralded a hat trick of deals and said it proves Britain is back. It wasn't aware it ever went away, Rachel Cunliffe, but it's written back. I was about to say that. I was about to say we've always been here. Let's separate out these a little bit. The US deal.
was only necessary because Donald Trump decided to blow up the global economy and it's better than the situation was before i'm going to agree with kerry badenock that it's not as good as it was before he decided to do that but you know we work with the situation we have and the fact that he got that deal is much better than the alternative. India is something that successive UK governments of different political parties have been working towards for some time and the EU reset is something that
It's small steps towards stuff that really needed to happen, and it would be great if it hadn't taken us eight and a half years to get there, but here we are, is there more we can do? Can we work closer with the EU? Sure, are we ever going to get back into the EU? Almost certainly not. All we know. going to have this sort of friends with benefits relationship relationship with what is our nearest
closest neighbour and biggest trading partner. Yeah, of course, that's just practical, especially when you're looking at worsening global security situation and looking at things like defence on the European continent. So all of this stuff is good. I can see why the Labour government are championing it as, what was it, a hat trick of success?
or whatever. It's certainly something that you can do when you're a new government and you've got energy and you've got a big majority and you're not mired and infighting, which was unfortunately the situation of the last Conservative government. Is there still more that we would like to see them do, regardless of your political opinion? I would say certainly.
Luke Evans, isn't this a bit embarrassing for your party? Kemi Beidonard was trade secretary. She didn't get a deal with India. She didn't get a deal with the United States. No, I expect we'll see people rolling up to try and have a deal with the UK because we're giving so much away so easily. I liked Ben Wallace described it this morning as the deals are waffle and concrete. Concrete on what we've given away and waffle on the rest of what's coming in. I mean, what concession has the EU given?
The pause was what Ursula von der Leyen did when we asked her, what concessions have they given? I don't know why you're asking me. It's a general question to anyone. I don't see it. The concrete bits we've seen are always in these deals what we've actually given away, like the fishing rights. Can we talk about fishing? Because there are more yoga instructors in this country than there are people who work in the...
I understand that it's very important. Of course it's people's jobs, but there are people's jobs in hospitality, there are people's jobs in the creative industry, there are people's jobs in tourism. That attitude of throwing it away, which is what the farmers feel like, which is what the steel industry feel like when it's just cast away in exactly that expression. It's exactly the same fishing deal.
Yes, but what's the difference? Every year you could have a negotiation that has now gone. And that's why they feel so hurt, because you've got the chance and opportunity to change, and we have forfeited that right. That is what is so upsetting on the deal. Those 12 years were just given out and now that fishing communities cannot renegotiate that point. It's gone. It's dead.
And that's really upsetting because as times move on, you yourself just said we're in fragile times, the economy's changing. How are those fishermen going to respond? Time's change. I just think the prioritisation of fishing jobs specifically over jobs in a whole range of other industries, over jobs in higher education, over jobs in tourism, over jobs in hospitality.
I'm not saying that fishing jobs don't matter and aren't important. Of course they are, but we're talking about... So why do the EU want it so much? Because it's symbolic. Absolutely. And so what... What concessions have they given in terms of this deal? We've got a lot of work to be found. The concessions that we've got is that we can sell our food and our fish to the EU market. And taking the rules that go with it. So that's not a concession.
We are taking the rules. A trade negotiation, you give stuff, you get stuff. Yeah, absolutely. And the stuff we've got is a potential to have another conversation. with this deal. The main thing is we're now into the concrete side is that we can have a further conversation. in defense, in cooperation on immigration. Even the e-borders that we're talking about, there's no diktat coming from the EU to say you must open your borders now and allow us to use those gates.
The phrasing is from the Labour Party. There's no legal reason why you can't. They're very, very different things. They're not concessions being given. All right, Charlie. Well, I can ask the question as to why fishing is more important than tour guides and hospitality and so on. And that's because, as you have said, we live in an era of extreme volatility geopolitically. We've seen the effect, for example, that the war in Ukraine had on energy prices when that all kicked off.
And so I think that there's never been a more important time for nations like our own to be self-sufficient in things like the production of food and energy. But we export and import most of our fish. So most of the fish that we catch in the UK we export and most of the fish that we eat in the UK. We import, so it's not like we're even eating the fish that we can.
Well, maybe so, but I think in a situation where those agreements break down, where we aren't exporting and importing all the rest of it, it's important to have a fallback. And it seems to me that what we're doing by giving away our waters to the EU in this deal is making that far more difficult if such a situation were to arise. Because it seems to me that we have the worst of all possible worlds outcome.
Brexit where we have no veto powers in the EU yet we are forced to follow their rules on things like food standards and other sort of bureaucratic kind of nonsense. Which food standards would you like us to relax yourself? Well, I mean, there's the classic example of the old Bendy Bananas, which is still in place. And whilst that's a... I believe it is. And whilst it might sound like a facetious one
It's just a prime example of the excessive bureaucracy that the EU represents. Because I, as somebody who is certainly a Eurosceptic, to say the least, I think I've come to believe that Brexit was a mistake. I have come to believe that the way that it was executed, the vision of Brexit that was brought into existence by the Conservative Party, this kind of global Britain thing that I've referenced already today, has been a disaster.
I think that what Brexit actually was was an expression of, well, total dissatisfaction with the liberal world order and a desire on the part of the public to break with that completely. But that's not what's happened. Actually what's happened is we have gone even further into that kind of liberal vision of Britain and it's been just disastrous it's all feeling very 2018 isn't it what do you mean by liberal vision of britain Wow.
Once again, one where our borders are open, one where we're told that anybody can become British if they just buy into British values, one where our economy is, you know, sort of systematically de-industrialized, where it's impossible for young people to buy a house and so on. Those are policy issues. Much of that is just policy issues that a government could sort as not part of a wider globalist agenda. Anyway, with regards to...
to Brexit, I think some of the language on both sides. I said this to the Prime Minister earlier, the whole betrayal nonsense that's getting spieled. you know the whole this is amazing reality that the Labour Party are trying to paint, none of those things are true because This is not a substitute for being in the European Union. It's 0.2% on GDP by 2040 in comparison to the 4.5% hit to GDP. that has taken place as a result of of living according to some economists
According to the Office of Budget Responsibility. When have they got a broadcast right? You're never against OBR, Ian. One of those. Anyway. So we know it's no substitute for what we've lost but it's also not a betrayal in the terms that the Conservative Party are trying to say in reform as well.
Scottish fishermen have been sold out in this regard and I think that's something that can't be forgotten which is why we believe that Scotland should have a place in these negotiations and the UK government didn't even contact my colleagues. in Hollywood about this despite overtures from the legs of Angus Robertson to try and make that happen so that we could put forward our views on what is ultimately
at Devolve Matter. So is this a better place than where we were on Sunday? Yes, but is it still ultimately a much worse place than where we were? 10 years ago, 5 years ago, absolutely of course it is. What's funny is that Stephen and I were both in the statement that you had
sort of the weird circle of politics because Stephen was you know upset because it's not joining the EU again and I was upset because it's moved the Brexit side so you had this weird barrage sort of coming out there. Nah, nah, nah, so, so, so, look, I misconstrued you mate. I'm sad and angry at the fact that Scotland voted to remain within the European Union and we were taken out by your party and the Labour party have decided
But the Scottish people also matter in this context and of course I believe in their ability to express their views and for that to be done as well. But the overwhelming majority voted to state and their views have not been respected through any of this and the Scottish only. The only cohort of people who were promised that something might get better for them on the back of leaving the European Union was Scottish fishermen.
Boris chucked them out to see with his deal and Keir appears to have done the same with his 12 year imposition and I think for those people they've got every right to be angry and upset and I think for the Scottish populace as a whole I think they're
They're fed up with the fact that we're getting sold diesel into deals and we've had this massive hit to our economy. Of course people are going to be pleased about the fact that some of the red tape's been removed. It'd be silly not to be pleased about that, which is why the Prime Minister
was able to read us that stuff but it's still worse than we were and that red tape was put in place by us we chose to do that um before we go to a break some rather sad news has emerged in the last three quarters for an hour Patrick O'Flynn, who was political editor of The Express, then became a UKIP MEP in Brussels. He's died at the age of 59 and he was somebody who would come on LBC at the drop of a hat.
and it's very very sad when anybody dies but particularly at the age of 59 he was a great journalist He'll be missed by all of us in the broadcast media and the print media and anyone who knew him in Westminster So I just wanted to tell you that I will come on to some more questions in just a moment
Stephen Flynn, Luke Evans, Rachel Cunliffe and Charlie Downs with us answering your questions. Here's a text question from David. Do you believe that the rejection of the appeal by Lucy Connolly was right? Now Lucy Connolly was jailed for inciting racial hatred after an online rant against migrants on the day of the Southport attacks and has had her appeal against her sentence dismissed.
She was jailed for 31 months in October after calling for mass deportation now and urging her followers on X to set fire to hotels, housing asylum seekers. Stephen. Yes. Anything to add? I don't have a huge amount of desire to provide a running commentary on this someone has to deal with the consequences of their actions, appeals being rejected by the judiciary. I'm not in the business of questioning the courts in the UK. If others want to do that, crack on.
I think the thing that has been so troublesome for people with this case is more the sort of wider context in which it's taken place because I don't think anybody would defend what Lucy Connelly said. I think that actually I would say it probably does merit some form of punishment because, you know, it certainly sounded like inciting.
But with that being said, we are currently in a situation where our prisons are so overcrowded that the Justice Secretary is letting out sex offenders and domestic abusers and all of this sort of thing. where we have 10,000 foreign nationals in our prisons who simply should not be there. And yet we're wasting police time, prison resources on locking up this month. who tweeted something extremely stupid in a moment of rage that has rightfully been condemned.
But I think, you know, and that's to say nothing of the fact that there are cases of, you know, the most heinous imaginable crimes where, you know, perpetrators get off quite easy. Whether that's, you know, the case of Adil Rashid, who was spared jail for raping a 13-year-old girl. or any number of grooming gang cases where the perpetrators are now walking free in the towns where they committed their crimes. And so I think that the reason that this case has sparked such
you know, such controversy, I suppose. It's just the fact that it just seems so backwards that the police have the time and resources to come down hard on Lucy Connolly, but not on those cases. Rachel? Like Stephen, I'm not in the business of questioning people who have decades worth of legal experience.
And the fact that even Charlie says that tweet where she was even Charlie his best efforts on this program is suggesting that yeah saying that hotels housing asylum seekers should be set on fire at a time when demonstrators are processing and our
being incredibly violent around those hotels housing asylum seekers. Of course that's incitement to violence. I think it's interesting that you refer to her being a mother. I think we should definitely have a conversation about specifically women in prison and women with children in prison, and the fact that the vast majority of female prisoners in the UK are themselves
victims of violence and sexual assault and we should have a conversation about whether prison is the best place for those women and whether that's the best situation. for their children, but I think that's a conversation more broadly, not just focused on this woman who was the wife of a Conservative councillor and really should have known what she was doing. Now Rachel, can I just check, do you feel shouted down during this program?
Because Brian is very concerned. He says another night shouting down the female well done I'm trying to wrap my brain to think when I shouted you down. I shouted Charlie down. A lot of people got very upset with my fishing comment, but no, I don't feel shouted. Thank goodness for that, otherwise that would have been a bit embarrassing. I've both of you answered on this one. No, I haven't. I mean, to comment on the money shy of the case, I'm not going to jerk because I haven't seen that.
I do think what it throws up is perception is reality in politics and what we're seeing here is someone going to jail for 31 months for a tweet. You have a Labour MP punch someone in the street repeatedly and gets a 10-week suspended sentence.
The public look at that and go, how does this work together? And there's a conversation to say, either we need to be better at communicating what's going on here and why the sentences are the way they are, because each are individual and need that legal expertise.
Or actually, is there something fundamentally wrong here in the way in which we are labouring one thing over another? Because I think we could agree that punching someone in the face is a very serious offence that should come with a jail term on that basis. And yet it's been suspended. So that for me is what this debate is about. It's not these specific cases. It's this wider set. Have we got that balance right? And what we saw with Rob Jenrick exposing is the two tier sentencing.
approach that was potentially going to go in that just chips away at the trust in the system and that's a real concern. Could I just come in, Ian, quickly on that point? Because I think you're exactly right, Luke. I think that the two-tier aspect of our justice system is what is disturbing so many people. But I don't think it's necessary for us to go right down into the kind of minutiae and explain it to the public, because I think that the purpose...
of a system is what it does. And the purpose of our justice system based on that principle is to protect people like Mike Amesbury and punish people like Lucy Connolly. Run that by me again. protect people like Mike Ainsbury. He was the MP that was in runcorn who punished a constituent. How did the justice system protect him? Because as we've just heard, he received a 10-week suspended sentence for assaulting a constituent. Whereas Lucy Connelly posted a tweet and got 31 months.
but she was calling for a Yes, and as I've already said, she does deserve to be punished for that because it's insightful. But again, which is the more severe of the two crimes? I would say it's Mike Amesborough. Right, let's move on to another subject. Annie is in Carnforth. Annie, very good evening to you. Long time no hear. What would you like to say? Good evening, Ian and panel.
Well, I'd like to ask, will the government be sensible and you turn on the disability benefit and winter fuel allowance cuts to protect vulnerable people? Now reports suggest senior government figures are discussing whether to reverse the controversial decision to cut winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners Within weeks James Murray the extractor secretary of the Treasury was on Andrew Marr earlier and he denied this but maybe it's not at his level I don't know
Charlie? I think they'd be fools not to. I think that this government is realising that they need to do something pretty radical to win back the public. And I think that this would be a winner. I think conversations are certainly going on. I'm going to make myself extremely unpopular.
on this programme to all your listeners by saying that while the winter fuel allowance cuts have obviously been toxic and deeply unpopular to the Labour government, they were fundamentally exactly the right thing to do, any government. should look at benefits that are paid universally to the generation which is statistically the wealthiest in society, you are twice as likely.
to be living in a millionaire household. If you're over 65, then you are to be living in poverty. So more likely, and you are twice as likely to be living in poverty in this country if you are a child than if you are a pensioner. Yes, there are very vulnerable pensioners, and yes, there are... to get the support that they need, but there are very vulnerable people at every age.
and the obsession that successive governments and the political class have at protecting the old at the expense of the young is one of the reasons that we're in such a difficult situation with stagnating living standards among the working population. I mean that's the youngest person on the road. Well, I mean, from my perspective as a young person, as a Gen Z, I certainly feel the effect of the housing crisis that we're in.
And there is certainly a conversation to be had about the way in which the older generations are holding on to their assets because the older generation is certainly more asset rich. than the young. And I do think there is also a conversation to be had about those people to whom the winter fuel analysis was going, who just didn't need it. Which was the vast majority. Yeah, well, maybe so. I mean, I'm not across the figures in that. But if you're on 11,500 a year...
I mean, that is not a lot. It's been absolutely catastrophic for people at the boundary. And as I said, it's been very toxic. And it should have been implemented in a much more considered, tiered way to make sure that support went to the people who needed it. It should also... been explained
in the sense of it is not right that working-age people are funding a universal benefit to some of the wealthiest people in society. Stephen? My advice to Annie would be get yourself on a bus, quite dry, get up to Scotland because we're going to be reinstating the winter fuel. elements in totality for pensioners this winter because we recognise that this policy should not have been implemented and I would be... Is that a delegated thing?
I delegated. Well, I went to feel allowance, I thought benefits were... Yeah, it's a devolved benefit, so the Scottish Government have found a scope within the budget for the coming year to... to right Labourers wrong in this regard, that's easy for me to say and you know that's a good thing but look if the Labour Party thinks that
doing something to try and mitigate this is going to solve their problems. I'm afraid they're deeply mistaken because whether it's national insurance increases, whether it's with regards to the farmers or the fishermen, or perhaps more prescient, the cuts to
support for disabled people which are coming down the line of which a vote will be happening in Parliament very soon as I understand it then I think the Labour Party are sadly mistaken and I think they've already lost trust to the public and this will not do them any favour. You have a fan in Paris, Will says, God, Stephen's got a lovely accent. Well, I'm more than happy to go over to Paris any time as well as... I'm seriously wouldn't if I were you. I'm not sure you're mine for the truth. Luke?
Where do I even start? I'm agreeing a lot with Stephen tonight. It's because I'm sensible. It's all steady on. I mean, in terms of the winter fuel, I think I'd love them to see them U-turn on this. I don't think they will. And I think it really strikes me as that. Case pointed himself as a man of principle. until he sees the polls and then he does something else. support the Waspi side, he do farming, he do student fees, he do council tax
These kind of things have really been something that have just come out of the blue and put through when he's promised not to do that. So we haven't set a policy on what we would do either way on that basis. We haven't said either way what we were doing to re-instate it. You can criticise it, but then if you criticise it, people think naturally that you would reinstate it. And this is why the Conservatives are tanking in the pot.
No, because we don't have a clue and unfortunately very good politicians look after Kalad. How much is it going to cost in your budget? than from what you're doing for the SMD. Well, I don't have the exact fact. I'm not a member of the Scottish Government. What I do know is that I don't have the exact fact. I think now it's time to move on to the fun question. From Sarah, who says, Nigel Farage admits
He's in sunnier climes on holiday while other MPs are hard at work. If you could go to the airport right now and jet off, where would you go? Nigel Farage's justification for being on holiday at the moment is he hasn't had a holiday in three years. Rachel? Well, I'm actually going to Bellin on Thursday night, so counting down the hours.
to that but i was doing i think it's politics live the day after which you've seen that called the election i was on with steve baker and i said oh you must have known right and he's like what are you talking about I've got a holiday in Greece next week. And I said, you're cancelling it, right? Because we've got a six-week election come here. And he's like, no, I'm going parasailing. And he went. And he did. And he lost.
Well, Stephen will be thrilled to hear that I'm going on my honeymoon to Scotland later this year. That's perhaps one option. But I went to Hungary last year. It was an absolutely amazing place. I've never been before. I stayed in Budapest. That would probably be my answer, just a totally different... Country to our own. I think I'm going to Paris by the south. I would jet home to see my kids. What about the wife?
I'd go to Tomorrowland. I do love a good club. Tomorrowland, it's a big clubbing festival. If I could do it. Where is that? It's over in Belgium. They released the tickets. It's a big festival. But interestingly, when Rishi called the election my... wedding anniversary. My fifth year wedding anniversary is on the 25th of May and we were booked to go for four nights down to Southend because I hadn't had a holiday then. And then
Yeah, of all that Southend, yeah, we're doing well. And then had to cancel that because of Russia's election. You didn't go? So Steve Baker went? I was out campaigning and look I'm here. My wife's very lucky. Hand on that bombshell. Thank you all very much indeed. Hello, a very good evening. Five minutes past nine on LBC. I want to talk about prostitution, which I think I have done this before on the show, but probably not for the last 10 years.
And the reason I want to talk about it is because the Alapa MSP, Ash Regan, former contender for the SNP leadership, it has to be said, would quash historic convictions and create a statutory right to support for those in and exiting prostitution. She said prostitution was a form of male violence towards women. That is a traditional view of prostitution, it has to be said, and of course there are many occasions when that is absolutely the case.
But prostitution takes many forms. I wonder how she would describe male prostitution, because over the last five or ten years, The male prostitution, by which I mean that women pay for male sexual services, has mushroomed exponentially, so I'm told. There's also obviously male-on-male prostitution, so I don't know how that fits in with what she's saying.
Now, she said her proposals were a bold and long overdue step towards tackling the issue. Now, what she's planning to do is to... Her bill has been dubbed the unbuyable bill. but it has been sex workers have warned that it could be disastrous for their safety. So she's essentially saying that it won't be illegal for women to be prostitutes, but it will be illegal for men to pay for sexual services.
She told tonight with Andrew Marr why prostitutes in Scotland who fear being driven even further underground in the industry will actually be safer if it's passed. well i think that pimps and traffickers obviously want to move to a different model so they would um be advocating for something that we would call perhaps decriminalization or a legalization model which many people on the other side of this argument argue that it's safer. But unfortunately, data just does not support that.
so if we look at um two countries in europe not too far away from us Sweden changed the law about 25 years ago and no prostituted woman in Sweden has been murdered since that law was changed to the Nordic model. By contrast in Germany in 2002 They went to a sort of a decriminalization model and 99 women in prostitution have been murdered and there have been 60 attempted murders there. So the data is very clear.
that if you don't go for the Nordic model what you end up with is prostitution expanding more women are being sex trafficked in more women are being harmed and women are quite frankly absolutely not safe because prostitution is inherently extremely dangerous so I'm trying to prevent women being drawn into prostitution by challenging that demand
And in a way, that's very laudable because no one wants to see women or men or boys or girls trafficked into prostitution. No right-minded person would want that. But the problem here is that prostitution has existed since humans have existed. I don't see a possibility of banning prostitution. It's always existed and I suspect always will exist. So therefore, if you take the point of view, well it's always going to exist, so we can't ban it, even though some people would like to.
Therefore, we have to regulate it properly to make sure that it is as safe as possible for anyone indulging in it. I don't know how you do that necessarily, but what I do know is that if you ban it in the way that Ash Regan wants to, you will drive it underground, and you will make it more dangerous. Inevitably, as night follows day, I think that will happen. She denies it.
But I would trust the judgment of sex workers over the judgment of a politician on this. They think it will be more dangerous for them, and I see no reason to disbelieve them. So let's have a discussion on this. I'd like to hear from you if you've been involved in the sex work profession. Is it profession? Trade? I don't know what you call it, but whatever. If you think this is going to affect you, whether you're in Scotland or the rest of the United Kingdom, I'd love to hear your views.
If you are somebody who has used the services of a prostitute in the past, you'll have a view on this as well. Do you think this sort of reform can work? Or is it a fool's errand? Because Ash Regan... Let's put it this way. She's not the most popular MSP in the Parliament. The SNP can't stand her because she defected to Alex Salmon's old Alper Party, which is still going.
So I don't imagine that the SNP government is going to get behind this. But it's an interesting discussion, nevertheless, and it's one that we don't have often enough. 0345 6060 973. Gina Davidson joins me, LBC Scotland political editor. Gina, very good evening. Am I right in my assessment of the likelihood of this bill succeeding? Well, I'm not entirely sure you are, Ian, which is an interesting thing to say to you, I suppose.
But the SNP policy is pretty much what Ash Reagan is putting forward. Now this was a bill that she first started looking at when she was an SNP government minister when she worked. as a junior minister in the Justice Department. So this is I believe it was passed in 2018 that the party supported the criminalisation of the purchase of sex.
The Scottish Government's own policy at the minute and in fact a policy that's signed up to by all of Scotland's local authorities is that sex work or prostitution, whichever way you wish to describe it because, you know, even the language around this suggests you're on one side or the other, Ian. already regarded as violence against women and girls. That is the way Why have they done nothing about it? They've been in power since 2007 and they've done nothing about it.
Yes, well, Ash Regan has said that she did try to start this process when she was in the government. Obviously as you were pointing out there are various other things overtook that and she resigned from the government over the Gender Recognition Reform Bill and then ultimately after running to be SNP leader quit the party entirely.
So it's not something... The government will say it's made great strides around tackling violence against women and girls, particularly around domestic abuse. There's all sorts of new laws that have been introduced. in that arena, but not in this particular area and we have had Margo MacDonald, you remember her Ian, she did try to regulate the kind of on-street prostitution. She wanted to create tolerance zones, safe areas, particularly in Edinburgh, down in Leith.
That never worked out. So it has been a long-running issue. And as you know, the only place it's illegal to buy sex at the moment in the UK is in Northern Ireland. That's the only place that any law like that has been passed.
Ash Reagan has already consulted on this piece legislation which is now officially launched in the parliament today and so she has spoken to people that work in the sex trade in the sex industry she has spoken to the women's groups that try and support women that are involved that I mean today we were in one of the rooms in Holyrood where she was officially launching this
And there was a woman, Fiona Broadfoot, who runs an organisation called Build A Girl. Now, Fiona herself is a survivor. She was trafficked when she was 15. into prostitution and she had some pretty horrendous stories to tell Ian which really, I can't repeat. on the radio. But I did speak to her afterwards. I think we have a bit of a clip of her and I asked her why she felt that this bill was necessary and this is what she said.
Well, I might not have had to spend 11 years entrenched. I might have got out a lot quicker as a vulnerable girl. I might not have been criminalised and had to fight for 30 years to address that inequality of me being criminalised as a common... and prostitute as a juvenile whilst the men who trafficked me bought me and sold me got away scot-free. So her view very much is, as Ash Reagan says, is that people who are purchasing sex, they're the ones that need to be criminalised.
the people involved in the sex work and prostitution, however you wish to describe it, they should be decriminalised and indeed women like Fiona who have had criminal records as a result of this in the past, those records should be quashed.
and also that people are trying to exit the sex industry, they need to have a legal right to the support that they might require to be able to do that, should that be to ensure that they are able to go on to the correct benefits or they should get mental health support.
other support that they might require through the NHS or even housing. So that is the framework that the bill is attempting to address. And as you say, what she is attempting to do, Ash Regan, what she says she's attempting to do is reduce demand. I mean, she's not saying that she's going to be able to eradicate prostitution in any way but she points to Sweden for instance where this model was introduced 25 years ago
and she says now that the data shows around 100 men in Sweden want to purchase sex, whereas in the UK at the minute it's 1 in 10. So that is really what she says the bill aims to address. Is that right? 1 in 10? That's her data. Yes, that's our data. And if you speak to Fiona, who we heard from there, her stories really would make your hair stand on it.
Well, I have to say I'm very shocked by that statistic. Let's investigate that. So one in ten men listening to this program now either have or want to use the services of a prostitute. Amazing. Audrey Jones joins me, organiser for Decrim Now and a sex worker in Scotland. Audrey, very good evening. So I'm assuming by the title of your organisation, you want to have sex work completely decriminalised. Yes, that is true. We very creatively titled ourselves that.
because what we do want is the full decriminalisation of sex work. And if I may, just before we start, I just want to pull up something that Ash Reagan said, where she said that in Germany they've decriminalised sex work. And that's just not true. In Germany, what they've done is legalized sex work, which is a completely different framework. So I always find it really interesting that. People like Ash Reagan who support the Nordic model or the Enderman model always seem to conflate.
purposefully I think decriminalisation with legalisation so they can point to the failures of legalisation as a failure of decriminalisation and that's just not the case, they're two very different things. Well, we'll come on to Germany in this conversation a bit later because I used to live in Germany. I've got some experience of this. I did not ever use a prostitute in Germany, but I know that it is regulated.
And as far as I know, it's a much safer environment than it maybe is in this country. I'll put my cards on the table. I agree with you. I think that it should be decriminalised in this country on the basis that if two consenting adults wish to have sex and one of them charges for it, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't.
but on the other hand I haven't got an answer and maybe you have to this point about trafficking because we know that there are a lot of particularly younger girls who are trafficked into sex work in this country from abroad and I don't know how you deal with that if you legalize it or decriminalize it. Yeah, so I think one of the really interesting things is that what the end demand model completely misses is that it's not a demand for sex work which causes people to be trafficked.
what causes people to be trafficked or why people end up being trafficked are things like poverty are things like closed borders how it's hard to have safe legal routes for migration and all of those causes have nothing to do with there being a demand for sex work so i think it's a bit of a fallacy that by focusing on demand people will say that
trafficking when what we know of is that in countries where sex work has been decriminalized Because sex workers no longer fear arrest and because trafficking victims no longer fear arrest or deportation, they feel more able to access services, to access support and also those same services. find it easier to find victims of trafficking because they're not hiding from the police.
and even under the Nordic model which does claim to decriminalise sex workers which isn't true because sex workers under the Nordic model are still criminalised if they work together for safety. What does happen is that police surveil sex workers because they want to try and find and arrest the client. And by surveilling those sex workers, they push those sex workers out into more isolated areas. Sex workers have to work further in isolation.
because their clients want to meet them there and their sex workers still want to make money. So what it does do is push both sex workers and victims of trafficking further to the margins, further in isolation, where they're harder to find and harder to help. And that's why we support the criminalization. This figure that we just heard of one in ten men use prostitutes. I was shocked by that. Is that accurate, do you think?
I have no idea, and to be honest, from what I've heard a lot of Ashrae can say. i'm not sure where she's getting her statistics from um especially to do with sweden uh sweden hasn't you know ended sex work it's not ended any demand for it and it's not you know helped victims of trafficking or sex work So I don't know where she's getting her research from and to be honest I quite frankly don't trust it.
But that said, I think the conversation shouldn't really focus on the clients anyway, because what we should be focused on... is what can we practically do to reduce harm to the people who are sex working right now. And doing the Nordic model, doing the end-demand model does not reduce harm to sex workers who are working right now. It only pushes them into further danger.
Well, here's a statistic for you. The population of Germany is 81 million. A million men in Germany visit prostitutes every day. It's a 15 billion euro industry. I mean, a million every day. Again, that is, I would say, quite a surprising statistic. And I'm going to ask my listeners now, if you live outside the UK, what is it? What systems do other countries use here? Because I suspect that
They're much more liberal than the laws that we have in this country. Thank you very much, Audrey. That's Audrey Jones there from Decrim now. So the question is, should we... go down the Ashregan route here and tighten the laws on prostitution and ban the buying of sex completely Or should we go? follow some other countries and decriminalize or even legalize prostitution. 0345 6060 973. We'll come to your calls in a moment. To LBC.
Just to give some background on those German statistics there. Now, some people suggest that legalisation has pushed up trafficking. Prostitution was legalised in Germany in 2002. But when I lived there in the 1980s, You'd have these, so they were called Haitian bars, sort of bunny bars.
And they were effectively barns in the middle of nowhere, so there was no impact. Well, certainly the one in the town that I lived in, there was no impact on the general population. People knew what the barn was and what it was used for. But I don't remember there being any sort of scandals about it. People just accepted that they were there. Now, the prostitution sector in Germany is now worth 15 billion euros a year. More than a million men visit prostitutes every day.
And the change in the law led to a rise in what were called super brothels, attracting tourists from countries where such establishments are illegal. Well, as if by magic, and we haven't engineered this, I'm now going to go to Ulf in Hamburg. Ulf, very good evening to you. Now, what's the opportunity to phone in on this?
Three reasons. I live in Hamburg, the city of Reperbaum. People may have heard about that. I'm a lawyer. I can tell you a thing about German law. And third, you might not believe me, but for a while, I all but lived in a brothel. Not really. Um... Prostitution was always legal in Germany. It has already been pointed out. It has now become a legally recognized profession.
which means it would be very difficult to ban a gun because now it is protected by the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. No kidding. Either you're free or you're not. And I believe there are statistics about a million men per day because I once lived in a house. The house was sold and the new owners refinanced the purchase by placing prostitutes in half the apartments in that house. So I got a pretty good impression how well that business went.
It was crazy, really. Imagine 10 customers per day for an hour each, for each of our 100 euros, and that every day of the year. crazy amount of money. And that's probably a very conservative guess. So that's why I'm quite confident that Germany, no such move, will be successful. There's just too much money involved. And anyway, nobody much care. Germany has a very, at least where I live.
No surprise. Nobody cares very much. Nobody would join some sort of movement to have prostitution banned, especially in Hamburg. I mean, other tourists will come here. We're not stupid. We want the money. And how safe is it? Because I don't think you can ever have a 100% safe prostitution sector. Are there debates about maybe the...
I mean, are the bottles inspected every month or how does it work? So, I'm not a regular, I don't go there at all actually, but first of all, let's start at the lower The poor girls walking the street in some industrial estate, servicing for very little money, truck drivers. They have no safety at all. If they get murdered, their bodies get discovered two days later on the embankment of the Elbow River. On the other hand, you have products that are very expensive.
you misbehave there, you will leave that apartment if you're lucky with somehow, if you're unlucky on a stretcher. And... What I know about the Red Light District in Hamburg, for example, is the well-known one. It is probably the best policed area in Germany, if not Europe. It's an area of about a square kilometer. controlled by, I think, 150 police officers. So you cannot pass gas there without a cop motor.
So that, by the way, if you cause trouble there, cops bite me the least of your problem. There will be those road trollers, gentlemen, who don't like their merchants to be, that's it with the people of Zan Pauli, a particular part of town. Consider the civic duty to sort of people who start trouble. You don't want to start trouble in St. Pauli. You really don't. So those ladies are fairly safe, at least from the customers. The customers are not so safe from the prostitutes because...
Everybody in Hamburg knows the stories are about some country bumpkin getting ripped off by a hooker and then getting beaten up by her pimp when he complained. Dave is asking, do German prostitutes pay tax? if they are dumb enough to find their income. When I started business administration, we had some tax law and the guy giving a lecture spiced his lecture with a few stories about that. So basically, the prostitute is either an employee or self-employed. If she's an employee...
She pays national insurance and taxes and everything. That's why I presume only very, very dumb women are not self-employed. inform the tax office about some money because otherwise there'll be a There'll be some suspicions, but I don't think they'll tell them all. And as far as I know, the brothers pay taxes based upon the square meters there. the area they have because the income, the revenue can be hidden so easily that they had to find some other way of estimating the process.
Because no customer will have anything, will sign anything on paper, so they have to make, exactly, yeah. All right, Ulf, thank you very much indeed. Very interesting insights there into what happens in Germany. Let's go to Louise in Bromley. Hello, Louise. Hello, hi, thanks for taking my call. Okay, first and foremost, this... This is ridiculous, first and foremost. I think women across the board don't need to demoralise, to demean our bodies. Bye. Bye.
We don't need to. I mean, the world is already a hard enough place for a woman to be taken seriously. And then on top of that was domestic violence. And that's why you see... the game that came on a few weeks ago. That's why you see things like this out in the open. That's why you see that there's just a lot wrong, unfortunately. This is where it comes from because you think you can, because people think, women think it's okay to demoralize our bodies. Because men think they can play.
Men think they can pay for women's bodies. I mean, come on. Isn't it up to individual women to decide what they do with their bodies? You know something, when they find themselves in a car boot or something, then, you know... They'll end up reflecting and thinking, oh, I wonder how I got myself out. I wonder, you know, what happened. Sure, I'm not minimising the dangers involved in this. I mean, no man wants to see their daughter in that profession.
No, of course, I completely agree with you on that. But of course, nowadays, it's not just women who are involved in prostitution, it's men either being paid by... Hang on, Louise, can I finish my point? The point is that there are male prostitutes who are paid by women for sex and there are male prostitutes who are paid by men for sex.
I mean, I'm sure there were always male and prostitutes in one form or another, but I think that both of those things have taken on an importance in this sector, which they possibly didn't have 10 or 20 years ago. So it's not just about women being exploited here, is it? But then on top of that, now you've then got this extreme movement of 4B, and this is partly the reason why, because men, some men, majority, I can't say majority, but there is a growing...
wave of men that now do not respect women. And so women now are just, well, some anyway, not all. They're just very extreme where we prefer to just... just not indulge and that's why there's a low birth rate and things like that so it does it does affect um sorry the culture of our times and things like that so i mean yeah it's just It just really angles me. Really angles me. I can tell. I can tell, Louise. Thank you very much indeed.
Capitals coming 03456060973 Do you think that this proposed law in Scotland is along the right lines that they would ban the purchase of sex or do you think that no we should go the other way and either decriminalize or legalize prostitution completely like they have done in some other countries 0345 6060 973. We'll also be talking to the former Scottish First Minister Hamza Yousaf about the fact that the UK has suspended trade talks with Israel today.
And he's been campaigning on this issue. His wife is Palestinian and has been a very vocal supporter of the Palestinian cause. So we'll have a word with him and then also take more of your calls on prostitution. on LBC. 9.35 on LBC. We'll come back to your calls in a moment but first I want to have a word with the former Scottish First Minister Hamza Yousaf
He's been campaigning on the issue of Gaza for many, many months. His wife is Palestinian. She has family in Gaza. It was a very good evening and thank you for joining us. About the status of your wife's family I was following so earlier on in this whole very sad conflict the fact that You and your wife didn't know how they were faring where they were. What's their situation now?
You did a good evening and you're very kind to send some messages just checking in on the family which I'm very grateful for and my wife was at the time. Nadia's family, some of them are still in Gaza. She has a cousin, Sally, who has four young children. One of those children, the age of one of my own daughters. And her husband and the four children, I don't know what more I can say to you, Ian, but it's hell on earth that children are unnourished.
Any food that she can possibly get her hands on goes to her children so she's lost an incredible amount of weight. and it's hard for my wife and me but my wife in particular because she's begging for us to try to get her out any way that we possibly can and that is the plan. of the israeli government i do believe to make gaza completely uninhabitable and destroy all the buildings destroy all the infrastructure
starve the population, a population that doesn't want to leave their own. They've already been made refugees before, as Nadia's grand had in 1948. and are now being really forced off their land in the slowest, most painful, unimaginably horrific way possible. Now, you will have heard what David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, said in the House of Commons today. A dramatic change in tone, very emotional. He said what a lot of his Labour colleagues
and certainly I'm sure people in your party would have wanted him to say maybe six, nine months ago. Why do you think there has been this change of tact today? And some of the Conservative Party, people like Kim Wallhouse, who I thought meant an incredibly powerful contribution. First of all, I welcome the statement from David Lammy, I welcome the statement from the Prime Minister last night, obviously a statement done jointly with the leaders of France and Canada.
And I agree with your assessment. I think it's probably the toughest language I've heard from a UK government against the government of Israel probably in my lifetime, actually. So I do welcome the language. You're right, I would have preferred that this statement was made a year ago when already thousands of children had been killed.
I think the second thing that I would like to see on the back of very strong language is meaningful action. So there was some action in David Lamy's statement but dare I say it felt a little bit tokenistic and around the margins so sanctioning a handful of people suspending a free trade agreement which apparently hadn't been in negotiation or talks for a number of months now anyway
What we need is actually meaningful action, really tough sanctions that should hit, I think, Netanyahu's government, given some of the extremists that mentioned in David Lammy's own statement, like Sumatrich. I would suggest sanctioning Netanyahu himself, given he's of course wanted by the ICC for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Of course, suspending arms sales and all arms sales to Israel and then recognising the Palestinian state, these are three actions that the government can take, which I think would begin to pile the pressure. On the Israeli government, I don't think they care much for statements or rhetoric, but they might well respond to meaningful actions.
You see, up to now, the government has always argued that, well, if we go down this road, the people want us to go down, we will have no influence on the Israeli government at all. Do you think that the fact that David Lammy has said all this today It means that there is a realization that they never have had any influence on the Israeli government at all. I think they've known for a long time. I think the previous government knew for a long time that they had virtually no influence.
over the Israeli government. I think what they've come to the conclusion is that even if it damages somewhat partially the relationship with the United States then it's worth doing it. And they're doing it jointly with, as I say, governments of France and Canada. But I think they've also sensed what a lot of us have heard and seen reported that even the United States are beginning to lose some patience with the Israeli government and with Netanyahu's
extreme language, extreme rhetoric, and of course extreme actions. And it doesn't get more powerful, I thought, than Tom Fletcher's recent contributions. Obviously, the head of UN OCHA, UN Humanitarian Chief. who has made a number of contributions, I think very powerful contribution in the UN Security Council last week and then of course followed up today warning. that 14 000 babies will die in the next 48 hours if an action is not taken to break they're really blocking
Now, a slightly awkward gear change for my final question to you. You may have heard that we're talking about Ash Regans. bill to ban the purchase of sex in Scotland. Now, as I understand it, what the Gina Davison, our Scotland political editor, has told me, Effectively, what she's proposing is existing SNP policy, but nothing has been done since the SNP has been in power since 2007. Are you going to support her bill?
I'll look at the detail of the bill first and foremost before I make a decision. I think there's some merits to what Ashraig is suggesting but we've also got to make sure that there's not unintended consequences of that legislation and trust me as somebody who's taken lots of bills through the parliament. Sometimes I'm afraid those unintended consequences can often come back.
to bite you and you have to then amend the legislation or, in the unfortunate case, withdraw it altogether as we have to do with, for example, the Offensive Behaviour of Football Act. So I'll look at the detail of the bill and I'll consider it then.
Good to talk to you again, Hamza. Thank you very much indeed for coming on at such a late hour. It's Hamza Youssef, the former Scottish First Minister there. Right, let's go back to your calls on that very subject of should prostitution generally be decriminalised, legalised? or banned and let me just rehearse my position on this because I don't believe you can ban it.
Because if you do so under the law, you'll just drive it even further underground and make it even less safe than it is today. So I don't believe that that is the way forward. I would go to the German system and have full not just decriminalization but legalization and regulate it, have regular health checks, have regulated
brothels. I'd love there to be a new word for a brothel, I have to say, because it's a horrible word. But that's what other countries do. Why should we be any different, I suppose is the question. Wayne says, Aberdeen had a tolerance zone 15 to 20 years ago and it worked. They knew what the women were doing and they had guys there to watch out for them. This was scrapped and it went back to being the city's hidden secret.
Let's go to James, who's a new caller in Chester. James, hi. Hi, good evening, Ian. Nice to speak to you. Angie, what would you like to say? I'm exactly the same as you. I think that it should be legalised. I've visited many brothels. around the country, also abroad. And I think that the way that it's set up in... Liverpool, Haydark, St. Helens. It's set up really well. Every brothel that I've visited because I'm a wheelchair user.
a full-time wheelchair user. Every brothel that I've visited has always been wheelchair accessible. This is in Liverpool. They've had brothels on our dock. They've got brothels everywhere in really nice apartment buildings. And every time that I... Sat with the lady and I've had a real good conversation with with each one and They you know this like they won't
They weren't pressurized into it. They were absolutely fine. They felt, you know, that they were comfortable. They were all chilling afterwards, having a laugh and things like that. It was all good. How did you know that they weren't forced into it? Some of the ladies that are doing it are doing it because of, you know, drug addiction and things like that which I don't agree with.
That's what they're doing to support their habits. I used to play wheelchair basketball for Great Britain and we travelled all over the world. And one of the country where we went to Brazil, we flew from Manchester to Heathrow, Heathrow to Rio, and then Rio to Couturea, and then a three-hour bus drive to a place called Blumenau. Now, when we got to Blumenau... Opposite our hotel was a building and it was called the Love House. And that was a brothel that was in Brazil.
I really don't agree with this at all. There were skills in there. From 14 to 18 and once they get to 18 That's it. They basically kick them out and they're sort of done with it. It's awful Yeah, there was one of the guys from the team, this was on our last night, that we were there because the coach let us all go out.
me and two of my teammates, which are from Northern Ireland. We went out and we got the interpreter, the Brazilian guy that was interpreting for the Great Britain team, and he came out with us. We ended up going to a bar. I said to him, I said, you know, I basically want to sleep with a woman tonight. And he said, fine. So he walked off to the... to the actual bar and there was all these girls sat there in a row and then a girl came over with him she was about 19 20 and she came over
And he said, do you want to go back to the hotel now? And I said, no, let's have a drink. So he sat outside, had a drink. And then we... We went back to the hotel and yeah, it was a great night. You know, I don't see anything wrong with it if two adults consent to having sex. and money's exchanged, then I don't see the problem at all. If you weren't in a wheelchair, would you still be using sex workers?
That's a good question. I suppose it's a question you can't answer. No, no, no. It's a good question. I don't know. I know that, well, it's harder. I do meet women and I have fun after parties and things like that and stuff. Yeah, I think being in a wheelchair. is the reason why I do use brothels because I have a high sex drive and to be honest with you I don't really My able-bodied mates meet and get with a lot more girls, well, women, get together a lot more women than what I do.
So that's why I think, yeah, I think that's why I use the brothel. Because, of course, if this law that has been proposed in Scotland was introduced in the rest of the UK, you would be criminalised. Yeah. Yeah. And I think that is something that I think people need to think about because if you are disabled, not even just necessarily in a wheelchair, in a sense, and I should be careful how I phrase this, but I'll probably get it wrong, but it's almost a social service, isn't it?
Yeah, yeah, basically. I don't see any problem with it at all, you know, being legalised. And like I say, if it's not, it's just going to, I personally feel. It's just going to get worse and it will be driven underground and it'll get nasty. Well, I agree with you, James. Great call. Thank you very much indeed for phoning in. We'll come to more of your calls in a moment. This is LBC. I see a prostitute on average four times a year. I have a happy family, two wonderful children, a loving wife,
two international holidays a year. We feel very fortunate and lucky. However, I have to pay for sex because I do not get it in marriage. I've never been willingly unfaithful. I love my wife and I never want to leave her, but she will not allow intercourse. My wife knows and accepts it's not. how either of us want it to be. I see it as a service like going to the dentist. I wish I didn't have to but it's a necessary component to our relationship.
There are all sorts of different reasons why people use prostitutes, sex workers. I don't actually know what I should be saying here. Prostitute is maybe the old-fashioned word. Sex worker is the new phrase. Um,
But we're always very judgmental about anybody that uses a sex worker, aren't we? But we heard there from Jamie, who's a wheelchair user, and there are so many people who are disabled who thought, well, I think a lot of disabled people feel that they are not going to be desirable to other people and therefore almost feel that that's the only option to pay for sex. I can't say they're right, I can't say they're wrong but it is certainly a phenomenon and I would not want to deprive people of
sex, because that's what Ash Regan's bill is going to do in Scotland, and I think it'll be a crying shame, particularly for disabled people. The texter there has his own reasons now, we can all judge. Everybody, whether you're male or female, you have a sex drive. For men I think it is possibly a little different. and that men want, particularly if they're of a younger generation, if they can't find somebody to have sex with in a relationship they will look for it. elsewhere.
Francine tax a social service Black men have a basic human right to girls' women's vaginas, and you're not even questioning him calling the 19-year-old a woman slash adult. Legally, yes, she is. But you didn't even ask how old that man was. A disgrace. while a 19 year old is an adult. It's just a fact, so I'm not going to take criticism on that front.
But yes, I think it is a form of social service for some disabled people, and I'm not going to resign from saying that. I don't say it's a basic human right. Men do not have a human right to have sex with a woman or whoever they want to have sex with. Absolutely not. But if it's a consenting woman who charges for that service, then I don't have a problem with that. And you can judge me as being deeply immoral for thinking that. But hey, it's a free country. Mark's in Plymouth. Hello, Mark.
Oh, hi. Yeah, I've listened to all the calls. I do find prostitution doesn't sit comfortably with me because of personal experience of a friend who I went to school with. who in her mid-twenties turned to prostitution. And for all the intents and purposes, the average punter, if you want to call them that, horrible terms. I mean, you mentioned the word brothel earlier on. It's middle English, isn't it? It comes from the word meaningless person.
But anyway, she turned to prostitution, and for all intents and purposes, her customers, if you like. I had no idea. They just thought she enjoyed it and wanted to do it when I enjoyed it, but she was in control of it. But the reason she went into prostitution, she told me this when she had a mental breakdown in her 50s. and suffered from drug abuse after prostitution was because she was abused by her father. And when these people ring up like a chap who's to say and just commoditize his need.
over a woman's. He has no idea who he's sleeping with, what their lives have been like at that point. I always ask people to question this to friends who've gone to prostitutes over the years and they go, it's okay. She was fine, or she always boasts when they were a lot younger as well, by the way. And the convenience of it, like a product. But when you ask the question, would you be happy if your sister or your daughter or your mother was a frost tissue? They go a bit quiet.
But it's okay for them to use a prostitute because of their needs over commoditization of a woman. Well, I don't think anybody is going to say that they'd like their sister or their daughter to be a prostitute. I mean, who would say that? That's right. But it's okay for them to use a prostitute. And no one really knows why that woman is a prostitute.
You don't really know what that person's gone through or is going through. A lot of them are drug abuse, which can be well hidden. A lot of them have been abused sexually, as I mentioned earlier. I mean, my friend, she tried to commit suicide twice as a result of being a prostitute. She was fine at the time on the surface in her 20s, but it hit like a ton of bricks later. that men just have this mindset of, well, I have a need, so I'll see a prostitute.
And this is the thing that really winds me up when I've heard people say it. I've had conversations on 59 over the years and the way it's when they spoke about as the prostitute, as the service rather than the woman. I think it's fine if the woman is doing it of her own free will for her own reasons.
then that is fine. But I totally understand your point that people who go to see prostitutes, they're frankly not interested in the woman's background at all. They're interested in what she looks like. Is she desirable? And will they enjoy having sex with her? That's the prime motivation, isn't it? Mark, thank you very much indeed. Let's go to Jules, who's in Lutterworth in Leicestershire. Hi.
Hi. Yeah, I've just listened to the conversation, obviously. I'll just first of all say that I am what would technically be classed as a sex worker. So my clients are predominantly female. Couples visit as well. I offer what's called central massage, which, although it's not... It would affect me very indirectly and I speak to my clients and many have said if this door came in that they would probably
not visit. As you've already said to other people, people visit for many different reasons. In my case, many people have some disabled clients, people have been in abusive relationships, lots of trauma. as well as just exploration and relaxation. very much consensual in my case. I very much enjoy doing it. I know other people that do the same, both male and female, and I think it would be a tragedy if they land it, much like what you said.
Jules, I have to leave it there because we've reached the end of the program, which is a shame, because I'd like to have talked to you in a bit more detail about what you do and why you do it. But thank you very much indeed, and thanks for all of your calls and messages this evening. I'm back tomorrow from 7. If you missed any of this evening's show, you can listen back on catch-up on both Global Player and the new LBC app.
where you can stay up to date on the top stories and opinion. Choose which news categories matter most to you, pause and rewind live radio, and listen to a range of podcasts. Download the official LBC app for free from your app store,