Corbyn’s Former Deputy Tom Watson Lands Palantir Job

Good evening. Welcome to Navara Live. Coming up tonight, former deputy leader of the Labour Party Tom Watson is now working for the controversial, to say the least, US tech firm Palanteer. Leaks from number 10 reveal a surprising degree of continuity between the policies of Kstarma and Andy Bernham. Navar Media's Clareheimr investigates some eyebrow raising comments from a former top undercover police officer. And a questiontime audience doesn't take too kindly to reforms Danny Krueger. I mean, who does? My name is Steven Methan and tonight I'm joined by Ben Sec. Hey Ben, how you doing? >> I'm good, thank you. Not too bad. >> Yeah, good. Um, let's crack straight on. There's a lot to cover tonight. If you'd like to support our work, you can sign up at navaramedia.com/support. You can also listen to the show on Spotify and Apple Podcast. And please remember to like this video, subscribe to the channel if you haven't already. And don't forget to let us know what you think in the comments. If you're an old-timer like me, you may remember Tom Watson, formerly the deputy leader of the Labour Party in the Corbyn years. He was often seen as a flag bearer for the labor right, if not an outright wrecker by some within the party's most thrilling left-wing moment. Of course, there were darker accusations, too. He was said to have actively attacked Corbyn's leadership by undermining his attempts to tackle anti-semitism complaints. He also stood down just weeks before the 2019 general election, a move many saw as an ultimate betrayal. Anyway, we haven't heard a lot from Tom Watson since. nominated for appear by then Labour leader Kia Starama in 2020. He was eventually cozy tucked away into the House of Lords in 2022. And on the side, he took up work in the music industry, appeared on the telly, and took a gig in the gambling sector. But now, Watson has decided his future is tech and not just any tech. Watson has been hired by US spyware company Palunteer, apparently to fight a left-wing campaign against the US firm. That's according to the Times who also say Palanteer hopes that with Watson on their team, they'll get a hearing from Andy Burnham's government. Now, it's not Watson's first dip in the Palunteer pond, he's been a member of the firm's advisory board since 2024, but it's a significant promotion, and the company released an extremely boring video to promote it. Every person I've met in this organization is happy and full of energy. And when you've been in politics for 30 years, that is a really rare commodity commodity in life. So I'm really looking forward to working with everyone. I I I I happen to think that there can be a paradigm shift in public services in Britain and I think palia can be central to that and I think we've got to win some political arguments along the way to do that. But I think it's perfectly possible because of the things that you do. And if I can help articulate that, then I'll be playing my little role in it. >> According to Palunteer, Watson's role will be to increase the social and economic value of its work through public services, jobs, and skills. That doesn't mean much. And anyway, we all know the real reason behind the appointment is Watson's excellent Python skills. Just kidding. It's his proximity to political power. And Palanteer really, really needs the help. The British public loathes the brainchild of tech oligarch and Donald Trump donor Peter Theal. In a July Yuggov poll, 65% of those surveyed said that NHS should drop its 330 million pound contract with the firm. Opposition to the contract is even higher among Labor voters. 76% of them say Andy Bernham's new government should use a break clause when the contract comes up for review in March next year. And that's of course the real reason for Watson's appointment to urge Bernham and his team to ignore that opposition even amongst the party's own voters. Now, Babyface Palanteer UK boss Louis Mosley, yes, descendant of that Mosley, has been busy trying to settle people's nerves about hiring an actually sitting member of Parliament to work for the firm. In response to a critical post by LBC's Ben Kentish, Mosley wrote this. He can't vote Ben Kentish. Tom has taken a leave of absence from the Lords and given up his parliamentary pass. He cannot attend and he cannot vote on anything. We have gone further in writing in Tom's contract that every access and privilege arising from the period is revoked, including what appear on leave of absence with ordinary keep. He cannot return as an active member while he works at Palanteer. He cannot use the title in any dealing on Palunteers's behalf. Well, that certainly puts all my worries to bed. Watson may be the best uh known piece of government apparatus to join Palanteer, but he's far from the first. In April this year, the nerve reported this on the extent of the revolving door between the state and Palanteer. The MOD's senior official on a AI, who co-wrote the UK's military strategy on AI and met Palanteer nine times in that role, is now the main adviser to Palanteer's chief executive on geo strategy. NHS England's former director of AI, who led the formation of the NHS's AI lab, was recruited to be Palanteer's director of health research and AI in 2022. Four members of the House of Lords have advised Palanteer, including a former chair of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. Two continue to do so. Palanteer's list of paid consultants includes two former government ministers, the ex- head of MI6, the chief liaison between the UK and US intelligence services, two generals, and a former chief adviser to the PM. Palanteer's hiring strategy isn't solely concentrated on the top brass. We've identified an additional 37 current mid-ranking staff hired from the military, the NHS, and various government departments. And Watson joins a glittering cast of other senior politicians who've sold out to billionaire owned tech firms. Nick Kle, another former deputy prime minister, took a job with Facebook after leaving government. Ex- prime minister Richishi Sunnak has taken roles with Anthropic and Microsoft since stepping down. And former Chancellor George Osborne has a gig with Open AI. Earlier today, I was joined by Martha Dark, co-executive director of Fox Glover campaign group that tries to hold tech to account. I began by asking her what first drew billionaire owned Palanteer to political mid-fitter Tom Watson. >> Tom Watson has been hired by the American spy techch giant Palanteer and he's obviously Labour's former deputy leader and uh was a minister for a long time. And the ma the timing really matters on this because at the moment Palanteer is fighting to hang on to its multi-million pound contract with the NHS for the management of the data platform called the federated data platform. And in the last sort of 12 months or so the criticism of that contract and that company having such a role in the British state and in the NHS has really been mounting. And so in the next few months, the break clause is coming up in that contract. And so it's very intentional timing, I think, that they've hired Watson in this post because of his kind of former position in the Labour Party and the lobbying and influence that he has. >> Yeah. Because the Times kind of phrased it in their headline as um he'd been hired to see off a left-wing campaign against panty. I mean, I wouldn't even call it a leftwing campaign, right? a lot of people all over the country who aren't happy with this company being involved in the NHS or in many other parts of of our state. Um, but you know, Watson is hardly the person who's going to see off a leftwing campaign because many on the left have not forgotten 2019. Um, so what exactly is it that they they hope he'll be able to do? >> I think it's important to say that this isn't just a campaign of the left actually. I think the criticism of Palunteer as a provider for the NHS has been mounting for a long time from lots of different groups and different parties indeed indeed from parliamentary committees from doctors from NHS trusts from campaigners from me from hundreds of thousands of me members of the public and in recent months there's been quite a lot of kind of analysis and critique of some of the statistics and and and information that Palanteer and the NHS are putting out about the effectiveness of their um their tool for the NHS and for the British taxpayer. And I think given this costs the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds and contract and and Palanteer has hundreds of millions of pounds of contracts within the kind of state more broadly. Um you know in this moment they're falling back on the tactic of the old tactic that they've used for years which is lobbying and there's been a slight revolving door. I think the nerve did some really good reporting about the amount of kind of government ministers that have been going through the palunteer doors and I think it was about 30 or so uh at the time of their reporting and so it's clearly an intentional move by them in this moment of real criticism to try to cling on as tight as they can to this to this contract. >> But I guess I'm wondering what specifically that they're they're hoping he'll be able to achieve. I mean, so I was really struck by how carefully uh Louis Mosley, who's the head of UK's Palanteer operations, sort of laid out the terms of of Watson's contract. So, for example, he's not allowed to uh debate in the House of Lords. He's not allowed to vote. He's not allowed to use his title in any of Palanteer's negotiations. And that all seemed to me like a kind of, you know, sort of irrelevant to the lobbying aspect of, you know, that he's been hired to to do. But, but where where exactly do you think that lobbying is going to take place? Is it with Andy Bernham and the government? What what's what's the what's the tactic do you expect? >> In previous months or years, uh Mandlesson's lobbying firm had the contract with Palanteer and since uh the Epstein scandal and and Mandlesson's connection to to that um that you know he doesn't have that contract anymore and I think Watson is is a replacement for that. I think I I also read what Louis Mosley put out about what the what the role will be. Um and I think he said um something like Tom will lead our work on what Palanteer owes this country. And I think it's important to remember that Palanteer is a for-profit corporation like American corporation whose whose business is to serve its shareholders. It's not to share to to to service the British state and the British public. And so I I really query that and I think, you know, I read Lou Mosy's tweet and I didn't think it was actually that clear about what um what Watson would be doing in that job. I mean, I think it's very clear that he's been appointed because of his previous role within the Labor Party because of because he was deputy leader of the Labour Party. He's obviously very well connected within the Labour Party and it is an extremely crucial moment where government committees, multiple government committees are saying Palanteer isn't or are assessing whether or not Palanteer is the right fit and proper partner for that NHS contract. And so I think given the the statistics that they've been trying to put out about the effectiveness of their service are beginning to fail, they are instead leaning on and turning back to influence and lobbying and who do we know and how can we influence and how can we play the inside game which is really not something that is unusual or new to Palanteer. If you look at I think after Starmer came into office and um he took the first trip to the US, he went to the White House and then he went to Palanteer HQ. So there's an incredibly close relationship between Palanteer in the state and that's not just in the amount of contracts that Palanteer has. >> Sometimes people say that like the criticisms of Palanteer in the NHS are overegged. I mean also there's one one line that sometimes gets put which is that if you're against Palanteer in the NHS, you're against saving lives. I mean, what do you make of those two claims that like it's essential for saving lives and also there's like not that much to worry about? >> I think Palanteer is wholly an improper partner for the NHS. I think they if you look at their background until this contract with the NHS, they had absolutely no history in health. Their history was as an American spy techch firm uh who provided counterinsurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan and they you know had played a role in in Israel and they separated children from their parents at the US border. that is a wholly different role and set of um it's a it's wholly different to kind of providing a role in health I think and I certainly am all for health data being used in the best way possible. If there is a way to federate uh NHS health data in a way that means that it's better used by the NHS and it better serves the British public then by all means that's exactly what we should do. But I think like I said there's been serious criticism of actually whether the federated data platform actually provides that service for the NHS and whether those stats that they put out about their effectiveness actually hold up. So they'll do a lot of things for example where they'll put out statistics from one trust without any comparative information about other trusts that aren't using Palanteer software. So there's absolutely no way to gauge the effectiveness of that. and the NHS themselves in recent months have rolled back some of the statistics that they said about Palanteer's efficiency. So I don't think this is an ideological fight in lots of ways about Palunteer as a company. It's actually a question about what is best for the British public and the Brit and the NHS and the taxpayer in this moment. And Palanteer has gone after the NHS contract because it knows the value of health data Britain because we have kind of a longitudinal very organized set of data that's cradle to grave health data of an entire population. Palanteer sees the value in that and knows the value in that. It was a very intentional decision I think to go after that contract. >> Just out of curiosity, what what is the value in that for them? I mean what would they what would they do with it? >> If we zoom out more widely than just the NHS contract, Palanteer has done a very kind of has had a very concerted effort in the UK at getting lots of different contracts. They have contracts with the Ministry of Defense, with the Financial Conduct Authority, with local councils as well as with the NHS. And indeed at the co inquiry, Louis Mosley said something who's like the regional head for the UK said something like um the UK needs a single operating system for its data. And he didn't go as far as saying that Palunteer should run that, but he absolutely like it's clear from the way that Palanteer operates within the UK that that's what they're hoping for. And that is a real risk in this moment because this isn't a British company. This is a Trumpaligned American company. And in a moment where you know like health data in the UK is extremely sensitive. It is extremely there's lots of it has potential potentially a huge value and I think it's really important that that value isn't kind of flowing back to an American shareholder but is instead staying within the NHS to better those services. It's been my impression that the campaign against Palanteer in the in the NHS at least um has been pretty effective and this contract break coming up seems to me I mean I have no insider knowledge you may know differently but that there's a good chance it will be broken. Do you think that Tom Watson is a figure who can who can change that direction? >> They've certainly hired Tom Watson at this moment with the intention of trying to do whatever they can to cling on to that contract and to cling on to other contracts within the state. And I think one of one of the things that's quite interesting about Watson as an appointment I think is if you look at his history so I think about a decade ago he um along with David Davis brought a challenge against the state in the UK that was challenging kind of excessive surveillance and mass surveillance and he was arguing that it wasn't compatible with human rights. So I think it's a very interesting choice for him to have moved to Palunteer in this moment, one of the biggest surveillance companies in the world. >> When Tom Watson was an MP, he was very uh critical of the gambling industry and then as soon as he wasn't, he took up a post with the gambling industry. So he's kind of about turns or perhaps not um without precedent uh when it comes to to Watson. Do you think that Tom Watson as a figure is going to make much of an impact in helping Palanteer to to maintain the contract when the break clause comes come it becomes possible? >> So Palanteer is certainly hoping that Tom Watson's going to be able to help them cling on to the federated data platform contract. But I think it's going to be a difficult task for anyone at this point given that the criticis the criticism the very legitimate criticism of Palanteer has really been mounting in the last few years. It's going to be a difficult challenge for them because this isn't just a kind of left-wing fight or ideological fight. There are people across the political spectrum, MPs, committees of MPs, NHS trusts, doctors, members of the public, campaigners that there's a chorus of people demanding that the break clause is exercised and I think the parliamentary committees investigating this are absolutely right to do so in this moment. That was Martha Dark of Campaign Group Fox Club speaking to me earlier today. Ben Secer, I want to come to you on this and get this is such a big story I think for for th those of us on the left uh because Tom Watson obviously looms very large um even all these years later as a as a as a figure from the Corbyn years. What do you make of this uh feature of politicians? So, I don't want to single out Tom Watson here because he's not the only one who's done it, of having a kind of like political view or political ideology and then the minute you're out of uh electoral politics, swinging into industry, which is the total opposite of what what you sort of said you believed in when you were a politician. I mean another example is Nick Kle, a liberal who then went to work for for Meta uh an organization which is you know certainly in some sense illiberal in its its data collection in its use of you know tools of addiction manipulation and so on so forth amongst its users and now Tom Watson who was you know very anti the surveillance state now working for uh one of the largest providers of surveillance software in the world. >> Yeah, it's really bleak isn't it? And I think it speaks to the many different ways in which I think our politics is becoming more and more corrupted by by money and and and by the very wealthy. And it's it's interesting to think about Nick Kle as the example like he I feel like he's kind of the pioneer of this. I feel like he was the first one to really decide, you know, when he left politics, I'm going to go into go into big tech. And he goes into big tech, I suppose, at quite a different time to now, right? And it was interesting because after a certain period of time when when the paradigm sort of changed and Mark Mark Zuckerberg took a different direction, Nick Le was then very disposable, I feel like, to him and he was gotten rid of as the Trump era, the new Trump era or second Trump era was kind of ushered in. So these I don't know how it makes them feel internally. Maybe that's not the primary concern that they're so disposable. you know, it's so obvious that you have a certain utility which isn't necessarily about your ideas or your ability to think or your qualifications. It's about your proximity to X, Y, and Zed. You know, with this case with Tom Watson, I think it's about his proximity to Burnham. It's about his ability to be able to persuade government on behalf of Palunteer. He he's a bit of an interesting one because I was trying to do a bit of a research into how much he's spoken about AI as as a parent as a as a lord and he he has spoken quite a bit about it and he's tried to sort of have this this conversation that does touch on sovereignty of of um of of AI and this idea of of of how much you know sovereignty we should have about the you know with regards to these technologies and I suppose in a sense perhaps he's been chosen in part because he hasn't been a figure who has been so obviously kind chomping at the bit for, you know, private tech to be able to just really kind of seize on this. And so, he has a utility, I think, in being able to seem like somebody who is somewhat in the middle, you know, like, oh, I'm a bit I've got legitimate concerns, but I also think there's lots of great things that could happen with a collusion between the state and and private enterprise. So, there's a real he has a real usefulness to him, I think, as well. Um, and I I also I mean I'm fascinated about this idea that he's going to hand he's handed in his peers sort of past and he's not going to be a peer anymore. And he was already an adviser I believe prior to uh this appointment, right? So he was already in Palanteer and working in the House of Lords at the same time as well. um you know what happens when if if he leaves does he then get to just automatically pick up that pass again and go back into the legislature with no real time gap between having finished at this private enterprise that has very specific interests that I would argue are very much counter to what's in the interest of the British public can he just go straight back through the revolving door backwards again back into the legislature to then potentially vote on on on issues that that may be related to that that former position. So there's so much about the way in which our democracy works which feels like it's it's not fit for purpose. It's not fit for this new world. It seems to be based on on a on a hope that people will just act in a way that is, you know, fair and and decent without actually having kind of stringent proper rules to stop stuff like this happening, which is a real concern, I think, for me. >> I mean, you talk about how a democracy works. Obviously, the House of Lords is the least democratic part of how our democracy works, right? where you literally it's almost impossible to get to get rid of people. No matter what they do, they still sit in there. >> You die. >> You die and that's it. Or maybe if you're if you're um an ancestral peer, you know, some prime minister comes along and knocks out, you know, a bunch of you and replaces you with with more amanable um um appointed peers. Uh but yeah, it's it's it's it's really, you know, there's been a lot of stuff about lobbying in the in in the House of Lords, right? There have been various people accused of um uh using various kinds of grace and favor facilities to to lobby. Um there's been I mean the Guardian has done a whole series of pieces on on lobbying um in in the House of Lords and I don't think anything's come of any of them really. Um I mean what I'm really curious about with the um Tom Watson case as well is is is you know it's it's a real uphill battle and not because you know that polling showed that 76% of Labor voters are really against Palanteer in in in the NHS. So you got to have a lot of chops to convince a party a prime minister government that has actually at this moment no electoral mandate at all uh that they're going to go against the electorate um on this deal. I mean, you know, does Tom Watson have the chops to do that? I I doubt it. I really, but you know, that's such an uphill struggle. It's hard to know whether any anybody might. It doesn't mean that they won't they won't go that way. But, um, Martha Dark was very keen to say, you know, the the arguments here are not just ideological. They're also about value for money, about whether it actually does what people say it's going to do. And like serious doubts having been raised about that and also about the security of our data in the NHS. But of course the it's the Labour party we're talking about. There will be ideological arguments there as well such as Palanteer's involvement in uh with the IDF um its involvement apparently in the min the the um department of defense or department of war as it is now in in the US and these um what the UN yesterday called you know plausible war crimes that the US committed in Iran through targeting errors apparently allegedly using that that software um in Minab and and elsewhere. I mean those arguments, you know, even if you could prove the value of to some extent of the the software in the NHS, do you think like a lot of people would still be just be persuaded that actually we just don't want our state's money going to organizations which are, you know, perhaps parasitic on our data, >> but using that money and that data for for for ends that we just cannot put ourselves behind. >> Yeah. There's a kind of there's an argument in tandem, right? Isn't there? There's there's a moral argument which I think is very persuasive and is going to be extremely persuasive with the Labour Party base which I do think Andy Bernham is is conscious about trying to maintain um which is that just as a red line why on earth should we be doing business with any organization uh involved in you know genocides involved in uh Israeli apartheid or any other kind of egregious uh abuses of human rights acts. But I I also agree with this idea that you know only Palanteer can do this. you know, only this private tech company can do this can do this work and can do it to this this standard, which I don't think is really true. And I think it's a it's a way of trying to do I think what economists call like vendor lockin where like we we tell you that only we can do this. So at some point maybe in the future you might be able to do it yourself, but we'll we'll get you started. then they get in as like a parasite really and then it's incredibly difficult to to start removing them that that it actually becomes harder and harder for the state to imagine how it might do things um extracted from from uh the likes of Palanteer than than than without it. Um and so I I think it's it's a mistake for us to even think temporarily or for the state to think temporarily well maybe for the next five years we'll allow Palanteers to come in whilst we simultaneously build our own capacity. I think the likelihood of that happening is is really limited. And the other thing final thing I'll say about the House of Lords stuff as well. Yeah. I in a former life worked in in parliament and there was this kind not in a political role. There was always this perception that if like one of the great things about peers was that they had other lives and you know they did lots of other things and that really enriched the House of Lords you know not our MPs who were only doing this job although that's a lie as well because they're also doing other jobs. Um, and you know, I I can kind of see where that's coming from. And I guess if you're a doctor or you know, maybe you know, I can see how you might bring in some some really valuable knowledge actually into an upper chamber, but you know, when you're sitting on like boards of companies and things like that, there's just an inevitable conflict of interest where it's some point, you know, something's going to come up legislatively where there's going to be this uncomfortable tension between the other roles that you hold. And again, those roles will be paying you like more. You get 300 quid a day to turn up at the House of Lords, which I think is quite a lot to be fair, but they'll still be paying you more money. So, you know, I think that all just really needs to be scrapped. It It's like the whole place has just been bought. >> Yeah. Yeah. Important industries like misselling PPE allegedly. Let's go to our next story. A huge leak from number 10 suggests there is significant continuity between KSMA's policies and Andy Burnham. Sky News has obtained a 50-page document from April which sets out a policy agenda apparently designed to reboot Starmmer's leadership. Well, that didn't work uh following Star's resignation. The leak suggests his ideas though still live on in Burnham's government. >> We found something that might raise an eyebrow if you listen to Andy Burnham claim he was ending a generation of failed politics. So, let's start with these six ideas. They're things that were drawn up in the in the Karmama era that Andy Burnham announced in his opening days as prime minister. Public transport discounts. Remember this. >> For too long people said it's not possible to reduce bus fairs. Today I'm taking the two pound fair cap national. >> Also a plan to tackle dodgy high street shops. Another p policy Andy Burnham adopted. another dodgy business opening where something useful used to be. It's just not on and I am doing something about it. And it's interesting because there are also ideas that are core to Andy Bernham that Kier Star's team had begun to work on as well like this one fiscal devolution document said we need radical program giving tax and spend powers to may obviously something Andy Bernham would have done without this document but team star were clearly interested in the Burnhamesque agenda before he was even an MP. Of the 50 ideas Sky News looked at from the document, six have so far been taken up by Burnham and more are likely to be announced in the coming months. Bernham is expected to approve the controversial Jack Door North Sea gas field in the coming weeks, though any announcement has been delayed until after the upcoming Hoburn and St. Pancress bi-election. The document also gives a hint as to how the government could try to sweeten that controversial move. The leak states that the government would do this. Ensure more of the energy produced in the North Sea is used domestically. Link L sea revenues to investments in green energy and reducing energy bills. Invest heavily in insulating homes across Britain. I mean, none of those are actually bad ideas if they were to drill. It's a question of drilling, which is the which is the the real thing. But it shouldn't really be surprising that there are similarities between Star's reboot campaign and Bernham's policy agenda. Many of Star's advisers still work in number 10 while prominent figures from that government like Ed Milliband and Shabban Mammud remain in the cabinet today. But it could be damaging to Burnham I guess if the idea that he is the same as Star Mate holds some something his opponents know only too well. Reform UK's Treasury spokesperson Robert Genrich responded to the leak by saying this. Andy Bernham really is just Kstama with a Tik Tok account. Meanwhile, Green Party Deputy Leader Rachel Milwood called back to John Healey's comments that the government represented continuity, saying this. The Chancellor was on to something when he said this was a continuity government with a new leader. Benzea, I mean, this is one of those stories where I'm like, is it a story or is it a non-story really? Because, you know, obviously you come into government, it's still a Labor government. There's been a lot of work done on some policies. Um, and you just come in and you you pick the ones you like and you claim you claim credit for them. Is this a is this is this a big deal? >> Um I I I think it I think it is and it isn't. I mean I feel like we're we've been doing this for the last several weeks where we're basically waiting for this budget to turn up, right? Like we're kind of waiting before we make any big assessment about what is burnerism, what is Manchesterism, all this stuff. You know, I think we're kind of holding back a bit. I think there is a story here and to be fair like most it hasn't really got much traction this report. I didn't see much reporting about this actually at all and a lot of the reporting has actually been more on the the other part of the leak which was to do with the kind of last ditch attempt for Star's career to be saved. Um not so much on this overlap between K star and and Andy Bernham. I mean it it says something which I think we've talked about a lot already which is that Andy Burnham probably isn't K star 2.0. It's not continuity star exactly but at the same time he's still working within a lot of the same constraints um that limits the uh change or the kind of transformative nature that may be possible with with a burn of government right I think one of the key differences that we've seen in terms of burn versus star has been prioritization how is he going to prioritize certain policies getting those cost of living things right at the top of the agenda he wasted no time in doing that he dripfed them very deliberately as well him and his team and then the tempo and the speed of it as well and the the choices around that. Um, I think Bernham, he's going to be a more interventionist prime minister economically. I think that's probably what's likely going to happen. He's got a bit of what I would call I hope it doesn't sound weird, but like a productivity fetish, you know, like he's very he's very focused on like how do we create jobs? How do we get people back into work? And all of those things are very important, but he's also still at the same time very committed to like the fiscal rules. It sounds like the indication that was given or the signal that was given when he chose Jonathan Healey instead of um Ed Milliband um which suggested it was about you know there was fear still about making sure you reassure bond markets you keep to those fiscal rules maybe there'll be an injection in defense those types of things. >> I was going to say I mean he is bound by them right because he's bound by the manifesto and they're in the manifesto. I mean obviously they're open to interpretation and um maneuvers in various ways. is I mean Rachel Reeves herself changed the definitions to allow more borrowing to happen um in one of in I think the second budget. Um but yes I yeah I see what I I I take what you know he does have he does look like he's taking a significantly different direction in actually making interventions that are going to be felt by people. He had this announcement yesterday about um committing to meeting uh net zero by 2050. Uh so he really came out and said that but it's the way he sort of planned it out is by interventions made at comm community like funds available at the levels of various communities to kind of build their own like green infrastructure green green projects a billion eventually only 30 million announced yesterday so so no not that much I mean one thing that's very different is the messaging right so you can have all the best policies in the world but if your messaging is bad as karmas was constantly bad nobody buys it right but people seem to be giving Andy Bernham a lot more grace I think because he is kind of a compelling a compelling speaker a compelling figure in in in a communicator. >> You know the bar was low right which is helpful for him. Um you know so some of it is cal some of it is about his ability to just be a bit more of a natural person and a more believable person as well. Um but you know there was also a poll I think that Sky News did it off the back of that report as well where they did say um it looked like that most wider voters do still think there's more of a continuation between Bernham Bernham and um Stara than a difference and actually the people who bought into the most the idea that there was a difference was apparently Labour voters. So this might be something which is playing very well to his base which is like he needs that you know the base was hemorrhaged so you you need to build that up and that that is important still for for like you know Burnham's sort of longerterm preservation. Um so yeah there's there's a bit of a mixed picture I think as to how much people think he's continuity versus something genuinely genuinely fresh and new. I I get that about Labor voters, right? That they're the ones who see the biggest difference, right? Or between them. And I think that's because, you know, if you're a Labor voter, what you want is to have a successful Labor government and you for a lot of them couldn't see the last iteration of it as very successful. And so what you what you want to see is a difference from that. Um but I can also see, you know, from the wider public, uh questions of of of, you know, the thought that maybe there's not actually that much distinction because of course they want maybe radically different things from what Labour voters voters want. But the the the budget though is going to be the thing, right? The budget is the thing we're all waiting for. It's uh what I mean, what are you expecting to see? You were saying economic interventions a minute ago. >> Yeah. God, I don't know what I'm expecting to see, to be honest. I mean, I think there there's going to be a lot of stuff about young people, I think. Um he seems to have made that a very big focus, I think, uh as part of his his neat I mean I I don't I don't love that phrase. I don't love it either, but >> the neat crisis um which is just the most jargony term which kind of really distills again I don't like it because it does kind of distill what is a very complex load of issues happening with young people well before they get to the stage where they're going to be um going on to further education or training or you know or getting a job or anything like that. There's lots of complicated things happening for young people well before that you know in school and and all kinds of things like that as well. But I I do think we're going to see more interventionism. I do think there's going to be a bit more money behind certain initiatives and and the state being ready to do more and I think people want that actually across the political spectrum to a degree. Um but I think he's going to be hemmed in a lot by these fiscal rules if he's going to stick to them. Um, and I think there's going to maybe be a cap on how much interventionism he can really do if really your political project is relying on basically trying to get more economically inactive people back into work so that you have more taxation rather than being able to do something like, let's say, tax the wealthy properly or tinker with borrowing. You know, if you can't use those levers, then you have to go ham on this productivity thing and really hope that it works. Um, and I think there's maybe a cap on on what we can get from just that. >> Yeah. I mean it's a sort of classic kind of the kind of logic of of balancing the books right that like if you can't raise tax you can't borrow you got to cut welfare and and there is a worry I suppose that this stuff about and I'm going to use the term neat just to keep it keep it short this this stuff about needs for young people on on on on benefits and out of work you know there's a positive angle you can which I kind of believe like I actually think it's dreadful for a young person to be you know unless unless they they need to be to be to be out of work. I think it sort of styies so much development as a young adult that happens when you're in work spaces which are in large social spaces and you know there all kinds of things that flow out of that and there you know there are skills that are developed and it gets harder and harder to get into it as you as you as you get older. Um so I think there is you know there is a kind of positive thing to be done there to help people out of out of a situation that they find themselves in that they may not need to be in. Um but I do worry sometimes that the positivity around this is just a disguise for you know welfare cuts which is that you know the other angle of that classic triangle of tax rises borrowing or or welfare cuts. >> Yeah I I completely agree with that. Although the interesting thing about the neat thing is that there's quite a large proportion of those young people who are not on benefits or welfare at all. They're literally just like completely inactive and like they're in this really weird space where it's just like they're they're almost kind of like siphoned off from society and and I don't think the government really knows how to how to deal with those young people who've probably had problems long before they've they've gotten to that stage. >> We should do a deeper dive into this what what what you know who who are these people and what are their conditions that are coming under such focus by by >> Absolutely. I mean Michael Walker loves to talk about smartphones. Smartphones that's why young people are so screwed. The undercover policing inquiry, also known as the spy cops inquiry, has been rolling on for more than a decade. Established by Theresa May in 2015, it was expected to conclude within three years. And while critics have argued that it's all taking far too long for justice for those harmed by undercover police to be delivered, it certainly continues to pro provide very revealing insights into how political groups were historically covertly policed, as well as how they might still be to this day. In a new report, Navar Media's Clare Himer and independent journalist Sam Knight reveal how recent testimony at the hearings has revealed how police might still be authorized to have sex with undercover uh activists, in particular Palestine action activists or others like them. At the center of the story is a man called Roger Pierce. Roger Pierce is a former undercover police officer who during the 1980s embedded undercover with anarchist groups under the pseudonym Roger Thorley. He would go on to become head of Special Branch from 1999 to 2003, the Metropolitan Police Unit that dealt with counterterrorism and police political descent. Special branch was also the home of the Special Demonstration Squad or SDS tasked with infiltrating protest groups. So, if anyone knows how undercover policing works, it's probably Pierce, who has not himself been accused of wrongdoing in this respect. Now, the SDS is one of the main subjects of the inquiry, which has repeatedly revealed how it used grotesque covert techniques to infiltrate perfectly legal groups. They include using the names of dead children and babies to create fake identities. The unit also used intelligence gleaned about construction workers who were also union members to have them blacklisted from jobs. It also surveiled the grieving family of Steven Lawrence, a teenager killed in a racist attack in 1993. And the Met have since admitted that the surveillance was itself racist and that the unit that undertook it committed horrendous abuses. And undercover officers also entered into sexual relationships with members of the public while undercover with some even fathering children. Now, it's very easy to think this kind of manipulative dishonesty is a thing of the past. Indeed, the historic focus of the Spyops inquiry very much gives that impression. But while giving evidence in July this year, Roger Pierce seemed to suggest undercover officers might still be authorized to enter sexual relations for intelligence reasons with activists in some circumstances. While Pierce was keen to point out that while head of special branch, unauthorized sexual relationships while undercover would have been a disciplinary matter for him had they occurred amongst his officers, he also did seem to say that there might be times when they were justified. This is from Navar's report. In a witness statement given in 2013, PICE listed criteria that would need to be considered to determine when, if ever, it would be acceptable for an undercover police officer to engage in a sexual relationship, which included risk to the officer, risk to the operation, and likely intelligence benefits from continuence, especially where serious crime is anticipated. At the hearing in July, Pierce gave this example of what he thought would be an appropriate case for authorizing undercover police officers to have sex with unwitting activists. and he began with a few examples. >> The kind of situation I'm contemplating is intelligence which leads to exposure of most most likely a terrorist attack or for example um a means of getting behind uh the production of a bomb or even a crude anarchist device. um means of entering or infiltrating um activity involving firearms. Now, in cases where there's high risk of extreme harm, um death, injury, I suppose some people might think those rare and extraordinary circumstances could call for actions that wouldn't be allowed under any but the most extreme conditions. Some people might think that perhaps that would be reasonable thing for some people to think. I mean, you may disagree. But then Pierce went on to give an another example which seemed less extreme. >> A means of infiltrating activity involving for example a breach of military bases with an intention to con inflict serious economic damage on as we've seen recently on aircraft. I'm contemplating for example breach of a factory making a particular product to damage equipment in that factory and going equipped with for example sledgehammers with which you may injure a police officer. So I'm I'm contemplating what might might produce the grounds for me to grant authorization, but I'm using existing examples which we've seen reported recently or fairly recently as the kinds of things which might justify that authorization. >> Now that's obviously a reference to an action at Bryce Norton Air Base last year alleged to be have been carried out by Palestine Action in in June of 2025. Five defendants in the case plead not guilty to damaging property and the crime the charge of and it's a long one entering a prohibited place for a purpose prejuditial to the safety andor interests of the UK. Uh they pled not guilty to both those charges in January this year. And there was also a very clear reference to the case of an Elbert Systems break-in in August of 2024 for which four Palestine ACT activists action activists rather were found guilty of criminal damage with one of them also found guilty of grievous bodily harm though without intent. So would the police authorize co covert cops to have sex with activists in those circumstances? Clare and Sam try to find out reporting this. A spokesperson for the Met told Navara Media, "We are aware of these comments. However, this PIC's interpretation of the guidance is inaccurate and we rebut this. The conduct described would not be authorized and having a sexual relationship is not an undercover policing tactic. This is covered in the College of Policing authorized professional practice." The College of Policing however appeared to provide a different answer with a report saying this. When approached by Navara Media, the College of Policing insisted its current guidance was clear that sex must not be used as an undercover policing tactic, nor should it be authorized as a means of gaining intelligence, and that contrary to Pierce's comments, the guidance does not provide a route to authorize such a relationship. The guidance does however suggest that having sex while undercover could be justified if an officer perceives an immediate threat to themselves and or others if they were not to do so. Navara approached Roger Pierce for a comment on his evidence of the inquiry, but he declined and the Met would neither confirm nor deny if undercover officers still operate within political groups. The College of Policing told Navara Media it's current it's currently reviewing its guidance and quote will consider relevant developments including recommendations arising from the under ongoing undercover policing inquiry. Others though are not convinced. In 2003, Kate Wilson was tricked into a relationship with undercover officer Mark Kennedy, who posed as an environmental campaigner under the alias Mark Stone. In her mid20s at the time, Wilson dated Kennedy for 16 months, and the pair even moved in together. She is now a campaigner with group Police Spies Out of Lives, and she was shocked by Pierce's remarks, telling Navar Media this. We've established that there was a completely rotten culture that existed in Roger Pierce's day. His comments suggest that culture was perpetuated and may well still exist today. The fact that he was linking what happened in the SDS to what is happening in the activist world today is really important. Earlier today, I was joined by Navar Media's Clare Heimer, one of the authors of this report and also our head of articles. I began by asking her what she made of the idea that a very senior retired head of special branch might think that sex could still be a legitimate legitimate tactic in undercover intelligence gathering. I think it says so many things. I guess the first being that it actually points to how the police's own guidance on this is really quite unclear. Uh on the one hand, the police, the College of Policing specifically seems to say it's never acceptable for an undercover officer to engage in a sexual relationship um as a tactic. And then yet at the same time, it also suggests oh actually there might be some instances in which that is okay. And I think Roger Pierce bringing up Palestine action uh in the undercover policing inquiry as an example or specific Palestine action actions as examples of where he thinks it might be acceptable. I think basically really speaks to the fact that to be honest there isn't there aren't you know even to this day even after everything we found out from the undercover police inquiry hard and fast rules about that definitely not being okay to have sex with activists as one of the campaigners that I spoke to for this piece told me it does kind of suggest that the really really um rotten culture which existed in his time um aspects of that could still be playing out So, in the leadup to his using uh two Palestine action cases as an example of when perhaps um sex as a as a tactic, an undercover tactic could be used. He and and the examples he refers to obviously the the Bri Norton uh breakin u where uh is alleged to have been by Palestine Action. Five people have been charged but they have denied those charges. Um and uh the Filton uh case, the break-in at the Elbert Systems factory in in in Filton. Um he uses those examples which are primarily about property damage. Right. There was one person injured at Filton, but the jury found a person who did it uh guilty of grievous bodily harm, but not guilty of the with the greater charge of grievous bodily harm with intent. Um so so those are cases which are you might say you might think largely concerned with criminal damage but in the run-up he talks about other kinds of cases. He talks about cases involving stopping the building of a bomb clearly aimed at harming people stopping crimes involving firearms clearly aimed at harming or threatening harm to people. Um why is it do you think he included these cases and and went into such detail about about them being actual cases where the tactic might be might be appropriate? He's drawing this link between things which to most of us we might think these things aren't in any way of the same severity. Uh you know a terrorist attack which kills people versus some people smashing up a factory which itself is creating products which are killing people. Um, I think this basically just really clearly shows Roger Pierce's own political motivations and probably sheds quite a lot of light on the political motivations of uh quite a lot of the police force um and what is um what is perceived as a priority in terms of what police should be spending their time doing. Obviously, we can't read his his mind, but it also seems to be very much in step with the idea that the government is also thinking of terrorism um as involving thing now clearly is involving things like like property damage um in a way that I guess might license police to treat it the same as things like building a bomb when it comes to sex and other covert techniques being used as as as undercover tactics. We're sold this idea that we don't have political policing in this country and that um you know our police isn't the same as in some like super authoritarian state but that's just simply not the case and policing is of course influenced by the priorities of government and uh I think this is as clear an example as we're going to get of that. >> Roger Pierce has now gone on to become an author. How has his time as head of special branch and before that an undercover police officer himself? How has that affected his literature? >> Roger Pierce as a novelist markets himself as you know the former commander special branch um someone who has experience of being a spy himself. And it's it's very much a selling point for his spy novels that he's really drawing on that experience and what it was like uh to you know create this realistic realistic fictional world. Um it is quite wild some of the some of the things that he says in his book. you know, he has this a character describes um a uh undercover police officer as someone who's, you know, for queen and country, which is obviously a crazy thing to say. It's this crazy situation where, you know, um so many of these women who were deceived by officers haven't got the justice that they've they've wanted and really, you know, understanding what's happened. And then here's this guy, you know, he leaves the force years ago. He's published multiple spy books um drawing on his experience in his time as um as spy cop and head of special branch um you know marketing himself you know in in this quite sexy way and it's just um it just feels like this incredibly bizarre situation um and must feel incredibly cruel for people who've been directly impacted by this. I should say that there have been absolutely no allegations about Roger Pierce himself as an undercover officer um using using sex as as a tactic nor as um authorizing um or managing officers who who used it as a tactic while he was head of special branch. Now in your article you have like quite a lot of back and forth with uh police federation I think on their handbook of of of undercover policing like how how enlightening did you find that or did it leave you in the dark as well? Yeah, I ended up in this really weird kind of back and forth first with the Met and then the College of Policing. Um, the Met basically saying Roger Pierce is wrong. This kind of thing wouldn't be authorized. Um, and you know, check out the College of Policing Handbook in order to see that. But then you go to the College of Policing Handbook and you know the first sentence in the relevant section says it's never acceptable for an undercover officer to uh engage in a sexual relationship with an activist. And then in the very next paragraph it suggests that actually there might be an exception to this in the case where um the there's a threat to the officer or threat to others which kind of suggests that actually okay there might be some criteria by which um it's being judged whether or not it is appropriate for a police officer to have sex with activists. And so then I went to the college of policing and asked them this and they just kind of insisted and doubled down that like their guidance was clear. It wasn't acceptable and that um uh Roger Piss is kind of wrong to suggest that the guidance lists criteria by which it might be judged for that to be okay. But anyone can go and read it themselves and see that it isn't it's not clearcut. Um, and uh, in a way I wonder if there's space being left open there such that if a police officer did do this, there's a way to potentially make it, you know, not a cut and dry case that they've definitely definitely done something wrong. >> Yeah. I guess it in the case of of um you know it being allowed if they perceive an immediate threat to themselves or to others that's down to the judgment of a police officer of what counts as immediate and what what counts as as a threat. Um and I guess that's something that's only asked about after the event. Right. >> Of course. And also if you just think about also what they're suggesting the suggestion there I guess if you to apply it to Palestine action is the idea that okay in this situation where they're about to like break into an arms factory with a Z hammer some undercover cop is you know we would be authorized and going oh okay actually maybe as a distraction I'm just going to like start having sex with someone to like stop this from happening. It's also quite ludicrous imagining that sit situation playing out in reality. Um almost quite comical. Um, so yeah, it is um it's not at all clear and I wonder if that's potentially deliberate. >> Now, some campaigners, victims of these undercover tactics in the past have sort of complained about how the historical focus of the uh inquiry sort of conceals from view tactics that are perhaps still in use by by the Met Police and and other other squads involved in the in these kinds of undercover operations. Others have complained about the fact that the length of the um inquiry which has gone on for over 10 years now uh is also sort of a way of you know in studying history in this great detail is also a way of denying justice to the victims of those tactics. What what do you make of those two claims? One that it that it conceals current techniques, the other is that it denies denies um victims their their justice. The big thing that campaigners are really worried about at the moment actually is that um the inquiry itself is going to be potentially shut down or at least severely cailed before it actually gets to looking at um more recent cases of undercover policing and how um and misconduct. Um so the home office has is currently running this consultation uh on whether or not to shut it down. They're basically um citing both its length and the cost as potentially a reason a reason to do so. There have been, you know, women who've been waiting since the beginning of the inquiry to learn about how the hell it happened that they were deceived by police officers. They've been promised that the inquiry is going to look into the management of those squads that did that. And now potentially that's not going to happen. Um Iran Khan, the lawyer, wrote um a piece for the Guardian recently um in which he suggests that part of the reason that the inquiry has been um so long and so expensive is because the Met itself has made it such um there've been deliberate obstructions in order to stop things from moving moving quickly. Um and yeah, for for so many of these women, it would just be um absolutely heartbreaking um if if they didn't if they didn't get justice in this way. Um so yes, there's people who are they're calling for a um boycott of the consultation and instead to ask the home office directly, write to the home office directly, asking them to keep the inquiry um so that they can they can hear what they need to hear. That was Navar Media's Clare Heimer speaking to me earlier today and if you want to read her full article, we'll leave a link in the description below. Basea, let me get your take on on this and inquiries in general, right? Like one of the things that really striking about them is they get launched >> uh often long after the dust has settled when you know things, you know, like if you think about the Iraq war inquiry, quite a long time after the war itself, uh this is this is an inquiry that just it's sort of it's looking at a huge stretch of time. Um, and you know, the complaints are often all always the same, which is that it's always retrospective. So, you're never looking forward and at or even at the present and they take so long and it costs so much. This one is looking to be shut down because it's it's taken so long and and costs so much that, you know, we don't actually resolve these issues in the end. And so, for all we know, the police will continue to use these tactics and then there'll be have to be another inquiry in in in in the future. I mean, I know the handbooks say they shouldn't. The Met denies that they do. Um, but I'm sure at the time there were regulations against, you know, forming sexual relationships with people while you, you know, under under false pretenses. Um, I mean, like sexual assault essentially. And, um, yeah, and and the handbook would have said the same, I'm sure. >> Yeah. I mean, it's and it's the the issues and problems that they're so sort of similar like it's very uh cyclical, isn't it? the same types of issues that we get with regards to the way in which the police are uh you know the policing rules operate. Basically this idea of like discretion and the amount of discretion that the state is willing to give to um senior officers or often individual officers even about the ability to be able to make a decision on the basis of what is or isn't an immediate threat. Think about stop and search rates for example. that's highly discretionary and when you you know you give those types of discretionary decisions to individual officers or to senior officers they often abuse it and they don't necessarily abuse it because they are in of themselves horrible people although I will be honest I think there are some horrible individuals who are attracted to the police because of the power it gives them but because of the nature of I think what policing also is right you know the asks of of what it is that the state actually is asking the police to do initially means that I think they are incentivized to often behave in the way in which they're behaving. Even if the state in in in a policy direct policy sense is is prohibiting it or saying that it somewhat prohibits it, the very sort of general o overarching asks of what the state is asking to do to infiltrate you know these these political groups. Why are they doing that for example? You know um that the ask empowers them to behave in this way or inevitably incentivizes them to behave in this manner. So when they've got that gap around discretion and their own ability to make these discretionary calls, there's a lot of room in there. There's a lot of maneuverment in there for them to then end up going down these these very disturbing um dark paths and and and very brutal paths. You know, I think it's a brutal, violent thing, I think, to to have done these things to these women. >> Yeah. Terrible. Really terrible. I mean, I don't understand why the police, excuse me, why the police have the power to covertly monitor perfectly legal groups in many cases. I mean, a lot of these cases are just concerned with, you know, anarchist groups or animal rights groups. And you know, I know obviously if crimes are committed or if there's a suspicion that a crime, that's a different story. But these are just, you know, groups writing pamphlets and, you know, all kinds of, you know, perfectly legitimate legal things to do. I mean, yeah, less infiltrating political groups. More stopping cyclists going through red traffic lights, please. It's going to be controversial, but really, >> yeah. Um, >> yeah. No, I was I was just going to say like your colleague um CLA mentioned as well, you know, um this idea of uh Oh, it's got my head now because you've talked about cyclist. sorry disappeared. All I can think of is someone running through a running through a red light on a on on a on a bike. Um but yes, sorry. The the the way in which the state is very much directing sorry police and the way in which policing is a function of of the state and and the fact that the state has this issue and problem with um Palestine action with um any kind of disscent around um Palestine and around the genocide that's going on there. You know, that's a direct reflection then in in what's occurring in in in the way in which the police behave, which then means that they do end up doing these ever more increasingly extreme things to justify, you know, justify what the state is directing them and telling them to do >> completely. After a summer dominated by scandals over the party's donations, it seems reform politicians still haven't settled on a way to discuss the issue. On question time last night, Danny Krueger MP was ridiculed for suggesting that the two crypto billionaires who gave reform 72 million pounds last week had done an admirable thing and would get nothing in return. And I think it's an admirable thing that these two men who will get nothing for it. No period, no policy, they're not getting anything for it. >> They're not there's absolutely nothing in it for them. And as I say, they are British voters registered here, British citizens who've made their money. They've been passed by the Electoral Commission as permitted donors to political parties. So, I'm afraid it's absolutely great that they've done so because they've given reform a chance to stand up against the established parties. And that's what's good. That's what's good. >> Yeah. People are always giving away money for absolutely no reason. Uh not to burnish their reputations, not to have political influence on the country. Yes. For just they just wanted to give away. If if that was the case, why not give it to the Greens? Why not give it to the RSPCA? No, there's obviously a reason why they're giving it to reform. I mean that is just so obvious. Those colossal donations from until recently offshore based Ben Deloo and Christopher Harborn have strengthened calls for changes to political party funding and Labour is planning to tighten rules limiting the amount of money people can people living outside the UK can give in donations to a maximum of £100,000. That's not in response to those donations by the way. It's part of the representation of the people bill which has been rolling through parliament for a while. Meanwhile, Nigel Farage has seen his popularity dwindle after a series of high-profile donor scandals. Just a few weeks ago, an undercover report by Channel 4 News and verbatim investigations captured Farage's senior aids discussing ways to bypass UK electoral laws for foreign donations. At the meeting, Farage celebrated secret foreign donations made by an undercover journalist for a series of reformfriendly opinion polls published by a UK newspaper. >> I've been working with with James, with Dan for uh for ages now. I was really really excited about this meeting. I think we can properly, you know, kickstart the the next phase of our of our support. It's it's it is really a pleasure to introduce you both >> and and and that's what we're interested in talking about is the next phase of our support for the party. >> Okay. I um run an American family office and I haven't been able to donate directly to this up to this point, but I was thrilled to be able to pick up the tab for the polls that you had commissioned. That was great. >> It was And the third poll, >> it worked. Boom. >> Right. When I saw the third poll on the front page of the Times because William sent it to me, I thought, well, all right. These are people who know how to spend the right money. And that's what I want to see. >> Bang for bang. >> That's exactly >> boom. Bang for buck. James or the party's head of policy and Danuk's a close aid to Farage both resigned as a result of that film. The Met police are investigating allegations the party broke foreign funding rules. Still, donations to reform have rolled in. Labour was said to have been panicked by Delo and Harborn's gifts last week with one MP quoted in a new statesman saying this. This money just fundamentally alters our chances of stopping reform. Writing in the Guardian, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown also called for a cap on donations, saying this. Nearly half of voters with few objecting say they would view a party more favorably if it introduced a limit on political donations. Brown's comments appear to be endorsed by the majority of last night's questiontime audience who welcomed a suggestion for public funding for political parties. >> You know how many people will give a pound a year in order to preserve and protect our democracy? >> Well, let's find out. Take your hands down for a minute. Put them back up here. Who here would like who would would like to see and would support state funding? Are you paying for political parties? >> Yay. >> A lot a lot of you Sbury. >> All right. That's very interesting. >> At least one outlet has taken a contrarian view on this issue. However, The Economist carried an article this week with this headline. British political parties are impoverished according to the magazine which noted this. Last year, the donkey sanctuary, a charity in Devon that cares for down on their luck equipped more than every major political party combined. The economist also argued this. Britain seem to assume that any donation must be corrupt. But if giving to political parties is stigmatized as spivy, only spiv. Pekka, what do you think of this? Publicly funded donations or as publicly fund public funds for political parties or as the economist says there actually we want much more in the way of big money in politics. >> Yeah. What was it like that Lenin quote about uh The Economist? Is it It's a journal for British millionaires or something which feels very atmosphere I'm afraid. Um you know I'm I'm incredibly worried though about the the amount of of big money kind of flooding into politics. I don't know if reform are taking on a lot at the moment because they're worried about the impending um legislation that could be coming which could cap. So they're trying to make hay maybe potentially while the while the the sun is shining. But it's an it's these are absurd amounts of money. absolutely absurd. And I think you've just got to be living in a total dream world to believe that if you've donated, you know, multi-millions to a political party that somehow, you know, your influence is the same as as an ordinary member of that party who makes a small donation or or somebody who casts their vote for for the party once every few years. I mean, it's just, you know, it's just totally totally absurd. I think they've really failed reform to figure out the coms on this and to figure out h how do we explain this? How do we make this make sense? There's an argument to say that there's a large proportion of their base that maybe don't care too much, but they're trying to build beyond their base. You're trying to build a, you know, get the numbers up to to win an election and win one confidently. And I think this is really getting in the way of that. You know, initially when when some of this stuff was starting to really come to a head, initially Nigel Farage was saying things like, you know, I need it for my security. Then it was I got it for Brexit. Then it was actually nobody cares um about this. And now it's now it's good now. Now now the line is actually these donations are really good and these are very patriotic people and they're they're giving, you know, money uh from the from the goodness of their heart to save this country. And I I I think they are struggling to figure out what the comm's line consistently is on this because this isn't going away and this isn't something I think they've been used to. Particularly Nigel Farage, no matter how much he likes to moan about how the media's treated him very horribly or whatever, he's had a very uh transactional, mutually beneficial uh relationship with the media for a long time. The media's loved him because he's an interesting, novel, bizarre, eccentric guy who entered what was very dry, boring British politics and he shook things up. You know, he created headlines. He's a divisive figure. People love him, people hate him, and even the people who hate him still want to click on the article to read about this man who who they don't like. So the media for a long time has really enjoyed Nigel Farage and Nigel Farage has enjoyed a good time with the media as well. But this story around the donations, it's not going away. Even the likes of Nick Ferrari from LBC, people who he would regard as not hostile media are questioning him a lot on this as well. And I'm I don't know what they're going to do about it. I don't think this is going to just disappear. >> Yeah. I think I think a feature of reform that is going to be its downfall unless it pulls itself together is that it still has the mentality of a small party, >> right? >> So all it wants to do is grab headlines. All it wants to do is get attention and it doesn't understand that every time you generate a headline, people will have opinions about it and those opinions will determine whether or not they're drawn to your party or not. Now, as you say, it's got a base. It's got a base that's pretty loyal, but it needs to attract more people to it, not from within that base, but from other parties. And those headlines are just as repulsive as they to to to many supporters of other parties. The idea of billions of sorry, of millions of of pounds being given by billionaires uh to a political party that could take government uh is pretty repulsive to a lot of people who aren't already supporting uh reform. Pretty pretty worrying. And it's this inability to sort of think about building a broader base, uh, but rather constantly pitching itself as like the little, you know, little rebel party that could, uh, the party that's going to be like totally different from all of the other parties and then taking this money and looking not totally different at all, looking worse in many ways, um, to to parties that that that take big donations. I don't know if it's hubris, you know, for a long time getting quite comfortable with K star who's this kind of disaster prime minister, deeply unpopular and, you know, I think they've done a number of things, not just the donation stuff. They've done a number of things. I would say quite prematurely. You know, sometimes they come out with things I think to myself that's that's quite overly draconian for a party that hasn't yet won power. There was a period of time a couple of months ago where Zia Ysef was talking about locking up political opponents. It's like, I think you're meant to say that after you've won power. Uh, you're going to threaten to throw people in the goolags after you won power. Not before. >> Yeah, absolutely. Okay, Benteke, let's leave it there. We end on a reform note. Thank you so much for joining me tonight. >> Thanks for having me. Always a pleasure. >> Um, thank you everyone for tuning in. Come back on Monday for another show from 6 p.m. For now, you've been watching Navara Media. Good night.