Netanyahu Wants Full-Scale War In The West Bank | Novara Live

Good evening and welcome to Navara Live. Coming up tonight, 2026 has been the most violent year on record for Palestinians in the West Bank with 76 people having been killed either by settlers or the Israeli military. Karma is stepping down as an MP triggering a bi-election in his constituency of Hoben and St. Pancress. A global backlash to meta smart glasses is growing with some countries pushing for more privacy guardrails on the technology. And the British Museum has treated Peter Theel to a private viewing of the Bayou tapestry. My name is Steven Methan and this evening I'm joined by Michael Walker in what I really think of as the wrong chair. >> The wrong chair. It's wobbly as well. This one that chair slightly higher quality, isn't it? That's how I fixed it when I'm normally there. >> Uh very unusually uh we had a bank holiday yesterday which you don't normally take. Did you make the most of yours? >> Uh I went to Yeah, I did actually. I didn't go to Carnival. I would normally go to Carnival. I went to Body Movements, which is a sort of >> queer techno type thing that uh I mainly went to cuz my partner wanted to go to. I sort of the moment we arrived, I was like, can I find an excuse to leave at 7:00 p.m. But I got into it, stayed till the end. Good time. >> That's the important thing. Um, now, if you'd like to support our work, you can sign up at navardia.com/sport. You can listen to the show on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. And 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 below. So far, 2026 has been the most violent year on record for Palestinians in the West Bank. And this weekend was no different. In Kusra near Nabblas, some 60 settlers tried to take control of the house of a Palestinian family, forcing those inside to hide on the roof. And while the Israeli military turned up, they simply ordered the settlers to disperse, making zero arrests. Earlier this month, the entire village spent three weeks under siege by settlers. once again with Israeli military simply standing by or according to some reports actively beating Palestinian villages and refusing to allow them to leave to seek medical attention. And one 17-year-old Palestinian boy was killed after a settler shot him in the chest for challenging that siege. On Monday, the Israeli military were more directly involved using heavy equipment to destroy homes in Bersite near Ramla. And when Palestinian journalists turned up to report on the demolition, they were attacked by an Israeli settler too. Also on Monday, two further residential buildings were torn down by the Israeli military in the West Bank town of Nablas. And it was in a village near Nablas that NBC News journalists as well as the Palestinian woman they were interviewing came under attack on Saturday. >> We were interviewing a Palestinian woman yesterday named Aaya Ahmed Abdullah. Her home in the West Bank now occupied by Israeli settlers. She says she dies a hundred times a day watching this scene. As Aida took us closer to her home, masked young men in a gray car with Israeli license plates armed with sticks and stones rushed on the scene. >> They smashed our car windshield, hit our crew with clubs, and beat Ayda unconscious. Are you okay? You sound like We were able to get her to an ambulance, and our team was treated for minor injury. In the eight months of 2026 so far, 76 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank by settlers or Israeli forces, 18 of them children. In that same period, over three and a half thousand Palestinians have been displaced by nearly 1,500 settler attacks across the territory. Meanwhile, the government of Israel is stop is stoking the widespread violence. Since the start of the year, Israeli authorities have approved more than 12,000 housing units in the occupied West Bank. It's also assigned significant resources to settlement expansion, including over $430 million to support 34 new settlements. That's according to the United Nations. Two weeks ago, Israel put out tenders for the construction of over,200 homes in the so-called E1 settlement in the West Bank East of Jerusalem. Eventually, 3,600 houses will be built uh for its settlers in an illegal development that will double the size of an existing settlement nearby, separate the north of the West Bank from the south, and further isolate annex East Jerusalem from the other Palestinian territories. For many Palestinians, that break up of the territory into disconnected parts, spells the end of any realistic prospect of a Palestinian state, one that's joined together, that looks like a state rather than patches spread all over the place. That announcement led to clashes between UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miband and Israel after Miliband promised to impose a quote comprehensive set of measures on Israeli settlements. In response to that threat, Israel's foreign minister Gideon Sar said this. The Jewish people have the right to live throughout the land of Israel just as the British have the right to live in London and throughout the United Kingdom. Over 100 years ago, the Balffor Declaration officially recognized the historic right of the Jewish people to reestablish their national home in the land of Israel, including the area in question. Actually, the Balfur Declaration gives Jewish people a right to make a home in Palestine and only on condition that doing so doesn't quote prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Uh, so that's been completely bent in the intervening 100 years. This week, EU and British ministers will meet in Ireland to discuss how to tackle Israeli settlers in the West Bank. And Ireland, which now holds the EU presidency, has been pushing for a blockwide embargo on goods imported from settlements. Now, in July, Ireland became the first European country to impose sanctions on goods, though not on services imported from Israeli settlements. Critics of that carveout, critics rather, of that carveout say it leaves around 70% of imports from Israeli settlements intact. But others say the very idea of British or European sanctions on the settlements will be impossible. Labour Friends of Israel has opposed sanctions on Israeli settlements on many grounds, including this one. A boycott of all trade with settlements is practically and politically impossible. It would affect all Israeli businesses operating in the settlement blocks as well as East Jerusalem and the old city where major Israeli businesses like Bank Capoleum and Teor operate and where the touris tourism sector is critical for Israeli and Palestinian workers. There is a risk that international financial actors overcomply with sanctions nominally targeting settlements adversely affecting Israelis living within the state's border. Ahead of the EU meeting on the settlements this week, Will Rosenberg, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, told the Times this condemns violence by extremist settlers, but we have significant concerns about unintended consequences. We've also stressed to the government that any approach to the conflict that focuses narrowly on the actions of the Israeli government and doesn't sufficiently address the actions and responsibility of Palestinian leaders fuels a climate of hatred not only towards Israel but towards British Jews. So don't sanction the settlements because it's not possible and don't sanction the Israeli government without you know what addressing Palestinian leaders role in the existence of the settlements. Never mind that nothing suggested by the EU or Britain even suggests their measures will focus on the actions of the Israeli government. That's despite extensive evidence from Human Rights Watch showing how the Israeli state provides legal, material, and financial backing to the violence. The British public, however, is broadly in favor of sanctions. Polling carried out by Yugov last week found that half of those asked either strongly or somewhat support a trade ban on West Bank settlements. Just 16% of them strongly or somewhat opposed the idea. I'm joined now by Tom Gher, a campaigner at Amni International, who's been working on how the UK could most effectively apply a trade ban on Israeli settlements. Tom, welcome to the show. Let me start by asking you uh about the work you've been doing. What what do you what does Amnes International UK think think a an effective trade ban on Israeli settlements would have to look like? >> Yeah. Okay. Well, firstly, thank you so much for having me on. Um, and thank you for doing this section uh looking at the impact of settler violence and settlement expansion uh in the West Bank, which is a blight on the lives of the 3 million Palestinians living there. Um, yeah, we've been doing some work in recent times looking at how the government can implement an effective settlement trade ban. Um because as you've seen various organizations have tried to argue that such a ban is is impossible or somehow unworkable which is uh to be frank a total nonsense. Um in our uh opinion any ban on settlement trade needs to be as comprehensive as possible. So it needs to cover both imports and exports, trade in goods, trade in services and also business investments that support the settlements. So that's the first point. Uh the second point is that this isn't some radical policy that involves completely reinventing the wheel. Uh the UK is experienced at uh introducing trade pro prohibitions. Uh for example, since 2022, it's introduced a range of measures targeting uh goods and services in uh uh in Russia and also uh trade with non-governmentc controlled areas of Ukraine. uh and those uh those measures are something that are instructive as to how to in uh implement an effective prohibition on trade with Israeli settlements. Um and there's also been activity at the European level as well that the UK government can learn from. Uh so one of the first governments that introduced a ban on trade with settlements was the government of Spain. Uh they did so last year and some of the actions they've taken have already borne fruit. I mean they um they ordered the likes of Airbnb and Booking.com and various tourism rental companies to remove adverts for holiday lets and settlements from their platforms in Spain which the companies promptly did. So uh there's proof that this works. It's been it's been done before. Uh and the time to act is now. And so would a trade ban for example on goods coming out of the out of the settlements involve any goods coming out of Israel that involves some component that comes out of the settlements. So for example, olive oil that comes from Israel but is in fact using as part of a larger, you know, larger um stock of olives, olives from Palestinian groves or services, for example, where some component is, I don't know, the administration is done somewhere in in the in in the settlements, but the actual delivery, marketing, business, whatever is, I don't know, in in in Jerusalem, for example. >> Yeah, absolutely. And that's what we've set out in our briefing today. So any ban needs to be as comprehensive as possible and it certainly needs to include any goods that are produced with say inputs from settlements or products from settlements. So for example, you have um in fact this has been laid out in a report recently that looks at things like uh wine produced in Israel using settlements that have been sorry using grapes that have been grown in settlements or uh tahini produced in Israel using sesame seeds that have been uh processed in in the settlements. So for a settlement trade ban to be meaningful, it has to cover all of that. Otherwise, it's not worth the paper that it's written on. So absolutely, that's that's one of the main things we've been arguing. Uh and with services, it's it's one thing to prohibit the procurement of services from companies operating in settlements or benefiting settlements. Um but it's also important to remember that the settlements rely on a vast services industry uh that companies around the world participate in. Um and in fact you've seen recently the government warned British companies not to bid for tenders to take part in the construction of the E1 project. Um so they're warning against it but they're not banning such activity and that's what we're calling for. >> I see. Now I mean one question that I kind of raised in in in the piece that you've just heard is is the distinction which some people I mean I guess including me um which is made between the state of Israel and settlers or the activity of settling um in greater parts of the of of the West Bank and then at a kind of accelerating uh pace. Now you might think that distinction it seems kind of artificial. So why not just sanction Israel, especially if for example you're going to in a deacto kind of way um be limiting the kinds of goods that Israel can export anyway from from from itself if it contains components that involve um Westbank settlements. uh you've touched on an important point and I could see the um the segment you put up before this and it remind if your Instagram feed is anything like mine every time I open it I've bombarded with videos of settlers rampaging across the West Bank attacking uh Palestinian communities ethnically cleansing Palestinian communities um attacking international activists who are there for their protection. And in all of these videos, you can see the Israeli army standing by and either allowing the settlers to do as they please or in some cases proactively taking part in the violence themselves. And that's why it's really important to recognize that these settlers are not there by some accident. They're not, you know, a handful of extremists, uh, as has often been argued by, uh, many, including me, uh, you know, members of this government who have in the past sanctioned individual settlers or individual settler outposts. Um, it has to be recognized that these settlers are there and they are part of a statebacked ethnically uh, campaign to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from the West Bank. That's that's what they're doing there. That's why they're there. Um, and that's why the sort of peace meal approach of sanctioning individuals is is woefully inadequate. Um, and that's why we're calling on the on a total ban on trade with settlements. I mean, that policy recognizes that this is a this is a state responsibility. This is Israel that's doing this, not individual settlers. Uh and in fact, if you look two years ago to the ruling by the International Court of Justice that found unambiguously that Israel's occupation of Palestine is unlawful, uh one of the things the court uh made clear is that it directed states, including the UK, to end any trade or investment relations that maintain and reinforce this illegal situation. And so it's clear to us that the court is is calling on states to to end trade with settlements. And that's what that's what we're campaigning for. It's we're very clear it's a matter of state responsibility. Uh and it's part of a wider um package of measures really that is needed to ensure Israel is held accountable for its repeated flagrant violations of international law and human rights abuses of Palestinians. >> I just I just have a kind of technical question I've just like just come to me about about the nature of like the settlement economy. So um you know what is what is the size of it as a as an economy e economy rather that would be impacted by um a tra a trade ban or is it the case that the Israeli state for example provides quite a lot in financial and economic support to those settlements so that you know a trade a trade ban against them won't have the kind of impact that one might expect. I mean the two economies are quite integrated and that is a deliberate policy. Uh that that is deliberate and that's something Israel's done over the years to basically make it difficult to to disentangle the two two economies and to try to I guess stake their you know make make it impossible to make it as difficult as possible to to end the occupation. Uh that being said, there was some research done by a UN body a few years ago that estimated that the Israeli settlement economy has benefited the Israeli economy over the course of I think it was about 10 years $50 billion and cost the Palestinian economy um $30 billion or those figures may be the other way around off the top of my head. But the the sums are vast and the settlements not only uh uh benefiting to Israel's economy but they are and this is the words of the UN they're accelerating a process of economic development in the West Bank because and this is something Amnesty has documented uh for for years decades Israel has been committing the crime against crime against humanity of apartheide against Palestinians and that is enacting a bunch of different policy measures that systematically deprive Palestinians of their basic rights for the benefit of Israelis and in the case of the West Bank, the the settlers living there. Um, and so Palestinians have to navigate a network of hundreds of checkpoints. Uh, they have land resources like water taken away from them and given to the settlers. And so this has essentially killed the Palestinian economy and is benefiting the settlement economy. Um, and that's why this ban is so important because trade in goods, services, whatever it is, with Israeli settlements is essentially legitimizing a system of apartheid and making it profitable and so incentivizing for it to continue. >> Yeah, I think that's a really important point that's sometimes gets overlooked is that every dollar made in an Israeli settlement is a dollar at least stolen from Palestinians um who could have used that land that they no longer have productively. And it also of course forces Palestinians into smaller and smaller areas where there's less like productive capacity. Um, okay. So you've said what you would like to see Ed Milliban do when he when he unveils whatever kind of sanction regime, trade ban regime he he's got up his sleeve, but what do you actually expect is going to happen? >> It's it's hard to say, isn't it? Because to any sort of logical observer, reasonable observer who cares about human rights, uh who sees what's going on in Palestine, uh you know, it beggars belief that this action wasn't taken years ago and that much stronger actions weren't taken uh as well. So, it's very difficult for me to get into the mind of a minister in the UK government who's, you know, still kind of proaricating over this. Um, for what it's worth, a couple of months ago in July, the then trade minister Chris Bryant appeared before the business and trade for for House of Commons Committee uh, and said that they were actively looking at introducing a ban and said that a ban should be as comprehensive as possible encompassing both imports and exports of goods and services. So, at a bare minimum, that's what we expect. And one of the reasons we produced the briefing that we did today was to lay out in detail uh the sort of metrics by which we will uh assess the government's policy. Um so it's not enough just to ban the import of goods or to just focus on goods. Um it needs to be totally comprehensive and it needs to use the full range of measures that the UK has and has used in the past to enforce uh trade trade prohibitions. >> Tom Good, thank you very much for joining me tonight. >> Thank you. Now, Israeli Kesset elections will take place in late October and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may find himself knocked out of power. Polling released today shows that no block, whether pro or anti-Netanyahu is on course to gain the 61 seats needed for a majority yet, though the anti-Netanyahu block leads in seats. It's worth noting that that block doesn't exactly represent a profound change in direction with its leader Gaddi Eisenkot rather saying the two-state solution is delusional while also backing some Israeli settlements namely those near to Israel's borders. The Guardian reported last month that recent settle attacks are exhibiting a new pattern shifting focus to areas of the West Bank under direct Palestinian rule. In 1995, areas A and B of the West Bank, those marked in dark and medium purple, were placed under direct Palestinian control by the Oslo Accords. Area C in light purple was placed under temporary Israeli control, though the country has never relinquished it. Until 2024, most settlements took place in area C. But since then, settlers have increasingly violently encroached in areas B and A, gaining what's described as a foothold in strategically important Palestinian areas controlled more or less depending on whether it's B or A by the Palestinian Authority. But strategic for exactly who. Israeli newspaper Harets published an editorial on the settlements this morning and it includes this. Ahead of the election and given that the Americans are restricting Israel's moves on the Iranian front in Gaza and in Lebanon, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government has been left with no other arena than the West Bank, which it can set on fire. Indeed, it appears that the efforts of many cabinet members headed by Netanyahu are focused on precisely such an objective, to make the situation in the occupied territories worse, as if no one can see you. In his surprise visit to the Israel Defense Forc's central command headquarters last week, the prime minister asked to see an IDF plan for a scenario in which rifles are turned against them. This is a situation in which a rapid escalation takes place where for the first time since Operation Defensive Shield in 2002, Palestinian Authority forces actively participate in fighting the IDF. This is definitely worrisome, but Netanyahu's demand was not innocent. In fact, it sounded more like a wish aimed at setting fire to the area in an attempt to push the Palestinians into turning their guns around and in the hope of turning around unfavorable opinion polls. The the scenario of turned guns is all the government of of Kahanists and settlers wish for. It will allow them to collapse the Palestinian Authority to take over more territory and to deepen the ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. It was reported on Monday that the IDF had warned Netanyahu and the security cabinet that there is a growing risk that the Palestinians were organized to shoot back at settlers. Michael, does this potentially look like a playbook from the Israeli government, which is now familiar, uh extend the war to new areas in order to keep that government in in power? >> Yeah. I mean, I think in terms of Netanyahu's particular playbook, he wants chaos to stay in power. Um, I mean, in terms of what are the hopes for the Palestinian people, um, I I don't think change is going to come from within Israel. So, sort of when you see kind of some liberals online sort of suggesting, you know, the left aren't keeping up with Israeli politics. Netanyahu is on the ropes. There could be a really progressive government in power. As you say, those people also think that a two-state solution is is is out of the question. So, the only thing that will change Israeli policy is outside pressure. I would like to see a sort of sanctions regime similar to the one that we saw against the South Africans. I do think what's interesting though also is the frame that Harets are giving there which is that Netanyahu wants people to fight back right he wants what's very helpful for him is a very militant Palestinian movement and this is why in a way I sometimes have little truck for I suppose the flirtation with sort of not necessarily Hamas as an organization but kind of militant radicalism that you sometimes see on the left because I think for me the only possibility of any kind of halfdecent outcome in Palist is is basically you have massive overwhelming international pressure and then you have some kind of agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis, right? So so I I feel like sometimes people are like no fight back you know everything is justified. Everything in a way is justified, right? If if you're people under occupation, you can definitely fight back against an army. But is it strategic? Is it wise? Who knows? Now obviously this is a side issue sort of as people in the west. What we have to focus on is pressuring our government to do what they can do which is put real pressure not fake pressure not sort of you know sanctioning some settlers which no one gives a [ __ ] about. Right? If if you want to change Israeli policy you have to target the Israeli government which means sanctioning the whole of Israel um because they are behaving in a way which clearly sort of according to historical precedent warrants that. >> Yeah. on the idea of resistance. I mean you talked about the sanctions in South Africa. I mean of course the ANC did have an armed wing on contest way which was you know doing operate resistance operations in South Africa and you know it's it's very hard to assess you know the effectiveness of of of those. I mean certainly uh they were intimidating maybe to to some some white South Africans and it maybe like worried them a bit but it also maybe gave hope to black South Africans that actually they weren't helpless and they weren't sort of just there to be persecuted, prosecuted and killed. Um I mean I take your point about the the the the the strategic effects or the or maybe even the foreseeable effects of of like resistance resistance of that of that of that kind. Uh, so for example, they're turning the guns in in in in in the West Bank. But I mean, I think it can also perhaps have a sort of psychological effect that keeps people going that you know, they're not they don't just feel helpless. >> I mean, potentially, which is why Hamas have often had support, right? Because if people look at the moderates and say nothing has changed. It is also the case that the Hamas slightly sort of proactively undermined the Palestinian Authority before or not the the PLO I suppose beforehand and when they were trying to negotiate back in the day. Again, all of this is a distraction. our main argument should be our government should sanction Israel. But I do think it is, you know, I think there's a flirtation with sort of radical militant activism without any compromise, which I don't think necessarily serves the Palestinian movement particularly well. I mean, in terms of I know you know more about the South African example than me, which is why it's always fascinating to discuss it, but some differences there would be that, you know, black South Africans were an overwhelming majority. >> Yeah, that's true. and that meant that sort of compromise in a way was less necessary because they were you know they were the overwhelming majority of people there. Um that's not the case in Israel Palestine. Um also obviously sort of the way that the movement to end aparttheid sort of did come to an end in in South Africa was very much having a charismatic leader who was able to um sort of persuade his people to renounce violence in order to come to some kind of agreement. Right. So, >> but a part of it had to, you know, sort of effectively have ended, but for that to have happened because they had to let him out of jail, right? So, it's already that's already like the transitional moment in 199. The um what what precipitated him being let out of jail in particular? It was the international campaign principally, wasn't it? >> Well, it's also, you know, it's also the the winding down of the cold war, right? So you have you know throughout throughout the 80s the government of South Africa becomes more and more anxious and neurotic and lashes out because there you know the need for it as a kind of outpost of anti-siet sentiment and with a military that will go and fight communists you know in other places in Africa um was going to be be be less necessary so it became you know sort of >> I mean that that's an external change >> that's an external yeah but it's not sanctions that did it it's rather geopolitical change I mean sanctions absolutely made some some difference. Um, but you know, it was this geopolitical change I think played played a major major >> because the Americans stopped supporting the aparttheid government because they didn't need them as a anti-serviet. >> Exactly. It became clear that they were just going to be, you know, it was no they no longer needed to prop up this like bizarrely racist government in in South Africa. >> Yeah. Which I mean in a in a way is a bit depressing for the Palestinians cuz you've got to wait for >> geopolitical realities to fundamentally change. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> which is not a nice thing to hear obviously, but it's difficult to see what the way out is unless the actions of those countries that support Israel radically change. >> Yeah. I mean, I guess proper sanctions can create some geopolitical change if they're properly >> you need geopolitical change to have the sanctions. Well, or I mean I suppose I suppose it you know can you can sort of economically you know [ __ ] a country right by by applying those sanctions which leads to changes inside but you know that's not what happened in South Africa. South Africa was very you know had its own sources of of of of wealth. Um and what I don't I guess what you when you say you need the geopolitical change first I mean what I guess what you're meaning is that there is no there are no western countries which would be prepared at this point to those kinds of sanctions. >> Yeah. It's depressing really. But and look, something is going to be better than nothing, right? Like let's hope we get the fullest package of sanctions. >> Oh yeah, 100% 100%. >> We haven't heard much from former British Prime Minister K Starmmer recently, but after a long summer holiday, the former Labour Party leader had an announcement this morning. Starmer wants out of the House of Commons and has resigned as MP for his constituency of Hoben and St. Pancress, triggering a bi-election in the seat. We don't know the date of that yet. In a statement, Starmmer said this. It is now time to step aside and focus on other issues, international affairs, including defense, security, trade, and technology in a fastchanging world. I will also continue working with others, as I have done over many decades, to tackle violence against women and girls. Not sure Jess Phillips would agree. It's also sort of giving Tony Blair Institute if you ask me. The bi-election now triggered in Star's Northland seat will likely attract a lot of attention. In 2024, Starmer lost almost a fifth of the vote he gained in 2019 with the former ANC MP and independent Canada candidate Andrew Feinstein coming in second with around 19% of the vote. It was still a fair way off Starmmer. Behind him were the Greens followed by the Tories. Following Star's announcement this morning, Feinstein posted this. We must ensure that all progressive forces in Hobon and St. Pancress unite in order to deliver an MP who represents us and will work for us. an MP who is the antithesis of everything that Starmer stands for. That will, I think, be the major battle in that coniti constituency. And for that reason, many eyes have turned to Green Party leader Zack Palansky, who is of course not yet an MP, asked for a statement on whether he would run. A Green Party spokesperson said this. Zach has always made it clear he would like to be a London MP. London has been his home for over 20 years. So, not a no. Then, unlike that statement that I was given, it's just the same statement that's being given to all the media. The Greens are being very tight- lipped about this. Kama may be escaping British politics, but there's one video clip he'll never escape. It defined the general election of 2024, leading to sways of Labour voters abandoning the party, and it happened on LBC just days after October 7th, 2023. I'm very clear Israel must have that does have that right to defend herself. Um, and Hamas bears responsibility. a siege is appropriate. Cutting off power, cutting off water. >> I think that Israel does have that right. It is an ongoing situation. Um obviously everything should be done within international law. That's going to be his legacy. That's it. Uh Kama in my opinion was obviously an inveterately dishonest MP turning his black on back on every political pledge he made in order to win the Labour leadership in 2020. He was also a charisma vacuum. But let's leave you with a few moments to remember him by >> I call again for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the return of the sausages, the hostages. >> He was Labour royalty. He loomed large over British politics for four years. >> But to us, he's just Peter. And we just signed a document. This is Sorry about that. This is it. >> Very important document. >> Little windy out here. Give me >> We just signed it and it's done. >> Oh, it's not >> 67. >> Yeah. >> 67. Everybody >> 67. Are you doing page 67? >> We're not over that yet. We're not over. >> That's a bit wild. for that lovely 67. You know, children get into trouble today. >> Oh, do they? >> Um, Michael, let's just start with uh with stepping down as an MP. I mean, I saw Ash posting about this this morning that, you know, if you think it's about Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn, Richie Sunnak, they they stuck around to fulfill their role as elected officials, as MPs, you know, public servants at least for a while. Um, Mikasma joins the likes of David Cameron and Boris Johnson. >> I mean, it really hasn't been long either. I think this is sooner than any of the other ones, right? Like the moment he goes, it's like after two months, he's like, I can't deal with this. I am way too important to be a backbench MP. I mean, also actually before we he did say as recently as July, so first of July 2026, Henry Zben of the BBC um asked Kharma, "Are you going to stay as an MP?" K Dharma says I'm going to stay as an MP. Henry Zephan says until the next election. Karma says yes. Although I suppose because >> how out of character. >> Well, he likes to shift the goalpost as well. So maybe he can say what I meant is until the next bi-election >> which he decides when he >> which is which I suppose is in a way literally true presumably. Will he be the MP until the bi-election happens or is there a period where where where the seat doesn't have an anyways besides the point he is sort of ending his parliamentary career as he began it and as he sort of operated the whole way through which is being entirely dishonest and not following through on any promises. Um I suppose the interesting issue is what's going to happen now because it is a competitive seat. Um I imagine you know Andrew Feinstein great candidate obviously we've had him on the show before. um really impressive guy. I think sort of his pitch was more specifically against Kstarma, right? Because he was an anti-corruption candidate against Karma, who he argued was very corrupt. Um now, uh I would assume that Zach Palanski has got to go for this. He's been saying for a very long time he wants a London seat. This is a London seat. um unless Labour put forward sort of like a big gun, he probably will be the most famous person standing in the seat, which does make a difference, right? If people think, oh, it'd be kind of cool to have a party leader here, um that will bring about some momentum. Obviously, it's not great timing for Zach Palansi because Labor having a bump in the polls. Um whereas at the local elections, people were desperate to punish Karma. People seem more willing um to give Andy Bernham a chance. So it would have to be less of a protest vote. I think a sort of aren't Labour terrible, give them a kicking and more of an actually an active positive argument for why that constituency should have a Green Party MP and why it would be helpful for the Green Leader to be in the House of Commons because I don't I don't think the sort of negative anti- labor thing will work as well as it did back in those May local elections. And when it comes to those May local elections, um I mean the Greens have got to do better than them. Um so in those local elections in the wards in Hyen and St. Pancress, um Labour got 39% of the vote. The Greens got 29% of the vote, although we should add um the Andrew Feinston Camden People's Alliance to the Greens total, which brings us to 39 for Labour and 34 for the Greens. So very competitive. If you've got a party leader standing there, you'd imagine that would get a boost. Um, so other things being equal, you'd probably have the Green's favorites, the issue is that now Andy Burnham is leader of the Labour Party. Yeah, exactly. >> So that the anger that was felt against Labor back then is to a large degree, I think the polls are showing and sort of just the general vibe of the country, that anger has dissipated and people are more willing to give Labor a chance. >> Yeah. And I mean, it's quite a it's quite a big swing to take and miss if you're Zach Palansky, right? It's like >> Well, it is and it isn't. I mean, you know, how many times did Nigel Farage stand? >> Oh, I mean, uncountably many times. >> And I suppose the other there's no reason why Zapansky can't stand here and say, well, it's, you know, the Greens are going to gain compared to at the last general election. Um, even compared to Andrew Feinstein, right? It will be closely run, I think. And there isn't really any shame in losing a closely run race. And clearly if if he loses this he can stand in Hackne next time around and he probably will win. So at the local elections um last time around um in Camden the Greens got 11 out of 55 seats. >> So compared to the rest of London that's quite a poor showing actually in and obviously Hobin and Pankress in Camden. In Hackne the Greens won 42 out of 57. So a total landslide. >> So one would imagine that if Zack Palansky stands in Hackne potentially Tottenham but I think he'd probably go for a hackne seat he would win. But I don't mean there's any harm in trying and and and failing. It's better than sort of it being a different candidate than sort of losing narrowly and everyone being like, "Well, Zack Palansky, if you were just brave enough to go for that, you probably would have won." >> Yeah. The timing here is a bit unfortunate for Palansky as well because uh you know he's going the bi-election will whenever it is will be before the budget and obviously it would have been much better for the Greens uh had you know when when the Burnham bounds potentially starts to slide slide out that the bi-election sort of hap happened then >> it's easier for him to get coverage as well if he's standing in a bi-election. That's a great story. >> That is a great story. >> And if he's saying I've lost some momentum because sort of I'm I don't have the novelty factor anymore. people are, you know, the novel factor is actually Andy Bernham because he's the new prime minister. If you're Zach Palansky and you want to get in front of TV cameras again, a great thing to do is stand in election. And people also respect someone who takes a risk. Like when Andy Bernham um stood in his bi-election, like my initial reaction was, oh, this is pretty goddamn risky. He might lose this. But that meant that people had a bit more respect for him because he clearly had stood somewhere where winning was a challenge and losing was an option. >> That's true. Yeah. Very wise. Um go on then, Zach. Stand. and we'll do an all nighter. We'll definitely be watching. People appear to finally be turning off Silicon Valley tech invading their daily lives without either their consent or in some cases even their knowledge. And in the last week, it seems to be so-called smart glasses that have come in for most attention with a flurry of articles focusing on how to constrain their use. So, what are smart glasses? Well, they're essentially glasses that contain a range of technological features, including almost invisible cameras, instant connection to the internet and AI in some cases, and lenses that also serve as screens. Probably the most famous brand are Meta Ray Bands uh advertised here by professional celebrity Kylie Jenner. Because the tech is so discreet, they can be used to film someone without them ever even knowing. >> Uh, yep. Here I am just minding my business at the airport and this guy starts to talk to me. No idea he recorded this whole conversation with his glasses. Is that just creepy? He never asked. >> Excuse me. >> Are you waiting on your boyfriend to come sit with you? >> Just seeing you now. I find you attractive, so I wanted to say hello. >> Oh, hi. >> Yeah, >> I have a boyfriend. >> I'm not looking for a girlfriend. Don't worry. What are you doing today then? >> Uh, I'm just waiting for my friend. I'm just >> Oh, okay. What do you do then? >> I'm uh I'm thinking about doing >> You with your boyfriend for long now? >> Uh, maybe 2 months. >> Ah, that's not a boyfriend. You mean after 2 months that's actually your boyfriend? >> You're stealing from me? >> I'm not stealing from you. >> Where are you? >> Oh, let's go. That's a thousand, >> dude. >> Oh, okay. Okay. Uh, that harassment um that 17-year-old girl just, you know, completely completely grim and to have it all recorded and posted online without your without without your knowledge. A recent caller into LBC was pretty passionate about everything that's wrong with these glasses. >> We're at the stages of dynamite or asbestos. It had its uses, but it's it was absolutely dangerous. This stuff is dangerous. >> It's a nice toy, but the privacy, the dignity. You imagine you're a woman on the train and some jackass if you like has got these glasses on or you go to a doctor or in the morttery or this is nasty. What about people's records the passport office the bank you've just got these glasses on. This is disgusting. >> Now more and more groups are coming forward demanding protection from the use of what is is essentially spy equipment or as they're increasingly becoming known pervert glasses. The Lib Dems have argued that sex offenders should be banned from buying smart glasses to protect women. The backlash against the technology has been so severe that Meta is allegedly considering a kill switch for their smart glasses, which would unhackably switch off the the ability for the glasses to record in some situations. And in Australia, the country's online safety regulator is calling for smart glasses to automatically blur people's faces when filming. They're also calling on manufacturers to install features like lights that make it clearly visible when someone is recording you. The problem goes deeper though because some of the glasses are almost always recording. This is a recent report from Australia's Channel 7 News. >> One measure of how Australians have taken to video cameras hidden in sunglasses. Their nickname pervert glasses. >> It's dystopian. >> But there's another measure. The cheap end of the market is currently sold out. You can pay more for a brand, though observers here warn the software is already geared towards sending countless images of people back to Big Brother. >> You're not only wearing sunglasses, you're building the surveillance infrastructure for Meta. >> The Federal Attorney General has released draft legislation to sharpen Australian privacy laws for the digital age. It includes a fair and reasonable test to limit how much of our information companies collect and also a right to erasia so people can demand companies delete personal details. But Minister Roland has stopped short of any import ban on smart glasses. >> We are not in the business of playing whack-a-ole when it comes to the emergence of technologies. >> I've got serious concerns. We're not moving fast enough or broad enough. Tim Roberts calls the government's proposed laws timid. >> Australians are definitely more exploited uh with respect to our data and privacy than other people in the world. >> Recordings made by smart glasses aren't only affecting the people in front of them. People on the back end of the process are having to endure some grim material too. In February, Swedish newspaper Senska Dark Bloodet reported on a Kenyan data processing center used by Meta where workers complained that they were forced to watch the hidden stream of privacy sensitive data that is fed straight into the tech giants systems. The newspaper reported this from some of the workers. We see everything from living rooms to naked bodies. Meta has that kind of content in its databases. People can record themselves in the wrong way and not even know what they're recording. They are real people like you and me. The workers describe videos where people's banking cards are visible by mistake and people watching porn while wearing the glasses. Clips that could trigger enormous scandals if they were leaked. There are also sex scenes filmed with smart glasses. Someone is wearing them having sex. That is why this is so very sensitive. There are cameras everywhere in our office and you are not allowed to bring your own phones or any device that can record. There were also um in in in in that piece, you know, workers saying that they're having to look at videos of people accidentally filming themselves on the L. When the article was published, Meta admitted subcontracted workers might sometimes review content filmed on its smart glasses when people shared it with Meta AI. So, they're not uploading it. They're just sort of sharing asking Meta AI um about the footage that that they've filmed or what's in their field of vision when they're wearing their their glasses. But in response to the story, the company appears to have gone even further. Uh they canled their contract with the company in Nairobi, claiming it didn't meet their standards and leaving thousands of workers out of a job. >> Michael, I I honestly can't see any reason why should we we should have to endure these things. >> Ban them. Ban them now. Like they're creepy. There is no social purpose for them whatsoever. Um and I think banning them would be No one wants to get filmed by someone else's glasses, right? It's >> I feel like there is a lot of room for kind of anti-tech populism. that would be very very popular. Like obviously there is a big backlash against data centers. Um you know I take seriously the idea this is going to kill us all. So obviously I prefer to slow down the data centers but there are obviously you know there are pros and cons there. You can see why sort of a government thinks well there are reasons to ban them. There are also reasons to keep them going. You know there are clearly sort of weights on both sides on both sides. When it comes to these smart glasses get rid of them. Like it would be very popular. They serve no social function whatsoever. Um, I wouldn't be surprised if Meta are subsidizing them because this is a sort of data harvesting thing. Like with LLMs, one of the reasons that progress has been so fast is because companies got to scrape the entire internet because there's a hell of a lot written on the internet. And so that's why I mean they could maybe I'm properizing here, but that's why they could appear to learn so much so quickly, right? when it comes to robotics, um it's, you know, we've seen their advancing. We've seen those sort of Olympic games for for robots in China. But the real issue there is they've got the same neural network technology, but they haven't got the same data because whereas we've written, you know, pretty much all of our faults on the internet for the past 20 years, we haven't recorded everything we've seen. So this is going to be used to train robotics. Um Meta will be looking for this as proprietary data to give them sort of a competitive advantage against other people in the same way that sort of Tesla's big and in the case of Tesla you can there is an argument for it right there's a strong argument for self-driving cars and one of the reasons why Tesla is so overvalued compared to its revenue is because people recognize that Tesla has the best data when it comes to self-driving cars because so many people have been driving their Teslas for the past 10 years. Um, and many of them have been sort of constantly filming. So, they're trying to do the self-driving cars thing for humans. Um, but we don't want a self-driving human. Uh, so it's it's creepy. There's no point in it whatsoever. Banning them would be popular. It would have no economic cost to the wider economy. And it would save us all from perverts. And even it's another one of those things where what we'll hear is safeguards to stop it being used for, you know, snooping or abuse or yada yada yada. Just get rid of it. We we don't need safeguards. We just don't need these glasses. >> We don't need them. And and all that data that's collected and all that video that's sent back to be processed by, you know, that that's all more data centers, right? That is all stuff that has to be put somewhere uh which we don't need and we don't want. We don't want those data centers anyway. And now we're getting we're going to get more of them based on a piece of technology that nobody wants either. I mean I will say cuz someone will point out in the chat that apparently um these smart glasses can be very useful for people who are visually impaired. But I don't think that's why Meta is in this business or Rayban. Uh you know that's that's not what they're about. Right. >> No that's interesting. That's a good point. I mean definitely we could have them as a medical device that you can be prescribed by your doctor and if anyone sells them without a prescription it should be a bit like when you sell any other control drug and that's quite a serious crime. >> That's a pan. >> Yeah. I don't think just you know not everyone is allowed to get a Labrador and put a guide dog you know shiny thing on it right they're reserved for people who need the guide dogs. We could do that with these glasses. It's not beyond our collective wisdom. It's also very bad for those of us like you and I, although I'm not wearing them now, who wear glasses, right? It's bad. Like lowest trust in people who just need to actually see. >> I mean, I, you know, if I find myself filmed by once by someone wearing these glasses, I think I would just be like so suspicious of everyone I wearing them. >> You just need skinny frames. I don't think that >> I don't know. There's the glasses, if the cameras get smaller and smaller, be nice. But anyway, this is bad Black Mirror episode. No purpose for it. Everything Mark Zuckerberg does is evil. >> I don't want this. Yeah, I don't think anybody wants this really. Being a billionaire has a lot of perks already. You probably have an underground bunker in New Zealand where you'll hunker down during the apocalypse you've helped bring on. You can use your unearned and evergrowing wealth to subvert democracy and change the fabric of our society completely unhindered. And now it turns out you can get private access to a taxpayer funded public institution while ordinary punters have to queue for hours in their tens of thousands just to get a ticket. The Guardian has reported on how Palanteer founder Peter Teal was given a private viewing of the Bayou Tapestry at the British Museum, snatching up some of the very few hours the medieval artwork is allowed to be subjected to light. Now, if you're not sure what the Bayu Tapestry is, here's a quick explainer from the BBC. >> The most famous stories in British history, the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Now, it's arrived in the UK for the first time in almost a thousand years. His journey from Normandy has been a huge operation thought to have been made in England after the Norman conquest. The tapestry is almost 70 m long and incredibly fragile. Some experts feared the move could damage it. But every stage of the journey has been carefully planned with strict climate control and technology to reduce even the smallest vibrations. It's absolutely central to the British national story. Every British child knows the date of 1066, the Battle of Hastings. Perhaps in France, the equivalent might be 1789. So, it's that important to our history. And it is so visual, it's so powerful, and it speaks so well to children that I just think it will be an enormous success. >> As you heard there, the tapestries in the UK for the first time in a thousand years and being exhibited at the British Museum where tickets are literally like gold dust. That's the cue that Teal was allowed to skip with a Guardian reporting this. The museum's director of development, Charlotte Appleard, hosted the PayPal founder at a VIP viewing of the tapestry, which is yet to open to the public on 18th of August. In response to queries from the Guardian, a source of the museum confirmed the visit took place. It's understood the museum chair, George Osborne, was aware of the viewing, but did not attend with Teal. That article goes on to say this. There were concerns among some staff that scarce lux hours for the tapestry, a combined measure of light intensity and exposure time used to track and limit cumulative light damage to sensitive artifacts, were given up to someone with no known interest in the museum. The exhibition gallery is still under construction, and only limited viewings of the tapestry have been possible across a range of stakeholders. Among those receiving special access are Osborne and his podcasting partner, Ed BS, who will record the next episode of their political currency show from the gallery. The notes on the most recent episode suggests and that article ends with this. The British Museum has a careful plan for light hour allocation agreed in partnership with colleagues in France. It is understood that no light hours have been taken from the allocation for public visitors. Ke is not a donor to the museum and no money has been received via him or his businesses. What the hell is he doing there? Members of the public keen to see the Bayu Tapestry faced online cues of up to 9 hours when tickets went on sale for the first time earlier this summer. There were reports of 40,000 people queuing by midm morning with that figure ballooning to almost 80,000 by mid-after afternoon. Michael, I can't tell you how much this story irritated me. Like, it made me so angry. I mean, I don't I'm you know, I would love to go and see this. I haven't got a ticket. I didn't I didn't even I didn't even try. I think a friend might have one for me. Um, but the idea of this billionaire who's not even British, who's got no connection to the to the British Museum, um, getting this kind of private early access, um, to to this like fantastically important artifact. I mean, it's it's, you know, I know billionaires are awful, but this really really made me angrier, I think, than than much has before. >> I mean, if he actually donated to them, you know, I still find I still find it annoying, but at least it would make some sense, right? the British Museum requiring I I presume you know they have a lot of very wealthy donors um you know it's free to enter so they don't have that source of revenue I think some of it comes from taxpayers and probably some of it comes from benefit >> it is mostly from the department of culture media >> mostly from taxpayers and then some of it from exactly if they got to do a building work or something like that they'll go to >> so presumably it wasn't just a private one for Pete Tro it was for high value individuals who they think might donate to the British Museum at some point >> I don't know there's no suggestion that he wasn't on his own that's the >> I mean if he was on his own that's super creepy um yeah I mean it's gross obvious Obviously, Peter Teal is sort of the kind of human instantiation of evil at this point in in many ways, right? And he doesn't really hide it. We always show that clip of him >> where he's not sure if he wants humanity to survive. He does ultimately say yes that he does want humanity to survive, >> but he had to think about it. >> It takes him like about 30 seconds. Um, so yeah, I mean, I'm probably not quite as annoyed at you about this, but I do think it's annoying. I just think, you know, >> you're fuming though. >> It's it's it's just the idea that it's it's this very very exceptional event of something which is incredibly beautiful, a thousand years old. Um, which tells our story as a country, which is in in where it should be for the first, you know, not I'm not saying it belongs in the British Museum and you plenty of stuff in the museum, British Museum that doesn't belong there. Um, but that, you know, it's being exhibited in this museum to to our nation and ordinary puns are having to queue up, which is fine. And I'm sure they don't they don't mind. And it's just the thought of somebody who kind of floats on air. Um whose wealth is like extraction from from us um and is based on you know the diminishment of our lives in so many in so many ways is just sort of get gets to Walt and have a look at this thing. I don't think he should be allowed even for all the money in the world. I don't think he should be allowed to set his eyes on it. Frankly, >> it' be great if this is the thing that brings him down. You know, in the same way that the queen it was Holly and I've forgotten the fellow who had to resign who resigned in kind of disgrace. Who was who was Holly's co-host? Anyway, >> oh um um I can't remember >> whatever his name is. You'll know someone will say in the comments. >> Um when they jumped the queue to see the Queen's Coffin. Oh, Paul Scofield. Philip Scoffield Scoffield. Um that almost sort of ended their career. So if Peter Thiel after saying he doesn't really mind if humanity is destroyed or at least he can't really decide um after sort of trying to buy his way into all of our treasured public institutions with proprietary technology which will never be able to leave. if sort of he got away with all of that, but the one thing the British public cannot stand is if you jump a queue um to see something of national significance. Um I think there would be a a great sort of deal of poetic justice if if that's what were to to bring down this international bogeymen. >> Radio four audience rise up. >> Yes. >> Um okay, thank you Michael so much for joining me tonight. >> Pleasure. >> Um and thanks everyone for tuning in. Come back tomorrow for another show from 6 p.m. For now, you've been watching Nvar Media. Good night.