The Chancellor is talking about tax cuts. The Shadow Chancellor is closing up to capitalists, and everybody's promising to build new homes, cut immigration, and stop it raining on Sundays. There must be an election on the way. The military's top brass complain that there just aren't enough soldiers to fight a war abroad. The top cops warn that the conflict in the Middle East could boost the risk of terrorism here at home. And look who's back. Donald Trump, according to his opponents, making America mad again. On the show this morning, the Defense Secretary, Grant Shaps, with his assessment of the mounting threats to the UK, both global and domestic. So should we be spending more on defense? He'll make the case. Shadow Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper. She wants one of great offices of State. But what would Labor really do differently to keep the country safe without spending any more money? And is Donald Trump assert for the Republican nomination and for the White House, We hear from former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, on the prospects of a Trump win and what that will mean for global stability. Plus, Britain's greatest ever Paralympian, Baron Grace Thompson, tells me how she fears that her right to die could pave a dangerous path towards making some people feel they have a duty to end their lives.

Plus, with us throughout the morning, former Downing Street Director of Communications under Boris Johnson, Guta Harry, journalist, broadcaster, and friend of the show, Daisy Mc Andrew, and the former editor of the Financial Times, and in his life, Post the Pinkon, author and podcaster, Lionel Barber. Good morning, and welcome to Trevor Phillips on Sunday. We've got the builders in at our central London studio, so we're out West, here in the big glass box. It's pretty cool. But back in Westminster, for Richie Sunack, the clock is ticking loudly. By this time next year, he has to call an election. He has a maximum of 368 days to persuade Britain that he should keep the keys to number 10. Handly, he's told us exactly how to judge his government. His priorities: inflation, growth, debt, waiting lists, and immigration. Well, Prime Minister's a busy guy, and on this show, we always want to be helpful. My colleagues have come up with this neat dashboard so that when the PM tunes in on Sunday morning, he We can instantly see how well he's doing on his five promises. We'll be checking it regularly, and I'm sure our panel of insiders will be dispensing wise advice to him as the weeks go by.

That is what public service broadcasting is all about. More later. But let's get started with our guests. First up, a little earlier, I spoke to the Secretary of State for Defense, Grant Shaps. I began by asking his reaction to comments made by the UK's top counter terrorism police officer that the election could see an escalation in the terror threat to the UK.

I leave the analysis of that to the counterterrorism experts, but you're right in my speech at Lancaster House on Monday last week. I warned about what I see as a more dangerous world in which you've got a number of different protagonists, and you mentioned some there, Iran, obviously, Russia, North Korea, who might it, might see it upon themselves to interfere in our processes. Obviously, that's something that we take very seriously. We have a number of different counterterrorism and other institutions who'll be looking very carefully at that. We must make sure, of course, that we maintain a very safe system for our democracy. I'm confident we'll do that, but I think the counterterrorism chief was absolutely right to raise the alarm.

Well, of course, it's not just the stated enemies that might be a problem for us. The police are saying that what's really ticking up the terrorism risk is the situation in the Middle East. You, of course, have expressed your anxieties about the increase in the number of anti-Semitic incidents here as a result of that. But does it help in any way that the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Netanyahu, is saying that Israel would not accept an independent Palestinian state on its borders? Does that help in any way to calm the situation and reduce the risk of consequent terrorism here?

No, and I think it's disappointing, actually, to hear that from the Israeli Prime Minister. There isn't another option. The whole world has agreed that a two-state solution is the best way forward. The British government absolutely backs that as a solution. It needs to be viable. It needs to be sovereign on the Palestinian side. It needs to provide security guarantees on the Israeli side, and there isn't another obvious way out of this. I thought that was a disappointing comment. The United Kingdom certainly remains wedded to that. By the way, you mentioned that I raised concerns about the number of anti-Semitic attacks that have been on the rise since Hamas's appalling terrorist atrocities on the seventh of October. I feel the same way about the rise in Islamophobic attacks as well. That's not the country that we are here in Britain, and there is no reason to allow events there to spill over here.

If I may Can I stay with the issue of Israel, Mr. Netanyahu. I'm tempted to say with friends like these, who really needs the enemies. But the point I really want to ask you about is both you and the opposition have been pretty steadfast in your support for Israel, the country. But at what point does the Israeli government's actions increase the risk to people here in Britain and lead us to say that perhaps things may be better dealt with if there's a different leadership in Israel.

Well, as ever, we don't interfere in other countries' democratic processes, be that in Israel or anywhere else. As As you pointed out in your question, there's a fundamental difference between who happens to be in power in a country and that country itself. Britain has very close and friendly relations with Israel, as indeed we do with many other countries in the Middle East. I've just been in the last few days to the Middle East, for example, to Egypt, and we maintain relations everywhere. But yes, there is a concern. Even within the Israeli system, you'll find quite a bit of disagreement because they're made up of a coalition government with people who have different views.

Netanyahu is being pretty provocative, isn't he, really?

Well, look, I've already said I don't think I can be more explicit. I think it's disappointing to hear Benjamin Netanyahu saying he doesn't believe in a two-state solution. In fairness, he said that all of his political career, as far as I can tell, I don't think we get to a solution unless we have a two-state solution. We We do disagree on that particular issue, but we do agree that Israel has a right to defend itself, and we do think that there is a responsibility to maintain international humanitarian law. That's something that I was speaking to my opposite number, Minister Gallant, about as recently as Wednesday.

All right. Returning to the speech that you made last week, you said rather strikingly that you thought we were in a pre-war period. How annoyed are you that the Chancellor this weekend, instead of committing to paying soldiers and particularly sailors better and providing you with more money for planes and boats, is talking about tax cuts? He's got his priorities wrong, hasn't he?

Well, first of all, the Chancellor has been incredibly generous. I think actually, at nearly 10% pay rise for our, as a grave armed forces. I don't think that anyone else in the public sector received a pay rise like that last year. There hasn't been a decision about this year yet. In terms of the overall size and scale of our armed forces, we now spend over £50 billion a year, the most in cash terms. I have, for example, I was just looking at our equipment program over the next decade, it's £288 billion. So yes, I argue for greater spending. We are committed to spending more when conditions allow. But I also think that it is true to say that people do want to see more of the money that they earn kept after a very difficult period through COVID and this war in Ukraine. People deserve some of that money back. Actually, this month, they're receiving it with the biggest tax cut of £450 for somebody on the average salary coming into their pay packets the next week.

You've thrown out some rather impressive numbers there. But honestly, Secretary of State, you can't have it both ways. That 50 billion you talked about is what? Two and a half % of GDP. Now, the former head of the Army, Lord Danet, pointed out that when he was in charge, 12 years ago, he presided over an army of more than 100,000. You're projecting that in the next few years, it'll be round about half that. The truth is, you're telling people the world is scary, but you're not providing the resources to protect us. That 50 billion you refer to is round about 2.5% of GDP. Others think that that number, including Danet, should be round about 3%. You're way short of what you should be spending.

Just for accuracy, let me correct a couple of things there. We're not at 2.5% yet. We're comfortably above 2%, and our pledge is to-I'm being generous to you. No, and I don't want to overtake credit on this, as it were. But we are pledged to, when conditions allow, get to 2.5%, that's right. The size of the army, as you said, in Lord Danet's time, it would have been over 100,000. It's not projected to go down to 50,000. It's actually specifically to 73,000 plus the reserves. The third thing to say is-Well, that's next year, but by 2027- No, our plan is 73,000, not lower. That is our plan.

But actually-So just to be clear, you are saying that under the conservative watch, the size of the army is not going to fall below 73,000? That's correct.

The plan is actually for 73,000 plus the reserves. But I often find, and I've noted it a lot since I did this job, when you start to talk about the armed forces, people often revert to talking about the army as opposed to the Air Force and the Navy, and of course, the much wider structure, which includes things like cyber and space and many other defensive elements to it. The size of the overall armed forces is, I think, 188, 189,000 right now. It's much bigger than when people just revert to only talking about the army, specifically, the land force. The second thing to say, well, I was going to say this is really important. The second thing to say is, it isn't a question of how many men and women you have on the ground only. It's about how lethal your armed forces are. I want to come to that.

I would really like to come to that, but can I just stop you on the money? Because that's what's important here. Back in August 2022, and you weren't even defense secretary then, You said, The defense of the realm is the first duty of Her Majesty's government. Can we afford to spend more money on this core responsibility? The answer is, We can't afford not to. You are talking about 3%. Now, you're talking Telling me that 2.5%, that's a good result. A couple of years ago, you said we shouldn't be spending anything south of 3%. What happened?

So nothing at all. I agree we need to spend more. In fact, my speech, which people can look up from Monday at Lancaster House was all about how the world would need to spend more over time. If you gave me 3% tomorrow, I wouldn't be able to spend that in the very short term.

So we got to rely on the Americans now.

No, I was going to say we already outspend two-thirds of NATO members who don't get above 2%. In fact, apart from the United States, I think we're the biggest spender in NATO by some distance. We already do our part. My call was and is for the world to spend more. First of all, the rest of them need to get above that 2%. In the long term, I do believe that the Western spending will need to be higher. I'm very happy that the staging post and this government's policy is to get to 2.5%, so there's nothing inconsistent about that at all.

That's interesting. You need to spend more. John Bolton, who I've interviewed, and that interview will be later in this program, says that he thinks that the United States and the UK need to get up to 4, 5, 6%. Is that sensible?

Well, look, I'd say this. It's not only about the amount of money you're spending, it's also about how you're spending it and the technology you deploy. For example, today, I've released information about a couple of things. One, a Sea Viper updates. Now, those are the missiles which fire from a-A million a time? Yeah, they're expensive pieces of equipment, but we are funding an upgrade of them because, for example, we've seen how they've been helpful in the fight against the Huti maritime threat. But it is also the case that lethal weapons include things like, you talk about a missile being a million times. I've also, just let me make this point, announced about a laser today that's in testing, which costs about a tenner to fire and would take down drones and missiles as well. So technology can make these things cheaper as well.

Forgive me for hurrying you along, but I know your time is limited. I just got to ask you about a couple of other things very quickly. The Americans, particularly the Pentagon, were pretty cheesed off with you last week because they said that in an interview, as it happened with Sky News, you tipped the wink to the Houthies that they were going to get a rocket, literally, and that essentially you revealed something that shouldn't have been revealed ahead of time. Have you smoothed over relations with them?

Well, I could tell you that my relations with the US and the Pentagon have been extremely good, and We worked on very careful language.

Yeah, but they were hacked off with you, weren't they?

They were annoyed with you. I've seen that story reported in a weekend paper last weekend. As far as I'm concerned, it isn't true. We worked very carefully on our language. I was asked what would happen, and I said there will be consequences if they don't stop and watch the space. That's exactly, of course, what we had agreed that we would do in order to signal very clearly that the hooties needed to stop. As you saw, subsequently, they didn't, and we did have to.

Lastly, can I just quickly ask you, all of this is well and good, but in sport, what we would call the unforced error may be the thing that makes us lose. We understand from our defense editor, Deborah Haynes, that something... In the Middle East, we have three mine hunters, and two of them collided in the last few days. One backed into the other thinking it was going forward, but somebody wired up the engine in the wrong way, and the thing went into reverse. Now, instead of having three mine hunters, we've only got one. It's pretty humiliating, isn't it?

Well, look, just as in aviation or many other walks of life, sometimes incidents, an instance happen, there's a full investigation.

But this is incompetence.

Well, look, you may know more than I know about it, in which case I've spoken to the first sea Lord who's in charge of the Navy, he has assured me that there is an investigation underway. As with all of these things, we don't say it's incompetence when we see an aircraft come down, very rare occasion, just as this would be a rare occasion. It's right to leave the investigators some time to work out exactly what's gone wrong. Something clearly did, and we need to see what it is. I'll tell you what, when I talk about competence, I went to see HMS Diamond and the incredible 220 crew on there, the first Royal Navy to have seen live fire. They are a pretty competent bunch.

Secretary of State, thank you very much for your time this morning. You're welcome. Well, let's go straight to our panel on with us throughout the show today. Former Downing Street Director of Communications, Guido Harry, journalist and broadcaster, Daisy Bacandrew, and former Editor of the Financial Times, Lionel Barber. Let's talk about what Mr. Shaps had to say, particularly about Mr. Netanyahu. I was quite surprised at how direct he was on that, Lionel?

Well, not entirely surprising, given that Mr. Netanyahu has literally stuck his finger in the eye of President Biden and other Western supporters of Israel by ruling out categorically any chance of a Palestinian state or a path to a Palestinian state, the two-state solution. Now, what you have to remember here is there's a lot going on behind the scenes. The Arab states are coming together. They're working behind the scenes to try to get, A, a ceasefire, and then a grand bargain involving mutual recognition, say, that's the big prize between Saudi Arabia and Israel in return for a path to a Palestinian state, and also ceasefire, et cetera. Now, because Mr. Netanyahu is taking this off the table, he's just making the situation really worse. Us. I think this is why people are very frustrated. Netanyahu sided with the hard right in his cabinet and with the settlers in the West Bank and their illegal settlements.

Daisy, there's a school of thought that says that actually Israel Our worst enemy is becoming the Israeli government.

Well, I think that's been the case for a long time. Of course, it's important that we remember that Netanyahu is not the Israeli people, is not most Israeli voters. He knows that he's playing politics with this. Whilst he's waging a war in Gaza, he's also trying to keep his job, just as every politician is trying to keep their job. Many predict that once this is over, fingers crossed, not too far in the future, that he will be out of a job, that actually he will be rejected by the Israeli voters. You can see him fighting on two fronts, fighting for his own political skin and fighting Hamas in Gaza. I think that's why he's so entrenched with this issue. But it's been very It's interesting to see opposition parties and the government changing their tune when it comes to Israel and trying to encourage a softening of the stance.

The other theme that I took up with Mr Shatz was the defense numbers and defense budget. Now, in number 10, you would have been used to this time of year, coming up to budget. Everybody's maneuvering. We had Lord Danet yesterday saying numbers are plummeting. Shatz Perhaps says actually that the numbers won't fall as far as Dana seems to think. What's going on here?

He was very firm on that, but 73,000 is quite a big fall from where we were before. And on the numbers, he actually had to correct you that the numbers were even lower than you were putting to him. And that is worrying. And I remember Ben Wallace put up a heroic fight when he was defense secretary, and I was in number 10, to say, This is not good enough. This is not good enough when the threats are what they are. And a focus on men and women maybe is not as important as a focus on the technology, because you pointed out that we are blasting million pound missiles, taking out a few thousand pounds worth of drones. So again, it doesn't sound as if we're properly equipped for the modern world, and yet we're out there and the world is getting scary and scary. And I'm not convinced that we're sending people into dangerous areas like this, choosing to get involved recently in bombing Yemen, and then lacking a few ships as well in the mix.

Particularly in a week where we've had warnings that within 20 years we'll be at war with Russia and that youngsters might be conscripted.

Shaps themselves said that.

That's the world, the new world that we're trying to get used to.

Then you read that it's all about tax cuts. Do we need the money for defense? Do we need the money to clear waiting lists? Do we need the money for tax cuts?

If you look at the security environment, if you look at what could happen in Ukraine, if Putin wins, or if there's a situation where Zelenskyy is forced to the peace table and there's a divided Ukraine, what does Putin come next? The next government, whoever it is, should commit to 3% of GDP for defense.

Let's talk about the next government here. Now, we've decided to help out Mr. Sunak and make sure that he can keep track of his promises. We've got our dashboard, which we have developed. My colleagues here have taken his five pledges, and we've been looking at how he's doing. Let's have a look. On growing the economy, that looks like what I tend to call an epic fail, frankly. Let's draw a veil over that. Let's have a look at the next one. What comes next? The inflation. Yay, 4% down. He's meeting the target. Though actually, it ticked up a point. There's a blip this week. This month. But actually, he looks like he's going to meet that. But of course, everybody said that was going to happen anyway, and it's not in the government's hands. He's going to reduce. The third one that he talked about, reducing debt. Let's see how they've done on that. Oh, dear. The debt, apparently, is rising relative to GDP rather than falling. I think for a former Chancellor, that's quite a difficult thing to explain, but I'm sure that the current Chancellor will find a way of explaining it away. And his fourth one, NHS waiting list.

Now, this was really in trouble because back in September, they were up to a record level in September, something like seven and a half million. But actually, they're shrinking a little bit, a little bit, but we're still having to wait longer than last January. I think we've given him an Amber on this one, and we're ready to wait and see. And the last, the most exciting of them all, Stop the Boat. Well, I think some boats have been stopped, but actually, they are still coming. And the question is, what's really happening? It's lower than this time last year, but is that to do with the weather? And of course, what we haven't got in this pledge is we might be stopping the boat, but are people climbing on lorries? And there's some evidence emerging this week that the people who used to come over on boat are actually turning up underneath or around the back or inside lorries. So I think if I were going to give a school report, and I know Offsted doesn't want to It no longer gives a single word. I would say not quite in special measures, but it must be better.

Certainly not outstanding, is it? But by any measure, it's unusual that I'm going to jump to the government's defense, but actually on Stop the Boats. I think they are saying, and it's not really being rejected as an argument, that the boats are down by about a third over last year, and that was very much part to do with the deal with Albania. The trouble with his Stop the Boats motto and pledge is that it has become so entangled with get a flight to Rwanda. That's now what people think Stop the Boats means. And of course, that's not what Stop the Boats means. But because he's put all his eggs in the Rwanda basket, it's looking like, as you said, an epic fail on that front because the chance of a single asylum seeker going to Rwanda is getting slimmer and slimmer. Good.

There's a communications, boss. Was it just a mistake to do these five pledges? Because actually, What happens is government gets subject to mockery by people like me.

It is hard because I particularly don't like these. I remember New Labor started it. They issued pledge cards with five things on the back. It's quite funny when people can't remember what their own government It was promised. With this, it was clutching as straws, wasn't it? Let's get five things that are no-brainers because either they will happen anyway, like inflation come down, or if they don't, then the game's over. They're a combination of that. Nowhere there, you see what you're reading about today, which is should we spend more on defense and should we cut taxes? Though cutting taxes obviously would help grow the economy. It's always a bit contrived. But it is a way, I think, and this is a key point for me, of trying to get the parliamentary conservative Party who are the most ill-discipline, self-destructing rabble that I've seen in any parliament for a long, long time.

Don't go for nuance here, Guja, I mean, isn't it?

If they just focus on this and think this is what we say we should be judged upon. So get with the program, boys and girls. Please get with the program, because if we don't even get these into a better shape, then forget it. And your ill discipline is not helping.

Well, we've got a beta minus at best here, Trevor. But the key is the economy and how voters feel about the economy, whether they feel they got money in their pockets. And this is where the tax cuts comes in, because they're definitely going to do tax cuts in the March.

You're not going to do this?

There's no question. It's all being flagged. Question is whether you're going to actually get two lots of tax cuts before the election. Will that grow the economy? Well, Guita says, yes, I take sugar rush, really. I think the inflation is going to come down. He will definitely manage to do that. The debt, that's where tax cuts not looking so good here. Is there a real plan to grow the economy sustainably as opposed to a real good factor for a few months?

In the end, Daisy, this is all about making the numbers move. As we'll talk about later, the electoral numbers haven't moved for a year.

No, the numbers are absolutely appalling. Of course, what we tend to see with politicians is as D-day gets closer, as an election gets closer, they get more and more panicked and start pulling out more and more rabbits out of hats and so on to try to buy some of those votes and claw back. We've also got a situation, as Guido said, where the conservative backbenches are facing oblivion, and they're all worried about their own seats and worried about, How can I possibly not lose my job this year? Is that by rebelling against my government and putting it on a leaflet that I'm all about getting rid of asylum seekers or getting rid of immigrants in the Red Wall? You've got so many people trying toIncluding Jeremy Hunt in his own seating Surrey. Well, quite. You've got 10 cabinet ministers who are facing losing their seats.

They're vulnerable to reform or liberal Democrats or whoever. There are people watching this program who I know are going to be screaching because they email me afterwards and so on. They'll be screaching. This is outrageous that The fate of the country is subject to discipline amongst whatever it is, 300 and something conservative MPs. This is outrageous. This isn't a way to run a country.

Yeah, but you can't blame the team in number 10. They would love to see a disciplined parliamentary Party more than anyone. To be fair, in our democracy, you grant a mandate. The mandate is there for 4-5 years, and the mandate hasn't run out, even though we're on our third leader executing that mandate. The trick they're all missing, and I think this is a really interesting point, people want honesty in public life. If we're honest, the reason all those numbers are really bad, and not because of 13 years of incompetent management, it's this thing It's called the Global Pandemic. They came along, we shut down the economy. Guess what? The economy took a massive hit. It hit our debt, massively. Guess what? When we came out of it, cost of living crisis, inflation went out. What else is hit by a global pandemic? When you shut down hospitals, other than for emergency stuff? Waiting this. What they need to do is tell a story about why we're here. Then you can talk about the direction of travel, and that's what they're starting to do now.

But, Gitu, are you really saying that people would believe the Tories' unpopular is just because of the pandemic and nothing else.

We spend 400 billion. We are going to consider the Conservatives' popularity and the possibilities for labor a little later. But it is just after nine o'clock. You're watching Sunday morning with Trevor Phillips. In the last hour, Grant Chaps has expressed criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's position on the end game in Gaza. The defense secretary said Netanyahu's rejection of a two-state solution was disappointing. Still, plenty to come. We'll hear more from our panel throughout the next hour on the Tories and more. But Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper will join me with what labor would do to keep us safe. Former US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton will tell me how likely the prospect is of Donald Trump returning to the White House and whether he'd serve in a Trump administration. And later in the program, we'll speak to Britain's greatest Paralympian, Tani gray Thompson, about the dangers of a right to die becoming a duty to die. Next up, I'm delighted to be joined by Shadow Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, who's down the line from, I gather, a chilly central London. Good morning, Shadow Home Secretary.

Good morning, Trevor. Yes, it is a bit chilly here.

Okay, well, we're closer to California, so we're quite warm. I talked to Grant Chaps this morning about the fact that the senior counterterrorism police officer warned yesterday that the election period could see a heightened threat of terrorism here. What would a Labor Home Secretary do to reduce that risk?

You're right. There are growing concerns about the complexity of the national security threats across the UK and the immensely Very important work that our police and security agencies are doing in order to respond, because not only do we have the terrorism threats, not only do we have the rise in hateful extremism that we've seen We also have threats and challenges from states, from other states as well. That includes organizations like the IRGC, the Iranian Organization. It includes online disruption from countries like Russia. What Labor has set out is this is an area where we would expect to work cross-party, but we do think that stronger action is needed in a series of areas, including we would set up an overarching new strategy to deal with the hostile States in the same way that the last Labor government drew up the contest strategy, which has been the cross-government strategy to tackle terrorism. We need a new similar parallel strategy to tackle hostile state threats, including from countries like Russia. We've also called for the prescribing of the IRGC as well.

What about our friends? I talked to Mr. Chaps about the comments by Mr. Netanyahu on that he doesn't want to have a Palestinian state. Mr. Chaps said he was disappointed by that. Now, you're an opposition. You don't have to be diplomatic. Is there a point at which Labor will say that the price of your continuing backing for the government's pro-Israel policy is that Netanyahu either changes his rhetoric or gets gone?

Well, you We all have heard David Lamme, Labour's Foreign Secretary, talk yesterday about this, and he was very clear that those words from Netanyahu were just completely unacceptable. In David's words, this was morally and practically wrong. A statehood of a people is not in the gift of its neighbor. It is the right of a people, and it is the right of the Palestinian people. That's why we've said it's so important for us to recognize Palestine and also to work towards a two-state solution. We would urge the Israeli government to work towards that two-state solution as in the end, the only way of having a sustainable peace in the Middle East after the the terrible conflict and the ongoing problems that we are seeing.

All right, let's talk about something which I know sometimes makes labor spokespeople a little uncomfortable, and that's money. I put it to Grant Shapp that the former head of the Army, Lord Danert, has called for the UK to spend at least 3% of GDP on defense. Now, admiral Lord West, who served alongside you in the last labor administration as a security minister in the Home Office, has said the same thing. So is labor Are you going to commit to 3% of GDP, at least on defense?

Well, obviously, decisions for what future spending would be, would be if Labor wins the election, would be for a Labor Chancellor and would be in opposition is for Labour's Shadow Chancellor, Rachel Rees, but we have been clear about the importance of our national security. National security is the bedrock on which everything else in the country and everybody's wellbeing is built. And so, of course, that includes supporting our armed forces and making sure that they have the investment and the support that they need.

Well, this is interesting. Let's disentangle that. You say that this is the bedrock on which everything else is built. Let me put this to you. To get to 3%, you need to spend whatever it is, another 20 billion or thereabout. You've already made pledges on, let us say, for example, home insulation. You're going to spend 6 billion on that. You're going to spend 8 billion on building battery factories. You're going to spend 111 million on teaching children to brush their teeth. Why is it not possible for Labor to say it will spend on what you call the bedroom, the first thing, the top priority for a government which is defending our people?

Well, as you'll know, we've been very clear about the importance of setting out how we will fund everything that we make a commitment for, how we will pay for everything. It's really important that people have value for money. But my point is you've made commitments on other things.

This thing that you say is the most important is the one thing you haven't made a commitment about.

Let me give you an example of something where we are committed to increasing security and safety on our streets as a Home Affairs area. No, no, no. Can we just deal with- 13,000. No, it is important because- Sorry to interrupt you.

I just wonder if you could deal with the question I asked you. The reason this is important- Which is why won't you commit to 3% on defense.

Trevor, let's be clear, the issues around defense spending will be a matter for Rachel Reeves and for John Healey. What I can tell you about is around home affairs spending, which is also a part of our national security, where We would increase the number of neighborhood police and PCSOs on our streets. We would have 13,000 more police on our streets, and we've set out how we would pay for it based on the work of the Police Foundation and the additional savings that we would make by bringing a new program of national procurement around policing across the 43 police forces. There are practical things that labor can take, practical decisions labor can take, and things that we can do to make our streets safe. It's just wrong that we've lost so many neighborhood policing controls from our town centers, where we've seen increasing criminal damage, increasing antisocial behavior, and the epidemic of shoplifting. That's why Keir Starmer, later this week, will be setting out new proposals around our crime mission to tackle the huge increase in knife crime, but also to keep our community safe.

All right, we will look out for that. Sorry to interrupt you, but I just wanted to ask you about one other thing which is, I think, important to the Labor Party. Tata Steel has announced that there would be two and a half thousand job losses at Potalbot. Steelmaking is, in a sense, part of Labour's heritage, isn't it? Now, Unite General Secretary, Sharon Graham, responded to this on Friday, and she said that Unite is ready to use everything in its armory to defend steelworkers. Tata should be expanding UK steel production in line with growing demand, not slashing its workforce. Here's the important thing, she said, We have secured funding from a future Labor government that could do that. Is that true? She's got a promise.

Well, Labor has set out a program for green steel, for working as part of the Green Prosperity Fund that We have set out the importance of how we support green manufacturing, how we support the jobs of the future, and also cut our energy bills, and also make sure that we address the serious challenge from climate change. As part of that, that is a major program. There is a major program in order to have effectively a green steel program, how you cut carbon emissions and keep steel manufacturing going in this country. Yes, we have set out a program.

Have you committed, as Sharon Graham says, to spending the money to save the 2,500 jobs at Potalbot.

What Labor has done is set out a program, and this was some time ago, a set out a program for green steel. We've been warning about this for a long time.

No, but Potalbot is what I'm asking about. Sharon Graham has said in terms that she's got a promise. Is that true?

We have set out a major program of green steel program which does involve substantial investment and does involve working with the steel industry. We're calling on Tata to work with the government and the government to follow our proposals in order to be able to set out this program. I don't want to seem rude. That would be a way of saving jobs. It's really important to save jobs. I know, but I'm trying to I've asked you a very specific question. You're trying to interrupt me.

No, but I've asked you a very specific question, which is the question you're not answering from a leading labor figure. It's perfectly reasonable for you to say, I don't know, or, No, she's not telling the truth. What is the answer to that? Is she right or not?

But, Trevor, I've answered the question repeatedly. Labor has set out a major program of steel investment that would be about delivering a green steel program. That is why we expect the steel industry, the Actata, and other parts of the steel industry to work with the government and to follow Labour's plan in order to do this, to accept the investment that we are proposing around green steel, because this is a way of securing the future for our steel industry. The British steel industry is immensely important. We need to be working to save these jobs, not to end up with people losing jobs in an industry that we ought to be supporting, that we ought to be working with. So yes, Labor has said we would work with the steel industry in order to save jobs and in order to make sure that it has a proper viable future and is also cutting carbon emissions as well. Because this is an example of how we should be growing the economy in an environmentally sustainable way rather than just standing back in the government has done and rather than just turning our backs on important jobs.

Okay, Yvette Cooper, thank you very much indeed for your time this morning.

Thank you, Trevor.

Well, let's hear once more from our panel, Good O'Harrie, Daisy McEncandrou, and Lionel Barber. Daisy.

Well, I mean, you were valiant in your attempts to get her to answer that. I mean, actually, there's a much wider issue on the Green Investment Fund, which was that last week it was being reported, Endersey, that it was being ditched because it didn't seem to be in the latest guidance to labor of what they should be bang on about on the doorstep. We already know that that Bidenomics policy that the Labor Party has been talking about for a good two or three years now had been pushed back. The timetable was that it wouldn't happen in the first half of a parliament, and now we think it won't happen in parliament at all. Actually, I think labour's on a really sticky wicket on that issue. But I'm sure Lionel will know better than me whether or not that policy is workable, but it doesn't seem to be on the table much anymore.

What is the view from-The view is she didn't answer your question, but what she seemed to be saying to me, she's repeating what the present government's policy is and what the outcome is at Port Talbot, which is a green steel solution, which is having an electric….

Not having the blast furnaces. If the blast furnaces go, 2,600 jobs go at Port Talbot. She did not address the future of the blast furnaces. What she talked about was green steel, which is what the government's talking about. The second point, of course, which is the big, big question, is that electricity prices in this country are twice what they are in France and Germany. That's why Tata has been complaining about this for years, and nothing's been done about it.

Yeah. Guido, well, we may not be able to get A clear view of what Labor is doing. But Prime Minister said that electric ARC, for an issue, is fantastic. Two and a half thousand jobs down the Swani. But is that inevitable?

I don't know in the end whether if you offer a little help, it can become viable in the longer term and whether that clashes with a wider direction of travel. So it's quite hard to dig in deep as you just exposed with Yvette Cooper to get it to make a specific commitment for a specific town, which I know well in a specific industry is tough. But exactly, I didn't hear anything that most conservative ministers wouldn't be comfortable with. And that's the problem in the end. Nobody's saying the real problem with Britain is we don't have the investment in our long term energy independence that Boris Johnson, frankly, when I worked for him for all the faults, wanted eight new nuclear power plants by the end of the decade, by which we would have cheaper electricity, which would open a whole load of doors for other jobs as well as that we currently have. Nobody's talking about the long term.

Okay. Or the price of a green policy. More to talk about on all of that later.

Still to come, as Donald Trump sweeps the Iowa caucus and gears up for New Hamster, Hampshire. Even he's not doing that. He took hamsters. Anyway, gearing up for New Hampshire. We'll hear from his former National Security Advisor, John Bolton, on what impact a second Trump presidency would have on global stability.

They've pushed the protestors further back here. There's around 200 or 300 still remaining.

I'm Dan Whited, and I'm Sky News' West of England correspondent.

This van goes on to the streets of Plymouth seven days a week, 365 days a year. These facilities at the moment are a lifesaver, so we've got them.

From fishing communities to bustling cities, we spend every day reporting from across the region, hearing from people who have real stories.

We haven't have nowhere to live for about three or four months.

There are still people inside the properties here.

They're coming from the epicenter of what is now a global health pandemic.

We were seeing and speaking to young women who were selling themselves right on the high street.

It was desperately sad. And the fact it was happening right in the hearts of this community.

Before Brexit, these oysters were being exported to the EU, but the trade stopped overnight.

What's your feeling about the future should be. The lake might all be finished. I don't know.

President Joe Biden described my next guest as a Bull in a China Shop for his muscular approach to foreign affairs. For former US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton is a Hawk on Iran, a strong supporter of Israel, and a highly influential voice in Republican circles. And these days, he's an outspoken critic of his old boss, Donald Trump. So sticking with the theme of today's program, that it's a dangerous world, what can Western leaders do about it? I asked John Bolton, what are the chances of a second Trump White House, and what would that mean for global security? Ambassador Bolton, we're heading for the next stage of the Republican primaries, the vote in New Hampshire this week. It looks as though Mr. Trump will be the Republican nominee. Can he beat Joe Biden?

Well, he can, and it looks like Biden will be the Democratic nominee, and he can beat Trump. I think this election will be much like 2020 and 2016, in that there will be a large group of voters, this year, the largest of the three, a large group of voters who don't like either candidate. In the end, the winner will be the candidate who is less disliked by this large group of voters. Not an ideal way to pick a president, but I think people are very unhappy. We're headed toward a rematch of 2020, notwithstanding all that dissatisfaction. It looks like what will happen. Right now, that makes November impossible to predict.

Okay, but if you were a betting man, are we likely to see another Trump presidency?

Well, I think it's entirely possible. I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but Biden is deeply unpopular now. He's had some good economic news in the past few days. Consumer confidence is up in the past two months by record amounts. But people, honestly, don't think he's got the competence to make it through another four-year term. I think that situation, sadly for Joe Biden, but in reality, is not going to get any better as days go by.

I'm going to come back to this because you are, I think, it's still a member of the Republican Party, and it's quite interesting to hear you say that it's a pessimistic outlook that Biden can't win. But let me just come back, We're going to come on to your particular area of interest and expertise. Foreign affairs look set to play a bigger role in this year's elections than it might normally do, particularly the conflict in the Middle East. This week in the Israeli The Israeli Prime Minister said that, in effect, Israel would never accept a Palestinian state on its borders. On the other hand, Mr. Biden says that the solution must guarantee a Palestinian state. What do you think of Trump administration would do?

I think it would be chaotic and unpredictable. I do think it's important that national security play a larger role in this election. It's been a mistake since the collapse of the Soviet Union in America that we haven't debated enough what's happening, and I think we're beginning to see the consequences of that increase. I think a lot of Americans would support Netanyahu's position on the two-state solution. But regardless of how popular it is, the reality on the ground is the two-state solution is dead. Something has to be done for the Palestinians. They've been abused. They've made into a weapon against Israel for 75 years now. That hasn't gotten anywhere. But the idea that you're going to reconstruct Gaza and build a state on that, I think defies reality. The Palestinians were weaponized by radical Arab leaders back in the '50s and '60s because they were still trying to drive Israel into the sea. That is not going to happen. They are not going to return to their, quote, country of origin, Israel, especially after October the seventh. For the good of the Palestinian people, whether they're in Gaza, the West Bank, or wherever they may be, for their own good, for the good of their children, they need to be resettled into viable economies.

Well, in that situation, and you've talked about this in the past, there is, of course, one big actor that might stand in the way of any of that, and that is Iran. Is the United States making a mistake, do you think, that in attacking the proxies for Iran, Hezbollah, the Houthis, even Hamas in some ways. Should it strike directly at Tehran?

Well, I think we're seeing right now with respect to the Houthis, for example, five or perhaps it's now six American strikes, they're still firing missiles and drones and ships in the Red Sea. Iran is not feeling any pain for what's happening here. What is happening is not a series of discrete, isolated clashes. This This is the implementation of what the Iranian leadership calls the Ring of Fire strategy against Israel, developed by the late unlamented Qassim Suleimani of the Kudz Force. Hamas didn't wake up one morning and say, Hey, why don't we attack Israel? This was coordinated. This is part of an Iranian plan. We can't discern the full picture of what the Iranians have in mind, and they might not be very happy the way it's playing out. But Iran didn't arm and equip and train and finance against the Houdis, Hamas, Hezbollah, Shia militia groups in Iraq, to use these resources for their own benefit at their own discretion. Iran did all that so it would have a capability through its proxies to act as it's acting now. Notwithstanding strikes against these proxies, Iran is still at it. Would you still stand by what you said at times in the past, that actually the United States should simply just take action against Iran?

Absolutely. I think we We could do it. I think we could send several Iranian ships that are in the Red Sea, aiding the Houdis. We could send them to the bottom of the Iranian of the Red Sea. We could attack air defense sites inside Iran. We could go after military headquarters of the Kud's Force. We could go after camps where weapons and training have been transferred to various militia groups. Our attacks wouldn't necessarily threaten the mullets in Tehran. But as long as they are engaged in all this activity in the region, cost-free to them, they will continue to do it. We have no deterrence now in the region, not even, for goodness' sakes, against the Houthis.

Let's talk about the relationship between the UK and the United States. When you were a national security adviser back in 2019, you said that you welcomed Brexit and the United States would quickly negotiate a series of trade deals with the UK. To make Brexit work. When Mr. Trump left office, 80 months later, those talks hadn't even begun. Well, what actually happened?

Well, I would put the blame, unfortunately, on the government and the political parties in Great Britain. The remainers lost the vote, and they simply didn't accept it. They fought for years, making it almost impossible for successive governments to deal effectively in the trade area with the United States and others. You ask for a vote and you lose and you don't like it and you try and subvert it, sounds a little Trumpy into me.

Well, the reason I'm asking this is I'm wondering how you're assessing the relationship between UK in the United States. Pentagon sources last week criticized our defense secretary for an interview he did here, actually on Sky News, in which they say that Mr. Shaps let slip that there would be an attack on the Houthies In Washington, in the ambassador Bolton mind, can the UK be trusted as an ally?

Yeah, look, you'd have to be really living on a different planet not to see that pressure was growing to strike the hoodies, and the circumstances, I think, were increasingly clear. The problem with both governments is we didn't strike the hoodies earlier. I think, and I have certainly welcomed the position of success of British governments in providing aid to Ukraine, far more vigorous in advocating and proportionally supplying aid to Ukraine than the Biden administration has been.

Quickly, the issue, I guess, is whether in Washington, we are thought not just willing but capable. One of our former military leaders, Lord Danat, has been saying this weekend that we're running down, particularly the Army. Do Americans think that we are not just a willing, but a capable ally?

Yeah, look, I think both the United States and the United Kingdom are going to have to spend substantially more on defense. Right now, US levels are about 3% of GDP. Uk is a little bit over 2%. I think the US needs to go back to Ronald Reagan era levels, given the threats we see around the world, that's 5% to 6% of GDP. Honestly, you should do the same. God knows, our friends in Europe have to go from their relatively low levels, almost all of them, to much higher levels. We all made a mistake when the Cold War ended, people said history had ended, too, and that it's the economy's stupid and nothing else matters. Look at the invasion of Ukraine. Look at what's going on in the Middle East. Look at the Chinese threat to the South China Sea and to Taiwan. History didn't end. Threats exist. Global politics is still dangerous, and if we're not prepared for it, we We'll find ourselves in a disadvantageous position. A strong welfare state, a strong national health system will not defend you against your adversaries.

Very quick last question. Probably you only need one word for this. If there is a Trump administration, if asked, will you return to serve at the White House?

I will not be asked, and I will not serve.

We'll see. Ambassador Bolton, thank you so much for your time.

Glad to be with you.

Well, with me now and listening to that interview is Yalda Hakem, Presenter of our new global affairs program, The World Launching on Sky Tomorrow. First, Yalda, many congratulations on the news show. Thank you very much. John Bolton, what's your reaction to what he had to say, particularly on Iran?

Well, first of all, just in response to his last answer there about whether he'd serve again if there was a Trump 2.0. It didn't end well, so I can't imagine that he would serve again. But look, I think what we're going to see over the next year, and certainly something that we're going to address on my show, there is going to be a lot of catastrophizing of the world, the end of democracy, the end of the world order as we know it, the end of American leadership. I think what I hope to do on the program is to help our audiences understand that we live in an incredibly polarized world where there is a lot distrust, but actually also have thoughtful conversation and discuss the idea that there are different views, and it's okay to disagree without being disagreeable. In terms of what's going on in Iran, we can see the Middle East imbroiled in this escalating conflict. I guess I always say, what happens in the Middle East doesn't necessarily stay in the Middle East. The United The States has often said, Look, we've moved on from the Middle East. We've moved on from the war on terror.

Now our focus is great power competition. Our focus is China. Our focus is dealing with the problem that is Russia. But somehow, they always get dragged back into the Middle East. I imagine we're going to, on the show, try and make sense of that.

Well, I'll certainly be watching. Do you think that... I must say, I do like the idea that we inject a little bit of nuance, and as you say, the catastrophizing that goes on, I think, slightly ill-serves audiences in many ways. But in a sense, do you think that this is a real big moment for foreign affairs, isn't it? Journalism. We normally think foreign affairs, oh, well, nobody's that bothered, but I think it's having a big impact on the electorate.

I mean, for me, foreign affairs has always been my bread and butter and my true love. I guess I've always had my eye on what's going on globally, but you're right. No longer are people, certainly in this country, feeling like something is going on over there and it doesn't impact me over here. I often say people may not quite know how to pronounce Prigozhin or exactly what was going on in Russia or Ukraine. But actually, they know what happens over there impacts them here, and they need to know. That's what I'm hoping that I'll be able to give through the show to our audiences.

Fantastic. Thank you so much for coming in, and I'm looking forward to it. Thank you. Now, as a reminder, tune in from tomorrow to watch our brand new program discussing the latest international news with a host of big names, Shaping the Global Outlook. That is The World with Yalda Hakeem, Monday at 9:00 PM. Still to come this morning, Barenas gray Thompson, the greatest Paralympic athlete the country has ever produced, tells me why she thinks changing the to allow a right to die is a dangerous idea.

Hidden in plain sight.

Winters here are not for the faint of heart.

Buried beneath the ice and snow.

I've never seen anything like this before.

There is more than you know. It's really the last place you would expect.

Whoever did this was intent on extermination.

Part of mystery season Uncover Secrets in the Ice, Mondays at 9:00 on Sky History.

Before Christmas, Dame Esther Ranssen made headlines when she revealed that she's joined Dignitas and would consider a resisted suicide if the treatment she's receiving for lung cancer doesn't work. She said she wanted to avoid what she called a bad death, but she expressed concern that any loved ones who might accompany her to Switzerland could risk prosecution. She's amongst a growing number of people calling for a reform in the legislation. Since then, Labor Leader, Sakeer Starmer, said he back to change in the law, and former Home Office Minister, Kit Malthtaus, said sentiment has moved significantly since 2015, the last time Parliament voted on the issue. So could legislation on assisted dying be closer than we think? Joining me now is someone who would oppose a change in the law, Britain's greatest ever Our Olympian, Barenas Tani Greigh-Thompson. Good morning, Tani.

Good morning.

Thank you very much for joining us. Do you have any sympathy for Esther Anson's view that a trip to Dignitas would spare both her and her family pain and suffering?

I do have sympathy for Dame Esther because nobody wants a terrible death. The reality in this country is we don't talk about death, but also there is no reason that people should have a terrible death. We should have access to specialist palliative care. There's lots of rumors and misunderstanding about things like morphine and how people's lives are ended, and pain should be controlled. When people talk about all these cases of terrible deaths, families should be complaining. They should be challenging the system to make sure that their families don't go through this. But there are really big consequences if we change the law, and our relationship between an individual and society fundamentally changes.

But I think the issue for many people here is not the technical issue of safeguards and so on, but I guess one of principle and choice. You and I have discussed this before, and I was interested listening to the last time we talked about it on there. You said that 25 years ago, you probably wouldn't have taken this position, but you've now changed your view. What made you change your position?

I think it's looking into the detail and the reality of what happens. Those who want to change the law will talk about choice. The reality is you're pushing choice to two doctors where there's no witnesses and there's no necessarily any formal process of recording how that decision is made. We talk about six months left to live. Well, we all know that when doctors give somebody a prognosis, that can be quite wildly out. It's looking at the detail and looking at other jurisdictions around the world. Those who want to change the law may say that the law hasn't changed in those countries, but it's the practice that has changed. In Canada now, if you're anorexic, you can request it. If you're diabetic, you can request. If you're poor, you can request it. There's a case that's garnered quite a lot of publicity. Christine Gaultier, who's a wheelchair user. She asks for funding to have a ramp to her house and she was offered the drugs to end her life. You also look at cases like Oregon, where Oregon is a tiny US state, where one in nine deaths under a sister's suicide end up with complications.

They're on their fourth set of drugs in eight years with no research into patient protocols. The thing that really worries me with places like Oregon is that they destroy all the source documents a year after the patient's died. There's already not great recording of evidence between a patient and a doctor. But if those source documents are destroyed, you can't go back and check whether someone has made a genuine decision to end their lives. The other issue is, will we invest enough money in making sure that people have made that genuine choice?

Can I come back to that issue of choice? I take all your points about the process. There's no good outcome here, actually. But you've always been a great champion of the rights of disabled people, and you and I have, in a way, been on platforms and been, if you like, on the same campaigns and so on. At the heart of what you've always said is that a person with a disability needs to have reasonable adjustments to give them the same set of options and choices as a person without a disability. I've always been curious about this. Why is it that when it comes to the single most important choice that an individual might make, are you so set against giving somebody who is disabled that choice?

That is a really difficult one. Genuine choice in our lives is really hard to come by, and a choice to live is one thing. But we've got to be really careful of coercive control. We passed legislation on that recently. We can't just assume that coercive control only happens in certain parts of everyone's life. In the week where the government has said, they're not going to put any mitigation into place for disabled people who need life-saving equipment at home, like ventilators, if there's a sudden power cut, disabled people will have that choice stripped away. There is no organization of or for disabled people who is supportive of a law change. Yes, there are individual disabled people who support it, But we all have different levels of choice. I'm really worried that disabled people, because of the cost of health and social care, because that's being removed, that choice is then taken away. The only choice they have is to end their lives. If If you need personal care and all you get is 15 minutes a day and you have to choose whether you eat or you go to the bathroom, that is not choiceing in people's lives.

All right. Can I just ask you lastly, one other question, which is not about the person themselves, but those who are around them. I think you'll understand why I'm asking you this question. You and I have both been in a place where we've had to watch a loved one die in extreme pain and suffering and so on. The one thing that you know in that situation is that if that person passes away while you're in the room, you immediately become a murder suspect subject to investigation. Is that really the way we want the law to work?

No, and I think when Kierst Armo was in public prosecution office, in terms of the clarification he provided on that was very useful. But actually, we also just have to recognize that where there's a will, there's a relative, and We have to make sure that people are protected. Personally, I think the law is fine where it is. We should debate it. We should keep debating it. But people also really need to understand the consequences of a law change. It's not simple in terms of how people end their lives. The consequences for people who don't have choice are really severe.

Tani, thank you so much for spending time. I'm sure that we're going to be talking about this again and again. Thank In just a moment, we'll hear once again from our panel. They're a bunch of political geeks like me, but are we unusual? After the break, we'll get the panel's thoughts on whether in this crucial election year, public is just sick of politics. I joined the railway approximately nine years ago now, and a part of my railway induction to attend the Samaritan's Training Course due to a safeguarding issue along the line. So I attended the Samaritan's Training Course, and only two days later, I was able to implement it in real life.

And part of what you do is talking in observing to passengers. In a world where everybody's on their platform on their mobile phones waiting for trains, you're alert and looking. What is it people should be looking out for?

I think the major signs are facial expression is probably the key one. Type of clothing people wear in line with the weather condition. If someone's isolating themselves in a specific area, missing constant trains. If you feel something's wrong, trust your instincts and just build small talk. You can... Anything random, nothing at that point you say is wrong. I tend to use the weather, a perfect example.

Just strike up a conversation. Exactly.

This is about showing empathy, doing it from the heart, just be there for that vulnerable person.

Riz, as I said, you've saved 29 lives. Lives. Have you seen some of those people again? There was one person who returned back a few weeks after the intervention, and she just ran over and gave me a big hug and said, If it wasn't for you that night, I wouldn't be here.

That was the only person who really came back.

But it was so heartfelt.

I was so emotional. And honestly, from that day onwards, I've prayed for her to be living her best life and hope she is.

Anyone can approach someone to find out if they're okay. A hundred %.

And that's the message. I feel like we're all born with skills. We just got to dig deep and establish them skills and have the confidence to have that conversation. You could come across a total stranger, and that's someone's family member, and your actions can make a massive impact in their life.

Welcome back. Let's talk to the panel. I thought what Tani had to say, I personally don't entirely We agree with her, but I thought what she had to say was very telling.

It's a really difficult question. I have some personal experience of this. When a relative declared to me that he wanted to die, take a drug overdose, I told a doctor. The doctor said, Well, we'll have to section him under the Mental Health Act. I thought, Well, that's terrible. And so in the end, the person did actually take their own life through a drug overdose. I wasn't in the room, but I respected that person's decision.

And this was at the end of an elderly person.

Eighty-two years old in terrible suffering.

I think we can all agree that where we are right now is not really very satisfactory.

I think that's the point. In a minute, Trevor, we're about to talk about what people do and don't care about, politically speaking, and what issues fire people up. This is an issue that people care about, genuinely, and they want their politicians to do something about it. I understand it's always been a free vote. It's a matter of conscience. But the dial has shifted considerably in public opinion. I thought your interview with Tali gray Thompson was really excellent. Like you, I respect where she's coming from. It was a startling statistic. She was talking about other countries like Canada that have passed laws. In today's paper, 13,241 people were killed by doctors in 2022 in Canada. That's a equivalent to 4% of all deaths with a cyst in dying. That does bring it home. I'm still on the opposite side, but I think the politicians have really, really, a lot of them, particularly in the House of Lords, have really changed their opinion on this issue.

I think you should make the case really, really powerfully about the dangers of this. And yet on the other side, the idea that you can be criminalized for helping somebody who is fully in charge of their faculties, who desperately wants to be alleviated of pain. We've got to address that.

We will come back to this without question, and I'd like to devote a good chunk of a show to it. But anyway, let's go back to vulgar politics, if we may, and have a look at the state of affairs. We've got some data here, starting with where we are, I think, in the polls. The Westman are voting intention last week. Tories on 20%, they're slightly down. They didn't think that was possible, but a 27% lead for Labor, and that's pretty steady. We We've got some data on what we think about leaders coming up. Country is never enthusiastic about any leaders, but Starmer actually is doing rather well, 33%, who soon acts 47%. 47% basically don't want to make a choice.

That's the killer, isn't it?

Yeah. Well, actually, we're going to go on to some data which, in a way, supports that and tells us something rather alarming. This is terrible for our business, my business, journalism. Lord Ashcroft, the former Deputy Chair of the Conservancy, asked people, what incidents, events, or stories have you noticed about politics in the last few days? Of course, everybody noticed a post office scandal. But what is absolutely stunning is that nothing else registered. The biggest thing, bombing in Yemen. People think about general election, but no, six out of seven people paid no attention. And 83%, a quarter of the population, couldn't name a single story. Now, we get all upset about these things. Daisy, we're weird, aren't we?

Well, I do think that people who couldn't name a story, most people, if you ask them a slightly different question, what is it that keeps you awake at night? Rather than name me a story in the newspapers, they would probably say paying my bills. And that is a political story. That is the cost of living crisis. It just comes under a different name. Also, it's all kudos to Mr. Bates versus the post office that the post office scandal has properly broken through. And politicians are now grumbly trying to think, how can I make a quick vote out of this issue? How can I burnish? Or how can I look like a hero on that issue? But it is very concerning.

Tell me that me and all the other political journalists are not just howling into the wind, please.

Well, I'm not I'm surprised about the post office scandal. I watched the entire thing last night. I binged. I'm red-eye this morning because I was watching that. It just shows when you actually articulate your case well. It took a drama to do a brilliant piece of journalism. The journalism behind that ITV show was superb. And what it does is touch at everything.

But nobody paid any attention to it.

No, they did on the post office scandal. That's exactly what they're saying. They all care about it. And now it's distorting our policies.

Nobody paid attention to the journalism, the straight conventional journalism like the stuff we do. Yeah, we've finally got it over the line.

So our politics needs to be a little bit more alert to what is going out there. And now, belatedly, they're retrofitting solutions galore to all of this. I sat in the House of Commons when they basically, the House has never been so united. But the rest of it, Yemen is a far away place that most people haven't really heard of. But I think that's quite high. People have clocked that we have got involved, and our AF jets were involved in bombing something that is affecting world trade, that affects the cost of goods in their supermarket. So it's our job to explain the relevance of some of these stories that may look obscure, but matter just as much as the post office did.

Okay. Laila, you spent a lot of time trying to make rather high-end people pay attention to what was going on in the world. Cheer me up and tell me that we're not wasting our time.

I'm going to cheer you up. I'm going to depress you.

Oh, God.

On the post office scandal, this was the result of some really brilliant journalism, notably by nick Wallace, the independent freelancer, who stayed with that story, who stayed in the court trial, who supplied all the material for the brilliant ITV drama, which then cut through. Now, here's the depressing news. I want to pick up on Ukraine, 8% only. This is a war which really directly affects Europe and Britain. If Putin wins, it's really deep bad news. The parallel to draw is, how would we feel about 1941, just before the Stalingrad, for example? Are we prepared in this country to understand that wars take time. They're not something that just ends.

Event in a country far away of which we know a little. There we go.

That's really serious. This requires enduring patience because of the stakes involved. I want to see that number, 8% go up a lot.

Very quickly, though, Daisy, there's something in this which makes me wonder, though, whether we, the clever people, get paid to talk, are having a different conversation to the ones going on in the country.

Well, I suspect if we call ourselves the clever people, we might not be very popular for very long, but that's a different issue. Yes, it is all about tapping into what people are talking about around their kitchen table, and we've got to be better at that.

All right, good Hello, Daisy, Lionel. Thank you very much for joining us. And that is it for this week's show. I will be back here next Sunday. Politics Hub with Sophie Ridge and Sky News tomorrow.