gb news. >> as iran attacks israel , i >> as iran attacks israel, i asked the question. how did the west get it so wrong? over iran? and what's the wise thing for israel to do next? we broadcast tonight the first exclusive tv interview with liz truss about her book, which is being published tomorrow. and i promise you, she doesn't hold back. and as we speak, a game of parliamentary ping pong is going on in the house of commons. they are fighting back against rejected amendments that have come from the house of lords. but i asked the question, does any of it, in the end really matter? but before all of that, let's get the news with polly

middlehurst . middlehurst. >> nigel. thank you. and good evening to you. well, the top story tonight from the gb newsroom is that the prime minister says he's going to be urging his israeli counterpart to show restraint following iran's drone and missile attack on israel. rishi sunak told the commons that he'll be speaking to binyamin netanyahu later on today to both reiterate the uk's solidarity with israel, but also to discuss how to prevent an escalation of violence in the region. there was condemnation of iran's military offensive against israel from both sir keir starmer and rishi sunak. >> today, our aim is to support stability and security because it is right for the region and because, although the middle east is thousands of miles away, it has a direct effect on our security and prosperity at home. >> there can be no doubt that the attack perpetrated by iranian forces this weekend has

left the world a more dangerous place. it targeted innocent civilians with a clear intent to destabilise the region . it must destabilise the region. it must be wholly condemned by all. >> sir keir starmer speaking earlier on today, now , in other earlier on today, now, in other news, 534 migrants were intercepted while crossing the engush intercepted while crossing the english channel yesterday. that makes it the highest number of crossings on a single day so far this year. and it means the number of small boat arrivals this year now stands at a provisional total of 6265. it comes as the government's flagship rwanda policy returns to parliament, as you heard, with mps debating the latest amendments by peers this evening , a judge ordered today that prince harry must pay 90% of home office legal costs after losing a case over his personal security . the duke of sussex had security. the duke of sussex had argued the court should reduce the amount he was required to pay by the amount he was required to pay by more than half. he

launched legal action against the home office for cutting his police protection , after he police protection, after he stopped being a full time working member of the royal family and in the united states. donald trump has lost a second bid to remove the judge in his so—called hush money criminal trial . he so—called hush money criminal trial. he claimed the presiding judge had a conflict of interest because his daughter worked for a political consulting firm with links to the democratic party. the former us president has been charged in connection with a case involving a payment to an aduu case involving a payment to an adult film star arriving in court a little earlier on today. he described the start of the trial as an assault on america. this is political persecution. >> this is a persecution like never before . nobody's ever seen never before. nobody's ever seen anything like it. and again , anything like it. and again, it's a case that should have never been brought . it's an never been brought. it's an assault on america . assault on america. >> here at home, a suspected tornado has ripped through a staffordshire village today. roof tiles were dislodged ,

roof tiles were dislodged, windows were smashed by flying debns windows were smashed by flying debris and vehicles damaged . as debris and vehicles damaged. as well as the area experienced gale force winds near stoke on trent. it happened early on this morning , affecting several morning, affecting several houses with roads closed or closed off by staffordshire fire and rescue as it worked to make homes safe, unpredictable. april weather we're having. for the latest stories, do sign up to gb news alerts. scan the qr code on your screen or go to gb news. com slash alerts. >> good evening. thus far it has been a proxy war. it has been the proxies of iran, those terrorist groups, three of them that i terrorist groups, three of them thati can terrorist groups, three of them that i can think of that have been launching the attacks against israel and indeed against israel and indeed against western shipping as well . but last night and bear in mind that this extreme islamist regime have been in charge since 1979. they have as a very clear

objective that israel should be completely wiped out, launched their first ever attack on israel, something like 350 drones, cruise missiles and rockets were fired at israel, 95% of them were intercepted and shot down, including some action by our own royal air force . but by our own royal air force. but the question i'm very keen to ask is how did the west get this so wrong? we have been appeasing iran ever since the jcpoa deal , iran ever since the jcpoa deal, as it's known, and this was the deal that president obama put together with, of course, joe biden as the vice president, supported enthusiastically by the european union and indeed by the european union and indeed by the british government and the idea was we remove sanctions. we free up tens of billions of dollars of frozen money, and in return, iran will not continue to build a nuclear weapon. and what have they done with that

money? well, it has helped them, of course, to fund hamas. it has helped them to fund hezbollah. it's helped them to fund the houthis, and it directly helped them to fund the rocket attacks on israel last night. we have got this wrong at every level. i have been against this deal from day one. i was delighted when trump was president in america that he pulled the americans out of it. but you would have thought, wouldn't you? after that response last night, that the west might have learned its lesson, but oh, no. unbelievably, the european union high representative for foreign affairs, vice president of the european commission joseph borrell, said that overnight he had spoken with the iranian foreign minister. late on sunday, he said the eu needed to have the best possible relations with iran, so that's okay. iran just keep firing more rockets. the european union don't mind. and what of the response from

america ? i mean, this is truly america? i mean, this is truly incredible . president biden, his incredible. president biden, his message to israel is you've got a win. take the win. and that was followed up by our own foreign secretary, lord cameron, who quoted, as biden said , take who quoted, as biden said, take the win and move on. so basically, israel is not allowed to respond in any way at all. they've just got to take it. and the european union will go on supplying industrial parts that are being put into drones and rockets, being used by the iranian regime. oh, and by the way , being sent to the russians way, being sent to the russians as well. how do we get into this mess with iran? i'll tell you, after 21 years in the european parliament, i've seen how global politics works. it is the influence of big global business. they are the ones that have the influence over governments and the decisions

that they take. i promise you, i'm right about this. that they take. i promise you, i'm right about this . if you i'm right about this. if you think i'm wrong, well, you let me know. farage gbnews.com i'm very pleased to be joined in the studio on this difficult day. by tzipi hotovely , israeli tzipi hotovely, israeli ambassador to the united kingdom. thank you for coming in. hello, nigel. so according to joe biden and our foreign secretary it was a good night for israel. you got a win. >> it was a bad night for iran because iran launched massive attack on israel with as you mentioned, over 300 missiles include ing those drones that we've seen operating in ukraine, same footprint of iran and in the end of the game, it ended with a major failure to the iranians and with the creation of a wonderful coalition including israel, united states, united kingdom . it's a good united kingdom. it's a good opportunity to thank your royal

air force and actually to your government also, by leading this and understanding that this is a front that must be confronted together and also with moderate arab countries that were on our side. so together, i believe this coalition is now creating a message to iran. >> not having not having thousands killed is not a win, is it? >> no, no, no, absolutely not. i said it's a failure to iran, but we don't see it as a win. we see it as a performing of our technological abilities, of the fact that israel can fight and israel can create coalitions. israel can create coalitions. israel is not alone in the world, and i think this is world, but and i think this is the important thing, one the most important thing, one thing learned the thing we have learned from the 7th of october, by again mentioning hamas is a proxy of iran. you should always look at your enemy's intentions, not whether he killed people, whether he killed people, whether he killed people, whether he managed to achieve , whether he managed to achieve, the big things he wanted to achieve by targeting our military bases. iran's attempt was to kill . military bases. iran's attempt was to kill. iran's military bases. iran's attempt was to kill . iran's attempt was was to kill. iran's attempt was to hurt. iran's attempt was to

attack a sovereign country from its own border, from its own soil for the first time, for the first time. and since the first gulf war, israel was not attacked from another sovereign country. this is unprecedented and the fact that iran had the nerve to do it means not enough deterrence. and the game now is deterrence. and the game now is deterrence. and the game now is deterrence. and no one is expecting israel. and i'm looking at the people i'm surrounded with british people that heard from the head of m15 last year. iran is a threat to this country as much as it's a threat to israel. so iran was targeting individuals in your country, and last year it was the head of m15 saying that and all the government leaders know that. i think the good news and just just to make it clear, israel is not being expected, just to sit and do nothing when 300 and, weapons are fired on our soil thing, though, isn't it? >> i mean, look, i think there

is good news here in that the focus of the debate now is back on iran. right. and people can very clearly see the bad very clearly see who the bad guys the snake like. guys are. the snake like. absolutely. and is funding absolutely. and who is funding all different the all the different all the different proxies there. different proxies out there. and, the general different proxies out there. and, to the general different proxies out there. and, to understandie general different proxies out there. and, to understand proxyeral different proxies out there. and, to understand proxy wars, public to understand proxy wars, you busy leading you know, they're busy leading their makes much simpler. >> this lion been hiding, as i told you, behind this bush of proxies, but not more. so proxies, but not any more. so and the other sensible arab states have been much on states have been very much on your side and overnight, allowing airspace allowing their airspace to be used shoot rockets , etc. used to shoot down rockets, etc. and maybe that's the good thing. >> but incredible thing here >> but the incredible thing here is, and we've had, you know, in the hour or so , the idf the last hour or so, the idf chief of staff , a the last hour or so, the idf chief of staff, a lieutenant general, halevy, saying that the drone attack will be met with a response doesn't say how or when. the incredible thing i put to you is that actually what joe biden is saying and what david cameron is saying is you mustn't respond at all. you must just accept it and take it. otherwise there will be escalation . and

there will be escalation. and israel does have a right to respond. it's said it is going to respond. question is, ambassador, what would the intelligent response be? >> so let's start with what is under my portfolio as a diplomat. there is some things the war cabinet will make decisions, and the people of israel are expecting very much to make sure that they will be protected from this type of attacks. no country in the world can tolerate this type of attacks. if we would have seen birmingham, manchester, liverpool and london attacked at the with i'm the same night with drones, i'm sure prime minister wasn't sure your prime minister wasn't happy wasn't saying, okay, sure your prime minister wasn't hafjust wasn't saying, okay, sure your prime minister wasn't hafjust managed saying, okay, sure your prime minister wasn't hafjust managed to, (ing, okay, sure your prime minister wasn't hafjust managed to, but, okay, sure your prime minister wasn't hafjust managed to, but that's we just managed to, but that's what they're telling you. exactly. so this is not the case and we definitely need to create better, deterrence for iran and another thing, one thing that the uk knows from any other country in the world better is that sometimes not operating, not acting against aggressor, create a bigger escalation . and create a bigger escalation. and i'm speaking about exactly the same thing you were saying. the appeasement. you cannot appease

our long approach from our long standing approach from a point of view is to a diplomatic point of view is to proscribe the irgc, the iranian revolutionary guard, something the government still the british government still hasn't operating as a as hasn't done operating as a as a massive terror organisation. the head of the octopus sending its arms all over the middle east, destabilising all the region, sponsoring those horrific terror tunnels of hamas where we have 130 hostages still there, being violated. women being raped on a daily basis. and they're not releasing them. they're not willing to release all of the british government act. i think , british government act. i think, first of all, it's for me to speak on behalf of the israeli government, the israeli government, the israeli government is responsible to act because make sure that because we must make sure that iran won't do that again. and if we them go and let her, you we let them go and let her, you know, just say it's a big know, just say it's not a big deal know, just say it's not a big deal. 300 drones, it's a missile. it's a very deal. missile. it's a very big deal. it's a massive attack. completely. no one completely. and no one, no one can expect israel to do can really expect israel to do nothing. >> i feel i just feel that biden and cameron are being rather condescending towards israel . as

condescending towards israel. as an ambassador. i wouldn't expect you to respond to that comment. >> no, i think actually we have we have very close partnership we have a very close partnership with i'm actually with the uk, and i'm actually thanking the leadership of the government country for government in this country for understanding threat of understanding the threat of iran. we've been iran. and actually, we've been working closely, including working very closely, including on intelligence and on an intelligence level, and the uk was operating the way the uk was operating about the iran issue with the americans was actually a robust, point view understanding point of view of understanding the big threat. they understand it's a threat to london as much as it's a threat on jerusalem and tel aviv. >> hotovely, thank >> ambassador hotovely, thank you very much. thank you indeed. well, i'm now joined down the line richard dalton, the line by sir richard dalton, the former british ambassador to iran . varne sir richard, i put iran. varne sir richard, i put it to you that the policy of appeasement started, led by obama, backed, it seems, still today, by the european union and indeed with the british government has , as the events of government has, as the events of last night show, been a total and utter failure. >> there has been no policy of appeasement whatsoever. you're entirely wrong about that.

british relationships with iran are absolute zero. we've not been able to trade or finance any normal dealings with iran since the 2016 implementation of the nuclear agreement, you are exaggerating grossly and misleading your viewers about what british policy in american policy has been. now we need to think a little bit more about that nuclear agreement, because if you're not prepared to attack, invade, and totally destroy the government of a country, then you have to influence their policy by other means . those are the means were means. those are the means were used over decades, namely sanctions and isolation . we sanctions and isolation. we retained a dialogue over the nuclear program because of its potential danger, and that led to the most comprehensive and

effective nuclear deal escalation agreement that has ever been achieved with any country with any potentially threshold country . that was the threshold country. that was the british interest, that was the european interest, british interest, that was the european interest , that was the european interest, that was the american interest, that was the israeli interest . and we were israeli interest. and we were comprehensively screwed by president trump, who pulled out of it, thereby leaving iran free of it, thereby leaving iran free of the restrictions and the monitoring which that agreement had laid upon them . since then, had laid upon them. since then, of course, american evidence is all the evidence is that iran is that iran ignored it, iran ignored it. maximum pressure, sanctions ones which are not appeasement. it's why iran has been driven into the arms of russia and china. china takes their oil and they have a weapons arrangement now with

russia . that would not have russia. that would not have happened if our american allies had acted in their own israel. and the uk's interest. >> all the evidence is that iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than it was at the time of this agreement , than it was at the time of this agreement, and it's all well and good signing up for nuclear de—escalation . if the partner on de—escalation. if the partner on the other side obeys the rules, the other side obeys the rules, the evidence, surely, sir richard is. the iranians ignored it and a lot of frozen assets were freed up and they have used those assets to fund their terrorist proxies around the region. the policy was a failure i >> -- >> you're absolutely wrong. the people who were observing the agreement from 2016 to 2019 were the iranians that is established truth by the international atomic agency , vie, by the atomic agency, vie, by the americans, by ourselves. it was the uk and its european partners under the leadership of america, who made it impossible for iran to carry on fulfilling the agreement because we trashed it.

the americans led the way. and because of the dominance of the americans in the world economy, britain and its european partners were unable to fulfil their obligations to iran. so naturally enough, after a year's delay in the hope that we would be able to stand up to the americans, we failed to do that because we in most of our foreign policies towards the middle east, were just a lickspittle all of the americans. and after a year's delay , iran started slowly delay, iran started slowly breaching the agreement . and breaching the agreement. and yes, they are now possessing significant quantities that could be turned into highly enriched uranium quite quickly . enriched uranium quite quickly. and that's the fault of the partners of iran in that deal. >> and here we are with drones being sent into israel. the same drones being used by the

russians that contain parts manufactured by british owned companies, european union companies. we're not coming out of this very well, are we? >> yes, i think we have come out of it. well you're entirely wrong to ignore the context in which the iranian retaliation took place. your typical of british politicians who think the presence and the future starts today. it doesn't. it started with a decades long shadow war between israel and iran , in which the hits were iran, in which the hits were taken by iran and they were soaked up. whether it was iranian, whether it was israeli sabotage, israeli assassinations , all on sovereign iranian territory, whether it was the degrading of military capabilities which iran had in syria, the offensive was in the hands of israel and the iranians exercised what they call

strategic patience in what israel calls the war between the wars. but when on april the 1st, the israelis conducted an unlawful and unwise attack on his iranian consulate premises in damascus, they tipped over the table. they broke the china , the table. they broke the china, and they put iran, probably deliberately, from the point of view of the israeli war cabinet, into a corner, knowing that iran would have to retaliate . but would have to retaliate. but now, in my opinion, it was wrong of iran to retaliate on israeli sovereign territory because of the risk of a regional war. but the risk of a regional war. but the other issue that i would beg you to consider is whether it's in anybody's interest for there to be a regional war if you encourage israel to retaliate. now, against the advice of

president biden, the advice of the british government the advice of the european union, you are partly responsible for a regional conflagration which is going to savage the world economy and seriously impact. >> whilst richard ipsis, i think this needs a very considered and clever response from israel. i'm absolutely there on that , one absolutely there on that, one thing i won't be doing is taking foreign policy advice from joe biden. but sir richard, thank you for joining biden. but sir richard, thank you forjoining us. and giving us your view of that agreement over the course of the last decade. now, let's think military for a moment. i'm joined by chris parry, former royal navy commander , who joins royal navy commander, who joins me from portsmouth. where else, chris, the royal air force involved last night sort of backing up the americans, i think, in shooting down drones and missiles. how much do we actually know ? actually know? >> well, i answer that, i've just listening to the previous speaker and i've just read a

book on the period leading up to 1939, and our ambassador in berlin had similar delusions about the german . about the german. >> well, chris, you know, the thing about gb news is i've given some very strong opinions at the top of this show. we do allow other opinions, and we treat our viewers. we think our viewers are big enough and ugly enough to make up their own minds. but i'm absolutely with you because it's ironic when he said, know, the future said, you know, the future concerns the past, you know, and the present , it concerns the past, you know, and the present, it seems to me that the, foreign office hasn't been thinking about the past in anything to do with iran . and i anything to do with iran. and i have to say, some of the factual information there is at odds with what i think has happened. but there we go. anyway, let's get back to real men's stuff, okay. the royal air force. okay. yeah. the royal air force. fantastic has taken with fantastic has taken part with the israelis the americans the israelis and the americans in a very complicated defence package. and i think what was interesting about what the israeli ambassador said is the

intent was to hurt israel. it doesn't matter. you know, what happensin doesn't matter. you know, what happens in the end? the intent was to put 330 missiles and drones onto israel, most of it into urban areas. the fact that the israelis ourselves and the americans were competent in shooting them down is irrelevant . that was designed to be a major hit, and it didn't work. >> yeah. no, absolutely . so what >> yeah. no, absolutely. so what happens next, chris? we just stay there and we intervene again if iran tries again, i think the smart move, nigel, is for israel to say, you know what? >> we owe you one and we're going to hold you at risk. >> we owe you one and we're going to hold you at risk . and going to hold you at risk. and we're going to at some stage in the future, if you really misbehave, we're going to wallop you, but i think it won't be smart to retaliate at the moment. i think the iranians have got to never know the time and place at which it's going to happen. that way you stabilise , happen. that way you stabilise, you act as a restraining influence. in the meantime , you influence. in the meantime, you get on with gaza, you get on with dealing with the houthis .

with dealing with the houthis. and at some stage i think hezbollah as well, otherwise poor old israel is going to be an armed camp for the next ten years or so, so i think what you do is you put the snake to one side at the moment and you deal with the little snakes first and then see what appetite iran's got. i think there's a race against time, because i think the iranians have been working on their nuclear program. how naive was that , and they will naive was that, and they will get it around 2526. and if you remember, nigel, the jcpoa said they could have it in 2025. that was part of the deal. >> chris. the whole thing is utterly bonkers. i agree with you entirely. thank you once again for joining you entirely. thank you once again forjoining us on the again for joining us on the program. well, some very spirited debate in that first segment. in a moment. liz truss's first tv interview about her new book. and i promise you, she does not hold back

it's -- it's liz truss book launch tomorrow. the only conservative in the room is what she says she was very often, particularly on the international stage. and quite often , i think, within her quite often, i think, within her own party. at least that's how she felt. now she's done a series of interviews. this is her first interview with a live uk tv channel. let's begin with that theme of the only conservative in the room really causing a bit of a row. perhaps unsurprisingly, the book that i'm talking about is liz truss's ten years to save the west. lessons from the only conservative in the room. well, the only conservative in the room joins me now liz truss. quite extraordinary after 14 years of conservative government. and you were there for a decade and more , holding for a decade and more, holding very senior cabinet positions . very senior cabinet positions. is this by the end of the process that you were the only conservative in the room? was

that the case from the very beginning ? beginning? >> well, the only conservative in the room refers to the position of the uk in the global firmament. and what i faced was emmanuel macron in france , olaf emmanuel macron in france, olaf scholz in germany, biden in the us, trudeau in canada. and the fact is that the free world has been largely run by the left, with the exception of the uk. i was the only conservative in the room for many years and it's not working. the west is weak. we're seeing authoritarian regimes on the on the rise, and what we're also seeing is in our own societies, our very values being undermined. you know, the things we believe in our nation, the family , individual freedom, all family, individual freedom, all of those core values are being undermined. and that is what my bookis undermined. and that is what my book is about. >> do you i mean, as we you know, we're in an election year. do you actually regard the

current conservative party as being conservative? >> well, i'd like them to be more conservative. they're definitely more conservative than labour, than the labour party, which are desperate to kowtow to the global left, desperate to give in to the eco extremists, desperate to have more immigration into britain . more immigration into britain. but i would like to see the conservative party take a stronger stance, and in particular being prepared to change the system, because what i found as a minister and as prime minister that too often much of the power that was meant to lie in our hands actually allied, lay with unelected bureaucrats and it became impossible to get things done. so i want to see a conservative party that's actually prepared to challenge the status quo, prepared to challenge the system in order to deliver the conservative policies that, you know, i want to see. >> you see, you mentioned all those things about why labour would be worse migration under a

conservative government running at record levels, you know, nearly three quarters of a million in just one year alone , million in just one year alone, climate alarmism. it was boris johnson and theresa may, in fact, that started putting us on to a net zero agenda, which is completely unattainable already. the 2030 goal for no new petrol and diesel cars are slipped to 2035. and in terms of constitutional reform and change, a conservative party at its centre that fought brexit didn't want brexit to happen and then really struggled to deliver it. i mean, really the point i'm making is that the right now, do you really see at the centre and the leadership, not necessarily the leadership, not necessarily the members, you know, you know, your members in your constituency in norfolk, i'm sure are still pretty conservative. they're very, very conservative. they're very, very conservative. i even a conservative, i even read in the book that a lot of them think donald trump's a good guy. >> they do. >> they do. >> yeah, they do, which is unlike what we get in number 10 and number 11 downing street

today. do we actually right now have a big fundamental philosophical difference between the leadership and the conservative leadership and the conservative leadership and the labour leadership? >> i mean, you talked about things like net zero, you talked about immigration, but let's remember where those policies started. it was the labour government under blair that put in place the climate change act. yep. we're struggling to deal with illegal immigration because of the human rights act, which brought the echr into uk law, but also also the constitutional reform act, which blair put in in 2005, which created the supreme court , which we'd never supreme court, which we'd never had before in britain, which is now challenging government policy. so i would say what we have got wrong over the last 14 years is we didn't take on that blair consensus. years is we didn't take on that blair consensus . and now when blair consensus. and now when we're trying to deliver things like rwanda, the problem is that we are hidebound by the blairite legacy, which is essentially

tied us up in knots. it's also meant that a lot of decisions that should be taken by ministers are effectively being taken by the courts. you know, they're being taken by unelected bureaucrats. so i would argue the problems started earlier on. yeah, 2010, they started when i wouldn't disagree. people said, you know, tony blair is the master. you know, i'm the heir to blair. that was where the problems started. and now , you problems started. and now, you know, 14 years later, we didn't do enough to turn that around. that's not to say , by the way, that's not to say, by the way, that, you know, we've achieved nothing. we haven't we have achieved brexit as a major reluctantly. >> but it's been done. >> but it's been done. >> we got out of we got out of the european union. we've delivered huge amounts of trade deals. we've joined the cptpp, we've delivered big education reform. the school results in england are a lot better now than the school results in scotland on the snp. so it's not to say we've had no

achievements, but i think and what my book says is we should have done more to take on the blair consensus and that is at the heart of the problems we face. and by the way, keir starmer just wants to double down on that stuff. he wants to outsource even more power. he wants to listen to international courts. >> the argument the other lot are worse isn't very powerful, is it? >> well, this is why i believe we need to acknowledge what the problems are and actually say how we're going to deal with them of them from from a position of principle . principle. >> it's also easy to forget that liz truss voted remain. she now appears to be an ardent brexiteer. i asked her about that conversion a bandwidth. it dominated everything, didn't it ? dominated everything, didn't it? i mean, cameron resigns. the next morning we finish up with theresa may. god knows how. as prime minister there appears to be. >> well, i explain how in my book. yeah yeah, yeah. >> well, isn't it that that part of the story is, is slightly

bizarre, but we then go through parliamentary deadlock where it isn't just the speaker that doesn't want brexit really to happen. it isn't just the labour party or most of it actually, the conservative party just don't believe in it, do they? >> i don't think that is true or fair . i think >> i don't think that is true or fair. i think there is a divide in the conservative party between those people, and i'm very much one of them who want to go for the singapore on steroids approach. you know, given that we've decided to leave the european union, the consequence of that is we need to become more dynamic, more nimble, competitive . we nimble, more competitive. we need to get rid of all the eu laws straight away. we need to get on with doing trade deals with allies. with our allies. >> a decision. need. >> yeah, we've a decision >> yeah, we've made a decision and that has huge consequences. so we've whitehall that's so we've had a whitehall that's been shaped by being in europe, essentially supplicants to europe, and it's almost like, what is that syndrome? when you become a hostage and you start to stockholm, stockholm syndrome, it's almost like that . syndrome, it's almost like that. you know, officials are

constantly looking to brussels for validation and all of that needed to change. >> but it was also, wasn't it treated really? >> didn't the conservative party look at it and say, this is the damage limitation exercise as opposed to a big opportunity? >> well, some people did. that is certainly true though. so thatis is certainly true though. so that is certainly true of the sort hammond's this sort of philip hammond's of this world treasury. and world and the treasury. and i was there pretty much was in there pretty much straight up or close to straight up or quite close to after referendum . they after referendum. they absolutely saw it at that. and there were other people in the conservative party of that view. i'd them conservative i'd call them the conservative party establishment of that party establishment were of that view, certainly view, but there were certainly others who wanted to embrace the opportunities in the conservative party. so the conservative party. so the conservative party. so the conservative party has been divided as to how to approach this issue. and i just thought, you know, i'm a logical person. i thought the logic of brexit is you have to do things differently. what is the point of leaving the european union if

you've still got all the laws on the statute books? just no, i agree with that. >> but in some ways, what this book shows also is that those divides within the conservative party don't exist just on brexit. they exist on virtually everything. there are two distinctly different wings of the current conservative party. we're told it's a broad church, but it strikes me that right now it's a broad church without faith. >> well, i believe there is a clear conservative faith and set of policies , and i've talked of policies, and i've talked about what they are being proud of. our nation state. yeah, low taxes and small government. but that's your position. but but that's your position. but but thatis that's your position. but but that is what i think the conservative party should. and has been most successful when it represents that position, but not that's all, 14 years. that's what i think the public want as well . well. >> but the last 14 years, they've not done those things well. >> have e have done >> we have not done enough to reverse legacy which reverse the blair legacy which has this this, you know, has created this this, you know, has created this this, you know, has anyone tried ? i've tried.

has anyone tried? i've tried. >> well, we're gonna leave me. we're gonna come to that. don't worry. >> i have been at the coalface, and i think one of the one of the things that my book is talking about is how, as i went through the system, because i was a believer in the system, when i got into government, i felt that as a minister, i could change things, and over time i realised that actually, in order to be able to really change things in the way britain needs and wants, and that's what the public's desire is, there needs to be a serious change to the whole framework and structure of government that we simply aren't able to deliver. those conservative policies . conservative policies. >> and for this segment, one last little thing i asked her about the creation and the power of the supreme court, or the highest court in milan, were the law lords within the palace of westminster, and blair sets up a supreme court. should we stick with the supreme court ?

with the supreme court? >> no, we should abolish it. >> no, we should abolish it. >> should we? >> should we? >> we should abolish it. and the other important change. and i didn't fully appreciate how dramatic this change had been until i became lord chancellor. but previously the lord chancellor was appointed by the prime minister sat in cabinet and was responsible for appointing senior judges. appointing seniorjudges. >> yep. >> yep. >> now, who appoints the senior judges now? >> well, there's a panel that does it. isn't it? >> it's a quango. yeah, it's the judicial appointments commission . yeah. >> it's there. and what de facto happens is the judiciary have become a self—perpetuating oligarchy because the current lord chief justice has a lot of say over who his or her successor is. so what we've done or what blair has done is created a system that is undermined. the core of the british constitution , which is british constitution, which is parliamentary sovereignty, that is the core of the british constitution. the idea that ultimately these bodies are

democratically accountable. what is being created is another series of quangos making decisions which are gradually, i think, moving away from the views of the public. >> while some very powerful arguments there from liz truss saying that power has gone away from parliament and it's gone to the supreme court and it's gone to a variety of quangos, well, john mcternan was tony blair's former director of political operations between 2005 and two thousand and seven. john, she does have a point there, doesn't she? >> well, the main thing , the big >> well, the main thing, the big turn that came across was it was always somebody else's fault. liz truss was in the cabinet, eventually became prime minister in the for cabinet nine years. tony was only in the cabinet for ten, and yet liz truss was unable to do anything. it was always somebody else's fault and i think the railing against tony

blair, tells you a lot about the politics, her political journey . politics, her political journey. you know, the only the only liberal democrat in the room at times , but the point she makes, times, but the point she makes, john. come on, you know, it was tony blair who incorporated the echr into uk law via the human rights act. it is that human rights act. it is that human rights act. it is that human rights act that ultimately, the supreme court now can, can, can lean upon and override government policy . government policy. >> so the in the end , all the >> so the in the end, all the human rights act did was make fast sure the access to the rights guaranteed under the echr what actually used to happen was , if you if you had a case and you had to take it to, to, to, to the echr, it could take you seven or 8 or 9 years. so justice delayed is justice denied . denied. >> those rights are now accessible, just ignored it and carried on with life. >> they what the treasury did was they said, let's keep appealing, appealing, keep appealing, keep appealing, keep appealing. to appealing. we know we'll have to give we'll for

give in, but we'll do it for 7 or 8 years and it could be a for a small business person, it could be for an individual, a pensioner with their the thing is, add everything the is, should add everything in the country subordinated to the country be subordinated to the cabinet, to the executive, the government , or should it be government, or should it be subordinated to parliament. it's not very clear to me whether liz truss is saying the problem with supreme court is, it's not part of parliament. excuse me? or the problem is that the cabinet members don't get a point now members don't get to a point now , i don't think she is arguing parliament. i think cabinet members should, should, should, should appoint. i think should should appoint. i think she is arguing parliament she is arguing the parliament should judges. she is arguing the parliament showell, judges. she is arguing the parliament showell, she's judges. she is arguing the parliament showell, she's arguing that >> well, she's arguing that parliament's devalued by parliament's been devalued by quite significant constitutional changes made . changes that blair made. >> our country has changed. absolutely. devolution changed the country. and i think that's that's a good reason. as power dispersed, i actually think it's working, he's working, not very well. people get no people. people have got to choose the governments they want. in wales, it's always labour and it's

always nationalist at the moment. look the, the and i think, i think steve rotherham , think, i think steve rotherham, the metro mayor in liverpool is a really good example of somebody. i think andy street is to being a voice for their locality. andy burnham you see it, but we come back to it, but the but we come back to this, the labour party put through some constitutional changes reflected and, in changes which reflected and, in the end, dispersal of power away from government , away from the from government, away from the executive. it removed power from, from, from the house of lords getting rid of the, of the, inherited peerage of by the, the inherited peerage of by and large and dispersing power away from westminster is probably a good idea . whereas it probably a good idea. whereas it seems to me liz truss is saying the reason the tory government is unable to achieve change is because it doesn't have enough power now. well you pointed out correctly, they do not have a coherent political project. brexit wasn't even a coherent political project. brexit was a response by david cameron to a failure to agree about the future of britain, in europe or

outside europe, the inability of the government to govern i, i, i often, i often find myself, listening to liz because i think she does try to make an argument for a different kind of conservatism. but also then wonder about what? about the detail. she says she likes singapore on steroids. i'd love britain to be like singapore . britain to be like singapore. lee kuan yew, the great leader who singapore to its who took singapore to its current situation. he was the president of the socialist international, so i think sometimes liz needs to know her own history. >> well, she's saying we should be socialist country and be a socialist country and singapore's point singapore's great strength point should for china. should be an entrepot for china. >> point she did make, >> the one point she did make, john, that was logical, i think, in interview, i think in that interview, and i think unarguable, the unarguable, is that if the country for brexit country is decided for brexit and the parliaments, ultimately, after a bit of fiddling around for three years past it, the ones you've made that change, you then need to take advantage of it in every way you can. and we really haven't done that. and labour showed no signs of wanting that, i think. wanting to do that, i think. >> i think the, i think the, >> so i think the, i think the, the core of it is the in the

end, the devil is in the detail. so for liz, who was it that was actually stopping her inside the treasury , inside the civil treasury, inside the civil service, inside, it's always a nameless well, the governor of the bank of england does get named. yeah, the governor and the idea that the prime minister should pick and choose who the governor of the bank of england is and sack them at whim and at will, when the prime minister was about certain was unsighted about certain consequences of her budget, well, sacked personally well, she'd sacked personally sacked the permanent secretary of treasury. yeah. tom of the treasury. yeah. tom scholar, it's the sort of as i said at the beginning, it's like it when i was. it's never her fault. when i was at school, i went to a scottish secondary school, and nobody would ever take responsibility for any bad acts. we thought acts. they did. and we thought in end decided that the in the end we decided that the school should be it wisnae school motto should be it wisnae me. and that like that's me. and that sounds like that's the for button. the title for john button. >> these >> and some of these constitutional will constitutional debates will go on many, years . in on for many, many years. in a moment, we'll go to the house of commons find out what is commons and find out what is happening in the game of

parliamentary pong. on the parliamentary ping pong. on the rwanda also ask, rwanda bill. i'll also ask, in the end, really going to the end, is it really going to make any difference?

let's go to the palace of westminster and speak to gb news political editor christopher hope. were a game of parliamentary ping pong is taking place. what is the latest, chris? >> hi, nigel. and great to see you. yeah. that's right. >> hi, nigel. and great to see you. yeah. that's right . well, you. yeah. that's right. well, the debate on the safety of rwanda bill, which is trying to overturn seven amendments made by peers and house of lords, started at 7 pm. voting starts at 9 pm, but michael tomlinson, who's the illegal migration minister, he started off by saying while the government opposes all of these changes , is opposes all of these changes, is the reason why he gave is quite fascinating. he said that the problem is here. we can't allow

amendments that will provide loopholes for, could loopholes for, and could perpetuate the current cycle of delays and late legal challenges and to removal. so the government is very clear that these changes proposed by the house of lords, some of which sound quite anodyne , things like sound quite anodyne, things like a describing rwanda as a safe country, have due regard for international law , exempting international law, exempting afghans who have worked alongside the british. some of these things are seen as well. what's the problem here with the government? why can't they get on with accepting them? michael tomlinson has made very clear if we accept this, it will allow another way for lawyers to frustrate will this frustrate the will of this government to get these flights taking off and, and, and break this business model of these people smugglers. it's all people smugglers. so it's all about this through this about getting this through this week. fully expect the seven week. i fully expect the seven to be over overturned by mps tonight . to be over overturned by mps tonight. back to the to be over overturned by mps tonight . back to the lords tonight. back to the lords tomorrow and then back to we expect the lords to reinstate them tomorrow and back on wednesday . when i think the wednesday. when i think the final denouement will take

place, the lords will fold on wednesday as the whips hope and by this will be law. by thursday this will be law. and then there'll be a new battle. nigel, in the courts, probably 6 of lawyers probably 5 or 6 weeks of lawyers trying to stop flights taking off, around 150 or so illegally arrived migrants will get letters from home office saying you're on the first flight and that'll be a new fight. but the law will be in place by thursday as the government's hope. >> and if house of lords >> and if the house of lords doesn't fold on wednesday and decides to firm in saying decides to stand firm in saying they legislation, they oppose this legislation, what ? what then? >> we are in unchartered territory now. i heard from a senior peer on the labour side, he said he thought that the government or rishi sunak could call an election if that happened. i do not think that's right. i think when your party is 25 points behind in the polls, they are waiting for something to turn that round. and that might work is and one thing that might work is getting first flights getting these first flights taking don't forget taking off. don't forget labour policy . nigel taking off. don't forget labour policy. nigel is to taking off. don't forget labour policy . nigel is to reverse it policy. nigel is to reverse it to the whole rwanda scheme , to axe the whole rwanda scheme, even if it's working. so the

government wants to get this many flights taking but many flights taking off. but yeah, are in unchartered yeah, we are in unchartered territory i'm, i'm too old. territory and i'm, i'm too old. i've gone grey to start i've gone to grey to start predicting future. too much predicting the future. too much in politics now. >> and of course, we've got to remember that over the course of the 750 arrived. the weekend, 750 arrived. so hey, really matters. chris hey, this really matters. chris hope, you very much hope, thank you very much indeed. trump is in court indeed. donald trump is in court today. about payment of today. it's about the payment of $130,000 so—called hush to $130,000 of so—called hush to money stormy daniels, a payment made by mr trump's lawyer at the time. i'm joined by mike davis, former clerk to the united states supreme court and founder of conservative legal advocacy group article three project. mike elon musk has come out very publicly saying this is lawfare, that the judge who's overseeing this case has been a donor to the democrats and that this thing is highly politicised and there's no argument about that. we can all see that from both sides of the pond. the question i want to ask you is, was this

payment of $130,000 made to stormy daniels, and if it was us, do you believe president trump knew about it ? trump knew about it? >> even if this payment were made to stormy daniels in 2016, this would be a settlement of a nuisance claim , which happens nuisance claim, which happens all the time in american business. and this payments from 2016, this alleged payment is somehow now being transformed from what is, at best just a bookkeeping misdemeanour. under new york law into 34 felonies with a convoluted, i would say, bogus legal theory that was passed over by the prior manhattan district attorney, the manhattan district attorney, the manhattan us attorney, the federal election commission, and alvin bragg himself until matthew colangelo got deployed from the biden justice department. a very senior

political appointee in the biden justice department, to resurrect this zombie case against trump dunng this zombie case against trump during an election year. this is obviously democrat lawfare. it's obviously democrat lawfare. it's obviously election interference. and this democrat manhattan judge, as you said, democrat donated to president biden and another anti—trump cause. and his daughter has an illegal financial stake in this criminal prosecution , extraordinary state prosecution, extraordinary state of affairs. >> what would happen if trump was found guilty ? was found guilty? >> well, there's no question that with this biased george soros funded prosecutor alvin bragg , matthew colangelo, this bragg, matthew colangelo, this democrat operative judge who has a clear bias, whose daughter has a clear bias, whose daughter has a big financial stake in this criminal prosecution with a jury pool that's 85% against trump. there's no question he's going to be found guilty. it's going to be found guilty. it's going to get reversed on appeal, but maybe not before the election. >> it's going to be a mess. mike, come back and see us for a longer period time as this longer period of time as this

thing . please. let's thing develops. please. let's have weather with have a look at the weather with aidan mcgivern first. >> looks like things are heating up . boxt boilers sponsors of up. boxt boilers sponsors of weather on gb news. >> hello again. welcome to the latest weather forecast from the met office. it's going to stay blustery over the next 24 hours, but less windy than it has been. and the showers will slowly ease as well. low pressure is pulling away . it's moving as well. low pressure is pulling away. it's moving east. as well. low pressure is pulling away . it's moving east. we've away. it's moving east. we've got high pressure arriving later in the week, but for the time being the weather stays very changeable, with showers or longer spells of rain moving through during the evening. many of these showers will actually fade away after midnight, although some will continue down the north sea coast. there 1 or 2 for northern ireland, parts of wales and central england, but otherwise plenty drier and otherwise plenty of drier and clearer weather emerging later in chill in the air in the night. a chill in the air first thing tuesday, but too breezy for most for a frost, and there'll be plenty of bright

weather. first thing, especially for scotland, northern england, parts of western uk. but further cloud and showers will affect the north sea coast and showers will tend to bubble up elsewhere, particularly for northern ireland. parts of central and southern england, wales and northwest scotland. it's going stay on the cold it's going to stay on the cold side , but temperatures a degree side, but temperatures a degree or so higher compared with monday's and less windy, so a bit more pleasant out there. another chilly start on wednesday, again plenty of wednesday, but again plenty of sunshine. first thing turning cloudy and for northern cloudy and damp for northern ireland. showers emerging elsewhere but plenty of bright or at least drier weather in between the showers. and then as we go through the latter half of the week, things do slowly turn dnen the week, things do slowly turn drier, more settled and warmer. a brighter outlook with boxt solar sponsors of weather on

gb news. >> jacob rees—mogg is voting in the house of commons in this game of parliamentary ping pong over rwanda . so the far show over rwanda. so the far show stays with you until 9:00 this evening. we'll talk more about the iranian missile strikes on israel, what israel needs to do, and also has it exposed the vulnerability of the iranian regime. plus, we've got liz truss on what happened to her, how she feels about the bank of england , about the treasury, her england, about the treasury, her resignation, and of course, that last famous photograph with the queen, all of that comes in just a moment. but first, let's get the news with polly middlehurst . the news with polly middlehurst. >> nigel, thank you. and good evening to you. we start this bulletin with some breaking news