a second tory mp

in ten days defects. so why some labour long faces? just as rishi sunak tries to gee up his mps, another one bites the dust, and heads for the labour benches citing housing and immigration. tory mp neil o'brien will be here to tell us the big problem is legal migration. our other guests might not agree. also tonight... inside the afd. we investigate if germany's far—right alternative for deutschland party have a neo—nazi problem. you could call me a nazi as well, because i want to defend my own country. i don't know what's wrong with it. but you mean you're

comfortable with that? i'm comfortable with the programme we are fighting for, yes. as the home secretary expels the russian defence attache, and the national crime agency exposes an alleged top russian ransomware boss, just how cold is the new cold war going to get? the nca is here, along with our former defence attache to russia. good evening. today rishi sunak tried to press the reset button after last week's local election rout with a big pep talk with his mps after prime minister's questions, butjust as pmqs was about to start, the right—wing tory mp for dover and deal natalie elphicke, without warning, sat down behind sir keir starmer, making her the second conservative mp to defect to labour in ten days. but the drama didn't have quite the impact keir starmer would have intended. nick is here. what happened 7

what happened? it was a very carefully orchestrated moment of parliamentary theatre. there was no notice for anybody in the labour party apart from a tiny number of officials. why did keir starmer do that? he thinks that if after 1a years of a government the opposition can win over governing mps, that shows a government in decay. and there is a broader strategy here which is keir starmer is trying to attract what his poster debra martinson calls the hero voters. these are the voters who did vote for labour but in the red wall so we don't like you are brexit, we think you are out of touch with our values and we will vote conservative. he is busy having some success in attracting people like that back. how better than to keep that process than going for a conservative mp on the right of the party who has been critical of labour on asylum and immigration, then after that you saw keir starmer and him welcoming natalie elphicke. has

keir starmer and him welcoming natalie elphicke.— keir starmer and him welcoming natalie elphicke. has it not gone down well in _ natalie elphicke. has it not gone down well in some _ natalie elphicke. has it not gone down well in some quarters? - natalie elphicke. has it not gone - down well in some quarters? amongst some mps down well in some quarters? amongst some mp5 for— down well in some quarters? amongst some mps for labour— down well in some quarters? amongst some mps for labour it _ down well in some quarters? amongst some mps for labour it has _ down well in some quarters? amongst some mps for labour it has gone - down well in some quarters? amongsti some mps for labour it has gone down like a bag of cold sick. one mp pretty much in the keir starmer inner circle were saying they feel very uncomfortable about it and i understand some female labour mps have passed on their concerns to the leadership. their concerns focus on natalie elphicke's involvement in the trial of her former husband charlie elphicke who was convicted of sexual assault. they are pointing to an interview natalie elphicke gave to the son when charlie elphicke launched what was then an unsuccessful appeal and she said during the trial she had found out that he had been involved in a consensual extramarital about and she said charlie is charming, wealthy, charismatic and successful, attractive and attracted to women, all things in today's climate made him an easy target for dirty politics and pulse allegations. then she said she stood by him in the

trial as he put of these allegations and talked about a terrible miscarriage ofjustice. the other thing was the following year natalie elphicke had to be suspended from the commons for a day after she and the commons for a day after she and the number of mps were found by the parliamentary standards committee to have improperly sought to influence ourjudicial process. this was with the public disclosure of presentencing character references and this is what the standards committee said, in the report they said we agree with the commissioner that the letter of the 19th of november 2020 were an attempt improperly to influence a judicial proceeding. it is important to save the labour party today is saying all these matters were dealt with but on needs in the party reflected by the former leader new clinic. —— neil connect. i think we've got to be choosy to a degree about who we allow tojoin our party, because it's a very broad church. but churches have walls

and there are limits. so neil kinnock unhappy and conservative mps not very impressed, talking about how natalie elphicke was a member of the brexit european research group, she regarded herself as a non—subscribing member of that group but a group of those tory mps went to see the prime minister is happening and i caught up with them. andrea jenkyns, what do you think of the departure of natalie elphicke from the conservative party? fellow erg member, i believe. i think it shows unfortunately she's been an opportunist because, i mean, look at her record on what she has said about the labour party. she despises the labour party. so i think she's been an opportunist, which is very sad to see because i thought natalie was great before that. natalie elphicke defecting, is this a bad sign? well, it's an extraordinary sign. she who says labour| won't stop the boats. she's absolutely right about that. luckily, the prime minister- is determined to stop the boats. i think there was a significant puzzlement over the defection. natalie had been quite a prominent member of the erg and people are speculating what on earth have

we got, we've got our first ever... so you were surprised by natalie defection because you think she's on the right? well, she's said she's on the right. and i was certainly very surprised personally, yes. but it is a defection. when mp starts defecting, whatever the reason, it feels like decay, doesn't it? no, i think you can't go that far. i think there will be a lot of reasons personally, . and goodness knows what they are. thanks for now. nowjoining me in the studio is strategist, commentator and the former political secretary to tony blairjohn mcternan. now, to dicuss this further, i'm joined by sienna rodgers, senior writer at parliamentary magazine the house and former editor of labour list, and tim montgomerie, the founder of conservative home. let's just begin with this which was meant to be this great piece of theatre and she was going to sit down and labour were going to be delighted. there is a strange gripping of a shoulder thereby keir starmer. gripping in case somebody pulls her way and says we don't want

her. it pulls her way and says we don't want her. . , pulls her way and says we don't want her. ., , ., ., , her. it was theatre. the tories were shocked, rishi _ her. it was theatre. the tories were shocked, rishi sunak— her. it was theatre. the tories were shocked, rishi sunak was _ her. it was theatre. the tories were shocked, rishi sunak was sought i her. it was theatre. the tories were l shocked, rishi sunak was sought and the day he tried to have a reset, the day he tried to have a reset, the story that dominates the news, a tory mp has left the tory party and left because she thinks the tory party have failed on borders which they have. party have failed on borders which the have. ., ., ., �* , party have failed on borders which the have. ., ., ., �*, ., they have. hang on, what's reaction cold labour — they have. hang on, what's reaction cold labour policy, _ they have. hang on, what's reaction cold labour policy, we _ they have. hang on, what's reaction cold labour policy, we can - they have. hang on, what's reaction cold labour policy, we can to - they have. hang on, what's reaction cold labour policy, we can to not. they have. hang on, what's reaction cold labour policy, we can to not up to the mark recently. she cold labour policy, we can to not up to the mark recently.— to the mark recently. she now su orts to the mark recently. she now supports labour _ to the mark recently. she now supports labour policy. - to the mark recently. she now supports labour policy. let's l to the mark recently. she now i supports labour policy. let's look at the fact — supports labour policy. let's look at the fact that _ supports labour policy. let's look at the fact that she _ supports labour policy. let's look at the fact that she supported i supports labour policy. let's look at the fact that she supported liz | at the fact that she supported liz truss. ,, ., , at the fact that she supported liz truss, ,, ., , . ., at the fact that she supported liz truss. ,, ., , . ., g, truss. she has changed her mind and --eole are truss. she has changed her mind and people are entitled. _ truss. she has changed her mind and people are entitled. so _ truss. she has changed her mind and people are entitled. so this _ truss. she has changed her mind and people are entitled. so this is - truss. she has changed her mind and people are entitled. so this is not i people are entitled. so this is not about conviction _ people are entitled. so this is not about conviction politics, - people are entitled. so this is not about conviction politics, this i people are entitled. so this is not about conviction politics, this is l about conviction politics, this is about conviction politics, this is about some kind of opportunism, keir starmer getting anything he can land from the conservatives. it is starmer getting anything he can land from the conservatives.— from the conservatives. it is about a tory government _ from the conservatives. it is about a tory government which - from the conservatives. it is about a tory government which needs i from the conservatives. it is about a tory government which needs to | from the conservatives. it is about i a tory government which needs to be put out of its misery. find a tory government which needs to be put out of its misery.— put out of its misery. and you think it will be more _ put out of its misery. and you think it will be more likely _ put out of its misery. and you think it will be more likely because i put out of its misery. and you think it will be more likely because of- it will be more likely because of natalie elphicke. in it will be more likely because of natalie elphicke.— natalie elphicke. in 100 days or three months _ natalie elphicke. in 100 days or three months we _ natalie elphicke. in 100 days or three months we can _ natalie elphicke. in 100 days or three months we can take i natalie elphicke. in 100 days or three months we can take awayj natalie elphicke. in 100 days or- three months we can take away the majority and actually call a general

election. the rate at which people are defecting from the tory party to the labour party, it is a government thatis the labour party, it is a government that is in decay, a party indicates. tim, what is the logic here, that natalie elphicke can have the whip but diane abbott can't? diane abbott should have the _ but diane abbott can't? diane abbott should have the whip _ but diane abbott can't? diane abbott should have the whip restored, i i should have the whip restored, i have said that since last year. is this a strategic mistake and why is keir starmer not allowing the whip to be restored? i keir starmer not allowing the whip to be restored?— to be restored? i don't know the discussants. _ to be restored? i don't know the discussants. but _ to be restored? i don't know the discussants. but it _ to be restored? i don't know the discussants. but it is _ to be restored? i don't know the discussants. but it is a - to be restored? i don't know the discussants. but it is a mistake. | to be restored? i don't know the| discussants. but it is a mistake. i think she should _ discussants. but it is a mistake. i think she should be _ discussants. but it is a mistake. i think she should be back - discussants. but it is a mistake. i think she should be back in i discussants. but it is a mistake. i think she should be back in the l think she should be back in the parliamentary labour party. it is a matter for the whips.— parliamentary labour party. it is a matter for the whips. what does it sa to the matter for the whips. what does it say to the labour— matter for the whips. what does it say to the labour party _ matter for the whips. what does it say to the labour party and - matter for the whips. what does it say to the labour party and the i matter for the whips. what does it l say to the labour party and the wing of the party that supports diane abbott that keir starmer is embracing natalie elphicke but actually rejecting firmly diane abbott? i actually re'ecting firmly diane abbott? ., �* 4' , actually re'ecting firmly diane abbott? ~ , abbott? i don't think every labour mp with agrees — abbott? i don't think every labour mp with agrees with, _ abbott? i don't think every labour mp with agrees with, and - abbott? i don't think every labour mp with agrees with, and this i abbott? i don't think every labour mp with agrees with, and this is i mp with agrees with, and this is just the latest sign of giving the tories a good kicking. we have a situation now _ tories a good kicking. we have a

situation now where _ tories a good kicking. we have a situation now where natalie i situation now where natalie elphicke, of course she is not standing again, but labour will be happy to have her going out and campaigning on their behalf? if she wants to campaign _ campaigning on their behalf? if she wants to campaign on _ campaigning on their behalf? if she wants to campaign on our - campaigning on their behalf? if sue: wants to campaign on our behalf campaigning on their behalf? if sie: wants to campaign on our behalf that is fine. anybody is welcome to leaflet for us, you are welcome. i5 leaflet for us, you are welcome. is there any tory mp wouldn't welcome into the party? i there any tory mp wouldn't welcome into the party?— into the party? i would love jacob rees-mogg- _ rees—mogg. laughter you have got someone from the erg. aha, you have got someone from the erg. former member of the erg. it is a broad church. it former member of the erg. it is a broad church.— broad church. it is a sprawling... tony blair. _ broad church. it is a sprawling... tony blair, said _ broad church. it is a sprawling... tony blair, said we _ broad church. it is a sprawling... tony blair, said we are _ broad church. it is a sprawling... tony blair, said we are the i broad church. it is a sprawling... | tony blair, said we are the british —— political wing of the british people. to -- political wing of the british --eole. ., ., , people. to montgomery, the third defection to _ people. to montgomery, the third defection to labour _ people. to montgomery, the third defection to labour during - people. to montgomery, the third defection to labour during the i defection to labour during the parliament, were you surprised? i was completely shocked. i was watching — was completely shocked. i was watching with friends because i was a political— watching with friends because i was a political gig watching prime minister's questions and i am

genuinely amazed. i am probably one of downing _ genuinely amazed. i am probably one of downing street because my cleats favourite _ of downing street because my cleats favourite conservative commentators and i favourite conservative commentators and i am _ favourite conservative commentators and i am not a great fan of rishi sunak — and i am not a great fan of rishi sunak my— and i am not a great fan of rishi sunak. my party is in trouble, happy to talk_ sunak. my party is in trouble, happy to talk about that any day of the week_ to talk about that any day of the week but— to talk about that any day of the week but actually i think this defection does say more about john's party, _ defection does say more about john's party, the _ defection does say more about john's party, the labour party, because i have _ party, the labour party, because i have been— party, the labour party, because i have been these questions for a long time about— have been these questions for a long time about keir starmer, what does he really— time about keir starmer, what does he really believed. the man who served _ he really believed. the man who served underjeremy corbyn, wanted him as_ served underjeremy corbyn, wanted him as prime minister, and he has gone _ him as prime minister, and he has gone through so many evolutions, and now to _ gone through so many evolutions, and now to welcome someone into the labour_ now to welcome someone into the labour party who is much more right-wing _ labour party who is much more right—wing than i am on immigration and crime _ right—wing than i am on immigration and crime and europe, and i wasjust appalled _ and crime and europe, and i wasjust appalled. the question... you and crime and europe, and i was 'ust appalled. the question. . .i appalled. the question... you were sa in: it appalled. the question... you were saying it is — appalled. the question... you were saying it is more — appalled. the question... you were saying it is more of _ appalled. the question... you were saying it is more of an _ appalled. the question... you were saying it is more of an issue - appalled. the question... you were saying it is more of an issue for i saying it is more of an issue for labour, you might suggest there is rishi sunak handing off now. i don't know about — rishi sunak handing off now. i don't know about that _ rishi sunak handing off now. i don't know about that but _ rishi sunak handing off now. i don't know about that but voters - rishi sunak handing off now. i don't know about that but voters will i know about that but voters will increasingly look as we get closer to the _ increasingly look as we get closer to the election and i will say, what are we _ to the election and i will say, what are we really going to get it? where

becomes_ are we really going to get it? where becomes prime minister? are we going to get— becomes prime minister? are we going to get the _ becomes prime minister? are we going to get the corbyn iteration, will we -et to get the corbyn iteration, will we get the _ to get the corbyn iteration, will we get the centrist, or will we get someone _ get the centrist, or will we get someone who panders to the sort of positions _ someone who panders to the sort of positions natalie elphicke says? the confusion _ positions natalie elphicke says? the confusion is a problem for you, john _ confusion is a problem for you, john. , ,, ., ., john. let me bring in seana here. how comfortable _ john. let me bring in seana here. how comfortable are _ john. let me bring in seana here. how comfortable are you, - john. let me bring in seana here. how comfortable are you, do i john. let me bring in seana here. how comfortable are you, do you | how comfortable are you, do you think the party should have a former erg member, a liz truss supporter? having spoken to quite a lot of labour— having spoken to quite a lot of labour mps _ having spoken to quite a lot of labour mps today, _ having spoken to quite a lot of labour mps today, there - having spoken to quite a lot of labour mps today, there was i having spoken to quite a lot of- labour mps today, there was huge anger— labour mps today, there was huge anger and — labour mps today, there was huge angerand hurt— labour mps today, there was huge anger and hurt as _ labour mps today, there was huge anger and hurt as well. _ labour mps today, there was huge anger and hurt as well. obviously. anger and hurt as well. obviously from _ anger and hurt as well. obviously from the — anger and hurt as well. obviously from the left _ anger and hurt as well. obviously from the left of _ anger and hurt as well. obviously from the left of the _ anger and hurt as well. obviously from the left of the party - anger and hurt as well. obviously from the left of the party you i anger and hurt as well. obviouslyl from the left of the party you have mps saying — from the left of the party you have mps saying as _ from the left of the party you have mps saying as you _ from the left of the party you have mps saying as you would - from the left of the party you have mps saying as you would expect i from the left of the party you have i mps saying as you would expect them to, things _ mps saying as you would expect them to, things like — mps saying as you would expect them to, things like why— mps saying as you would expect them to, things like why isn't— mps saying as you would expect them to, things like why isn't diane - to, things like why isn't diane abbott — to, things like why isn't diane abbott included _ to, things like why isn't diane abbott included in _ to, things like why isn't diane abbott included in the - to, things like why isn't diane abbott included in the party. to, things like why isn't dianej abbott included in the party it natalie — abbott included in the party it natalie elphicke _ abbott included in the party it natalie elphicke can- abbott included in the party it natalie elphicke can be? i abbott included in the party iti natalie elphicke can be? there abbott included in the party it- natalie elphicke can be? there were also mps _ natalie elphicke can be? there were also mps in — natalie elphicke can be? there were also mps in the _ natalie elphicke can be? there were also mps in the middle _ natalie elphicke can be? there were also mps in the middle of— natalie elphicke can be? there were also mps in the middle of the - natalie elphicke can be? there were also mps in the middle of the partyl also mps in the middle of the party who were _ also mps in the middle of the party who were raising _ also mps in the middle of the party who were raising concerns - also mps in the middle of the party who were raising concerns about i who were raising concerns about previous — who were raising concerns about previous comments— who were raising concerns about previous comments she - who were raising concerns about previous comments she had i who were raising concerns about i previous comments she had made who were raising concerns about - previous comments she had made about a trade _ previous comments she had made about a trade unionism. — previous comments she had made about a trade unionism, talking _ previous comments she had made about a trade unionism, talking about- a trade unionism, talking about militant—

a trade unionism, talking about militant unionism, _ a trade unionism, talking about militant unionism, that- a trade unionism, talking about militant unionism, that really. militant unionism, that really disturbs _ militant unionism, that really disturbs them _ militant unionism, that really disturbs them because - militant unionism, that really disturbs them because from. militant unionism, that really- disturbs them because from whatever win- disturbs them because from whatever wing of _ disturbs them because from whatever wing of the _ disturbs them because from whatever wing of the party— disturbs them because from whatever wing of the party there _ disturbs them because from whatever wing of the party there from - disturbs them because from whatever wing of the party there from they i wing of the party there from they are very— wing of the party there from they are very strong _ wing of the party there from they are very strong supporting - wing of the party there from they are very strong supporting trade i are very strong supporting trade unions, — are very strong supporting trade unions, but _ are very strong supporting trade unions, but also _ are very strong supporting trade unions, but also as _ are very strong supporting trade unions, but also as nick- are very strong supporting trade i unions, but also as nick mentioned earlier, _ unions, but also as nick mentioned earlier, those — unions, but also as nick mentioned earlier, those comments— unions, but also as nick mentioned earlier, those comments around i earlier, those comments around charlie _ earlier, those comments around charlie elphicke. _ earlier, those comments around charlie elphicke. people - earlier, those comments around charlie elphicke. people really. charlie elphicke. people really talking — charlie elphicke. people really talking about _ charlie elphicke. people really talking about how— charlie elphicke. people really talking about how it _ charlie elphicke. people really talking about how it has - charlie elphicke. people really talking about how it has the i charlie elphicke. people really- talking about how it has the labour leadership— talking about how it has the labour leadership going _ talking about how it has the labour leadership going a _ talking about how it has the labour leadership going a bit _ talking about how it has the labour leadership going a bit too - talking about how it has the labour leadership going a bit too far- talking about how it has the labour leadership going a bit too far with i leadership going a bit too far with this particular— leadership going a bit too far with this particular defection. - leadership going a bit too far with this particular defection. but- leadership going a bit too far with this particular defection. but it. this particular defection. but it actually looks _ this particular defection. but it actually looks very _ this particular defection. but it actually looks very much i this particular defection. but it actually looks very much is i this particular defection. but it actually looks very much is it? | this particular defection. but it l actually looks very much is it? is very pleased with himself. the leadership _ very pleased with himself. the leadership is — very pleased with himself. the leadership is pleased and you can see why — leadership is pleased and you can see why. there _ leadership is pleased and you can see why. there is _ leadership is pleased and you can see why. there is a _ leadership is pleased and you can see why. there is a clear- leadership is pleased and you can i see why. there is a clear short—term political— see why. there is a clear short—term political gain — see why. there is a clear short—term political gain very— see why. there is a clear short—term political gain. very much _ see why. there is a clear short—term political gain. very much the - political gain. very much the headline _ political gain. very much the headline is _ political gain. very much the headline is the _ political gain. very much the headline is the governmentl political gain. very much the| headline is the government is falling — headline is the government is falling apart _ headline is the government is falling apart and _ headline is the government is falling apart and the - headline is the government is- falling apart and the conservatives are in— falling apart and the conservatives are in chaos, — falling apart and the conservatives are in chaos, rishi— falling apart and the conservatives are in chaos, rishi sunak- falling apart and the conservatives are in chaos, rishi sunak isn't i are in chaos, rishi sunak isn't holding — are in chaos, rishi sunak isn't holding his— are in chaos, rishi sunak isn't holding his party— are in chaos, rishi sunak isn't holding his party together. i. are in chaos, rishi sunak isn't holding his party together. i know from what nick _ holding his party together. i know from what nick is _ holding his party together. i know from what nick is saying - holding his party together. i know from what nick is saying that i holding his party together. i know from what nick is saying that his i holding his party together. i know| from what nick is saying that his is being started by labour women and we don't need to go into the detail of that but do you think your resistance might build a head of steam to this? i resistance might build a head of steam to this?— resistance might build a head of steam to this? i think defections are here today _ steam to this? i think defections are here today gone _ steam to this? i think defections are here today gone tomorrow. steam to this? i think defections} are here today gone tomorrow in terms _ are here today gone tomorrow in terms of— are here today gone tomorrow in terms of the _ are here today gone tomorrow in terms of the news, _ are here today gone tomorrow in terms of the news, and - are here today gone tomorrow in terms of the news, and from -

are here today gone tomorrow in - terms of the news, and from speaking to these _ terms of the news, and from speaking to these labour— terms of the news, and from speaking to these labour women _ terms of the news, and from speaking to these labour women who _ terms of the news, and from speaking to these labour women who are - to these labour women who are concerned. _ to these labour women who are concerned, they— to these labour women who are concerned, they are _ to these labour women who are concerned, they are not - to these labour women who are concerned, they are not at - to these labour women who are concerned, they are not at the i concerned, they are not at the moment— concerned, they are not at the moment planning _ concerned, they are not at the moment planning a _ concerned, they are not at the moment planning a collectivel concerned, they are not at the - moment planning a collective action like a _ moment planning a collective action like a public— moment planning a collective action like a public letter— moment planning a collective action like a public letter writing _ moment planning a collective action like a public letter writing like - like a public letter writing like that but — like a public letter writing like that but they _ like a public letter writing like that but they are _ like a public letter writing like that but they are privately - like a public letter writing like . that but they are privately raising their concerns. _ that but they are privately raising their concerns. one _ that but they are privately raising their concerns. one of— that but they are privately raising their concerns. one of them - that but they are privately raising their concerns. one of them said| that but they are privately raising . their concerns. one of them said to me, their concerns. one of them said to me. actually— their concerns. one of them said to me, actually this _ their concerns. one of them said to me, actually this ties _ their concerns. one of them said to me, actually this ties in _ their concerns. one of them said to me, actually this ties in to - their concerns. one of them said to me, actually this ties in to the - me, actually this ties in to the reaction — me, actually this ties in to the reaction they— me, actually this ties in to the reaction they got _ me, actually this ties in to the reaction they got when - me, actually this ties in to the reaction they got when they i me, actually this ties in to the - reaction they got when they raised their concerns, _ reaction they got when they raised their concerns, was _ reaction they got when they raised their concerns, was tapping - reaction they got when they raised their concerns, was tapping into i their concerns, was tapping into another— their concerns, was tapping into another concern _ their concerns, was tapping into another concern they— their concerns, was tapping into another concern they have - their concerns, was tapping into another concern they have thatl their concerns, was tapping into i another concern they have that the leadership— another concern they have that the teadershipiust _ another concern they have that the leadershipjust isn't _ another concern they have that the leadership just isn't very— another concern they have that the leadership just isn't very good - another concern they have that the leadership just isn't very good at l leadership just isn't very good at managing — leadership just isn't very good at managing its— leadership just isn't very good at managing its relationships - leadership just isn't very good at managing its relationships with i leadership just isn't very good at. managing its relationships with mps generativ— managing its relationships with mps generally in — managing its relationships with mps generally in the _ generally in the parliamentary labour— generally in the parliamentary labour party— generally in the parliamentary labour party and _ generally in the parliamentary labour party and that - generally in the parliamentary labour party and that is - generally in the parliamentary- labour party and that is something they think— labour party and that is something they think could _ labour party and that is something they think could get _ labour party and that is something they think could get worse - labour party and that is something they think could get worse after. labour party and that is something they think could get worse after a i they think could get worse after a general— they think could get worse after a general election— they think could get worse after a general election when— they think could get worse after a general election when they - they think could get worse after a general election when they have i they think could get worse after a - general election when they have many more labour— general election when they have many more labour mps _ general election when they have many more labour mps in _ general election when they have many more labour mps in parliament. - general election when they have many more labour mps in parliament. let’5| more labour mps in parliament. let's hold that thought _ more labour mps in parliament. hold that thought there. well, while natalie elphicke was raging on behalf of her constituents about migrants arriving on the dover and deal coastline, her erstwhile colleagues neil o'brien and robertjenrick were publishing a think—tank report arguing that the government needs to get a grip on legal migration. we'll hearfrom neil in a moment. first, here's ben. what's the context for this report? context is record net migration — that's immigration minus

emigration — to the uk in the year tojune 2023 of 672,000. that's projected to drop to 350,000 a year in the coming years — but still very high by historical standards. this report proposes a cap on visas with a view to getting annual net migration down to "tens of thousands". you will remember that was david cameron's target which he never succeeded in delivering. how feasible is it to get net migration to the tens of thousands? analysts i have been speaking to are a bit sceptical about that in all honesty front they think it can come down and it might come down quite a lot but it is quite a stretch to get to the tens of thousands. they point out the uk is quite unusual relative to other countries in not having a

cap on visas but it's important to bearin cap on visas but it's important to bear in mind that reduced these numbers would have a big impact on the public sector with a lot of foreign doctors and nurses working in the nhs that we could train more doctors and nurses at home... ah, cap doctors and nurses at home... a cap on that. doctors and nurses at home... a cap on that that — doctors and nurses at home... a cap on that. that would _ doctors and nurses at home... a cap on that. that would have _ doctors and nurses at home... a cap on that. that would have to - doctors and nurses at home... a cap on that. that would have to go - doctors and nurses at home... a cap on that. that would have to go and i on that. that would have to go and that would come _ on that. that would have to go and that would come with _ on that. that would have to go and that would come with a _ on that. that would have to go and that would come with a cost - on that. that would have to go and that would come with a cost of - that would come with a cost of course which would be born ultimately by taxpayers opened lower skilled migration areas like hospitality, we could increase the wages in those sectors to attract more british workers but that would come at a cost as well and that will be passed on to consumers so it's worth bearing in mind that there is no free lunch, there are impacts which would be born. also worth bearing in mind the impact on the public finances, at least in the short term. we can look at a chart from the office for budget responsibility which is the government's official forecaster, and this shows, the blue line is the projection of the national that and you can see it fall in the final debt and that is the government is

meeting its own fiscal rule which is based on current migration projections of 350,000 a year but the orange line is a scenario of the obr the orange line is a scenario of the 0br modelled if migration wasjust 150,000 in what is interesting about thatis 150,000 in what is interesting about that is you can see it is rising over the forecast period and in the final year which would mean the government not meeting its own fiscal rule in that scenario lower net migration. to be very clear, it's not a justification in itself for higher net migration, the long—term impact of migration on the public finances are unlikely to be as positive as that because of course migrants grow older and place more of a burden on the public finances. really it's worth bearing in mind the big picture that at least in the short term there seems to be a bit of a tension between mps hoping for a lower net migration and also lower taxes because that is justified. also lower taxes because that is 'ustified. ., ~ also lower taxes because that is 'ustified. ., ,, , ., , .

justified. thank you very much. robert jenrick _ justified. thank you very much. robert jenrick said _ justified. thank you very much. robert jenrick said tonight - justified. thank you very much. robert jenrick said tonight the l robertjenrick said tonight the election results were appalling, points to a serious defeat for the government do so is this a pitch to get voters back they lost to reform? this is not about party politics, voters across every party and in every age group, they all want to see migration reduced and you don't have to be particularly sceptical about migration to think the levels we have had over recent years have been far too high, unprecedented in fact. what has happened is, in terms of the economy, firstly that has outgrown our ability to provide public services, the infrastructure we need and particularly housing we need and on the other hand, the migration mix has not been what we promised it would be of the post—brexit reforms point that we have not turned it into a highly selective system that is just choosing the most able and high earning migrants, we still have a lot to people coming or not working or working at relatively low wages

and we want to change that to make migration more beneficial. so and we want to change that to make migration more beneficial.— migration more beneficial. so much to un ack migration more beneficial. so much to unpack their— migration more beneficial. so much to unpack their but _ migration more beneficial. so much to unpack their but let's _ migration more beneficial. so much to unpack their but let's be - migration more beneficial. so much to unpack their but let's be clear, . to unpack their but let's be clear, it was 2021 which was ten years into your rule that borisjohnson liberalised student visas for family and you voted for that point let's be clear, what was done in 2020 was a mistake... so you regret voting for it? i a mistake... so you regret voting for it? , ., ., , for it? i regret everything done as art of for it? i regret everything done as part of that _ for it? i regret everything done as part of that reform. _ for it? i regret everything done as part of that reform. there - for it? i regret everything done as part of that reform. there was - for it? i regret everything done as part of that reform. there was a l for it? i regret everything done as l part of that reform. there was a set of things done post—brexit because there was a great belief that something had to be done to liberalise against the rest of the well because what was happening in europe and that oval architecture has not worked and on top of that, specific things have been done that i think have been a major mistake. for example, looking at the reintroduction of the graduate visa, something that was got rid of under the coalition by nick clegg and david cameron, we were warned not to bring it back because it will be a gateway into the gig economy and when it was brought back and it had exactly the netiquette affect our

independent migration committee warned. �* , independent migration committee warned. v ., ~ independent migration committee warned. �*, ., ,, ., ., warned. let's talk about that cost to this, warned. let's talk about that cost to this. which _ warned. let's talk about that cost to this, which will _ warned. let's talk about that cost to this, which will be _ warned. let's talk about that cost to this, which will be presumably| to this, which will be presumably you remove the cap for training doctors because we have a cap just now, you remove that and that's the first thing and you increase wages, for example for, as it were, care home workers, in order to attract more people rather than having migration work in care homes. i’m migration work in care homes. i'm keen toiust_ migration work in care homes. in keen tojust touch migration work in care homes. in keen to just touch on the chart ben showed, that chart from the 0br looks at an experiment where you have migrants were not able to claim benefits, not at the steady state of migration as ben pointed out, just at what would happen if migrants... butjust to be clear, to finish the point, if you look at the different analyses of the net fiscal impact of migration and the oxford migration observatory have done a good job of compiling them, they are consistent that every single one finds the net effect of non—eu migration... they effect of non-eu migration... they talk over — effect of non-eu migration... they talk over each _

effect of non-eu migration... they talk over each other _ talk over each other i'm asking a question... many of the... i i'm asking a question... many of the- -- i do _ i'm asking a question. .. many of the... i do want— i'm asking a question... many of the... i do want to _ i'm asking a question... many of the... i do want to address - i'm asking a question... many of the... i do want to address the l the... i do want to address the important point that you race, it's not at all clear that our current migration mix is a net fiscal positive and in fact it could clearly be more physically positive if we were more selective. they talk over each other _ over each other i went on the point... lengths answer this. i went on the point... lengths answerthis. it i went on the point... lengths answer this.— i went on the point. .. lengths answer this.— i went on the point... lengths answerthis. , ., ., , ., answer this. it is important to bear in mind that _ answer this. it is important to bear in mind that what _ answer this. it is important to bear in mind that what is _ answer this. it is important to bear in mind that what is the _ answer this. it is important to bear in mind that what is the impact - answer this. it is important to bear in mind that what is the impact ofl in mind that what is the impact of migration— in mind that what is the impact of migration on the economy, it's about whether— migration on the economy, it's about whether they fill gaps in the economy and raise overall productivity and just having more people _ productivity and just having more people just raises gdp and does not raise it _ people just raises gdp and does not raise it per— people just raises gdp and does not raise it per head so what's the economic— raise it per head so what's the economic impact on productivity? the 'oy economic impact on productivity? the joy is— economic impact on productivity? the joy is a hit— economic impact on productivity? the joy is a bit more out than you suggested a new report on that —— the jury~ _ suggested a new report on that —— theiury~ it's— suggested a new report on that —— the jury. it's not clear from the own— the jury. it's not clear from the own allowances that it's positive or negative _ own allowances that it's positive or negative. it�*s own allowances that it's positive or neuative. �*, . ., , ., negative. it's certainly not the case that migration _ negative. it's certainly not the case that migration is - negative. it's certainly not the case that migration is from i negative. it's certainly not the case that migration is from all kinds are clearly rocket fuel for growth, that naive view people had a few years back... for growth, that naive view people had a few years back. . ._ few years back... for that it is negative- _ few years back... for that it is negative- i — few years back... for that it is negative. i think _ few years back... for that it is negative. i think the -

few years back... for that it is negative. i think the impact i few years back... for that it isj negative. i think the impact of mi . ration negative. i think the impact of migration is — negative. i think the impact of migration is extremely - negative. i think the impact ofj migration is extremely missed negative. i think the impact of. migration is extremely missed an event to your getting to be a jeep and what selective system. let event to your getting to be a 'eep and what selective system. let me ask ou and what selective system. let me ask you about _ and what selective system. let me ask you about that, _ and what selective system. let me ask you about that, how _ and what selective system. let me ask you about that, how you - and what selective system. let me | ask you about that, how you select, there's a question here, are you considered a nationality based migration system? i considered a nationality based migration system?— considered a nationality based miaration s stem? ,, , ., migration system? i think we should look at all the _ migration system? i think we should look at all the different _ migration system? i think we should look at all the different aspects - migration system? i think we should look at all the different aspects of. look at all the different aspects of what we know about people... including that.— what we know about people... includin: that. ., . , , ., including that. potentially but what we say overall _ including that. potentially but what we say overall is _ including that. potentially but what we say overall is we _ including that. potentially but what we say overall is we need - including that. potentially but what we say overall is we need an - including that. potentially but what| we say overall is we need an overall cap on migration point we need to have some sort of anchor so we make the trade—offs about the kind of migration we have and we restore public confidence unless you have some kind of overall goal that countries have, you can't make the trade—offs so we argue for the country to become like a grammar school of the western world, selecting the best and brightest and notjust adding all types of migration. notjust adding all types of migration-— notjust adding all types of miaration. ., , ., ., ., migration. that could be national because this _ migration. that could be national because this is _ migration. that could be national because this is what _ migration. that could be national because this is what the - migration. that could be national. because this is what the suggestion is, can be national i want to put it to you in a way, and robertjenrick said this before, it's like a planned economy, it is a statism. it's not a planned economy to have border controls and we were not a

planned economy when we had migration in the tens of thousands in the 90s. that's an odd argument. there are types migration, clearly quite deliberately being used to push down wages at the bottom end of the labour market and that if you look at the kebbie is that where we have seen 60 times more people using them than i thought too, there is a choice, a genuine trade—off in the short term if you increase payday macro you will increase pressure but there will be a fiscal long term positive. there will be a fiscal long term ositive. ~ ., , ., there will be a fiscal long term ositive. ~ ., , ., ., ., positive. would you be in favour of removin: positive. would you be in favour of removing the _ positive. would you be in favour of removing the cap _ positive. would you be in favour of removing the cap for— positive. would you be in favour of removing the cap for doctors - removing the cap for doctors training? removing the cap for doctors trainina ? ~ ,,., , ., removing the cap for doctors trainina ? ~ ,,., , . ., training? absolutely and we did do that with the _ training? absolutely and we did do that with the 2023 _ training? absolutely and we did do that with the 2023 long-term. .. i training? absolutely and we did do i that with the 2023 long-term. .. they talk over each — that with the 2023 long-term. .. they talk over each other _ talk over each other thank you very much. now to discuss this further, i'm joined again by sienna rodgers and tim montgomerie. tim, the idea that we might have country and nationality based migration, that we might have the removal of certain sectors coming to this country, that where you might remove again more student visas, international visas, what you make

of that? i international visas, what you make of that? ~ , international visas, what you make of that? ~' , ., , ., of that? i think there is a case for immigration _ of that? i think there is a case for immigration and _ of that? i think there is a case for immigration and i _ of that? i think there is a case for immigration and i think— of that? i think there is a case for immigration and i think in - of that? i think there is a case for. immigration and i think in america, for example, a big part of the american policy is immigration, is selected, very choosy on who they pick completely key growth sectors and we need to move towards that. and we need to address the fact, if i could name one thing i'd love to fix about our country it's a housing shortage. and until we control immigration, we will never get on top of the housing issue. we need to build more houses...— build more houses... were not buildin: build more houses... were not building anything _ build more houses... were not building anything like - build more houses... were not building anything like enough i build more houses... were not. building anything like enough that we need to do both, build more houses and that has been a big thing for the tory government but another big thread at which labour does not talk adequately about is controlling immigration and we need to reduce the pressure on our housing stock by having a more sensible immigration policy. if we want to have more care workers here, we had better pay than better wages is the argument and certainly they would suggest they would need to be paid better. that

presumably would be the labour position but where was the money coming from?— position but where was the money coming from? that is the question for every policy — coming from? that is the question for every policy at _ coming from? that is the question for every policy at the _ coming from? that is the question for every policy at the moment - for every policy at the moment opened — for every policy at the moment opened when rachel reeves is keenly aware _ opened when rachel reeves is keenly aware she _ opened when rachel reeves is keenly aware she will be inheriting a situation _ aware she will be inheriting a situation where the purse strings are very— situation where the purse strings are very tight and she will be inheriting a situation where the purse _ inheriting a situation where the purse strings are very tight and she's— purse strings are very tight and she's very— purse strings are very tight and she's very worried about that. at the she's very worried about that. the treasury she's very worried about that. git the treasury says no if it is a labour government. exactly, and she's very _ labour government. exactly, and she's very aware _ labour government. exactly, and she's very aware of _ labour government. exactly, and she's very aware of that - labour government. exactly, and she's very aware of that and - labour government. exactly, and she's very aware of that and i - labour government. exactly, and i she's very aware of that and i think guite _ she's very aware of that and i think quite a _ she's very aware of that and i think quite a lot— she's very aware of that and i think quite a lot of labour policies are a little _ quite a lot of labour policies are a little bit _ quite a lot of labour policies are a little bit fuzzy around the edges because — little bit fuzzy around the edges because of that concern. to little bit fuzzy around the edges because of that concern.- little bit fuzzy around the edges because of that concern. to say the least! i think _ because of that concern. to say the least! i think we _ because of that concern. to say the least! i think we were _ because of that concern. to say the least! i think we were talking - least! i think we were talking earlier about _ least! i think we were talking earlier about the _ least! i think we were talking earlier about the defection i least! i think we were talking i earlier about the defection and natalie elphicke has defected and really— natalie elphicke has defected and really talked about the stop the boats _ really talked about the stop the boats issue in particular because she the — boats issue in particular because she the mp for dover and it's very relevant _ she the mp for dover and it's very relevant and i think that defection gives— relevant and i think that defection gives labour a bit of cover for its anti—rwanda policy if they can say that this _ anti—rwanda policy if they can say that this mp on the front line of the issue — that this mp on the front line of the issue is saying the wonder policy— the issue is saying the wonder policy will not work, it is not practical— policy will not work, it is not practical and too expensive as well as being _ practical and too expensive as well as being immoral, is theirargument, that is— as being immoral, is theirargument, that is quite — as being immoral, is theirargument, that is quite beneficial for labour in the _ that is quite beneficial for labour in the election campaign. but how

does labour _ in the election campaign. but how does labour square _ in the election campaign. but how does labour square the _ in the election campaign. but how does labour square the circle - in the election campaign. but how does labour square the circle in i does labour square the circle in terms of increasing growth, reducing migration? training, more kids from the uk going to university if they wish because there is a cap because we have a lot of international students but they need them for money so how do you square that circle? �* , , money so how do you square that circle? 3 , , . ., circle? it's very difficult and the amount of _ circle? it's very difficult and the amount of stuff _ circle? it's very difficult and the amount of stuff in _ circle? it's very difficult and the amount of stuff in there - circle? it's very difficult and the amount of stuff in there entry l circle? it's very difficult and the l amount of stuff in there entry will be an— amount of stuff in there entry will be an absolutely huge challenge for them _ be an absolutely huge challenge for them i_ be an absolutely huge challenge for them. g be an absolutely huge challenge for them. ,, ., �* , be an absolutely huge challenge for them. ,, . �* , ., them. i think that's the real problem — them. i think that's the real problem with _ them. i think that's the real problem with labour, - them. i think that's the real problem with labour, they i them. i think that's the real i problem with labour, they are them. i think that's the real - problem with labour, they are very good at criticising the government and there is plenty to criticise but when it comes to where they will put up when it comes to where they will put up taxes to fund new programmes, whether for retraining or housing, they never say they're going to put up they never say they're going to put up taxes and at the election gets closer, these questions will become more pressing and poor sienna and john if he were still here, they can't answer these questions, doesn't add up. hat can't answer these questions, doesn't add up.— doesn't add up. not my responsibility! - doesn't add up. not my responsibility! what - doesn't add up. not my i responsibility! what were doesn't add up. not my - responsibility! what were talking about points _ responsibility! what were talking about points to _ responsibility! what were talking about points to if _ responsibility! what were talking about points to if the _ responsibility! what were talking about points to if the tories - responsibility! what were talking | about points to if the tories were to lose, and the polls would suggest

they will, there will be an incredible internal ripping apart and soul—searching about what the conservatives are for? band and soul-searching about what the conservatives are for?— and soul-searching about what the conservatives are for? and we have done those — conservatives are for? and we have done those things _ conservatives are for? and we have done those things that _ conservatives are for? and we have done those things that we - conservatives are for? and we have done those things that we said - conservatives are for? and we have done those things that we said we i done those things that we said we wouldn't do, and the things which we said, and immigration is perhaps the biggest failure point right from the beginning when david cameron stormed to office in the coalition, he said he would control immigration and reduce it to the tens of thousands and it's actually gone up to hundreds of thousands come it's a massive problem put its mother keep talking about this and stop the boats is such a huge part of the campaign got i'm afraid we have to live it but don't worry, you will be on so much before the election! overnight, news emerged that berlin's former mayor had been attacked in a library — the latest in a spate of assaults on politicians in germany. it comes amidst growing fears about the radicalisation of politics in europe. the far—right alternative for deutschland party is frequently accused by its critics of stirring up extremism — something it vehemently denies. but one german spy chief says he now sees the afd as a danger to democracy.

now a bbc investigation has found clear links between significant party figures and extremist, or even former neo—nazi, networks. here's the bbc�*s berlin correspondentjessica parker. at rallies across germany, the far right alternative for deutschland is trying to drum up electoral success. including this man, jean—pascal hohm, a regional parliamentary candidate. the afd is proactive on social media but also on the ground, and it feeds this idea they want to promote that they are of the people and taking on the establishment. but as the bbc has found, jean—pascal hohm's held links with several groups now classed by domestic intelligence as extremist, networks accused of anti—migrant, anti—muslim ideology. translation: all these organisations

focus on one subject, _ the theme of our times. it is the population replacement going on in germany and in europe. to voice that and to fight that politically is not extremist. you don't think the great replacement theory is extremist? i mean, it's a far right conspiracy theory. no, the great replacement is happening. i can see that in my own city. i do not say it is organised from up high. i say it's happening. it was at this office back in march thatjean—pascal hohm helped organise an event. the speaker was an mp called matthias helferich. he once described himself as the friendly face of national socialism, also known as nazism. matthias helferich insists the years—old leaked remarks were parody. i mean, i count several, four references in these leaked messages to nazism, so that's quite a lot of nazi—related parody.

translation: if you are confronted with nazi accusations _ as frequently as afd politicians, you compensate for that in private spheres. you ridicule it. his talk in cottbus was on so—called re—migration, a code word, say many, for mass deportations. in this video he talks about re—migrating millions. what would you say to people who would say this idea you have of so—called re—migration is unrealistic, illegal and there are clear undertones of racism? this is not about downgrading people or deporting them for racist reasons. it is about preserving germany as the land of the germans. that doesn't mean that individuals who have been living here for decades who have become part of german culture should be disenfranchised. they often actually support our re—migration policy.

in the audience in cottbus that night was benedikt kaiser, another influential figure. he works for an afd mp, but over a decade ago, mr kaiser was pictured at neo—nazi demos. we've approached him for comment. this spy chief claims that extremism within the afd poses a risk to democracy. when i'm speaking about a german oak, a big, strong old tree, it can take a blizzard, it can take a storm. but once you have an enemy that goes for the roots, and that's exactly what's happening right now, going for the roots of our democracy, it's very dangerous because it goes to the vital parts of our democracy. stefan kramer, who'sjewish, has said he'd leave germany if the afd won power. by your saying that as the head of domestic intelligence here, doesn't that feed

into their narrative that the state is somehow biased against them, even persecuting them? the party more and more moved to the right and from the right to right—wing extremism, and clearly states in the meantime a folkish, nationalistic, political point of view, turning germany back into something that we've probably only seen between 1933 and '45. and honestly, if the party becomes now a party that has government power or at least a sight within the government about the future of this country, i'm not going to take the risk. earlier this year, anti—afd protests swept germany after reports that senior party figures went to a secret meeting about mass deportations. but, as i find at an afd town hall gathering, there's a different view within the rank and file about evidence of neo—nazi

and extremist links. does that not worry you? no, not at all. you could call me a nazi as well because i want to defend my own country. i don't know what's wrong with it. but you mean you're comfortable with that? i'm comfortable with the programme we are fighting for, yes. and those associations, you're comfortable with that too? because for obviously a lot of people, because of history, it's deeply uncomfortable and deeply worrying. it's propaganda, because no one who is shouting against us or is fighting against us has ever read the programme. that is my experience when i talk to people, they don't know what are the real goals. just down the road, we meet a man who organised one of the many anti—afd rallies not long after there was an arson attack on his home. no one's been arrested. now he says he struggles to sleep.

are you scared for yourself, but also for germany? translation: yes, i fear for myself, but i fear for germany too, _ that the atmosphere might get even worse. after the attack, i got a lot of messages, calls, a lot of solidarity, but i also noticed a silence here in my region. i hope it's not a silence that wants to forget the attack. i hope it's a thoughtful silence, but i'm not sure. i'm a bit worried about the silence. it's the old communist areas of east germany that felt disadvantaged after reunification, where the afd is polling high as this year's regional and european parliamentary elections get ever closer. it's in cities like cottbus where the afd has been strong and is hoping to do well in future. and when you speak to party supporters, they dismiss allegations of extremism as fake news and part

ofa smear campaign. in fact, they claim that their positions increasingly represent the centre ground of politics in germany. other parts of europe are also showing signs of a political pivot to the right. and in germany, the thing is, the afd�*s more radical edge sometimes isn't really even a secret, but there for all to see. jessica parker reporting there. and benedikt kaiser, mentioned in that report, did not respond tojessica's requests for comment, however after the story was published on the bbc web page, he accused the bbc of using haphazard research by left—wing activists and rehashing 15—year—old stories. in a post on x, he also called for a "fundamental political turn for our people, for our sovereignty — against the woke elites, against the abandonment of our social and

cultural heritage". russia is at war with ukraine, but how much of a direct threat does it pose to us? today, a spying row broke out as the home secretary expelled russia's defence attache from the uk, calling him out as an "undeclared military intelligence officer", closed several russian diplomatic premises and announced new restrictions on russian diplomatic visas. i would like to make a statement to the house regarding measures that his majesty's government will take in response to the reckless and dangerous activities of the russian government across europe, and now suspected here in the uk. as reported on friday the 26th of april, five individuals have been charged in connection with an investigation into alleged offences under the national security act as part of a counterterrorism policing investigation. the offences relate to what was widely reported by the media as a suspected arson attack on a ukraine linked business in the uk.

russia has said it will respond. meanwhile, a russian man, dmitry khoroshev, has been named as the alledged leader of a huge ransomware criminal gang, but is out of the reach of international law enforcement. so, how worried should we be? i'm joined by director general for threats at the nca, james babbage, and captainjohn foreman, who was the uk's defence attache to russia between 2019 and 2022 and before then to ukraine. good evening. john, how significant is what happened today for our relations with russia? i is what happened today for our relations with russia?- relations with russia? i think takin: relations with russia? i think taking the — relations with russia? i think taking the decision _ relations with russia? i think taking the decision to - relations with russia? i think taking the decision to cease i relations with russia? i think i taking the decision to cease our military diplomatic relations with russia after 84 years as a big step. we have managed to have enduring military relations with russia since 1941, throughout the cold war with i94i, throughout the cold war with many provocations, so obviously it is a big decision for the government to break it. :: .

to break it. there were 20 defence attache until— to break it. there were 20 defence attache until the _ to break it. there were 20 defence attache until the service _ to break it. there were 20 defence attache until the service cripple . attache until the service cripple affair and are used to be one. latte affair and are used to be one. we used to affair and are used to be one. , used to have eight in moscow and eight in london, to reduce it to one in 2018 but this is a consideration of that, navigating from one to zero in london, i expect that to happen... in london, i expect that to happen- - -_ in london, i expect that to happen... in london, i expect that to ha--en... ., ., ., ., ~ happen... how do important to think it is as a happen. .. how do important to think it is as a former— happen... how do important to think it is as a former attache _ happen... how do important to think it is as a former attache to _ happen... how do important to think it is as a former attache to have - it is as a former attache to have someone wretched during the job because you look there's no substitute for having somebody on the ground. the assumption will be that the adequate response to your successor will be kicked out. it is successor will be kicked out. it is interesting _ successor will be kicked out. it is interesting to _ successor will be kicked out. it is interesting to see _ successor will be kicked out. it 3 interesting to see the reaction to the other measures and the property and raises. russia can choose to just expel the attache in moscow or they can escalate it or use of them measures in moscow and here so we will have to see what the response is. the military foreign affairs said the results will be fierce and

proportionate. the said the results will be fierce and proportionate-— proportionate. the calculation, russia is the _ proportionate. the calculation, russia is the biggest _ proportionate. the calculation, russia is the biggest nuclear i russia is the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world, how wise is it not to have military links? h arsenal in the world, how wise is it not to have military links?- not to have military links? i think whatever happened _ not to have military links? i think whatever happened with - not to have military links? i think whatever happened with the - not to have military links? i think. whatever happened with the defence attache in london today russia still has the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world, the biggest army in europe, a member of the permanent five alongside us, the security council and also at war with ukraine. those facts haven't changed. we need to have robust links with the russian government. but a massive moment for the security council, to permanent members not having military connections with each other. that was a lazy argument _ connections with each other. trust was a lazy argument why we didn't expel the defence attache in the past but the recent events which have been the straw that broke the camels back for government. james, for our camels back for government. james, for your purposes — camels back for government. james, for your purposes it _ camels back for government. james, for your purposes it was _ camels back for government. james, for your purposes it was a _ camels back for government. james, for your purposes it was a big - for your purposes it was a big criminal revelation today but how significant is the run somewhere? it

significant is the run somewhere? it has been the leading run somewhere threat _ has been the leading run somewhere threat over— has been the leading run somewhere threat over the last two years, the longest— threat over the last two years, the longest running run somewhere great, 7000 attacks over the last two years. — 7000 attacks over the last two years, industry says they have leaked — years, industry says they have leaked data from more victims than any run _ leaked data from more victims than any run somewhere group in history, it's a _ any run somewhere group in history, it's a really— any run somewhere group in history, it's a really significant target. who— it's a really significant target. who are _ it's a really significant target. who are the victims?- it's a really significant target. who are the victims? across many sectors, organisations _ who are the victims? across many sectors, organisations you - who are the victims? across many sectors, organisations you and - who are the victims? across many sectors, organisations you and i i sectors, organisations you and i will have — sectors, organisations you and i will have heard of, and significantly disrupted in the operations, and their reputation and finances _ operations, and their reputation and finances. we operations, and their reputation and finances. ~ ., operations, and their reputation and finances. ~ . ., ~ operations, and their reputation and finances. ~ . ., ,, ., '1 :: :: finances. we are talking about $500 million and counting. _ finances. we are talking about $500 million and counting. do _ finances. we are talking about $500 million and counting. do you - finances. we are talking about $500 million and counting. do you think. million and counting. do you think it is possible for anyone to have that kind of money in the coppers and rush it without part of it being taken by the state? the and rush it without part of it being taken by the state?— and rush it without part of it being taken by the state? the key thing is we have disrupted _ taken by the state? the key thing is we have disrupted the _ taken by the state? the key thing is we have disrupted the lock- taken by the state? the key thing is we have disrupted the lock bit - we have disrupted the lock bit group, — we have disrupted the lock bit group, they are not able to do what they could — group, they are not able to do what they could do before, we have sanctioned them. they are subject to travel— sanctioned them. they are subject to travel bans— sanctioned them. they are subject to travel bans and asset freezes, and the critical—

travel bans and asset freezes, and the critical thing is we have gone off to _ the critical thing is we have gone off to their— the critical thing is we have gone off to their trust and