Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Rail Strikes, and is Joe Biden the worst US President?

Episode Date: June 16, 2022

This episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored see Piers ask whether Joe Biden is the worst president in American history. Piers also discusses the country being brought to a standstill by the biggest industrial action for 30 years, and is joined by the boss leading the strikes. On a lighter note, Piers reveals that English wine in Sussex has been elevated to champagne status. Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8pm on TalkTV on Sky 526, Virgin Media 627, Freeview 237 and Freesat 217. Listen on DAB+ and app. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I'm Piers Morgan, Oncensor. Coming up on tonight's program, written paralyzed by strikes, the country will be brought to a standstill next week as rail workers walk out in the biggest industrial action for 30 years. The boss leading these strikes will be with me live. Thus, a surging crime of border crisis, dwindling popularity, and the embarrassment on the world stage is bumbling Joe Biden, the worst president in American history.

And move over, French champagne. English wine is here. It's now been elevated to Champagne State. Which one would you choose? Wine Connoisseur, Fred Syriacs, and Lord Ian Botham will be here to give their verdicts. Well, good evening, and what a beautiful, uncensored evening it is. The sun is shining, the birds are singing, all seems right with the world. Well, that didn't last long, did it? Yeah, summer has barely started when all hell's about to break loose.

If you're hoping to get a train in the UK next week, we'll forget it. Millions of people across the country just trying to go about their businesses, Businesses are facing utter chaos because rail workers are striking over pay and jobs, and they say it could go on all summer. At least 50,000 workers will walk out, meaning fewer than one in five trains will run. Network rail estimates that the strikes will cost the rail industry up to 150 million. Well, Transport Secretary Grant Shapp said the strike could lead to rail workers losing their jobs. I appeal directly to rail workers, who I think are less militant than their union leaders,

Don't risk striking. Don't risk the industry and your future. Don't risk striking yourself out of a job. Don't pitch yourself against the public. Well, joining me now is the RMT union boss, Mick Lynch, who's responsible for all the mayhem that's about to come our way. Mr. Lynch, good evening to you. Good evening.

I suppose my question is this. We've just come through a two-year pandemic. We have the appalling after effects, rippling through Europe from war in Ukraine. We've just about got over the fractured mayhem of Brexit. And now, just when it looks like the sun is literally coming out and people can start to feel hopeful and positive about life, along come you,

and you're going to cause complete chaos and mayhem for the British public for the foreseeable future. And I only ask you, why do you think this is the right time to do this? Well, the sun's not going to shine than I am, members, peers, if they lose their jobs, they're facing pay cuts in relation to living standards, and they're facing having their conditions ripped up. We've been engaging with these employers and indeed the Department of Transport and various ministers for more than two years since COVID commenced back in March 2020. And we've put to them last December that we needed the issues

addressed. They've told us that thousands of jobs are going to be removed from the railway by compulsory redundancies if necessary, and that the pay freeze is going to continue. Now, we haven't had any offers on the issues at stake. They've had plenty of time to resolve these matters, and many of our members are going into the third year now where they've not had a pay deal, any increment on their money at all.

So we don't want this dispute, but we needed to make sure that the message was given, that we're not going to accept our conditions being ripped up and being driven into a form of fire and rehire akin to P&O, which we also dealt with. And we think the government is taking the opportunity of COVID, the same as the aviation industry has done, to try and strip out jobs, strip out conditions,

and make people casualised across the UK. And it's a phenomenon that we're faced with, insecure work, precarious work. And we're not going to accept that. We're going to fight for our agreement. Right, listen, I understand you fighting for your workers. I do. And I'm not against unions, per se.

And I've supported actions in the past when I felt that they're justified and they're well-decentred. timed. It's the timing of this. It's the fact that so many ordinary people going about their ordinary lives are going to be facing complete chaos for the next week

and maybe many weeks after that. Just at a time when everyone's starting to feel a little bit better about life. And I would put it to you, if you're putting the devil's advocate position on this, the government has pumped billions into the rail industries. It has many other industries throughout the carnage

of the pandemic. Network rail says they've not announced any job cuts. and we'll find job savings by not replacing employees who leave the organisation through voluntary redundancy. Obviously, I guess that's an arguable point between you and then. You're after an 11% rise for your members, some of whom, as you know, not all, but some of whom are train drivers earning 54,000 pounds a year.

Now, I would say to you, look, I'm not against your workers being protected by you. You're doing your job. But when it comes to pay rises, following a pandemic, why are we not giving nurses 11% pay rises? Police workers, 11% pay rise.

People who were really at the real front line of all this. Well, we were on the front line. Our members worked all the way through the pandemic. They were driving trains, mate. They were driving trains. They were fixing tracks. They were signaling trains. They were cleaning trains.

It was not the same as you know is actually saving lives. That's my point. It's all comparative. If we're going to be dishing out public money when there's very little public money to dish out, surely you would accept that health workers, for example, should be first in the line.

They were in the real front line, not train drivers. I'll try and respond to that, peers, if I can. Our members worked through the COVID. They were on the front line, and railway workers died, and transport workers died as a result of being at work during that period. Now, we're not asking for compensation for that. All we're asking for is a pay increase

that reflects what we've done during that period and the cost of living. We're also asking that we don't have our conditions ripped up and our jobs stripped back. Network rail are making these cuts and they have put to me directly across the table a proposed cut of 2,900 track workers directly. They've done that face to face.

So it's just not true that they haven't proposed job cuts. But isn't that a different issue, which is an issue of technology, that they believe they have technology now, which will actually be safer than having human workers on the track potentially risking their lives? We deal with technology all of the time, peers.

Ever since the Stevenson's rocket, we've dealt with change in the railway industry, but we must do that in an environment of agreement, not in position. Now, if it comes to the question of other workers, and there are many deserving workers, and the British worker needs a pay rise, and we're part of the trade union movement,

and we want all workers to have a pay rise. They can't all get 11% to make, can we? 11% is a completely mad finger. If our members do without their pay, nurses won't get a pay rise, bin workers won't get a pay rise. care workers won't get a pay rights. What will happen is that the train operating companies and others who made 500 million pounds of profit last year

in the worst year of train revenues, 500 million pounds they took out. They will just get increased profits. Two of the companies I'm dealing with right now are subject to takeover bids because they're so profitable. First group, which is one of the chief train operating companies, made over £2 million a week last year. Go ahead is subject to a takeover

where they're bidding highly inflated share prices at £14, $15 an hour. These people are making a killing. And it won't go to nurses and other people that are deserved. It will go into the profit margins of these companies. I've been watching you doing interviews for the last couple of weeks, and you're passionate about it. And again, I don't, no problem with you trying to do the best job for your workers. But you've been banging on a lot about there's too many rich people in the country.

You earn $124,000 a year, right? I mean, that's not a... That's not a small... I don't... That's your salary package, right? No, it's not. My salary is £84,000 a year. What's the total package?

Well, the total package includes tax and national insurance and pension contributions. Well, everyone's package includes that. I'm very happy with that. Everyone's package includes that. What are you talking about? Well, what's your package? Well, I would hope more than yours. Well, why don't you tell everyone what you earn?

You ask me what I earn. I tell you why? Because I'm not actually leading out my members. I don't have any, strike, which is going to cause huge inconvenience to the British people. The majority of people in this dispute are earning between 25 and 31,000 pounds. But some are only 54,000, aren't they? Some probably earn more than that, but the median salary for a railway worker that we're

covering in this dispute is 31,000 a year. The train drivers can get 54,000 or more. Whale engineers can get up to 50,000. I mean, a lot of your workers earn good money. And my point is really, at a time of economic crisis, when people are literally, struggling to feed their kids when food bank queues are getting bigger, is this the right time for you to be holding the country to ransom for 11% pay rises? Well, we're not holding anyone for ransom.

We haven't asked for 11. Well, if you let me answer the question, we haven't asked for an 11. Are you going to let me answer the question? I am. We haven't asked anyone in this dispute for an 11% pay rise. We've pointed out that inflation, the RPI is currently 11.1. At the point, we should have done a deal with Network Rail, it was 7. and last year it was 0.9. Other companies, it was around 7.5 to 8%. So let's get that straight. We're not asking for 11%.

You are quoting that figure because you want that to be in headlines, right? That's where inflation is going and it's going above 11%. And if we don't get a pay rise this year, we'll have lost out for maybe between 15% or more percent. All right, but just in relation to your personal enumeration, do you not think there's a slight inconsistency between saying there are too many rich people in the country and we've got to take all their money away and you earning a shared load of cash? I've never said that there's too many rich people. What I've said is that the super rich in this country has never been richer. We've got more billionaires than we've ever needed. And if we want to get equity in this country, we need to restructure that. And that

means the British worker getting a pay rise. My pay is set by a vote. Are you a million? Are you a millionaire, me? I'm not a millionaire, no. Really? Really? No, I'm not. I spent 38 years on the tools as an electrician peers before I got elected as an officer. Quite a few years of 120 grand in package. That hands up quite quickly, isn't it? No, not particularly. No, the majority of my life I've spent on the tools

as an electrician as a railway worker. So even if my money was taken off me, so I work for whatever my union decides, and they do that by a vote of the members at our annual gentleman meeting. I'm not saying you don't deserve it. I'm saying if you're going to start talking about there are too many rich people, It's a little bit rich.

Well, you're saying I said there were too many people. I didn't say there were too many. What I said was there have never been more super rich people. Right. And what they need to do. Well, I'm not talking in semantics. Well, you are talking semantics. You are talking about what I said.

If you say there are too many rich people, there are too many rich people is what you're saying. Well, I haven't said that. What I've said is that there's an imbalance in this society between people who are super rich who are getting the benefits of dividends and shares, and that needs to be sacrificed a wee bit so that the rest of the people in this country, can get a pay rise for the work that they do. They include health workers and care workers, council workers, low-paid people all over the country.

Let me show you what I believe is your Facebook page. I want you to confirm or deny if this is your Facebook page. It's a picture of a hood from Thunderbirds. Can you see the likeness? Well, I'm just wondering where the comparison goes because he was obviously an evil criminal terrorist mastermind described as a world's most dangerous man who reads utter carnage and havoc on the public.

Is that the level you're pitching this at, Piers? That is a joke amongst me and my friends, and you can see the likeness, if you like. So you're not denying that you are comparing yourself to the hood? I'm not comparing myself to anyone. I'm me. You've literally made your profile picture, the hood. And I'm simply saying I was a massive...

I was a thunderbird fan. And the hood was the most dangerous evil person in the world. He's the most evil puppet made out of vinyl in the world. Is that the level of journalism's at these days? I simply asked you if that was you and your Facebook page. Do you think I look like the most evil person in the world, Beers? Now you're asking me to answer a difficult question, Mick. I don't know you that well.

Well, I don't think I am the most evil person in the world. I think I'm a working class bloke who's leading a trade union in a dispute over jobs, pay and conditions. I understand. If you don't want to be compared to the hood, probably better not to have the hood as your profile picture. I think it's quite funny. So do I.

But I also like... As I was a Thunderbird fan. Is that the level we're at, though? Don't you want to talk about the issues rather than a little vinyl puppet in the 1960s? I'm simply trying to get inside the mindset of the man about to wreak havoc on the country. It makes me laugh, honestly, that you have the hood as your profile pick because that's a man who wreaked havoc on the world. Well, it makes me laugh that your level of journalism has descended so far

that you can't think of any other question rather than the thing about the Thunderbirds. I didn't put that picture on your profile page. Yeah, but you've chosen to spend two or three minutes of this interview. about any relevant. Because you seem so irritated by the comparison. Well, because you seem so irritated by the comparison to the hood. I'm not irritated at all. I'm completely calm about it.

Well, I'm not. You're not? This is your non-irritated phase, is it? What point are you trying to prove, peers? I mean, if it's trying to wind me up, it's not succeeding. You put it on your Facebook page. I'm simply asking it's an odd choice for a union boss who's about to go on a series of strikes.

to have that as your choice. Is it not nothing to say about the issues that we face? I've made my feelings clear. I think that you are entitled to do your job, but I think when your job starts to impact massively on millions of people in this country, just at a really hard time for the country, I think you've mistimed this,

and I think if you spend the whole summer causing discontent, then I think you're misreading the mood of the nation. Well, what we're trying to do is get a settlement to a dispute, and we will do that, and we'll work with all of the companies, and we'll work with the government if they want to come to the table to try and get a settlement to the dispute, which is a serious one because I think many working class people in this country are fed up of being exploited, and they're fed up of low pay, they're fed up of precarious work and being vulnerable to the changes in society that they've been put through,

and the economic model that we've got, which is outsourced, and no conditions in their work. We need to change that. And that's what this dispute is part of, attempt to re-reacted. I'm not against you negotiating at all on behalf of your members. All I would point out to you, finally, is that Grant Shaps does bear a striking resemblance to Virgil from the Thunderbirds, and from memory, as a fan of the Thunderbirds, he actually took out the hood. Well, the hood came back every week, and maybe that's a message he's got to take,

that everyone was in it every week, and they were locked in a relationship. You see, now you're rising proudly, locked in a relationship. All be locked in a relationship for a while. Right. Now you're proudly, proudly, positioning yourself as the hood. Mick Lynch, good to talk to you. Is that where you want to go there? I didn't want to go there. You went there.

But good to talk to you. I'm getting the hood evils there. Okay. On censor next, the Pierce Pack is back. And I today have conservative author Douglas Murray, Talk TV's international editor Isabel Oakshot and playwright and author Bonnie Greer. Welcome back. I'm joined now by today's

Peerfack. Talk TV's and social editor, Editor Isabel Oakshot and author Bonnie Greer and Associate Editor of the Spectator and author Douglas Dundas Murray, who I guess are you in New York, Douglas? I am indeed. So, look, from your lofty scenario over there in New York,

looking back at your mother country here, a lot of things that have been bubbling here, big. And I wouldn't mind just getting your take on that from New York. First of all, I don't know if you heard that interview just now with Mick Lynch about the strikes coming next week, but it does feel like a real throwback this to the 70s and 80s, you know, the old, you know, militant union bosses

holding the country to ransom. I just can't help feeling it's so ill-timed to be doing this right now. I couldn't agree more. I listened to the interview with great interest. Because, like everybody else in Britain, I have had an experience plenty of times in my life of what happens when the rail unions go and strike. And, you know, what it means is that everybody trying to get into their place

of work has the most miserable time imaginable. I've done it myself countless numbers of times when the unions strike. You end up having to stand for hours at a bus stop to get onto a massively overcrowded bus and travel for hours to do a journey that would normally take you maybe half an hour. And so every time this happens, public sentiment against the unions grows. I can just, I can assure you, and many of your viewers will appreciate this, nobody stands. under somebody else's armpit on a massively overcrowded bus for hours and thinks happily about the rail unions. Nobody thinks, yeah, those guys should get a way above inflation pay rise.

Nobody thinks that. Nobody thinks of the rail box. I stand under people's armpits, and I don't have a problem with that. I think a part of a civilized society. Well, you're an unusual person. Well, it's true. I used to live in New York, too, so I can say that. Part of civilized society is that workers should be able to withhold

their labor, and that's we need organized labor. I have no problems with this at all, even though it is hurting people, I admit that. It is hurting people. You have no problems with it, really? No, I really don't know. They want an 11% pay rise. They probably deserve it. They don't deserve it. Why don't they deserve it? Why don't they deserve it?

Why would a train driver who may be earning $54,000 or more a year right now, in this economic climate, deserve an 11% pay rate, where nurses can barely get 1%. I can't, well, that's, I can't go into a technical thing about a train driver. But that is a very, that's a skill job. 54 grand. And if that he admitted they were more. Well, that's an important job. I don't mind them getting a lot of life. It's not saving life. You get in, you sit there, you press a button,

but he's not driving and empty. No, he's not just pressing a butt. Pretty much. And he's not, and he's not pretty much of what they do. Listen, I don't know anything about driving and train. All I'm saying, I'm going to give them the 117 pay rise because they're working. Well, that's ridiculous. Well, that's ridiculous, that is. It's not a ridiculous. Then any work you can ask her a question of Bonnie. You, Bonnie Greer, just go, yeah, you can have it. I would actually. Isabel?

I would actually. I just wanted to point out, Bonnie said that it's a skilled job. She then said it's an important job. It is an important job. It's not a skilled job. And there's one way to tell that, Bonnie. You or I could become a train driver if we trained. You or I could not just become a brain surgeon tomorrow, could we?

Right. It's like I've got to do with being a train driver. The point being it's not that skilled or work. Oh, no. Well, we're going to compare a brain surgeon to a train driver. But what I would compare is brain surgeons to this. And anyone working in the health surge... You can't put a train surgeon.

It's so unskilled that, guess what? We can actually get driverless trains. And that is what we should be looking to do. This is a long-term investment. There's no quick fix here. But these guys are basically talking themselves out of a job. Their pay packages are pretty generous. I've looked at the fine print.

There have been various good newspaper exposés of that in recent days. I mean, many, many people in this country would absolutely love those jobs. And frankly, if I were in charge, I would sack a lot of them. That's not how you measure anything. These people are driving trains. I have no problem with giving people driving trains what they want. No problem. Oh, come on.

It's not a ridiculous attitude, Bonnie. It's not a ridiculous attitude. You can't say you get whatever you want. Look, I am interested in safety. I'm interested in what if workers need to have a play rise in this climate. I don't know when they last half months years. I don't know when they last that one. I don't think the priority right.

I have nothing against train drivers, by the way. I don't get the train that often. When I do, it's an okay experience. It used to be much more enjoyable driving on the train. It's not enjoyable anymore. They run late. They have poor records now on service. Well, I just think it's not an experience it used to be.

It's not that enjoyable. Packing people in sardines on smaller characters. It's not their fault. Your argument just seems to be because they want a pay rise. They should get a pay raise. I mean, what, are you going to apply that to every single worker in this country? And if so, how on earth is it going to be paid for? You can all have whatever you want.

Who's going to pay for the pay rises? Is it going to be millions of passengers? So what are you saying exactly? I'm saying that your argument is utterly absurd, that they should have a pay rise because they want it, and you think that they're clever. And they should have whatever they want. I think that the basic premise of this is I'm for workers.

I guess that's what you're saying. Wait, man, hang on. I guess that's what I'm saying. Now, we want to sit around and talk about, should they get 12%, till they get 13%, I don't know. I'm for workers. But Bonnie,

if a worker goes out, that's all that they have is the cold. I'm for workers, but I'm not for a bankrupt country, which is where your philosophy, I'm afraid, would take us. Douglas, I want to bring you back to... The other raging story of the week is, of course, Rwanda. I'm interested in your take, Douglas,

on what you think about it. It seems to me this is a completely doomed policy, that whether you agree with the principle behind it, It's just not going to happen. Well, that's possible that it won't happen. I support the policy. I support us having borders. I support stopping and dissuading people

from engaging in illegal migration into the country. And nobody who's criticised around the policy has yet come up with a better policy of what to do to stop the illegal migration at the South Coast. But you're right, peers, it may well not happen. Of course, the first plane didn't end up taking off this week and why because of the ECHR. And I think, by the way, I wrote this last week in the sun.

I said that, and I've said many times in the last few years, there was always going to come a day when the British people realized that we had left the customs union and other aspects of the EU, but we remained under the jurisdiction of European law. Now, the ECHR and the European Court that enforces it was the mechanism by which various people

made sure that the plane couldn't leave to Rwanda this week. The British courts approved it, but the various activist lawyers and trade unions and others went to use the ECHR and that was why the flight was blocked. So here's the thing, I think, Pierre. This is a massive political car crash that's been waiting to happen for a long time. The government did not bother to address the issue of the ECHR in recent years. And now the British public are getting to see something that should have been completely predictable, which was that we have remained and, do remain still under the jurisdiction of elements of European law. And that is not why we left the EU.

We did not land, of course, at this point, all the smart-asses say, oh, well, the ECHR is different from the EU. That's true. But nevertheless, the idea of Brexit was we get back control of our borders, of our sovereignty and the right to make our own laws. As we're shown this week, we don't have that. My problem with Brexit, and I voted Remain, but then I also voted for Boris Johnson at the election

because he was the only leader prepared to deliver. the result of the referendum. And I believe that democracy and honoring democratic votes was more important than my personal feelings. I've got to say, though, and I tweeted this yesterday to a huge response,

at some stage, we are going to have to start seeing some benefits from Brexit. And if we don't, you know, the jungle drums beating to try and maybe overturn it with future governments, they're going to get louder

because right now, it's very hard to point to anything and say, well, look, Brexit's working? Well, I think that's true. I don't agree that nothing is good from the last few years. It's been a very unusual time.

And of course, don't forget the moment we left the EU, we immediately went into a global pandemic and turned down. So it's extremely hard, actually, to work that stuff out. I do maintain, though, the main reason the British public voted for Brexit was that we were told, I think, with honesty and accurately, that we could make sure that we could become a sovereign country again in charge of our own borders,

in charge of our own laws. Bonnie, come in America is, like other countries are. Let's not leave the impression that this was an overwhelming vote for Brexit. This was pretty much, this was very narrow. Hang on, hang on, hang on. It was over 17.5 million people. Exactly, but it was one of the biggest votes in the history of our country. Right, but it was a narrow result.

And the fact that something like this was decided on a simple yes, one person could have decided Brexit on a simple majority is absurd. I'm not sure why we're revisiting this. I don't think you can revisit it. I do think, though, that the call down the line for another referendum will get louder if there are no benefits to be seen from Brexit. Actually, I'm going to surprise you by agreeing with you on that

and I'm probably going to annoy a bunch of Brexiteers. I mean, now we've got to make Brexit work. It's supposed to be an opportunity. By the way, I want it to work. Now that we've pressed this button as a country, I respect people's opinion, but we've got to make it work. Brexit was of so... Bonnie, rather than Rand's face.

No, I'm not ranting. I'm not ranting. You're not not undo the referendum. No, I'm not. No, I'm not. No, I'm not undoing the referendum. If you call me a rant or how can I let you respond? The point I would like to make is you're absolutely right.

The whole country needs to see everybody, including those that didn't vote for Brexit, because in the end, we're all in this together. Needs to see tangible benefits. And among those is going to have to be leaving the European Court of Human Rights. And now the government has the purpose. opportunity to do that. I think everybody can get behind that. Why do you think we haven't seen any tangible benefits yet? I didn't

say we hadn't seen any tangible benefits. I said that we've got to see Brexit as an opportunity. I want to get one other subject in here, Bonnie. And, you know, it's a touchy one. Yeah, because I told you I wasn't going to deal with this subject, didn't I? But I actually, in itself, that response

I think is unacceptable. It is acceptable. I'll tell you, no, no, unacceptable. I'll tell you why. So the story behind this is that tonight in the sun, they're going in a real story that Sajad Javid, the Health Secretary, has apparently told NHS bosses that they have to rescind what they've been doing on the NHS website,

which is removing all gender-specific language, particularly, in fact, exclusively, about women. And what they were doing was, on the guidance for women about health issues involving various cancers, specific to women, ovarian cancer, cervical cancer, and so on, They removed any mention of women, and they did this to appease the trans activist lobby. To appease them.

Right. Now, I tell you why it's a miscalculation. I've written a column about this tonight for the sun on the back of it. Because if you are a trans woman, so you're a biological male who transitions and becomes a trans woman, under the new rules, which came in last year, you can have new medical records established under your new self-identity. But that means you don't get automatically called for screening for the specific diseases pertaining to your biological sex. And that is actually going to put people's lives at risk.

And that's my problem with it. Other than the fact that there's a war on calling women women. This is the first time I've heard this is extremely complicated and you've laid it out as it should be laid out. But I think that for the health secretary, who's a layman, just like you and me, to actually make a directive against doctors, that part is wrong. And I don't, I don't know what...

Why, he's a health secretary? No, no, he's not, no, he's a politician. He's elected. He's a policy. He's a policy. He's a policy. He's a judge of the health service. No, no. He's the boss. Hang on. He's a politician. Doctors made the decision. I'm assuming.

Not in this country, no. Unfortunately, women, the health service is not run by doctors. And that may be news to you. It's run by politicians. Bonnie, violence. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I'm not talking about who runs it. If the health service.

I'm going to make the assumption. Isabel, can I speak? Well, I... Thank you. If I'm... Can I speak? All right, all right. You speak.

I'll sit in and listen to you. Fine. All right. I will speak. Let me just put another point of the column I wrote, which is about... We did this on the show yesterday briefly, and I look more into it. So the Burgess Hill Girls School in West Sussex, the head teacher came out, the headmistress. And she said, we're not going to use the word girls anymore.

And the school's name remains Burgess Hill Girls School. She also said she was now reviewing whether to ever use the word girls' girls' school. in correspondence to parents lest it cause offence. And yet, if I looked at the website, which I did today for Burgess Hill Girls School, the very first paragraph talks about, we're going to turn your young girls into wonderful women. In other words, to get the money from the parents

to enroll their kids at the school, the headmistress herself in a letter uses gender-specific language. It will not surprise you that I think this whole thing is utterly absurd. But I think that you made actually a really good point, which I would imagine is going to be quite hard for people to argue against over this issue of whether they have what their health records say in terms of being called up for screening. But what about this whole thing of, you know, men coming in for screening

and ask whether they could be pregnant? I think that's going to be an insult. Yes, you can. I have a family member who is transitioning in a very difficult situation. I completely support her, her, I completely support her. And I think this conversation now, I hear what you're saying,

but it is extremely complicated. It's extremely complex. It is complex. Yes, it is. No, it's not. Yes, it is. Yes, it is. Yes, it is.

And I'm telling you this, as a woman. This is complicated. No, I think what's happened is that, unfortunately, in the promotion of trans rights, which I support to fairness and equality, there are new inequalities and unfairness is being created. And the main one for me, when you degender all this language around women and girls,

when you say you're not allowed to use the word girls in a girls school, when the NHS removes the word women from specific guidance to women about women's diseases. If you are particularly upset about de-gendering, that's what you're just saying, you know as a writer that all kinds of titles have been degendered in our lifetime. But I don't agree with most of them. Well, that's different. Well, that's different. I think it's a war on the use of the word women.

But that's different. And I'm telling you, words have been. gendered in my lifetime and you know that. I don't use the actress. I don't use the word actress anymore. When I can't even get on a plane with British Airways anymore and hear the familiar words, ladies and gentlemen, because somebody goes, I'm offended. Well, don't

cry about it. Well, you have a discussion about it. I never wanted to be called lady, and that was before this whole thing I want to be called a gentleman. I never wanted to be called a lady. There you are. The reality is. Douglas, I kept you out of this, Douglas, I can hear you chuckling in the

background, but I'm keeping you for the next debate we're having, which is over your way, actually, about whether Joe Biden is the worst American President. Why can't I be on that? Because I'm just shouting. I'm afraid you're ranted out for one show. Sorry, John. You didn't tell me of this. That's the one I wanted to be at. That's the way I wanted to be. All right. We'll be back after the break. Thank you to my ladies here. Thank you. Thank you. This week, Corrine Jean-Pierre, the new White House press secretary, last of suggestion Joe Biden doesn't have the physical or mental stamina for the second term. President, let's take a moment and consider that this man is the leader of the free world.

Vice President Biden, Vice President. That was a joke. Putin's kleptocracy. The guys who are the kleptocracy. Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that? Yes. That's the commitment we made. Well, Sleepy Joe, reporting for duty, but is he fit for office?

Douglas Monry is still with me. I'm also joined by the author Douglas Brinkley and former White House Communications Director, Anthony Scaramucci. Welcome to all of you. Let's start with you, Anthony, because you are a fierce opponent of your old boss, Donald Trump, but we'll do probably anything to stop him getting back in office. But I've got to say, with every day that we have Joe Biden in office,

the chances of Trump make a comeback increased, don't they? They do. Listen, I'm a realist. on objective, I do think that the chances increase. I would like to think that there are younger, better suited Republican politicians that will win the nomination. But yes, having said that, these testimonies that we're hearing this past week, Pierce, I think that could possibly finish Trump.

So you've got a choice between someone that was trying to revoke the American Republic. And obviously, you know, the president, President Biden has his issues, but I would, I would choose the latter over the former. Doug Brinkley, you're a historian. You've know more about presidents and I've forgotten in my life. Where does Joe Biden currently rank? Because it seems on almost every metric, foreign stage, debacle after debacle, domestic stage, horrific inflation surging now. Almost everything he touches, turns to the opposite of gold. People are saying he's the worst president that can ever remember, is he? Well, look, he's been present for a year and a half. And we, we've been present. We can only judge it during that.

He had a horrible first year, but so did Bill Clinton in 1993, who came up with a goose egg, nothing for pushing affordable care. Ronald Reagan had a tough first year, so I don't want to write the political obituary of Joe Biden yet. But with the inflation in the United States and with the gasoline prices, and with the fact that it's where climate change and forest fires and COVID and Ukraine and people are tense, Biden seems more like a placeholder to people, something like Gerald Ford after Watergate, or perhaps Jimmy Carter, who was trying to keep faith after Vietnam in Watergate. And so he doesn't seem to be an epic political leader. He seems to be his greatest virtue is that he's not Donald Trump, and that's what he ran on

last time, and if he decides to run again, that's going to be what he tries to sell himself as, It's better me than the other guy. Because Douglas Murray, it may not be Trump at all, because the leader now in the polls to win the Republican nomination is actually the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis. He's making a real charge now. And I sort of see him as Trump without all the baggage and without all the madness.

He's a kind of more sort of responsible version, which can be very electable. And I would think he's licking his lips, isn't he? The chance of getting at Biden in 2024? Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, there's the issue for the Republicans of getting Trump out of the way. Now, of course, not everyone wants to get him out of the way, but a lot of Republicans do.

And then have, as you say, Trumpism without Trump. DeSantis is a very impressive politician. He's shown how he can govern and make difficult decisions and successful decisions as governor of Florida. So he's got that behind him. It's not nothing that you can run a major state like Florida. He's a very attractive candidate. And the Republicans have a lot of attractive candidates. They've got a good bench.

The same cannot be said about the Democrats, it has to be said. And there is going to be a massive issue about this. You know, if Biden's not going to run again, who is? Kamala Harris, who is much, much lower approval ratings even than Biden. But here's a very quick thing. America is in this very strange position of all the world's democracies. Everybody running for the top office at the moment is around the age of 80. Nancy Pelosi, remember, is over 80.

There's no other country in the world outside a couple of monarchies. I completely agree. And Anthony, I mean, if Biden was to run again, he'd be near a 90. I mean, it just seems to me that given his current state where he looks half asleep, this is an unthinkable proposition for the Democrats, isn't it? Well, listen, we both read Shakespeare, though, Pierce. He's probably running again. I mean, you get power like that.

I think it's very hard to relinquish that power. Of course, something could happen to his health, God forbid. Certainly don't wish that. But I agree with Douglas. I would like to see younger, more energetic politicians. I sort of feel the baby boomer class of politicians, or that genre, if you will, has failed the country. The political establishment has been abysmal. It's time for a younger crop of people to step in.

And so I hope that that happens. But I do think he's running again. Douglas Brinkley, it's 50 years since Watergate. And we're looking at these January 6th hearings. And many people are saying, wow, have we really learned anything from, from what happened to the country back in the early 70s. How do you compare the two? Well, of course, so Richard Nixon was a sitting president during Watergate,

and all of the president's men went to jail, Ehrlichman and Haldeman and Colson and Mitchell. They actually did jail time. We're dealing with Donald Trump right now about an ex-president's behavior while he was president. And in some ways, it's more ominous January 6th. It's more of a bellwether about whether, our democracy is stable and strong, and it's a visual event. We're all watching it,

appears as seeing the people raiding the Capitol. Watergate, Nixon had the smoking gun that he developed himself, the tapes. There are no Trump tapes, per se, that are going to spell his demise, but the commission report, as it's being pulled together, is quite damning on Trump. It looks like he was trying to orchestrate a coup and then find a legal theory for it. Whether he survives this or not, we'll have to see. Yeah. Panel, thank you very much to Anthony, both Douglases. Great to talk to you all.

We'll see what happens. Thank you very much. Well, unsaid's the next with news of Sussex wines gaining a champagne market status. I'll be asking wine connoisseur, Fred Syriacs, and Lord Ian Both, could it ever be better than French bubbly? I think I know beefies answer. Welcome back. We brits have always enjoyed a glass of French champagne, but now there's a new English bubbly in town. The sparkling wine from my own county of Sussex.

has been given a champagne-style status. But how does it compete? Well, I'm joined now by the French matrily, Fred Syriacs, along with former cricket-to-turned-wine-maker, Lord Ian Both of them. Well, Beefy, let me start with you, because I know that you have a rival vineyard in neighbouring Kent to Sussex. You must be feeling gutted tonight that my county has stuffed you. Well, actually, not really, because if I can show you the bottle, Pearce,

the bell for wine, rosé, was in... The one that was bottled in 2004, and vintage, it was shown at the show in Paris, in a blind tasting. And the judges, when they were horrified, when they pulled off the bag, and there was a bottle of balfour rosé sparkling. And we're not allowed to call it champagne,

but I think we will from now on. So what you're saying is that your own Kent wine is actually superlative. That's what you're saying. Of course. What else would you expect? Beefy, I wouldn't expect you to ever put... No, look, it is good.

I wouldn't expect you to ever put French wine above anything English. But is it, just to be serious for a moment, how good is the stuff we're now producing here? Does it deserve this kind of comparative status? I think it's for quite some time now, along the south coast of England, the wines have improved so much, and maybe to do with the weather, the warming up.

But it's been fantastic. All the way along the coast, you can find really good, particularly sparkling wines. Okay, well, we've got a test here. I'll tell you what, Pierce. Yeah, go on. Mm-hmm. No, I'll say I've got, I've got Fred here. No, I say.

Fred, we've got a bottle of crude, which is one of my favorite tipples, along with Don Perignon, from the French, obviously. But we also have got this tinwood, which is the Sussex one that's just been called the new champagne. What do you think? I think it's very good. I think that me and Ian made a very good point. I think that, you know, when you compare, for example, English sparkling wine with champagne, the subsoil is the same in England as it is in champagne, but also because of climate change now, it's getting warmer, so therefore the wines are getting better.

And that's very, very important. But I think it's good that the wines are getting the recognition, and basically what's happening in Sussex is about a quality label, a quality standard, which I think is good, but at the same time we have to understand the cons, is that if, for example, you want to produce wine which is going to be slightly outside the standards that have been set for Sussex, you won't be able to do that anymore because you've got to stay within the constraint,

which is very good because it's a minimum standard. And that should raise the standard, shouldn't it? Yes. Beefy, you've been very successful with wine, notably in Australia, and now here, I can't go to any supermarket without seeing the both-than-vino coming at me. Are you enjoying your new world as a wine master? I love it. I wish I'd done it 15 years ago. It's a totally different way of life for me. I enjoy it. I've always enjoyed a glass of wine, as you know, but to actually be there and blending the wines, whether it's in New Zealand doing a pino or whether in Kunawara doing a cabané or the barossa or in Argentina doing Malbex, it's exciting and it's quite rewarding.

Yeah, look, I think the easiest way to get around this piece is maybe you and Fred should come down. I'll take you down. Yes. And we'll go down to Hush Heath. And you can come there, you can see the process, and more importantly, you can sample the product. Now we are talking.

As you know, Lord Boatham, I've had a few nights with you on the vino, and my liver has nearly recovered enough to risk it again. Fred, you know, I'm going to ask it tomorrow. There'll be crew coming out of everyone's ears. Can you see a time in 10 years' time when a... big royal event like Ascot will have English sparkling wine everywhere, English rosé? I think so. I mean, the thing is with champagne. It's a lot to do with perception. Of course, quality is important. Krug is the Royce of champagne, but it's also about the perception of the consumer. And for English

champagne, I mean, it's good. There's a quality label. Now it's starting in Sussex. And I think we've got to go to all the regions that produce sparkling wines. But it's about the marketing. It's about the PR. And it's about, of course, what's in the bottle, but it's at the perception of the consumer. It's very, very important for champagne. Well, I can say, as a Sussex man, I am absolutely delighted that it's turned out we have this kind of quality of wine, and particularly as we beat Kent, where Lord Botham's wine is made. So despite all his bragging about his wine, Sussex 1, Kent Nill. Lord Botham, great to talk to you. Fred, great to see you.

He's shouting, cheers beeping. That's it from me. Whatever you're up to, make sure it's uncensored.