The truth about Keir Starmer’s lies

0:02The Telegraph

0:10Lies, damn lies and Keir Starmer. Why is our Prime Minister so economical with the truth? From tax to teachers to Brexit, we debunk Labour's dotty statistics. And we speak to George Aberonnier, who lost his role as President-elect of the Oxford Union after he appeared to celebrate Charlie Kirk's murder. Welcome to The Daily Tea with me, Tim Stanley. And me, Camilla Tominy.

0:44Before we get on to Starmer, liar, liar, pants on fire, can I just raise something with you? Because I overheard a rather intriguing conversation that you had just before we came into the studio. Yeah. I think with the kennel that is going to be looking after Bertie. I'm going on holiday for Christmas and my dog is going to a kennel's and I got an email asking for the second half of the payment, which is fine. But in the email, it also said, by the way, it's an extra£10 if you want him to meet Santa in the grotto. They're putting on a Santa's grotto. He would quite like to meet Santa. And I thought, who is he talking about?

1:21Then I realised you were talking about your own dog. My first thought was, what am I, Marie Antoinette? I'm paying for my dog to meet Father Christmas. On the other hand, I thought, if I don't pay this and Father Christmas arrives, All the other dogs are going to be queuing up to sit on his lap and my poor dog is going to be to one side. I know, isolated. Shivering, ignored. In a dog silo. I'm going to have to give him the£10. And I gave him the£10 and I said, there will be a photo, won't there? I am going to get a photo for£10. Can I just ask, is Santa going to be a big dog? Dressed up. And then are they going to take the Mickey and have some cats as elves?

1:56I like to think they do it really seriously. I want a St Bernard. I want to see some Bernard in a Santa outfit with Bertie on his lap. It's a 16-year-old kid in a Santa outfit with a fag in his mouth and lots of dogs barking and running around at his feet. Maybe having some disguised sausages in his pockets. I think it's adorable. It is adorable and we look forward to seeing those photos. Shall we get into a very interesting PMQ? Well, you've been busy. You've been in Parliament. You did the Rachel Reeves session. Rachel Reeves was interrogated by a Treasury committee in which they mostly wanted to know about the leaks that occurred before the budget.

2:31But in the course of that, she was also asked what role the prime minister played in the writing of the budget. And she said, we made two or three times awake. So it turns out that actually Keir Starmer shares some of the blame for the budget from hell. I was just thinking, meetings you wouldn't want to be a fly on the wall at. Oh, they just sit in silence staring at each other over a plate of cold peas. So that was an interesting thing that came out of that. And then we moved on to PMQs, where the Prime Minister was his usual very grey self. And I thought Kemi had another excellent week. Yes.

3:07Somebody showed me a more in common poll where she's shot up in the approval ratings and is just trailing behind Farage. And I thought, that's interesting. Is that since the budget rebuttal? And actually, we had some drinks with the leader of the opposition on Monday. You did. I wasn't invited. No, quite rightly, actually. Keep the riff ruff out. I was in that room and I thought, when was I last here? And I thought, oh, I was having a Christmas drink with Angela Rayner. Our times have changed. Anyway, and we did that thing of being in a horseshoe questioning her. And I was quite intrigued as to her reaction to the rap video that was made after the budget response.

3:40And she said she found it quite funny. And I just think it's interesting that you can control some media, but sometimes things just take off. And that would have introduced her to a new younger audience that may have not heard of her before. and all of that kind of organic social material probably does help in the long run, provided it casts her in a good light, which it did in that case. As the PMQs, sometimes they do make the news. I think people do get to see them. Things are more disseminated than they used to be through social media. But ultimately, PMQs are about giving a morale boost to your own side.

4:11And it has meant a lot to Tory MPs to see their leader, quote unquote, winning PMQs. It gives them a sense of confidence because, as Keir Starman pointed out, There have, in the past week, been, I think, the defections of three ex-MPs to reform. And a Scottish peer. And a Scottish peer. So there is still something of a brain drain going on towards reform, and the party does need to boost its morale. As for Kemi's performance, she structured this week's questions quite well. She began with the question... Can the right honourable gentleman tell the House why are his own MPs describing him as a caretaker prime minister?

4:52Mr Speaker, my own MPs are very proud. We've just passed a budget which protected our public services and our NHS. No austerity which brought our NHS to the ground. We've created the condition for economic stability with the headroom we need. Then I think she decided to take the tack that actually the Daily Tea has been taking in recent days and weeks to call out some of the, let's call them untruths, let's be generous, some of the untruths at the heart of Labour. So if you actually just trace the whole week, there are a number of different, well, OK, lies that I think the government has been caught out in.

5:29Yes, because at the core of this government, and this came up at the Treasury Committee with Rachel Reeves, is the central lie that they inherited a situation that was so bad, 22 billion pound black hole, that everything they have had to do since has been forced upon them. And they've done the best possible job they can. And they're actually doing quite well in the circumstances. That's the central myth of Labour, which has been debunked, that actually the situation was not that bad. and, as she went on to argue today, sort of lots of little lies have emerged, sort of sprouted from this big central lie about Labour's performance, which runs across many different departments.

6:08Many departments. Well, let's look at lie number one, and that comes down to the budget, and it was touched upon at the meeting you were at this morning. Many accusations of untruths when it comes to the budget that was presented a couple of Wednesdays ago. Have they breached the manifesto because they promised not to tax working people more? that you look at a£26 billion increase on taxes on working people, even though it's not direct, it's through the medium of freezing the thresholds for a further three years, and you say to yourself, well, yes, it's not only a manifesto breach, but it's a breach of your own pledge, because what's the truth of the matter, Tim?

6:44Last year, she said, and I quote, I've come to the conclusion that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips. So you said last year that it would tax working people. You've done it this year and you've insisted it isn't a tax on working people. I mean, it's not just gaslighting the public that. That's a downright lie. The Treasury Committee contains Tories, Lib Dems, Labour, of course. So the questions that were asked to her came from all parties. And the things that came up were taxing people extra by freezing thresholds is an unprogressive way to raise tax.

7:22because if you just said, right, the top earners no longer just pay 40, but now pay 45 or 50%, then okay, you're targeting the very rich. Yes. But if you're allowing everyone to slip into a higher tax band every time that their salary goes up a little bit, then that hits everyone. So it's not progressive was one charge put to her. Another was, this is really surprising. I didn't know this. Most of the tax rises and most of the supposedly good news that she has planned for us is all packed for the end of this parliament. It's not coming in now. So this is the point we had when we had John Redwood on about how the debt is actually still racking up.

8:02The good work that her fiscal headroom is supposed to be doing, you might think that it's happening right now because of what she's done. Actually, no, it's all planned to take place later in the parliament. And therefore, it's based in part upon projections again. and you don't know what's going to change. Tiny things can happen, like as she mentioned, Donald Trump's tariffs. Things can come out of the blue and completely surprise you. Well, the Employment Rights Bill isn't factored into any of the forecasting. Right. And that's predicted to wreak havoc. Right, exactly. So the headroom might disappear as well.

8:34And also the point was made that when it comes to the cost of living crisis, it is true that in the last two years wages have risen significantly. That's a good thing. And of course, things like interest rates have come down. But again, if you look at the projections for two or three years hence, the situation is projected to be a bit worse. Still improving, but not as fast and not as well to keep up with the rise in prices. So in other words, a lot of what we've had in the last couple of weeks sounds like she has flicked a switch and fixed the economy and the accounts all in one go. But what she's really done is she has delayed it all to the end of the Parliament.

9:13And one final one I'll give, which was raised by a Tory on the committee, is that Rachel Reeves had said that in order to fix her headroom problem, she had a choice between two awful things. One is to raise rates of taxes, or the second is to cut capital spending. Well, by her own lights, because she doesn't consider the threshold point to be raising the rates of tax. She's actually done neither. Yeah. So where does it fit in? How do we fix the accounts if we haven't done either of the two things that she said were essential to do in order to make the budget work? Yeah, it's all smoke and mirrors.

9:54This is the point. It's basically everything's being kicked towards the end of this parliament. And a cynic would say you're doing that because when you're going to campaign in the next general election, you can use the figures for the end of the parliament and it's going to make Labour look good. Let's look at lie number two. So, Kemi Badenok asked Keir Starmer in PMQs by how much have energy bills gone down? This was his response. Mr Speaker, I'm very pleased to say we're taking£150 of energy bills. I can also tell her that that's on top of the£150 we've taken off last year for the 3 million poorest families, now for 6 million poorest families.

10:34But what's the truth of the matter? I found it laughable to hear the Prime Minister suggest that energy bills have come down. Anyone that's got the radiators on right now knows that isn't true. Lo and behold, the truth of the matter is as follows. The Centre for Policy Studies think tank says the price cap for an average household paying by direct debit went up to£1 ,755 in October. That's up£187 from the 2024 general election. What he was probably referring to, Starmer, is the decision in the budget to reduce the costs of levies on energy bills, which they claim will remove about£150 from average household bills.

11:13Well, it's against more smoke and mirrors. He boasted that this was mentioned in front of a group of nurses and they clapped. But the point is, overall, your bill's probably gone up vastly. And it's going to fall by a little bit. But it's how he says it, as if, oh, well, everybody knows. And everyone's going, no, everyone knows the opposite. is true. The same, by the way, this is a bit more tight in terms of the data. But Kemi Badenock, who's clearly had a look at some of the figures before she's entered the chamber, then asked the Prime Minister how many extra teachers there were, bearing in mind that the Education Secretary, Bridget Philipson, who she pointed out on the front bench, has constantly banged on about there being 6 ,500 more teachers as a result of putting VAT on private school fees.

12:00That's what that extra tax was meant to pay for. Let's listen to Badenock's reply. Wrong. Mr Speaker, there are now 400 fewer teachers since she came into office. She's shaking her head. It's on the DfE website. Does she not check it once in a while? And to be fair to her, that is borne out by the statistics. The Department for Education's figures show there are 400 fewer teachers in 2024 compared to 2023. We should say that these figures are based on a November 2024 census of the previous year and we can't tell whether the reduction happened under the Conservatives or under Labour who were both in office during that time.

12:47Let's look at another lie. Police numbers have gone up. So Starmer promised 3 ,000 more police officers by the end of March, having been asked by Kemi Badenock how his pledge to recruit 13 ,000 new officers were going. What's the truth of the matter, Tim? It's unclear how the government will actually do that. According to Home Office figures, there are 146 ,442 full-time equivalent police officers as of March 2025. That is down 1 ,303 or 0.9 % compared to March 2024. So numbers down again. numbers down. Another lie. We've had a debate this week as well, just to speak of another, maybe it's not an untruth, but it's perhaps misleading.

13:31Anne Longfield, who's the former Children's Commissioner, has been appointed to chair the inquiry into child rape gangs. Labour are insisting this is an impartial appointment, that she will not let party politics get in the way of officiating what is going to be a very significant and high-profile national inquiry. However, she is a former Labour peer. She's going to become a crossbencher, but that is not going to satisfy survivors who are worried that if Labour investigates itself, because a lot of the constituencies involved in this scandal, Rochdale, Rotherham, wherever else, are all Labour run.

14:13Labour councils and councillors are complicit in this, allegedly. is she the right person to be leading this? Well, the grooming survivor Fiona Goddard has said that she has disappointed Baroness Longfield's appointment and Marlon West, father of survivor Scarlett has said the same because Longfield is a Labour peer. He told Sky News a lot of the survivors are concerned with trust around Labour we were hoping it would be a judge. Why not get a judge? Why not get a foreign judge? It's quite clear that people don't feel they can trust the establishment on this one and we can understand why because the establishment, well, parts of the establishment, key institutions were involved in cover-ups.

14:52Hang on, Keir Starmer said that any call for an inquiry was, quotes, jumping on a far-right bandwagon. Ah, well, and of course Lucy Powell echoed similar comments famously in conversation with Tim Montgomery. We should add that whistleblower Jane Senior has welcomed the appointment. And then let's deal with lie number six, which again is in the background and we need to discuss. Yes. And this is this idea that Labour will absolutely not reverse Brexit. There were two questions raised about this during PMQs, and it's notable who asked them because these parties are obsessed with it. One was Ed Davey, who asked about return to the customs union.

15:30The other was good old Plaid. I always love it when Plaid has a question. Oh, Plaid. I mean, it's great to hear them asking a question that isn't about Nigel Farage, to be fair. I just don't understand why you want to leave the UK but join the EU. Yeah, doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The EU's worse than the UK. Well, I know. It's a basket case. Do you want to be run from London? Do you want to be run from Brussels? OK. Now, what's worrying about all this is that the Prime Minister has previously said they're not going to cross the red line of rejoining the single market or the customs union.

15:57He repeated it at PMQs, but hang on a minute. I'm a bit suspicious about the truth behind this assertion that he's not trying to reverse Brexit for a couple of reasons. First of all, he gives this absolutely ridiculous, soft, soapy interview to The Observer, where the observer basically spends an hour with him asking him why he's so great, OK, in which he is asked five times to rule out rejoining the EU in his lifetime. He cannot answer the question. He does reveal that he came from a working-class family, though, with stunning candour. His father was a toolmaker. And he is, by the way, a good dad.

16:32I don't have anyone say anything different. And then we've got David Lammy, who in turn was asked seven times to rule out the prospect of reversing Brexit and again couldn't rule it out. So are we to believe these people, these arch-Romaniacs? Yes. The argument of people like Davy is your budget was rubbish, you're raising taxes. The OBR infamously said there was nothing in this budget that would spark growth. And to go back to the Treasury Committee, when she was asked about growth measures, she came up with things like someone's just opened a film studio and I'm not joking, she mentioned that co-op have cut prices across their stores.

17:13Are you joking? What? Oh my God. She's doing ads for supermarkets now. So in other words, if there is no obvious source of growth, then there is one thing left open to you and that's the customs union. And the way Ed Devi framed it was, and this brings us back to Kimmy Baden-Ock's question about him being a caretaker, prime minister and all the other ministers wanting his job. If he doesn't accept the customs union, is there a risk that in 12 months time, he'll be gone? Now, the way Davey posed the question was clumsy and almost threatening and sounded like Davey planned to kill him. But he said in 12 months time, you won't be here.

17:53But the point is fair, that if the economy continues to go downhill, and at the same time, he is taking off the table, the one thing that that Remainers and some of the left believe is necessary and just and could save Britain, then will a time come when someone within the cabinet finally says, you must go so that we can do the obvious thing and rejoin the customs union? I have thought of one more lie. We're into the addendum category now, but there's one more lie, which is on trial by jury. And this point was made in the last question asked by a Labour MP, which is if the whole point of reducing trial by jury is to clear the backlog of 80 ,000 cases, then ask the MP, why don't you put a sunset clause on it?

18:36Yes. Once you've cleared the backlog, then we can restore trial by jury. It doesn't make much sense to me. There is a final lie, by the way, and it's been exposed by a publican called James Fowler, who's owner of the Larder House in Southbourne. Now, he has taken the decision to ban his local MP, who is a Labour MP, Tom Hayes, from his pub, and he's launched a campaign banning Labour MPs from all pubs. that want to sign up to it on the basis of the lie, another lie in the budget, which was the business rates changes have benefited the hospitality industry. Oh, yes. OK, it's such a lie. Now, let me just point out this man's poster, which basically sums up the issue for publicans and landlords across the land.

19:22This is the truth of the this budget is great for pubs lie. This poster is headlined The Facts, and this is how they're laid out. Only one in ten pubs will be profitable following Labour's new budget. Fact. A hospitality business now closes every day. Fact. The government now makes more in a pint than your pub does. Fact. And it basically says we can't afford to go on strike. We can't afford to close. We can't afford to go to London. So this is our industrial action in the only way we can. Fact. Banning Labour MPs. So I've lost count of how many lies we've exposed there. I think we might be up to eight, which is a pockethead.

20:08An octopus of lies... And deceit. ...coming from this government. Well, from one man under fire, the Prime Minister, to another, coming up next we're going to be speaking to the former President-elect of the Oxford Union, George Aberonnier, who lost that role after he appeared to celebrate Charlie Kirk's murder.

20:39On September 10th, Charlie Kirk was shot and killed in Utah. Kirk was the founder of Turning Point USA, an organisation that travels the world, sparking debates in universities. Meanwhile, George Aberonnier, who joins us on today's Daily Tea, was the president-elect of the Oxford Union. When Kirk was killed, you wrote a WhatsApp, George, saying, and I quote, Charlie Kirk got shot. Let's effing go. While on Instagram, you posted Charlie Kirk got shot. L double O O L. Why did you do that? Yeah, I mean, I think I kind of saw the notification and I guess I didn't have a lot of context for what happened.

21:22You know, at the time, there wasn't a lot of information regarding the event. There wasn't, you know, the video hadn't surfaced yet. So there was very little context, very little information, I guess, as to what happened. And I guess, such as the nature of things you see online, things you see on the internet, and especially, I think, large scale political events that happen on the internet now, a lot of them are trivialised. I think I kind of fell into that as well, in not realising the gravity of the situation, not realising the severity of the situation. And so I reacted callously, and it was insensitive and not really befitting of the moment at all.

21:54And part of it was to elicit a reaction to kind of have a discussion, not even necessarily about the event but more so just about you know Mr Kirk his political legacy and I guess I went about that in completely the wrong way and I realized that as well kind of quite quickly in that you know scene reaction I received kind of in the group chat and you know there was discussion about whether that was the appropriate way to talk about an event like this and also just an appropriate way to go about sparking the conversation I wanted to have and then a bit more information surfaced online and I started realizing actually okay hey, this could be really serious.

22:27And I realised I'd miscalculated. And so I kind of deleted and apologised. Had you not seen the video at that point? I had not seen the video. I only query that because it almost happened, the horrific thing about this assassination is it almost happened in real time. You know, I got home and I had it on and inadvertently I showed my son, which I regretted a bit. He's 15 and he's probably seen worse, but it's just so visceral and horrifying. And that WhatsApp group, who was in that? Was it just fellow students or mates? It was students, you know, some union members, and it was a group chat that had been used a lot for kind of political discussion.

23:00You know, at one point we'd actually talked about kind of why Mr. Kirk had been invited to the Oxford Union. You know, there'd been discussion about whether debating someone like Mr. Kirk is actually a productive thing to do. And I advocated for him saying kind of, you know, while someone I disagree with, like on many different positions and someone who I would engage with in the debate, someone who I did engage with in the debate, I thought someone like Charlie Kirk needs to be challenged through the appropriate channels, through the appropriate forums. I thought this is someone who's built his kind of platform on debate and engaged with debate and so should be engaged with in debate.

23:33But kind of going back to what you said, I think it's interesting. You said, you know, you think your 15 year old might have seen worse. And I think that kind of is part of the problem with, I guess, just things that happen online. and not just things that happen online, but kind of the way in which these large-scale events are disseminated through the internet in that kind of... It's true, like, it was very quick and it happened over a very short period of time. I guess I was, I'm not going to say unfortunate, but I quite literally acted with very little context in the past, perhaps like 15, 20 minutes before kind of any real information had surfaced.

24:07So you didn't know he was dead yet? I had no clue he was dead. You just had heard that he'd been shot. Yes, and that there was a shooting at the event. And you wanted to have a conversation. Is that what you meant by let's effing go? Is that the trigger to now let's discuss it? I don't think it's the appropriate trigger. I don't think it's the right way. Is that what you meant? Because I'm trying to understand Charlie Kirk got shot, let's effing go. I mean, when I first hear that, it sounds like let's kick off. Either let's party or this is the way forward. I mean, but that was a cue to people to discuss the shooting.

24:42it's not necessarily that that was me saying oh great thing that's happened here you know wow like this is something that should happen more anything like that I think it was more so just almost just in the moment almost just a kind of blur of you know emotions and various different shock and you just you just react in the moment and I guess like I realized obviously it wasn't befitting of the moment because I deleted everything I kind of apologized on my social medias before any of the news cycle before and you had a press storm. I think in the moment - And that's good, but if I may as well, you said that on WhatsApp, but you then also went onto Instagram to say Charlie Kirk got shot, lol.

25:24Well, that's not just let's have a conversation about it. That really implies that you thought it was funny that a man just got shot. Regardless of whether it was dead or not, it's not funny that a man just got shot. Well, this I agree with. And I think partly, like I said, it was almost a symptom of the kind of trivialization that happens with these events online I think again at the time with little context with no kind of information about it it was almost something that didn't really feel real something that didn't really kind of exist yet something that you couldn't really come to terms with exactly and I think you know it's not almost that I found the situation funny because obviously with hindsight I can be like that wasn't funny at all obviously in the moment even I kind of realized after posting it's probably not the way I should have been acting or should the way I should have reacted.

26:07But I think part of that reaction was also, and I don't want to sound cruel or crude here, so please forgive me in any capacity, but almost an irony in that Mr. Kirk is someone who consistently advocated for the right to bear arms. He's someone who at one point said that gun deaths were a prudent deal for the right to bear arms, for the right to the Second Amendment. And I thought this is someone who has consistently advocated for gun reform and yet has become almost a victim of his own policy, a victim of his own rhetoric. Well, you can advocate gun reform, but not advocate political assassinations.

26:46Well, of course. Yes. I mean, he would say guns are for self-defense. He wouldn't say they're for killing people. I'm conscious of the dynamic of his looking a little bit like, we're your mum and dad questioning you about some bad behavior that occurred at school. So forgive that. But what I'm interested in really is the motivation. And I would suspect, and to be fair, my suspicions were confirmed by a statement you later gave to the New Statesman about it. But this is my interpretation of what you said. You're basically saying he's a righty. I don't agree with what I'm saying. I don't think it's much of a loss to society that he's died.

27:19I'm on the left. So come on, fellow lefties. Let's revel in the demise of this bloke that we just really feel is a racist and a bigot. because you told the news statement afterwards, my words were no less insensitive than his, arguably less so. The difference is that I had the humility to recognise when I strayed from my core values and I addressed it immediately upon reflection. So you're saying that because he came out with ideology that you disagreed with, it's no less insensitive for you to revel in his murder. Okay, well, there are a couple of ideas I'd like to tackle there. Firstly, I don't think this is kind of a left-right issue.

27:59And more so, I'm not happy at all about the man's death. I don't believe that he should have died in that capacity. I don't believe anyone should be shot for their political opinions. And actually, for as much as I disagreed with him, I also engaged with him in debate. So this idea that I guess I was happy that he's gone or I'm happy that, you know, that happened to him is untrue. I can disagree with someone and still engage with them respectfully and engage with their ideas respectfully. And I guess almost to contextualize that comment, when we talk about Mr. Kirk, in saying my words were no less sensitive, Mr.

28:33Kirk is someone who at various different points has called for the repealing of the Civil Rights Act 1964, which is something that, for context, enshrines in law the right of people to not be discriminated against based on their race. So this is not someone who just had opinions about the world. This is someone who, if he had his way, would have enacted policy and platforms that would have done real harm to people that look like me. They would have done real harm to people in my community. They've done real harm to people like black people globally. This is someone who at various different points trivialized and laughed at the deaths of women and children in Gaza because he believed that Hamas justified the death, the civilian deaths in Gaza.

29:17So this is not someone who just had opinions. And this is not just someone who I disagreed with. And we can still separate the fact that I disagreed with him, sure. And I debated with him and I engaged with him in that discussion. And he is someone who I disagreed with on many different points, on many different platforms. And is someone that should be engaged with in that capacity and still doesn't deserve to die. And still didn't deserve to be shot. And I think we don't need to conflate the two when we talk about it because I don't think it's productive. in that there is a real conversation to be had around the legacy of someone like Mr.

29:53Kirk and the impact that these right-wing provocateurs have in the space of political discourse. When we look at kind of the increased polarisation of political discourse and we look at the environments that they add to when they stoke rhetoric of division. Sorry, do you understand that left-wing zealots also stoke division? Of course. And again, I'm not trying to say that it is specifically left or right issue. In fact, more so, I think it's just an issue of online discourse in general, in that there is an unwillingness almost, I think, to reach across the aisle oftentimes. And instead, there is a speed to provoke.

30:29And there is a speed with which in that provocation comes polarization. I think it's part of the trap I fell into in the way I reacted, in the way in which I sought not almost to empathize or to have a real nuanced discussion, but more so to provoke a reaction, I guess, in the way I kind of commented. and then from that reaction to then go into whatever conversation I wanted to have. And that's not the right way to do things. And I can reflect on that. I can realize that even in the moment, because like I said, I'm someone who consistently has advocated for peaceful protest. I'm someone that even when I reflected on my Instagram, talked about the need for empathy in our politics and that this increased polarization only adds to a climate of violence that leads to more events like this, regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum.

31:13And so, again, part of this whole mistake and journey of growth after this has been about being able to engage with ideas, not on so much of a binary, but with the nuance that it deserves and being able to engage with opinions and ideas that I disagree with, because I think that's healthy. And that's how discussion is had in deliberative democracy. When you did debate with him, how did you find him? so mr kirk is someone who like you said built a career off going to universities allowing people to kind of almost in an ask me anything style engage with people um prove me wrong he used to say prove me wrong exactly um he also went to cambridge i think maybe two two months prior something like that so he he was someone that i knew about i knew of kind of his debate tactics i knew of kind of the way he engages with debate and the way in which also kind of oftentimes the debates that he does have become clipped and become kind of very public so I kind of at the beginning kind of had an apprehension to debating him in that I was unsure to what end me engaging with him in discussion would bring in that I disagreed with many of his ideas and I thought what's the point in engaging with someone who's just never going to agree with me on something and I also thought look like I'm just a student I don't really want to kind of you know open myself up to that kind of media scrutiny but I thought I'm going to come to the event anyway I know who the guy is I'm interested in what he has to say I'm interested in discussion that was being had I remember at the time there were some interesting discussions being had around a mother in Atlanta who was in a coma and was still being forced to kind of give birth to a child and I thought you know that was an interesting point in discussion maybe to touch on I had also at the time been doing research around the manosphere and right-wing media spaces online and so I was very interested in kind of how that impacts people's masculinity.

32:59Of course, adolescence has just come out. So I thought there were a lot of interesting points of discussion that might come up. So I go and I listened to Mr. Kirk and I guess it was different to how his usual format is in that there was almost a Q &A session, an interview session at first between him and the president and there were a couple points brought up and I thought there were a couple points that I wanted to kind of tackle or rebut and then he debated a couple other students first And I thought he wasn't being rigorously challenged, at least not in the way that I thought potentially on certain issues, I would have gone about talking to him or asking him questions.

33:31And so, you know, at that point, I thought, well, this is the Oxford Union. It's a place for debate. It's a space to, you know, share your opinions, to speak your mind. Why can't I go and say something? You know, I think I have the capabilities and facilities to debate him. And so I did, which is, you know, much has been made of what I wore and kind of, you know, that I was dressed quite casually. It has. And people have also people leapt to saying things like not just why were you president-elect, but why were you even at Oxford? Do you think that some of the reaction to your remarks ended up becoming coded about racism?

34:06Well, of course. And I think we can be very clear about that. And I think it's almost bad faith to say it hasn't. You know, there is valid discussion to be had about, you know, the mistake I made and what I said, as we've had here. But I think we can separate that completely from my race. We can separate that from the grades I got. We can separate that from like me as a person. And I think you almost discredit the actual conversation that can be had around kind of what I said when you link it to my race, when you link it to the grades I get. you discredit any good faith discussion that can be had as soon as you start to engage in that racism or that classism.

34:45Because at that point, why am I going to engage with someone who doesn't even believe in my personhood or my dignity based on the color of my skin or the grades I got or the background I come from? I don't think Charlie Kirk would have made those sorts of judgments. I'm not saying you are saying he is, but I'm just making the point that the kind of conservatism that he embodied was meritocratic. He wouldn't have begun from a position of saying, I'm looking at you and I'm judging you shouldn't be here. Well, do I think he would have said it to my face? No, I think he's also a very respectful person.

35:13He was very respectful in the debate I engaged with. But some of the positions he also held were ones that could be considered racist or are considered racist. Like I said, his thoughts around repealing the civil rights in 1964, some of his commentary around, say, DEI policies. But more specifically, when we talk about that, he was very vocally outspoken about kind of black pilots and saying, for example, that he would be concerned if he walked onto a plane and saw a black pilot because he'd think they're less qualified, which is just categorically untrue and I think, you know, can only really be rooted and based in a level of racism and stereotype regarding kind of ideas that black people are somehow lesser or, you know, have like, you know, lower IQ or, you know, an inability to engage with, you know, these kind of high-level concepts.

36:02So is Charlie Kirk someone that would have called me a slur? Maybe not. Sure. But is Charlie Kirk also someone that I think at times engaged with racist ideas and engaged with racist policies? Yes. And I think, once again, that doesn't mean he should have died. Doesn't mean he should have been shot. And we can have that discussion around kind of the impact of some of the policies he advocated for and separate that from his death. Are you happy he's no longer on the circuit spouting ideas you don't agree with? No, because I don't think the way in which he died was befitting of that. And I don't agree with the way in which he died.

36:38And I don't think he should have died like that. One of the ironies of this is people jumped upon an Oxford debate you did about justice and violence. And people watched it and I felt that they didn't actually hear what you said. Because the whole point of your speech was you repudiating the role of violence in political causes. Exactly. And if I may also add, I feel some of the reaction to you was racist. Yeah. And in fact, I've taught at Cambridge, have some idea of the standards of Oxbridge and what it expects. And I think people watching this should be able to judge that you're exactly the kind of person who should be at Oxford.

37:14Thank you. You clearly have the mind and the ability to articulate yourself that I don't know why there was any doubt as to whether you should have been there or not. I also have some sympathy because I don't think there is any human being who hasn't thought terrible things about their opponents. And I remember some years ago when Ian Paisley died, I wrote a piece for this newspaper, which I now regret, in which I said I have no sympathy for him. And I more or less said, I think he's probably in hell. I'm saying that as a Roman Catholic because my people have experienced some degree of oppression on these islands too.

37:46I wouldn't say that now. Yeah. And this is the thing is I wonder if you're too clever. much of what you're saying is too cleverly structured. It was just a shitty thing that you did. And I think you just need to say for the sake of absolute clarity, that was a bloody awful thing I did and I should never have done it. I'm so sorry. Well, yeah. I mean, I've said it before. I can say it again. I know, but you say it too well, George. Sorry, sorry. You say it in too Oxford way. Sorry, sorry. It sounds like you do all this sort of thing is about internet discourse and I didn't know the context. No.

38:21And I say, I want to repeat, I've said many terrible things. I don't want anyone to go through my internet history. If I've ever said those things, it was just an awful thing to do. You made a mistake. Yeah, I made a mistake. I've been very clear about this quite consistently. I made a mistake. It was, like you said, a shitty thing to say. I shouldn't have reacted like that. Like, I should have just been better. Yeah. What did you end up saying to Erica, his wife? Because I think you said you were going to apologize to his family which would I assume include her have you had contact what happened I haven't had direct contact I wouldn't really know how to get into direct contact but I mean when the times asked me I said I of course offer my apologies my condolences that I believe that you know no one should grow up where no one should no one should be widowed no child should grow up fatherless you know in circumstances that can be avoided so absolutely I'd offer my apologies and condolences to the family.

39:15You were forced to stand down as president-elect because of a no-confidence vote that was held by the Oxford Union. You're still there in your third year of studying PPE? Yes. How has it affected your life at university and career prospects this furore? Career prospects I wouldn't really know to this point and honestly I'm not exactly thinking about it right now. I'm mostly just focused on my studies finishing that kind of also just getting through what has been quite a difficult time of course um you know it's it was it's quite scary I won't lie um most I think most most people my age most students I think don't expect even if they like you said do shitty things or make a mistake I guess don't expect to be under that much scrutiny and that was quite difficult for me and I think part of scrutiny I've been able to engage with and you know it's it's also made me a stronger and better person I think but also the other side of it is like you said a lot of what has been said online has also been quite racist has been classist you know people have called for my deportation even though I'm born in London people have called me a chimp in a suit and like these this is these are things that you know of course are difficult to overcome and I think you know part of it is I guess tougher skin and being able to push through that but undoubtedly it's been quite difficult at times you know I felt almost unsafe going back to Oxford and I think you know the community there has been lovely and kind of welcoming me and embracing the fact that you know you made a mistake but you're willing to learn from that and so I've been I've been you know a lot of this is about I guess trying to grow and move on in a way that is healthy in a way that is you know productive going forward and part of that will be obviously going back to studies finishing my degree you know ensuring that I you know apply myself to that fully.

41:04This is a slightly left field question But what you're saying in your experience of, as we're using this terminology, having done something shitty as a young man. I'm sorry for introducing. Well, I think it's, you know, fair enough. I'd like to think of no other way of putting it. It's actually reminded me of another story that's been in the headlines in recent weeks. And this is Nigel Farage's schoolboy behaviour in college. Now, I wouldn't imagine for one minute, George, that you necessarily sympathise with the Reform UK leaders' views. but I would be really intrigued to know what you make of how he is being judged about what he said allegedly 49 years ago.

41:39So I think there's an interesting distinction to be made in that obviously Ms Farage allegedly said these things as a schoolboy but instead of being able to either confirm or deny or you know take responsibility he's looked to obfuscate he's looked to you know justify in that, you know, oh, well, there were other racist things being said on the BBC and jokes being made. It was just a product of the times. And sure, you can almost give him that. You can almost say, fine, that, you know, it was a product of the times. Like you said, I don't think it makes it right. And I think, you know, any morally outstanding person, I think should just be able to come out and say, like, like I have done, I did a shitty thing.

42:24I said something stupid, and I'm better than that now. I think the difference here is I've apologized. I apologized consistently and quite publicly. I apologized before the press. I apologized when this became a story. I've continued to apologize. And Farage refuses to apologize. And I think there is a difference in that I've made an apology and that outside of the apology and this one mistake, like you said, I've consistently advocated for peaceful politics. I've gone out of my way very often to talk about a need for empathy in my politics, whereas Farage refuses to apologize and has then made a career out of stoking division in his politics.

42:57But what I'm saying is you're coming from a position a little bit with Kirk that because you don't agree with what he was saying, for instance, about civil rights, or indeed what he was saying about immigration, that you think, ergo, he is a racist. And some people will disagree with that analysis in the same way that they will disagree with the analysis that Nigel Farage's hard talk on policies relating to the same sorts of issues is inherently racist. But we probably need another podcast, frankly, to discuss that. I mean, my point of, I guess, I don't think Mr. Kirk is racist because I disagreed with him.

43:32I think Mr. Kirk holds racist views and therefore could be described as racist. And I think is racist if he holds racist views in the same way that if the justification for the policies that Farage oftentimes advocates for is racist. if he is to have said these things, to have held these views about people, that is racist. And I don't think we should try and dance around that fact. And you're free to say that. And I suppose the choice is do we want to live in an empathetic world in which we cancel each other every time we offend each other or do we want to live in a world in which we just accept that division is part of it and we just debate it and accept that we're going to anger each other.

44:18I do think one reason why you got cancelled in the way you did was because a lot of right-wing people felt that for a long time, if you said anything that the establishment deemed to be offensive, you could get cancelled. And this included going to jail for tweets. And then when they saw you say something which was objectively, and you admit, was objectively horrible, a lot of the right-wing people just wanted to cancel you because it was their one shot at getting someone cancelled. I don't really believe in cancelling of anyone on the left or right. They also don't necessarily believe in people's WhatsApp messages being revealed to the public, despite the fact that if one got such a leak, you know, if it was a politician, then yes, I think justifiable.

44:55People did get cancelled for literally saying things like a man cannot have a cervix. Precisely. A woman cannot have a penis. That's my point. And then when someone on the left comes along saying that looking like they're saying they're happy someone's been shot, It's understandable that the entire right, that the GB News would devote several weeks to saying, cancel him because we wanted our scalp. Well, possibly. But then there's a hypocrisy at the heart. And there is a hypocrisy at the heart of that. I think I wrote a column about you, George, where I said, I don't know if it is appropriate for him to take on the leadership of this revered debating chamber because I felt you had debased yourself somewhat.

45:31But people were calling for you to be thrown out of university. Yes. I sort of said, how does that help? Yes, and you didn't want to not be the president of Oxford, right? The Oxford Union. Oxford Union, yeah. You tried to cling in there. Well, cling in is, I think, the wrong word. Right, but I mean, as you were not, you were going to apologise, but you were clearly not going to resign and give up that role. The Oxford Union is a student society, and university is a space to learn, to grow, to make a mistake, to improve from it. And in that same capacity, a student society is also the same place to learn, to grow, to make a mistake and to improve from it.

46:06And in that capacity, I thought, well, I as a leader can make a mistake and be very frank about the fact that I made that mistake and then learn and grow. And I thought that the Oxford Union is perhaps the perfect place to be able to engage with that. You know, it's a debating chamber. It's all about being able to come up and say your mind and disagree with someone and have a safe space to do that. And so I thought, well, yes, I made this mistake, but also in my capacity as a leader, I can improve myself and that I can do so and show that actually you can make a mistake and still be A, someone who's able to lead, B, someone who's able to be reflective in their leadership and someone who's able to be reflective and grow and improve yourself from that.

46:46I've always been of the opinion that cancel culture is not productive on the left and the right. I think it's also been a discussion on the left and the right for a long period of time that cancel culture is not productive. That oftentimes cancelling someone only leads to entrenching them more in their views that you disagreed with in the first place. You said at the beginning, you know, it wasn't about left or right. But it was really because you would not have made the original comments. if somebody on the left had been shot dead, God forbid, you'd never have said, let's go, let's effing go.

47:20So in a way, ideology does come into this. Because if, God forbid, it was Joe Biden or Kamala Harris or somebody on the left that you agreed with, you'd never have made that statement, George. That's the point. I think perhaps, sure. Definitely. No, yeah, sure, yes. No, yes, but I think this is like, I guess part of the learning process I've gone through in that, like, you know, I shouldn't just be looking at things on such a binary. Yeah. In that I shouldn't simply be so moralistic in that because I disagree with someone, you know, on the political spectrum that, you know, it's good and bad. Or, you know, that I should be so black and white in the way I look at these things.

48:03We need to wrap it up. We do. I'm sorry. I'm going to have a concluding thought, which is that this podcast and indeed the union proves that it is better to discuss these matters. I'd agree with that. But George Aberonnier, thank you very, very much indeed for joining us on the podcast today. It's been really interesting to speak to you. No, thank you. I've enjoyed being able to have this discussion. I think it was almost fun, I guess, to have the back and forth. Almost fun. Almost fun. Almost fun. It's almost fun being on the Daily T. What an endorsement. We shall put that as our strapline. It was a 2-1 as experiences go.

48:34It wasn't quite a first. Thank you, George. No, but I enjoyed this. Thank you. We'll be back tomorrow at 5pm.