Lets get kick started. Extremism is a big theme of the sunday papers. Weve got michael gove interviewed in the sunday telegraph. The quote for that story is its not right. My jewish friends dont feel safe in london i think in Central London on. I think the looking to the government is looking to redefine extremism is. And redefine what extremism is. And weve also had this extraordinary scene. Michael, i know you had a look at the video of this iranian protester going to the pro palestinian march yesterday. Okay. Hes carrying a poster that others arent a poster that others arent a poster hamas a terrorist. Poster saying hamas a terrorist. And then he gets strong armed by the police. Yes, course, the official yes, of course, the official position of britain that position of britain is that hamas a terrorist hamas is a terrorist organisation. Yes. And organisation. Yes. And the government that government would say that the attack israel on october the attack on israel on october the 7th was a terrorist attack. And so that much is clear. So apparently what this mans poster is, you know, the poster said is, you know, the official position of our country , of course the video is not complete. We dont know what happenedin complete. We dont know what happened in between. Theres a happened in between. Theres a moment where protesters are trying the banner off trying to take the banner off him. Moment him. Theres another moment where strong arm to the where he is strong arm to the ground policemen using a good ground by policemen using a good amount force. I dont know amount of force. I dont know whether right amount of whether its the right amount of force, certainly a lot of force, but certainly a lot of force. Thats pretty force. So thats all pretty disturbing. Back to the kind of disturbing. Back to the kind of extremism this extremism debate. I mean, this bothers me because one of the reasons that michael gove is getting into this is that the previous definition of extremism getting into this is that the prev actuallyinition of extremism getting into this is that the prev actually been| of extremism has actually been counterproductive. So what is counterproductive. So what is happening is that a lot of the governments, agencies have reacted to the definition in ways that the government didnt predict. I mean, for example , predict. I mean, for example, the Anti Terrorist program has spent a lot of time investigating, far right groups. Yes, instead of islamist groups. So a minority of its time is spent investigating islamist groups. It spent investigating islamist groups. It lists spent investigating islamist groups. It lists people like groups. It lists people like jacob rees mogg. It talks about jacob rees mogg. It talks about brexit as though brexit were an extremist position. It was actually the majority position of the british people. What worries me is that gove, instead of trying to sort out Government Agencies which are behaving in these perverse ways , is seeking these perverse ways, is seeking to redefine terror, extremism. To redefine terror, extremism. Yes. Now, the next definition of extremism will give us a new set of problems. And some of them might kerb free speech. So i think theres going to be a lot of debate about that. What he almost does in the interview is to define islamism. He doesnt to define islamism. He doesnt quite get there. Now, i think that would be a very useful definition if we could define islamism. I mean, he says its about promoting sharia law and about promoting sharia law and about promoting sharia law and about promoting an islamic state. He doesnt explicitly say in britain, although i assume thats what he means. But let us define things which are simpler than extremism. I have a feeling than extremism. I have a feeling that he will find again that if he redefines that word , its he redefines that word, its going to to more going to lead to more counterproductive activity. What counterproductive activity. What he needs to get hold of are the organs of state, which are behaving in a perverse way. Was your instinct be at this stage . I know james cleverly, the home secretary, said , all the home secretary, said, all right, well, youve made your point these Marches Point to stop these marches from taking now i think taking place. Now i think certainly how they certainly to consider how they take place. So possibly to make them static, to review the rules around them, we have this quote from john mann whos coming on your programme later. He he leads for the government on the question anti semitism. He is question of anti semitism. He is clearly very disturbed about the role demonstrations. And role of the demonstrations. And were talking about things. Were talking about the way these spread. For these things spread. So, for example , think mann today example, i think john mann today is about the way is talking about the way in which jewish children in which a jewish children in schools are being upon schools are being picked upon by other children , and, you know, other children, and, you know, being described as baby killers and all this sort of thing. And the fear then, that you have a sort of segregation where jewish children are going to feel they can mix with can only mix with jewish children and possibly, know, children and possibly, you know, that there can that Muslim Children there can only Muslim Children, only mix with Muslim Children, which society is which in our society is a desperate consideration. Asking lord mann all about that a little later in the show, lets move on to the other theme of the papers this morning. Im afraid familiar one. You afraid its a familiar one. You may be getting a sense of deja vu, yet more talk vu, but theres yet more talk about back boris now. About bringing back boris now. The intriguing in the first intriguing stories in the sunday times that johnson flew for secret with auto flew for secret talks with auto crate, maduro in venezuela. And crate, maduro in venezuela. And thatis crate, maduro in venezuela. And that is obviously very interesting because he seems to be freelancing on the side, although tell the foreign although he did tell the foreign secretary, cameron, secretary, David Cameron, that he for these he was going there for these sort channel talks, sort of back channel talks, weve in the mail on weve got talk in the mail on sunday about a new plot to oust rishi, they boris to rishi, and they want boris to take wrote a piece about take over. I wrote a piece about the henley plot yesterday the the henley plot yesterday in the telegraph, has up telegraph, which has picked up a little traction, then little bit of traction, and then a in the mail on a leader column in the mail on sunday, perhaps is the sunday, which perhaps is the point. Know you point. I dont know whether you agree premise. Boris agree with this premise. Boris can tories, but he can help save the tories, but he doesnt to be leader. Doesnt have to be leader. Michael boris help or hindrance . Michael boris help or hindrance . Well, hes a great election winner. I just have to remind myself he was twice mayor of london, heavens sake. As london, for heavens sake. As well Prime Minister, well as becoming Prime Minister, he won the referendum as well. By he won the referendum as well. By he is an enormous by the way, he is an enormous election winner. So great election winner. So the great conundrum do you connect conundrum is how do you connect this election winner to a party conundrum is how do you connect thiwhichtion winner to a party conundrum is how do you connect thiwhich hesninner to a party conundrum is how do you connect thiwhich hes no 1er to a party conundrum is how do you connect thiwhich hes no longer party conundrum is how do you connect thiwhich hes no longer a arty conundrum is how do you connect thiwhich hes no longer a part in which hes no longer a part of the parliamentary group, i think he could only campaign for the tories in the general election with any conviction, any credibility. If he were a candidate at the election. So the point that you were making in your article about the candidate there stepping aside for boris, i think that is a very interesting one, whether, rishi is going to be magnanimous enough to allow boris to do campaigning, i think is a enough to allow boris to do campaigning , i think is a big campaigning, i think is a big question. But i mean, the tories have to be realistic. It looks have to be realistic. It looks very much as though theyre going to big if boris going to lose big time. If boris comes in, it might mean that they less big time. And also that makes the prospect of whoever takes over from rishi sunak should the time come of maybe thinking it might be labour time than be one labour time rather than two, makes the two, and then that makes the prospect conservatism in the prospect of conservatism in the future appetising. If future a bit more appetising. If its electoral oblivion, if its total you know, like total wipe out, you know, like tories left sort of completely dangling, facing an existential crisis. And i suppose thats a different set of situations to a footnote on boris one. He could still be a member of parliament if he contested the uxbndge parliament if he contested the uxbridge by election. Two if you think he was a bad, disorganised Prime Ministerjust think he was a bad, disorganised Prime Minister just wait until you see him as leader of the opposition because you know, at least if youre Prime Minister, youre sustained by the machinery government in machinery of government in opposition. Wheeling. Indeed, lets also speak about the defence budget. I thought it was interesting that i had jeremy hunt in the studio where youre sitting last week, and sort of him about and i sort of asked him about whether going to increase whether he was going to increase defence kept defence spending, and he kept on talking the Government Defence spending, and he kept on talkin prudentthe Government Defence spending, and he kept on talkin prudent andjovernment defence spending, and he kept on talkin prudent and responsible. Being prudent and responsible. We budget on we then get the budget on wednesday. Money we then get the budget on we defence. Money we then get the budget on we defence. Got money we then get the budget on we defence. Got tom money for defence. Weve got Tom Tugendhat and anne marie tugendhat now and anne marie trevelyan, the former defence secretary, for that secretary, calling for that spending to go up. Do you agree with . With them . I dont think i do, particularly because i know how well i know how badly the ministry of defence spends the money . I mean, you know, i money right . I mean, you know, i fear pouring a good money fear its pouring a good money after the way, think fear its pouring a good money afte same the way, think fear its pouring a good money aftesame aboute way, think fear its pouring a good money aftesame about the ay, think fear its pouring a good money aftesame about the national; the same about the National Health im Health Service. Yes. Im astonished the that the astonished that the that the chancellor more into chancellor pours more money into the Health Service at the National Health service at some got to get some point. Weve got to get away thinking more away from thinking that more money equals, you know, more, more better , better more soldiers, better, better productivity or Better Services in the National Health service. In the National Health service. Theres really almost no connection the of connection between the amount of money into something and money you put into something and what you get out the other end, because know , government because you know, government kind money kind of destroys money somehow. Government loses money along the way. Money, it wastes money. It procures badly. And so, you know, it is quite puzzling when you and i and i think everyone in government knows that this is the case, we still talk about give more money, give more money as though that were a virtuous thing. So im not at all sure that if i were chancellor, even if i cared im not at all sure that if i wlot chancellor, even if i cared im not at all sure that if i wlot aboutallor, even if i cared im not at all sure that if i wlot about the , even if i cared im not at all sure that if i wlot about the defence i cared im not at all sure that if i wlot about the defence of ared im not at all sure that if i wlot about the defence of thei a lot about the defence of the country, which im jeremy country, which im sure jeremy hunt sure that hunt does, im not sure that i would convinced that giving would be convinced that giving them money was the thing. Would be convinced that giving the lets money was the thing. Would be convinced that giving the lets have ney was the thing. Would be convinced that giving the lets have aey was the thing. Would be convinced that giving the lets have a veryas the thing. Would be convinced that giving the lets have a very quick thing. Lets have a very quick look now to finalise the paper review. Michael review. With what, Michael Oleary, the ryanair boss, has been saying to the sunday times magazine talking about magazine hes talking about brexit. It i brexit. Hes described it and i quote, shall try and temper quote, i shall try and temper this slightly. The dumbest effing in history delivered effing idea in history delivered by the dumbest politicians in history, Boris Johnson and nigel farage are lunatic halfwits. He goes on to say that the over 70s who voted for brexit will, quote, die out in the next 10 to 15 years, which is a good thing. The younger people will change things, so people and things, so people watching and listening show , who listening to this show, who might who voted might be pensioners who voted for its a good thing for brexit, its a good thing that they die because then Michael Oleary and his cronies can have more integration with the reaction , michael . The eu. Your reaction, michael . Well, its a fantastic way to talk about some of your passengers. Was ryanair passengers. I was a ryanair passengers. I was a ryanair passenger yesterday actually. I mean two to the point, brexit, it was not about the convenience of ryanair or even about air passengers. It was about the passengers. It was about the sovereignty of this country. It was making sure that the was about making sure that the decisions that affect our daily lives are taken by people that we can for vote we can vote for and vote against, and those decisions being made at the level of the European Union that did not happen. I speak as someone who spends time in the spends much of my time in the continent of europe. I have two passports. Them a passports. One of them is a European Union passport. I know passports. One of them is a euro the] union passport. I know passports. One of them is a euro the diversity assport. I know passports. One of them is a euro the diversity of;port. I know passports. One of them is a euro the diversity of thet. I know that the diversity of the political cultures of europe means that we cannot be governed in common. The ambition of the European Union is that we should be governed in common, that be governed in common, and that comes expense, comes at an enormous expense, which lack of which is a lack of accountability. So that was why we european it we left the European Union. It has nothing to do with ryanair and i. Im afraid that the Michael Oleary, although he absolutely knows how to run an airline, doesnt know very much about in politics indeed. So thank you very much, michael. Youre now going to quickly scoot off to paddington so present your show so you can present your show from 11. From there. We look forward you then. Forward to seeing you then. Thank having me. Thank you so much for having me. Thank you so much for having me. Thank much. The people thank you very much. The people panel Katherine Forster panel is back. Katherine forster is reading catherine. Im is in reading catherine. Im intrigued, as to intrigued, particularly as to what the panel might have made of the budget announcement and what to ask my what theyd like me to ask my special morning. Special guest this morning. Yes. Good morning, camilla, and welcome to the danata cafe here in reading. And welcome to the danata cafe here in reading. Weve been here in reading. Weve been talking about the budget. Weve been talking about the nhs. Of been talking about the nhs. Of course, you know, the nhs is top of many of our priorities and the budget will affect all of us. So lets meet our panel now. Charles, im going to come to you first. Youre retired now. But you worked in the city. And what are your questions for our politicians today . Like ask the secretary id like to ask the secretary of for health, whats she of state for health, whats she going stopping the going to do about stopping the exodus english trained exodus of english trained doctors canada and doctors and nurses to canada and australia , where obviously the australia, where obviously the conditions are better . And for Kwasi Kwarteng , i admire the way Kwasi Kwarteng, i admire the way he thinks outside the box. Is there deep state . Was there there some deep state . Was there some deep state, act to get rid of him and liz truss, does he think thank you. Liz truss certainly seems to think so , john, you are a think so, john, you are a retired management consultant. You worked with the nhs. Whats your question today . My question is about the nhs, and it goes like this. Given the massive growth in uk population and the state of government finances, what is the conservative plan over the next parliamentary tum to solve the National Crisis in adult and childrens dental care . The collapse in the provision of gp services and the nhs, rationing of surgery and urgent treatment through nhs wai