All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
April 11, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
46:28
20230411_piers-morgan-uncensored-junior-doctor-strikes-joe-
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Junior Doctors Strike Pay Rise 00:13:00
Tonight on Piers Morgan Uncensored with me Rosanna Lockwood.
Up to 350,000 appointments and operations could be cancelled in what's being called the worst industrial action in the NHS's 75-year history.
Do junior doctors deserve that 35% pay rise they're asking for or is their four-day walkout an unacceptable risk to patients' lives?
We'll be debating.
As Joe Biden prepares to land in Northern Ireland in the next hour, I'll be joined live by former Taoiseach Bertia Hearn on whether the US President can succeed in keeping his the peace in Northern Ireland.
And claims the late Queen wanted both Harry and William to do their duty and go to war.
Was it fair to let Harry take the risk of tours in Afghanistan, but not William because of his future role as king?
Live from London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored with Rosanna Lockwood.
Hello there, good evening.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored with me, Rosanna Lockwood.
Piers still on the holiday over there in La La Land.
I'm with you for the next few nights.
Now, this is what I've been thinking about today, just when you thought winter was over.
A weekend of spring sunshine.
It had us all full, didn't it?
But this morning we woke up to wind, rain and a four-day junior doctor strike.
Now, when we look at the details behind the headlines, it is, I think, quite hard not to find sympathy with them.
It's an incredibly difficult job, needs years of expensive education, and then they start on wages of £14 an hour.
Is it any wonder that so many of them are jacking in the NHS and migrating to sunny Australia?
I'm sort of half tempted to join them when I look at the weather today, but of course it's more serious than that.
And where should the compromise be found?
The government says that the calls from the BMA, from the doctors for this 35% pay rise is, quote, completely out of step and it would cost us £2 billion.
And where is £2 billion even going to come from?
The International Monetary Fund announcing to the world today that the UK is on track to be the worst performing advanced economy this year, predicting our GDP is going to shrink by minus 0.3% in 2023.
Over the channel, the Eurozone is going to grow by 0.8% and the US will grow by 1.6%.
And even Russia's economy is set to perform better than ours.
What are our politicians doing while all this is happening?
They're hurling insults at each other by campaign adverts, racing each other to the bottom in the hope of grappling power in elections a year and a half from now.
In my mind, we don't have that time to waste.
Joining me to discuss all of this, senior consultant and lecturer, Dr. Barrett Pankania, and former advisor to Margaret Thatcher, Narl Gardner.
Thank you, gentlemen, both for joining on this important issue.
I'm going to come to you first though, Doctor, because obviously you've got the medical experience here.
And I want to get your sense of just the kind of struggle that junior doctors face at the moment.
It's a tremendous struggle, Rosanna.
It is a struggle with an unbelievable amount of responsibility on young soldiers, shoulders.
And they work so hard and they look after our health and well-being.
And this is serious training with appraisals, revalidation, relicensing, and a lot of responsibility.
And a lot of responsibility with...
This is the really important bit, Rosanna.
It really is.
And the media are not grasping it, which is this.
This problem did not arise today.
It arose when George Osborne started his austerity measures and has not increased pay for health workers, nurses, teachers, et cetera, over the last 12 years.
So it isn't a pay rise.
It is more a restoration, restoration of the pay that should have been over the last 12 years.
And they're not asking for that pay to be reinstated immediately.
It can be phased.
Those are the issues.
Now, when we think about where next from this, because by this point, the public in Britain have seen a wave of strikes throughout winter.
And we've gotten used to seeing the government really not getting around the negotiating table, although there was some progress made with some of the transport strikes.
Now, in this side of things, we're hearing the BMA, we're hearing the doctors saying Steve Barclay is not getting around the negotiating table.
Let's take a listen.
We are ready to have discussions with them, but clearly a demand for 35% over £20,000 for some junior doctors is not fair or reasonable.
And that is why we've not been able to make progress so far.
But we want to engage constructively.
We recognise junior doctors have been under significant pressure, particularly from the pandemic.
And we want to work with them to find a fair and reasonable settlement.
Let's come to Niall Gardner on this then.
When you listen to Steve Barclay saying that, but we also hear the doctor saying, look, we're ready to negotiate as well.
Where's the missing piece here?
Well, thank you very much for having me on the show today.
And without a doubt, of course, junior doctors do work incredibly hard.
And I think there is a lot of sympathy for junior doctors.
However, the idea of going on strike for several days, putting lives at risk, I think fundamentally goes against everything that doctors are supposed to stand for.
And this is completely the wrong strategy and tactic.
And I do fear that if the government actually makes concessions to the unions here, this will just be, I think, the beginning of more and more concessions being made to the unions here.
And I think that this idea of a 35% pay rise, it's absolutely insane.
This is completely unrealistic.
This is basically public money we're talking about here.
And I think it's just not realistic to be asking for a 35% pay rise.
This also underscores, I think, many of the fundamental flaws within the National Health Service.
This is a, I think in many respects, a very outdated healthcare system.
It's almost unique in Europe.
It is, I think, way behind the times.
And I think that it is really not able to cope with the circumstances of the 21st century.
And of course, I think the United Kingdom has to move more and more further down the path towards private healthcare to provide a better service overall for British patients.
I want to come back to the idea of the future, but Dr. Pankanik, coming to you, because also I want to hear what you've got to say.
But also, is it insane to be asking for 35% pay rise?
No, of course it isn't.
And I said it again and I will repeat it.
This is not a pay rise.
This is a restoration of what pay cuts they've had over the last 12 years.
Furthermore, I add the MPs have had a pay increase, not a pay restoration, a pay increase.
Furthermore, right, compared to comparable European Union countries, the United Kingdom contributes a lot less in its healthcare for its people, considering it is a G7 rich, affluent nation.
Furthermore, one more, very important point.
Rosanna, you said, where are we going to find the 2 million, of which that 2 million, 1 million will go back in taxes anyway.
Just a second.
Listras and her crazy chancellor, Kwasi Kwatang, lost the country 65 billion pounds, which the Bank of England had to find and fund.
And so the G7 country that we are, we have got the money if we choose to spend it in the right way, in the right place, tax the other sectors which have got a lot more income.
For example, the fuel companies, they are making a lot of money and the government is reluctant to tax them.
It is a compelling argument, don't you think, Niall, that the hardest working healthcare workers in our society should get rewarded when you've got people in financial services.
Now, I'm not saying tax everyone to the hill windful taxes for the lot, but when you stand back and look at a junior doctor getting paid £14 an hour and they're two years qualified after all of that education, and then you see bankers, you see fuel executives, you see all sorts of industry executives getting so much more than that.
And junior doctors have had a pay cut by over about a quarter in the last 15 years.
I mean, can you hear where Dr. Pankani is coming from?
Doctors don't have an automatic right to higher salaries.
That's not the reality here.
And what is crazy, actually, is the idea of doctors going on strike and putting lives at risk.
This is very dangerous, actually.
It's callous and it's heartless.
We should never see this actually in a civilized society.
This sends completely the wrong signal.
And this idea there's some endless pot of public money.
This is just ludicrous.
Socialists, of course, like the idea of spending other people's money, as my former boss, Margaret Thatcher, used to say.
But there are limits to the amount of public money that can be spent.
Doctors, I do not think are in a position to be requesting a 35% pay rise.
It's completely and they should be working with a heart of public service here.
And they're not in the field of medicine really for their own financial interest.
They're in the field of medicine to serve the public, to save lives.
Going on strike is going to cost lives.
It's fundamentally dangerous.
It's unacceptable, in my view, for doctors to be going on strike.
It's a dangerous move here.
I can't speak for the doctors on the picket line today, but calling them callous and heartless when they are doing the work that they're doing for so little is a challenging concept.
I just want to ask you, I'll come back to you, Dr. Pankani, shortly, but I want to ask you now, if you believe so much in market forces, can you understand why junior doctors are migrating somewhere like Australia, or if they can, other countries as well, where they get treated better and they get paid better?
Yeah, sure.
I mean, you know, they have every right to go and work in the public sector, to go and work abroad.
But at the end of the day, they are public servants paid for by the British public here.
And the public expects a minimum level of service.
They can provide that when they're going on strike.
And I think it's fundamentally incompatible, this idea of striking with actually being a doctor on the front line, providing vital life-saving service here.
So I think it's fundamentally wrong.
And I think it's absolutely unacceptable.
Just as it would be wrong for police officers to go on strike or the military to go on strike, it's the same for doctors.
They are vital in terms of saving lives.
We have seen plenty of other services go on.
Dr. Pankani.
I don't think you have any problem paying your bills here, actually.
And, you know, doctors, of course, they are paid from the public purse here.
They have no right to sort of astronomical pay rise.
MPs are also paid from the public pocket and plenty of other services too.
I would argue one Birmingham doctor, junior doctor, shared his pay slip today after taxes and the rest of its student loans.
He was there for £1,823 a month as a two-year qualified junior doctor.
And you consider how much it costs to rent a house, a cost of living crisis as well.
Don't they deserve more now?
Well, you know, doctors should be campaigning for lower taxes, actually, frankly.
Let's reduce the size of the tax burden, advance economic freedom, raise prosperity and wealth for everyone.
Actually, that's by far the best solution here.
Instead of actually going on...
Which is hugely counterproductive.
And it's going to alienate the public massively.
I think that's the worst possible way to gain public support by going on strike.
Dr. Pancania, should doctors instead be focusing on lowering taxes?
No, certainly not.
We would want lower taxes for the less well-off.
The trouble is this country, this government, has gone on to give tax breaks.
The current Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a huge tax break to the rich who can afford to top up their pensions above the million pound cap.
Brexit Negotiations and Violence Risks 00:11:43
And then they're telling us, they have the goal to tell us that we are cutting taxes.
You are not cutting taxes.
You're cutting taxes for the rich, the already rich.
If you were, if you were to tax the oil companies, the Starbucks of this world, the Amazons of this world, you would find the money to pay for the teachers, the doctors, the nurses, the education people.
You would.
The issue is you do not want to do that.
Dr. Barrett Pancanier, Niall Gardner, thank you both very much for joining us this evening, giving us your insights.
Next tonight, as President Biden prepares to land in Belfast, will he really be able to help keep the peace in Northern Ireland?
We'll be discussing that next.
Welcome back.
Now, a huge security operation is already in place in Belfast for the visit of US President Joe Biden.
He's going to arrive in Northern Ireland this evening to mark the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Good Friday Peace Agreement.
Proud of his Irish roots, he's always praised what politicians did to secure peace back in 1998.
But the visit is overshadowed by a little bit of unrest in the country.
You could say that, with the Democratic Unionist Party continuing to boycott the Northern Ireland government and with petrol bombs thrown at officers during an illegal Republican parade over the weekend, pipe bombs found today.
Police are on high alert for this presidential visit.
So is the Good Friday Agreement under threat?
Joining me now is the former Taoiseach of Ireland, Bertie Ahern.
Mr. Ahern, it's a real pleasure to speak to you on a day like this, on a time like this.
Let's just start by remembering the Good Friday Agreement.
You were Taoiseach at the time.
Talk to us about your abiding memory of that time, that agreement that you said was a new beginning for Northern Ireland, for the island of Ireland, and for these islands.
Yeah, I think what's at the time, it was bringing together nationalists and Republicans, unionists and loyalists with the two governments.
So it was, you know, there were eight parties, the two governments chaired by Senator Mitchell.
And it certainly brought an end to 30 years of violence.
Thankfully, there's been some killings and some bad events since OME.
But by and large, it's been very, very peaceful.
Last night, you show young people on the streets, but obviously people behind them giving them petrol bombs.
I was talking to some of the people there today, there were about 20 of them.
But it's been peaceful politically.
It hasn't been so easy.
I think Tony Blair and I, you know, we had an inclusive process of bringing all the parties together, even those that had been previously associated with violence.
And we dealt with a lot of the big issues at the time.
But unfortunately, the one that disappoints me is the fact that the institutions of the agreement, the assembly, the executive north-south bodies, have not been working very well.
So that's where I think Rishi Sunak and the Windsor Agreement hopefully will bring a conclusion to that standoff.
And there might be a few little bits left, but hopefully on the other side of the local elections, we might be able to sort that out.
And US President Biden, of course, visiting this evening.
What hopes do you have for that visit?
Well, you know, to be honest, I'm very sad that he wasn't addressing the Storman, because if Storman had been up and running, I think he would have been there.
That would have been a great occasion for them, for the people who were elected 15 months ago.
It's a lost opportunity.
They would have been seen across the world.
He would have an opportunity again, I think, to recommit to further investments to help those people who need it in different areas of the North who haven't benefited over the years.
Anyway, that opportunity is blown.
Let's be frank about it.
But I'm sure the educational, the Ulster University he goes to tomorrow is a tremendous new facility at the heart of Belfast.
The party leaders will be there.
That's a good occasion.
But I think the trip to Belfast and to Northern Ireland generally would have been far better if the institutions had been functioning.
You already mentioned the young people that were out on the streets this weekend, the dissidents, the violence that there was.
You've already mentioned, of course, that there has been some over the years.
I want to mention the young factor here, because during the troubles, during that three-decade period, it was a huge proportion.
It was around a quarter, I think, of the deaths from the conflicts were people between the ages of 18 and 23.
You're now seeing young people still on the streets, these dissidents, these young people.
Why then is it so important that young generations understand the troubles?
Well, I think the problem always has been in the north, right back from the time I was in school in the 60s, that when there was a vacuum in the political position, when the politicians didn't fill the centre ground and be seen to be doing their work in the Assembly, that tended then to drift out to the streets.
And there's always a day.
It's not happening really now.
I mean, there's a handful of them, and that's always a danger.
You don't need too many to cause trouble or to give bad camera shots around the world.
And that's what they're doing.
It's it themselves they're affecting.
But there are obviously people behind them who, you know, never agreed with the agreement.
And unfortunately, there are some of those elements that continually rise their head whenever they get an opportunity.
But I think overall, if the politicians were back dealing with the issues of the day, dealing with the problems for the people of Northern Ireland, that would wane very quickly.
So it is very much about the current political system.
Now, Sunak, the Windsor framework, it held up, but there were concerns there about the impact that post-Brexit trade arrangements would have on the Good Friday Agreement.
What stood out to me when I've been sort of looking at your words about the Good Friday Agreement over the last few days is that you said that when you all sat around the negotiating table, you're multi-parties, you could have predicted a lot of things, but you didn't predict Brexit.
Just how much did Brexit worry you?
Yeah, Brexit was a disaster, to be frank.
For seven years, it's created difficulties.
And the real problem, Jose, is that it brought up issues that we had long settled.
people had stopped talking about the border people had stopped talking about customs posts and checkpoints it had gone out of the everyday language it had gone out of the political arguments even uh brexit brought all that back again it brought back the issues about when there would be a border poll would be triggered from the good friday agreement and it was just totally unhelpful now i have to say I'm not going to quote anything I said myself at the time of Brexit,
but John Major and Tony Blair both spoke openly and frankly that if Brexit did happen, that this would occur and they were 100% right.
But anyway, you know, with seven years of that, I think Rushi Sunak has genuinely tried very hard since last October to find a solution to that.
I certainly appreciate the efforts he's put in.
I think most people in the island of Ireland, the DUP feel that everything isn't yet achieved.
Rather than giving out about that position, I think maybe we should try and see if there's some other piece that needs to be put in place to try to rectify that.
And I suppose, yeah.
It's just an unbelievably relevant conversation at the moment, isn't it?
Separatism, unions, reunifications, exits.
I just want to get your view, Mr. Ahern, on Scottish independence, the prospect of that, the idea of it.
What does it look like through your lens?
Well, I think certainly what's from our position in Ireland, I believe it would be a bad idea to have a referendum here until two things happen.
One, that the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement are up and running, and two, that should prepare the case.
Now, we have neither of those at the moment.
So there will be a referendum someday because it's provided for in the Good Friday Agreement.
And it was a commitment that was given that if we agreed, consent, and the only changes can be made constitutionally are on the basis of the consent of the people in Northern Ireland, but that people have an aspiration for either union or unity.
And that's the balance that Tony Blair and I struck in the Good Friday Agreement.
In Scotland, if you were talking to me a year ago, I would say probably the argument for another Scottish referendum looked strong and they had to convince the British government.
Now it seems to have drifted back down the agenda a lot.
How different do you think the negotiations would have been in a time like now where there's social media, where there is so much opinion, where it's very easy to give opinion?
Well, I think it'd be impossible.
I'm not a big lover of social media.
My age would give that away, I suppose.
But I think we had eight parties, two governments, probably on the final week with several hundreds of people in castle buildings because people brought in all their politicians, they brought in their executives and negotiating teams are already there.
So at any stage, it could have had two or three, 400, maybe.
I don't know how many was in the building, but it would have been very hard to keep control and to keep it centralized negotiation as we did between George Mitchell, Tony Blair, and myself.
And my team was Liz O'Donnell, David Andrews, and a small team of officials.
So Antonio Blair was the same.
I think it'd be very hard to control that situation in the age of social meeting, social media.
I think I quite agree with you that when negotiating the Good Friday Agreement, it seemed that you focused a lot more on what people were for rather than what they were against, at least in some strands of it.
Now, when it was signed, it was held up as potentially a model for other international conflicts, a kind of cut and paste that could be used elsewhere, but it doesn't seem to have translated to other regions.
Are you disappointed by that?
Well, I think there's not a week goes by, and certainly not a month that goes by, that there's not political parties, negotiating teams, governments, other NGO bodies that come to Northern Ireland from all over the world.
And they explore what happened, what we did, not only in 1998, but what we did in the years after, right up to 2007, when it's genuinely felt that we got kind of got things reasonably stable and it took us that long.
So my message always to these delegations, I don't meet all of them, but I meet some of them, is that these things aren't easy.
That negotiations, you need certain ingredients.
One, you need that people are not prepared just to have the status quo.
If people like the status quo and they don't mind violence and they're not prepared to move away from it, then it's very hard to convince them.
I think the second thing is you have to put yourself in the shoes of the other side.
You have to understand what are the issues of the people who are opposed to you.
And I think you have to be prepared to negotiate fairly and try and get balances and compromises.
If you want to just force your own way through, that seems to, for Mike, I'm not an expert in the Middle East, but when I look at the Middle East, it looks as if people just want their own way and they force it through by might and by physical force.
Prince Harry Conflict Narrative 00:13:04
Well, you're never going to find solutions if you follow those kind of ingredients in the conflict.
I think that's some advice that could be used in so many places.
Just want to end by asking you, do you have faith in humanity?
I do.
And, you know, sometimes Rosanna, you have to go around the Mulberry bush.
You know, that Mulberry Bush they've been talking about for hundreds of years.
And I think sometimes you have to go around it a few times before you get people to finally compromise.
But, you know, it's better than violence.
The Mulberry Bush is a safer bush.
It's absolutely better than violence.
Bertie Ahern, it's been an honour to speak to you on a day like this.
Thanks so much.
Thank you very much, Rosanna.
Well, coming up next, should Prince William have gone to war as spare?
Prince Harry was allowed to go to Afghanistan, but the risk was deemed too great for William because of his future role as king.
We'll be discussing that next.
Now, it has been claimed the late Queen Elizabeth wanted both Prince William and Prince Harry to do their duty and fight alongside British forces in Afghanistan.
The former head of the army, General Sir Mike Jackson, has told a documentary that the Queen told him her wishes, but it was deemed too risky for the heir to the throne to be deployed.
Now, the risk was deemed acceptable for Harry.
In his recent memoir, Spare, you might remember us talking about this.
The Duke of Sussex, who undertook two tours to Afghanistan, angered many by claiming he'd killed 25 Taliban soldiers and described them as chess pieces removed from the board.
I could always say precisely how many enemy combatants I'd killed, and I felt it vital never to shy away from that number.
Among the many things I learned in the army, accountability was near the top of the list.
So, my number, 25.
They were chess pieces removed from the board.
Bads taken away before they could kill goods.
I want to discuss all of this, and please say join in the studio by Talk TV, Royal Editor Sarah at Houston High Sarah, and Director of the British Forces Foundation, Mark Cann, joining us down the line.
Thanks to both of you.
Good evening.
Lots to talk about here.
Sarah, let's come to you first.
Now, I mean, in and of itself, this revelation is interesting because it was given to this person in confidence, I believe.
Yes, this is a conversation that General Sir Mike Jackson, the former Chief of the General Staff, head of the British Army, had with the Queen.
And he's revealed the details of it in a documentary.
Now, normally an audience with the Queen would be entirely private.
He says he knows it's a breach of protocol, but in this one instance, he was prepared to go there.
And he said, the Queen said, my grandsons have taken my shilling, therefore they must do their duty.
She wanted to see Prince William and Prince Harry fight in Afghanistan.
Duty, the watchword for the Queen, very much the way in which she lived her life.
She was across all the intelligence.
She knew the risks.
She was clear that William should go and fight in Afghanistan too, should he so wish.
But ultimately, it was decided that those risks were too great.
Before I go back to Mark, do we know what she means, the late Queen, by taken my shilling?
Well, as commander-in-chief, she was effectively paying their salaries and their military salaries.
So she's saying that, you know, they were doing the job, they were being paid for that job, and therefore you do what is required of you in the job.
And I think that is what William felt about it as well.
He gave an interview back in 2010 when he said, you know, if you're going to do this job, and ultimately he was going to be commander-in-chief one day, you've got to walk the walk and you want to do this role.
It's certainly what Harry felt.
But for William, given his position as heir to the throne, it was considered far too risky for him.
Well, talk of walking the walk.
Let's go to Mark Cam from the British Forces point of view, Mark.
Was this?
We're not asking you, obviously, to pass judgment on the late Queen's decision-making or anybody in the royal family, but from a military point of view, can you see the rationale behind it?
Oh, certainly.
I think many great minds agonised over the decision at the time.
In fact, I know they did.
I think ultimately it wasn't any one person's sort of wish that was the major concern.
The major concern was the risk to others around, in this case, William.
And this war was a very different one to previous wars.
And therefore, it would have been much harder to hide him, much harder to hide him actually in theatre, and also much harder to hide the fact that he had gone back here in the UK.
And because even that was a problem later with Harry, but I think it would be much more obvious that he was not in the country.
And therefore, I think people would have quickly put two and two together.
So I think they had no choice.
I know Prince William was very irritated and frustrated by it, but I think at the end of the day, it was the right decision.
Yeah, Sarah, we have actually insights from William of what he might have felt because we can't read Prince William's mind.
But he did share his feelings.
Yeah, he talked about it in 2010, I think it was, when he was joining the RAF search and rescue and he was asked, and he said he still hoped even at that point that he might one day be able to serve in Afghanistan.
He said he understood there were slightly valid arguments, he described it, as to why he shouldn't, but he thought that they were overhyped.
And he said he had hope and faith and a determination to get out there.
As we know, it didn't happen for him.
Harry was able to serve two tours of duty in Afghanistan.
But as you were hearing from Mark there, it would have been very obvious that William wasn't in the country.
There was a media blackout when Harry was first deployed, but that was breached by foreign broadcasters.
He had to be brought back home.
And it's not just about the risk to the individual, to William, it's also the risk that they might bring to others around them.
Yeah, that point that Mark was making about the security of people around them, Mark, I want to come back to you and just ask a little bit about the practicalities of royals going to war zones, because are they exposed to exactly the same dangers, the same risks, the same shocks, the same trauma, some would argue, as every other squaddie, every other soldier on the field?
Yes, and they have been historically, you know, throughout the ages.
In fact, there's nothing unusual.
In fact, in fact, it was positively encouraged in order to sort of take up the leadership role they have by dint of birth.
The problem, so I think that he would have been able to do everything that was required.
And I know William's view was very much that if he was serving in a unit that was tasked to go, then he was part of that unit and he should go, a regiment, to be more precise.
But in this case, the nature of the war, I mean, it had a very strong terrorist undercurrent to the whole conflict as well, which just, I think, made it impossible and would have put others, definitely others' lives at greater risk.
And ultimately, had he been gone for being captured or something like that, then I mean, that would have, you know, deeply compromised the whole endeavour.
I hear the point about, you know, royals have been riding into war throughout history.
Don't test my history, but you know, somebody on horseback, certainly.
But that was a different time.
There wasn't social media.
There wasn't paparazzi photographers.
There wasn't memoirs.
Surely the security risk is much higher.
Yeah, I think so in this case.
And also, this was a very cyclical conflict.
I mean, you know, something like the Falklands, which Prince Andrew did, I mean, it was pretty binary.
You know, there was a sort of, yes, you know, us and them, there was a sort of line, you know, we came ashore and we're pushing them back.
This was a conflict that was raging sort of 360 degrees around certain bases.
So much more tricky kind of conflict altogether.
And yeah, that was an added complication to it.
And Sarah, coming to you on the memoirs point, because as Mark was laying out, the tricky conflict, it's politically tricky to talk about Afghanistan for many people these days, in and of itself.
And then Prince Harry writes Spare, where he talks about having, and his words sort of taken out 25 Taliban fighters, chess pieces.
With that in mind, not saying William would have done the same, but does it make sense to withdraw to keep such public figures away from Warzone?
Well, I think this plays into Prince Harry's narrative about being the spare.
There's a big difference between Prince Harry and Prince William, who is one day going to be king.
If the decision was made that William was too valuable to go, it was too difficult to send him, but the risk was deemed acceptable for Harry.
You can see why Harry's saying, well, okay, well, I'm dispensable and he's not.
But I also think you can look at this from the other way, because Harry has talked in his book and in his interviews about the fact that his brother and his father are trapped by their responsibilities within the royal family.
William didn't get to do what he wanted to do.
He didn't get to go and serve in Afghanistan.
Harry did.
He got to go out there twice.
And it is one of the most important and significant parts of his life.
Just look at what he's gone on to do afterwards with the Invictus Games, for example.
It is where he said he got to feel like Harry, an ordinary person.
Were he in that more, were he in his brother's position, he wouldn't have had that opportunity.
There is certainly that argument that he did, in fact, have more freedom than William in this.
You wanted to add something there, but also I'm interested.
Go on.
Yeah, no, I'll come on to the other point.
But I'm not just sure, in and of itself, it was actually the risk to William's own life that was the major consideration here.
I think ultimately it was that he would have been considered an even higher price target than his brother.
And also that that attention would have drawn greater risk to those serving with him than was acceptable.
So I'm not sure it was the danger per se to William's own life that people were really taking into account.
I think there were other more strategic factors at play.
And also the very realistic issues that if your son got blown up because you were so heavily targeted, should William's position have been compromised, you wouldn't have thanked anyone for sending him out there.
We understand, of course, that soldiers fight for queen and country, but as you point out there, it puts them in a very precarious and targeted position if there is a royal in their regiment.
And no one wants to draw the fire on themselves, you know, if they can possibly avoid it.
So yeah, yeah.
I mean, you certainly don't want to go to war with a magnet.
But which I think, you know, I think it was a very difficult decision.
I mean, to your other point is to, yes, I think Harry was free to write about it.
He's not the first to do it.
I mean, whether it's something everyone who served would or wouldn't do, I don't know.
But I mean, plenty of people have documented their wartime experience and it has a certain fascination for the public.
And if you're a high-profile figure like Harry, I can see why he put it in the book and indeed was probably encouraged to put it in the book.
And just quickly, Mark, if you don't mind, give us a sense from the serving point of view, the frustration that somebody like William might have felt about not being able to go and fulfil what he might have felt was his purpose.
Oh, huge, Rosanna.
And I think very irritatingly, I think the sort of humor that would have surrounded him from his, you know, his friends and comrades and who he served with and everything else.
I think he was deeply frustrated.
I mean, it was, you know, when you're serving and you're a young officer, especially, you know, that was the fight of the day and you want to be part of it.
I mean, that's what you've signed up for.
You definitely don't want to be seen to not want to be part of it.
And all the nerves and considerations that go into it and everything else.
But ultimately, everybody who serves wants to be part of whatever the punch-up is of the day, because that's what the people who've elected the government have made the decision and the queen demands of you.
And that's the contract you made when you marched off the square at Santos or marched off the square of Catrick or wherever.
So yeah, it would have been deeply frustrating, you know, even if he understood, and I think he did, the reasons behind it.
I think he would have found a bit, you know, I know myself.
Labour Politics and Gutter Tactics 00:05:14
I mean, I was going to the Iraq first Iraq war and I managed to do a double somersault on a Landro break my collarbone about three days before we deployed.
And I was furious.
Yeah.
I mean, it just, you know, it was very frustrating.
So I felt for him.
It's a hard one for people not in the services to get their head around, but I think you've described it to us very well there, Mark Cannon, Sarah Hewson in the studio as well.
Thank you both very much for your insights.
Come at next tonight here on Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Is Labour in the gutter with their new adverts attacking the Prime Minister?
We'll be debating that next.
Welcome back to Piers Morgan Uncensored with me, Rosanna Lockwood standing in for Piers.
Now let's get to some hot topics with our panel in the studio, Talk TV contributor Esther Kraku and political journalist Ava Santina.
Thank you both.
Looking gorgeous.
Chess pieces this evening.
I won't say the forces of good and evil.
I'll let the audience make their minds up on that one.
But let's talk about some of the issues, especially the boiled over from the weekend.
And the political adverts one.
Now, we've got these to show to our viewers as well.
These are Labour's adverts that have been shared online.
They're going to be shared elsewhere as well, newspapers and all sorts, accusing Rishi Sunak of the following.
Do you think it's wise to raise taxes for working people when your family benefited from a tax loophole?
Sunak does.
Do you think adults convicted of sexually assaulting children should go to prison?
Rishi Sunak doesn't.
And do you think thieves should be punished?
Rishi Sunak doesn't.
Look, political communications campaigning, it's been going on since the dawn of time.
What has stood out about Labour's campaign in this sense is the directness of it.
Some would say the savagery of it.
Coming to you first, Ava, do you think it was right for Labour to take this position?
Do you know, I actually don't mind the tax loophole accusation.
I think that's totally fair.
But the sexual assault poster which came up, that came out on Friday.
That was on the Lord's Day on Good Friday.
And it really took me aback.
And, you know, social media was awash with disgust at this advert.
And Labour, instead of, you know, rolling back and reassessing and going, maybe there's a little bit much, especially as Keir Starmer took a real strong dislike to Boris Johnson, throwing that jibe to him last year about Jimmy Savile.
I don't know if we remember that.
You think that was unfair?
Yeah, it was unfair, but you'd think maybe he wouldn't throw the same sort of jibe at the current Prime Minister.
He's not in charge of this.
He's not, I mean, the person running their social media is some 20-something-year-old, very enthusiastic, very politically charged person who's very unfamiliar with the ways of the world.
I do think it's going to backfire for two reasons.
One is gutter politics, right?
And, you know, the Tories do it as well.
I'm not saying they're completely innocent of it, but you want to rise above that noise.
But also, it's also incorrect and quite, it makes me think that they don't respect their base.
And I actually think they think their base are quite stupid.
Like to make the argument about the tax loopholes, that's fine.
But they're like foghorns.
They just make noise.
Okay, what are you going to do about it?
It's not like the Labour Party is going to reduce taxes.
If you're going to say that, oh, is it fair that they got a tax loophole when the working class...
Okay, are you going to reduce taxes for the working class then?
No, then be quiet.
Yeah, I'd love to see some policy.
Exactly.
I haven't seen anything from Kier Starmer.
What has been fascinating is seeing, as you said, that the Labour Party not backing down.
There were calls on social media for them to delete these adverts.
They didn't.
We didn't hear much from the Labour Party over the weekend.
A few backbenchers coming out and saying they were horrified.
They didn't like the adverts.
It didn't really seem to matter.
It seems that Labour is going to stick into this position.
Do you really think, Esther, that it's some 20-year-old that's in politics?
No, but I mean, it's foghorn policy, right?
There's no actual policy behind it.
They're just making noise in B minor and just honking at issues like this.
I'd love to get you to do the foghorn again.
Ava, it is the only way to fight fire, though, with fire, if they're going to be.
No, I think it's really unhealthy, actually.
And you know, Keir not winding back and not reassessing is showing us the sort of politician that he's going to be.
And he is looking like he's going to be a Boris Johnson.
He's going to start with the business.
And you're not providing people with an alternative vision of Britain to buy into.
And this is what they have never learned.
They have never learned.
I mean, listen, Gordon Brandon, Tony Blair, still alive.
They're still, you know, in the 60s and 70s.
They're still, you know, political resources that they could tap into.
How did you do it?
It's not, you know, with gutter politics like this.
It's to provide British people with an alternative vision that they can buy into.
And the Labour Party have not done that.
It's very far from new Labour, as you point out there.
That feeling, you know, and as we're marking this kind of 25 years since the Good Friday Agreement, it harks back to that time where there was hope and that people were provided with a vision.
And we're just not seeing that vision being laid out by either party, I'd argue, at the moment.
Well, no, we haven't seen anything at all.
I mean, Kier Starmer should be coming out of the box right now.
He should be telling us how is he going to make it affordable for Brits to live here and thrive here.
He should be at the helm of housing policy and he should be talking about strikes and how he would bring negotiations to the table.
But instead, we're just seeing attack politics.
What's the point?
Well, he's lost three people around this table.
Clearly, not that I'm saying he ever had them in the first place.
Wouldn't make that assumption.
But certainly this gutter politics hasn't won this evening.
Dalai Lama Apology Video 00:02:47
Look, let's move on and talk about some international news from the weekend as well.
Fascinating one is the Dalai Lama.
I didn't think we'd be talking about this.
When I woke up and saw this video being shared on Twitter, I couldn't really believe what we were discussing.
take a look it's a it's a pretty difficult watch isn't it
That is the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism there, asking a young boy to suck his tongue, kissing him on the lips.
This was actually at a ceremony quite some time ago, but the video has only sort of gone public now, and it has forced the Dalai Lama and his team to make an apology.
This is the apology.
A video clip has been circulating that shows a recent meeting when a young boy asked His Holiness the Dalai Lama if he could give him a hug.
His Holiness wishes to apologise to the boy and his family, as well as his many friends across the world, for the hurt his words may have caused.
His Holiness often teases people he meets in an innocent and playful way, even in public and before cameras.
He regrets the incident.
That is the official apology.
Come to both of you, how you felt watching that, because I mean, from my, it's just disappointing when you see somebody of that stature.
I think we like to think some people are pure.
Not saying it wasn't pure, but it's certainly uncomfortable, Esther.
I mean, it's almost, I don't even know how to describe it without getting sued.
So I'll just say this.
Back in the day, people that were caught having these sorts of interactions with young boys would vanish into the ether, regardless of kind of your religious leanings, should I say.
But I know that he's going to come back.
The Dalai Lama is going to still be a public figure, regardless of this video.
And I think we should be asking questions.
One, should people that take up occupations where effectively their sexuality and their sexual desires are repressed, they remain celibate, they never get married.
I think you should ask serious questions why there are always instances of abuse that happen in those kind of communities.
But also, should people that have been caught on camera effectively engaging in a very sexually inappropriate act with a young person, should they ever be able to come back into public life?
That's a very negative message to send out that these people still have a place in public life and to be respected.
Ava, do you think the apology undid the act?
No.
I think for me, it's a sign of respect.
That poor boy is sort of being forced into doing this act with him.
It just makes me really uncomfortable.
And actually, it makes me quite reminiscent of growing up Catholic.
With your priest, you'd always think like a religious figure is really pure and is out there to look after you, wouldn't hurt you.
Taylor Swift Boyfriend Abuse Questions 00:00:37
I think this poor boy went in there not really knowing how to act.
It's awful to watch.
It is very uncomfortable.
Look, we were going to round off the show with something a little lighter to talk about Taylor Swift's boyfriend.
Is it the worst job in show business?
Given that that's a handbreak term for you, isn't it?
Given that she has just broken up with a boyfriend of six years and she tends to write songs about her exes.
We did have some songs to play you.
We're unfortunately not going to have time to get to them for you.
That is it from Ava Santin.
That's it from Esther Kraku.
That's it from me just for this evening.
Going to be back in this chair tomorrow.
Maybe we'll pay you some Taylor Swift then.
Whatever you're up to, though, make sure it is uncensored.
Goodbye.
Export Selection