'His team told me this...' Andy Burnham's SECRET PLAN for Britain EXPOSED | Daily Expresso

It was a new low for Parliament this week and a new low for Labour MPs.It was nauseating and pitiful.This is what is going to happen now with Burnham.He is starmer on steroids.arrogance that he left his mayoral seat in Manchester.Isn't there going to be a debate before he becomes the Prime Minister of the country?

He's hopelessly lost and people will discover how weak he is. I'm going to stop you right there.This is what I hear from Andy Burnham's team and some who are close to him.

Hello and welcome to the Daily Expresso.We're with our very own Westminster whisperer, the Tory MP Esther McVey.I feel like I say this every week but what a week in Parliament.

Well, alls I can tell you, it was a new low for Parliament this week and a new low for Labour MPs.They are so desperate to cling on to their job and get rid of Starmer, who they see as an absolute loser, that they've ushered in somebody they know nothing about, what he stands for, who he is, to be their new leader.I have to tell you, it was nauseating and pitiful when 200 plus stood to get a selfie with them, all desperate to get in photo and to get a job.And remember, the man they're calling in as their new messiah, he stood before as leader.So when people did know him, when MPs did know him, they rejected him sort of resoundingly, both in 2010 when he stood against Ed Miliband and in 2015 when he stood against Jeremy Corbyn.And that is the problem.

And again, nauseating that the BBC and This guy put on a helicopter to show him travelling from Houston to Westminster.Was this to try and make the man interesting?BBC getting rid of two thousandstaff, right, but they could put a helicopter on for the most useless ever piece of, I will say, political propaganda, left -wing organizations trying to zhuzh up this guy.And do you know what?It has all the hallmarks of Starmer being ushered in in the general election of 2024.

Nobody knew anything about him, the media hailing him.How big was the supermajority going to be?But didn't ask him what does he stand for and I have to say this is what is going to happen now with Burnham, nobody knows what he stands for, they're ushering him in and I will tell you he is starmer on steroids and in fact he isn't even as good as starmer and you know what if the Monty Python should do a remake of the life of Brian and call it the life of Burnham, somebody who gets caught up in sort of political thoughts and they all follow him as the messiah and he's not, he's an absolute letdown and so it'll prove to be.

And that'll potentially become clearer on Monday when he is set to give a big speech laying out his policies because as Donald Trump said we don't know much about this guy but I am struck that out of 400 Labour MPs they had to catapult someone in because one was good enough for the job.

Right well that says something that they couldn't.amongst their MPs find anybody that's for a hundred of them.So they brought, by the way, that's the whole cabinet that they're saying are doffs and dods.They brought him in to do that.And people have talked about the sheer arrogance that he left sort of his mayoral seat in Manchester.He was then given a seat to fight.

He will then come in and people are saying, well, hang on, isn't there going to be a debate before he becomes the prime minister of the country?isn't there going to beanybody to stand against him to contest him?Isn't there going to be any sort of competition or challenge?And people need to understand the position of Mayor is very different to the position of Prime Minister.The Mayor gets money, from central government and then can have this large yes and spend on an area and then complain to a government when they want more money and that's pretty much what they do.

Complaints about Mayors is pretty much no accountability.doing that when you're Prime Minister, he will have to decide where is the money coming from.He will have to decide, is it benefits or are we going to pay for defence?He's going to have to decide, are we in the EU or are we not?And this is a man who's done more U -turns than Stormy, did more U -turns than Stormy just in his make a field by -election, whether that was WASPI women, whether that was the EU, whether that is privatised renationalisation.The man will swing around and say whatever he needs to say but will not be a leader which is what you want.

He's vague on detail, he's superficial and I'd say he's hopelessly lost and people will discover how weak he is.

And he wanted a bit more time to prepare, up to three months, but he's not getting any of that.

Yeah, well, I'm going to stop you right there.So he said, you're quite right, he's very upset with Starmer, that he should sort of go and say, there you go, you're going to be Prime Minister now, possibly, before we break up for some holiday.And he demanded three months.So he has been trying to get Stalmer's job for a year.He's been trying to unseat him for a year.He's also wanted to be prime minister from at least 2015.

And yet now he hasn't a clue what he's going to do, which says to me, he won't be a great leader.He just wants the job of primeMinister.So it's all about him and not about the country which will prove to be, which is what we got with Starmer, proved to be another problem.And I think this is why, and it's interesting, even in this week in Parliament, right, so we had the selfie, we had him arriving in Westminster, we had him getting sworn in, all Labour MPs were there cheering.The tone, even within Parliament this week, has shifted.

slightly and there are now calls for a general election and that is gathering momentum within the last couple of days people saying is it going to be October could it be May but the calls are it because they don't know what he stands for and if he's going to follow the Reeves I will say Reeves and Starmer manifesto on which they were voted in And I see that's something that the markets and the city is keeping a very, very close eye on.But you need to understand, if he kept to the manifesto, it would be fine that you don't change leader.So you went from Thatcher to Major.So there wasn't a call for a general election because he carried on the manifesto.Remember, you've had the same from Blair to Brown.Didn't call an election there because they carried on the manifesto.

Of course, we've seen it, whether it was Boris on Theresa.However, if you remember, Theresa May, she did call a general election because she was going to change the manifesto.I mean, we all said, what a mistake.And actually, she had lost most of her sort of lead, as it were, her majority by doing that.But there's two things, and this is what I hear from his team, from Andy Burnham's team, and some who were close to him.Their point of reference is Brown bottling it and not winning.

The conservative point of referenceis Theresa May calling it when she shouldn't.So they're saying, oh, he should and he would win.Now, the odds are he's not going to get any more than 170.MPs, which they've got a massive majority, so it's a lot he's given up.He could be a Prime Minister for three years, but he's going to go.

Now, this is a darker side, which I'm hearing from the far left, of which, you know, Andy Burnham does oscillate.He was a Corbynista, he was a Corbynite, he supports him, right?And they're saying we think now is the time to crush the right.They see reform faltering in the polls.They see the Conservatives doing better under Kemi Baden -Oxleadership but not good enough.A split in the right with Rupert Lowe as well and restore.

So they think now is the time.So the whole thing is crush the right but we'll also talk about the leadership change and also Rachel Reeves it looks although she was out on the media basically begging for a job it does look she's out of a job and it was Reeves and Starmer's manifesto and actually that might mean he's going to ditch it completely which would need a general election and And there are a few other names other than Reeves who are being touted for Burnham's top team.

So let's go through some of those.So one of them is his number 10 chief of staff, potentially, James Purnell.

So he's being brought in to be the chief of staff.So here you go.He's meant to be visionary.He's meant to be looking forward.He's meant to be taking his team forward.And he's gone back to basically a Blair Brown character, James Purnell, who again is another friend of Mandelson, so the sort of pedo pals of Mandelson will be back in.

So again, that won't look good and it won't look right.And Purnell, again, a bit of a destabilisinginfluence in 2009 he stood down when he was in DWP Department of Work and Pensions for Brown because he didn't think he was going to win the election so he's going to bring him in for the Chief of Staff and who again not visionary not looking forward he's retreading failed cabinet sort of ministers he's bringing back Louise Hay, because she helped run his campaign, this is a lady who was done for fraud.

That's why she had to resign, is bringing back...The former transport secretary.

Yeah, bringing back Angela Rayner and everybody calls her, you know, the tax dodger, what happened with the stamp duty, again had to resign in disgrace.So what is this new team?

Well, there's another old hand in SW1, and that's Mathia Fambula, who's the MP for Peckham.She looks like she's giving up for quite a key role in a potential Burnham team.

at Mattia Fambula a lot more deeply here.So she is part of his team and she's brand new as an MP two years on.She took over Harriet Harman's seat but you're right she's been around SW1 for a while.Now she probably scares me the most.She's a hard line left winger.I will say if she comes in you will have an economic crash.

We will remember Burnham for, I think, a disastrous economic period, right?And the reason I say be wary of her, she's somebody who, remember when she first came in, Miliband took her straight into a department, she became a junior minister there, so she's one of those net zero zealots.So there won't be any drilling in the North Sea, there won't be getting any money, there won't be any reducing of energy prices, that's where she is.Worse than that, she would make Corbyn blush.She's so far left and Corbynista.She wants to bring in something known as a basic income.

And I remember this being mooted by radical lefties ages ago when I was in DWP.This is giving everybody a basic income, right?this could cost the country anywhere between 200 to 700 billion depending on the amount and lefties will argue oh no it'll only be 40 billion to 60 billion a year where is that money coming from so this is really radical left -wing stuff and also free energy allowance for who they think needs it and yet wealth taxes massive taxes on those who create jobs and who create money so there will be straight away they think they're going to change capital gains tax to equal it to income tax, shooting it right up.There will be mansion taxes, there will be wealth taxes, there will be rebanding of your council tax, absolutely anything that they can squeeze money out of you, they will to expand the state.And remember, we've got a near three trillion pound debt.And although they think, oh, we don't need to look at the bond markets, it doesn't matter about that.

Yes, it absolutely will.And we do.And this is my fear that we're going to bring in the most radical left wing government ever.

And she comes from a political family, I think that's worth mentioning.Her father was quite a senior politician in Liberia.

Oh, absolutely.He was.And again, you need to look at who he was.His name obviously is Henry there and what he did.And he came in.He was an academic.

He then became part of the dictator Samuel Doe's government between 1980 to 83.And this was a coup, part of the coup, that Samuel Doe led.which he, the previous president, he went into his mansion and killed him.They then summary executed all of that ministerial team after dragging them through and making them parade through the streets in naked right this is a radical extreme left -wing ideology and I say that because I was looking at some of the figures for Liberia and this is where he was in government in Liberia and I've been to Liberia and the reason I went to Liberia was because of the absolute poverty and the number of child mortality deaths because of the highest in the world and also mothers dying in birth it's always in about the top 10 top 15 poorest countries in the world.So despite what her dad came in with his views and ideas and how he was going to change things, he's left them in abject poverty.So I looked at the differences between 1970s and what it is now, and on certain things they'll say, oh well, slightly changed, as in there could be slightly more freedoms, there could be slightly more freedom of expression, but poverty is higher.

Infrastructure is worse and the average wage, annual wage for somebody there is about $965.So it is absolute abject poverty and I've witnessed it firsthand.I have never seen a nation of people so crushed in all my life who are living hand -to -mouth and don't have anything.And this is, so if she's coming in with the economic mission We don't need to be given freedom of speech and freedom of democracy.We have that.So she might take some credit.

Her dad brought some of that in, even though he was in government under a bloodthirsty dictator, right?But her economic policies,have pushed Liberia from doing better to absolute poverty.And although they supposedly hated capitalism, they hated imperialism.That's what they were trying to get rid of.What have they done?

They've pretty much sold the country to China.right?So imperialism you've swapped from your own people to China who go and get in the iron ore, getting the rubber, getting all of the minerals from the country and that is what they've done.So if she is now coming as the economic advisor to our country, please have a look at what her family did, right?Please have a look at Liberia before we put her in charge and how about this for hypocrisy?Now their wage per year is about $965.

When she came over to our country, she went to, by today's standard, a boarding school in Tunbridge Wells, £45 ,000 a year for boarding.So I like people to look at the hypocrisy, the ruin of a nation, financially and that is who we're bringing here because they think she's got new radical ideas.No, I'd say she's got terrible ideas and we're going to suffer and nobody knows about his team.Nobody knows what he's going to do yet she helped him, Mattia, win his sort of make Philby election and he is calling her in possibly as one of his key economic and policy advisors.

And I think we need to stay with the economy and I wanted to mention something about Miliband in a second, but also another person who said to come in is Richard Hughes, the former boss of the Office for Budget Responsibility, who was famously, who famously resigned when the OBR leaked documents in the run -up to the budget.But on Miliband...

And also LordO 'Neill as well from Goldman Sachs who's other a Mancunian and he could be brought in as well.But there's two teams vying for his ear.He's got this team you might say more credible.more acumen, but it's this other team in Parliament that isn't.And remember, that's what destabilised Starmer as well, you know, that big, rump, 404 sort of Labour MPs, and both vying for what ever they wanted and dictating to him.

And sticking with our parliamentary theme, Ed Miliband seems desperate for the Chancellor role, but unions are not too happy about that.They're concerned about what they see as his net zero zealotry.So I've heard that he might move to try to approve Jackdaw in a bid to prove that he's not pegged to net zero.How do you see that playing out and who Burnham chooses as Chancellor?

One announcement does not make his viewpoint, if that's what everybody's trying to do, slippery and snake -like to try and prove I'm not when really we know what he does believe in.And he is almost got religious, you know, religiousosity, if I can even say that word.But he's got such a religious zeal to pursue this.No, I think at the moment we're hearing there could be a couple of different people to be Chancellor.Maybe not so much Ed Miliband now, not really sure.Will there be the Brown -Blair struggles for dominance there?

Will he be wanting to spend too much?Then they've now also said Darren Jones might come forward.He might get it, a more sensible pair of hands, but equally it could be Wes Streeting.He, the ex -health secretary who resigned, and I have to say I saw him in the lift on Monday and he looked very pleased with himself so he must have thought, I bet you Andy Burnham doesn't know it.going to be Chancellor yet.I bet you he's promised them all the job and the reason I say that Boris was very bad at promising lots of people lots of jobs because all they've said is we won't stand against you.

Well when they haven't stood against him and he's the Prime Minister What can they do except say, oh, you didn't give us the chance, and I go, oh, really sorry.I promised this, but I couldn't.But I have given you this job.So I will say he hasn't made up his mind yet.I am saying Burnham is saying anything to make sure there isn't a challenger, so he doesn't have to be put under sort of pressure to come up with his views.And then the other gimmicky thing Burnham's come up with, oh, I might move some of sort of number 10 and what we're doing up to Manchester.

Again, old record, heard it before, nothing new, Rishi Sunak moved some of the department up to Darlington, so we've been here, seen it, done it, and invariably takes twice as long, costs twice as much money, and it won't work.And I also think he's got to remember, he's talking about the North of England, I'm King of the North, as if it is just Manchester.It is not.He will alienate the rest of the North who aren't Manchester.And there's huge variants across the north.

Absolutely.And rural Labour MPs, coastal Labour MPs, all those other communities.

Everything is digital now, isn't it?Your money, your photos, even your loyalty card at the coffee shop.So there's something quietly brilliant about owning one thing that isn't on a screen.Real gold bullion.The weight of it, the shine, it's just a lovely thing to hold.The Pure Gold Company, which was voted the UK's best gold broker, makes owning physical gold really simple.

Tax -free gold coins from the Royal Mint, with friendly one -to -one guidance from your first question to final delivery.There's no jargon, no pressure, no questions.and accuse.It's insured to your door or stored in a secure professional vault.So visit the PureGold company today and tell them JJ sent you.

But there's another big story in town this week, which is the rape gang inquiry.Talk me through that.

Right, so we also had the announcement that the government dragged kicking and screaming to do a national rape gang inquiry.They've now announced they're going to do, look into, sort of do an inquiry into London Oldham Bradford and Keithley so they're going to look into that and the reason I want to talk about it today here it is this is the rape gang inquiry report so this is Rupert Lowe's and I sat on the panel and went with them and all I will say before they start doing anything with their inquiry because my concern is they're going to announce it everybody's going to give them applause they're all going to feel wonderful but actually nothing will happen They won't look into the failings, they won't look into why it was never looked into in the first place, and they need to understand that.They must start by reading this, because we've got to remember, we're talking at least 250 ,000 girls who have been raped, repeatedly raped, tortured, were videoed, which were then blackmailed with.Some of them got pregnant, some of them were you know, well, many got pregnant.Some of them lost it.Some were forced to have abortions.

Some were forced to have conversions to Islam.Some were taken abroad.I mean, disgusting.Minimum 250 ,000 girls.And we know that the vast majority of girls were vulnerable, white British girls.And predominantly, those rape gangs were Pakistani, Muslim,

men, right?And we need to understand why the state let these girls down, why they never looked into it when we know the first cases came forward in the 1990s complaining about it.And we know it was predominantly in Labour areas with Labour councillors and Labour MPs, but because they didn't want to upset their bloc Muslim vote, they did nothing.Because of political correctness, because of fear of being called racist, they didn't want to do anything.So you must read this report because it goes some way to explaining those failures and what we need to do.We also now, so you say they're looking into three places, this report says there's probably 146 cities everywhere from Aberdeen to Plymouth where it was happening on an industrial scale, groups working together.

And so what we talked about, it operated under an honour and shame based clan, code that treated non -Muslim girls as property available for sexual use.So we've got the political scandal.And I'm only going to look at a tiny bit of that report because other people can download it, read it.And I'm really going to look at the eight reasons.And we look under the sort of theological aspects of Islam that contributed to it and why so many on the liberal left in the West felt uncomfortable to look at this.Right.

And really, if you are a proper governing party, right, if you were in charge of the institutions, the police, etc, you should only work on data and facts.You shouldn't say, oh, I'm too frightened to look here, for fear of notliving up to my diversity beliefs and vision and my multicultural beliefs and vision.And that's what they shied away from.So in here, we looked at things like the doctrine of Muslim superiority.So Allah says that, you know, they are superior and actually to the views of non -Muslims.

And we've got Rotherham survivors talking about how they had to kiss the feet or lick the feet of the perpetrators to show that they were superior and these white Christian girls were not.The second one is the principle of loyalty and disavowal.Right?And this is where, you know, you must direct your love and allegiance to the Muslim sort of God while hating and disregarding all others who answer, disavow others.Right?And this came through in a book and it's called Iman's Daughter, A True Story, 2009.

And she confided in her teacher at school what was going on at home, the abuse she was getting from her Iman dad at home.The teachers called in a Pakistani Muslim social worker.She met with him at school.When she went home that night, they'd already, within their community, gone and spoken to the father, to which then she was brutally beaten up and raped because she had dared speak out of the community.So she didn't have that duty of loyalty first and foremost, right?The other is male dominance within these communities.

Prophet Muhammad stated women are deficit in both religion and intelligence relative to men.And we've seen this.Even in mosques, women are separated to men so as not toinvalidate their prayers should they walk across them.Divorce favours men.Inheritance favours the boy over the girl who invariably gets twice as much.

And if you're raped, if you declare rape, you've got to have, I think it's four male witnesses to back you up, otherwise you haven't.So we're talking complete difference between the standing of a woman and a man in society.And the next one is enforced seclusion and veiling of women.And why is this, as you know, as the surah instructs, women stay, surah in the Quran say, stay in your houses and do not flaunt yourselves.And that is what women must do.And the next one is forced marriage.

So number five, forced marriage with the absence of a fixed age of consent.The next one, six, the perception of female sexuality as inherently dangerous.So basically, it is a woman's problem.She is the person who, you know, will tempt the man.So it is her problem and that's why you have got practices of female genital mutilation to curb the female sexual desire and pleasure.And seven, the historical Sharia institution of slavery.

Islamic sharia contains details and regulations covering what would be armed conflict and then including provisions for slavery and finally the system of dimitude and that is a sort of classical sharia rules of jihad and that is how you separate between the house of Islam and the house of war and all of these combined with a sort of cultural and how you've been brought up and your beliefs,all of this layered into a form of attitude towards women, ability to close ranks, ability to go forward.But actually, it was a homegrown inability to explore these, confront these, break them down step by step.we didn't do that because of things like political correctness and now when people are talking about Islamophobia which will draw a veil again at looking into these things and that's why the policy exchange said Islamophobia in one of their reports have been used to suppress the exposure of this scandal and this is why I'm saying they need to read this rape gang report because basically said The people governing did not understand those two very different worlds.We, in the West, believe in respect of the individual.Equality before the law and also the pursuit of blind justice.

They didn't.This was a much more, and we would say, primitive sort of cultures and belief system that meant that group mattered above all else.That was first and foremost the most matter, the group that you were a part of.And because of that, we overlooked what went on.And my concern is they won't read that.My concern, this left government that we've got in, will announce these inquiries now but do very little to hold people to account.

And I'm talking all people.Yes, those who are the perpetrators and criminals in prison, yeah, but equally the failings within all of these institutions from the police to social services to thecare homes all of those held accountable to.

Right a quick pause in the podcast to tell you about our sponsor Incogni.You had those phone calls from numbers you don't recognize or you go in your inbox and there's emails for stuff you did not sign up for.Well that's because someone somewhere is selling your private information.That's where today's sponsor comes in.incognito they will contact these these people who have been taking your information and they'll say oi stop delete it go to the website incognito .com you type in the details two minutes later incognito sorting it out for you automatically and because i love you i've got your discount it ain't 10 it ain't 20 60 off 60 % off an annual Incogni plan.

Just go to incogni .com forward slash daily expresso or click the link in the episode description box below.

It's been, I think fair to say, a very heavy week news wise.What's been the worst part of this week for you?

Gosh, could it get any worse?Could it get any worse than that?I think we as a country don't know what is coming under Burnham's leadership and rule.I do believe Burnham will have a bounce because he is unknown.I mean, it's a low bar to say he's got more charisma than Starmer, but yes, he has.And so people don't know, and I see an economic collapse coming to our country.

I think he will be an absolute calamity.He's not being put under pressure via his own MPs or the media.What he's going to do, and I say this, we're going to go down a path of disaster.I think he'll be hated more than Starmer.in what, about two years, give him at least a year of a honeymoon period, and he will be stoma on steroids and far worse.But what I'm also seeing, while stoma isn't leader, not really is he, he's not really prime ministry sort

of doctor.

Caretaker prime minister.

Sort of, yeah.We haven't really got anybody as prime minister, right?And my concern is what is being pushed out whilst nobody is properly governing what's going on.So maybe we'll get the defence investment plan next week at NATO from Starmer.Won't be worth the light because Burnham will give his own.But this week I was horrified in the House to hear, see that the puberty blocker trial is going to go forward and they're going to start getting the 200 plus kids who are going to be on that trial from the 1st of August.

Remember, this was paused, people said don't do it, how are you going to do it, it is horrific, it is, how do you even get consent from a kid and now we're racing it forward.

So the minimum age for participants in the trial will be 11 year olds for girls and 12 year olds for boys which I'm, that is quite shocking.A, because I mean really you don't know what the effects of this will be, the speed of the rollout which you mentioned but also the fact that And one part of the politics, these kids aren't even allowed on social media because they're not mature.And yet somehow they're allowed to be injected.

Yeah.Well, they sort of said they wouldn't know the harm that had happened to young kids going on social media at 13, 14.So they won't know that.And yet we can inject them with hormones for a four year period.At the age of 11, somebody else has given consent for them.Oh, but those harms they will know.

And I think these were the key things coming out.How do you get consent for 11 year old to go on this journey?So we're saying, you know, when it comes to consent, how does a child know that it's in the wrong body and gender?How does a child knowthat it is going to mutilate its body?and maybe won't be fertile in the future, is giving up their chance to have kids, is giving up their chance to do various other things.

How can they do that?And how can a parent do that on their behalf?So, usually we've set dates for consent.So, you'd say actually, you know, sexual sort of consent to have sex, the age is sort of 16.We think you may be emotionally, psychologically, morally, you know, you know what you're doing, right?child under 13.

you can't give consent it's impossible it'd be statutory under 13 yet some of the questions that are being asked for kids to go on this have you had oral sex do you know about sex but we're saying you can't do that we're saying you you won't know remember as you rightly said this government saying you can't even go on social media but we are transforming your body doing irreparable damage to your body and we're saying that's fine and they're going out to find these kids in in August.I even asked the question, because I was listening to the debate, what is your measure as a government embarking on this trial?What is it?What's success to you?They did not have a clue.I said, what are your measurements?

What's your timelines?If 80 % of kids said they were happy with that, is that good enough?What are you going to do?Some of the Labour MPs were talking about, oh, but we give drug suppressants to, hormone suppressants to things like, or hormone additions to things like prostate cancer and we'll find out things, but that isn't why you're doing this trial.You're not finding out information for other drugs for other people who are adults.I mean, I have to say, I think this is shocking and it is being pushed out and most of the public don't know because we thought

this trial had come to an end.And other MPs in the House are saying why aren't you using the data you've got from kids who've already done this?Why aren't you using that to find out the information?

Or why are you blindly going forward with this So Rebecca Paul MP in the house this week spoke very well on this and she said in 2009 there were 51 patients referred to the NHS Gender Identity Development Service for children.

So just 51?

51 and those were male.In 2016 that hit 1 ,766 and also the government doesn't actually know official figures on how many kids have detransitioned because it does happen and it is quite common and there have been some high profile cases where kids felt, like there's one example, Kirra Bell, I met her a few months back, she was given blockers as a child, a double mastectomy as well.I mean horrific bodily changes.Awful, awful things but the government does not actually know how widespread detransitioning is.

And that I think is the horror of things and actually the shadow health minister who spoke who was gay said do you know what when I was growing up I I had questions and queries about myself and somebody had to said to him, you're in the wrong body.I would have gone down that route.I'm not, I'm gay.I'm not that I'm in the wrong body and you didn't have to do brutal surgery that will change me forever.I was gay.And as you're right, there's been various instances where people have tried to sort of de -transition.

But once you've had a double mastectomy, maybe once you've had sort of the sort of penis inversion to make a vagina, I mean, I'm just wondering how do you sort of de -transition from that.And I looked at what was happening.So these kids, right, are going to get a treatment that lastsfor six months so they're going to have an injection every six months.How do you go back from that once you've been on it for six months?Then you'll hear from them, do we think it's fine and it'll carry on and carry on.

Well I remember trying the pill and you take the pill one tablet a day for a month and I remember having taken it for a month I thought oh it doesn't agree with me I don't like it.I was just taking one tablet a day and I could stop.I didn't have a massive injection of six months worth and I don't even know what that's going to do to people and I looked at the time frame seeing them It was hardly seeing them at all.And at 12 months, oh, we'll x -ray your bone mass to see how much it's deteriorated.See how you're feeling.A call at 15 months with the doctor to check.

18 months, oh, some safety checks and a scan.Then 21 months.And then 36 months and 48 months.I mean, I think that is inhumane.Well, definitely needs more scrutiny.And it needs to be stopped.

There is a legal court case, so it might end up being stopped before it goes ahead.But this, without a prime minister, is the stuff they're going to be sweeping out, which is wrong.And that's why we need somebody in charge of the country.

Well, thank you very much, Esther McVey.And thank you so much to you at home.Please do like, share, subscribe and hit the high button.We'll be back next week.