Sunday Showdown: Watch Camilla take on Labour’s Mike Tapp

The Telegraph What happens when a journalist on the right, me, takes on Dover Labour MP Mike Tapp, who believes the government is doing a decent job tackling illegal migration and thinks Nigel Farage is a plastic patriot? And I explain to Camilla how Labour's record speaks for itself and turn the tables on her. Well, sort of. Welcome to the Sunday Showdown with me, Camilla Tominey. And me, Mike Tapp. You think there's one rule for the right and another for you? Absolutely not. Look, British values are around decency, firmness, but also being fair. Sure. And look, if people are straying from that, I'm in politics to call that out. I'm not going to stay quiet on it. But there are some on the left that might regard your view, for instance, to seize assets and funds from asylum seekers as being inherently racist. I mean, you're basically saying you want to create a hospital environment for illegals. You would be saying that because you're in Dover. You also want AI to be used in the asylum infrastructure. In one breath, you're talking about refugees. In the other, you're talking about mandatory ID schemes and other things that would give Big Brother Watch a fright. Mike Tapp, the MP for Dover and Deal. Thank you for joining me on The Daily Tea. Pleasure. Shall we have a little dust up between right and left? Let's do it. I'm confused by you, Mike Tapp, because now it would be generous to say that you are political. If you were politically flexible, it would be less generous to say that politically you're all over the place. On one hand, you're coming out with socialist nonsense like let's have a wealth tax. But on the other, you're quite robust on immigration because you have to be because your seat overlooks the White Cliffs. Yeah, I mean, I can give you my perception of my politics. Go on. Which is probably the most accurate I'd suggest. Well, you may be open to interpretation. What I've always done throughout my whole career, you know, prior to politics. Is look at the problem and then look at solutions to that problem. And as long as there are within our values, and I'm really firm on that. And when I say that, I mean, non-divisive, not ramping up rhetoric to cause division, but seeking to solve a problem. And that's likely the route I will take. And on immigration, let's say that as an example, my views sort of stretch across the whole spectrum, really. So from safe and legal routes, which is more on legal. On the left, all the way through to increasing deportations and removals and a hyper focus on seeing what we can do better to stop the small boat crossings, you know, illegal migration is simply wrong and we must solve that. Yes. I mean, some might say, oh, hello, this is like Andy Burnham, the political everyman who says whatever he wants his person to hear on any given day. So when it comes to people who are disgruntled in Dover, you say one thing. When it comes to speaking to your Labour colleagues, you say one thing, when it comes to speaking to your Labour colleagues, you say one thing. When it comes to speaking to your Labour colleagues in the tea room, then you can ramp up the social direction. I mean, I'd like to see an example of that because I've never done that. Okay, well, let's take this. I'm going to debunk your theory that you don't like to be divisive. Okay. I'm going to quote you now. Yeah. Immigration is a tough and complex issue. The Tories are the real threat to national security, not refugees fleeing war. And what was the context of that? Well, that's the context of talking about immigration in general. And I think being challenged on the idea that everyone coming over by boat is, ergo, a refugee. And what was that? Well, we're in opposition that I said that. I think so, yes. I think it probably was. And that would have, I'd have to look at that. But the Tories are a threat to national security. The likelihood on that is the fact that there were open borders under the Conservatives. The boat crossings went up from about 400 in 2018 to over 130,000 under their watch. But at the same time, their commitment to defence was dire. You know, we had the smallest military since the Polian days. So that is a threat to national security. If we're not funding our military and we're not working full out to, you know, secure the borders, then there are national security issues. So I don't see that as particularly divisive. I see that as just talking absolute fact. Those things are not good for national security. Can you disagree with that? Well, let me interject here by saying the following. Labour hasn't smashed the gangs. It hasn't stopped the boats. Arrivals are at such a record high that you now have people in your own constituency turning out to stop the boats single-handed. Yes, those protests have also involved some masked campaigners. And we can get onto that in just a minute. So Labour hasn't changed the situation from when the Conservatives were in charge. Second of all, Mike Tapp, we've actually had the extraordinary development that the Chancellor, John Healey, who resigned as Defence Secretary because the government wouldn't meet the target of spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030, now advocating spending it by 2035, therefore exposing himself as a craven hypocrite. So you can't even really, with a straight face, attack the Tories on defence because you've moved the goalpost on that too. Well, defence, I'll take this in turn. We'll start with immigration. So we've inherited a situation that's really difficult. I know that the public are fed up of us blaming the previous. So I'm not going to go there. You've read out a tweet from when we were not even in government. The progress that has been made is positive. You know, we've had the lowest number of crossings, numbers of people crossing. For seven years. Well, number of people crossing, not number of boats, number of people crossing. That's got to be really clear for the last seven years. We're down around 40%. Deportations and removals are up significantly. We've absolutely smashed through the backlog when it comes to asylum decisions. That's up by about 70%. Just granting asylum. Well, there is a hell of a lot more to do. And this is why I'm personally calling for COBRA to convene because this isn't just a home office issue. It's in a, what I say, a national security issue here because if we're having people coming in, then that's not in that way. That's not acceptable. We wouldn't accept thousands barging through the barriers that he throw. And therefore, we mustn't ever accept this type of illegal migration. If I could just go into a bit more detail on what I'm talking about with COBRA, it means you can have all the departments in one room. So all the gears of government are moving in the same direction. So we're talking DWP looking at benefits. Is that too generous? HMRC looking at illegal. We're working MHCLG looking at asylum accommodation. Is there more or less potentially that we can do there? We'll have the FC Foreign Office in there looking at that diplomatic relationship upstream, particularly with the French, and see if there's more we can do there on immediate returns. Ministry of Defence in the room. Is there more we can do with the military? Of course, the Home Office who lead on this, but also all of the agencies, the Police, Border Security Command, National Crime Agency, being held to account on a weekly basis by either the Home Secretary, or the Prime Minister. That's what I think needs to happen now, because this isn't just a Home Office problem. This is a whole of government problem. It's costing us a lot of money. And the public care about it quite rightly, just as I do. Yes, but then you're sounding quite Farage in there, because he's saying if reform wins the next general election, then the government will announce a national emergency on day one. Well, I said this before the election. So Farage is being tappy, I would suggest. And actually, look, what I'm not doing here is trying to copy anybody or give rhetoric that is unnecessary. What I'm doing here is trying to find solutions to the problem, which is what I talked about earlier. And when you've got all departments in one room and the agencies in one room, they can be more creative, but they're also held to account. I mean, look, I've sat in SMGs, for example, on child poverty, which is really. SMG, explain that lingo. Excuse me, it's a senior manager's group. It's very boring corporate speak, but essentially you have all the departments together, all the relevant departments, looking at things like child poverty or whatever issue we need to deal with as a government. And we're at that point now, in my view, with migration. In fact, we have been for a long time. Sure. And it's time to convene COBRA because one person that gets sexually assaulted is too many. And I have to make it really clear that this isn't necessarily a migrant problem, it's a man problem. But if people are coming into the country and committing these sort of crimes, then we're adding to that issue. So we need to solve this problem and have. complete control of the borders. We have gained some. You know, when I was in the Home Office, for example, on legal migration was my brief, we introduced the electronic travel authorisations, which means anyone who comes to the country has to apply so we can do that sort of security check on them. We know who's coming here. So there's more to do on migration, which is why COBRA is important. But you understand that the public perception is, and as you say, you were in the Home Office, right? You were a minister there. The public perception is that these illegal immigrants, are just running rings around the system. As you say, they're largely male. Contrary to your colleague, Darren Jones, suggesting that most of the people in the boats were women and children. I think Darren did accept that he'd misspoke on that occasion. We do know it's predominantly young men that are coming over. But that's typically lefty rhetoric. Oh, think about the poor refugees in the boats. Everybody knows that most of those stories are cock and bull. We've done countless investigations about people gaming the system by falsely claiming that they're gay, by gaming. By gaming the system, by falsely claiming that they're from Bidun, which is a kind of exiled area of Kuwait, that they're going on social media, that we've got smuggling gang leaders, playing them like fiddles. We've had somebody in the Daily T who actually got onto a dinghy and said that they're all undocumented young men who are simply not escaping war or persecution, but just trying to get into the black economy here, be delivery drivers and all the rest of it. And I don't disagree with that. But you were in the home office and there's so much rhetoric around this. This week we've spoken to Councillor Tim McNally in Piddington who is saying we are now having to have self-defence classes for the women of this Oxfordshire village because we've got this Bicester proposal to house 1,200 migrants just down the road. So the public is going, you're in charge and this is the result, that actually women and children in a lot of these areas simply don't feel safe. And so you can give us all of the spiel you like but the problem is that this problem is not being solved. There wouldn't be protesters in Dover if the government got a grip on this and the conservative argument would be you shouldn't have scrapped Rwanda. So a question for you then, I don't want to turn the tables too much here, but we are moving in the right direction with crossings coming down, deportation removals going up, closing hotels, speeding up the system which had completely gone into a hole. There isn't that silver lining. We don't have a bullet that fixes this overnight and of course the Home Secretary is keen to solve this. Let's just talk politically here. Does the Labour Party and this government no favours if we can't make even more progress on the small boat issue? So what more do you and your viewers think we can do? We hear that the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is now sitting on this proposal to extend indefinite leave to remain. There are three killer statistics in my mind. That is different to this. The illegal migration side of things. Okay, I get that. But okay, but let's look at the killer statistics here. And I appreciate the distinction between legal and illegal migration. And by the way, there are a great many telegraphians who will never forgive Boris Johnson for the Boris wave. And will never forgive for the liberalising of the rules which meant that lots of people came here during and post COVID that then brought dependents with them that haven't added anything economically to the sort of growth pie. The killer statistics are as follows. And you can debunk these figures if you like. I think the percentage of actual deportations is 4%. There's another statistic. From small boat crossings is 10%. Okay, it's not much. The other statistic is that one migrant every minute is granted indefinite leave to remain or British citizenship. And the other statistic, which is anecdotal, but has been raised by a whistleblower in recent weeks. And actually we had a UN committee respond to it and say, yeah, that sounds pretty much accurate. It's that only 1% of asylum claims are genuine. So I'll go through those. On the small boat arrivals that have been deported and removed, that is around 10% since we came to government, by the way. And the reason that's low is because the time it takes to process a claim. But of course, as time goes on, that number goes up. And we have made significant increases in removing people that shouldn't be here. And of course, it's going to continue in that direction. Because the Home Secretary is really adamant that that's the right way to go, you know, we've made it less attractive to come here through the package that's received, we've made it easier to remove and deport people, but there are still games being played by some who come over your right, you know, things like claiming they're gay, etc, when they're clearly not. Some or most? I couldn't put a specific number on that, but there is work going on behind the scenes as we speak on the ECHR. And how it works. And how we can refine some of the interpretations of that to ensure we can deport and remove more people that shouldn't be here. Why not just leave it? Well, I can see the arguments for that. But we've also got to consider that a lot of the returns, all of the returns agreements that we have to remove that record number that we've removed and deported is underpinned by the ECHR, as well as many other things like trade agreements. So, you know, is that using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and causing issues elsewhere? You pull one lever, the thing with immigration that I learned very quickly, you pull one lever and 10 levers over there move and you've caused a bigger problem than you already had. So, it's finding that balance. It would stop lawfare and appeals. It would stop silly appeals like I can't be returned to my home country because my child doesn't like foreign chicken nuggets. I know that's now become apocryphal. It did actually happen. Yeah, Article 3 and Article 8 need refining and that's what the Home Secretary is working on as we speak. And I'm sure we'll see more announcements on that in the future. I can do that now. But we're moving in the right direction on migration. When it comes to my constituency, you know, I talk to people week in, week out about this and I haven't met one who's turned to the streets. They come from outside of Dover. Those who arrived last weekend wearing balaclavas all came on the train. They're not my constituents. My constituents care about this, but they want to get on with their lives. You know, the cost of living, seeing a doctor, having the high street thriving again is what matters to most. Of course, that's their day-to-day. I'm not saying they don't care about migration, but they're not turning out onto the streets. And actually, when people come to the constituency and cause more chaos, that's unwelcome by the vast majority of people. Wasn't it a mistake to scrap the Rwanda plan, which could have proved to be a deterrent? We already know that it was acting in some way in keeping people over in the Republic of Ireland and not having them cross here because they didn't think that they would get the welcome that they had expected. And if you're going to be processed over in Africa, just as in Australia when they protest. People coming by boat in Nehru. The Labour government there continued what was a Liberal government plan. So the righties had invented it and the lefties continued it because it solved a problem for them. It stopped the boats. So my perception of Rwanda is that the numbers that would be removed to Rwanda was always going to be too low to act as a deterrent. How do you know that? Because that was the detention space that was there and the cost of each person was too high for the state to be able to meet that. So we have to find more. And more creative ways of doing this. Of course, we brought in Hillmore, the one-in-one-out system, which is a similar number to how many would have gone to Rwanda. And it clearly hasn't served as a deterrent to the level that we would like. Of course, it's a good deal and we should continue to attempt to grow that. But my view is that there is more that the French can do around this. The operational side and the assistance on the beaches is positive. You know, 40,000 crossings have been stopped and disrupted over the last year. I think it is. You have to double check that. It might be since government. I think it's the last year. And that is significant. And the pay-as-you-achieve approach, pay-as-you-go approach is good as well. So we're not just throwing money at them. But here's the question I have for France, is if they're intercepted in the channel and taken straight back to a port in Dover, excuse me, in Dunkirk or in Calais, within a month, the small boat crossings absolutely stop. Yes. They've smashed the business model. That means there's then no encampments in Calais. It means thousands won't even enter France in an attempt to get to our country. So why don't the French do that? Well, that's the question that I think needs to be asked at a diplomatic level. It's a £623 million question because that's how much we've given the French to not take these migrants back. And I mean, that money is for operational purposes to ensure that we can or they can operate on the beaches to stop crossings. And they are doing that. But actually, you know, the question for Macron is. They're not stopping the crossings, are they? They're reducing them, but not stopping them, no. And the question I have is, is why do they not take them straight back? You know, I've spoken off record to French politicians, and I won't say who, because out of respect for them, because it was very much off record, who do agree with that immediate return because they don't want encampments in Calais. They want to see this problem ended. And within a month, it would be ended. And that would save us a lot of money. It would save the French a lot of pain. And in the north as well, and those transiting through. So I want to see that diplomatic pressure. And I mean diplomatic. What we shouldn't do is bash the French and attack them on Twitter. Let's talk. Let's see if we can come to an agreement on those immediate returns. That's what I'd like to see efforts going towards. Why did you lose your job? Well, there's politics at play. But also, of course, I did speak out on one of the policy areas, which I disagreed with in the weeks leading up to Keir Starmer leaving, which didn't go down very well with the Home Secretary, who I've got a lot of respect for. Remind us what you said. So this was looking at some of the ILR side of things, which we spoke about briefly earlier, and the Boris wave, right? So we need to bring that. We need that retrospective extension for five to 10 years for those on the Boris wave in order to protect our infrastructure. We're talking social. Housing committed to that. But now she seems to be wavering. We're talking social housing and we're talking the benefit system. And that's not saying that everyone who comes over to work here will will take advantage of those. But even if it's quite a small percentage, that still puts more strain on the social housing waiting list that we currently have. But one of the issues I have with this is that those who came over on health and social care visas that were frozen, by the way, and have worked genuinely in the health and social care system and can prove it shouldn't have to go through that retrospective element of the extension from five to 10 years because, look, we have to wait economic migration towards the economy. OK, but there are other forms of contribution. And I think we all know within our families or extended families, members who have received care from foreign workers, whether it's in the NHS or within the care system. And I think extending that to 10 years. Would not be the British thing to do. And I spoke out on that. That clearly didn't go down very well. But I came into politics to express my views and I'm always saying I maintain that Shabana Mahmood is probably going to end up being the best Home Secretary we've ever had. And I think if we're going to solve this issue, she's the person to do it. You would say that, wouldn't you? But on foreign care workers, you're saying that because you're worried the system might collapse. What evidence is there to suggest that foreign care workers are any better than British care workers? And secondly, hasn't it been flagged actually that foreign doctors are responsible for most malfeasance cases in the NHS right now? Well, I haven't heard that about foreign doctors, but I will say. And they're not trying to demonise them. My dad's just been through cancer, which, to be quite frank, was an extremely dangerous form of cancer. And all of those people that helped him, bar one, weren't British. All the way from nurse to surgeon. Surgeon was Greek. That suggests a failing in our healthcare recruitment programme. Of course, and that should be looked at. In our homegrown student training programme. And that should be looked at. And like I said, the health and social care visa is frozen. So I'm talking about the people who are here now doing those roles and caring for us. I think they shouldn't be a part of this retrospective action. But what about their dependents? Well, the dependents are here as well already. So you're saying part of the Boris wave influx should just stay. I'm not saying they should stay. This is why I'm referring to you as a political everyman. No, I'm not everyman. Either the Boris wave was good or it was bad. I don't see how that's everyman, because what I'm saying is about fairness. This is one of the problems with politics now, is that people pigeonhole themselves in left or right, or a position on the political spectrum. And they don't actually consider well enough what they're saying and the policies that they're talking about. How about if we all come at every problem looking at solutions and the right thing to do? Sometimes that'll be on the left, sometimes that'll be on the right. That's how we should run the country. Yeah. And that's how we should run the country. I don't know what my politics are. So it's about solutions. Left or right doesn't really matter. Okay. But how about this kind of solution? Oh, goodness me. We've got a million young people not in education or training. We've got far too many foreign workers in the healthcare system. And we've now got a Home Secretary, the best Home Secretary in history, according to you. Potentially. Potentially. Actually saying, well, you can leave my department because you've contradicted my policy, which is to not include healthcare workers. In any exemption when it comes to indefinite leave to remain. What should we do about that? Maybe we should try and get some of these NEETs into healthcare. Maybe we should consider what wages they should be paid. Maybe we should consider in the education system providing some kind of new T-level qualification in care. That's the kind of solutions people are looking for. I feel that most people think on immigration, politicians of all hues are on the one hand. Well, actually, let's just talk about labor. This is your dilemma. You've got to talk tough on immigration because you're in Dover with a 7,500 majority. You could lose that seat at the next general election. Let's be honest. I don't talk like this because of my constituency. I know. Well, every MP talks to their constituency like that. Well, no, these are my politics. You know, I've spent my whole career serving the country, be it with the military, working in counterterrorism. And actually, I see some of the risk that comes from uncontrolled borders. And I want that's one of my. The driving forces for desperately calling for Cobra to convene and also looking at what more the French can do. You're also mindful of your left flank. You're mindful of the rise of the Greens. You're mindful of backbenchers that at every turn tried to thwart difficult decisions that Keir Starmer tried to make, be it on immigration, be it on welfare. I mean, I backed welfare changes and I backed all of the immigration changes in my view. If it's a solution and it's right, then I will back it. I'm not constantly considering, you know, who I'm pleasing and where it fits on the political spectrum. That's just how I do my politics. You know, it might mean that I don't last, but I will hold my head up high and say that all the way through my time in politics, I am absolutely saying what I mean and backing policy that I think is going to have a positive impact on the country. Did you mean it when you said. Reform UK leaders are plastic patriots. And you argued that they, quote, feed racism by applying combat language like fighting age males to civilians. So you're of the, if you are in reform or support reform, you might be a closet racist. Not support reform. I haven't said that. All right. Do you think that reform UK MPs are racist? I don't think that they are racist as such, but I think some of the things they say in some of the policies certainly lean towards that. I've raised that specifically. You know, I've been in Afghanistan and when we saw a fighting age male, that's what we called them because they're a potential threat, as in they might pull a gun out and shoot at us. Right. Yes. So that's the sort of language that we use. He's using it for people who are on the whole seeking a better life by wanting to come here. And I think it's divisive. And I've said this to a number of reform voters and reform politicians as well. That we, you know, in general. We want to get to the same place here. I certainly do in terms of full control of the border. But it's how we get there that matters because we have values here and we do not want to see division. We don't want to pitch neighbour against neighbour. We don't want to see balaclavid men intimidating people on the street. So every politician has a responsibility to conduct themselves in a way that they don't ratchet this up and don't allude to or be racist. It's really important. But doesn't this ratchet it up by saying somebody like Farage is a plastic patriot? No. Do you really feel that? If you tolerate intolerance, then intolerance wins. And I certainly will not tolerate when I believe something is potentially racist. And if you're saying fighting age males and invasions, that is not fitting with a politician who doesn't want to ratchet this up. I don't think Nigel Farage would do anything for this country. He uses the flag. He wraps himself in it. He pretends he's a patriot. But actually, it's all about him. And it always has been throughout his whole career. You could say that about somebody like Keir Starmer now, who stood on the steps of Downing Street. In 2024, talking about leading a government of service, and has now announced that he is standing down ahead of the next general election, which will strike most people as a degree of plastic patriotism. This is now Keir Starmer's unique brand of self-service. He's going to go off to some plum roll in Europe. That's plastic patriotism. No, I think there's many forms of service. And Keir Starmer has spent his life serving the country directly. The prosecution through to politics. What he goes on to do next remains to be seen. And he took that job because it was one of the highest legal roles in the land. It was actually a stepping stone to politics. I don't think you could say if someone's successful, it's not service. You can serve at many levels. The king is in service. The contradiction. Listen, plastic patriot, Nigel Farage, feeding racism. Absolutely. Honestly, and this is the way I see it, when you're using that sort of language and some of the policies that they talk about, for example, reassessing everyone's ILR, that's your neighbours, that's your doctors, your nurses, that's people who pay their taxes and love this country. Just because you're not from here originally, it doesn't mean that you should suddenly have to go through your ILR application again. And look, what was said about the candidate in St Pancras was racism from, I think it was, was it Zia or. You're referring to their Somali heritage, which by the way, Nigel Farage pushed back. Okay, fine. Well, he needs to get control. He needs to get control of Zia Yusuf. And what we're seeing with reform at the moment is a battle. Excuse me, I keep bashing the desk. I know, the passion is audible. It is, it is. And look, I love this country with a passion, hence my desk tapping. And I want to see us get to the right place, but in a way that doesn't feed division, so we can live together and have that unified nation. That's how I see things. But you do agree you've used divisive language about the Tories and reform. Like I said, if you tolerate intolerance, there's only one winner there and I will not tolerate it. It sounds like you think there's one rule for all. One for the right and another for you. Absolutely not. Sure. I mean, you're basically saying you want to create a hostile environment for illegals. AI to be used in the asylum infrastructure. If you come to the country and are using the asylum system, but you have assets to pay back, then of course you should be. That's the fair way of doing things. I don't think that's something to be disagreed with. I can't see how that's wrong. And like I said earlier, what you're trying to do with respect is pigeonholing. I can't hold my views into left or right. Well, how about solutions? Because that makes it less attractive to come here. And what we're doing is we're bringing ourselves in line with the rest of Europe. So it reduces asylum shopping because that's something we've seen over the years, looking for the best deal for them. If you're coming to this country, you come here because you want to be here, because you love the country, not because we might give a better deal on, for example, benefits or housing. So it's bringing ourselves in line with the rest of Europe. Let's finish on the military. Just tell us about your service. I mean, what do you want to hear? everything that you can tell us okay so I joined the army at the age of 20 I actually went to university and dropped out because I was so keen to to get involved and um I remember being sat in a lecture on the um uh cotton trade in Yorkshire and it wasn't floating my boat so so I traveled down to Luton careers office and signed up um so five years um with intelligence corps did three operational tours uh two to uh so one to Iraq and two to Afghanistan with a special duties unit working in intelligence uh and I loved it um I still feel like I had some impact um and to be quite honest after the third tour I was a bit jaded because I deployed quite quickly normally you have um I think it's around 18 months brigade turnaround but because of the small unit I was in I was taking very short breaks between deployments and I got back from the third deployment and felt you know not sure I want to go again so um I went and joined the national crime agency to to keep on serving but in a slightly different way and so as I form a member of the armed forces do you not take my point on the hypocrisy of John Healy to resign in one breath as defense secretary over a failure to meet three percent of GDP on defense spending by 2030 only then as chancellor to allow the prime minister to stand up at prime minister's questions and move that goalposts to the next level and I think that's a really good thing to do because I think that's a really good thing to do because I think that's a really good thing to do because I think that's a really good thing to do because I think that's a really good thing to do to 2035 well let's see what comes out in the budget don't resile from the question he has been a hypocrite let's see what comes out in the budget because I can't say that if if we do commit to 2030 to you absolutely factually we had a defense secretary in John Healy saying I am resigning because this government won't get to three percent and we still don't know where we're going 30 but we don't know whether we're going we've had the actual prime minister the new guy at the dispatch box Andy Burnham and I think that's a really good thing to do because I think that's a really good literally say in the lower chamber to Kemi Badenock it's in Hansard it's on the record we will get to that target by 2035 so John Healy is now sanctioning a delay in spending that he resigned over so I ask you Mike Tapp as a former member of the armed forces why you can't call that hypocrisy out for what it is I'm not gonna uh insult a colleague before we've seen the budget even after the budget don't use the word hypocrite but just comment on that what I will say extremely clearly to everybody listening and watching uh is that I believe we should reach three percent by 2030 and the reason that I believe that is because defense deters and it will cost of a hell of a lot more if article five is triggered because we haven't been strong enough uh against for example the the Russian threat that's looking at 40 to 50 percent of GDP so let's get it up to three percent by 2030 in my view let's do what we can to deter Russian aggression with strength and in that PMQs we also had Burnham talking about the fact that we shouldn't be taking money from social security to spend it on national security again as somebody who was in the army isn't that mistaken well if you if you if you don't pay towards warfare you can't have welfare can you no because if we're at war uh and we're spending 40 to 50 percent of GDP then uh you know whether you can get on a bus um probably isn't going to be particularly relevant my view is that we have to get to three percent by 2030 how we get there I don't have the books but at the same time welfare does need to come down because it is out of control you know whether it's in-work PIP payments have those people receiving it been offered more hours and said no in order to keep their PIP is there things we can do around this I think we need to explore final question let's not make it personal about Mr Healy I'm sure he's a very honourable man and I've interviewed him in the past and he seems extremely personal yeah let's not make it let's not use that kind of rhetoric but let's just say this why isn't John Healy resigning as chancellor for not reaching three percent of GDP by 2030 if he resigned as defense secretary over the same target well let's see the budget and you'll have to ask John that come on Mr I couldn't speculate on on um you know what John's doing because there is a nonsense at the heart of this isn't there I think as as chancellor you've got the whole country's um economy to look after as defense secretary you're just looking at defense so this is the politics of Marxism only Groucho here are my principles and if you don't like them I have others no I I think that when when your portfolio expands you get a bigger picture of course but that's not to say that we won't meet three percent by 2030 and I really believe we should Mike Tapp have you enjoyed this I really enjoyed it we like a bit of a hard interviewer we like a bit of bats on the Sunday showdown yes I know sorry I've put you through the rigor but having served three tours I think you've probably been through much harsher environments than the day before thank you very much for uh being so open to debate today thank you very much