The home of common sense. This is talk.

Let's talk now to James Hill, political correspondent at The Spectator.

James, very good morning to you. Welcome.

Morning, Mike.

Sorry about the rather extended intro there, but there's a lot to get into this show, as you can see.

Very interestingly enough, because there's so little on the political front going on today,

I'm going to come back to Rwanda and come back to Rishi Sunak and his strawberries a little bit later on.

I'm interested in this story about people who are going to be excluded from Parliament

because I had a conversation yesterday with a woman called Caroline Slocock,

who used to be the private secretary incredibly for Margaret

Thatcher and John Major, but who never runs some think tank. And I was having to go at yesterday,

at the sort of the wokeery of the civil service and saying that I was very much in support

of Esther McVeigh's plan to sort of, you know, to de-wokify, take away the lanyards

and all of that, the civil services.

She said, oh, no, diversity is a great thing.

And we somehow got on to this conversation about who should be excluded from Parliament.

And I made a great case as to why you should be not excluding people simply because they've been arrested.

Because if they've been arrested for something, it doesn't mean they're guilty of anything.

Just have a look at this.

In the House of Commons today, they've watered down the requirements to ban people,

MPs who've been alleged to have committed.

Well, hang on.

...