BREAKING: Keir Starmer HID True Cost of Chagos Deal After It's Revealed Figures OFF by TENFOLD...

Yes, lots to take a look at in tomorrow's front pages. We've got to start with the telegraph haven't we? Starmer hid £30 billion pound cost of the Chagos surrender. Official figures reveal the cost is 10 times higher than the Prime Minister has claimed. Big one, we'll be diving straight into that, trust me. Let's have a look at the eye. Let me see if I can find it here. Yes, UK calls for halt to path of destruction as Netanyahu insists Gaza City plan will end the war. Of course, he's been hit with loads and loads of condemnation from Western countries. And the independent, this is not in our name, it's time to end the war. Of course, that's there as fury grows within Israel over Netanyahu's defiant bid to finish job in Gaza. The hostages of family have said that supposedly. And the Metro. Salah, Mo Salah, football star Mo Salah has kicked off at Gaza death. Liverpool's Mo Salah takes on Euro soccer chiefs as Palestinian Pele is kicked in Israeli airstrike. Wow, we will be digging into these front pages here. But listen, we cannot get started with anything other than this horrendous news on the front of the telegraph that's Keir Starmer. The prime minister has allegedly hit 30 billion pound cost of the Chagos surrender. Will, what do you make of that? Well, whenever a Chagos story pops up, I need to take a beat to rewind my brain because you have to comprehend the stupidity of it. Normally, when you talk about a deal, you say we are giving something away and getting something in return, whereas here you need to stop and say we are giving something away. And then we're giving something else away to give it away. Yeah. But in this particular instance, it's not a surprise because we did hear from the conservatives and anyone who is being half honest that this would be closer to the real number. But where it goes to is the fundamental lack of trust that we can have in this government. This isn't the first time that we've seen zero transparency. It isn't the first time we've seen lies. This is now becoming a pattern for the government. Yeah. Fahima, Labor ministers are, according to the telegraph, potentially being accused of misleading Parliament here on this. This could be a huge scandal. Of course, this number has been retrieved by the telegraph for a freedom of information request. So what do you make of that news? I just think a lot of journalists and newspapers are and should be held to account for falsifying narratives and propaganda and rhetoric because the actual deal is still 3.4 billion, not 30 billion. The 30 billion is a political projection based on decades of speculation. So this is going to be over 99 years. And the thing is, it's not not getting anything back because the deal still preserves a key US-UK military base on the Diego Garcia. That we've given away. So at the same time, it doesn't matter the meaning that the UK still has a defence footprint here. So I think no matter what, people don't want to follow international law or whatever. We cannot pick and choose. We have to set the precedent of being what we need to be so that other countries, and that's the whole idea of being in a Western democracy, and also against and also not part of those authoritarian countries in that way. We can follow suit and we can actually be one of those. Fahima, everybody here agrees that we need to have access to that military base, but I wouldn't hand you the keys to my house and then say, can I pay you some rent so I can stay in my own house? I mean, it's completely bonkers. This is a perfect example, just like how we were talking about the ECHR earlier, where we are absolute fools who will just listen to any kind of international body, even when we don't have to. But the reason why this has been done is because the ICJ made this bonkers judgment and said, we need to hand these islands away. They never belong to Mauritius. And we just said, OK, fine, we'll do it and we'll pay a load of money to do it. Have you had a random call lately from a strange number, maybe trying to sell you something or even scam you? If so, your info could be out there. That's because of data brokers, shady companies that scrape the internet for your personal details and sell them to marketers or even scammers. These days, scammers can even use AI to mimic your friends' voices and trick you into sending money. It's not just annoying. Data brokers often target vulnerable people with high interest loans or sketchy offers. But there is a solution. Incogni, the sponsor of this video. Incogni contacts data brokers on your behalf and requests your info be deleted from their databases. And because your data can keep popping up, Incogni keep sending removal requests to make sure it stays gone. They've just launched a new unlimited plan with custom removals. If you find your info on a weird website, just send them the link and their privacy team will work to get it taken down. Getting started is easy. Hit the link in the description, create your account and let Incogni handle the rest. It's risk free for 30 days and you'll get 60% off an annual plan with the code GBnews. Take back control of your data with Incogni. Let me read a little bit of detail here and then I'll get on to you, Will. So an official document produced by the government actuaries, I've never heard of this, actuaries department now shows the cost of the deal was first estimated at 10 times, 10 times, Sakhir's figure at £34.7 billion in nominal terms. It explains how the cost was then lowered by the government using inflation estimates, then reduced again under a controversial accounting method sometimes used for long term projects, Will. Of course, there's a lot to read into it because one thing governments are very, very good at is sort of shifting the narrative around being clever with data, being clever with numbers, and I don't want to accuse them of doing something they haven't done because maybe we do need to dig into this more, but it does, that £3.4 billion did seem a rather low figure, particularly when you consider the fact that Mauritius has given an income tax break to 90% of his population with the money. I forgot about that. Yeah, it is extraordinary. You said that to call out propaganda, and then I think you said something along the lines of, well, no, it's still £3.4 billion because the £30 billion is a projection. We still have to pay that money out. Just because we have to pay it out over a longer period of time doesn't mean we don't have to pay that money out. And the thing which is so extraordinarily incomprehensible is that we don't have the money to spend on this sort of stuff. We have so many services, we need money more than this. This is just yet another thing we can't afford. Yeah, Chloe, I think just reading on it, so I'm catching up with this because it's a breaking story. We're catching up, we're literally giving this to you live as it's coming. Chloe, just reading on a bit here, from what I was previously saying, the total cost which ministers refuse to release to Parliament is equivalent to 10 Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers or more than half the annual school's budget. So the fact that the Telegraph are saying that the government refused to release the total cost does potentially lead to say at least perhaps maybe these allegations of misleading Parliament are true. I think that we are being run by a government that thinks that we Brits don't deserve to know the truth. Not just on this, on many things. For example, the Home Office refusing to consult communities when they're going to open up a migrant hotel. They think these people are too dumb to know that we are going to keep it a secret from them. Then of course, I mean this was started by the Tories, but the Afghan data leak kept a secret from us because they think, oh the dumb public don't deserve to know about this. We know best and the public don't, so we're just going to keep it a secret from them. And I think that Keir Starmer most definitely knew that it was £34.7 billion, but he thought that we didn't deserve to know because we might push back against it and be upset. Yeah, I think, you know, listen, I think no matter what happens, even if it was £3.4 billion, British people are generally going to be outraged, particularly when they're going through a cost of living crisis, particularly when they're being told the government got to make benefits cuts, particularly when they at home are suffering. So, but besides that, even if this £30 billion was £15 billion, the fact that the number may actually be incorrect and that ministers allegedly here by the Telegraph have said that they refuse to release the total cost to Parliament, may actually prove or at least be some indication that there was something to hide. I don't think governments are that stupid to say that they're going to hide things. I think we just. No, it's not about optimism. At the end of the day, even releasing these kind of like, you know, Afghani or wherever they come from is because they know how the public will actually respond like they did last year. It's not a laughing matter when you're not sitting on the other side and getting. Don't let the plebs know, they can't be trusted. No, it's not about that. It's because people respond and react irresponsibly. And that's why governments are more responsible. What makes politicians more responsible than the average man watching this show? They're not responsible, but they do have the figures there. We're just getting it now and we're not reading it as it was. There's no hidden agenda. It is just something I Google and it's always there. I want to keep reading it because this is bombshell stuff. What you're hearing here on TV is bombshell news because I think this is going to absolutely blow up the news week this week. Let me just keep reading. The document shows that civil servants were first instructed to lower the cost of the deal on paper to 10 billion to account for an estimated annual inflation rate of 2.3 percent over 99 years. Then it was reduced again by 2.5 and then 3.5 percent per year using the Treasury's social time preference rate. What is all this jargon? I know you're all thinking the same thing as me. What is this rubbish? Using the Treasury's social time preference rate, a Treasury principle that money spent immediately is better value than funds earmarked for future spending. I hasten to say this to all of you. I have worked in politics here and there. Governments do this all the time. They play clever with money. They play clever with data. They play clever with figures in order to give you a better narrative, even if the first one they didn't like wasn't very good. The 3.4 billion is way more. You can stomach that way more than you can 30 billion. Chloe, I just feel like the British people seeing stories like this, whether it was the Tories with the Afghan data, whether it's Starmer potentially allegedly with this 30 billion hidden cost, people are going to start feeling, what on earth am I voting for? People who are meant to be democratically elected to represent me in Parliament to do what's best for me can't even tell me the truth, even if we don't like it. Yeah, they just think, as I said before, that we don't deserve to know. And I just want to come back on the point that Fahima made about, oh, we've got to be careful what we tell people because we don't want to have a situation like last year, I presume you were referring to the rights. None of us here, I think we can all agree, none of us here condone rioting. But what is absolutely unacceptable is the government hiding the truth from us on things because they are worried about that. I mean, for example, the grooming gang scandal, so much of it was kept undercover for so many years because they worried about inflaming community tensions. I'm sorry, but if there being a small risk of rioting means that we get to know the truth about what we deserve to know the truth about. It's not a small risk of rioting, it's the fact that everyone is put under the same banner. You're not sitting on the opposite side. You're not the one that is there called out just because you have a different skin colour or you come from a certain background. So that is completely wrong. And I'm not saying that this information should not have been, but at the end of the day, it is there, it's just that people are not intelligent enough to look it up and actually see it or even read it. We're not economists and we're certainly not the ones to actually read and understand these figures. So do you think we don't deserve to know because we're too dumb? Is that what you're saying? No, I think just to give some clarity. The information is there, we can't read it. It is there, it's never actually been hidden. But to give some clarity, and it has because ministers refuse to release the final cost. The difference is journalists here have had to put in a freedom of information request to the newspapers to find the actual true cost. And I think that's what's really jarring for people here. Is that Adam Starmer lied? Allegedly. I don't want to accuse him of lying. We have to see how this story develops. It seems that way from this article, but I think the difficulty is, and I think we mustn't over-undersimplify it because yes, the information is there, but you have to put a freedom of information request and you have to be able to be relatively well-versed in politics to understand the document you're reading. And actually, I mean, even some of the best journalists will struggle to come to terms with when they look at some of these papers and go, I've never heard of the Department of Actuality before. And they put stupid titles out which give an extremely wrong idea of what it is in the first place. That's what I think is the problem. Well, you may be right. We'll find out. You may be right. That's what it is. That's what inflames things. Final word to you on this, Chloe. Your summary of the Chagos, bot Chagos surrender in my opinion, because I think this has been a chaotic from start to finish. I mean, it's completely insane that we ever started this. And one of the reasons why this costs us so much money is because we're giving money to help Mauritians with their own economic development. How about our own economic development at home? We've got crazy terms saying that we have to inform the Mauritians before we're going to launch an attack. We have to employ on this base. We have to employ all Mauritians and whatnot. I mean, it's crazy. It's absolutely crazy. Absolutely crazy stuff. Okay, listen. We might return to this later. I wonder if any other papers have picked up on this. It could just be a Telegraph exclusive here, but let's find out, shall we?