She s a class act Princess Kate praised following stunning achievement for cancer charity

Joining me now is GB News contributor and TV presenter Christo Fufas. Christo, great to have you on the show. Thank you so much for joining me. We've got quite a lot to cover today and I want to start with defence spending. The outgoing UK PM Keir Starmer, he's set to commit an additional £1 billion to the defence budget for the next year, the next four years actually, despite Andy Burnham's team urging him to hold up and wait for his successor. I thought this was interesting, Christo, because Donald Trump, he's been asking world leaders to step up their defence spending. And now Starmer is about to go and suddenly at the 11th hour, he commits to something. Why now, do you think? Well, let's be honest, Keir Starmer hasn't committed to anything. He hasn't committed to a position or opinion on anything his entire time he's been Prime Minister. And he's barely committed to anything that's good. But you're absolutely right, he's committed to this extra £1 billion. I think it's going to equate to, as well, six new warships for us as well, destroyers, I think. So that's what he's committing to. But you're absolutely right, the incoming Prime Minister, who, by the way, has not been elected as the new Prime Minister. Everyone's just presuming he's going to be the new Prime Minister and that he's going to be uncontested. But let's assume he does become the Prime Minister. You're right, they said, look, please wait because I think we don't want any of our glory taken away. And also, you're going to be making spending commitments when we haven't laid out our agenda yet. But we saw the Defence Secretary has previously resigned from the Labour government, from Keir Starmer's cabinet, and that is because of the lack of commitment to defence spending. Now, this extra billion is, of course, significant, but it is nowhere near, it doesn't touch the sides of the extra £28 billion, I think, that John Healey was looking for the government to commit. But bearing in mind Rachel Reeves, our Chancellor, who is desperate to hold on to her job, I mean, she's literally been ringing around businesses, begging them to ask them to ask the new Prime Minister to have her stay on. She sets such tight fiscal rules, there is so little wriggle room for defence spending. So this is a billion pounds. It is a good thing. It is probably going to be a good thing in Donald Trump's eyes. But it is nowhere near enough when you consider the position that Britain is in at the moment, and of course, the perilous position the world is in at the moment. No, that's a very good point. I mean, yeah, the world is in a very perilous position. But I do often look over at Britain and think, goodness me, what's going on there? Now, look, let's talk about Andy Burnham. You're right. You know, there's this presumption that he is going to be the next Prime Minister. There was this poll that came out from BMG Research, finding that he would actually leapfrog Reform UK. It said that the former Greater Manchester Mayor outperforms Nigel Farage across multiple measures of personal qualities and values. Christo, how much can we really rely on this early on? You know, who even is Andy Burnham? Does anyone know his policies or what he even stands for at this point? Well, I'll tell you the person who knows his policies least, and that is Andy Burnham. Because unfortunately, I mean, the thing that's frustrating, there is so much about this that is frustrating. I mean, let's be honest, the Labour government we currently have in the United Kingdom is absolutely awful. Normally, when governments have big majorities, whether you agree with them or disagree with them, the fact that they actually have power to enact legislation, bearing in mind the flip-flopping Britain has done with its prime ministers and having a period of a hung parliament a few years ago, generally, that's viewed as a good thing. I don't think I've ever in history seen a government that has been so appalling with such a big majority quite so early on as well, and so many U-turns in policy. And talking about U-turns, that takes us to Andy Burnham, a man who is likely to become prime minister, who wasn't even an MP in the last election. And if you want to think about how diabolical our current Labour Party is and the current Labour government is, they have 400 MPs, not one of them was considered good enough to become prime minister. They had to have a by-election to bring this guy in. So that's how diabolical most of them are, a couple of exceptions, but more or less most of them are. Now, Andy Burnham served in Tony Blair's government for a couple of years under Gordon Brown. So he was in Parliament last time from 2001 to 2010, when Labour were voted out and replaced by the coalition government. During that time, we all remember Tony Blair was quite economically at least conservative. He was quite pro-business. And he was, Margaret Thatcher very famously said that one of her biggest achievements was Tony Blair, because she essentially moved the Labour Party to the right. So he was very, very happy to serve in that cabinet. But now he's actually saying that neoliberal Thatcherite policies were a terrible thing for Britain. Well, they weren't a terrible thing when he was in the Tony Blair and Gordon Brown cabinets, and they were enacting that kind of policy. He's previously said that he doesn't think we should be in hock to the bond markets, which has made the bond markets very jumpy about the idea of him becoming prime minister. He's then said since, oh, no, no, no, I kind of didn't mean that. He said last year that he thinks we should have much closer ties to the EU. In fact, we should rejoin the European Union. He said this year, since he's become an MP, he didn't actually mean that at all. He said that he doesn't what he wants to follow Rachel Reeves fiscal rules. All well and good when he was asked what they were. He didn't know what they were. He's complained about the lack of industrialisation of Britain and how dreadful it is. We've lost so much industry. A very fair point. But we lost more industry in the Tony Blair government than we did under Margaret Thatcher. So the point I'm making is he has flip flopped so many times. He was actually pictured in a pair of Birkenstock sandals the other day. I think he should have been pictured in flip flops because that is the thing he's done so often. So I'll be very interested. We're going to get this very big policy speech from him. Now, he's going to talk a lot about devolution and wanting to have different areas of the United Kingdom in charge of themselves. This is going to turbo charge the economy of the United Kingdom. But bearing in mind our debt payments alone last month were 12 billion pounds. We are absolutely up the proverbial creek economically. Now, how is he going to be able to have all of these economically stimulating policies whilst we've got the highest taxes in history, debt coming out of our ears, and he is becoming prime minister on a manifesto that isn't even his. Now, many people, understandably, Nigel Farage being one of them, saying we need a general election. All the Labour MPs that were during the chaos of the Conservative Party calling for a general election then are all telling us now that they don't want a general election because they're doing a favour to us. They don't want uncertainty. The public doesn't want one. So we are in literally mad nonsense times. And this poll was from the IE newspaper. It's quite a left wing newspaper. A lot of people are calling it a Burnham bounce because it put him at 27 percent reform and Nigel Farage on 26 percent. I wouldn't call it a bounce. I'd call it more a bump. And, of course, he's not prime minister yet. And the best prime ministers are always the ones that haven't actually got into office yet. That's right, because they can say whatever they want. But the real truth will come if and when he does actually become the prime minister. And you're right. I mean, it is the taxpayer once again that is suffering under UK Labor. And now what I mean, what on earth is Andy Burnham going to do to change that? And by the sounds of it, absolutely nothing. Nothing will change. He's going to put taxes up. I think if anything, he will put taxes up. I mean, because we've got the highest tax burden in history. He's now the one thing that Labor want to get their sticky little fingers on. And they literally, they can't. They're salivating over the thought of the fact that in the UK, we have a pretty, much like Sydney, actually, a city I adore, as you know, have a pretty crazy property market. And there is a lot of what they call unearned wealth in UK properties. And they are desperate to get their hands on it. So they're trying to think of stealth ways in order to do that. So Rachel Reeves, next year, a new property tax is coming in on properties that are worth over 2 million pounds here in the UK. Now that's already caused a massive loss in property taxes from today, because people are just not buying any houses close to that threshold, meaning the government isn't getting the property tax, the stamp duty purchase tax from that. But what Andy Burnham is talking about doing is a land tax to replace council tax, which will be a percentage you pay every year, a percentage of the value of your home every year, meaning that if you live in a more expensive home, you pay more, and that will pay for your bin collections, your council services, all of this sort of stuff, because they are desperate to get their hands on property wealth because they know that there isn't a tax that they can take if you sell your house and it's your primary residence, and they hate it. So they're going after every tier of individual in England, in Britain. It's just absolutely unbelievable. I thought it was interesting, Christo, because you mentioned the talent that's already in UK Labor, a.k.a. there is no talent, and I've got to say one of them has to be Shabana Mahmood, a prime example of a complete lack of talent. I was reading this earlier that the UK Home Office wants to introduce new capped, safe and legal routes for refugees to come to the UK. This is some new system inspired by Canada's asylum seeker scheme, which allows private organisations and individuals to sponsor refugees, Christo. So the border's already unsecure, and now Labor wants to make a new route for these people to come in. How the heck does that even make sense? Well, I have to say, in fairness to Shabana Mahmood, and I take your critique of her, but she has actually been, since she's been Home Secretary, she's got the Labor brain cell, I think. There aren't very many of them going around, but she shares it and she gets it now and then. And so she is a little bit more on the right of the Labor Party. I mean, there's not a huge amount of competition on the right of the Labor Party, let's be honest. But she has been talking a lot more tough about the borders, and she does talk a good game at least. But you're absolutely right, she's brought in or wants to bring in this new asylum sponsorship system, much like the system we had when people were fleeing war in Ukraine. Lots of British people opened up their homes to Ukrainians that were fleeing the war. But the difference with that, which they don't seem to understand, I think, is that that was very clearly, firstly, people fleeing war. You knew that there was a war taking place in Ukraine. You knew that they were coming straight from Ukraine. But secondly, that it was women and children, because the men in Ukraine were staying behind and fighting. When it comes to this scheme, of course, we've seen many of the small boat arrivals here in the UK. They are mainly young men. A lot of people have great reservations about that. I think a lot of people have a great deal of compassion, actually, here in the UK. If it's a woman or a child, I think a lot of people would have sympathy if they're coming from a war zone. But not for the 80 or 90% young men who are coming. We don't know that they're coming from war zones, and they've passed through many safe countries. Now, Shabana Mahmood says that she wants to create an asylum system that's fit for generations to come. Not quite understanding that I don't think anyone in the UK wants an asylum system anymore. Now, I would understand the logic of this if it was to say, we are going to be doing this for all of the people who are here already. Because there is a great debate, you'll probably be aware of, going on in the United Kingdom at the moment about what do we do with the arrivals who are already here? Because the government has been spending millions on hotels. Lots of people in cities and towns are saying, well, hang on, why are these four and five star hotels being used to house refugees? Then there was talk of putting them on army bases. But of course, there have been many local residents saying, well, actually, we haven't got the infrastructure for army bases to be used. So I would get the logic somewhere if they said, look, this is a way of us trying to deal with the people here already. But that's not what this is about. This is about new people who are coming, which is telling us they do not think that this problem is going to be solved anytime soon. And of course, a lot of people are extremely dubious about the kind of vetting that they might get. Again, I would understand the logic of this if they said, right, we're going to do what Australia did. We're going to offer this safe route, right? But we'll turn back every single boat that comes across the channel. So if you don't do it this way, you don't come to the UK. At least then I would understand, right, well, that's the only way people can come. This will stop the small boats. But they're not doing that either. So there doesn't seem much logic to it. And it seems that it is going to make it easier for people to come rather than more difficult. And that is not something that people want. No, and you're right. We literally have a blueprint here in Australia about how to turn back the boats. It was so effective under the former Prime Minister Tony Abbott. It worked, and it's very simple. You just have to look to what he did. But yeah, the UK seems to be on its own trajectory when it comes to boat arrival. I don't know why we can't solve the problem. I mean, in fairness to previous Home Secretaries, Suella Braverman, Preeti Patel, when they were in the Conservative Party, Suella Braverman, of course, is now in reform. They tried to get the Navy to turn around the because they said that it would potentially be a risk to life. And so for me, I think it should all be offshore processing. If you get on a boat, you're turned away. But if you have a hub you can go to, you are then given a chance at least if you are legitimate. But the problem is that I don't know if there's the political will to do that. And of course, one of the countries as well that's suffering, I'm of Greek origin, and I know many of your viewers in Australia, you've got a very big Greek population in Australia. And places like Greece are also suffering horrifically with this as well. So many Greek islands are getting so many of these boat arrivals. And it's just beyond me why this problem can't be solved. Yeah, I'm with you all the way. I just don't understand the fact that the Navy refused. Again, that's just beyond me as well. Christo, let's pivot to a couple of royal stories. Sarah Ferguson, my God, it's getting worse. So it's been revealed through the Telegraph that she visited pedophile Jeffrey Epstein twice at his office for a bogus firm he set up while imprisoned on a child sex offence. The article says that the former Duchess of York met him on two occasions at the Palm Beach office of this fake company he invented to secure work release while in jail. And she also planned to meet him a third time at the headquarters of this bogus firm, the Florida Science Foundation. But her travel plans fell through. Look, Christo, it just it gets worse for Fergie. I think she needs to stay far, far away from the royal family. She is toxic. You know, I always used to love Fergie. I always had a bit of a soft spot for her because, you know, she was always like she was the Duchess of Port Corsica. I mean, she had a really tough time in the press. And, you know, if you'd asked me years ago, I always found it quite sweet that she still had this bond with Prince Andrew. But you're absolutely right. What is she thinking? What in God's name was she thinking in staying in touch with Jeffrey Epstein, going and trying and have these meetings with him? I mean, I have often said I love the royal family. I'm a huge monarchist. But a lot of them, perhaps they how can I put this in a kind way? They're not very bright. Let's be honest. If you've had toothpaste put in a toothbrush for you your entire life, you're never going to have to critically think about anything, are you? Because someone does it all for you. And I'm sorry. I increasingly think that Fergie is really at the bottom of the gene pool when it comes to the brains that have been handed out among that family. Because, I mean, what on earth did she think would happen? Did she not know that this would come out? Did she not know the optics of this? Bearing in mind the debts she's had in the past, bearing in mind the toe sucking, which we all rolled our eyes at and thought was vulgar but a little bit funny. This is it now. She is going to be as out in the cold as her ex-husband. And I think quite right too. Yeah, I think so. No wonder she's banished herself to the UAE or wherever the heck she's swanning about now. I just think stay far, far away from Britain at this point. Just don't go near Britain. It's just it's getting worse. The only way she will be allowed back, Danika is on a small boat. Then she'll be guaranteed. She's guaranteed entry already. The Navy won't turn her back. She'll be in a hotel. She'll be in a hotel up the road by the end of the day. Exactly. And on the taxpayer dime. No issues there. Exactly. Now, Harry and Megan, I know that you're a big fan of the gruesome twosome, as am I. Have a look at this article in The Sun. They're saying that they may no longer bring the kids or Megan may not even come next month because their security bid has been rejected. The nerve of this prince, firstly, to assume that he's entitled to taxpayer funded protection. At the same time, they've been offered an invite to stay at the royal residence out of the goodness of the king's heart. Yet Harry is throwing toys out of the cot again because he assumes the taxpayer will just pay for him, Christo, even though he's no longer a working royal. Well, I mean, that's a very, very good segue you've done there because talking about royals with a lack of brains. Yes, you're quite right. I'm sorry, but do you know what irritates me about this story is the fact that what does he think will happen if he's in a royal residence? What does he think will happen if he's in a royal residence with the king? Does he think that the king's securities are going to leave all the doors and windows open or put a flag outside and come in? Of course he's going to be protected. He's going to be in a royal residence. He's going to be with his majesty, the king. I imagine there'll be a few protection officers around. I imagine if he's lucky, they'll even send a car to the airport to pick him up. So what does he actually want? What more does he actually want? I've always had a bit of sympathy actually for Harry for a number of reasons, mainly because he's having read his autobiography spare. I mean, I nearly wanted to bludgeon myself on the head with it when I finished because it was such a diatribe of boredom. But I've always had a bit of sympathy for his argument about wanting security generally, because he will always be the son of the king, and he did serve in the armed forces. So he'll always be a target for that reason. However, then when he wrote his book, giving away secrets of when he was in the armed forces, thereby making himself more of a target, you just think, well, how stupid do you need to be? And now, coming here, he is coming. He's not coming. He's gonna come and he doesn't think he's gonna get protection. Of course he'll be protected. It's moronic to think otherwise. And I can't help but just think that all of this is through the prism of them wanting to sell us more old tap like tea towels and jam and whatever other nonsense they try and sell us on their website. And keeping that royal connection keeps those dollars flooding in, doesn't it? And that's what this is important to them. And look, I think in general, it's a good thing when families get to see each other. But my reservations about this is that, of course, when they last had a private meeting, which was at Prince Philip's funeral, it ended up as the forward in spare, the book. When the late Queen Elizabeth died, we literally got details of how we went into her bedroom and sat with her, things that I don't think that the late Queen would have wanted in the public domain. So there's always that risk when he sees his family that it's going to end up being monetized somehow. And I just think that that's incredibly vulgar. I couldn't agree more. I feel like he's going on this trip to get more information, to do some research for the next book or the next interview. The thing is, you just can't trust him. That's the problem because he's proven himself to be so untrustworthy because everything you say to him, it ends up in the press somehow. So he's done himself in. Let's see what happens with that one. Now, the King and Queen are going to be remaining at Clarence House. They will not live at Buckingham Palace after the reservicing program finishes next year. £369 million of public money has been used to reservice it over 10 years, and it had been justified because the Sovereign would have moved back into that palace. Do you think that the fact that they're not moving back in now, does that justify it or not? Well, it needed to be refurbished anyway. I mean, I think that they were really stupid to say we're refurbishing it because he's got to live there, because it needs to be refurbished anyway. We can't have Buckingham Palace with wires hanging out of the wall and dry rot near the priceless works of art. So it does need to be fixed up. But I think it's a mistake for him not to live there. One of the things that makes Buckingham Palace so special is driving past and seeing the Royal Standard flying and knowing whether the monarch is in residence. His late mother, of course, didn't want to live there either. Prince Philip did not want to live in Buckingham Palace, but they put their duty over and above their own desires to live elsewhere. That's what Buckingham Palace is there for. It is the residence of the monarch, and I think that they should live there. I don't actually think that the money they spent on the refurbishment is relevant to that, because I think it needed to be done anyway. But I would just like them to live there. I mean, otherwise, again, I think you've got me paranoid now, because I think they're going to put migrants in there as well now. I mean, at the rate you're going, Christo, there may be migrants in the basement. We don't know. We don't know. Maybe that's what they're doing it up for. Oh, what have they done? I know. We can blame UK Labor. We'll blame UK Labor for that one. Absolutely. Christo, before we let you go, I just wanted to show this story, a beautiful story. Princess Catherine has completed the Three Peaks Challenge in aid of the hospital where she was treated for cancer. So this is an endurance event which sees people climbing the highest peaks in England, Scotland and Wales over 24 hours to raise funds for the Royal Marsden Cancer Charity. She put on social media a picture of herself alongside the summit of Ben Nevis. She says cancer doesn't just affect the body. It changes how you think and feel and profoundly affects every aspect of life. I know this personally. And then she goes on to talk about raising awareness for the importance of health care. She's such an inspiration, isn't she? Yeah, I absolutely love her because she's also, she's just got class. And you don't hear her complaining. You don't hear her droning on about how terrible things are. She references the struggles, but then she tries to turn them into positive action. And actually, if we juxtapose that, it's one of the reasons why actually I loved Meghan when she joined the royal family. I genuinely did. I really thought it was going to be such a breath of fresh air. I loved the interview that they did, her and Harry. And then obviously she got some stick in the press because the UK press can be a bit vile. But if we take our minds back, Kate had a terrible time in the UK press when she first joined the family. They used to call her doors to manual because her mother used to be an airline stewardess. She took all of this stick for absolutely years. But what did she do? She kept her head down. She just got on with the job. And even when she had been incredibly ill, she did exactly the same thing. And that is how you are as a member of the royal family. It isn't fair in this day and age of us being over-articulated and knowing everything about everyone. It doesn't go against what we all perhaps are used to, but it is absolutely the way in which you should act. And I just think she's a really, really class act. Yeah, I completely agree with you. She is such a classy woman, and I think a real inspiration to so many women as well. Christo Fufos, I have thoroughly enjoyed our chat. Thank you so much for joining Danika Goes Global. Really appreciate it. You're quite welcome. Can't wait to do it again. Love it. And love to Australia, love to Prisoner's Hell Blockage, Neighbours, Kylie Minogue, Guy Pearce, playing Jane Superbrain with her makeover and every other piece of Australian culture that I have. I have absolutely sucked up over the years, including Sky News Australia. Oh, you're wonderful, Christo. We love that you know our Aussie history. Thank you again. Thank you so much. Thank you.