ITV GMB slapped with Ofcom complaints over 'bully' presenter after furious clash
Good Morning Britain is under fire following Ed Balls' interview with Reform MP Richard Tice
Good Morning Britain has been hit with 81 Ofcom complaints following Ed Balls' interview with Reform MP Richard Tice last month. The former shadow chancellor, who is now a host on the ITV breakfast show, clashed with Tice, who was on the programme to discuss local elections.
Saying he thought Reform UK should come out on top as he blamed Labour and Conservatives for many of the country's problems, Tice addressed Balls "my dear Ed", to which the presenter, who is married to Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, fumed: "Don't patronise me, answer the question!" Following the fracas, 81 people complained to Ofcom, with the independent body telling the Mirror the calls were made "following an interview with Ed Balls and Richard Tice during which the interviewer displayed bullying and biased behaviour".
When asked what Reform had achieved on GMB, Tice replied: "What we have achieved is giving the people the opportunity to say 'we're done with the two main parties'.
"Someone else has got to come in, save some money and audit the finances and sort things out. We can't keep spending more than we are earning and expect it to end well."
Balls interjected: "We are asking you about what you have done and you are saying that the others have failed. And that's what protest parties do.
"You have always been a politician who has said that the Tories have lost their way and you will be a better version of the Conservative party. Is that right?"
The politician went on to explain that they are very different, and even have similar views as Labour's Tony Blair on certain topics.
Susanna Reid then stepped in saying: "I would just like to point out that Tony Blair, I'm sure, does not agree with Reform UK on your policies."
The men then continued to shout over each other as Balls persisted on pinning down the MP for an answer.
A visibly irritated Tice sighed: "My dear Ed." But then Balls fumed: "Do not patronise me!"
They continued to lock horns as Balls fired question after question about the costs of nationalising British Steel to which Tice could not provide the answers.
In the end, the Strictly Come Dancing star demanded that the politician make a return to the ITV breakfast show when he has all of the information to answer the questions available.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
30 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Sky News hit with 1200 Ofcom complaints over presenter's controversial remark
Sky News has been hit with a whopping 1,270 Ofcom complaints over a presenter's comments about a vessel delivering aid to Gaza. On Today with Samantha Washington on June 7th, there was coverage of the Madleen vessel. The Madleen vessel was stopped before landing in Israel, with activist Greta Thunberg claiming she was "kidnapped" and calling on the Swedish government to help. The news of the vessel delivering aid was covered on Sky News over the weekend. Ofcom have now revealed that they received 1,270 complainants from viewers who alleged that a comment by the presenter misrepresented the peaceful nature of the mission. The comments were made on Today with Samantha Washington, which aired on Sky News on Saturday June 7th from 10.30am. The Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC), the organisation which was responsible for the yacht, said it was carrying humanitarian aid and said the vessel was "prepared for the possibility of an Israeli attack" and they claimed that it was "forcibly intercepted" by Israeli officials. The vessel was stopped at approximately 160 nautical miles from the Gaza coast. Defence minister Israel Katz had said that the state would "act against any attempt to break the blockade or assist terrorist organisations". It had been intercepted at 5.30am local time near the Egyptian coast. Greta Thunberg said that the team was "intercepted and kidnapped in international waters" by "forces that support Israel" and urged her loved ones to "put pressure on the Swedish government" for a response. She said: "I urge all my friends, family and comrades to put pressure on the Swedish government to release me and the others as soon as possible." Israel Katz, Israel's Minister of Defence, said on social media that it was a "hate flotilla". He said: "I have instructed the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] to act to prevent the 'Madeleine' hate flotilla from reaching the shores of Gaza - and to take whatever measures are necessary to that end." He sensationally then claimed that members of the crew were "anti-Semitic". He wrote: "To the anti-Semitic Greta and her fellow Hamas propaganda spokespeople, I say clearly: You should turn back - because you will not reach Gaza. Israel will act against any attempt to break the blockade or assist terrorist organisations – at sea, in the air, and on land." The Palestinian defence ministry said that the activists' actions were "noble" and said it "salutes the international solidarity activists aboard the ship attempting to break the siege on the Gaza Strip".
Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
Reform and SNP are two sides of the same coin
PA Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Like most political animals, I have always enjoyed the drama of by-elections. Whilst seldom making a difference to who actually governs us in the short-term, they can be clear indicators of the mood music amongst the public towards parties vying for power, particularly when the next national election is not so far away. That said, I didn't stay up for the result in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election last week, not expecting much in the way of drama. My expectation was that there would be a fairly comfortable SNP victory, with the only real interest being whether Reform would finish third or manage to beat Labour into second place. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad I woke up in the morning to a WhatsApp message from a colleague expressing surprise at the outcome, and when I checked the numbers I had to share that sentiment. Few saw the Labour candidate Davy Russell's victory coming, and it is all the more to his credit, and that of his campaign team, that they were able to pull off a quite dramatic victory against the odds. So congratulations are due first of all to Labour in delivering a result which undoubtedly is a boost to Anas Sarwar. Having been written off by the pundits, and with a candidate widely ridiculed for his refusal to participate in TV debates, it demonstrated the importance of a strong, local narrative in winning votes. The Scottish Conservatives had an equally strong local candidate in Cllr Richard Nelson from Larkhall who fought an energetic campaign albeit one we knew never had any realistic prospect of victory. Fourth place was always the best place we could hope for in this seat, as our voters were squeezed to vote tactically either for Labour or for Reform to beat the SNP. On the doorstep we met loyal Conservative voters who told us that they would be using this by-election to 'send a message' to the SNP by voting tactically for whoever they thought was best placed to defeat them, but at next year's Holyrood election would be back voting for us again. That said, we know there is work to be done in presenting a compelling message to maximise our vote for Holyrood in 2026. The real losers on the night were, of course, the SNP. All the polls suggested that this is a seat that they would hold, and the party poured in resources, with numerous visits by leadership figures from the First Minister John Swinney downwards. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The SNP strategy appeared politically clever, if essentially dishonest, in attempting to portray the contest as a two-horse race between them and Reform. This was designed to squeeze Labour voters, in particular, into voting SNP as the lesser of two evils. It backfired spectacularly. The Reform vote was indeed substantial, but if we analyse the figures, it seems that Reform's gains were not so much at the expense of Labour, or even the Conservatives. The 26 per cent of the vote achieved by Reform, at a time when Labour's vote share hardly moved, can only be explained by looking at the 17 per cent drop in the SNP vote. There was a direct transfer from one party to another. Perhaps this should not surprise us. Both SNP and Reform are essentially parties of protest, who have spent years pointing the blame elsewhere for the country's troubles – in the case of Reform, to the EU and immigrants, and in the case of the SNP, to Westminster governments. I can well remember at a previous election meeting on a doorstep in Perthshire one voter who we had previously identified as a regular Conservative supporter, who came out red-faced and angry to lambast me for the failings of the Tory government. 'You've let me down', he shouted, 'letting far too many immigrants in. That's it, I've had it with you lot. From now on I'm voting SNP'. It was an encounter indicative of a particular type of individual who rages at the world around them. These will be some of the people who were motivated to vote for independence in 2014 on the basis that anything must be better than what we currently have. And it will be some of the same people who were amongst the 2 in 5 Scots who voted for Brexit in 2016. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad For years the SNP have played the part of a populist party, simultaneously in government and in opposition, blaming all Scotland's ills not on their own failings but on big, bad Westminster. Now we have the new entrants on the scene in Reform, singing a different song to the same tune. To change the metaphor, the two Parties are essentially opposite sides of the same coin. They are parties who seek not to find solutions to the complex issues that face our country, but rather resort to simplistic slogans appealing to the basest level. Little wonder, then, that voters have little difficulty in switching between the two. Swinney's claim that Reform's values are antithetical to Scotland now look ridiculous, when his Party was not only defeated in Hamilton, but finished a mere 869 votes ahead of Farage's. Scottish exceptionalism has never had such a rude awakening. Over the last 18 years, the SNP have demonstrated how far populist politics can take you. Now, the rise of Reform shows they have a significant competitor for that segment of the population who are content to blame others for the country's woes. Fortunately, there is an alternative: the serious parties prepared to do the heavy lifting in proposing credible solutions to fix the problems in our society.
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Britain's pensions mess won't be resolved by the latest stab at reform
It's the absence of ambition that really gets me. Labour may be trailing badly in the polls, yet there are still four years to go before the Prime Minister has to call another election, and for the time being he commands the sort of majority that would normally allow him to do truly radical things. But he doesn't. Instead, ministers sit on their hands, seemingly frightened of their own shadows, and allow Reform UK, with just a handful of MPs, to make all the running. Nigel Farage is probably right to claim that without Reform snapping at its heels, the Government would not have about-turned on the winter fuel allowance. Yet it is not just on entitlement spending that the Government appears incapable of doing anything of significance. On wider pension reform too, there's little sign of the resolve needed for meaningful change. The Government's Pension Schemes Bill – published last week – is more notable for what it doesn't do than the changes it seeks to bring about. This may seem a little unfair. There are few areas of public policy where the old joke that 'you wouldn't start from here' more aptly applies than pensions. Decades of meddling has left the UK with a hopelessly confused array of different pension arrangements that collectively fail to serve the country as they should. It is also fair to say that there is no silver bullet likely to deliver optimum outcomes. Let's take gold-plated, final-salary public sector pensions, widely thought to be unfair on the great hinterland of taxpayers who don't enjoy such perks but are required to underwrite them. These are left completely unaffected by the new pensions legislation. Richard Tice, Reform's deputy leader, said last week that the party would consider moving all public sector employees out of their 'Rolls-Royce' defined benefit pension plans and into the defined contribution schemes common to much of the private sector. Sadly, this is much easier said than done, which is why successive governments have – beyond trimming benefits a little – steered clear of significant reform. Putting public sector workers on the same basis as those in the private sector might sound fair enough in principle, but it would be hugely challenging in practice, and not just because unions would throw their toys out of the pram at the mere whiff of it. Public sector pensions have been compared to a Ponzi scheme, in that retirees are paid from the contributions of those still in employment. But actually the two things are quite different. In a Ponzi scheme, the existing investor doesn't know that their promised return is being paid not from investment gains but from funds collected from new investors. The arrangement is therefore fraudulent. But with public sector pensions the process is completely transparent. What's more, these pay-as-you-go arrangements conform much more exactly with the founding principle of occupational pensions than the defined contribution model – namely that the employee pays for the retirement income of his predecessor rather than saving for his own pension. Go back to the origins of the modern-day pension, and in some professions the individual job would be sold by the incumbent to the new entrant as a way of funding retirement. Alternatively, the newcomer would agree to pay his predecessor a proportion of his income for a set number of years. If you were lucky, the old codger would quickly pop his clogs. These days, workers can expect to live 20 years or more in retirement, making the arithmetic of pay-as-you-go pension arrangements much more challenging. The last set of 'Whole of Government Accounts' showed the total present value of public sector pension liabilities at a jaw-dropping £1.415 trillion. This was down from £2.639 trillion the year before, a fall accounted for largely by the fact that owing to higher interest rates many local authority pension schemes have swung into surplus. For unfunded public sector pensions, however, there is still a massive and rising liability. If this had to be paid all in one go, it would pretty much bankrupt the country. Yet in practice, it is spread out over decades, and ought therefore to be manageable assuming contributions are raised in line with outgoings. The more important number is perhaps therefore the difference between what employees and employers are paying into their schemes and what is being paid out in retirement benefits. This has been in negative territory for some years now – more money going out than in – making public sector pensions a net cost to the taxpayer. The shortfall is expected to be around £1.6bn for last financial year. But the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts a swing back into surplus from here on in, reaching a net positive of £3.6bn by 2030. Where it heads after that is anyone's guess. If the Government succeeds in cutting the public sector headcount, it may well turn significantly negative again. But the point is that this is hardly an emergency for the public finances. If on the other hand all public sector workers were put, as Tice suggests, on defined contribution arrangements – where contributions are invested into a personal pension pot – it would quickly become one, as there would be no money coming in to fund those already in retirement. Taxes would have to rise significantly in the short to medium term to fund the gap. Furthermore, to properly compensate public sector employees for giving up their present, very favourable pension arrangements, you would need significantly to increase their pay, further adding to the travails of the public finances. As on much else, Reform doesn't seem to have thought things through. Best, perhaps, not to poke that particular hornets' nest. Of course, the Government's Pensions Schemes Bill doesn't touch on these concerns. Rather it is about private sector pensions, and in particular it is about attempting to get them to invest more in productive UK assets, forcibly if necessary. Personally, I see nothing particularly wrong with this objective provided it is not pushed to extremes. The UK is almost unique in how little its pension funds invest in home-grown equities and infrastructure, and indeed in the lack of coercion currently applied. Given the tax breaks this form of saving enjoys, it's reasonable to expect investors to give something back. But there is also a good reason why trustees are as reluctant as they are; it is because relative to the alternatives, the returns on British assets are low. It's chicken and egg, and perfectly explains why the London Stock Market is dying on its feet. It's not lack of a big stick; it's lack of opportunity. Breaking this vicious circle of decline requires not Labour's go-to solution for all challenges of this sort – strong-arming investors into doing what they don't want to do – but making the UK an attractive place to invest. Much work to be done on that front, I fear.
