ITV Good Morning Britain host abruptly walks off ITV set while live on air
There was a bit of a stir on Good Morning Britain when Ed Balls mysteriously vanished just as guest Yvette Cooper, Secretary of State for the Home Department, came on air to discuss Labour 's latest stance on migrant policies.
Kate Garraway was left to handle the interview solo on the ITV programme after her co-presenter went AWOL. The 58-year-old didn't miss a beat, diving straight into the tough questions as the show resumed post-ad break.
She kicked off with: "Now, the first illegal migrants that will be returned to France under the 'one in, one out' deal are set to be detained within days, but critics say it will barely scratch the surface when 25,000 people have crossed the Channel so far this year."
She continued: "The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, joins us now. Can you just clear up when this is coming in? I think the Home Office told us yesterday it was today, but I believe on another broadcaster, you said it was actually tomorrow. Can we just clarify that quickly, first of all?"
Yvette confirmed Kate's information, stating that the treaty is indeed being laid out today, along with the immigration rules that support it.
"That means, in practice, they come into force tomorrow and that means that we can start detaining people within a matter of days," she clarified, reports the Express.
Kate highlighted the concerning statistics, noting that 50 individuals per week are being sent back, commenting: "It is a proverbial drop in the ocean and no deterrent at all."
Yvette explained that the intention is for the figures to initially be modest and then increase, as this is "the nature of it being a new deal".
Ed's absence during the interview with Yvette, his wife, follows previous backlash he received for conducting interviews with her on air, which viewers criticised as "biased".
After the segment, Good Morning Britain transitioned to a commercial break, returning with Ed resuming his presenting role. Kate addressed his earlier departure, stating: "Ed, of course, removed himself during our interview with the Home Secretary because he is married to her."
Viewers at home didn't miss the opportunity to make light of the situation. One viewer humorously posted on X: "Ed's popped off for a cuppa to make it look like he's not Yvette's husband # gmb."
Another viewer quipped: "Ed you can come from under the desk now #gmb," and a third chimed in with praise: " #GMB lovely cosy interview with Ed's wife the Home Secretary this morning. Well done Kate, they're probably having dinner together tonight."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
5 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
What a Hiroshima-sized blast would have done to LONDON: Unseen government diagrams imagine carnage if nuke was used on UK in 1945
Imagine a very different end to the Second World War. Instead of the US dropping the world's first atomic bombs on Japan, it was the Japanese hammering London with the devastating new weapon. In 1945, that is more or less what was considered by the British government, which was freshly in the hands of Labour's Clement Attlee after his triumph over Winston Churchill at that year's election. Official diagrams envisaged the impact of atomic bomb blasts in London, with the force described as being equivalent to what was unleashed on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9, 1945. One of the two maps - recently seen by the Mail at the National Archives in Kew, West London - imagines the impact of a bomb detonated over Trafalgar Square. It said everything within 1,000 yards of the epicentre - so all of Whitehall, Covent Garden and St James' Palace - would be totally wiped out. Then, there would have been damage 'beyond repair' to areas within a distance of one mile - including the rest of Westminster, Buckingham Palace, the BBC 's headquarters and the British Museum. The likes of St Paul's Cathedral, Smithfield Market, Victoria Station and Marble Arch were within the third ring up to 1.5 miles away, described as 'uninhabitable without major repairs'. The final ring - up to 2.5 miles away - includes King's Cross Station, the Bank of England, Tower Bridge, Battersea Power Station and Regent's Park. Everything in this area would have been 'uninhabitable without first aid repairs', the report's authors said. The two maps feature as part of a file that also includes a report titled, 'An Investigation of the Effects of the Atomic Bombs Dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki', which was compiled after an official visit to the ruined cities by British officials. The other map gives a wider view, showing the impact of five blasts over London. Again the explosions are 'as at Hiroshima and Nagasaki'. As well as the bomb over Trafalgar Square, four others are depicted detonating over Poplar in East London; in Primrose Hill above Regent's Park; in Hammersmith in West London and in Tooting in South London. Collectively, they would have rendered nearly all of Central London a flattened wasteland. Areas such as Lambeth in the south of the capital would have been unscathed, but the borough's inhabitants would have faced having to grapple with a likely total breakdown in law and order and a collapse of the emergency services. Although the official report - which was compiled by the British Mission to Japan - is dated December 1945, the maps themselves were made the following year, as an Ordnance Survey label on them shows. The key on the map detailing how everything up to a distance of 1,000 yards from the epicentre of the blast would have been 'demolished' The foreword to the report optimistically concluded: 'His Majesty's Government consider that a full understanding of the consequences of the new form of attack may assist the United Nations Organisation in its task of securing the control of atomic energy for the common good and in abolishing the use of weapons of mass destruction.' The British mission included scientists and senior officials in the Home Office, War Office and Air Ministry. It laid out in horrifying detail the devastation wrought by 'Little Boy' and 'Fat Man' - the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by US forces. In Hiroshima, the blast - at 8.15am on August 6, 1945 - obliterated everything within the surrounding square mile, killing around 80,000 people in the blink of an eye. At least 30,000 more died from their devastating injuries in the 48 hours that followed. A total of five square miles of the city were consumed by fire storms, and the blast obliterated 90 per cent of Hiroshima's structures. The police, fire and ambulance services were all virtually wiped out, with survivors left to fend for themselves before help arrived from further afield. The attack on Nagasaki came on August 9, after Japan refused to surrender despite the carnage in Hiroshima. The key for the second map, explaining the colours detailing the respective levels of destruction The device - Fat Man - was carried by the B-29 bomber named Bockscar. It claimed at least 50,000 more lives and wiped out a third of the city. Japan finally agreed to the Allies' terms of surrender on August 14. The British Mission's report estimated that, for several reasons, the impact of a blast like the ones that hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be less devastating in London. Because of factors such as population density, the presence of well-built houses offering more protection and better rescue services than in Japan, the death toll from a single blast is estimated at 50,000. But the report chillingly added: 'The comparable figure for the German V2 rocket was about 15 dead'. The authors continued: 'The figure of 50,000 dead from one atomic bomb in average British urban conditions is probably the most important which this report contains. 'It shows that much of the most serious effect of the atomic bomb is in producing casualties. 'The problem of providing against and of treating gamma ray casualties is exceptionally grave and difficult.' The explosion of a bomb of the power of those used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have wiped out around 30,000 houses in a British city. Between 50,000 and 100,000 more properties would be rendered temporarily uninhabitable. The report went on: 'Thus a total of roughly 400,000 people might be rendered temporarily homeless'. It was not until the 1970s - when the risk of conflict with the Soviet Union was high - that the Government's public information campaign advising what to do in the event of a nuclear attack was released. The 'Protect and Survive' series told Britons to prepare a 'fall-out room' in which they would need to store enough food and water for two weeks. They were also advised to bring the likes of kitchen utensils, a portable radio, toilet paper, a bucket and a first aid kit. Shortly after the leaflet was released, expert critics said the advice would not be helpful. One said the protective measures were 'illusory' because people would immediately 'panic' in the event of a nuclear attack. The Protect and Survive campaign also included newspaper adverts, radio broadcasts and public information films. Whilst the campaign had been intended for use only in an emergency, it came to public attention in a series of newspaper articles. The Government then decided to publish the leaflet in May 1980 and the public information films were leaked to the BBC and anti-nuclear group CND. The 1984 BBC drama Threads depicted the horrifying consequences of a nuclear attack on Britain. Threads was watched by seven million people on BBC Two and won four Baftas, but it also left many viewers traumatised. The gruesome details - the shocking burns, the radiation sickness, the obliteration of buildings following the imagined attack on the city of Sheffield - were a constant presence in the drama. Dozens of those who watched were so shaken that they called the charity Samaritans for support.
South Wales Guardian
35 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Minister denies migrant returns deal leaves open human rights loophole
Dame Angela Eagle denied the agreement with France would allow for spurious claims to be used to avoid deportation after shadow home secretary Chris Philp questioned the wording of the document. The 'one-in, one out' deal coming into effect on Wednesday will see migrants ineligible to stay in the UK sent back across the Channel, in exchange for taking those who have links to Britain. The agreement contains a clause that says in order for people to be returned to France, the UK must confirm they do not have an 'outstanding human rights claim'. Critics have argued this could risk bogus applications being made to frustrate the deportation process and cause delays. Mr Philp said on Tuesday this section offered 'an easy loophole for lawyers', adding that 'France will not give us any data on the people they are sending our way… so we have no idea who they really are'. Borders minister Dame Angela said he was wrong, and that the clause was included 'precisely to ensure no-one can use 'clearly unfounded' human rights claims to avoid being returned'. She added: 'And we will do full security checks on any applicants, and reject anyone who poses a risk.' Home Secretary Yvette Cooper conceded earlier that the accord is not a 'silver bullet' to stop small boat crossings, but marked a step change as migrants will be sent back across the Channel for the first time. Speaking to the BBC, she declined to put a number on how many people would be returned under the agreement ahead of time, saying that she believed it could aid criminal gangs. She added: 'We will provide regular updates, people will be able to see how many people are being detained, how many people are being returned, and it is right that we should be transparent around that.' Speaking to reporters earlier, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said the deal would likely result in only small numbers of migrants being swapped with France and is 'not going to make any difference whatsoever'. Asked whether the Conservatives were partly to blame for the immigration and asylum situation, she told reporters: 'No I don't accept that at all, because what Labour are doing is just rubber-stamping all of the applications and saying they're processing.' It has been reported that about 50 a week could be sent to France. This would be a stark contrast to the more than 800 people every week who on average have arrived in the UK via small boats this year. Bruno Retailleau, France's interior minister, said the agreement 'establishes an experimental mechanism whose goal is clear: to smash the gangs'. The initial agreement will be in place until June 2026.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
How Australian towns could be wiped off the map after bombshell move from China
Entire Australian towns could be 'hollowed out' and thousands left jobless as China 's aggressive economic meddling drives local smelters and refineries to the brink, a damning new report has warned. The McKell Institute has sounded the alarm, revealing that up to 73,000 jobs are now hanging in the balance across regional communities that rely on metal refining and smelting to survive. In some towns, the fallout could be catastrophic, with up to 11 per cent of residents forced to pack up and leave if their local plants shut down. The report singles out Port Pirie in South Australia - home to Nyrstar, one of the nation's oldest smelters - warning the community faces 'long-term collapse' if the industry fails. The facility is one of the world's largest primary lead and zinc smelters. At the heart of the crisis is Beijing 's multibillion-dollar flood of industrial subsidies, which the report says now exceed even China's defence spending - leaving Australian producers hopelessly outgunned in global markets. McKell Institute chief executive Ed Cavanough warns that unless the Federal Government takes urgent action, Australia risks losing its foothold in critical mineral processing - and with it, the future of dozens of proud working towns. 'We know that China is almost certainly spending more on industrial subsidisation than it is on defence,' he said. 'In the short-term, China's geoeconomic strategy is designed to onshore as much global heavy industrial capacity as possible. 'In the longer-term the strategic goal is limiting the viability of critical manufacturing in competitor economies, including Australia.' Mr Cavanough said this will create a huge long-term economic advantage for China, and hobble Australia's industrial capacity. 'Other nations have seen this and are responding strongly,' he said. 'Economies that wish to withstand future global economic shocks will need to be able to refine and process metals. 'If Australia loses those capabilities, we leave ourselves massively exposed.' Mr Cavanough criticised the Australian government for playing 'industrial whack-a-mole' by working with individual refiners to preserve individual plants as they come under threat. 'This approach is not sustainable over the longer term,' he said. 'If the Commonwealth government is serious about preserving Australia's capacity to manufacture metals – as it should be – then we need decisive structural action now.' Mr Cavanough noted South Australia was particularly vulnerable. 'Our analysis shows that if the Port Pirie smelter were to close, the town's population could drop by around 2,000 people – that's 11 per cent – in the first year alone,' he said. 'These would be the town's most economically productive residents leaving with their families. 'South Australia simply cannot afford to lose industrial anchors such as the Port Pirie smelter - anchors that have sustained regional communities for generations.' Among the report's recommendations to the Albanese government include mandating a proportion of raw materials extracted from Australia must be refined here and strengthen domestic procurement requirements in major government projects.
