This isn't a polished op-ed or a carefully edited article — it's a live Q&A session, unscripted and raw, where Michael Walker and Ash Sarkan field questions from an online audience. What makes it notable is how openly the hosts discuss their political analysis: there's no performative neutrality here. They are unapologetically left-wing, unfiltered, and in this context, that candor becomes the value.
Why Israel and the US Aren't Being Charged
The first question tackles the seemingly obvious: why haven't Israel and the United States been charged with war crimes when evidence has been caught on video? The hosts offer a straightforward explanation rooted in international law. "Israel never signed up to the Rome statute which recognizes the authority of the International Criminal Court," Ash explains. "It is not a member of the International Criminal Court."
The argument gets sharper when applied to the US position: "If you want to do war crimes, you wouldn't sign up... international law is only for little people — big superpower states don't seem to have to abide by it." This framing exposes what the hosts see as a fundamental flaw in the system: legal frameworks work beautifully for smaller nations and occupied territories, but the most powerful actors operate outside accountability. "If they're that ethical," Ash adds with evident skepticism, "sign up for the ICC — let's test it in court."
This critique lands because it points to a genuine tension: the US and Israel publicly champion their moral standing while systematically avoiding the institutions that could hold them accountable. The hosts aren't saying anything revolutionary here, but they're articulating what many feel in an accessible way.
Will the Conservatives Swing to the Far Right?
The political analysis shifts to UK domestic politics — specifically whether the Conservative Party will swing to the far right and whether that would be electorally successful. Michael offers a nuanced take: "I don't think Farage will join the party sort of in time to run to be its next leader... I think it's kind of a dead sir that the right of the party will lead it."
The hosts argue this isn't just about leadership candidates — it's structural. The parliamentary Conservative Party is already quite far right, and the membership is "pretty goddamn rightwing" according to Michael. The key question becomes whether this position can win nationally under Britain's first-past-the-post system.
Michael acknowledges counterarguments: "We still haven't quite tested whether or not Britain will look kindly upon a far-right leader of the conservative party." He points to the US example — "a far-right Republican party won the presidency" — as evidence that such politics can succeed. The hosts also note Labour's weakness: "Labour don't seem to have any plans that will make Keir Starry's prime ministership a success."
The analysis is solid but incomplete — it doesn't fully address what a far-right Conservative agenda would actually look like in practice, or how voter turnout might shift under such a platform. The hosts identify the direction of travel without spelling out the destination.
The Infamous Piers Morgan Interview
A lighter question asks Ash about calling Pi Morgan an "idiot" on his own show — and what emerges is a surprisingly vulnerable story. "I was on to promote the anti-Trump demonstrations and I had my little notes and my list of talking points," she recalls. "Piers Morgan did what he's very, very good at — he successfully derailed me from the thing that I wanted to talk about."
The moment came when Ash lost her temper: "I derailed him with I'm literally a communist — you're an idiot." She describes feeling she'd failed immediately after: "I felt like I'd really messed up. I thought I'd screwed up. I felt like I'd let the movement down." Her partner's response was unexpected — five minutes later he called back and said, "What are you talking about? That's the funniest thing that I've ever seen — this is amazing."
The story humanizes political commentary in a way that polished articles rarely achieve. The vulnerability makes Ash more relatable as a commentator; she's not just someone who gets to be right on television — she's someone who's felt the stakes personally and lived through the embarrassment of going viral for the wrong reasons.
What Makes 2024 Feel Hopeful?
The final substantive question asks what makes either host feel hopeful about 2024. Ash identifies two developments: first, "after a period of defeat and licking our wounds," she's seeing the non-parliamentary left organizing more seriously around new strategies — particularly connecting trade unions with causes like Palestine. Second, there are concrete wins: "You're seeing some wins for organized labor — you're seeing that with pay deals for the RMT, pay deals in the NHS."
This is genuine cause for hope within a political framework that's often accused of being all doom and gloom. The hosts name specific victories — the RMT union's pay deal, NHS workers' gains — as evidence that organizing works. It's not abstract optimism; it's grounded in recent wins.
Counterpoints Worth Considering
Critics might note that the coverage of Israeli war crimes focuses almost entirely on international legal frameworks without addressing what's actually happening on the ground in Gaza — the invasion, the bombardment, the humanitarian crisis. The analysis is legally sound but structurally sparse when it comes to describing conditions that millions are living through.
Similarly, the political analysis identifies where power might go but doesn't fully explore what opposition forces could do to counter a rightward Conservative shift — beyond vague references to organizing and union victories.
"If they're that ethical, sign up for the ICC. Let's test it in court."
Bottom Line
This Q&A succeeds because it's conversational without being shallow — the hosts bring genuine expertise to international affairs while remaining vulnerable about their own mistakes on television. The Israel/Palestine analysis is probably the strongest section: it exposes the structural bias in international criminal law without pretending there's a simple solution.
The political analysis identifies clear patterns but doesn't fully interrogate what happens next. For readers wanting insight into how left-wing commentators actually think — unfiltered and without the usual performance of neutrality — this transcript offers genuine value. The hosts aren't trying to be balanced; they're trying to be honest, and that distinction matters.