Good Morning Britain viewers assault ‘nasty and aggressive’ Ranvir Singh for ‘dropping her nut’ in ‘automobile crash’ interview – fuming ‘how impolite is she?!’

Good Morning Britain viewers sank their claws into ‘nasty and aggressive’ Ranvir Singh after a ‘car crash’ interview left them fuming: ‘How rude is she?!’ 

Fans accused the presenter of ‘losing it’ during the interview, which saw Tory minister James Cleverly join Ranvir, 48, and co-host Richard Madeley on Wednesday (April 8).

The Shadow Home Secretary took to the ITV show after it was announced that the Conservatives would ban full-time council staff from working a four-day week. 

James, 56, hit out that ‘taxpayers should not be paying full rates for part-time services’ and vowed to ‘end the nonsense’ if the Conservatives were to come into office after the next general election. 

Ranvir struggled to hide her frustration at the situation as she challenged James on why the Tories weren’t pressing on with other issues. 

She fumed: ‘There are other more pressing issues at local government level,’ as she claimed GMB viewers wanted to hear more about the issues surrounding expenditure by local councils on adult social care.

Ranvir asked: ‘Why aren’t you getting stuck into that this morning? That is where the real pinch point is for people watching this morning, not four-day weeks!’

James quickly hit back: ‘Are you suggesting that we should only deal with one issue?’ to which Ranvir retorted: ‘No. I’m suggesting that there are bigger issues at play that bother people this morning than a council worker working a four-day week and according to some statistics, doing slightly less work or slightly more work.’

Ranvir then accused the politician of ‘avoiding’ the social care issue, but the politician replied: ‘What do you mean “appear to be avoiding”? I have spoken about Labour’s mismanagement of local government funding.’

But the presenter then continued: ‘This isn’t just about Labour. The social care problem has been going on for much longer as you well know. It’s been underfunded for the last decade or more.’

James hit back once again: ‘I’m going to finish the point I was making and I can then move onto another point if you want me to.’

Viewers were quick to head to social media to discuss the interaction, hitting out against Ranvir on X, formerly Twitter. 

One penned: ‘Whoa she’s being well rude you can disagree with someone in a professional way,’ as another agreed: ‘Cleverly sits as cool as a cucumber Ranvir’s completely lost her nut. Embarrassing.’

‘Ranvir coming across as a nasty individual today. She is being very personal here.. not good,’ a third wrote, as a fourth chimed in: ‘How rude is this woman?’

Another hit out against Ranvir having an ‘attitude’, as someone else concluded: ‘What a car crash interview’. 

Others stepped in to defend Ranvir, admitting they too were frustrated by the Tory minister’s responses to the questions he was being dished out.

One said: ‘I work across 4 days. Still full time. I now have more time to help with my home life and my child. This is 2026.’

‘I worked four days a week for ten years, but I worked the same hours over 4 days as a five day week. Longer days. Three of those days I worked from home,’ someone else added. 

‘My productivity NEVER dipped. If anything I worked more when at home. This myth of just having a day off is mind blowing.’

A third said: ‘For the past 4 years I have (via flexi working agreement) worked 4 days but full time hours and pay. Slightly longer days in the 4 but it’s not an issue. If this is how it would work what’s the issue?’

While a fourth hit out: ‘James, mate, four days working week means you work 37.5 hours a week over four days.’

It comes after Good Morning Britain was hit by a wave of Ofcom complaints as viewers hit out against presenter Ed Balls for ‘political bias’ after a ‘disgraceful’ live clash.

The ITV daytime programme, which Ed, 59, co-hosts alongside Susanna Reid, received 55 complaints for the show broadcast on March 23. 

The TV watchdog confirmed that viewers had reached out to complain, alleging Ed had displayed ‘political bias’ during the instalment. 

The complaints were sparked by a conversation between the telly host and anti-Semitism campaigned Dov Forman, who appeared on the show following an arson attack on a Jewish charity ambulance fleet. 

Dov, 22, appeared via a video link in Golders Green, London, just hours after four of the charity-owned ambulances were set on fire.   

In the weeks since the Hatzola ambulances were attacked as they parked in a synagogue car park, three men have been charged with arson, intent to damage property and reckless as to endangering life. 

Dov, who is the great-grandson of Holocaust survivor and author Lily Ebert, was seen being quizzed by Ed and Susanna, 55, during his appearance on the show. 

Ed was seen asking: ‘When you see last week the shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy singling out the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, for praying in Trafalgar Square in a Muslim group and saying that is wrong and shouldn’t happen, isn’t that the kind of intolerance and divisiveness which is causing problems in the Jewish community right now? Do you condemn that as well?’

Dov responded: ‘Well, look, I think the shadow justice secretary was making a point that many people in this country feel about Islamist extremism.

‘I won’t get drawn into a debate on whether his words were right or wrong. We are here to talk about the antisemitic attack this morning in the Jewish community.

‘Certainly, we need to be careful with our words, but as I say, there are people — including many in the Jewish community – who are worried about the spread of Islamist extremism, which is running rampant across society.’

According to The Sun, the programme later apologised to viewers about the exchange between the pair.

They are reported to have said: ‘The intention behind Ed’s question was to ask whether a culture of intolerance was placing Jews at greater risk of harm in the UK. We regret any misunderstanding and apologise for any offence caused.’

However, the comments sparked social media outrage, with viewers taking to X, formerly Twitter, to complain about the line of questioning. 

One penned: ‘After an antisemitic attack on a Jewish volunteer ambulance service, you’d expect focused questions about the rise and threat of antisemitism in the UK.

‘Instead, he tried to shift the discussion – asking whether criticism of a mass iftar event in Trafalgar Square is “causing problems” for the Jewish community.

‘This isn’t balance or insight; it’s poor journalism that misses the point and dilutes the seriousness of antisemitism. Well handled by Dov Forman for staying on point.’

Another chimed in: ‘Ed Balls is a standing disgrace. He has no business hosting a news programme,’ as a third wrote: ‘Does Ed Balls even realise how offensive this was on the morning of an antisemitic hate attack against Jews in Golders Green!’

A fourth added: ‘What disgraceful whataboutery from Ed Balls,’ as a fifth simply called his questioning ‘disgusting’ while reacting to the interview. 

The Daily Mail has contacted ITV for comment.  

It comes after Ed locked horns with Huw Edwards‘s publicist, accusing him of ‘promoting a paedophile and using bad mental health as an excuse for his crimes’ in a toe-curling Good Morning Britain interview.

In March, Barry Tomes spoke to Ed and Susanna Reid about the new Power: The Downfall Of Huw Edwards, which aired on Channel 5.

TV presenter Edwards, 64, who presented the BBC‘s News At Ten for decades and broke some of the biggest stories including the death of Queen Elizabeth II, pled guilty to making indecent images of children in July 2024. 

Barry approached Edwards and offered to be his publicist without being paid for his services, and explained that six months ago Edwards had told him that he ‘wanted to tell his side of the story’. 

Barry explained to the presenters: ‘I’m looking for the black box. That’s why I am here. I want to find out why this happened. 

‘He’s not the first famous man to have these issues. There will be more. Unless we can figure out why.’ 

He continued: ‘I am interested in mental health, for all sorts of family reasons. I think that lots of questions are being asked, but nobody seems to ask why does this happen? Why?’ 

Ed said: ‘Can I ask you about your decision, there are lots of ways you could support people with mental health issues to understand. But you’ve chosen in this case, a convicted paedophile, class A images, which he admitted in court, and convicted. 

‘In the case of a lawyer, people have a right to defence in law, that is what defence lawyers do.

‘Sometimes they will do it pro bono, but you aren’t a lawyer, you are a publicist. You have chosen to help and support a convicted paedophile, and I wonder why you would choose Huw Edwards? 

‘It’s your choice, nobody has made you do this.’ 

Barry explained: ‘It’s my choice. I made that clear, I approached him, he never approached me. Quite simply, I would like to find out why these things happen generally. Why do powerful men do these things.’

Ed then quickly pointed out to Barry: ‘But you’re not investigating, you’re his publicist. You’re telling his story.’

‘Don’t publicists investigate?’ Barry replied.

‘If you’re his publicist and you turn out to reach conclusions that are very negative to him, are you then going to publicise a story that he doesn’t want told?’ Ed asked him. 

Barry replied: ‘I am going to tell the truth, yeah. 100 per cent, and he is aware of that.’

Ed later told him: ‘The problem is, he is a paedophile and you are his publicist, which means that you are a publicist for a paedophile. 

‘It may be that you have an unusual contract in which you can say what you like independent of what he wants, which is an unusual relationship for a publicist, but Huw Edwards did produce a statement about the documentary, he says his interaction was shameless, reckless and damaging.

‘I mean it was worse than that, and then he goes on to I think use his mental illness as a excuse. He goes on to say he hopes that will explain how he behaved.

‘Were you comfortable with that statement? Normally a publicist would advise somebody putting a statement out.’

Barry responded: ‘I did sit with him,’ to which Ed asked: ‘So you were happy with that statement?’

Barry told the host: ‘I was happy because it was what he wanted to say. I am not asking him to change what he wants to say no more than I would allow him to say to me, “we can’t say that Barry”.’

Ed replied: ‘But you said a moment ago your goal is to get to the truth. Not to simply tell his side of the story. 

‘Therefore, if you as his publicist, are publicising a statement which is his words, my assumption is that you wouldn’t have signed off those words, promoted them yourself, unless you were happy with those words.’ 

Barry responded: ‘They are his words, as far as I am concerned, what he wants to say. I haven’t published them, promoted them, I’ve distributed them.

‘If I send it to 1,000 people, they all think it’s horrific and don’t publish it, that’s fine.

‘I haven’t asked anybody to do it. I think did he not promote his book at the end?’ 

When asked if he thought if a suspended sentence was enough, Barry said: ‘I don’t have enough knowledge. My instinct is, it’s the only thing I can work with. The law took its process. I believe in the law. I believe in the courts.’ 

Barry also explained that when he sits down with Edwards, one of the questions he wants answered is if he is going to give back the £200,000 salary to the BBC. 

‘I wouldn’t pay it back. He had a contract, his contract was terminated and he was paid,’ he told Susanna and Ed.

‘If they think they should have it back, have they started legal proceedings? Not sure. But I personally wouldn’t, no.’

Good Morning Britain airs weekdays from 6am on ITV1 and ITVX.