12/01/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Thousands of junior doctors go on strike across England

in their dispute over a new contract despite a last-minute plea

from the Prime Minister to call off the action.

At least ten people are dead, following another suspected suicide

We'll have the latest. likely that the so-called

MPs debate the Housing Bill - which ministers say will help

thousands of young people get on the housing ladder.

Labour say the plan could benefit foreign investors

And should England have an official national anthem?

All that in the next hour and with us for the whole

of the programme today is the Times columnist,

First, let's get the latest on the bomb attack in Istanbul.

We can talk to our correspondent there,

I can tell you that the Foreign Secretary, Philip

Hammond, said the explosion in Istanbul hit a tourist area of the

city. They are currently seeking to verify if any British nationals are

involved and we will -- and they will update the House of Commons if

there is more news in the next hour. Can you give us the latest? This is

where a few hours earlier the Windows of building surrounded me

were rattled. A number of tourists, including German tourists, according

to the news agency, were killed. It is not believed at this point in

time that British tourists were among those killed. We are still

waiting for full information. The Turkish president has condemned this

attack. Nobody then has yet actually claimed

responsibility. These are officials in Turkey. It is not that many

months after Ankara suffered the bomb attack which killed up to 100

people. I think 97 people were killed in Ankara. That was carried

out by Isis. No one is in doubt about that. This is a much smaller

attack. There is speculation this is another kind of Islamist, or

somebody freelancing. It could be Isis. They are under a lot of

pressure was they have lost territory in Iraq and Syria. The

Turkish authorities, after tolerating Isis for a long time have

now thrown themselves into the fight against the so-called Islamic State.

Though getting reports that Turkish authorities are trying to organise a

new offensive with some of the proxy groups they help to run and fund

inside Syria. It would not be surprising to learn that might have

consequences here in Turkey. Do think Turkey will have more of these

sorts of attacks, even though we do not know for sure who is behind this

one? Turkey is playing a very complex game. As Paul said, they

have backed Islamic State in the past and they are now against it.

They are backing Islamist who are against President Assad in Syria.

There is no shortage of people who might be inspired to attack Turkey

for a whole variety of reasons on the grounds that my enemy's enemy is

sometimes my friend, sometimes my enemy's enemy is my enemy. They

occupy a very key geographical position in terms of their border

with Syria, their relationship, a bad one with Kurds and Kurdish

fighters also on their border, who had been seen as being helpful to

the coalition in terms of fighting Islamic State. They have been seen

to be helpful. Turkey is a Nato member. This is extremely alarming.

Under the president Turkey has become more Islamist. They are

supporting Islamist in Syria and they are an Islamist regime. The

fact they may have been targeted by Islamist 's does not alter the fact

that the West is in alliance with a regime which is fundamentally not

friendly to it. Also, of course, we have these very distressing stories.

Irish or they are happening right across Syria, of series and towns

where people are literally starving to death. -- I am sure they are

happening. It is a dreadful humanitarian catastrophe. If one

wants to end the dreadful humanitarian catastrophe of Syria,

one has two remove the Islamic Republic

one has two remove the Islamic over the whole series of

What has David Cameron said every child needs?

Thousands of junior doctors across England are striking today,

in the latest stage of their dispute with the Government over

Doctors are providing emergency cover, but around 4,000

routine treatments have been postponed.

The Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, spoke briefly to journalists

Do your proposals threaten the future of the NHS?

Is there enough money to create a 24/7 NHS?

What is your message to junior doctors?

And our assistant political editor, Norman Smith, is outside

St Thomas's Hospital in Central London.

The first strike in 40 years for junior doctors, how has it come to

this? A good question. It has been going on for years, since 2012. The

difficulty is simply this. Both sides seem to be talking past each

other. They are not on the same page. The Government said, we have a

manifest a mandate to introduce a 24-hour NHS. This is what the

changes are about. Junior doctors say, we're already working 24-hour

NHS. The problem at the weekends is not junior doctors, it is

consultants. The Government is saying, OK, we are making you a very

good payoff. We are increasing a paid by 11%. 75% of junior doctors,

they say, will be better off. The BMA says absolutely not. Junior

doctors will lose something like 30% of their pay. You get the sense that

both sides are nowhere near reaching any sort of deal. They have been to

ACAS and no deal has been reached. More strikes are planned. The factor

that will break this dispute is not the merits of the arguments on

either side but public opinion. If public opinion sways heavily one

side or the other, I suspect that will determine the outcome of this

dispute. That, in your mind, will implement government strategy. --

influence. Jeremy Hunt has been criticised for mishandling this

dispute. What is the strategy today by the Government? The strategy

today is kind of to hide under the table and say nothing. We saw from

Jeremy had they do not want to have their faces plastered on the

television screen. Roughly basic logic would suggest if you have a

politician and a junior doctor on the television screen at the same

time, he would use in the bars with? Probably the junior doctor. Maybe we

put doctors up on a pedestal and maybe the public is becoming jaded

about all of this because they would rather like a 24-hour NHS. They

would like to feel confident about going into hospital at the weekend.

They are suffering pretty tough times. Junior doctors are getting

11%, say the Government. There is a view in government circles that if

these disputes go on and we do move to the third set of strikes that

will involve accident and emergency departments and maybe public opinion

will shift and the BMA will find itself out on a limb. That will

slightly define conventional logic. Normally we assume sympathy would

lie with the doctors, but make -- but maybe not if this drags on.

Let's talk now to our correspondent, Phil Mackie, who's outside

the Sandwell hospital in West Bromwich.

How under pressure are services there? Extremely so. They have

declared a level for incident within this draft. That means they are

really struggling to discharge patients will they have had

exceptional demand. They have too many people in and they cannot get

them out in time. They have declared a level for incident. They have

asked the striking junior doctors to come back in. The junior doctors

have not left the picket line and they are continuing to protest and

getting a lot of support from people driving by. What they have said if

their understanding of the strike agreement would be they would go

back in for a level five incident, which. Level four is something they

would experience slightly more often and it is something they have known

about, they say, in terms of trust management for some time and they

are not going in. There are junior doctors providing emergency cover,

as they ordinarily would do. One of the people striking here today said

this was essentially exactly the same situation as it was over

Christmas and New Year at this hospital and management, they say,

did not choose to declare a level for incident on that occasion.

Clearly the stakes are high and it seems to be escalating, and maybe we

will see that across the country. At the moment, polls show there are

high levels of public support. Do you have any evidence of that

waning? I have not seen anything myself. It is very difficult in a

hospital circumstance. People are coming and going. Even members of

the public probably visiting a relative or have their own need to

be in the hospital and they tend to be quite sympathetic. A lady passed

me half an hour ago with an arm in a sling. She was due in Tamara and she

said if it had been today, she would not have minded because she is

giving the junior doctors full backing. You get lots of cars coming

past, beeping their horns and waving in support. There is no scientific

way of working this out. The survey that suggests that two thirds of

people behind the doctors broadly and unscientific leave that is about

what I would think is the case here standing in West Bromwich. Thank you

very much. And I'm joined now by

the Conservative MP and member of the Health Select Committee,

Dr James Davies, and by Dr Tom Dolphin, a member

of the BMA's Consultants Committee and a former chair of their

Junior Doctors Committee. And I should say that

no Health Minister was Obviously, following the line of

hiding beneath the table when it comes to this, as our correspondent

says. Let's pick up the incident in Sandwell at the hospital, where they

have declared a level for incident. Does that make you feel bad? Nobody

wanted to take strike action today but we have been forced into it by

the Government. With incidents like they declared in Sandwell, there is

a process for getting junior doctors back into the hostel if there is a

major incident. That was a significant, unpredicted event that

would occur. That is the term that was used at the time. If there is a

major incident, junior doctors will flood back into the hospital, let's

be clear about this. Not at this level. Doctors across the country --

hospitals across the country have been running at these levels for a

long time. It is nothing new. Nothing has changed today. There is

no difference between this and what happened over the Christmas

holidays. How has the Government let this come to a situation where we

have junior doctors for the first time in 40 years ago forming support

by the doctors who returned the strike ballot in favour of the

strike, are all wrong? I think they have been misled. I am a BMA member

and GP is my background. It is something I had a very open mind

over as the issue blew up really. Looking into the fine detail of it,

I have to say that the Government has addressed the vast majority of

the concerns that have been put forward. Right. But to admit they

have not addressed all of them. There are some issues over Saturday

pay, in particular. The Government is looking about bringing about a

seven-day NHS. This is where discussions are needed. I think

strike action is a step too far in the circumstances. Have you been

misled by the BMA? Have you been misled by anyone? The Government is

trying to put across its position. We cannot mislead junior doctors.

They are bright and intelligent people. The applet evidence in front

of them and 98% have rejected the offer as unsafe. Isn't that just

behind -- like hiding behind an excuse? There are a lot of junior

doctors and it seems that junior doctors think the hours they are

being asked to work will be more restrictive and the safeguards are

not robust enough. They are protecting the future of doctors

working practices. Do you add me to the governor has not addressed back

key issue? -- the Government has not addressed back key issue. Also, the

number of nights on call consecutively. It is about the

safeguards. They don't trust the Government to

hold by their claim that hours will be restricted but there are no

safeguards to restrict it. One of the concerns was fines were being

removed from hospitals... So no incentive there... But Government's

latest proposals do address that in terms of fines being levied and put

into a part and underseen by a guardian who will use that for

educational purposes and managing of the interests of junior doctors. So,

in the end, the Government has met pretty well every single concern by

June area doctors and it is a negotiation and there hasn't been

any compromise by June area doctors in this negotiation. -- by junior

doctors. We have moved a significant distance from starting position. We

are keen to negotiate. In what way have you moved? As far as I can see

you haven't at all With we are very keen to be negotiate. There was to

be a strike in December. We went back to asas, we didn't want to

strike. There was no movement from the Government side from the

discussions in ACAS. They don't address the safety issues. Since the

strike mandate went ahead, there have been changes, though, haven't

there? There has been an offer by the Government, certain sli on pay

and doctors keep saying it is not about pay. So today, what is it that

the Government can offer you that would mean you wouldn't strike in

future weeks? It is a complex contract. I can't boil it down N

generality it has to be a safe contract. -- in generality. That

doesn't have doctors' hours increasing again. Again That's

nebulus. But what they are putting on the table doesn't gar be a tee

the hours will be safe and that they won't increase again. -- guarantee.

When you look at the detail of how what is on paper will be enforced,

there is nothing to give it teeth. That's what worries us. Principally,

should doctors be going on strike? Let's leave the whys and wherefors.

They have a right to strike. Personally I believe doctors should

not go on strike, ever. Whatever the circumstances, however much pressure

they are put under? Medicine is a vocation. They should not be

behaving that they are unionised workers. The BMA... Why not? Because

they are responsible for patient safety. The word "safety" is used

the whole time. I'm prepared to believe the Government has been bone

headed and bad and a hopeless negotiate o. Let's assume that's the

case. It is still the case that, you know, the doctors are saying it is

all about safety. This is really, this really sticks in the crew

because whether or not this -- craw. Whether or not the sandwell thing is

manufactured or no. You cannot have doctors taking strike without

imperilling patients. At the least putting them at disadvantage. At

wost xree miesing safety. -- at worst, compromising safety. Doctors

may vo a good point over safety but -- may have a good point. But

ultimately they are the -- may have a good point. But

that's letting the the hook because they are relying on

the fact that doctors will feel so the fact that doctors will feel so

bad. What is more important, patient lives or sticking the Government

bad. What is more important, patient The arrangement we have made are to

keep patients safe today and The arrangement we have made are to

safe in the long term. Today The arrangement we have made are to

colleagues of mine and other senior doctors covering to make sure urgent

patients get seen. If people are worried are stick, they should go to

hospital, they will get the care they need. What about the

Government. The Government should be concerned about patient safety, or

any future strike, where there may not be any emergency cover. Has

Jeremy Hunt handled this well? The riesh u is about a new contract to

improve patient safety. I'm talking about the language used, about the

breakdown of trust. Has has Jeremy Hunt handled that well? I think he

has done all he can from what I have seen. I think that there are

underlying issue and I know this from having worked from ape last

year as a doctor in temples how doctors and the medical protesting

feel. -- in terms of how doctors and the medical profession feel, in

terms of their work and values, that we go out of our way to prove how

hard the medical profession does work and they are valued. The

reality is there is a brain drain of junior doctors. The Health Select

Committee has said that junior doctors are leaving because they

don't think there is a few fewer for them here. That's what I'm talking B

I don't think it is about this contract per se. That issue was in

place prior to this and it has, to some extent framed the whole debate.

What about accusations that it is being exploited, this strike by more

militant tendencies? Do you think it has been hijacked? I don't think

think so. We have a clear mandate. 98% of junior doctors supported the

ak. The -- this action. The entire profession shined the action. --

supported the action. The Government's plans for more

affordable housing - and a new right to buy for housing

association tenants - are being debated in

the House of Commons today. Ministers say the schemes

will benefit thousands of young people looking to get

on the housing ladder. Labour say it could benefit foreign

investors and buy-to-let landlords The Conservatives want to get

building and put more people onto the housing ladder,

a key pledge in their manifesto, and they hope to have

1 million new homes by 2020. Under the proposals,

starter homes would be sold to first time buyers under 40 at a discount

of at least 20% on properties worth There would be an an obligation

for all planning authorities to build more new homes

and expensive council houses It will be easier to build

on brownfield sites and housing association tenants will be given

the right to buy their homes. There will be measures to ensure

those in social housing on higher incomes pay more in rent

and councils will be given the power to blacklist or even

ban rogue landlords. The plan was outlined

by George Osborne in his spending Today, we set out our bold plan

to back families who aspire First, I'm doubling

the housing budget. And we will deliver,

with Government help, 400,000 affordable new homes

by the end of the decade. And "affordable" means not just

affordable to rent but affordable That is the biggest house-building

programme by any government We've been joined by Labour's Shadow

Housing Minister John Healey and the Conservative

MP, Chris Philps. And I should say that no government

minister was available This bill broadens the definition of

affordable housing to include starter homes costing up to ?450,000

in London. How can a property costing 17 times the average UK

salary be classed, in anyone's mind as "affordable"? The point is the

maximum price is ?450,000. The hope is there will be many homes to buy

much less than that and the 20% discount is itself a welcome step. I

would also say, with Government schemes like help to buy, young

first-time buyers can now borrow up to 95% of that homes' value. Is that

responsible after the crash? It is. It helps people on to the housing

ladder, and realise their dream. 95%. The deposit is only ?22,000 h

these are affordable. Getting people on the ladder is a good step. You

say up to ?450,000. You hope would be lower. How much lower? What would

you say is affordable? It depends on people's personal circumstances and

income and whether there is one or two earners in the household. Let's

not forget, outside London, which is of course 80% or 85 of the country

it is up to ?250,000. These are welcome steps to help young first

time buyers get on to the housing ladder. I accept there is a massive

difference between London and south-east and other parts of the

country but starter homes will be sold at a 20% discount to first time

buyers under the age of 40 but according to the housing charity,

Shelter, by 2020, someone trying to buy a starter home in London will

need an annual Sal riff ?77,000 and a deposit of ?98,000. When you say

it has to be "affordable" and depends on people's incomes. It is

only for the rich. I don't accept the analysis. You don't accept that?

No, they ignore the help to buy scheme. The deposit isn't that much,

it is lower, ?22,500. And they ignore the fact that many people are

couples, you look at the household income, not individual income. And

thirdly it ignores the fact that ?450,000 is maximum. I would expect

many developers, particularly housing associations, who are

increasingly building houses to rent will have units in London far less

than ?450,000. This is a positive step. It'll help some, even if it

seems on the face of it, expensive for a lot of people. We back the

principle of starter homes but we want them to work for ordinary

people on ordinary incomes and work better which is why we tabled an

amendment to make them more affordable to people on modest

incomes. There is a massive gap between affordable homes, and what

Chris is talking about. Fist, you set what is affordable as a sensible

limit. And secondly, this was our argument, if the takss payer is

putting public -- taxpayer. Into discounts, that should stay on the

shelf and help future first time buyers to keep the price downs. Let

me help you on the figures. Croydon, yu average starter home would be

area dour average would be ?300,000. You need an income of ?64,000. You

still need help with your deposit. The point about starter homes taken

in their own terms, is they will be a huge letdown for many young people

and ordinary families that want to be able to buy their first home will

be thwarted by the terms of the scheme. You are not saying not do

anything. The problem with your analysis is people will think - is

Labour not going to do anything to help people on starter homes? This

is a big discount at 20%, it will help a group of people and London

isn't the only place we are talking about. If this was a scheme that

worked better, along the lines we have been proposing and I hope the

Lords will take a look at, alongside the increase in the affordable homes

to rent and buy that are in place at the moment but will get choked off

by the provision for this bill, then we will be looking at a sensible

housing policy which starts to meet the need for new homes of all types

all across the country. That won't happen as a result of the bill we

are discussing this afternoon in the Commons. Housing has long been a

massive problem for governments over the decades. We are not getting to

the point where it looks as if, finally, the parties have decided

something has to be done. Do you think these policies will make an

enormous amount of difference to people who literally will not be

able to afford to buy their own home and is it desirable for them to?

Well, something has to be done. I think this is something that should

not be done. I think it is the wrong policy. It seems to me that this

bill is very much driven by ideology, the ideology that says -

home-ownership good, renting, council ownership, bad. Now I agree,

home-ownership is good t has many advantages. Those who can afford a

buy their own homes should be allowed and encouraged to do so. I'm

in favour of that. But the bottom line is the reason we have social

housing or council housing is that there are unfortune outly many

people and -- unfortunately many people and will always be will, many

people who can't afford to get on to the housing ladder. What worries me

about this bill is that it is all about home-ownership. Not a

comprehensive housing strategy for ever, including those who can and

can't afford to buy. -- for everybody. To be clear this, bill

will be the death nail that of genuine affordable housing to rent

and buy independent experts say over the next five years we are set to

lose 180,000. It started with Labour, far fewer council homes

under Labour, too. Directly as a result of the bill, before

Parliament at the moment. But isn't it true that there will be far fewer

council homes and social housing available? No, I don't accept that.

Under five years of Government Government we built more --

Conservative Government, we built more than the previous Labour

Government. Is that the case? It is. Hang on, let me answer the question.

Eight out of ten of those new council homes built in the last five

years were commissioned by Labour, funded by Labour when I was the

Labour Housing Minister. You inherited a programme you started

and now you have stopped it. Do you support that programme, Chris? In

your mind, talking about support that programme, Chris? In

is it right, should there be more council homes and social housing?

is it right, should there be more thereby who are social housing and a

focus on council thereby who are social housing and a

Government and Mayor thereby who are social housing and a

homes over the last five years, and that should continue. One of the

problems we have in the country is we are not building enough

problems we have in the country is before we start arguing about social

who are starter homes, we need to build who are homes,

who are starter homes, we need to the heart of the bill is a plan to

build more homes on brow field loan to alleviate the problems we are

talking about. -- brownfield land. 86% of our fellow citizens aspire to

own their own home 86% of our fellow citizens aspire to

helps them realise that dream. Not all, 86% want to own their own

homes. But it is about reality. What I'm saying is you wouldn't quite

answer whether you there there should be more focus on council

homes and social housing. What about the private rental sector? You say

it is desirable people aspire to own their own homes. It is easy for

people who have their own homes to say people

people who have their own homes to affordable rental sector but what is

The sector is on its own already renting sector? Force for

The sector is on its own already burgeoning. People cannot

The sector is on its own already buy. That is precisely the problem.

It is a buy. That is precisely the problem.

attempts to address, partly by buy. That is precisely the problem.

building more homes and secondly by making home ownership more

accessible with things like starter homes. The local Government

Association revealed 475,000 homes have been given planning permission.

That is an all-time record. You must say the Government has done

something right there. There are permissions in place. We want to see

the builders building those homes. Above all, as I said earlier, we

have to have Above all, as I said earlier, we

which are genuinely affordable to rent and buy. The extreme emphasis

on starter homes which will be beyond the reach of many young

people, simple, exclusive emphasis, which is political and not good

housing policy. It is not good economic. It will prove, in my view,

to be bad politics as well. It is shutting out the range of housing

need we need across the board. Uses plea -- view simply would not be

able to support the bill. I do not think it well. In no way does this

attack affordable homes to rent. Also starter homes. Over the last

ten or 20 years, affordable homes have mostly been defined as homes to

rent, rather than homes to buy. It adds in homes to buy to the

affordable mix. That is a good thing. Can I ask you about something

hours, the PLP meeting last month? What is the timetable for neighbour

having policy on Trident? The principal place where Labour Party

policy is made is a Labour Party conference. That seems to be the

timescale the review will need to work to. It will be a strategic

security and defence review, which is right. Trident Bob be a part of

that. It is about Britain's DM security in the world. -- will be a

part. You do not think there will be a decision before the autumn? That

is my understanding. It is the briefing we had. The country needs

that sort of debate. Our nuclear capability is a part of that. Is

your understanding them not be any changes to the way that policies

actually devised? No change in the way Labour makes its party policy?

No, the way the Labour Party makes its policy is finalised and done...

That will not change? At the Labour Party conference. You asked about

the meeting of Labour MPs last night but this is a really important

review. It is important for the Labour Party are really important

for Britain that we take that proper review, which is about our long-term

security and our long-term role in the world. Our nuclear capability

needs to be a part of that. I am strongly behind de-escalation and

disarmament but I am not the unilateralist. This is a debate this

country has to have, especially with the escalating costs of Trident.

How can we stop young British Muslims becoming radicalised

In his speech to the Conservative Party conference last autumn,

David Cameron said he wanted an end to what he called the "passive

In our country, there are some children who spend several hours

Let me be clear, there is nothing wrong with

children learning about their faith, whether it is in a madrassa,

a Sunday school, or a Jewish yeshiva.

But in some madrassas, we have children

being taught that they should not mix with people of other religions.

Being beaten, swallowing conspiracy theories about Jewish people.

These children should be having their

minds opened and their minds broadened, not having their heads

filled with poison and their hearts filled with hate.

If an institution is teaching children intensively,

whatever its religion, we will, like any other school,

make it register so it can be inspected.

And be in no doubt, if you are teaching intolerance,

This afternoon, the Home Affairs Select Committee will take evidence

on this issue from a number of people,

including the Secretary of the Bradford Council for Mosques,

Do you agree with the Prime Minister that there is a problem in the first

place? We agree there are problems within the Muslim community but

radicalisation, as the Prime Minister is setting out in his

speech basically we have evidence of that. No evidence at all? No

evidence that radicalisation is taking place in mosques. What have

you done to investigate? Since the consultation paper came out, we have

visited 14 councils for mosques across the country, in particular in

the north. We find there is already safeguarding and policies in place,

working with the local authority and the counterterrorism bill that is

all ready in place that does look at that. I put to you it is not

working. It is saying headlines of young people on almost a daily,

weekly basis, they are being radicalised and they are being drawn

to make a journey to war-torn Syria. The most infamous example is the

three teenage girls. Do you at Mick has not worked? We admit there is a

problem. -- at admit it has not worked. It is not in a mosque, a

madrassa, a church or a synagogue. Family setting, elsewhere, community

settings, college campuses. What do you say in response to that

evidence? There is a problem with language that is what we mean by

radicalisation and extremism. If by radicalisation in you mean

recruiting people to the jihad. Major sources of this are on social

media. If you think that radicalisation in terms of jihadi

recruitment is something which is nurtured by a kind of toxic mix of

ideas, then it becomes something very different. I think personally,

and effective counter radicalisation, counter extremist

strategy, must have two crucial elements. Yet has to be accepted

that some of the ideas in the Islamic, religious precepts and

values, themselves form the sea in which the toxic ideas swim. It does

not mean all Muslims subscribe to them but it is a genuine and

legitimate interpretation of the faith, as expounded by Isla Mikel

authorities over the world. I think we, in this country, must aid and

give every encouragement to Muslim reformers, who wish to make

theological reform. That is the first thing. Secondly, the Prime

Minister alluded to the fact that we must address the ideas that form a

grievance culture. If young people believe their culture, faith and

community is under attack from a conspiracy of the West, or a

conspiracy of Jews, of whom I am one, then it is not surprising they

are vulnerable to jihadi recruitment. In my view, Western

politicians should stand up and address these myths and lies about

the West, about Jews, that are being told, in order that Muslims who are

growing up can see, or can begin to understand, that what they are being

fed by whoever it is, is not true. Do you accent they are not

countering enough of the ideology or radicalisation that may not be

actually occurring in madrassas or mosques elsewhere? The reason is the

prevent strategy is not working. It is marginalising and isolating

communities. There are other ways of engaging with the communities and

working with them. At this moment in time, there is no consultation

taking place with the community is what the Government should do to

tackle this from within the community. For people like me, my

organisation, and other councils in northern England. You say it is not

being counted effectively. Yes. On that basis, what would be wrong with

registering and inspecting them? Nothing is wrong with regulation.

Nothing wrong if it means protecting safeguarding. What we are against,

that this particular piece of document, or consultation, prefers

to prevent 19 times, if not more. It is linked to be terrorism and

extremism bill, rather than falling at Ofsted and the Department for

Education, like all schools. You would be in favour of them being

these out of school settings, being registered, inspected and monitored.

Would that be view results? It is structural tinkering. There may be a

case for that. The problematic issue is one of concept. We're not talking

the right language. The majority discourse is kind of going around

the edges of this. They are not collectively facing up to the things

I have been talking about, which is the ideas that nurture or make these

young people vulnerable to really bad guys. Those bad ideas are not

being identified. How would you deal with it? Banning orders on

nonviolent extremists or closing mosques, is this the way to go about

it? It depends how you define extremism. I am troubled by the

it? It depends how you define The Government seems to believe that

highly Conservative religious ideas are themselves problematic was some

it is not problematic, are themselves problematic was some

bought religious community to isolate itself in the sense it has

cultural practices which set it aside from the mainstream and where

have I which may not accord with liberal ideas. The problem only

comes when the community wants to do harm to other people. Should there

be a bar on alleged extremists working with children and other

honourable people? Threats to close mosques that are found this is where

the problem would be, to be espousing these radical ideas are

not doing enough to them. What else would you suggest in terms of being

able to counter these ideas and this sort of radicalisation in

able to counter these ideas and this family? Where we are at the moment,

my generation was very much part of the British society we felt very

inclusive. I am third, fourth generation now, and I have British

values, if we know what the term British values means. That is a

debate for another day. I could have Muslim, or faith, Jewish, Christian

values, and still have my allegiance to Queen and country. The

values, and still have my allegiance needs to be very

values, and still have my allegiance What does British values mean? There

values, and still have my allegiance is a value and and --

values, and still have my allegiance identity. We also have family

values, faith values, and other values as well. The two can fit hand

in hand together. I am values as well. The two can fit hand

made. I think he values as well. The two can fit hand

generalising. That is not the case. We do some great work

generalising. That is not the case. Bradford with councils for mosques.

We work with faith communities, the Jewish communities. We were here

with the Christian Muslim Forum last night. There is a great deal of work

that goes on. I think the governor needs to the crowd. The whole kind

of funding issue has resulted in inclusion, cohesion policy is not

working, and other has all been stripped of cash.

Over the past few months, a row has been rumbling

over, of all things, the exact composition

Just before Christmas, the Department for Education held

a consultation, which prompted 50,000 people to sign an online

petition demanding that women and feminism be put firmly

Last night, the argument reached the Commons.

Removing feminism from the curriculum is entirely

incongruous with the claims of the Prime Minister,

across the Despatch Box at PMQs, to myself, only weeks ago,

So, as it is, A-level politics covers other ideologies

which include sex and gender, gender equality, patriarchy and it

covers a knowledge of core ideas, doctrines and theories of feminist

thoughts, traditions and distinctive features but when the Government

announced plans to revise politics A-level curriculum this section had

As had the ideologies of nationalism and multiculturalism.

As he is there, I would like to know the status of these

The supposed compensation for feminism axing was include

a section on pressure groups, so at best, on a generous

interpretation, feminism survives here in a reference to suffragists

and suffragettes as an example of pressure groups.

A lot of lateral thinking and mental gymnastics needed there.

As is recently mentioned in the other place, feminism can

also be studied within other A-levels.

For example, under the reformed sociology A-level students must

Exam boards are responsible for setting the detailed

content of qualifications in their specifications and schools

are free to decide which figures they teach about

And following the consultation on the politics A-level,

exam boards are making changes to the final content to respond

ordable rental sector but what is going done in the bill for private

renting sector? Force for to the concerns raised

and we will publish our response shortly but I can assure

the honourable member that the final politics A-level will give

all students the opportunity And I should say that no

Education Minister was available We heard the idea would be part of

the core syllabus. I'm none the wiser. I looked a at it again today.

This stuff gets drip fed through buzzfeed. We heard over Christmas

there might be a climbdown. He said it there in the Commons. He was

asked to give a list and an explicit commitment that feminism will remain

and be reinstated. He has kind of said wait and see. It looked as if

the Government has U-turned. I don't know if it is a full U-turn. If so,

I'm glad it has happened. We need the detail of what has happened. It

took two 17-year-old girls to make this happen, actually. I suppose if

two 17-year-old girl guides, the Government knows it is in trouble.

But yes, despite the two 7-year-old girls, I don't think they are

correct and I think it is all rather silly. I think it is a category

error. As I understand t the proposal is to add feminism to

Conservative titch, socialism and Liberalism as categories. You don't

think it is worthy of that? I think it is a category error. Conserve

civil, Liberalism and socialism are broad movement of political thought

which reflect the way that people in contrasting views order the world.

Feck nichl like otherisms, like racism is a were test movement on

behalf of a set of people who feel they are not properly represented in

various ways. A set of people, you mean 50% of the population. Yes,

that's right but still acting as a protest group as indeed this

particular initiative is, because it is all to do with the fact there

aren't enough women. In other words, there has to be a certain quota of

women. An ideological pressure group politics. That clip you showed was

me reading out what was in the old syllabus. It was there and has been

deleted. What about the substantial point being put, it is arguable it

shouldn't be there in the first place. It doesn't merit the same

categorisation as the big political movements? On Antony Gidden's

definition, the advancement of women's struggles. I think those

things, I don't want agenda-blind curriculum. I think the struggles -

the to vote was fought for. We knead to be aware of that. They are linked

to, unlike otherisms, it is not anary fairy thing. Women are 50% as

Jo says, we cannot delete them from the syllabus. When I heard Will hear

the words I don't want a "gender-blind" curriculum. I want to

reach for the sick bag. This is pressure group politics. One can say

I don't want a curriculum that is blind to... The minister can see

they have made some serious mistakes. 29% of MPs are women. My

respect for ministers exceeds no-one's but nevertheless I do think

occasionally even Conservative ministers run frightened for

politically correct pressure groups. Or they believe it. Isn't there a

case to be made that gender politics hasn't been solved in that sense or

that the form of women hasn't been assured... For sure it is a

reasonable argument. I'm not saying for a amendment it shouldn't be

covered in the curriculum. I'm talking about the fact that this

whole movement seems to be prompted by the idea that there aren't enough

women being mentioned, which I think is a worse sort of tokenism and that

feminism should be elevated to being the same category as socialism,

conservatism or Liberalism, which I think is just a category error. Is

it that point? The core syllabus has a selection of key political things.

Out of 17, only one woman. Meaning 94% were male. Who would you like to

see on that syllabus? Simone, Duvoiva. And Americans who wrote

about suburban housewives, something I can identify with, o to some

extent. I could furnish them with a long list. Why only one out of 17.

It is part of a trend. We had 0 out of 63 composers. It is looking at

the wrong end of the at the same time. We can argue about names It is

negating... As you say, there must be 50% of the population so, yes...

Do they not have a valuable contribution? Maybe there wasn't

more than one? I don't know. Start with the principle that the numbers

are inherently unfair or unjust... In both occasions, the music

syllabus and politics, in each case, both it took my constituents,

17-year-old girls to do emanufacture petitions, and the latest one, has

done the one on the feminism syllabus. There were 50,000

signatures. It is a new type of politics where governments can cave

in. Are we all feminists now? Are we all feminists? You and I are sitting

here in a television studio... Three women. A good ratio. To that extent,

feminism has won. What is the complaint? Thank you on that.

Ask someone English what their national anthem

But actually that's the British National Anthem.

The Scots and Welsh have their own anthems but officially

Various tunes have been tried, but now an MP is asking his

the Steinway and look up his best patriotic tunes.

Given its power to inspire, it's no surprise music is used often

to sell, reinforce or create an idea.

Certain tunes speak of shared values and pride in being part of that

tricky to define concept - "the nation".

Some melodies even get to become a national anthem but England

doesn't have one, not one all to itself.

There's some obvious options, and some of them HAVE been used

as an English national anthem but none has been THE anthem.

Now you might be thinking, wait a minim!

Well, one MP has proposed Parliament looks at finding one.

Land of Hope and Glory will be a great anthem.

So, we could see one of those traditional

favourites but we could also see something new coming through.

With David Bowie's demise, what about, We Could Be Heroes?

That could be a great theme tune for Britain.

Alternatively, maybe, somebody will come up

Fan fastic what does an anthem? Anthem -- fantastic Boyce Truss.

Something to get people up. If it is insip I had it doesn't work.

Something to get people up. If it is the problem, our National Anthem

gets branded a bit of a dirge Yes because it was played ape sung

badly. When it was written it would have been sung and played at

probably twice the speed it does now and people would have stood up in

the pub and sung it and ensqloe joyed it. Toby Perkins wants to have

a competition about what it should be. Do you have a suggestion? I have

one thing I think people might be able to get behind.

Not quite an army but certainly Dads, there's a small group who're

campaigning for their choice, and they aren't shy about it either.

We are getting people singing on the streets web we are going past. We

had one restaurant when everyone stood up and applauded us. There is

great support out there. It is about time England was able to celebrate

being English, at sporting events. Let the Scots and Welsh celebrate

theirs and we come at the end and God Save The Queen.

So if your feet any time really are walking upon England's mountain

(not entirely sure where that is by the way) spare a thought

if you're English for what really says England isn't God

Save the Queen spreads harmony avoids discord,

Toby Perkins has joined us in the studio

and we've also been joined by Olympic silver medallist

Kriss Akabusi, who won many medals in the 400m hurdles

Is this what we are talking about to you on your the doorstep on

constituency? A light-hearted film but S the truth is we do need a new

settlement for England. Seen the devolution for England and Wales. I

have struck by this at the Rugby World Cup, the Welsh were singing

their anthem, we are being represented by England but singing

the British anthem. The problems with the union, Scots and Welsh see

others and England thinking of ourselves as synonymous. This is a

part of that. What would you change it to? Jerusalem is my choice but

the key thing about the bill is to have a national consultation.

the key thing about the bill is to what about you,

the key thing about the bill is to saviourioured your Commonwealth

medals more if it had been Land of Hope And Glory rather than good save

the Queen? It would have worked but the National Anthem is a unifying

factor, all under the umbrella. Whatever God you serve, you have

Queen and country and the National Anthem and Union Jack says something

to me. It is much more than the words, it is a unifying force, it is

the idea that 6 million people, I am one, not the only one and I live

under the umbrella. -- 60 million. What about the consultation, would

you go for anything else under under the English anthem? Well, listening

to Toby, and every night as a young man, it was played on it the V

screens and I grew up thinking England and Great Britain are

synonymous, I understand the clamour for England having its own place. Do

you like the tune? Doesn't do a great deal for me, but the fact it

it is the National Anthem. It is clear from Toby that this enterprise

to change to Jerusalem or whatever is part of a drive to build up

English nationalism. I think that is a really rep prehencible things.

Wales and Scotland have? It is not good. It is not good. We have a we

are a union nighted king do. I agree can Kriss, the National Anthem sung

at sporting events is not a team song. It is the declaration by the

England team or whoever the sports people are that they have an

allegiance to the crown, an allegiance than something bigger,

called England, the UK which binds us altogether. Jeremy Corbyn hasn't

put you up to this? He hasn't. But it is wrong, if we are competing as

England we should be England. When Kriss and people who follow him

represent Britain, it should be skop God Save the Queen. I would sing you

out but my voice isn't good enough. There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz. What has David Cameron

said every child needs? I wish it was D but it is D, a tiger

Thanks to Melanie and all my guests. pussycat.

I'll be back at 11:30am tomorrow with Andrew for live coverage

Celebrate a country 4,000 years in the making. China begins here.

Let your New Year start with a bang and visit an explosive new China.