22/04/2016 Daily Politics

Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.

Barack Obama jets into London to wish the Queen a happy birthday

and tell the Brits we're better off staying in the EU.

Boris Johnson says the president should keep his views to himself,

but what impact will his comments have on the referendum?

President Obama will meet David Cameron in Downing

Top of their agenda, the fight against Islamic State.

We'll discuss the military campaign against Isis.

With less than two weeks until London goes to the polls

to elect a new mayor, we'll take a look at the campaign to

And who's had a good week and who's had a shocker?

We'll review the political week in just 60 seconds.

And with us for the duration, writer and journalist, Iain Martin,

and the Guardian's political editor, Anushka Asthana.

So Barack Obama arrived in the UK last night,

ahead of a big lunch at Windsor Castle today to celebrate

But it's President Obama's comments on the EU referendum -

rather than his birthday wishes to our monarch - that are sure

to dominate the headlines for the next 24 hours.

We're expecting the president to say more in a press conference

with the PM this afternoon, but in an article in today's

telegraph he's already said: "The European Union doesn't moderate

A strong Europe is not a threat to Britain's global leadership.

It enhances Britain's global leadership."

President Obama's wholehearted support for the Remain campaign has

obviously irritated Leave supporters, who have suggested

the US president should keep his views to himself.

Here's Nigel Farage talking to me last night

on This Week about whether he's right to intervene.

I was in Washington last year, meeting senators who

thought the EU was like Nafta, just like a friendly trade club.

A less generous one is that it's in his interests

of big giant American corporate businesses

that Britain stays part of the EU,

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership treaty.

And earlier this morning, Boris Johnson also emerged

to criticise Barack Obama for his stance on the UK's

It's always very good to hear from Barack Obama.

I'm a big fan of Barack Obama on any subject.

But clearly, this is something where we have a disagreement,

and I do think it's perverse that we're being urged

by the United States to embroil ourselves ever more deeply

in a system where our laws, 60% of them are now emanating

from the EU, when the United States would not dream

of subjugating itself in any way

to any other international jurisdiction.

Let's talk now to our correspondent Sarah Campbell,

Sarah, I guess for the next couple of hours, any way, the politics gets

put aside by the ceremony of this lunch between the president and the

Queen. Indeed. It is a private lunch, but wouldn't it be

fascinating to be a fly on the wall on that lunch? We're not going to

hear about what is being discussed. As you say, the president and the

First Lady due to be arriving by helicopter shortly. They will go

into Windsor Castle. They have met the Queen on two previous occasions,

a state visit in 2011 at Buckingham Palace. That was memorable for the

picture of Michelle Obama with her arm around the waist of the Queen,

going rather against royal protocol. It was taken as a sign that the two

couples are quite close, that they have struck up a friendship. They

met in 2009 again on a private visit. But when Mr Obama was asked

in that Daily Telegraph interview, obviously this is a visit, very

close to the EU referendum, that's why his comments about the EU have

caused such headlines, but he said about the visit to the Queen and the

timing that simply he wanted to wish her a happy birthday in person. That

is of course what he's going to do here today. He will leave here, go

back to London, have the press conference with David Cameron. This

evening, another royal engagement, Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and

Prince Harry are hosting a dinner for the couple this evening. They

met William in 2014. Michelle Obama has met Harry a number of times,

because she's been a very vocal supporter of the Invictus Games. A

royal connection between the first family and the Queen and the rest of

the Royal Family. Two royal meals in one day for the president of a great

republic. You wonder why they had a revolution in the first place. Let

me ask you, is Michelle Obama, is the First Lady going to either the

lurchl, dinner or both? Both. Absolutely. The couple are both.

They will be arriving here very shortly. You remember presidents

have been here before. The Queen famously has met 11 of the last 12

US presidents. Two of them have been here at Windsor Castle, George Bush

and Ronald Regan. He was riding into the great park with the Queen. A

tight schedule today. I don't think we'll get that photo opportunity.

But it will be an interesting visit no less. Enjoy yourself covering

that event. If you want to get into the lunch, mention my name, I'm sure

that open a few doors. I'll do my best. What do you think? The think

the Brexiteers would be advised to take the day off. I mean... That's

not bad advice. I'm in the a great fan of Barack Obama personally, but

the guy looks great. He's about to be pictured all day being nice to

the Queen. He's the leader of the free world. Let's face it, if there

were an election tomorrow in which the two candidates were Nigel Farage

and Barack Obama in Britain, Obama would win by a landslide. What about

Boris, more chance? Possibly more chance. Two Americans, Boris and Mr

Obama. There's a danger for Brexiteers that it looks to normal

people watching the television news bulletins as though footage of Obama

looking cool, followed by footage of angry Brexit man shouting about

Obama. Are you saying that Nigel Farage being on my programme This

Week is not the equivalent of Mr Obama being with the Queen? Close!

It's quite an early intervention in the sense we're two months away from

the day. It's a powerful intervention in the sense that the

president doesn't, he doesn't speak in diplomatic code. He talks of we

have shed blood together in common battles, we have stood for common

values and so on. It's a no holds barred endorsement of the Remain

position We definitely know what the president thinks from the article

today. I think that it is very powerful. I mean, the Leave

campaigners had an argument that perhaps all the Remain arguments

were a bit OTT. The NHS would break down, there would be a lost

generation, we're waiting for a plague of frogs. But this week it

does start to feel a little bit like, you know, actually, these are

pretty powerful arguments, the former US Treasury secretary, now

President Obama. The Leave campaigners feel they need to hit

back. That Boris Johnson article out today. That's in the Sun. Does he

describe Mr Obama as part Kenyan? What he does is he refers to the

Kenyan ancestry of Barack Obama. He talks about a Winston Churchill bust

being moved out of the Oval Office when Barack Obama became president.

Number Ten that actually happened before he joined. But nevertheless,

that's the argument that Boris Johnson is making. He's essentially

arguing that some said the ancestry, the Kenyan ancestry makes him

anti-British. Oh, I see. People raising questions about that. Yvette

Cooper this morning saying actually that is bad judgment. If he was

anti-British, why urge us to stay in the EU which he thinks is in our

interests? You could make that choice. They would say he's not

talking about Britain's interests but support Forjatt the EU -- for

the EU. There's a long while to go and This could all be forgotten. But

so far this week the Remain has President Obama and Leave's got Mr

Botham. And Marine Le Pen. And Bernie Ekey. -- Bernie Ecclestone.

That was bad. Not a good comparison. By the time it gets to June 23,

we'll see if we even remember any of this. A long way to go.

What sports team did the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn,

say he suspected the Queen privately supports, when he paid tribute

a) St Louis Cardinals baseball team

c) Montreal Canadiens ice hockey team

d) Wigan Warriors rugby club

At the end of the show, Iain and Anushka will give

I bet you know it. Do you? Don't tell!

So, we're expecting Barack Obama to give a joint press conference

in the Locarno Room of the Foreign Office.

It's a grand space, and David Cameron will be

Before that, the president will hold talks on a range of issues

Top of their agenda will be discussions on countering

the terrorist threat from the so-called Islamic State.

More than 25,000 fighters have been killed and 22,000 targets damaged

or destroyed since August 2014, when coalition airstrikes

in Syria and Iraq began, according to Downing Street.

The president's visit comes as America increases

The US has agreed to deploy an additional 200 military

Eight Apache helicopters are also being deployed for the first time

It comes as the Iraqi government puts an offensive to retake

The Iraqi army has been make prog gross in a number of areas, but in

the determination to retake Mosul, after three weeks of fighting, it

had only captured three villages, casting doubt on whether it has the

capability to take back Iraq's second city.

Meanwhile in Syria, the truce, brokered as part of UN-led peace

negotiations in Geneva, came under threat as opposition rebels

The Syrian government has accused rebel groups of taking part

in fighting around Aleppo, breaking terms of the truce.

While rebels say they have been defending themselves.

However, there was better news this week in Libya,

with IS militants said to have been pushed out of the city of Derna,

retreating along the coast to their stronghold of Sirte.

Which they still hold along with about 180 miles of the Mediterranean

coastline on either side of the city.

Philip Hammond, travelled to Libya, where he said it was "quite

possible" that the UK would receive a request from Tripoli for naval

Let's talk now to our defence correspondent, Jonathan Beale.

Let's begin in Iraq and then move on to Libya. How do you assess the

position of the Iraqi forces as they attempt to retake Mosul at the

moment? How serious is this setback? Well, I think it's a setback. What

you've had from the US is the response that they have essentially

put pressure on Iraq to accept these Apache helicopters, not a lot of

them, eight, as you say. But there is now US artillery also surrounding

Mosul, including rocket artillery. You've had an increase of US

military personnel, another 200 people, US military personnel, in

the country. And you have the US advisors going in to battalion

level, not just brigade level, in other words getting closer to the

fight. That tells you that I think Americans are worried that the

Iraqis need support. They are obviously very cautious and not

overriding the Iraqi government. But they realise the Iraqi security

forces need help, if they are going to retake Mosul. And everybody, all

the military commanders I've spoken to say, that is the goal this year.

To be taken seriously they've got to start doing that. At the moment,

they haven't been successful. What do you make of these figures coming

out of Downing Street that 25,000 fighters have been killed in the

accumulation of allied air strikes against Islamic State in Iraq and in

Syria? Well, I think the first thing to say is I think you should treat

any figures cautiously, in that there are not boots on the ground as

in most conflicts. This is also a claim that there are no civilian

casualties. It's hard to identify exactly what's going on on the

ground. That figure of 25,000 is the same essentially, the Downing Street

street figure, as the US-led coalition figure. The problem has

been in the past that they said there were only 25,000 fighters on

the ground, they killed that number already and still there are more.

You have to be cautious about the figures but yes, a lot of Is

fighters have been killed. They are being targeted. US forces have been

going into snatch senior IS commanders on the ground. A lot of

people have been killed, IS commanders, fighters, still they are

clearly able to hold a lot of ground. The focus now seems to be

increasingly on Libya, where IS has a stronghold around the town of

Sirte. Because of the attacks in Iraq and Syria, a number of IS

people have fled from there and gone to there. They had a setback in

Syria, am I right in thinking they're still around that town and

the coastline, IS is pretty well dug in there? It's an important force in

Libya? If you're talking about Syria...

Sorry, I meant Libya. In the BR, IS is a huge worry for the US and for

Britain that IS has strong foothold in Syria. That is why they have been

hoping for this invites from one of the governments in Libya to put

trainers on the ground. We had those reports earlier that 1000 British

trainers were ready to go in. The invitation has not come in and it

has become clear from my conversations with British ministers

that they may not get the invitation. That said, Philip

Hammond has said as support of the positivity, plus maritime support

and train the coastguard to tackle the migration crisis, which is also

linked to the chaos going on in Libya at the moment. But really,

they haven't got a problem functioning government that is

confident enough to invite foreign forces in. There will be a meeting

with President Obama and other senior leaders like David Cameron in

Hanover soon to talk about Libya and try and look at the way forward. But

at the moment, the problem is that there was not a government that has

much clout and has the confidence to invite foreign forces in, and that

may backfire. So they are stuck at the moment. It is a worrying

situation, and they are not able to do much. Thanks for joining us.

We've been joined now from Southampton by the Conservative

MP and chairman of the Defence Select Committee, Julian Lewis.

Even if the Downing Street figures need to be taken with some kind of

warning, is it not clear to you that although you oppose these air

strikes, they are having an effect on degrading Islamic State in Iraq

and Syria? Well, you do have to take such figures with caution and I

noticed that a combined figure was given for alleged inflicted

casualties in both Iraq and Syria. The truth is that there has been a

credible air effort in Iraq, because there are forces on the ground,

Iraqi government forces, in support of which the air strikes are being

carried out. There have been far fewer such strikes in Syria. The

problem in Syria is that the government cannot make up its own

mind to choose one of the two not very attractive alternatives, namely

that the Assad regime succeeds or that the Islamists succeed. An air

power by itself is hardly ever decisive. Wars have to be won by

ground forces with air power in support. In Syria, we lack the

ground forces that we are supposed to be supporting, where the Russians

have ground forces that they are supporting. It is called the Syrian

army. But presumably you are not arguing for ground forces. No, I am

not. In 2013, I was one of the 39 conservative and Lib Dem so-called

rebels who prevented us picking the same disastrous mistake in Syria,

namely pulling down another dictator and replacing it with another

Islamist state, as had been made in both Iraq and Libya. So was a good

thing that Mr Putin went in to essentially says Mr Assad? Well, it

depends on whether you believe, as the Government believes, that there

is a third democratic, pluralistic option other than the authoritarian

dictatorship of Assad on the wrong hand and another Islamist radical

state on the other. But assuming there is not an Islington Labour

Party ready to take over Syria, which I think is a fair assumption,

was it a good thing that Mr Putin stopped Assad been toppled? It is

absolutely a good thing not to pull down Arab dictators if the result is

that you get another radical Islamist state. So the answer is, it

is not good that there are these dictators in power, it is just less

bad than the alternative. I want to move on to Libya, because it is

connect to the migration crisis. But firstly, you voted against these air

strikes. Of course, those of us who began our journalism in the Vietnam

era were well taught to take official figures with a pinch of

salt, but could you not admit that the air campaign has been more

effective than its critics have said, otherwise why would these

Islamic State militants be fleeing Syria to go to Libya? I don't agree

with that, for the simple reason that I did not vote against air

strikes in Iraq. In Iraq, there were ground forces which can benefit from

the use of air strikes and therefore, I supported them. In

Syria, however, the only ground forces that really count are the

ground forces of the Assad dictatorship on the one hand and a

ground forces of the Islamists on the other. And in Syria, there is

little evidence of air strikes by us having anything other than a

marginal effect, which is exactly what critics like myself predicted

at the outset. I should mention that these are my personal views. I

understand that, we are only asking you to speak for yourself. Some of

the reports we have been getting are that a number of IS people have fled

from Syria to go to Libya, which brings me onto Libya. There is talk

that the British may be asked to participate in what is being called

a stabilisation force that will be deployed in Libya. My understanding

is that it would be around the airport in Tripoli. They would

secure that and then start to do some training. Whether that is right

or wrong, should the Government get the permission of Parliament to do

that, or is it within the Government's power to do it without

Parliamentary approval? There is no doubt that the constitutional

position is that the Government has the right not only to put forces

into a country, but even to send forces to fight in a country without

asking Parliament first. But it would be very risky for a government

to take military action if it didn't have the support of Parliament.

Sometimes a government has to take military action urgently and and, of

course, it needs to try and get Parliamentary support thereafter.

They are meeting in Hanover in Germany on day, and this may be one

of the outcomes. The Germans, of course, will not participate, but

the British, French, Americans and possibly the Italians would be

involved. Does the Prime Minister have to come to Parliament to get

approval for this or not? In advance, no. Retrospectively, it is

not a constitutional requirement. But in practical political terms, it

is a necessity. Julian Lewis, thank you for joining us. Anuskha, it is a

complicated picture now with events in Iraq and Syria and now in Libya.

In Libya, given what Jonathan Beale was telling us, there is really a

government to support. This could be another quite a. One of the things

Julian points to is the question of whether you have to come to

Parliament and the complexity around this. One by one, some of the

invasions we have been part of have led to a situation where people are

very nervous now about whether we get involved. Let's remember that

after they declared victory in Libya, two years later, the British

Embassy was shutting down and everyone was having to leave. There

is not the appetite now to go in, and yet some MPs I speak to feel

terribly sad that we've therefore did not intervene earlier in Syria,

which they thought might have been the right thing to do. But when you

step back a bit and look, it is hard to see what our policy should be. We

invaded Iraq and occupied it with the Americans, not a huge success

story. We attacked Libya, but didn't occupy it, not a huge success story.

We did not invade Syria. Other than some air strikes, we have barely

attacked Syria. Not a great success story! Where to go next? This is an

example of Obama's failure. Luckily, it will soon not be his problem.

There is a presidential election coming. But that is frightening in

itself in that we know what is happening with Trump and Hillary.

The options don't look good. Mrs Clinton would be more of a

traditional president. Exactly what I was going to say. Surely the chaos

in the Middle East place to her strengths. Would mainstream middle

ground voters really trust a Ted Cruz or Donald Trump to try and

untangle this complexity and come up with a coherent western policy? I

would suggest that Hillary Clinton has the advantage is there. We will

leave it there. Julian Lewis is still listening, I don't blame you.

Now, in March's Budget, George Osborne unveiled proposals

to make every school in England an academy by 2022.

But the Government's plans haven't been met with universal acclaim

on the Conservative backbenches, with more than a dozen Tory MPs

expressing reservations, before any bill containing

the measures has even been brought before the Commons.

Yesterday, Schools Minister, Nick Gibb, told us the reforms

would boost performance in all schools.

This is about ensuring that we have good schools

in every part of the country and in every local authority area,

that become academies can spread that best practice

to underperforming schools in the area,

and underperforming schools get strong sponsors

It's all about improving the quality of schools so that when the parent

drops off their child at the school gates,

that the school they're going to is of a high quality.

We've been joined from Hull by the Shadow Schools

Can we step back from the business of whether schools should be forced

to become academies. Is Labour still enthusiasm about the concept of

academies? We have to look at parents and children's interest.

Whatever a school is, whether it is an academy or community School, what

matters is it performing for parents and children. That is why the idea

of forcing every school to become an academy is nonsense. That is not

what I asked you. I hesitate to say this, but your party started it with

academies under the Labour government. It does not sound to me

from what you have said that you are very enthusiastic about the concept

any more. When academies came in, they came in to support schools that

had a history of decades of not delivering for the young people. It

was a radical solution to a radical problem, and it worked in most

cases. But we then saw a situation where the new Coalition Government

made it possible for any school that wanted to to become an academy. The

schools that want to become academies already have that

situation in place. Those schools that are performing at good or

outstanding level, why should they be made to become academies and

distract all the energy and spend public money on it? This is a wrong

set of priorities. I will come onto that, but you are getting off the

point I am trying to get you to address. Is it your view now that

you should stick only to those schools which are in trouble and

that they should become academies and the rest shouldn't? Not at all.

We have a mixed estate now. Some schools are academies, some are

community schools. Let's not get worked up about the structure of the

school. All of these schools are welcome. Would you bring academies

under local government control against? I think there needs to be

local government oversight and accountability for local

communities. This week, we had a situation where many parents

couldn't get the school of their choice for the son or daughter. But

that always happens. It is getting worse under this Government. 80% of

parents got their first choice. But that is a loss of parents still but

didn't. We need better school place planning to make sure the places are

in the right place. At the moment, we have a Government creating

schools in places where they are not needed and not addressing problems

in places where the schools are needed, which is irresponsible and a

waste of public money. Labour has described the idea of forcing

schools to become academies as privatisation of the school system.

How did you work that out? We can go down a lot of ideological table

tennis on this, or we can focus on children and parents. But is it or

isn't it privatisation? It does move towards marketisation of the school

system, but that is a distraction... You would need to ask the people

doing that. But your party is to blame. We still haven't got an

answer from Nick Gibb or Nicky Morgan or the Prime Minister of why

they want to force schools to become academies. That is the question. You

are distracting a lot of attention of parents, teachers, head teachers

on to things like what we saw this morning, where the key stage one

test, a lot of effort was put into that and then it goes pear shaped at

the last minute because the Government has not got its act

together. 66% of secondary schools in England,

only England, are now academies. Isn't this the clear direction of

travel now? The Government is saying all schools should become academies.

Sir Michael Wilshaw said, wrote to the Secretary of State and said

seven large academy chains were failing and asked the Secretary of

State to do something about it. We should have systems in place to

address failure, whether it happens in an academy or in a maintained

school. That's the key issue to focus on, not to say that every

school must be an academy because we like that name above the door.

That's ideological nonsense. Thank you for joining us. It wasn't in the

Tory manifesto. It was kind of sprung on us by not the Education

Secretary, but by the Chancellor in the Budget. Was this just an idea to

give George Osborne something for what was then his campaign to be the

next Prime Minister? David Cameron actually did first speak about this

at his conference speech. I think they see this as an example of how

they are big reformers, that they can really shake up the

edgeindication system. So -- education system. So to that extent

it was there to hit back against critics who were saying actually

you're not doing anything, you're completely paralysed because of the

EU referendum. But I think it's causing them some problem. Most of

us would agree that Jeremy Corbyn had one of his best Prime Minister's

Questions this week, six questions based on this. Courting a lot of

Conservatives. Yeah, big figures Graham Braidy, Graham Stuart, the

former chair of the education Select Committee. It's not the people who

are against academies per se, you mention secondary schools, this is

more of an issue for primary schools. Because they will be

included in this plan. There's many more of them and they will be

included. Does acad piesation improve standards and should good

schools be forced to do it? Critics say no. The National Assocaition of

Head Teachers, not really trouble makers as far as unions go, wrote to

dozens of MPs this week to say village schools could be at risk

because the Government are trying to push people into multiacademy chains

and actually, that's not good for a lot of Conservative MPs. This is

really, this is the completion of a very long Tory story going back to

the early 1990s, when Major was under pressure to extend the grant

maintained programme. In that sense, and force all schools to become

grant maintained, and didn't. The sense among Tories was after that it

petered out and it was re-invented as the academy programme. If they're

going to do that, this is where the weakness is, you've got to get the

politics absolutely right. Doing it in the terms that Andrew described

in the Budget, let's face it George Osborne was looking for stuff to pad

out a Budget which was pretty thin and to make him look like a leader

in waiting. It made no sense whatsoever to have the Chancellor of

the Exchequer announcing that or making such a big play of it, rather

than doing it properly, calmly, via the Education Secretary and through

proper consultation. No consultation or debate. She will strive to unpick

it. She is listening. Innicy Morgan wants -- Nicky Morgan wants to do

it, but she's listening to the critics. Probably more than tweaks.

Concessions. Junior doctors are going

on an unprecedented, all-out strike next Tuesday

and Wednesday, in protest at the Government's decision to impose

a controversial new contract. That decision was taken

by the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, after negotiations

with the British Medical Association failed to come up with a compromise

both sides could back. Here is Jeremy Hunt announcing his

decision in a statement Progress has been made on almost 100

different points of discussion, with agreement secured with the BMA

on approximately 90% of them. Sadly, despite this progress

and willingness from the Government to be flexible on the crucial

issue of Saturday pay, advising that a negotiated solution

is not realistically possible. That was Jeremy Hunt in February,

announcing his decision to impose a new contract on junior doctors,

after the British Medical Association rejected

a best and final offer We've been joined by a junior doctor

and campaigner, Dagan Lonsdale. Welcome to the programme. As you

move to an all-out strike, you must be concerned that the public support

you have enjoyed so far could now atrophy. I think the first thing to

say as we're a few days ahead of unprecedented action in the NHS, it

is a real shame that the Government refuse continually to do the one

thing that would stop strikes, the one thing in their power to stop

strikes, that is to engage in a conversation with the people who

work on the shop floor and look after the patients. The Government

says it had 75 meetings with you and made 73 Government concessions. Why

would one more meeting make a difference? The Government love to

spin that they are the ones making all the concessions. The BMA have

done that as well. A contract is not finished until the contract is

finished. It is not good enough to simply throw your hands up in the

air and say it's going to be imposed. You don't need to just

listen to doctors. The vice-presidents of the Patients'

Association today say there are legitimate safety concerns over the

proposed contract and tone force it risks danger to patients and would

be neglect. So there are lots of people, the heads of all the royal

colleges, the junior doctors themselves, both grass-roots and BMA

all saying it's time to talk with the Health Secretary and until we

can have a negotiated settlement, we won't have an NHS that is safe and

sustainable. Are patients going to be at risk next week? The first

thing we need to be clear about is what's being proposed? The

Government are trying to spin that junior doctors are leaving patients

in the lurch. That is untrue. That's why I'm asking you, tell us the

truth. We're having nine hours where care will be delivered by the most

experienced doctors in the hospital, consultants and non-junior doctor

grade doctors. To suggest that those professionals are unable to look

after patients for nine hours is frankly insulting to them and - Are

they at risk or not? The fact of the matter is that Trusts have had six

weeks to prepare for this strike action. They have had plenty of time

to mitigate the risk. So they won't be at risk? My view is with the

notice that has been given to Trusts and the fact that Trusts have, in my

case, hundreds of consultants, at their call they have plenty of time

to make plans to make things safe. The fact remains, we don't want to

have to cancel patient appointments, we don't want operations to be

cancelled. We want to look after patients. What separates you now, is

it all down now just to Saturday pay? Again, this is just an example

of Government spinning and Government rhetoric. There are

legitimate safety concerns about the contract primarily around the fact

that seven day NHS was scribbled on the back of an envelope at the last

election. If the Government was more generous with Saturday pay, would

that pretty much do it? Again, I think this narrative that doctors

are just interested in money is not the truth. It's not a narrative,

it's a simple question. If the Government was more generous on

Saturday pay, would that bring the dispute to an end? No. Absolutely

not. Junior doctors have had a 15% real terms pay cut in the last five

years. The pensions attacked twice. This is not about money. This is

about a safe set of working conditions. What is the further

concessions the Government has to do to bring the dispute to an end? In

my view the first thing we need to do is have a full and Frank

discussion about what seven-day NHS means, what we can afford and what

can be safely staffed. Why haven't you had that in the 75 meetings

you've had? That's a for Government. I notice they haven't put anyone up

to debate the matter here. We see that a junior doctor is prepared to

come and stand and defend the arguments that junior doctors have

been putting forward but Government aren't prepared for debate. They

know if they're debated on facts, the lack of staff and funding

they'll be found wanting. This is a pledge to win votes in the election.

What you would need to ends this is the Government to say we're going to

deploy more star and we're going to deploy more funding? I think those

are key issues if we want a fully functioning seven-day NHS with

elective services across the weekend. I don't think that's

unreasonable. You and I both know that's highly - you may be right by

the way, in saying that's what needs to be done, that's not the issue for

me. You and I both know that the Government is not going to do that.

Where does this go? The first thing that needs to happen is that doctors

and Government need to talk and that is so, so simple. You have been

talking, we've ended up with a strike. You're absolutely right.

There needs to be honest discussions. The Government need to

be honest about what they can afford. It is not my job to come up

with the policy that is funded, that is staffed. It is my job to make

sure that patients are safe in the long-term of the NHS and that is

what junior doctors have been fighting for. Where will this go?

It's been extremely embarrassing and very damaging for the Government.

Now it's crossing that line whereas you move to all-out action, I think

you run a real risk of losing the public support and testing the

public's patience really. Also, I think the idea that it was yet again

a plea for more money and more resources. The country is still

running a ?70 billion - 74. ?74 billion deficit at the top of the

cycle, with the economy not looking too hot. I don't think there is

going to be that much more money to go around. Maybe the Government

should never have gone down this seven-day a week Health Service in

the first place, if it hasn't got the extra resources? One of the big

things ahead of the election they said they were going to sign up to

the call for more money in the NHS but never quite explained where the

money was actually going to come from. For the public with all of

this, one of the things that's complicated is they don't understand

what's going on in the contract. They don't know what this is about.

On the one hand, bad news for Jeremy Hunt to get into such a big fight

with the nation's doctors. On the other hand, clearly a bit of a risk,

because most people don't get paid as much as doctors.

We have to leave it there. We thank you for coming on. We'll keep an eye

on this. Grateful to you. Straight to Windsor. There you can see the

president has arrived with the First Lady. Just got off that enormous

helicopter that the president of the United States has, speaking to the

Queen. The Queen not wearing her crown today, some of you will have

noticed. Juf a headscarf. She's meeting a small "r" republican.

Prince Philip as well. We're told the chemistry between the four of

them is actually rather powerful. That's why the Queen was very happy

that both the president and the First Lady were coming to lunch.

Prince Philip there organising things, as always, as he climbs into

the car. They're going to lunch around 1pm at Windsor Castle. They

are then, the president will then zoom back into London where he's

going to meet the Prime Minister around 3pm. There we are, the

president and First Lady of the United States have arrived at

Windsor Castle to have lunch with the Queen to celebrate her 90th

birthday. In just under two weeks' time,

Londoners go to the polls to decide In a minute, we'll discuss the state

of the campaign, but first, let's take a look at the runners

and riders all hoping to take over I want London to be affordable

to Londoners, because if it's not, London will cease to be

the important city that it is. I think I've got the experience, the

vision and the values to be a mayor Quite leftie Liberal

Democrat manifesto. It's too dominated by

egos, this election. If you want a really radical mayor,

you do need to vote Green. There's huge division now in London,

and as a Londoner born and bred, that's one of the things that

worries me most. And we've been joined

by Ayesha Hazarika, who was political advisor

to Harriet Harman, and by Harry Phibbs, who writes

for the Conservative Home website. A number of Conservatives I speak to

say that Mr Goldsmith's campaign has been lacklustre. Boris Johnson is a

tough act to follow. You go on a walk about and there's the mania of

a pop star. That's a bit difficult for him. If we were talking about it

in terms of the polls, I think it will all be about turnout. The poor

old pollsters, we know to be sceptical about them. You think

there's still a chance? The polls are now, one of the polls I saw was

he was about 11 points behind. Yes, but then, we talk about lying

politicians but you have lying electorate. Those polls saying it's

going to be 50% turnout. I don't believe that for a second. There's a

trouble, the problem for Zac with the turnout that a lot of

Conservatives are on the edge, outer London, but London's bureaucratic

entity don't think of themselves as Londoners, they think of themselves

as living in Kent, Surrey or Essex. To try and persuade them, they find

it slightly insulting to be called Londoners. To persuade them to vote

is a challenge for the Conservatives. Is it a good way to

Garner votes to call them liars? The opinion pollsters end up with these

figures and you know, I think it's a problem for them. The attacks on the

kind of people Sadiq Khan has been mixing with, when he was a lawyer,

has been more virulent from the campaign. Is this a sign of

desperation? Of course it is an issue. Jeremy

Corbyn was challenged about his extremist links, and the idea that

Sadiq Khan should say it is anti-Muslim for him to be questioned

is ridiculous. It is not that he shares those views himself, but that

it is poor judgment. Just as he nominated Jeremy Corbyn but says he

doesn't agree with Jeremy Corbyn, then why is he standing up for

people if he doesn't agree with those views? He is mad, we will be

back with the Ken Livingstone thinks of people in City Hall pushing a

divisive message. What do you say to that? It smacks of desperation from

the Conservative campaign that they are having to resort to this. This

is one of the worst political campaigns we have seen in a long

time, and I include the Edstone, it is that bad! People feel that the

Zac campaign failed to launch. When Zac was selected, people on the

Labour side were worried because he is a charismatic guy, independent

thinking. He is of the centre, seems gentle and kind, he could be a real

threat. That it has almost been like the Zac has been locked away and a

very nasty campaign is taking place which even Zac looks uncomfortable

with. I know why they have done it. They have gone for the old school

playbook, push a brutal message of fear. I don't think it will work in

London. I think London is a very different type of city. It is a more

tolerant city, and I think it has misjudged the mood of the country.

You don't thing Zac has any questions to answer? He said to me

that he regretted giving the impression that by appearing on

platforms with these people, he shared their views. You mean Sadiq

Khan. Sorry, yes. He was a human rights lawyer and the nature of that

job is that you are mixing with people who are controversial. But he

wasn't just doing it as a lawyer, he often appeared on platforms with

them. As a lawyer, you have to represent whoever you are told to,

but it was more than that, he appeared on platforms. Is that not a

legitimate issue to raise? It is, and he has tried to explain himself

about to go on and on and trans mayhem by association seems

desperate. I think Sadiq should take heart from this. We have just seen

Barack Obama arriving and they have tried to smear him in terms of being

Muslim. Sorry, who? On this trip? You mean in earlier days. Yes, and

it didn't go so well. David Cameron, of course, mentioned the people

Sadiq had been sharing a platform within Prime Minister's Questions. I

did it in the debate as well. But it turns out that one that we both

mentioned is actually a member of the local Conservative Party and is

supporting Sadiq Khan's local Conservative rival. That was news to

the Conservative candidate for Tooting, who had no knowledge of him

supporting him. It is a question of judgment. If you are repeatedly

appearing on a platform and repeatedly trying to stick up for

people... What is unfair about it saying that Zac Goldsmith is only

being negative. He has a very positive manifesto which has not had

much attention. The most important difference between what Zac and what

Boris has been doing is over the tower blocks and what houses look

like. There is an agenda for saying if we want new houses, you have to

make them attractive and turn the NIMBYs into people who are

pro-beauty in my backyard. So instead of new buildings meaning

London gets more ugly, it is possible to have houses that are

more attractive. And you wonder why Zac Goldsmith is 11 points behind

with a slogan like that! Until now, the slogan has not been broadcast BA

Bimby, not a NIMBY. I can already see the hashtag! The polls suggest

that Labour will win London. I would suggest that the significance of

that is that although Labour are doing badly in Scotland, England and

in Wales, Mr Corbyn cannot afford to lose London. He is a London Labour

MP. He is surrounded by London MPs. It is a metropolitan Labour Party

now and he cannot you lose in his own backyard. No. I wrote about this

a long time ago, saying London was almost like a cup final for Labour.

They needed it to rally troops elsewhere in the country. There is a

big debate in the Labour Party about what success means elsewhere, but

London just has to come. Actually, it does look like Sadiq is on track

to win, despite what you have been talking about. And I think Zac

Goldsmith believes it is probably about judgment, and that is why they

are talking about Sadiq's individuals with certain

individuals. I think he might look back at the end of this and feel it

was a bit grubby. There were leaflets at the beginning talking

about radical people with Sadiq Khan. That was about politics, not

religion. There were people who have appeared with Goldsmith himself. As

someone who is non-white, why do we criticise non-white people when they

appear in this way? It makes me uncomfortable. I know people on

Zac's team who I am sure are not doing this in a grubby way and do

think it is about judgment, but it could backfire with people feeling

like this about it. I take that point, but it is pretty tame

compared to mayoral contests in the United States, the dog whistle

politics and borderline corruption. This has been a pretty gentle

affair. I think the Goldsmith campaign, it might not work this

time, but it worked for Boris twice and in both of those elections,

everyone said, let Boris be Boris. They have cut his hair, they are

constraining him, he is not the candidate he was, and it worked. It

is all about targeting what is referred to as the doughnut, those

voters in outer London. The use of the word radical is the deliberate

to say to people who live in Outer London and who pay the taxes, you

want a London run by Jeremy Corbyn and his friends? It is about

associating that link. But the undertone is, do you want London to

be run by a Muslim? Do you think Zac Goldsmith wants that question to be

asked? I think his campaign team do. That is unfair. That is absolute

nonsense. Jeremy Corbyn has been challenged about his links, rightly.

Yvette Cooper challenged him and now she is saying to make the equivalent

challenge to Sadiq Khan is racist. It is insulting to all the Muslims

who don't have these extreme views. Of course he should be challenged

and he should answer the questions being put. This time in two weeks,

we will know the result, I think. It is a competitive system and they may

still be counting! And you can see details

of all the candidates standing for London Mayor

and the London Assembly on the BBC's Continuing rows over Europe,

McDonald's bans, Her Majesty's 90th plus the leader of the free world

popping in for a visit. Here's the week's political

news in 60 seconds. George Osborne kicked

off the week warning GDP will be over 6% smaller,

and Britain will be worse off The next day, the Leave campaign's

heavyweight, Michael Gove, Treats people, I'm

afraid, like children. Labour's NEC banned McDonald's

from running a stall at the party's annual

conference, a move that During PMQs, Jeremy Corbyn raised

concerns about plans to turn Against the wishes of teachers,

parents, school governors David Cameron insisted

the Government will finish the job. On Thursday, the Business Secretary

said he was willing to take a 25% stake in any rescue

of Tata Steel's UK operation. And on the day of the royal 9-0,

US President Barack Obama flew in to wish Her Majesty well

and to give the British people a friendly warning of the dangers

of the UK leaving the EU. You sometimes hear people say there

is a disconnect between the Westminster bubble and what is

happening in the real world. And when you look at the EU referendum

and the arguments going on over the President's visit or whatever, even

the London elections, and then you look at what is happening in Port

Talbot, where proper jobs and communities are now at stake,

critics say the Government has not had a consistent policy. You begin

to see that there is a disconnect. There is a disconnect, and we in the

media deserve criticism as well. It was a huge issue for three or four

days, maybe slightly longer, and then it was just overtaken and

disappeared and the story has not been reported with the same

intensity. A few papers are accepted. And as you say, real jobs

are at stake, thousands of them. The media attention span on this has

been quite short. True, it was on the front pages for a few days and

it is not now. We are still writing about it every day and listening to

what MPs are saying about it. As you say, real jobs at risk and real

questions about a long term industrial strategy that might get

the steel industry through this difficult period with Chinese

dumping that is going on. But as you say, we need to stay on it. And it

looks like the Government may in four parts nationalisation, not done

by the Tories since Mrs Thatcher stepped in to rescue Caledonian. It

looks like they are about to concede. Personally, I think that is

a mistake. I think the lesson from the banking crisis is that it is

easy to demand nationalisation. But you can then often find yourself,

ten years down the line, owning a share of an industry which has

longer term problems. But very difficult to get out of this without

serious investment from the UK do it. These companies are in trouble.

The spark ah assets were losing ?2 million a day at one point -- these

Tata assets were losing. There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz. What sports team did

the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, suggest

the Queen privately supports? Which one was it? I am going with

Wigan. I think it is Wigan. You are both wrong, it is Arsenal.

Thanks to Iain, Anushka and all my guests.

I'll be back on Sunday at 11am with the Sunday Politics,

when I'll be talking to the Shadow Education Secretary,

Actually, I will be on at a later time of 1:40 p.m.. I know you are

looking forward to it.