29/04/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Labour promises to get a grip, following the anti-Semitism meltdown

within the party, Jeremy Corbyn says it is not a crisis.

Just a week ahead of crucial elections, has the very public row

which saw former Mayor defend Ken Livingstone defend controversial

remarks about Hitler and Israel seriously damaged Labour?

Nigel Farage says he's aiming for his enemy's goal as he puts

immigration front and centre of his campaign to leave the EU.

Barak Obama's intervention in the EU debate was high

profile and controversial - we'll be asking a former US

ambassador to Nato if it's advice America itself would ever follow.

They were a true blue Conservative idea to strengthen

But have Police and Crime Commissioners confused

of the programme today two political soulmates in the making.

Rachel Shabi writes for the Guardan and the Independent and Toby Young

Actually they've yet to find an issue they agree on,

First today let's talk about the anti-Semitism row that

The former Mayor Ken Livingstone pushed the self-destruct button

in an extraordinary sequence of events at Westminster.

Mr Livingstone, who was co-chairman of the Labour's defence policy

review, claimed in a series of interviews including one on this

programme that Hitler had once supported Zionism; the movement

to establish a Jewish state in what is now Israel.

He said that anti-Semitism was not "exactly the same" as racism,

adding that someone was only anti-Semitic if they hated

all Jewish people, "not just the ones in Israel".

You Nazi apologist. Re-writing history.

As he came into this building to be interviewed

on the Daily Politics Mr Livingstone was involved in a heated

confrontation with the Labour MP John Mann, who accused

Mr Livingstone of being a "Nazi apologist".

Just a week away from elections across the UK that are crucial

for the Labour Party, a series of MPs including the London

mayoral candidate Sadiq Khan called for him to be suspended form

the party for his "appalling and inexcusable" remarks.

Well this is what happened when Mr Livingstone made

But you seem to be implying, "Oh, well, he wasn't such a bad guy, cos

he just wanted to deport them all, but he only went wrong later on".

I mean, people will think it unbelievable, what they're hearing

He was a monster from start to finish but

it's simply the historical fact - his policy was initially to send all

Hitler was not a Zionist and to suggest so

I think you've lost it, Mr Livingstone.

It's a deliberate, calculated attempt to cause

You certainly shouldn't be on Labour's national executive.

Soon after we went off air Ken Livingstone was suspended

from the Labour Party, while John Mann was hauled before

the Chief Whip to be told it was completely inappropriate

to be involved with rows with other Labour members on TV.

Well Mr Corbyn insists here is no crisis in the party,

and that the small number of cases of anti-Semitism in the party have

Mr Livingstone spoke to reporters this morning as he left his house

I'm not making any statement until I do my LBC programme with David

Mellor at ten o'clock tomorrow morning.

If you got questions, phone in and ask us, just like all the

What do you think Corbyn should do about...

I've just told you, I'm not doing interviews.

You can waste your time standing here all day.

I've got to do the washing, then I'm doing some

work on the pond, moving some of the newts.

Good to boost your ratings in your show, we never miss an opportunity

To bring us up to speed with what's been happening this morning,

we're joined by our correspondent Iain Watson.

Have there been developments this morning? It has, Andrew, apart from

Ken Livingstone spending time with his much-loved reptiles rather than

members of the press, regarded as much the same thing to be honest!

But Watson called Ken Livingstone's remarks crass and in addition

suggested that an investigation currently carried out by a Labour

peer, Baroness Royal, connected to Neil Kinnock and into anti-Semitism

by some of the students at Oxford University that investigation could

have a wider remit to look at anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.

There could be suggestions for changes to rules against

anti-Semitism and racism. So he is going on the front foot But the

criticism has been that while Jeremy Corbyn is not in the slightest bit

anti-Semitic has been slow to act. So what we are beginning to see in

the Labour Party is the issue being used as the soft underbelly against

his own leadership and calling into question his judgments.

There must be a danger that this story, as we say in the trade, has

legs, over the weekend. That it will carry into the weekend, everybody

trawling around for examples of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party,

especially in Jeremy Corbyn's wing of the Labour Party. They may not

find anymore, we don't know. But I get the sense this story will not go

away quickly? I think that is right. For a number of reasons. Firstly, I

think you are right, there will be a continuing trawl. Speak to a Labour

MP offer the record he said there is more to the story. Some have been

looking at the supporters of Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps some to the left of

the Labour Party and came to the Labour Party in order to support his

leadership, many of them prove Palestinian and anti-Zionist, or at

the least, critical of some of the actions of the government of the

state of Israel and people are looking to see if those comments

have spilled over into anti-Semitism and can be used as a stick with

which to beat Jeremy Corbyn's own supporters. In addition, there are

former frontbenchers lining up to denounce what will be poor elections

results for Labour in England. And I think that they have been given am

mission, as they can say that Jeremy Corbyn's lack of grip will

contribute to poor results. So pressure on his leadership and more

pressure on his supporters in the next few days.

Thank you. And before you start writing in to

us, I think that newts are amphibians and with are the

reptiles, the journalists? That is probably right.

Rachel Shabi was it right to suspend Ken Livingstone? Anti-Semitism

clearly is a problem. At the same time I think it would be naive to

not see what is going on in the #4r5i7 in the context of there being

elements of the reason and the Labour Party itself that are using

this, that want to undermine the Jeremy Corbyn leadership and have

openly spoken about him not wanting to be there.

So was it right to suspend him? So there is that as a context and

looking at the speed with which the Labour Party responded and the

numbers involved, that is where the claim it is is a specifically a

Jeremy Corbyn issue, start to lose credibility. Yes, it was right to

suspend him. While we are at it, is there a wider issue with

anti-Semitism in the wider progressive left, absolutely, yes,

there is. Why? The progressive left has become

desensitised and careless to anti-Semitism. One of the reasons is

that they somehow feel that they can't be racist. Obviously a

mistake, we are all capable of racism. I think when you see a

strong and heavily ministerialised Jewish state, some people are

incapable of understanding that Jewish people are also a minority

and vulnerable to racist abuse. I think that anti-Semitism has been

used to shut down legitimate criticisms of Israel so there has

been an element that some have not been able to see beyond. And also I

think there is a hypocrisy around this which fuelled resentment. We

have a sitting Lord Mayor, that has made racist comments against a black

American President... He has been taken to task on that.

We have a Conservative mayoral candidate, openly dogging

Islamophobia, and a perception of double standards in the way we

handle these things. Which, to be serious about tackling

anti-Semitism, we have to take it seriously and to be consistent.

Toby Young is this used as a way to undermine Jeremy Corbyn's

leadership? I think clearly the anti-Corbyn group within the Labour

Party will use anything that they can to try and winkle him out. But I

don't think that you can claim that they somehow prompted Ken

Livingstone to behave in the way he did yesterday. That was an

expression of how he actually feels. I think that the difficulty for

Corbyn and the reason he hesitated before acting, I mean it was claimed

yesterday when he was interviewed for the 10.00pm news that he acted

decisively and quickly, when these episodes were brought to light.

Actually he tried to avoid suspending Naz Shah and make do with

her resigning, and delayed saying anything in response to the Ken

Livingstone fiasco in the hope, imagine, that Livingstone could

cling on. The reason for that is, I think that there is a lot of the

same baggage in Jeremy Corbyn's past. He has described Hezbollah and

Hamas as friends. Appearing on Iranian state television and also

Ken Livingstone. And the denying of the Holocaust. It is difficult for

him to come on top of Livingstone too heavily without trouble for

himself. You can make the claim but all of

these reactions have come within 24 to 48 hours. If you make it quicker,

what you are doing is a witch hunt. You have not given fair

consideration. I don't know why we think that 24 hours is too long to

react to this. I think as there were a number of reports that Jeremy

Corbyn was trying to avoid suspending Ken Livingstone.

But the issue about the Labour Party and anti-Semitism is that this

didn't happen... This is not a result of Corbyn becoming Labour

Party leader. In all of the instances, these are instances that

have been in play before he came in. It is not as though this suddenly,

magically appeared as a result of his leadership. There has always

been a toxic strand within the Labour Party who have had a blind

spot when it comes to things like anti-Semitism.

Do you think Jeremy Corbyn has a blind spot about anti-Semitism? I

do. I think that his anti-western ideology means he is willing to

embrass other groups that he sees are engaged in an anticolonial

struggle... There are moral short comings as he thinks of himself and

them on the side of the answeringels.

I think there is a confliction there. I trust Corbyn's track record

on all forms of racism. Tony Blair shared platforms with

Hamas. The shared platform thing is really dodgy.

Has he shared platforms a platform as leader of the Labour Party with

Hamas? No. He had to speak for Hamas in the

quartet... Are we to smear people as they stand next to somebody with

unsavoury views? That is starting to sound like a witch hunt.

If a Tory politicians shared a platform with BNP, what would you

say? Tory people have shared plot forms with all kinds of unsavoury

people... What leading Conservative in recent times has shared a

platform with BNP... You trying to tar people on association as opposed

to their track record on racism. I am trying to have a sensible

conversation about anti-Semitism it is important.

If you share a platform with people who think that the Jews and the

Israels should be driven into the sea, is that not an issue? It is an

issue whether you decide if you want peace and justice for both

Palestinians and Israel is. I have seen nothing that contravenes that

from Corbyn. When people attack Zionism, they are attacking Israel's

right to statehood. What they are saying is that the Israeli people

should throw themselves at the mercy of their enemies in what is probably

the most dangerous and anti-Semitic parts of the world. I will have to

move on. It is a very important subject but

we have to have time for the daily quiz.

The question for today is all about George Osborne's

appearance at the Westminster correspondents dinner last night.

The Chancellor surprised many of Fleet's Street's hungriest

and thirstiest hacks by telling some quite good jokes.

One of them was about Boris Johnson's timepiece,

so the question for today is - who appeared on the face

At the end of the show, Toby and Rachel will give us

Westminster is shutting up shop for the bank holiday weekend

but those campaigning ahead of the referendum on Britain's

membership of the EU aren't taking any time off to catch up

This morning the former Prime Minister John Major took aim

at those arguing to leave, saying the only place

they would find "undiluted sovereignty" in the modern world

And just a few hours ago Ukip leader Nigel Farage,

who of course is campaigning to leave, has tried to turn

the debate to what he sees as his side's strongest

Here is he is speaking in central London.

He discussed immigration and the sexual attacks in Cologne on New

Year's Eve. We saw the mass, open sexual

molestation of hundreds of women appearing in public and,

frankly, if we're prepared to accept - or if Germany and Sweden

are prepared to accept - unlimited numbers of young males

from countries and cultures where women are at best second class

citizens, then frankly And I do not want those young men

that were outside Cologne train station to have one of these,

in a few short years, And Nigel Farage is

here in the studio. Let's look at this issue of border

controls. Not the right to come and work here, which I understand would

change if we were to leave the EU. Anyone who comes into the UK, even

from the EU, they are checked. We stop terrorism at the border. That

won't change. The only people we can stop who got EU passports are people

who pose a direct threat to national security, namely terrorists. People

with criminal records, even serious criminal records, we have no right

to stop. We have stopped thousands coming in. There's an awful lot we

don't stop and there are people with... Whether it's burglary or

sexual assaults up Bob it's very difficult for us to stop people with

criminal records coming into Britain and once they are in Britain, it

almost impossible to stop them residing here. We cannot completely

insulate ourselves from the modern world, from the risks of terrorism

and all of these things, what we can do is make ourselves a little bit

safer by getting back control of our borders. But you won't be able to

stop people coming in, even if we are outside the EU, if they've got

EU passports, unless... Are you going to go through these assistant?

Lets say for arguments sake, the people who were outside Cologne

train station on New Year's Eve get convictions in Germany, all right?

They then in five or six years have a German passport, which is the same

as a British passport. They can come to Britain, they can settle here. We

could at that moment in time, as a free country, stop them from

entering the workplace and settling here. There's a problem with that

because anybody convicted under German law cannot get a German

passport. Under German law, you need to have a crime free record for up

to eight years before you can get a German passport. If they are

convicted, they will be ineligible for a German passport. In theory,

German citizenship is eight years. In Hungary is about three years. But

you don't get is at all if you get a criminal record. I think there is a

feeling that that will be ignored given the scale of the problem. We

are only one year in to Merkel's open door. The evidence thus far

this year is that the numbers coming to Europe are many, many times

bigger than they were last year. But it's eight years before you can get

a German passport. That's what citizenship is. I see no politician

in Germany recommending its going to change. You've got to speak the

language, you've got to have a clean criminal record. So none of the

Cologne attackers who been convicted would be accepted under German law

and therefore they couldn't come here. It's an and Sally, isn't it?

Very few of them are going to be convicted. Do we want to protect

ourselves or don't we? Are we safer nation with border controls or

without them? My point is that we still have that ability to control

the border from the kind of people you're talking about and that

doesn't change, whether we are in out of the EU. We cannot stop

criminal is coming into this country if they've got an EU passport,

simple as. The biggest threat to this country, I would suggest, given

the recent record, is not from people coming from the outside, its

home-grown terrorism, people with British passports. That was 7/7,

that was the attack on Liebrich B. That's most of the attacks at the

moment. -- Lee Rigby. Given that we have a huge home-grown problem

already, which is our own fault, why on earth would you wished to

compound that? Given that two of the eight attackers in Paris had come

back to France through the Islands, posing as migrants, given that

Europe also is that 5000 jihadis have come to Europe in the last few

months posing as migrants, you can see the scale of the problem. I

agree we have a problem. We cannot insulate ourselves completely from

global problems but we can relieve the pressure. Let me come into the

-- on to the economic arguments. You making more of an immigration case

because you are losing the economic battle? It's very clear what the

Remain camp have tried to do is pretty much what they did 40 years

ago, to use arguments about trade. I believe are spurious arguments. My

own view is that even with no successful renegotiation and just

trading on WTO rules, we'd still be better off than we are now because

the maximum cost of tariffs would only be two thirds of what our net

contribution is. However, the leave camp have been playing in their own

half of the pitch, defending the goal against these constant attacks

from the international community, whether it's the IMF or the OECD or

Obama or ogle tom Cobleigh, and where they are vulnerable, they are

vulnerable on immigration. They know there is no way we can control the

numbers coming into Britain as members of the European Union. I'm

urging the Leave camp to get onto the other half of the pitch and

start attacking their goal. You said that there would be no damage done

to the British economy if we leave and you've got Patrick Minford now,

a leading economist on your side, with six or seven other economists,

but Patrick Minford says that if we beat the EU it would" lemonade

manufacturing in the UK". Eliminate manufacturing. And is on your side!

He says it would be cheaper and we would have the ability to have

cheaper energy. So Patrick Minford says we would be better off by 4%

and not being part of the EU. But he also says if we let the EU, it would

seem likely that we mostly eliminate manufacturing, leading industry such

as design, marketing and hi-tech, in other words services. That's someone

on your side of the argument and anyone involved in manufacturing

would think, why would I vote for that to be a limited? He takes the

view that we are moving from a manufacturing to a service... But we

know that. I was in Sheffield last week and went to a steel foundry

where his Energy Bill is 60,000 quid a month. His competitors in America

and India have energy bills of 30,000 a month. I think outside the

EU, freed from some of the obligations that Blair signed us up

to, we would have a better chance stop We could change our energy

policy towards Manufacturing now. We don't have to leave the EU. The

Germans have. French and German electricity for intensive users is

much lower than ours and last time I looked, France and Germany were in

the EU. There is no question that George Osborne has been a disaster

for Manufacturing and has made the initial EU root words. But this

debate gets that are where we started the stop I don't think Joe

soap watching this hearing once I'd say we would be better off and

another saying we would be worse off will be convinced by any of it. I

think there will be a score draw because people will not get it and

understand it. If we want to win, we have to make the argument not just

for making our own laws, being in charge of our destiny, but

controlling our borders, controlling immigration and being able to have

something like the Australian style points system to measure the

quantity and quality of who comes to Britain. If we get there, we will

then motivate and mobilise Leave voters and that's how we win. But

the vote League Cup a, the official campaign, don't agree with you. They

don't think it's a score draw on economics. They think they are

winning the economic argument. And on the case of economic, if you look

at the polling, on the economic case the Remain people are winning by a

substantial amount, and they think that you and others, buying on about

immigration, it consolidates your core but it doesn't reach out to the

wider British public who, by and large, have come to terms with

immigration. And they are wrong. They back row wrong. All the polling

of the undecided shows that by a massive factor immigration,

controlling our borders, is the factor that would swing undecided

voters one way or the other. However, we have moved on. The

number of genuinely undecided voters now is quite small. It's changed a

lot. How do we know that? Consistent polling. Some polls show it at 5%,

some at 18%. But whatever, many undecideds won't vote. Maybe it is

12 or 13%. It isn't a massive number. This referendum now gets won

on turnout, gets won on passion, and the advantage that Leave has over

Remain is that the people who have made their minds up to leave

generally feel it quite passionately, and we have to

mobilise. If we get every person in this country who says they want to

leave and the big hook for nearly all of them, or the majority of

them, is the immigration argument, we make that point, we mobilise them

to vote, we win this referendum. You, Toby Young, are part of the

Leave campaign. You want us to leave the European Union. What do you

think of Nigel Farage's approach and how do you think the campaign is

going from your point of view so far? On the one hand, I share some

of the concerns you just flagged up, which is that people who are

concerned about the immigration and security risks that come from

freedom of movement and the enlargement of the EU are probably

already going to vote Leave and that the vote leave campaign should be

focusing on alleviating the anxiety about the economic risks that have

been whisked up by the campaign. But I think Nigel has a point. The

number of don't knows are shrinking and I also think that the outcome,

the result, will in the large part hinge on how great the turnout is

and if you can mobilise the levers, and I think the leave is generally

are more passionate and care more about this issue than the

remainders, that is one way to win and this is an issue that they care

deeply about. Are you Leave or Remain? I think the idea of the

right wing debating how leaving Europe could solve problems created

by the right wing is frankly laughable. Before you get into that,

are you Leave or Remain? On that basis, I am Remain because the

problem is that you want to fix are caused by right-wing policies. It's

not migration that has caused a drain on access to resources and

jobs. Its austerity. It's the Conservative policies that have

diminished trade and growth and production and the British economy,

not migration and not the EU. So the problems you are seeking to fix are

not EU problems. They are right wing austerity problems. Just come back

on the austerities point, the IMS calculator that over the five-year

term of the Coalition they save 36 billion from austerity measures.

That is less than even our net contribution to the EU in the same

period. So to blame our problems austerity is nonsensical. To say

that people aren't worried about stagnating jobs and wages is...

Statistic after statistic has shown that migrants are not a dream at any

of those things. They do say that for the average worker their real

income has declined by ten percentage 2008 and that is because

we have oversupply in the labour market in this country. I take issue

with you on one thing. I doubt that the case for or against Brexit has

anything to do with left or right wing politics. It a basic question

of democracy, of sovereignty, of controlling our borders, putting our

own people first. And there are many millions of Labour voters who are

attracted to that message. All right. We need to move on.

Now, while we've got Nigel Farage here -

or should that be Nigel "Farridge" - we can't let him go

without attempting to answer one of the burning questions

Have a listen to this from Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday.

With the United Kingdom facing our most momentous decision

for a generation in eight weeks' time, does the Prime Minister think

it makes more sense for us to listen to all of our closest friends

and allies around the world or to a combination of French

fascists, Nigel "Farridge" and Vladimir Putin?

Well, I'm glad he takes the English pronunciation of "Farridge",

rather than the poncey foreign-sounding one

I think that's a thoroughly good thing.

And is one as English as John Bull, warm beer and county cricket?

And is the other as foreign and, as the PM would say "poncey",

as croissants, capuccinos and kissing on both cheeks?

Well, who better to give us the definitive answer than the head

of pronunciations for the Oxford English Dictionary,

Over to you Dr Sangster. How does this play out? What is the correct

pronounceation? We don't normally put surnames and first names in the

dictionary unless a noun or a verb. So sadly, Farage is not in the

dictionary. But I would say if it is your name,

you can say it how you like. There are lots of word from English from

the French that end in age. Some saying"age" like village. You can

say barrage, balloon, or gashage, I think that Nigel used that example

himself in his own defence. Is the English equivalent of

"Farage", "Farridge"? Is there a connection? If there is a D in the

spelling, then yes. But surnames are funny things. They

don't always behave like words. They often, the pronounceations can lag

behind. The other thing that is worth saying

about surnames, there are lots of British surnames with two

pronounceations. Norman Lamont was an example.

Relevant in this case. Most Scots, as you recognise, Andrew, would say

Lamont. He used to say that but then after,

he used the French pronounceation. . Stress shifting in names is fairly

predictable. There is nothing especially foreign about it.

Where does Farage come from? I have no idea. Perhaps Nigel does. It was

originally a Huguenot name. If you look back, you can see that

generation after generation spellings of names change. There was

an Faridge going back. But at a wedding in East London this

particular spelling arrived and Prime Minister, who is Home Counties

educated, who went to Eton. Did he really? Do you think that

David Cameron parks his car in a gashage? I don't think so. People

from Bolton do. They call me "Farridge" and people from Oxford

generally call me "Farage". How do you pronounce it? "Farage".

I say "Farage". As I would say" garage." Thank you

for talking about the F word it is wonderful! The finest.

Dr Sangster, thank you very much for joining us this morning. Good to

talk with you. Thank you. And thank you, "Farage"!

Now did Barack Obama's attention-grabbing plea

for the UK to vote to stay in the European Union

The US president's visit was seen as a potentially decisive boost

to the 'in' campaign, although polls since -

which are still too close to call - haven't shown any rise in those

planning to vote to remain a member on June 23rd.

At the heart of President Obama's argument was trade -

he said if the UK left the EU it would go "to the back

of the queue" in getting a trade deal with America.

He said that voting to leave would not be in Britain's economic

interests given that 44% of our exports go to the EU -

And he said that the UK strengthens both its own -

and the United States' - security and prosperity

His comments didn't exactly go down well with leave campaigners.

Boris Johnson said it was "ridiculous" that Barack Obama

would seek to "bully" the UK in this way.

He also courted controversy by drawing attention

Nigel Farage said the President would be out of office by the time

Britain had left the EU, and said we should be wary

of following foreign policy advice from the US after the Iraq war.

Justice Minister Dominic Raab accused the President

of being "hypocritical" because he would never

dream of opening the US border with Mexico.

And Liam Fox said President Obama was now "largely irrelevant"

and was merely parroting lines given to him by Downing Street.

Well to discuss this we're joined now by Kurt Volker.

He's a former US ambassador to Nato, he now heads a think-tank

founded by the Republican senator John McCain,

and he's in London taking part in a US-European Forum

organised by the Centre for European Reform.

Welcome to the programme. . Thank you.

What do you make of the bold point, we will listen to you, whether you

open the bored tore Mexico? That is scoring points. You get a point

coming in, you push back. That is what political dialogue and debate

is about. What I would have said, I think that

President Obama would have been wiser to make two points: The UK is

a better, I'm sorry, the EU is a better partner for the US with the

United Kingdom in it. That works well for us.

And the EU would probably be more outward looking with the UK in it.

That is a US interest. It is perfectly legitimate for a US

President to express its interest. When it crosses the line to define

for British voters, what the interest is, that is where you hear

a backlash. That is what we got from Boris Johnson and others.

And it is in America's interest. The reason is that if we leave the EU,

the dominant form policy pure power in the EU becomes France.

Overall France because diplomatically and militarily,

Germany does not play to its strength. That is not in America's

interest. That is the reason. The other thing he could have said

as well. I think we must be wary of scaremongering. But while if the UK

leaves the EU that America will no longer be a close ally and partner

to the UK, I don't think anyone should say that. There is such

goodwill in the United States, we will work it out it is really for

the UK to define. Then many could not understand why

the President said what he said. If you look at the extent of the

intelligence sharing, you know better than me the military

co-operation between the two countries, they are linked at the

hip, especially on the military and the intelligence front. So why stick

that on to the statement? Well, exactly. The NATO membership all of

that prove dates membership to the EU. It would be the same either way.

Our guests made a good point earlier on. Most of the things that affect

how this will play out or the political decisions that the UK

makes about governing itself, whether it is in the EU or not.

These things can go both ways in both circumstances.

I was looking through the websites of the US trade representative, if

we were to go to the back of the queue on a trade deal, if we were to

leave, who is ahead of us in the queue? It's a good question. It

would not stay there very long. If you look at the amount of US and

British cross-investment and the trade... We are the biggest

investors in America, and you are in Britain? Exactly. It would be a huge

business pressure to ensure nothing changes.

Is it not right to say that there is no queue? The only negotiation I can

see that the US is in is the negotiation with the EU? All other

bilateral trade talks have been suspended or got nowhere? There are

some. Which ones? The trance Pacific

partnership is a big one. But that is waiting to be confirmed

by Congress. We will see if the President can get that through

before, I mean our man said he would try to shove that through in the

lame duck period between the November election and the new

President being sworn in. Good luck. That is a done deal in terms of the

negotiations? That is not a matter for the democratic process. Who else

is ahead of us? I don't want to challenge on TTP. The way that

domestic politics played out in the US election campaign, all of the

candidates are against it. Even if the President chooses to push it

forward, anyone coming into office, even if they wish to see it

ratified, they will push for changes before they do so.

If Britain were to vote to leave, by the time it comes round to thinking

of a bilateral trade deal, this could be no more? The I and US

negotiations have been stumbling for some time. They met in New York this

week. There is no sense of progress. There is even talk, the European

Commissioner for trade saying that we will not get this done before

President Obama steps down next January. In which case it will be

nothing to do with Barack Obama. There will be a new President and

Congress. More isolation as Congress as well? It is unknowable at this

point. Anything can happen in the presidential election. That will

have major consequences for the House and the senate elections at

the same time it is really hard to know what will happen. In terms of

the transatlantic trade deal, though, you are right. Nothing will

happen in the current US administration. If something is to

happen in the next one, it will have to be shaped by the new President.

I mean, looking at the things that Britain has to do as a member of the

EU, we negotiate trade deals through the EU now. We have open borders

with the rest of the EU. We pull our sovereignty with these countries.

They may be good or bad things, that is for the people of Britain to

judge it on June the 23rd. A lot is simply a price you pay for being a

member. That is decision we now have to take. But would America agree to

any of that? We are unique. We go in for a trade deal... We go in for a

trade deal that is comprehensive. Thankser is a good one. It is a free

trade deal with Canada and Mexico. Two different economies. It has been

great for the United States. So you would not, is the answer. You

would not agree for America what you expect Britain to continue to have

with the EU? I would it the other way around. The US is generous in

terms of the way it deals with sovereignty issues, the UK is

already a member of the EU, so it is asking itself a different question,

is it better off in or out? Again that is something only the British

voters can make a choice about. One of the arguments of those who

vote to leave, is our special relationship with the United States,

is our role in NATO, we are the second most important power in NATO,

we have the best intelligence services in NATO other than the

United States, and we all take that for granted but when you look at the

rise of Donald Trump and his attitudes to NATO and to Europe,

maybe we can't take that for granted now? There is a high degree of

frustration in the US about the European levels of defence spending

overall and the perception that we are doing more for European defence

than Europe itself and should we continue doing that? If the

Europeans don't do it, why should we? So the frustration comes not

only from Donald Trump but Bob Gates, when leading the Secretary Of

Defense, giving a speech, talking of how the expenditure Rose from 50 to

75% after a ten-year period. And you have bigger fish to fry in

the Pacific? Yes. There is a question why can't Europe take care

of themselves, they are wealthy, rich, they are democracies. That is

what Donald Trump is playing to. It is not defined policy. He is

literally playing to people's emotions.

Or even making it up as he goes along? Indeed.

One of the reasons that the back of the queue comment was inappropriate

and offensive is that we are the only member of NATO that meets the

defence spending obligations. But can I ask, do we need a bilateral

trade agreement with the US if leaving the EU? We don't have one at

the moment, yet we sell about ?35 billion worth of goods and services

in America, and each year they sell roughly the same amount. Would it be

catastrophic if it did take 10 to 15 years to regulate the rules?

Businesses need to know the rules. With the UK out of the EU,

businesses want to know what is the basis of on we are trading? But the

US does not have an agreement with the US.

-- the UK. We do have substantial rules in

place with the EU on trade, investment, data privacy, legal

protections and intellectual property. A whole reservoir of

things ironed out with the EU. We don't know how many have come

here from America as we are inside the EU? It is a combination. It is

the story of the relationship and the great business relationship with

the UK. As President Obama's intervention

been helpful? We are talking about two different things. Countries

bristle when outsiders come in and tell them stuff. That is

understandable. But there is something going on. The back of the

queue was about economics. We are not talking about security

arrangements and from what security officials have said it is clear it

is not either or. It is both. We need both to do effective security.

I don't really see what that has to do with Obama as back of the queue

comments about trade? The case was given we are close on military and

security matters... That if we are good friends... James Clapper, the

director of national intelligence, he is worried that there are

intelligence consequences from the free movement of peoples inside of

the European Union? Absolutely. One of the things that is the US a

lot of pause right now is the unchecked migration crisis affecting

the EU, where you have a lot of people from Syria and the Arab

world, Afghanistan, coming in, forming large, an integrated

communities -- un-integrated communities that are connected to

existing nonintegrated immigrant communities in places like France or

Germany or the Netherlands, many of whom have EU passports, so that they

are able to come to the US. So we are having to rethink, how do we

screen a potential terrorists or radicalised persons who may be

coming in as immigrants - that's one thing. You may be citizens of EU

countries, who have been radicalised by some of this change in

immigration. So if we were not only EU it might be more difficult for

British is to get to America? Not all British tourists but we're going

to have to have a look at what the rules are. So Remain has got

President Obama and you have got dream the pen. There's a pretty even

Stevens? -- Marine Le Pen. I don't think you can always choose your

allies. A minute ago UL busting Corbyn for his eyes but your allies

are fine! -- you were lamb busting Corbyn. If Ted Cruz doesn't win the

Indiana primary next week, does Donald Trump get enough votes for

Cleveland? If he wins Indiana, the presumption is that he is also going

to win California because the accommodation will get him over. So

he could well now be... I think it is very likely you will be. And Mrs

Clinton is almost certainly be Democratic nomination. Does she beat

Mr Trump? To early to say. I think in every poll that we look at today

she would clearly defeat him but that has been the case with Donald

Trump this entire campaign. Everyone says he can't win and he keeps

winning. Well, we, being totally impartial at the BBC, hope that it

is a contested convention in Cleveland because it is just such a

good story. Thank you very much. Now, among the smorgasbord - do you

like that? - of elections being held around the country next Thursday -

that means there's a lot of them... Voters in England and Wales will be

choosing their Police As long as you're not

in London or in Manchester, where the role is

taken by the Mayor. These commissioners are intended

to be the voice of the people to hold police forces to account,

but have they been a success? Here's our very own police

cadet, Ellie Price. They

are your democratically elected Police and Crime Commissioners

and you're going to vote You see, operation PCC hit a bit

of an early snag when not many The 2012 election saw the lowest

turnout in British electoral I think the voters made it slightly

easy for your staff on the basis that the numbers didn't make it too

arduous task to actually count. This new role gave PCCs the power

to set police budgets and to hire So, good idea or waste

of police time? I think we've seen Police

and Crime Commissioners trying out I think they've been more

accessible, more visible, than the old police

authorities were. And I think they've held the police

to account much more So broadly, I don't think that PCCs

have been the kind of disaster that It's a new role that's

being invented by the government The main reason the role

was invented was, said the Tories in their 2010 manifesto,

to give people more of a say about how policing

in their area was run. But four years on, it's fair

to say the idea hasn't Do you know who your Police

and Crime Commissioner is? Do you know who your Police

and Crime Commissioners are? You've got to vote for them

next week. It's already come and I haven't got

a clue who they are. The point of it was to make policing

more accountable, so... Well, I think Police

and Crime Commissioners I think we'll see an expansion

of their role, so we're already seeing fire and rescue coming under

the remit of Police and Crime Commissioners and I think

we might even start to see some things like bits of the prison

estate, bits of probation, coming under the remit of Police

and Crime Commissioners as well. And I think that's

probably a good thing. Next week, 40 Police

and Crime Commissioners around This time round, they may end

up with more powers - and they may even end up

with more voters. And we're joined in the studio now

by Gordon Wasserman - he's a Conservative peer and has

been described as the architect of the police and crime

commissioner policy - and by Bella Sankey

from the campaign group Liberty. Bella, let me come to you first. Has

this been a worthwhile innovation or waste of time? I think it's been a

huge waste of time, effort and money. There was never any evidence

that the police authorities which previously were the body charged

with holding blues to account locally were doing a bad job or that

the public weren't pleased with the work they were doing. There was an

element of democracy in that model but they were also independent

people drawn from the community, that would genuinely representative

of the community. The idea was that these Police and Crime Commissioners

would be visible. They certainly have been visible but on so many

occasions, in a really bad way. We think that has undermined, rather

than increased, the legitimacy and credibility of police

accountability. What do you say to that? I would say I think it's been

a great successful stopped I think that police are to the community. I

think there is a much more holistic approach taken to crime prevention

and community safety, rather than simply having police and crime and

they look beyond the police. I think there's been much more innovation in

individual forces, rather than waiting for the Home Office to send

out Mermoz. I think on the whole, it's been better value for money,

mainly because the direction of policing is at the local level and

local policing is a local service. Not the NCA and serious organised

crime - that's national. But local policing, safety of our communities.

No one has said it is not a local issue but the point is, there was a

local model and structure that worked incredibly well. Were you

happy with that model? A lot of people were... I'm not arguing that

what's replaced it is any better. One of the constant complaints we

hear, if you read over the past ten years, is how the police on many

occasions were not held to account in an independent way, which is why,

for many people, trust and confidence of the police has gone

down. Absolutely. We have huge concerns about instances where the

police have been properly held to account -- haven't been. But the

answer to that is to have an independent body. At the moment, the

police really deal with complaints that are brought against them and I

think, as it is widely viewed, the IPCC, the body charged with looking

at the more serious complaints, has been performing as it should, so

there are definitely problems. There was a lot of reform that could

improve that but the PCC model hasn't solved this problem is, it's

just created more. Could you give a substantive example of where what is

happening now is a clear improvement on what happened before? I really

think that Hillsborough is a very good example. The events wouldn't

have changed but those are operational police mistakes, done

under the pressure of the day. The planning was no good and so on. The

actual cover-up, I believe, would never have happened if the Police

Commissioner had been there and would have been inundated,

overwhelmed, by witnesses, by family, by social media, and you

would have had to act to get to the truth in a much more the direct

sway. -- vigorous way. It seemed to go along with the police. They

inevitably... Did the PCCs coming are was in Sheffield but of a

watershed, or Hillsborough, in that it was the Police and Crime

Commissioner who removed the chief of police in South Yorkshire after

what has happened? All of the powers that PCC is currently have were

available to police authorities. The point was that they didn't use them.

I think it's a huge stretch and potentially quite a dangerous thing

to say that PCCs would have prevented Hillsborough cover-up.

This model is one that was imported from the US, where corruption

between police and the sheriffs that they have over their, their version

of the PCC plea roll, is endemic. I simply don't accept that. I worked

as a chief of staff for the third of the police department after I left

the Home Office, I was in the NYPD. It's simply not. Of course there is

corruption. There is corruption in individual police forces in this

country. I'm not denying it. But it seems to me that a Police and Crime

Commissioner who is a public figure, who is standing for election, will

have to act on the kind of complaints, rather than people

standing a police authority and there was a tendency to go along

with it. Rachel, should we scrap them build on? I think the

accountability issue is really important. The abuse that we have

seen in the past... They work for us but sometimes they have abused that.

I'm interested in, what kind of model might avoid this sort of

cover-up that happened at Hillsborough quest Bob briefly

because we are coming to the close and only to get to be in. What would

be better than what we have now quest Bob you could have a local

model that was similar to the one before. The key thing about

Hillsborough is that the police need to be accountable to the rule of

law. They need to act lawfully and do their jobs and you do that

through the court system. The Human Rights Act, which we now have the

statute book that we didn't have during Hillsborough has achieved

this inquest and that's how you get the kind of lesson learning, the

investigation and things been put right. Toby Young, final word? I'm

in favour of it for dogmatic reasons about you can say that because so

few people actually know the name of their Police Commissioner on you

that they had about is a reason to do away with it. After all, not many

people know the names of their MPs and a large percentage of the

population don't actually vote in general elections. Are you voting

for yours? Oh, no, you're in London, so you don't a vote. Thank you.

There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.

According to George Osborne, speaking at a dinner last night,

who appears on a watch owned by Boris Johnson?

So, Rachel and Toby, what's the correct answer?

I'm going to go with Mickey Mouse. Yeah. You're both wrong. It was Che

Guevara. It was said that they execute people with the Che Guevara

on their watch and George Osborne was disappointed to find that it was

only a joke. I'll be back on Sunday at 11am

on BBC One with the Sunday Politics, when we'll be talking

about next week's elections