30/10/2016 Sunday Politics

Morning folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Theresa May says she wants to help people who are

"just about managing" - so should she reverse

George Osborne's cuts to benefits that are supposed to help people

Prominent London Imam Shakeel Begg is an extremist speaker,

says the High Court, after claims made on this programme.

So why is Mr Begg still being allowed to advise the Police?

Hillary Clinton fights back over the FBI's renewed investigation

into her use of a private email server - is this the boost

Donald Trump needed to reignite his chances of winning the White House?

London, a decision finally taken. Now it is just a question of

building that runway with the political problems that lie ahead.

And haunting the studio on this Halloween weekend,

the most terrifying political panel in the business -

Tim 'Ghost' Shipman, 'Eerie' Isabel Oakeshott and

First this morning, two new models of car to be built,

securing 7,000 jobs at the car plant in Sunderland and a further 28,000

The news from Nissan on Thursday was seized on by Leave campaigners

as evidence that the British economy is in rude health

This morning, the Business Secretary, Greg Clark, was asked

what assurances were given to the Japanese firm's bosses

Well, it's in no-one's the interest for there to be tariff

barriers to the continent and vice versa.

So, what I said is that our objective would be to ensure that we

have continued access to the markets in Europe and vice versa, without

tariffs and without bureaucratic impediments.

That is how we will approach those negotiations.

We're joined now from Newcastle by the Shadow Business

Welcome to the programme. Labour has been a bit sceptical about this

Nissan decision. Can we begin by making it clear just what a great

achievement this is, above all for the workers of Sunderland who have

some of the highest productivity in the world, have never been on strike

for 30 years, and produce cars of incredible quality. This is their

victory, isn't it? Andrew, you are absolutely right. The Nissan plant

in Sunderland is among the most productive in the world. The workers

of Nissan are amongst the most productive as well. And it's really

a victory for them and for the trade unions and the business

organisations, and everybody who campaigned to make sure that the

government couldn't ignore their future. It's our future. I'm the MP

for Newcastle. It makes a huge difference to the region. We are a

region that still likes to make things that work. It is a huge part

of our advanced manufacturing sector. So it's really something we

welcome as well as the job security. I'm glad we have got that on the

record from the Labour shadow business secretary. But your Shadow

Chancellor, John McDonnell, claims the government is ignoring

manufacturers and cares only about a small banking elite. In what way is

safeguarding 30,000 industrial jobs in the North safeguarding a

financial elite? As I said, we're really pleased that the campaigning

by trade unions and the workforce, and business organisations, meant

the government felt they couldn't ignore Nissan workers. Let's also be

clear that we want that kind of job security for all of those working in

manufacturing and in other sectors as well. And sweetheart deals for

one company, no matter how important they are, that does not an

industrial strategy make. Why'd you say it is a sweetheart deal? Greg

Clark told the BBC this morning that what was assured to Nissan is an

assurance he gives to the whole industrial sector? I was really

pleased to see Greg Clark felt he had to say something, even though

it's sad that we having our industrial strategy, you like, or

our approach to Brexit delivered piecemeal to the media rather than

to the British people and Nissan, actually. But he want published the

letter. He said he has told us what is in the letter and that

reassurances given on training, on science and on supporting the supply

chain for the automated sector. You must be in favour all -- of all of

that? We are in favour of an industrial strategy. Greg Clark,

unlike Sajid Javid, cannot say industrial strategy. I'm still

puzzling to find out what it is you disagree with. Let me put the

question. You said the assurances he has given to Nissan are available to

the car manufacturing sector in general and indeed to industry in

general. What is your problem with that? Two things. Let him publish

the letter so we can see that, let him have the transparency he's

pretending to offer. But also, we need an industrial strategy that

values -- that is values based and joined. He talked about electric

cars and supporting green cars. That was in regard to Nissan. At the same

time the government has slashed support for other areas of green

technology. So what is it? That is not to do with the Nissan deal.

Labour implied at some stage there was some financial inducement, some

secret bribes, that doesn't seem to be the case. You are not claiming

that any more -- any more. Then you claimed it was a sweetheart deal for

one company. That turns out not to be the case. What criticism are you

left with on this Nissan deal? I would be really surprised if all

that Nissan got was the reassurances that Greg Clark is shared with us.

He didn't answer the question of what happens if we can't get

continued tariff free access to the single market, if we are not within

the single market or the Customs Union. Do you really think a

negotiator like Nissan, who are very good at negotiating, they would have

excepted making this significant investment without some further

reassurances? Do you think there is some kind of financial bride and if

so what is the evidence? I would like to see the letter published and

I would also like to understand what would happen... There are 27

countries which need to agree with the deal we have from Brexit. What

will Nissan, how will Nissan remain competitive? How will the automotive

industry remain competitive? Greg Clark says he reassured them on

that. But how will that be so if we do not get access? We haven't heard

anything about that. He talks about reassurances given to Nissan. We

need to make -- to know where we're going to make sure Brexit is in the

interest of all workers, not only those who work for a Nissan and not

only those who can get the attention of Greg Clark. He assured Nissan

that Britain would remain a competitive place to do business.

That was the main assurance he gave them. He would help with skills and

infrastructure and all the rest. Since you are -- intend to repeal

the trade union laws that have made strikes in Britain largely a thing

of the past, and you plan to raise corporation tax, you couldn't give

Nissan the same assurance, could you? We could absolutely give Nissan

the assurance that we will be, our vision of the future of the UK, is

based on having a strong manufacturing sector. Repealing

trade union laws? As we have seen at Nissan, the industrial sector is

dependent on having highly trained, well skilled workers. -- highly

skilled, well-trained. You don't have that by getting -- having an

aggressive policy and trade union laws or by slashing corporation tax

and not supporting manufacturing investment. Remember, the last

government took away the Manufacturing allowances which

supported Manufacturing and slashed corporation tax. That is their

solution. It is a low tax, low skill economy they want.

Thank you. Sorry I had to rush you. I'm grateful for you joining us.

I'm still struggling to see what is left of Labour's criticism? Yeah,

except for this. This was a valid point she just made. What we know

for sure is that Greg Clark could say to Nissan, my aim is to get

tariff free deal. There is no way he could guarantee that. None of us

know that. I don't think that was enough. I think clearly there was a

more detailed package involving training and other things. He has

acknowledged this, albeit we do not know the precise mechanism. What I

think is interesting about this is if you reverse what happened this

week, at a time when the government says Britain is open for business

and it is going to have an industrial strategy, so far it is a

bit vaguely defined. Nissan hadn't made this commitment. Imagine what

would have happened? It is an impossible scenario. The government

seems to me was obliged to make sure this didn't happen. Let's not forget

Nissan has invested hundreds of millions in the north-east. It has

been a huge success story. When I spoke to workers from Nissan, they

were so proud because they went to Japan to teach the Japanese had to

be more productive. The idea that Nissan was just going to walk away

from this given its track record, its importance, wasn't really

credible. The government had some bargaining chips. Absolutely, of

course they weren't going to walk away. The majority of people in the

area in which Nissan is braced -- based, voted for Brexit. Nissan

knows it is in a powerful position because it is an emotive sector.

Clearly the government didn't want to have some big showdown. I

honestly don't think this is a smoking gun. The Labour Shadow

minister really struggled to articulate what exactly she thinks

the government is hiding. I think the reassurances were given were

pretty anodyne, really. They were anodyne and general. And what Greg

Clark was setting out was an objective and he made the right

noises, and Nissan exercised its right to sabre rattle. It does have

a history of doing that. The one thing that would now be clear given

Greg Clark's performance this morning on the BBC, is that if we

were to discover some kind of financial incentive directly linked

to this investment, not more for skills or infrastructure, that is

fine, but some direct financial investment, compensation for

tariffs, which would be illegal under World Trade Organisation

rules, what you might call a financial bride, the sect -- the

business Secretary's position would be untenable? He would be in a very

difficult position indeed. Just released the letter. There is

nothing to hide. Put it out there. The most revealing thing is that

people are getting wildly excited about the fact Greg Clark announced

Britain's negotiating position would be that we would like tariff free

trade with Europe. This is regarded as an insight into what this comment

is doing and it says a great deal about how little we have been told

in Parliament and the media about what they are up. Do you think it is

exciting we are going for tariff free trade? We're easily excited

these days. We don't know. This is where these things are at such a

tentative phase. We don't know how the rest of the European Union is

going to respond to Britain's negotiating hand. We know Britain

once the best of everything, please. It is a starting point. But that is

not how it is going to end up. We are getting wider than that. We have

will have to see. Now, Universal Credit,

a single payment made to welfare claimants that would roll together

a plethora of benefits whilst encouraging people into work

by making work pay. But have cuts to the flagship

welfare scheme reduced work incentives and hit the incomes

of the least well-off? Well, some of the government's

own MPs think so, and, as Mark Lobel reports,

want the cuts reversed. Theresa May says she wants

a country that works for everyone, that's on the side

of ordinary, working people. It means never writing off people

who can work and consigning them to a life on benefits,

but giving them the chance to go out and earn a living and to enjoy

the dignity that comes But now some in her party

are worried that the low earners will be hit by changes

to Universal Credit benefit system originally set up to encourage

more people into work. We also need to focus tax credits

and Universal Credit Concern centred on the Government's

decision in the July 2015 budget to find ?3 billion worth of savings

from the Universal Credit bill. Conservative MP Heidi Allen

is working on a campaign to get MPs in her party to urge

the Prime Minister to think again. I want her to understand for herself

what the outcomes might be if we press ahead

with the Universal Credit, Do you think Theresa May, right now,

understands what you understand? To be fair, unless you really

get into the detail, and I have through my work

on the Work and Pensions Select Committee, I don't

think anybody does. Independent economic analysts

at the IFS agree with Heidi Alan that cuts to Universal Credit weaken

incentives to work. One of the key parts

of the Universal Credit system That is how much you can

earn before your credit As the Government has

sought to save money, both under the Coalition and now

they Conservative Government, both under the Coalition and now

the Conservative Government, that work allowance has been cut,

time and time again. The biggest cuts happened

in the summer budget of 2015. That basically reduces the amount

of earnings you get to keep It weakens the incentive people have

to move into work. What do changes to the Universal

Credit system mean? The Resolution Foundation think-tank

has crunched the numbers. If you compare what would have

happened before the July 2015 summer budget to what will happen by 2020,

even if you take into account gains in the National Living Wage

and income tax cuts, recipients will be hit

by annual deductions. Couples and parents would receive,

on average, ?1000 less. A dual-earning couple with two

children under four, with one partner working full-time

on ?10.50 an hour and the other working part-time on the minimum

wage for around 20 hours a week, they would

receive ?1800 less. Hit most by the changes

would be a single parent with a child under four,

working full-time I think, if I'm honest,

it is unrealistic, given the economic climate,

to expect everything to be reversed. What I would like to see

is an increase in the work allowances to those people

who will be hardest hit. That is single parents and second

earners hoping to return to work, because they are the people we need

to absolutely make The Sunday Politics understands that

about 15 to 20 Conservative MPs are pushing for changes ahead

of the Autumn Statement. A former cabinet minister told us

that they believed further impact analysis should be done to find out

if any mitigation measures Former Work and Pensions Secretary

Iain Duncan Smith, an architect of the system, now says

the cuts should be reversed. But his former department has told

us that it has no plans to revisit the work allowance changes announced

in the budget last year. What I would say to Heidi Allen

and IDS, they got it right the first time and they should stick

to the vote they cast last year, because these reforms actually

do make sense. What interests me is the fact

we are trying to move people off welfare into work,

we are raising the wages people earn by massively increasing

the minimum wage and this People are coming off

welfare and into work. Campaigners are pushing for savings

to come from other areas to relieve The other thing we have to start

looking at is the triple Financially it has been a great

policy, and it was absolutely right that we lifted pensioners

who were significantly behind, for many years, in terms of income

levels, but they have I think it is time for us to look

at that policy again, because is costing us an awful

lot of money. With just over three weeks to wait

until the Conservative leadership's new economic plan is unveiled

in the Autumn Statement, its top team is under pressure

from within its own ranks to use it And I'm joined now by former Work

and Pensions Secretary, Welcome back to the programme.

Theresa May said she is on the side of the just managing, the working

poor. But they are about to be hit from all sides. Their modest living

standards are going to be squeezed as inflation overtakes pay rises,

they will be further squeezed because top-up benefits in work are

frozen. Incentives to work are going to be reduced by the cuts in

universal benefits. So much for being on the side of those just

managing? Theresa was right to focus on this group. The definition has to

be the bottom half, in economic terms, of the social structure. It

doesn't look good for them? This is the point I am making, it is an

opportunity to put some of this right. One of the reasons I resigned

in March is because I felt the direction of travel we had been

going in had been to take far too much money out of that group of

people when there are other areas which, if you need to make some of

those savings, you can. The key bit is that the group needs to be helped

through into work and encouraged to stay in work. There was a report

done with the IFS, when we were there, at Universal Credit. It said

Universal Credit rolled out, as it should have been before the cuts,

people would be much more likely to stay in work longer and earn more

money. It is a net positive, but that is now called into question.

Let's unpick some of the detail, but first, do you accept the words of

David Willets? It says on the basis of the things I read out to you that

the just managing face a significant and painful cut in real terms if we

continue on the way we are going. I do, in essence. That is the reason

why I resigned. I felt Heidi raised that issue as well, that we got the

balance wrong. It is right that pensioners get to a certain point,

when they are on a level par, doing the right thing over five years.

Staying with that process has cost us ?18 billion extra this year, in

total. It will go on costing another 5 billion. Then there is the issue

of tax allowances. I want to remind you and viewers what David Cameron

told the Conservative conference in 2009. If you are a single mother

with two children, earning ?150 a week, the withdrawal of your

benefits and the additional taxes that you pay me on that for every

extra you earn, you keep just 4p. What kind of incentive is that? 30

years ago, this party won and election fighting against 98% tax

rates for the Rex richest. I want us today to show even more anger about

96% tax rates for the very poorest in our country. Real anger, and

effective rate of over 90%. Universal Credit reduces that. Some

will still face, as they lose benefits and pay tax, a marginal

rate of over 75%. That is still too high? Yes, it is the collision

between those going into work at the moment they start paying tax. A

racial Universal Credit is set at 65%. You can call that the base

marginal tax rate. 1.2 million will face 75%? That is the point about

why the allowances are so important. The point about the allowances which

viewers might not fully understand is that it was set, as part of

Universal Credit, to allow you to get certain people, with certain

difficulties, as they cross into work, to retain more benefit before

it is tapered away as they go up in hours. A lone parent, who might have

various issues, you want her to have a bigger incentive than a single

person that does not have the same commitments. It is structured so

that somebody who has difficulty going to work, they all have

slightly different rates. What happened is that last year a

decision was taken to reduce tax credits, and, on the back of that,

to reduce allowances. I believe, given everything that happened now,

we need to restore that to the point where it helps those people crossing

over. You say a decision was taken, it was a decision by the former

Chancellor George Osborne in the summer budget. Other decisions were

taken in successive Budgets to raise the Universal Credit budget, which

resulted in the disincentive being higher than many people wanted. Do

you accept that has been the consequence of his decisions? I was

in the Government, we take collective responsibility. I argued

this was not the right way to go, but when you are in you have to stay

with it if you lose that argument. There was another attempt before the

spending review last year to increase the taper, so the marginal

rate would have gone up. I managed to stop that. I'm Sibley saying,

what we made as a decision last year, given the circumstances and

given that the net effect of all of that, I think it is time for the

Government to ask the question, if we are in this to help that group of

people, Universal Credit is singularly the most powerful tool.

One of the Argentine aid in the paper published on Thursday, we are

set going on doing two more races of the tax threshold, taking more

people out of tax. That has a diminishing effect on the bottom

section. Only 25p in that tax rate will help any of those. Most of it

goes to middle income? You and I will benefit more from that. With

Universal Credit, every pound you put into that will go to the bottom

five tenths. That is why I designed it like that. He pressed the button

and immediately start to changed circumstances. Should the cuts in

Universal Credit that Mr Osborne introduced, against your argument,

should they be reversed? I believe so. I believe you can do it even if

there is concern about spending. I don't believe you need to go through

with the continuing raise the tax threshold. Cost is dependent on

inflation, but give or take. It is in the Tory manifesto? Has more than

doubled. What is in the manifesto, and Lasse Prime Minister made this

clear in conference, we want to improve the life chances of people.

Today's announcement on the Green paper is what I wrote over the last

two and a half years. Big changes necessary to how we deal with

sickness benefit. That can now be done because of Universal Credit,

because people can go back to work and it tapers away their benefits.

It is the most powerful tool to sort our people that live in poverty,

Universal Credit. We need to make sure it lands positively. If Mr

Osborne's cuts were reversed, what you and some of your backbench Tory

colleagues want to do, how would that improve the incentives of the

working poor, as they try to get on in life? They have to pay more tax,

they lose some benefits. How would it improve it? Would many still face

a 75% rate? The key question is, first and foremost, as people move

through income to the point where they are getting taxed, that group

will be enormously benefited by the re-emergence of these allowances at

the right level. That is what the IFS have said, that is what the

Resolution Foundation are saying, and the Centre For Social Justice is

saying. You have to get that group, because they are most likely to be

drifting into poverty and less incomes are right. Would it help

those who face a 75% margin? We don't face that. Exactly right.

People much poorer than us do. I would love to get the marginal rate

down to testify percent, and lower,. -- down to 65%. It is a balance of

how you spend the money. I would prefer to do that rather than

necessarily go ahead with threshold razors. I think the coronation of

the marginal reduction of 65%, getting it down to 60%, plus more

allowances, will allow Universal Credit to get to the group that is

going to be, and the report written by the IFS and ourselves, it shows

it is going to be the most dynamic and direct ability of a Government

to be able to influence the way that people improve their incomes in the

bottom five deciles. Would you take on extra work if you knew you were

going to lose 75% of it? Even 65%? This has been my argument all along.

Universal Credit can help that enormously. One point that goes

missing, 70% of the bottom five deciles will be on Universal Credit.

Whatever change you make to Universal Credit has a dramatic and

immediate effect I am arguing, genuinely, it is time to rethink

this. The Prime Minister wants to make this a priority. I am

completely with her on this. I think she made a really good start. To

deliver this, we need to... You have a lot of work to do to deliver it.

Because it is a manifesto commitment, or because they want to

do it, stopping increasing the personal allowances are not

acceptable, what about bringing to an end, by the end of the

parliament, the pension triple lock that pensioners enjoy to improve and

put more money to the working poor? What about that? Well, you are

absolutely right that there is now the danger, I think, of a mess

balance between the generations. Quite rightly at the beginning, when

we came in, we have a commitment as a Conservative Party in a manifesto

to get pensions back onto earnings. It was moved to a triple lock that

guaranteed a minimum. What about ending up now? I understand it is a

promise through the Parliament, but after 2020? I am in favour of

getting it back to innings and allowing it to rise at reasonable

levels. Moving from earnings to the triple lock has cost ?18 billion

this year. Here was a high, under pressure, as the Government was

scratching around to pay more money out of working age areas, when the

budget was almost out of control on the pension side. I'm in favour of

helping pensioners, but now they are up to a reasonable level, at a

steady rate, that can be afforded by Government, which takes the pressure

off, working age people have to pay for that. In years to come, time to

end the triple lock and use the savings to help these

people we have been talking about? As part of a load of packages, yes.

It would also help with the intergenerational fairness argument.

Thank you for being with us. Now, a prominent London Imam

called Shakeel Begg - who is Chief Imam the Lewisham

Islamic Centre - is an extremist. That was the verdict of the judge

in a libel action that Mr Begg took against the BBC, after we described

him as an Islamic extremist Mr Begg had complained about a short

segment in an interview in November 2013 with Farooq Murad,

the then head of the Muslim Council of Britain, an organisation

which claims to represent British In that interview, we described

Mr Begg as an extremist speaker who had hailed jihad

is the greatest of deeds. From his base of the Lewisham

Islamic Centre, Mr Begg has been involved in a number of community

organisations, including the Police Independent

Advisory Group in Lewisham, Lewisham Council's Advisory Council

on Religious Education and as a volunteer chaplain

at Lewisham Hospital. But in his judgment,

Mr Justice Haddon-Cave called Mr Begg a Jekyll and Hyde character

- a trusted figure in his local community, but when talking

to predominantly Muslim audiences he shed the cloak of respectability

and revealed the horns of extremism. The judge cited one speech made

by Mr Begg at a rally outside Belmarsh Prisonm-

the high security prison that houses terrorists -

as particularly sinister. The judge said the imam

was expressing admiration and praise Following Friday's judgment,

the hospital trust have told us that Mr Begg's status as a voluntary

chaplain has been terminated. We have been told by

Lewisham Council he is no longer on their Religious

Education Committee. The Metropolitan Police

have confirmed that Mr Begg remains a member

of their Independent Advisory Group in Lewisham, as well as

the borough's faith group. I am joined by Haras Rafiq, chief

executive of the Quilliam Foundation. Welcome to the

programme. I have here in my hand a statement from the trustees of the

Lewisham Islamic Centre. They reject the judge's ruling as fanciful and

say they are unequivocal and unwavering in their support of

Shakeel Begg as their head imam. What do you make of that? To be

honest, it doesn't surprise me. At the end of the day he is only the

imam of that mosque because he belongs to the same theological

fundamentalist views that the mosque would portray. If they were to say

he was an extremist, they would be saying in fact that they have

allowed extremist preaching and extremist theology within their

walls. I think this is a very important decision and a very

important judgment by the judge. First of all, these people like to

operate in a linear, under a veneer of respectability. When that veneer

is taken away, there are a number of things that can happen. First of

all, the BBC did very well to stand by their guns and say, we're not

going to be intimidated by somebody who is threatening to taking -- to

take us to court for potential libel. Many other media companies

have done that in the past and people have capitulated. Also, this

has exposed him. Legally now, here's some deal can be classified as an

extremist preacher, somebody who promotes religious violence. I think

the mosque really needs to take a step back and say, how we part of

the problem that we are facing within society? Or are we going to

be part of the solution? It really concerns me. The High Court judge

says that Mr Begg's speeches were consistent with an extremist

Salafist is the most worldview. What is Salafist is and how widespread is

it in UK mosques? -- mosque. It comes from the Middle East. It is

from Saudi Arabia. The enemy for them was the old colonial Ottoman

Empire. There is the quiet Salafist to get some with their lives, lives

outside society. There is a revolutionary who tries to convert

other people to their worldview. And then there is the Salafist jihad

ease. People like Islamic State etc. We have seen of increased in recent

decades because of money that has, growing from the Middle East. When

that is mixed with a political ideology, it becomes potent. Do we

have a political -- particular problem in Britain with this in our

mosques? Absolutely. Without the theology that says hate the other,

hate other Muslims, that excommunicate other people, that

says it is OK to fight and is good to fight when you have got an enemy,

we wouldn't really have a jihadi problem. Really that is something we

have to tackle. The number of mosques and institutions supporting

Salafist and Islam is has been on the increase. Do we have a problem

with what the judge called Jekyll and Hyde characters who hide their

extremism except when they are speaking to specific groups?

Absolutely. One of the things we have focused on in the past, a

number of hate preachers now in prison, people like Anjem Choudary,

and everybody focused on them. But there is a range of people operating

under that level. People who will show one face to the community

because they actually need that for a respectability. They need that for

a legitimacy. They need that to operate. When they are behind closed

doors and talking to their constitution, that is when you will

see the real face of what these people believe. It is an increasing

phenomenon. We are seeing it more. And we're going to carry on seeing

it. Not just has the Lewisham mosque stuck by him, but given the clarity

of the judge's ruling, are you surprised that the Metropolitan

police would wish to continue with Mr Begg as an adviser? I'm

absolutely shocked that that decision. What Uzzy going to do?

Advise them on how to deal with extremist preachers and promote

religiously motivated violence? I don't know what he's going to advise

them on. Because we now have a judge that has ruled against him and

actually classified him as an extremist and somebody who promotes

religious violence, we actually have a possibility for the CPS to

actually prosecute him. There is a law that has been in place since

2005 called religiously motivated violence. If he has been classified

as somebody who promotes this, there is a potential for the CPS to

prosecute. I want to called into question other organisations,

interfaith organisations, other Muslims groups, who say they want to

fight extremism, I call on them to say, this guy is an extremist

preacher, we should cut our ties from him. This was a very high risk

strategy by the BBC. The exposure could have been over ?1.5 million of

licence payers money. Will this make it more difficult for Jekyll and

Hyde characters to behave as Mr Begg has behaved? Absolutely. It will do.

One of the things they will now have to make sure is that they are a lot

more careful. Careful with what they say to their own constituency. It

won't solve the theological problem. But it will actually stop other

people from operating in this manner and allow other media organisations

to have the confidence to expose them when they do. Haras Rafiq,

thank you for joining us. It's just gone 11.35,

you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland, who leave us now Coming up here in 20 minutes,

the Week Ahead. Barely more than a week

now until polling day, and a new revelation rocks the US

Presidential election campaign. If it wasn't bizarre enough, it just

got more bizarre. The FBI have reopened their

investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of private email servers

whilst she was Secretary of State, after the discovery

of further emails. Though not on her laptop or even the

State Department. Donald Trump is saying that it's

bigger than Watergate - so could it swing the election

in his favour? We spoke to top US

pollster, Frank Luntz. The FBI investigation is happening

so late in the election process that it would be very difficult

to derail a Clinton victory. That said, if there is one thing

that could keep Hillary Clinton from the presidency,

it's an FBI investigation. But there's still only four states

that really matter, Florida, Ohio, Right now, Clinton has

beyond the margin of error leads This would have to have a truly

significant impact for the election There is a point about a week ago

when I was prepared to say that Clinton had a 95% chance

of winning this election. Based on what has happened

in the last 48 hours, It is still very likely,

but I wouldn't bet on it. I thought the 2000 election would be

the best election of my lifetime, And then I thought 2008 would be

amazing, because we had two challenger candidates and the first

African-American President. It is ugly, it's painful,

it is as negative as anything The public is angry,

the country, overall, is frustrated. But for entertainment value,

these candidates probably should have charged us money,

because it's better than any movie at ever seen, it's

better than any TV show. That was Frank Luntz. He may be

right or wrong about Mrs Clinton still having an 80% chance of

winning. I would bet on an 80% chance? Yes, absolutely. I spoke to

a high-profile American pollster and strategist last night and he took a

rather different view to Frank Luntz. He thought, and I think some

other high-profile commentators agree, that this is actually much

more serious than some people realise. There are an awful lot of

undecided voters out there looking for an excuse to vote Trump. They do

not like what they see in either candidate. But because this FBI

probe is not going to conclude before the election, the question,

the doubt over Hillary Clinton, gives them an excuse to back Trump.

The thing that will play on the minds of the voters is, could the

100 day honeymoon turning to the 100 day divorce? Which even be

impeached? It may give some people an excuse not to vote for Mrs

Clinton. It could provide a problem in terms of energising her base. The

battle ground almost matters more than the polls. Florida and

Pennsylvania have been trending to Mrs Clinton. Mr Trump needs to win

both. He does not get in without both. He needs both. Just coming up

in the latest BBC News, the Washington Post tracking poll, Mrs

Clinton is now only one point ahead in the national poll. One point.

Even given my caveat that the state battles are most important. That is

incredibly close? It is. Polls yesterday showed Trump nationally

closing of. -- up. There is a clear trend and movement. This has

reinforced everything that people who have a problem with Hillary

Clinton know about Hillary Clinton. Trump is running this insurgent

campaign. We have seen at here with Brexit. If you are running an

insurgent campaign, you want to be against the ultimate establishment

insider and that is what Hillary Clinton is. I suggested it was

bizarre. Fathoming the behaviour of the FBI is interesting as well. This

is a separate investigation into a former congressman, Anthony Wiener,

who had done all sorts of things. He seemed to be sex text thing a minor.

A 15-year-old girl. The FBI investigate. They get his laptop to

see what else he has been too. In the course of that, his wife, now

separated, the closest adviser to Hillary Clinton, they find on the

laptop e-mails involving the Clinton server to her. And yet the FBI

cannot, it needs now a separate warrant to access these e-mails. It

hasn't got that yet. It has got a warrant to do the congressman

e-mails. On the basis of not knowing the content, this has happened.

Yeah. Who knows? He is a Republican, this guy. Earlier this year he was

being praised to the hilt by Democrats. Absolutely. The timing is

a nightmare for her. You described the whole sequence. There is nothing

definitive to doubt in this sequence. All he is saying is he has

discovered more e-mails in effect. They are from the congressman's

former wife. On Anthony Wiener's laptop, which apparently she used

sometimes. But what that shows is that for all the scrutiny of modern

politicians, they cannot escape caricature. And as Tim was just

saying, her weakness is perceived to be secretive, elitism and

complacency about that elitism. And so just the announcement of a

reopening of the investigation so fuels that caricature, you have just

revealed a poll giving her a 1% lead. That must be related to what

has happened. It is without a shred of evidence that she has done

anything wrong. You can see how, because people only see things

encourage kids, that is deadly serious. -- in caricature. An

American friend of mine said we have got our October surprise but we

don't know what it is. The FBI must surely come under massive pressure.

It did its -- it did this against the Justice Department. The

difficulty the FBI had was that this information, for what it's worth, it

came to them. Were they not to have said something and it worked to have

come out later, they would have been accused of a massive cover-up. They

are dammed if they do, dammed if they don't. There is still time for

another surprise. And early November surprise. Who knows if there might

still be something that comes out on Donald Trump? This is the first

election where I can remember we have had two October surprises

already. There are is stuff about tapes knocking around about Donald

Trump saying racist things. The Clintons have got a lot of friends.

It would be a big surprise if we did not see anything else in the next

few days. Just when you think it could not get

more interesting, it has. There has been plenty in the papers lately

about the Ukip leadership saying unpleasant things about each other.

But what about Mr Farage himself? What's he up to?

Well, on BBC Two tonight we may find out the answer.

Well, I'm led to believe she's very experienced.

But I don't think Strictly Come Dancing is for me.

That is, unless, of course, you fancy popping a cheeky zero

No, I don't think Strictly Come Dancing is for me.

Well, you tell Mr Balls he has just lost your programme one viewer.

I might have nothing to do these days but, realistically,

Well, that wasn't Nigel Farage. It is a BBC comedy on tonight. Nigel

Farage gets his life back. A number of runners and riders. Let's come

straight down to it. Who would be the next leader of Ukip? Probably

Paul Nuttall. He is the favourite. The one who has the backing, not

very enthusiastic backing, is Rahim Cassandra. And also Aaron Banks, a

big donor. The best of a rather weak lot. I think Paul Nuttall should

squeak through. I interviewed all three of them this week. Mr

Cassandra is a lively character and he knows how to make a few

headlines. With a bit of money behind him, anything is possible.

This is a guy who has been to the States, who has literally studied

what Trump has done. Pees on secondment for the time being. The

guy who is his line manager is one of Donald Trump's campaign stop. He

is extraordinarily right-wing. I am told he kept a picture of Enoch

Powell by his bed. Barry Goldwater is one of his heroes, for example.

There are other candidates. I would suggest, put out as a hypothesis,

Paul Nuttall is Labour's worst nightmare. They are more vulnerable

in the North. Paul Nuttall is from Merseyside, a working-class

background, performs well on television. He is a really good

interviewee. He is one of the best around in politics at the moment.

However, I think whoever gets it has a massive task. The clip of this

Nigel Farage satire partly shows why. His dominance was overwhelming.

He, in many ways, did a brilliant job at keeping the show on the road.

The trouble for all new political parties is keeping it going is

tough. A very different party, the SDP, with all those glamorous

figures in it, lasted eight years, something like that. I think they

are in real trouble at the moment because of the implosion we have

been seeing in front of our eyes and the ideal -- ideological splits.

Whoever gets it will face a tough tussle. All three of the main

contenders want to put Nigel Farage in the House of Lords. They were

falling over themselves to soak up two farads. That is how you win this

election. Mr Aaron Banks, who is he putting

his money on? He said he supports Rahim. I know Mr Banks is utterly

fed with the shenanigans in Ukip. He thinks it is terribly disorganised,

dysfunctional and doesn't want a great deal to do with it for the

foreseeable future. It is not quite Trump the Clinton

but it is interesting. That is it. The Daily Politics is back tomorrow.

And all of next week. Jo Coburn will be your next Sunday because I am off

to the United States to begin to rehearse presenting the BBC's US

election night coverage on the 8th of November. It will be here on BBC

One, BBC world, BBC News Channel and BBC

online. Remember if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics. A stone stained with blood

and beset with a curse. The Moonstone is of

inestimable value in India. Its appointed guardians would move

heaven and earth to reclaim it. Let us not let the past haunt

all of our actions. You've got to do something!

It's only you that can! He's a scientist,

brilliant apparently.