06/06/2014 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 06/06/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.


David Cameron's breathing a sigh of relief this morning.


The Tory party held onto the safe seat of Newark last night,


UKIP did well, pushing Labour into third place.


The Liberal Democrats came a distant 6th.


Emotional scenes here and in France as thousands gather to mark


Better together - President Obama wades into the campaign


And as Michael Gove and Teresa May fight it out over extremism


in our schools we ask what should be done about it.


And with us for the duration, in a fitting tribute to


the 70th anniversary of D-Day we have our very own entente cordiale.


The UK Correspondent from France 24, Benedicte Paviot,


and from the New Statesman, although he's about to jump ship


First to D-Day, because ceremonies are taking place in Normandy today


to mark the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings, the Allied mission


that changed the course of the Second World War, leading to the


With a little help, of course, from the Russians.


Nearly 20 world leaders, including the Queen and President Obama, and


hundreds of veterans will attend the main commemoration on Sword Beach,


The day's events began at midnight with a vigil at the Pegasus Bridge,


the strategic crossing captured by airborne British forces


before the assault on the French coast on the 6th June 1944.


In the last hour there's been a ceremony at the


Commonwealth War Graves Commission Cemetery in Bayeux.


The Commonwealth forces were deeply involved in D-Day along with the


David Cameron was there - here's what he had to say.


It was incredibly moving. I was at the spot where one of the gliders


landed to take the bridge. There was a sense of history but also for my


generation, a sense of humility. We have never had to do anything like


what our grandfathers' generation did. It is awe-inspiring and it


gives you a sense of humility. Above all it gives you a sense of


extraordinary gratitude for what these amazingly brave people dead.


David Cameron in Normandy. This is a very important day for France as


well as for Britain and the other allies. Is it bittersweet for the


French in the sense that it was the beginning of their liberation but


also a reminder that they had been under Nazi occupation for four


years? It has been bittersweet, but I do not think it's bittersweet


really now. I think that it's deeply moving and I sense, since I am


reporting on it from the British side at the moment, a real sense of


gratitude. A sense of gratitude and respect and honour for the Queen,


who is of course from that generation. She was 18 years old.


There is a deep affection in France for the Queen herself, a great


interest, as you well know, for the British royal family. There is deep


gratitude, deep respect and the highest honours are being awarded.


She is described as being awarded the biggest unrivalled respect from


the French president, being accompanied everywhere by the


President will stop I saw that yesterday at the Arc de Triomphe.


The French threw everything at it, didn't they? I thought that the God


Save The Queen was beautifully sung. Again, it reminds us of our common


past. There was a huge gratitude to the Allied troops, all that


planning, so money lives lost, so many people throwing themselves on


embarking on is that were hardly see where the sometimes. They were


18-year-old who sacrificed their lives, who were maimed for life, who


have come back and not spoken about what they endured. We have heard


someone say that the heroes are the ones who are dead. Some of those


heroes are today on French beaches and me that remind our generation


not to go traipsing into war and to try and avert it in every way.


Actually, the finding of the common market and the EU really is built on


that piece and that prosperity. We do not have much prosperity at the


moment. The Prime Minister is right, it puts what we do in


perspective. Last night we were doing an all-night by-election


results programme, and we thought it was quite important to do it for


public service. 70 years ago, our fathers and grandfathers were


throwing their lives onto the beaches of Normandy not knowing what


was going to happen. Exactly. I think the Prime Minister was right


and he is good at expressing those things that big national moments,


the sense that when we talk about political solidarity, being in it


together, it is a different moral sphere to what we are talking about


in relation to the D-Day landings. Ultimately, yes, the Newark


by-election, the argy-bargy about deficit reduction, it is a slightly


different issue. The other thing that struck me watching it, it is a


good reminder that it does not get enough coverage but at the


ceremonies this morning the New Zealanders, the Australians, the


Canadians were there as well. The Canadians played a huge part in


this. There is a perception, maybe because of modern media, that the


date was largely an American venture and that the British were tagging


along. -- that D-Day. The British Commonwealth provided and not more


troops than the Americans on the day, they provided nearly all the


air cover and most of the ships. It is the way popular culture absorbs a


history, the way Hollywood describes it. The news gets the facts right.


You have just done that. I would like to say that the warm or eels


throughout villages in France, I am sure you have seen them, they are


such a potent reminder in people's daily lives. -- the war memorials


throughout villages. You see entire families' names. There has been a


campaign in the UK for the upkeep of these and I would be a big supporter


of that. It would be a good time to start. We have got to move on. There


is a memorial in Normandy. The inscription is in Latin and it is


fascinating and it says, in the land of William the Conqueror, the


conquered came to liberate the Conqueror. Other words, having been


conquered by the Normans intense excuse it is the British came back


to liberate Normandy. It is interesting and they put it in


Latin. Now, after


a very long night we finally got the result of the Newark by-election


at around 4am this morning. I had matchsticks in my eyes


by then. So let?s have a look


at those results in detail. The Conservatives held


the seat with their candidate Robert Jenrick winning over 17,000


votes. This represents 45% of the vote but


their share declined by almost 9%. This was because


UKIP's Rodger Helmer did so well. Coming second,


he received just over 10,000 votes. Which translates to almost 26%


of the vote share. It is way up on what they got in


2010. Michael Payne for Labour came


third with over 6,000 votes. The independent candidate


Paul Baggaley The Greens were fifth,


receiving just over 1,000 votes. The Liberal Democrat candidate


David Watts was sixth with 1,004 votes,


and 2.6% share of the vote. This represents one


of their worst performances It is their ninth lost deposit in


this ballot. Here's Robert Jenrick,


the new MP for Newark speaking after I am grateful for all the support,


especially locally. People saw this as a Westminster election. There was


a big election two weeks ago for the European Parliament but people in


Europe need the choice, they wanted a long-term member of Parliament


campaigning on local issues, someone who will live here and be a


constituency MP, and they are able to make the distinction between the


European elections and the honeymoon period following that and they have


chosen a strong voice in Parliament. That was the new MP for Newark. What


is it like, the politics of the morning after the night before? It


is business as usual and I say that because the great fabled earthquake


has not happened. Let's be honest, this was always Terra Firma


politically speaking for the Tory party. It was their 44th safest seat


and they had a stomping majority of around 16,000, 25,000 UKIP at the


last general election and on top of that, they fought a highly


organised, highly disciplined, highly motivated campaign. Mr


Cameron was here four times. Tory MPs were told to to come here at


least three times and campaign and that simply overwhelmed the rather


ramshackle people's army who did not have that level of organisation, the


on the ground strength that you really need to take on the Tory


party in this sort of seed. That said, yes, they did take chunks out


of the Tory party. What strikes me about the Newark result is that it


reminds us of a basic political truth, that it is extraordinarily


difficult for any small party to win under our first past the post


electoral system. While it is fine and dandy for UKIP to pile up votes


in European elections, when it comes to first past the post it is a


different ball game entirely and that means a different ball game for


the general election as well. What is the biggest story this


morning - Labour coming third and losing its share of the vote or the


Lib Dems coming sex and being close to wipe down again?


-- coming sex. -- coming number six. For the Lib Dems, this is their


worst by-election results in England since the war. This from the party


who used to be the by-election supremos. Now, absolutely


catastrophic result following dismal results in the European elections


and dire results in the local elections. You sense if you are a


Liberal Democrat you have to be thinking, when on earth do we pull


out of this nosedive? I am not sure anyone has an answer. What would be


interesting is if this result further galvanises local parties to


hold these emergency meetings to decide whether they want Nick Clegg


to remain as leader. Bring me back some of those nice


carrots behind you! Now, we did ask the Labour party


for an interview this morning. They declined to take part,


as did the Liberal Democrats. Instead we have the Liberal Democrat


blogger, Stephen Tall. Also joining me is the Conservative


Party Chairman, Grant Shapps and in a moment, after he's swapped places


with Norman, Roger Helmer, UKIP's Gentlemen, welcome to you all. Grant


Shapps, your new candidate thanked everybody for his rectory except


that he did not thank the kitchen sink that you threw at the


constituency to make him win. Of course we went there and we wanted


to win. We asked MPs and candidates and everyone else to go and help. I


do not think that is what won it. We have the arguments on our side. We


have got our long-term plan for this country. It has started to work. Are


you on a bonus if you go over 30 seconds? In the end, we managed to


present the plans to people. People have voted on the basis of that


plan, whether we want to have the rest of the recovery in this country


according to the way... So if you hadn't thrown the kitchen sink at it


you still would have done it? You need to have people on the ground in


order to let the voters who have been asked for their support know


what party stands for and what the plan would be. I am not going to


pretend that we did not ask people. We had a lot of volunteers. Some of


the stuff is a little bit strange to criticise you for a little bit too


hard, only the British would do that, but what I wondered in this


by-election is, you still did not do well enough to indicate that you


could get an overall majority at the next election. I would say don't


read too much into by-elections, and it doesn't mean we will win the next


general election, but it's the first time in 25 years in power, it's the


first Army managed to hold -- the first Army managed to hold the seat.


I think that is 17 by-elections where we have failed. At the end of


the day, they are different, general elections have lower turnouts.


Labour had quite good majorities. Here is an interesting statistic,


when we were the asp and government, we won in Crewe and


Norwich North -- Asper and government -- aspirant government.


It says a lot about Ed Miliband that he is not prepared and ready to


govern, and the fact they are not even on your programme today. We can


go to Roger in Newark. Thanks for joining us. You spoke to me in the


early hours, so kind of you to get up and be with us now just after


noon. My pleasure. Are you disappointed you did not do better?


Of course we hoped to win, and we campaigned to win, and winning is


better than coming second, but if you look at the figures we increased


our share of the vote sixfold and halved the Conservative majority.


This is real progress. What I would particularly point out that five or


ten years ago we would do very well in European elections but we go back


to ground zero, four or 5%, in Westminster elections. This time we


got 33% in the European election and we delivered nearly 26% in this


by-election. It shows that a large proportion of the people voting UKIP


in European elections are prepared to go on and vote UKIP in


Westminster elections as well. But you didn't do as well as you did in


Eastleigh. There is not a sense of momentum. We got a lower share than


you did in Eastleigh. We were there or thereabouts in a constituency


that the Conservative party through the kitchen sink and the whole


kitchen at. People are saying that Conservative ministers probably have


a better attendance in Newark than they have in Westminster. Bearing in


mind that a lot of the people working with the Conservatives in


Newark are the payroll vote. They have been whipped to come here,


whereas our activists were volunteers who came because they


believe in what we are doing and came from all over the country.


There is another side to the team, teams of volunteers who want to


volunteer to get a better future for the country. Aren't these the old


Conservatives? There were a lot of young people? Anybody can join the


team, and it's people who maybe not through the traditional route of


joining the branch or the committee, joining the party, those people, are


very involved. Quite a few romances started then? I don't have an


insight into that. Is this how you plan to increase the number of Tory


voters? I don't make any apology for wanting to get a crass -- sell a


message. If you have a long-term economic plan, you have to tell


people about it. You had to know they were going to throw the kitchen


sink at it, and we know that UKIP knew that winning was going to be


tough, and I'm not criticising you for not winning, but you had a 30%


benchmark and you did not make it. Well, we did OK in the face of what


was thrown at us. I'm interesting to hear that Grant Schatz is saying


that we need to sell the message. I'd like to know why the


Conservative campaign actually pulled out their candidate for the


last three or four days of the campaign. I sat down with


journalists from broadcast and print media and people said they could not


find him. He cancelled an interview on LBC. He refused to do an


interview with the BBC in the Market Square where I am now, and other


journalists were saying they had not seen him. I'd like to know what


happened to him during the last days of the campaign. He was surrounded


by Conservative minders at all stages. The people we have find it


quite hard to penetrate that line. He was such an identikit Tory people


started to call him Robert Generic. Unlike some of the other candidates,


he had been placed the six months, not just picked for the by-election.


When we came to produce the by-election material to let people


know about him we found we had a vast selection of material from all


of the work had done. He had been at it for months. Right from the


outset, day one, the interviews, he was out there the whole time. Let me


bring in Stephen. What is to be done? It's a good question. It's a


pretty dire result for the party and this is is reaping the whirlwind of


being in coalition. The Conservatives put in a good result


last night and one of the parties that can afford to have a smile on


their face this morning. They put in a good result are getting the


benefit. And we are not. It tends to be the leading party in a coalition


that gets the benefit of stuff going right. They will sweep your side,


and any credit going will go to them. I think that is the risk. I


don't think any Liberal Democrat agreeing to it being formed thought


it was an easy ride. I don't know if we thought it would be as hard, but


we knew there was a desk -- a real risk this day would come. Would


change in the leadership this? This is something people are split on.


Within the party, there are people who do think that you can suddenly


wave a magic wand, Tim -- Nick Clegg is gone, Tim Farren and Vince cable


replacement may shoot up in the ratings. I don't think it's likely


to happen. Four years of coalition and people are likely to remember


that at the general election, and with 11 months ago, hoping that the


man at the top switches and you get a new leader magically transforms


the position is unlikely. You now have the worst of all words --


wilds, constant leadership speculation but you won't change the


leader. A brave decision by the MPs because by now there would probably


be revolted any Lib Dem MPs had signalled they want to go, but the


two likely replacements have stood behind Nick Clegg, not with a


knife, but to make sure he stays in place. Without MPs willing to back


party members, that 40% who want Nick Clegg to go, that revolt has


nowhere to go. The Tories came within 1% of Labour in the local


elections. They dropped only 3% in the Euro elections, despite the UKIP


insurgency. They comfortably retained Newark. Where is the good


news for Labour in this? A very good question. Most Labour people looking


at what has happened in the last few weeks should be quite worried about


this. I can tell you what a Labour Party spokesman would say if she or


he had come on the programme, that this was never going to be a fertile


ground for the Labour Party, this was a contest between the


Conservatives and UKIP. We had to keep a hand in it, but this was not


a target seat. But ultimately, you take a step back, and as you


describe, what seen in the last few weeks is that when you have had a


test that the ballot box and there have been lots of people who maybe


don't like the government and want to vote against the incumbent


parties or the main incumbent party, not enough of them are to Labour as


the obvious alternative and this discussion we have had between Grant


and Roger, it describes the dynamic in politics where the leader of the


opposition are not prominent enough. That has to be dangerous for


the Labour Party in the year before a general election. I was simply


going to say that Vince Cable put himself in a position where if


somebody had wanted to back him, he couldn't go forward. I don't think


there is anything there. It is extraordinary what we are


witnessing. There are rumblings about all three, if we can call them


the main party leaders. I do want to go back to Roger. Briefly, please.


Lib Dem MPs are OK, and the question the party has to ask is if the


strategy is to hold together a small bunch of MPs to keep Nick Clegg in


place, is this a national party any more? Roger Helmer, surely it is


fair to say that last night, if there has been a UKIP surge in


recent weeks, last night was a bit of a circuit breaker on it. Not at


all. As I said earlier on, we used to have a good vote in European


elections that collapsed in Westminster elections and now we


have a good vote in both, which is mostly holding up in the Westminster


elections. That's a very, very good sign for 2015. Roger Helmer, thank


you for joining us and thanks to our guests in the studio.


Although there's just over 100 days until Scotland's referendum,


business leaders in neighbouring English regions have warned that


uncertainty over the result is delaying vital investment.


We teamed up with the Chambers of commerce in the north-east and


Cumbria to ask what affect the referendum could have on them if


Scotland goes independence. A business Park in Newcastle. Some big


firms have come here and jobs have been created. But as you can see,


still plenty of empty space. Office developments like this one are


trying out for tenants and the jobs that could have come here have gone


to Scotland instead. Amazon were considering putting 900 jobs here


but they chose to go to Dunfermline in Scotland instead. Grants from


Scottish enterprise tipped the balance. Managers hearsay and


independent Scotland would be an even fierce competitor. As


Edinburgh's neighbour, the nearest one, we will feel it more than


most. We need more control over spending and more control over how


the offering is perceived to the large occupiers to make sure we can


stay competitive. Amongst concerns in the business region in the area


is 240 companies in Cumbria and the north-east, who gave their views to


the BBC in a questionnaire sent out by the chamber of commerce to its


members. 63 of them said that if an independent Scotland were to cut


corporation tax, they might consider investing north of the border rather


than in this region. But a majority of them, 176, said it wouldn't make


any difference to their investment decisions. And that is the case for


this Durham firm building a new estate in Kelso in the Scottish


Borders. In the last few weeks they bought a Scottish building firm.


Whether it is a yes or no in September, they are confident of the


future. This is a strategic decision to expand the business. We are


employing about 75 people in Scotland, maybe 100 in Cumbria, so


what difference should it make? Construction workers across the


borders. We have international companies working in the UK, so what


is the difference? But the chamber of commerce in the region says a big


problem ahead of the referendum is a lack of information. We have heard


that businesses are holding back on making some investments because they


are waiting to see what the outcome of the referendum is going to be.


And that is a disappointing situation. To a certain extent,


there is an inevitability about it, but people on both sides of the


debate could do more to provide clarity that enables businesses to


move forward with confidence on some of those decisions. Whilst most


businesses in the region are confident they can punch their


weight with an independent Scotland, there are also concerns from some


that it could leave yawning gaps in the economy. And we are joined by


Nick Brown and by the SNP MP, Stuart Posey in our Dundee studio. I will


come to you first. We might be in danger of losing the line. I didn't


think the referendum was until the 18th, but we may be cut off in our


prime. I want to ask you this. What is your reaction to the president of


the USA turning out to be a unionist? I don't think he took part


in the North of England business survey either. I am sure he didn't.


I think the president chose his words extremely carefully indeed.


Whilst it is interesting, it will have little or no bearing on the


results on the 18th of September. None at all? That the most important


country in the world, our most important country, a country where


Scots played a huge part in building their country, 46 of the founding


fathers were Ulster Scotch, and the president of that country says it


does not matter? He did not say it didn't matter, he chose his words


carefully. Let's remember, the United States had a revolution to


end London rule, so we need to put across that for the yes campaign on


the 18th. I am worried we are going to lose the line, so let's go back


to the questionnaire that was done. Would Scottish independence, if you


had the power to set your own taxes, we understand would cut


corporation tax, cut advanced passenger duty at the airports, that


would affect the North of England, wouldn't it? The key thing about the


survey is that most businesses said investment decisions were unchanged,


most want to stay in the North of England but others will look at


investment opportunities that would benefit Scotland and the businesses


themselves. This ties in to the survey from the Chamber of Commerce.


Businesses are not fazed by Scottish independence. The scare stories


don't work. Remember Vince Cable said this week that the power of


London was harming everywhere else in the UK. We think a strong,


successful, prosperous independent Scotland as a counterweight to the


gravitational pull from London would be for the benefit of the North of


England. Why would it be to the benefit of the North of England?


Because the vast majority of the Scottish population and businesses


are far, far closer to businesses in the North of England than


marketplace in London in the south-east. If we're going to have a


counterweight to the gravitational pull of London, it doesn't just


benefit Scotland, but also businesses close to Scotland in the


North. Let me give you the example of aviation policy. If Alex Salmond


cuts the charge, they will be in trouble. There is no problem at all


if people use Edinburgh as a hub airport. What is a different


Newcastle? There are not huge distances between Newcastle and


Edinburgh. It is as easy to fly into Edinburgh as an international hub to


go to Newcastle as it is to go to Heathrow to go to Newcastle. That is


good news for Glasgow and Edinburgh if we are talking about Newcastle


because they are on the same part of the country. It is a logical thing


for an independent Scotland to do. But it creates real problems for


Newcastle Airport, because it does not get the landing fees. I do not


agree with it. I think it brings people to the region. You can be in


Newcastle in one hour from Edinburgh. From Heathrow, it can


take three or four hours, to be. It will benefit the people in the North


of England. Would Scottish independence make life more


difficult for the North of England? In the North East in particular


there has always been a resentment about the Scots getting certain


things and the north-east losing out? There is a certain amount of


friendly rivalry but there are friends and neighbours, the people


in Scotland. The choices for them and whichever decision make we want


to make it work. So they get independence, they vote for


independence and in 2016 it happens, the Scottish government


cuts corporation tax to 10%, what happens to businesses in Newcastle?


I support the union. We already have corporation tax concessions in the


government's enterprise zones so it is not unheard of as a policy, but


it is not a practical proposition just to reduce a whole series of


tax. We still have the revenue that would be necessary to one and


independent country. But if the Scottish government cut taxes like


corporation tax, if they cut that and cut advance passenger duty, that


would make life more difficult for business on Tyneside? There are two


Max Abbott proposition is there. There are enterprise zones in the


north-east that offer time-limited tax concessions and on the airport


duty, it is much more important because Newcastle International


airport is a first-rate airport and it is more important as to where you


want to travel and what price you pay for the tickets. The effect of


passenger duty is marginal. I am sorry, that is not the experience in


Ireland at all. When the Irish government cut advance passenger


duty people poured out of Northern Ireland to fly out of Dublin and


Shannon, so much so that the British judgement had to allow Belfast to


cut its advance passenger duty. -- the British government. That


pertains to the island of Ireland. I am not sure that the relationship is


exactly the same between Scotland and Edinburgh. It seems to be the


same. The distance between Dublin and Belfast is about the same as


Edinburgh and Newcastle. But you travel from Tyneside to Edinburgh to


avoid passenger duty? You would have to pay for the tickets. The


passenger duty for a family of four is ?500. But you are making an


international flight. How often do ordinary people do that? Once, for


their holidays, once a year. We are not full of internationally mobile


people. One final question, I am glad we have not lost the line. Why


have the polls stop narrowing? Why is the gap between yes and no moving


again in favour of no? The IPSA 's Mori poll showed yes was up 4% and


no was down 4%. It is the most friendly poll and it was the first


time that we have yes above 40%. It is just over 100 days before the


referendum. We are aware we need to be. -- where we need to be.


Now David Cameron's had a busy few days, what with the D-Day


He did however make time to meet Vladimir Putin in Paris for the


first direct talks between a western leader and the Russian president


Mr Cameron told Mr Putin the current situation in Ukraine was


"not acceptable" and urged him to engage with the Ukrainian


Earlier, leaders of the G7 nations urged Russia to


begin talks with the new leadership in Kiev to end the crisis.


Here's Messrs Cameron and Obama speaking last night.


First, the status quo is unacceptable. The continuing


destabilisation of Eastern Ukraine must stop. Second, there are a set


of things that need to happen. President Putin must recognise the


legitimate election of President Poroshenko. He must stop arms


crossing the border into Ukraine. He must cease Russian support for


separatist group. Third, if these things do not happen, sectoral


sanctions will follow. The next months will be vital in judging if


President Putin has taken these steps and this is what I will urge


him to do. If Mr Putin takes two steps it is possible for us to begin


to rebuild trust between Russia and its neighbours in Europe. Should he


fail to do so, there are going to be additional consequences and one


important thing that came out of the meeting today was the recognition on


the part of all of us that we cannot simply a drift. We are joined by Sir


Christopher Meyer. If I was that your Putin watching this I would


think, no need to change anything. I would be pretty irritated. The one


thing that your Putin does not like is being told to do things as if he


is a naughty schoolboy and being put under deadlines and under pressure.


I think he will react badly to that. All of that said, what he is


urging is in his own interests and I am sure he will get into talks with


Mr Poroshenko. It is in his interests to come Eastern Ukraine.


Is he moving in that direction? Not long ago there was talk of Russian


troops massing on the border of Eastern Ukraine and it was only a


matter of time before that was a crisis as well, but it looks less


likely now? There have been some nods and winks in the Kremlin and


obscure phrases from Putin, but I think he wants to work with


Poroshenko and, heaven knows, we think of it as a crisis in the West


but it is a hell of a crisis for Putin and it is not served by more


instability. Why do you think he has pulled back from the brink? Why did


he not go on and take Eastern Ukraine? I am not convinced he was


ever going to do it. I am -- having to inherit the cost and chaos of a


sovereign state, I suspect that he never intended to do it but did want


the massing of the army on the frontier to be a form of coercive


diplomacy. Has the G7 showed itself to be a parent tiger? It is a tiger


with uneven lakes. It is limping a bit and it has sharp teeth on one


side and blunt on the other. Different members want to do


different things. The French want to sell highly potent warships to the


Russians. They do not want to, they are selling them. The Russians


arrived in France to begin training. Well, there you go. The Germans are


not keen on ramping things up. It has not been very effective politics


for diplomacy. The thing that can get us out of all of this is that


the solution is obvious - federalisation of the Ukrainian


state. We all know that and I think Putin is working towards that. What


do you make of the G7 approach to Ukraine? There are clearly different


takes on it. I thought it was interesting when President Obama


talked yesterday about, wording it nicely, pressing the pause button.


He was referring to this sale of these helicopter warships. My


understanding is that there are two and the first delivery will be in


October. My understanding also is that we are in phase two of the


sanctions being considered by the G7, and indeed by Europe, and there


is a phase three and it is in phase three that then there are sanctions


that deal with defence matters, which this would come under. My


understanding also is that had the highest level of French government,


what would happen is that the French are not saying what they would do


but they understand that all parties would need to make some compromise,


something would have to be negotiated. My other understanding


is that the first one that is going to be delivered in October is


actually a shell and that it will take months, and I do not know if


Russians are training in France, the shell will take months to be built


into any sort of warship. That is the reality. There is no doubt that


if the Russians get the first ship there is no doubt in my mind they


will get the second one as well. It is inconceivable. Can I shed light


on the question of why Putin is acting the way he has, on the basis


of an interesting conversation I had with eight security prison in Latvia


recently. An interesting point was made. Putin made two important


calculations. One was that ultimately West leaders would not


push back too hard because they would have a cost benefit analysis


of where their interests lay in terms of how aggressively they


responded. The other, which was a miscalculation, was that there were


lots of people in Eastern Ukraine who saw themselves as more Russian


and Ukrainian. Although there are people who feel ethnically Russian,


Putin overestimated the extent to which they would rally to wanting to


be under his jurisdiction. They are culturally Russian but a lot of them


feel Ukrainian. I think that is why he is backing off. They did not wise


up -- rise up. I think there was a miscalculation there. I have this


feeling from my own conversations that the massing of troops, though


they might have moved over the frontier, was more to put pressure


on the Ukrainian government and on us in the West in the knowledge that


we would never go to war. Dodger federal solution involves


surrendering Premier? Crimea is gone, forget about it. Should


President Obama see President Putin? Probably, yes. It is difficult for


Obama domestically. He has come under criticism from the left and


right for not pursuing a vigorous and robust foreign policy. He is not


Korean action, why should he worry? He is worried about legacy and has


conflicting voices in the White House, some saying meet Putin, some


saying not to. Could he not bring Putin and Poroshenko together? He


would not be regarded by Putin as an honest broker because he has been


the most strident, we are only number two, and it would be hard to


play the role. The person who is going to bring Mr Poroshenko and Mr


Putin together is President Hollande. It is happening as we


speak with 19 heads of state. We say in French it is the happenstance of


the calendar. 70 years after that extraordinary sacrifice that we were


talking about and ordering at the beginning of the programme, you have


these very different leaders in this Ukraine-Russia crisis and I


understand that it is not impossible that President Obama might happen to


bump into President Putin away from the cameras. President Putin gave to


two French channels 36 hours ago an interview where he clearly knew what


he was doing. It was a long interview and it was an interesting


stand-by. He said, I will talk to anyone. There is nobody I am not


going to talk to. Fascinating insight, thank you. I want to move


on. Let's talk about one of France's most famous women.


Christine Lagarde was in town today to deliver the IMS MOT on the


British economy. Despite concerns, everything is rosy according to the


IMF. While she had good news for George Osborne, she had bad news for


the Prime Minister who many think would like her to be in the running


for the European Commission job. I am not a candidate, and the reason I


am not a candidate is that I have a job. It is a job that I think is


rather important at the moment, and the United Kingdom was kind enough


to support before it at the time -- me for it at the time and that it's


a job I have to do and which I intend to complete. As my young son


would have said, mum, when you start something, you have to finish the


job. Hawaii's young son, who is clearly influential in diplomatic


matters -- a wise young son. How do you read that? I suspect she is


sincere and not wanting to claim the presidency of the European


commission. If all of the member states turned and begged her to take


the job, maybe she would, but we are not near that situation yet.


Pro-British government this is a difficult moment. It is by qualified


majority voting, remember, so you have to have a clear idea who you do


want in the job and have a clear idea that you can rally a majority


alliance behind the candidate you want. By all accounts, Cameron


doesn't want Jean-Claude Juncker, but who does he want? Has he created


some coalition of friends? He has a number of people who side with him


about not wanting Jean-Claude Juncker, the Hungarians, the Swedes,


the Dutch are very keen. -- are not very keen. What will Francoise


Hollande's the -- attitude be towards Christine the guard being


president of the commission? I'm glad somebody has done some work on


the programme. I made some phone calls and its enquiries. The fact


that a French person is head of the IMF and the second time, after the


dramatic departure of the first, there is a whole knock-on effect.


There is a lot of people who would like the traditional big jobs at the


World Bank and the IMF not to go to the Europeans. There would be the


temptation to say, hold on, that's two French people resigning


on-the-job. I think it was Angela Merkel who had eight private


conversation with Christine Lagarde -- a private conversation. I agree


with you that if she were approached and there was this incredible


consensus, she might, but there would be an awful lot of


negotiations. The French position, by the way, briefly, is that


Jean-Claude Juncker, this came out of the boat, the Democratic ballot


-- came out of the boat. The situation is you only have to take


the count. The council just takes it into account. It is not binding. Who


does Francoise Hollande want? Again, the official position is that


Jean-Claude Juncker would be totally entitled to have the job. Who did


you call to find out who Francoise Hollande ones? I haven't spoken to


anyone in the palace. I think it's a fascinating question, who would


David Cameron choose instead of Jean-Claude Juncker. What is


interesting is the number of pro-European Tories who I spoke to


who thought that Jean-Claude Juncker would be a terrible candidate. Even


the most ardent British Europhile recognises the argument that this is


a figure from an old view of Europe. Who does Labour want? They will be


glad not to get drawn into the conversation and will happily let


this be private grief for the opposition. If I were a betting man


I would still bet on in the end Jean-Claude Juncker being president.


Angela Merkel will be determined to see otherwise. There is a Frenchman


lurking in the woodwork here who is very credible, but might be to


independent minded for our taste, and we might regret what we wish


for. Well, if he's independent minded, it won't happen.


Now to the ongoing saga over extremism in schools,


which first kicked off in March when a letter allegedly revealed


a plot for Islamist groups to take control of a school in Birmingham,


Ofsted's initially launched an investigation into one school,


Park View, but later expanded their so-called


"Trojan Horse" investigations to 21 schools across Birmingham.


That report is due to be released next week.


But yesterday, a leaked copy of the report into one of the schools,


Golden Hillock, criticised the school for being "inadequate" and


said that "Too little is done to keep students safe from the risks


All of this has sparked a war of words between the Education


Secretary Michael Gove, and the Home Secretary, Theresa May.


In a letter that appeared on the Home Office website this week,


"Is it true that Birmingham City Council was warned


Is it true that the Department for Education was warned in 2010?


What followed was a flurry of statements aiming to calm


the storm, saying "Michael Gove and Theresa May are working together to


ensure we get to the bottom of what has happened in Birmingham and take


Yesterday, Prime Minister David Cameron was asked about the row.


I think it is very important that we recognise that you have to deal not


only with violent extremism, but also the toleration of extremist


views from which that can grow, and we are driving changes to deliver an


agenda to prevent that. As the issues of the last day or so, I will


get to the bottom of who has said what and what has happened and I


will sort it all at once-itch -- once I finish the importance


meetings here. You can see the into -- irritation that he is dealing


with Barack Obama and these huge issues and the minutiae of


Westminster comes in. I'm joined now by the writer


and commentator Myriam Francois-Cerrah and by the


commentator and founder of the West Toby Young, let me come to you. Free


schools and academies are not regulated by local authorities, it


is in the end of the responsibility of central government. Should the


government not be more aware of what was happening in the schools? It's


hard to say without having seen the Ofsted report. I think we get them


early next week. We will see what's been going on and how long. There is


clearly going to be a blame game next week, and it looks as though


Michael Gove's mentioning of Charles Farr at the board meeting last week


was an attempt to fire the first shot in the blame game. He was


briefing against the Home Office in the lunch with the times. The


context he was briefing against him was that he thought the Home Office


should be doing more to drain the swamp and tackle the roots of


extremism and not just knock the crocodiles on the head when they


emerge from the swamp. That has been the running dispute between him and


the Home Office. Let me move beyond the Westminster minutiae, because


what people are not concerned about that, they want to know if there is


a real problem in a handful of schools of Islamist extremism. What


is your view? Judging from the early previews we have seen of the


report, and the answer to seems to be yes and something needs to be


done about it. Is this the right time to go in and subject the


schools to scrutiny that we are about coming to an examination


week? But often that's an excuse for not doing anything. It's always


going to be a bit disruptive. Once you have got wind something going


on, you must investigate and then remediate if necessary? Is there a


problem? Let's get some facts straight. The Trojan horse letter is


widely accepted to have been a false letter. There is no evidence of


extremist links, say Birmingham council, so that basis from which


Michael Gove has taken it upon himself to go out and put these


schools through this intense media and educational scrutiny at a time


when the young students are undergoing one of the most momentous


times in their lives is a spurious documenting. You are saying there is


no evidence of Islamic extremism in some Birmingham schools? I am saying


there is no evidence of the so-called Trojan horse plot, and


given that there is no evidence of the actual letter being real, we


have to question on what basis Michael Gove is going into the


schools. Back to me is the expansion of the term extremism to go beyond


violent extremism, to include all Muslims. All Muslims are the swamp,


and now Muslim children have to be the source of investigation. Address


for me the point about the Trojan horse. It may be that the letter was


fake, but it doesn't mean that the allegations it contained were not


true. It subsequently emerged that even though there is some doubt as


to the prominence of the letter, the substance of the allegations, it


looks like it might be true. What evidence do you have? We will see


next week. What evidence do you have from the leaked reports? There are


many schools in this country that could be accused of cultural


isolation, not least the school attended by our Prime Minister and


many members of the Cabinet. You want to talk about segregation on


sexual lives, most of them attended a school that was segregated


according not only to sexual lines, but also according to class lines,


so if you want to talk about cultural isolation there are many


schools in this country that could be accused of that. It is because


they are Muslim, that is the problem. I think it is an


overreaction to say that all Muslims have been placed under suspicion as


a result of the investigation. I don't think it is the fact that


there are Muslims in the school that has been the trigger for the


investigation. It absolutely is. I den think it is. You mention various


types of isolation, and it looks like men and women have been


segregated in the school. It is one thing saying eating is single sex


school, but it is private and isn't subject to the same regulations --


eaten schools. There are single sex state schools. My children attend a


single sex school. That happens everywhere. There are various roles


you are meant to observe in schools, and one of them is you are not


supposed to segregate children according to their gender in


lessons. You are also supposed to teach them the theory of evolution


in biology. You are meant to teach them about other religions. And as


far as you can tell in the report that those are the issues coming to


hand, but there are evidence of internal grievances. If you


inspected any school the way these schools have been inspected, you


would find an internal grievance. Segregation of people in a coed


school that is not a faith school, is that acceptable? They're already


coed school separating their students? To this extent? In


lessons? I can't see you taking issue with Catholic school. What is


the answer to the question? Do you find it acceptable to sexually


segregate children in assemblies and lessons? It's not about what I


think. We are asking you. It's irrelevant about what I think


because I don't support the separation in classes. We have to


leave it there because we have run out of time. Thanks to all of our


guests. I'll be back on BBC One on Sunday


with the Sunday Politics and I'll be joined by Scotland's


Deputy First Minister, Nicola And there will be more follow-up


from the Newark by-election. How could you miss that?


This is one of the most fire-prone regions on earth.


Download Subtitles