06/06/2014 Daily Politics

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.