06/11/2015 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 06/11/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Confusion in Sharm El-Sheikh as stranded British tourists are


told to go back to their hotels and more flights are cancelled.


Three police officers are hospitalised


Can this sort of direct action ever be justified?


He was one of UKIP's highest-profile ethnic minority candidates -


now he says he's the victim of racial discrimination in the party.


We'll be talking to Winston Mackenzie.


And the unmistakable figure of George Galloway emerges from the


I'll be asking the former MP and London mayoral hopeful


about his plans to enter the vintage clothing market.


All that in the next hour and with us for the duration today,


two doyens of political style - there's some substance to them too,


Kiran Stacey of the Financial Times and Julia Hartley Brewer.


First this afternoon - flights were supposed to be starting to bring


British holiday-makers back from the Egyptian resort of Sharm El Sheikh


today, but there's considerable confusion about the number of planes


that will be able to operate, and passengers are being told that


they will have to fly without their luggage, which will be


In a moment we'll catch up with our correspondent in Sharm.


But first let's talk to our political correspondent,


It is getting a bit messy now. Do we have a clear idea of the picture?


Are the flights happening? Some flights are but yes a messy picture


in Government as well as Sharm El-Sheikh. I'm just back from


Downing Street's briefing. It looks like one charter airline, monarch


are sending flights out and two easyJet flights have left for


London. They were already at Sharm El-Sheikh airport. However it looks


as though, what the Transport Secretary, Patrick McLaughlin was


talking about, that everyone who was meant to be home by Friday night


will be, there will be in excess of 20 flights, looks unlikely. Downing


Street is saying the situation is complex and fluid. Off the record,


as I understand t the problem is this - in effect they think an


agreement has been made with Egyptian officials to get the


flights in and people out but it is not clear whether the Egyptian


officials are withdrawing cooperation and making it as


difficult as possible or whether people on the ground at the airport


are simply saying, they are not used to having this extra capacity and


can't deal with it but the upshot now is that there can be no


guarantee that everyone who should have been back from Sharm El-Sheikh


by this evening, will be. The British Government has firmly fixed


it colours to the mast that this was a terrorist attack. The Egyptians


and the Russians, for their own reasons will be hoping it is not.


And indeed may not be that keen to cooperate to discover if it was. The


British Government could find itself at some stage in a rather


embarrassing stand-off with the Egyptians and the Russians as to


what actually caused this. That's right. It is not clear whether that


stand-off, which I think has already already begun given the comments we


have had from Moscow and some Egyptian officials, whether that is


delaying the evacuation of British tourists from Sharm El-Sheikh. I


asked the number Ten spokesman about 20 minutes ago whether there was any


new information relevant to the investigation of the crash that has


been shared with President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi who is at the MoD this


morning or the Russian allies. He said the situation hasn't changed.


He said based on intelligence and other factors, it is most like that


a bomb caused the jet to go down but they would not say whether there was


any information to reinforce that. He said simply there was a dialogue


and what they were sharing was an explanation for Britain's actions. I


understand the Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, he has been using


this terrorist attack, as the British Government believes it is,


to talk about the broader threat from Islamic state? Yes, he has


talked about the broader threat in the region. Certainly there is some


charter about whether there was the Islamic State off-shoot in sign eye


who was responsible. But -- in Sinai. But he renewed his call for


an extension of British air strikes in Iraq to Syria.


I'm briefing MPs on the state of the campaign against Isil, and I'm


asking MPs particularly to reflect on the fact that the streets of


Britain, at the moment, are being kept safe by American, Australian


and French aircraft, striking at the heart of Isil


in north-east Syria, from where Isil is organised and directed.


Britain is playing its role in the campaign against Iraq


but it makes no sense for British aircraft to have to turn back


at an artificial border that Isis itself does not respect.


We put Michael Fallon's comments to Downing Street this morning. They


are saying the Prime Minister's view on Syrian air strikes hasn't


changed. Certainly the case has to be made but there needs to be a


consensus in the House of Commons. And that consensus is going to be


far more important, when it comes to air strikes, than anything that


mayville happened over the skies of Egypt. Thank you for that and


bringing us up-to-date. We can talk now to our Correspondent


Sally Nabil in Sharm El-Sheikh. Is the British evacuation now


getting under way? Yes, what we understand so far is that two


flights have left Sharm El-Sheikh already going back to the UK. But


there has been a lot of confusion over the past hour. We don't nose


the schedule for the rest of the flights today but the British


Ambassador has spoken to journalists a short while ago and said that the


Egyptian authorities haven't blocked or cancelled any flights, it was


just a matter of rescheduling. What we know is that the UK wanted to


send many flights at one go and the Sharm El-Sheikh airport is not a big


one, so logisticically speaking, it cannot take all of the flights at


one time. So they are rescheduling the flights and that might take a


much longer time to repatriot the British holiday-makers back to the


UK and people are growing really frustrated because they wanted to


get back home as soon as possible. So, as it looks to you at the


moment, Sally, the British people stranded there, they could be there


over the weekend and perhaps even into the early part of next week?


Yes, we have no time frame actually for how long this process is going


to take and many tourists I have spoken to this morning have been


complaining a lot about lack of information, lack of communication.


One of them told me that he has no money to extend his booking at the


hotel and he does not know what he is going to do. They were hoping to


get back home today but it seems that the process will be a bit


lengthy because what we understand is that the British and the Egyptian


authorities are co-ordinating to bring the holiday-makers back home


but things are much more complicated from a logistics point of view. Some


of the tourists now are back to their hotels until further notice.


Let me just ask you one final question, Sally. The British, those


that can get out, are being allowed out, but only with hand luggage.


Certainly with very restricted luggage. Is that an independencation


that the British still don't trust the baggage security at Sharm el


Sheikh? In a way, yes. Security measures have been tightened after a


British aviation expert visited the airport two days ago. We have seen


long queues of people waiting for check-in because the security checks


are taking a much longer time. Three or four days ago I was here and


things were much quieter, even on the day of the crash. The scene was


totally different from today. Now you can see long queues of people


inside the terminals waiting for their hand luggage to be checked.


The picture has changed after Britain decided to stop its flights


to Sharm el Sheikh. I asked the people how they saw the new security


measures. Some were growing impatient with T others told me that


it'll make them feel safer. -- with it.


We can see the queues behind you. Thank you for joining us live from


Sharm El-Sheikh. Let me come back to the gee yes


politics of this. If it -- the geopolitics. If it turns out to be a


terrorist attack. This will have been the most serious Islamist


attack on what you would call Western assets, Western people since


9/11. The implications of this are huge? If Russia accepts T we have no


idea if it was a deliberate attack on a Russian flight or it could have


been on an easyJet or monarch flight back to Britain. We don't know. We


don't know for sure. Clearly there are massive implications. There are


also implications for domestic travel and politics as well. The


theatre of security that we do see at our airports which we have had


since 9/11 and since sevenself here, particularly, the -- and since 7/7.


It meaningless. Certainly in developing countries where we have


seen people buying their pay past security. Perhaps we have to accept


that this is possibility that could still happen to any one at any time.


But the biggest threat, in terms of geopolitics and in terms of Russia,


if Russia does accept this has happened, is it good for Putin, in


terms of keeping tension out of what is going home in Russia, which is an


economic basket case, and actually focuses more attention on what they


want to do on Syria. Or will it mean that the Russian people will say -


look, we don't want to get involved. This is not for us, we don't want


Russians dying at the expense of you helping Assad.


If Islamic State has developed a capability to penetrate the security


arrangements of airports like Sharm El-Sheikh, there are plenty of


airports like that, not just around the world but in that region. That


is a new dimension that Islamic State has, which has huge potential


in how we handle it. I think what is worrying is, is we know that


Al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula has been trying this for years this.


Won't trigger a bomb that will trigger the metical detector. They


have tried it four or five times. Has it now managed to develop the


technology to almost leap frog, aldividia, with whom of course they


have fallen out huge lane do this sophisticated attack. I think at the


moment the Brits except it is not case and there is enormously lapse


security on the ground and something which triggered a warning didn't.


The Egyptian have said that we the British, sent our experts there ten


months ago and it seemed to be OK. They have the scansers but pay ?10


to get through. . Or if you go through and it beeps and the


security guard says - I'm too stressed on you. I think that's more


a reasonable explanation than developing new technology. Very


worrying. It is not the most clever technology they will have used. It


is not beyond the wit of your average university student. Or


someone managed to plant it into the baggage hold after it was full. This


story began with the plane coming down last Saturday. It has divom


nated the news this week. It'll continue, I suggest -- it has


dominated the news. It'll continue to dominate and there


will be further developments. whose giant effigy was burnt last


night at the infamous annual bonfire celebrations in the usually


peaceful Sussex town of Lewes? At the end of the show,


Julia and Kieran will give us Now, Labour party members and


supporters may have got the leader they wanted,


but Jeremy Corbyn was supported by just a handful of Labour MPs


in September's leadership election. Many turned down front bench


and shadow cabinet jobs, but now centrist Labour MPs -


amongst them some of Mr Corbyn's biggest detractors - have found


a new platform within the party. The Parliamentary Labour Party's


departmental back bench committees have been dubbed the "Shadow Shadow


Cabinet". And before his election as Labour


leader, Jeremy Corbyn declared himself


a big fan, saying there were, " Well, as elections for


the committees concluded last night, None of the 17 new chairmen had


backed his leadership campaign - a result which prompted one MP to


describe the committee chairmen They include the pro-Trident


John Woodock, who will chair This summer he warned if Mr Corbyn


was elected as Labour Leader, "We can wave goodbye to any hope of


electability." Tristram Hunt,


who has said he has "substantial political differences" with Mr


Corbyn, will chair the Communities And former Shadow Chancellor,


Chris Leslie - he's attacked the "starry-eyed,


hard left" economics of Mr Corbyn - To add to Mr Corbyn's potential


headaches, last night Jim McMahon was chosen to


be Labour's candidate in the The Oldham Council leader won 232


votes compared to 17 won by ex-MP and close Corbyn ally


Chris Williamson. And for a full list


of the declared candidates in the Oldham West and Royton


by-election, visit the BBC website. And joining me now is Mike Gapes,


who has been elected as chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party's


Foreign Affairs Committee, and Ronnie Campbell, a Labour MP


and supporter of Jeremy Corbyn. Welcome to you both. Mike Gapes, is


it just a happy coincidence that none of the shadow Shadow Cabinet


winners are Jeremy Corbyn supporters? I think we reflect the


views of the Parliamentary party. All of us who have been chosen to


chair these backbench committees stood. There was the election, in my


case, several contested elections, and people who have not nominated


Jeremy Corbyn were widely supported by our colleagues. Does that not


illustrate a systemic problem in the Labour Party, that the Parliamentary


Labour Party, and the Labour Party in the country have become two very


different animals. We will see how it works. The party in a country


voted for Mr Corbyn, and the Parliamentary party votes for people


like you. The Parliamentary party has a very important role over party


policy over the next few years. No leader can be successful if they


don't take their Parliamentary colleagues with them. Ronnie


Campbell, what do you make of it? Does it have the smell of a clue


about it? No, it doesn't, but these are talking shops, these committees.


They do not make policies. The Labour Party members and the


affiliates make policy. That's not what Jeremy Corbyn said before the


elections, he said they were very important and useful in developing


policy. Yes, within Parliament itself, they debate whatever the


issue is coming up, foreign affairs next week, of course they will be


debated, but they do not make policy. Mike Gapes, you tweeted, you


are quite a voracious tweeter, there is now no collective Shadow Cabinet


responsibility in our party, no clarity of economic policy, no


credible leadership. Will there be collective shadow Shadow Cabinet


responsibility? There is no shadow Shadow Cabinet. It's a nice


headline, but the reality is the Parliamentary party will want to


work collectively and cohesively. The backbench committees will play a


big role in the input to development of policy. For example, we will


choose to be pulled to be on a National policy Forum, to be part of


that process. Mr Campbell says you will not be able to decide policy.


Policy will be decided by the party overall, but the members of


Parliament are an essential part of the process and no party can win an


election without the support of leadership and membership and the


Parliamentary party working together. Do you think there's the


danger a growing division between the attitudes of the Parliamentary


party and the policies and demands and attitudes of the Labour Party in


the country? The Labour members of Parliament have to remember they are


selected by their local Labour Party and voted on by their constituents.


They are not the Labour Party, which is made up of members and


affiliates, and they are the ones who decide policy. They think they


will take over the Parliamentary Labour Party and run the party, they


are not running the party and never will. They are in Parliament. I'm


saying the Labour Party is a Parliamentary party which wins or


loses elections. Without members of Parliament, including those of us


who have been clearly elected by our colleagues campaigning and working


collectively, if we have an attempt to try to pick off MPs or drive MPs


into positions where we no longer are able to speak out for what we


believe, then that will be to the detriment of the Labour Party and we


will lose elections. We have got to get it right. We have to have a


leadership that listens and works with the Parliamentary Labour Party.


You are talking about deselection again. They are the only ones


mentioning it, as far as I am concerned, and the press. Any


policy, where ever, to deselect members of Parliament, that is up to


the Labour Party. The members. They will select and deselect. Ken


Livingstone said on Sunday, the former Mayor of London, if an MP was


seen not to represent the views of the constituency party, then the


constituency party would be within its rights to deselect and get


somebody who more accurately reflects what they want to believe.


As I said, the local Labour Party selects the candidate, and they can


deselect them. Not many candidates in my time, and I've been in


Parliament a long time, have been deselected. We have boundary changes


coming up so there might be a lot of need for reselection. That's another


matter. You might have two MPs fighting for one constituency. They


will have to put their names in the Hat and hope they can fight and win


the seat. That's not deselection. Mike Gapes, you said in the 1980s


you were never taken seriously on defence and there's a real danger


you could get into a similar situation. Yes, I was a candidate in


1983, the same time Jeremy was a candidate in Islington North, and I


was in Ilford North. In Ilford North we had huge rallies, big


demonstrations and enthusiasm among activists but a terrible election


result. We have to recognise as a Labour Party, that just entered


using activists is not necessarily going to win the election. We have


to cut through to people in England, in particular, who didn't vote for


us last time. We have to win 106 more seats to have a majority and we


have to recognise we have a big challenge. Is there a danger that


the kind of people who have joined into the Labour Party to help elect


Jeremy Corbyn, they have invigorated your party, and you have a lot more


members, but perhaps they are not representative of the wider


electorate? I don't know, I've had a big increase of nearly 600, but I


haven't met many of them. They might just be ordinary union members. I


don't know who they are. As far as I'm concerned, there is no takeover


of the Labour Party. It has gone to the left, of course, by collecting


Jeremy Corbyn. It's a different idea and tactic to the past, but we have


just lost two elections. We can't run alongside the Tories and have


better policies than them, we have been beaten twice. Should you get to


meet the new members? I have e-mailed all of them. Inviting them


into the party, now they have paid ?3, but I'm not getting many


responses. Have you met union members, Mike Gapes? I've had a


similar experience. I've e-mailed twice new members, my constituency


party has doubled. I've e-mailed twice to say to come out knocking on


doors with the Greater London Authority candidate, and both


occasions I've had a handful of new members come out, but no response


from the ?3 payers. Is it true, using the media shorthand of the


shadow Shadow Cabinet, that you have the toe of the shadow Shadow


Cabinet, that you have veto? I don't think the right of veto applies. I


will be working with Hilary Benn, Shadow Foreign Secretary, and the


pro-European shadow minister, to campaign and work for Labour


policies. Can you speak from the dispatch box? I would have thought


it was unlikely. Technically you have the right to speak. Technically


and theoretically. I would love to, but I don't think I will be asked.


Would you like to see Mike Gapes is big from the dispatch box at shadow


shadow foreign affairs member? I might have a bash myself! What


subject would you talk about? I would have a bash at the economy.


Looking at one other subject. Earlier this week Jeremy Corbyn


suggested British air strikes on ice is it in Iraq should be


reconsidered. -- on Isis. The government wants to extend air


strikes into Syrian territory because they say that is where the


supply lines and bases are. Mr Corbyn is now questioning whether we


should be in Iraq. I think he's wrong. I think Daesh, Isil, are a


fundamental threat to Iraq, other Arab countries and ourselves. The


reality is that British forces and other coalition forces are in Iraq,


at the invitation of the Iraqi government. It is in accordance with


international law and I think we should be doing more there. I know


you need to see the details and what the government is actually planning,


but on general principle you think Britain should take the fight into


Syria? I don't think it's logical to be hitting targets in Iraq and not


being able to carry on a few miles over the desert to hit targets in


their headquarters in Syria. It seems illogical. Mr Campbell, I


assume you don't want to extend bombing into Syria. I may be wrong,


you tell me, but do you agree with Mr Corbyn that we should be


reconsidering bombing in Iraq, which we have been asked to do by the


Iraqi government. The Russians have started bombing and they haven't got


an answer. And they have just lost a plane. Do you think the British


government is right, there is a clear connection? I think there is,


that it was a bomb. It will be there people who have done it. If we start


bombing, the consequences for us are there. Do you think we should stop


bombing in Iraq as well? Yes. I don't think bombing makes any


difference at all. You are killing a lot of innocent people to maybe get


half a dozen Isis people. It's an interesting proposition, terrible if


true, but do we have evidence that the British Tornado bombing has


killed innocent people? We had before. We don't know, because they


haven't been bombing. But the bombing in Iraq. We haven't been


doing that much. Not a great deal. Just to speak to my two guests. The


Labour Party story has a long way to go. It's clear listening to this, a


lot of matters to be reconciled, and clearly tensions between the


parliamentary party and the membership. They are now completely


separate entities. Two months into Jeremy Corbyn's leadership and they


are talking to themselves. Not to be electorate at large. A lot of these


journalists have never even heard of these committees inside the Labour


Party. I think it's extraordinary. 1117 parliamentary party chairs


nominated Liz Kendall. Perhaps as much as the whole membership! -- 11


out of 17 Parliamentary party chairs. What is interesting about


what these gentlemen are saying is that new members are not showing up.


I've heard it from activist friends in the Labour Party, they say the


new guys flooding in, they lumbered us with Jeremy Corbyn, and I'm


talking about centrist people here, they feel lumbered by Jeremy Corbyn,


but they are not turning up on the doorstep. There is talk of


deselection, but they are not there in numbers to engage with the Labour


Party. Long-standing Labour Party members were not given the chance to


vote for socialism, and not surprisingly, they voted for


socialism. If those members want to take over the party they have to


ring gauge. You mean me here today and gone tomorrow type?


I'm sure if Mr Campbell and Mike Gapes invite these members round for


a cup of tea they will be happy to join them and tell us what their


attitudes are and how important they will be for the party. I thank you


both for joining us. Now, remember, remember the 5th of


November - and if you were out in central London last night, you might


have had a little help courtesy of protesters wearing Guido Fawkes


masks. The Million Mask March, associated with a group called


Anonymous calls itself the "Largest They had events and other UK and US


cities. Police in London were said to be braced for a turnout of 18000


and warned of an element intent on criminality. There were five arrests


last night and three police officers were hospitalised. Didn't look like


18,000 on the streets. We kept an eye on what was going on.


The whole thing was organised on social media. Facebook said 18,000


people would come. We walked down Whitehall to Sarah 's of our


streets, not revolution. -- shouts of. I'm not sure where we will end


up, and I'm not sure this lot know either. A lot of us are saying that


enough is enough. If you know the realities of what's going on then


you would be joining in. Free hugs. It did get violent last year, didn't


it? I'm a peaceful person, and that's how I will remain.


Well, it has been going for less than an hour but already


Over the other side there is a line of police on police horses


The crowd has been pushing backwards and forwards


A lot of protesters running around and police running around.


Protesters shouting "kettle, kettle" they are concerned they are


Ie stuck in this area here and not being able to run off,


We have seen several thousand protesters but we are not


That seems to be the nature of this whole march.


We have found them and they are now on Pall Mall.


And certainly a big column of people walking up this way.


Is this going to make a difference, this march tonight?


I don't think it will, but I want us to hear the voices.


We don't want to fight but we are going to have to fight soon.


It is raining, you don't mind the rain?


Well, there was a flurry of activity,


suddenly the police arrived and quite literally blocked the road.


There have been some shouts that the kettle is on


but I imagine that's not the kettle being on in a good way.


The protesters were told they have to stop protesting after 9.00pm.


Quite what happens next I'm not sure.


In the end it didn't take long to clear them. Elsewhere there were


small pockets of violence and three police officers were injured,


needing hospital treatment. At least 50 arrests were made, mainly for


public order offences. And some of the protesters were disappointed


with how it turned out. It is about making a statement and saying - we


are not happy. We are not happy with what is going on. Do you think


tonight will have made any difference? Unfortunately it wasn't,


no. Of course it won't. It is not really a march. It is just people


standinger around in a corner. They are scattered around. They didn't


get together. If they did get together, it would have been a


revolution. I think the weather has put everyone off, to be honest. A


very British approach to the revolution, the weather.


And we're joined now by Adam Clifford of the Class War party, who


What was last night's march against? Against a lot of things, austerity.


The state that London is N the desperation of the people. There is


a lot of homeless at the moment. -- London is in. That's off the scale


at the moment. I myself am actually homeless at the moment. So I feel


very - yeah, I salute the guys who went out last night but it was


boring. It was such a police display, a military march. You know,


nothing could really happen. Are you worried that the whole - this whole


movement is running out of steam? There weren't that many people there


last night? ? It is just the sort of crunchdown, really. It is just the


police. There was as many police as there was protesters last night and


you know, in Trafalgar Square, all these sections were being read out,


that you couldn't cover up. It was police state. Orwellian, like 1984.


They couldn't find any of the organisers to deal with in advance


It is Anonymous, so there are no... That is That's what the thing is.


Have you undermined yourselves by being a bit unfocussed. There were


so many different protesters and issue last night. I was looking at


the general concept of being against capitalism. You mentioned


homelessness. Animal rights was one. What is happening to South Korean


dogs, paedophiles. Is there not a danger that you are firing on too


many fronts? No, I think all this stuff crosses over. I think it is a


march of the underdogs, really. It is the people, the other side of the


fence, that are really feeling it. You know, London is in this kind of


state at the moment. It has become Victorian again. You have the super


rich and the super poor. So, I mean, what are we meant to do? You say it


is the march of the underdogs. A number of people were tweeting who


watched T members of the public. One said - nice to see anti-capitalists


queueing patiently at McDonald's while on iPhones. Well, we are


underdogings, actually. We could not do anything last night with the


police in full-scale displaying all their techniques, doing all their


dances up and down and all that stuff with all their armour and guns


and tasers and all that business, really. Explain, what is the purpose


of the mask? Well, I mean, the bottom line is - say you had a job,


you were trying to get by and you don't believe this is a democracy or


something is not fair, you could go out on the street and go to a


protest and basically be profiled. There is this whole thing of joint


enterprise now, you could be picked up a few days after the event just


for going. Maybe you didn't do anything, anything violent and you


are named, shaped and framed and all the rest of it and probably lose the


basic prif larges you have. We have cover -- privileges. We have covered


these on years gone by, pretty huge ones. This one was smaller. For Guy


Fawkes night, I suggest it is a damp squib. It was boring. I went home


early. I don't think these protests that really work in the past will


work again in the future. I think there will have to be new protests.


That's the way it will have to go. Does the violence help by drawing


attention, or does it make it easier for your protests to be dismissed? I


mean throwing fireworks at the police horse, for example. You know


how much the British love animals? I love animals, too, but you have to


take a different approach with this whole situation, with animals and


what they are trained to do, charge at crowds. They weren't charging at


crowds. A little bit last night. They were simply around Buckingham


Palace and some people threw fire crackers at them. Was that a wise


thing to do? I don't about wise. I have seen police brutality. I have


seen police knock girls around and all sorts of things, I have no faith


in the police. Why are we taking it out on the horse? Why are we going


on about the horse? Because fireworks were thrown and smoke


grenades. The question I am asking you, is whether this does your case,


does it draw attention and you get coverage or people look at what you


are protesting for or does it make it easier for people to dismiss you.


That was my question. I don't think people that were on this march,


fighting for this particular cause, really care about being dismissed.


Because, you know - I mean this is a bit of a circus, it is a spectacle.


The media is a whole circus. We know what the media can do to us. It is


the bottom line. We just carry on, carry on fighting for what we


believe in. Is this getk anywhere? It doesn't look at it. That is your


point of view. What are you doing? I was interested you said the protests


might not have been working recently. That's what you said.


Would you say it is getting anywhere? Is it achieving what you


wanted? I don't think the one last night did but some other protests


have worked, raising awareness and could lead to a bigger thing that


could change things for a lot of people, sure. I remember thinking


this in 2010-11 when student protests were happening around


tuition fees. You felt - is this a moment, is this when the


Conservative Party in particular and obviously the Lib Dems will feel the


effect of the public anger brewing. It didn't happen because most people


don't feel T Most people, who is most people? The people who vote n


May, we had an election. That's how we find out. You are talking about


believe who belief in the establishment. Works really for you,


sweet heart. Thank you for patronising me. I would like to ask


a question. You talked about it big boring, I don't want to put words


into your mouth. My guess is you would have liked lots of violence,


attacking police officers and damaging public and private property


s that what you would have preferred S that your requesting anything"?


How did women get the vote? Have you seen the Suffragetteses film? It was


a crap film. For the huge numbers of young people, particularly young


people from poorer families who don't vote. What do you know about


poor families? Can I finish. You don't know. Well I'm just a


sweetheart or a word you called me before we came on air, rather more


rudely that we can't say Whatever. All right. We need young people to


get the vote, rather than smashing up London. I have a feeling this is


not going to go any further Well thank you. Hold on, let me read this


bit and then you can depart. Now - if you're spending ?27,000


on something you would expect Today


the Government are outlining reforms to the higher education sector


in a Green Paper that they hope will They'll let universities increase


their fees beyond the current ?9,000 a year


limit but only if they improve Earlier Jo Johnson,


the Universities Minister, was asked if this meant universities


that were under-performing would be There's a lot of excellence


in our higher education system. We have four out of the world's


top ten best universities. 38 out of


the world's top 100 universities. So there's a lot of excellence


in our system. But there is also the patchiness


and the bit of variability in the quality of teaching within


and in between universities. That's what we want to


constructively shine a light on, so we can all work together to lift


overall teaching standards, so students get


the best quality experience Taxpayers will benefit underwriting


the system, and employers will benefit because they will get


a better skilled workforce coming We're joined now by Dave Phoenix


of the "million plus" He's also Vice Chancellor of


the London South Bank University. What is your take on what the


Government is now saying? I'm pleased to see the Government


putting this paper forward. I think there are a number of really


important principles in there. They are reemphasising thor importance


and focus of widening access on social be mobility which we are


making in-roads on, but could do more and they are emphasising


putting students at the heart of the system which is always something


that universities need to continue to work on. They are looking at the


fact that the sector has changed substantially over recent years,


therefore, what will it look like in the future and what regulatory


framework do we need? It is positive to see them putting this forward.


Are the universities, the former polytechnics, are they fairly


unstigmatised places, as places of bad teaching. In my experience, you


get pretty bad teaching at Russell Group universities as well? I don't


think they are necessarily stigmatised. I think the challenge I


have with actually is the things like the phrase dock polytechnics.


But when you think, most universities like Egyptian officials


like mine have been universities since 1992. When the big switch-over


took place. Most of the students coming from school now weren't born


them. It doesn't have context now for a lot of the students coming


through. Do you charge ?9,000? We do. Does it make sense, in effect,


all the universities are really charging the same. Does it really


make sense - let's just take the London South Bank University. The


Guardian Higher Education Tables, you are 11th out of 119th higher


education institutions in the 2016 rankings but you charge the same as


Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, LSE. Does that make sense? A couple of


points. If you look at the ?9,000 fee. It has been fixed for coming up


to five years. Therefore, we are in a position where actually delivering


that education, in many courses, actually costs more than ?9,000. It


is not that we have brought in the additional nvenlingt we have


actually seen a cut in grants from Government of about 80%. Additional


income. I understand why you are charging it. I would think if you


are a student, do you think - I will get to one of the most famous


universities in the world t costs me ?9,000, or do I go to London South


Bank University, not quite so famous t still costs me ?9,000 Let's look


at specifics. Maybe this is one of the opportunities that we have with


the paper about trying to puncture some of those myths. If we look at


London South Bank University we take a diverse range of students.


Graduate employment rates are comparable with many select


institution, top half of the table. According to the Guardian fewer than


50% of your graduates are in graduate level employment within six


months. It is the second-worst in the country. I think your data is a


little old. Currently the amount of students in graduate employment for


South Bank is about 75% and we are in the top 20 of graduate starters.


When did that? This year's data. This data is... It is out of date.


What was the revolution in two years? The main changes we have been


making, the same with every university, you focus on your


courses, look at how you develop. What we have been doing is focussing


much more on placement opportunities, on providing


additional guidance, and volunteering activity. Awe dress the


issues? It is around not just the teaching and what we deliver but it


is around the environment that students get access to. A lot of


students were telling us, one of the key aims was around career


progression. It is not true for every student. Some students want to


do other things. It is trying to meet the diverse requirement of the


student body and to celebrate the range and diversity of students we


have within the UK. Would you have more diversity if your fees were


lower? I'm in the too sure we would have more diversity. More students


from poorer backgrounds? There is no evidence for that. The area where we


have concerns is on part-time numbers. They have dropped


nationally. And that's got to be addressed. Because a lot of the


future potential for higher education, is around part-time


because a lot of people we need to retrain are already in jobs. If you


look at the entry to undergraduate course, those numbers have remained


stable. I think there is a need, as we move forward, to try to address


two things - one is making sure that the universities have the ability it


depeet globally because we do compete globally, whilst at the same


time looking at the tow tality of the total the student has to borrow


and see if we have the individual right between the student and state


and employer. It is not just the student. Many come from socio


economic backgrounds, so they are Borowski yoking to cope with


subsistence. To live in London. Yes and it is not cheap.


Because of these students are expecting some sort of return. When


I went there were no fees and you could do what you want and the job


would look after itself. Could we get to a situation where some of the


underperforming universities might close because students will say, I'm


not going there. And they should. I hate we start the debate from the


point of view of these of ?9,000 per year. It is wrong, Tony Blair


brought it in, and education should be free at undergraduate level. The


other issue is the ridiculous 50% target people going to university.


I've spoken to people who say, I don't see why I should take a job


working as a carer or waitress because I have a degree. And they


have a 2.2 in media studies from Bank! With all due respect, those


degrees are not worth the paper they are printed on. It looks like


there's a market failure going on. Worst performing universities are


still charging ?9,000. The signals are not working the way they should


be. The problem is, if you are a student, and you make the decision


for three years, and if you discover halfway through the teaching is not


up to scratch, it's difficult to go back on your choice. There is a high


dropout rate as well. There are two points, one is that a lot of people


are out of date with what the courses are like. Media is one of


the UK, creative industries. It's predicted around 80% of future jobs


will require a degree of higher-level education. I think a


lot of people are out of tune. We don't need to just look at current


universities, but what we can do is look at providers to upscale people


and provide all those with opportunities. Thank you for joining


us. Now,


he was one of Ukip's highest profile ethnic minority candidates and


their former Commonwealth spokesman, but now Winston McKenzie has quit


the party claiming that he's been Here's Nigel Farage lauding


Mr McKenzie earlier this year as proof of the party's appeal


amongst ethnic minority voters. Let this picture of me on the stage


with these wonderful men and women, from all their different backgrounds


and their united belief in being British and being part of this


country and in wanting this country to be free and independent,


and self-governing and proud. Let this be Ukip's


Clause Four moment. But from this moment on, please,


do not ever call us a racist party. Good to see you. Handshake, very


nice. Let me quote, earlier this week you said you were racially


discriminated against by people higher up in Ukip. Without naming


names, because the lawyers are watching, what evidence do you have?


I was receiving letters, phone calls, and the work I had done for


the party with regards to the infrastructure of Ukip in London was


profound. I created a training course that was so successful,


certain members higher up became jealous and angry of me. The


training class that I created, I personally trained 30 people...


Let's accept that you have done a great job for the party. I'm asking


you for the evidence that you suffered from racial dissemination.


When I initially came into the party, the Ukip website was people


issuing their comments about me. Racist comments that were so bad


that they had to pull down the site. Did you know these were Ukip


members? All sorts of websites have all sorts of trolling. The situation


got so bad I brought it to the party's Chief Executive. I spoke to


Nigel Farage and told him I was having problems. There were people


in the party that were racist. When I say racist, Andrew, I'm not


referring to Ukip members, these people are the salt of the earth.


I'm not referring to people directly involved with Nigel and the


leadership itself, I'm referring to four or five people within the party


who are blatantly racist. So is your complaint that Ukip is not


institutionally racist, but it has some members that are racist? Some


members in it are racist. As a man of my integrity, I'm a black man


trying to make better in society, and I will not stand for it in this


day and age. What would you say to some people who say it is just sour


grapes on your part after you were dropped from the front bench earlier


this year, did not become the London mayor candidate and did not become


one of the London assembly candidates, and maybe you have


concluded that your career in Ukip is going nowhere? They would love


for that to be the case. Every politician within Ukip or any


political party would love to be included in the list. To be the


mayor candidate, whatever. But the simple fact is that I pride myself


as a politician in democracy. Ukip prides itself in democracy. The


selection process for the mayoral candidates and the London assembly,


the Ukip membership was not included. It is this lackadaisical


form of organisation that are ignored me at the end of the day. Is


it true that you've been a member of every political party? I never


joined Labour. Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Veritas, with


Kilroy. Unity was my party. And. You only have to look at the greats, and


I'm great. Looked at Churchill matter how many times did he move


his position? He won elections. I'm a new boy. I only want a shadow box


with you today, not spa. Didn't you audition for the X factor? That's


what's wrong with politics today, politicians need to put themselves


about and get involved in ordinary peoples' lives. I get around. I know


what's going on. They didn't choose you, but looking at the Ukip


candidates for the London assembly, they chose them a couple of weeks


ago and a third of them are from ethnic minorities. Thanks to Winston


McKenzie. But not you. So is racism... Would a racist party


choose a third of its membership from ethic minorities? Speak to any


member or activist, and ask them who is responsible for the influx of


black and ethnic minorities into Ukip, and they will say it was


Winston. You can never be a prophet in your own land! I'm a profit where


ever I go. I didn't need them to choose me because the work I did


will go on as a legacy. I wonder if Ukip took the view that as a


politician you could be a bit of a liability. After all, you once


described Croydon as a dump. It's a point of view, but probably not a


point of view you should have, if, as you were, the local election


candidate. Andrew, you have to speak the truth and tell it as you see it.


That's why you lost! The place is a dump. The whole of London is


becoming a dump. Go outside portcullis house and see the chewing


gum on the floor. I'm sorry I didn't include the rest of London. That's


obviously why they didn't choose you for the London assembly. When you


are growing up, did you see black bags and rubbish dumped everywhere?


Of course I did, I grew up in Paisley! I never saw that when I


came to this country when I was five years old, and the streets were


clean. It's a dump. It's about time we did something about it. Sounds


like the people weren't ready for your message. Most people think that


London is kind of... Having a render sums beyond belief. When I first


came to London after university it was a declining British city. It's


now one of the... If not the... Global cities of the world. It's a


shame Boris Johnson got voted out with regard to the water cannons. If


I was Mayor of London tomorrow I would have the streets washed with


water cannons. The whole town, Andrew, needs an enema. There is no


doubt about it. You have been complaining about racism in Ukip. I


understand you are not saying the party is institutionally racist. And


it's not aimed at the leader. I understand. You've had a few what I


might call politically incorrect positions. You said a gay couple


adopting a child was abuse. I'm entitled to my personal Christian


opinions. It's not very diverse or inclusive. If you claim to purport


to represent the people, a certain amount of people in various


different areas that need to be heard and you carry their voice. You


said you were dismayed that former boxing promoter Frank Maloney, now


Kellie Maloney, had a six change. I knew the guy well. I wish him all


the best as a woman. You are not dismayed any more? I'm not dismayed.


I'm sad at the loss of Frank Maloney. He was a great man. Has


Winston McKenzie been badly done by? It seems to be a bruised ego. The


only person with a justifiable bruised ego over the candidate for


Ukip for London mayor is Susan. She had a brief couple of days as party


leader, had name recognition, and would have been ideal candidate to


become fifth in the elections. Which is what will happen. I would love to


have seen a London mayoral candidate with the slogan, London is a dump.


It would have been great. If we are to talk the truth, speak the truth,


you go around London, and many of us don't walk with our heads down, but


London specifically is becoming the most atrocious place with regards to


hygiene. But it's also becoming a place that is welcoming to people of


many different backgrounds and people of different sexual


orientation. It's a liberal city with a small letter L. I'm


incredibly offended by somebody who uses God as a get out clause for


homophobia. What party will you join now? The Greens! My intention is to


support Ukip policies and stand as an independent mayoral candidate. If


any sponsors out there want to back me, come on board, join the Winston


McKenzie. If you stop talking, I will give you a mug.


Well, we asked Ukip for an interview to respond to Winston's claims


However, the party did send us a statement.


"We are sorry to say goodbye to Winston after six eventful years,


and saddened by the manner of his leaving.


We have enjoyed working with him, and he has kept us busy defending


his right to free speech, his imaginative schemes and his highly


We will miss him, and wish him well."


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


The question was whose giant effigy was burnt last night


at the infamous annual bonfire celebrations in the usually peaceful


I think Nigel Farage. I think it was Cameron.


A giant effigy of David Cameron and a dead pig's head was burnt


last night in Lewes at their bonfire celebrations.


The 15 foot puppet of the Prime Minister was wearing nothing


The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.


MUSIC: Lust For Life by Iggy Pop


There is a place where music comes to life,


With one foot in the past and one in the future.


..could be the best record you've ever heard.


Download Subtitles