11/12/2015 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 11/12/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


"Gutless" is the view of one business group at news that


a decision on airport expansion has been delayed yet again.


Ministers now say they won't make up their minds until next summer.


"Hopefully", says the Transport Minister.


They say the reason for the delay is further environmental study.


But might it also have something to do with political calculation?


Still no sign of a global deal on emissions at the climate change


As negotiators prepare to sail past today's deadline, we'll speak


to the UK's former climate negotiatior, John Prescott.


Jeremy Corbyn's under pressure - no not from the Blairites,


but from hairy MPs after his title of Beard of the Year.


We'll have the result live, exlclusively on the Daily Politics.


And Donald Trump seems to have much of the country up in arms


after his call to ban Muslims from the US.


We'll talk to his solitary defender, columnist Katie Hopkins.


All that in the next hour, and with me for the duration two


journalists that we've tried repeatedly to ban from entering


the Daily Politics studio, until we can work what the hell


But after an internet campaign by absolutely no-one we've


decided to let them in - it's Steve Richards


from the Independent and Anne McElvoy from the Economist.


Let's start today by talking about Stop the War's Christmas


It's not an event which usually excites national media interest,


but this three course meal at a Turkish restaurant in London


has proved rather controversial because it's going to be


He used to chair the group until he became Labour


And the reason it's controversial because Stop the War has been


criticised after a series of statements that it later disowned.


One suggested that France had "reaped the whirlwind" of Western


Another compared the Islamic State to the International Brigades


that fought against Franco in the Spanish Civil War.


Both statements have since been taken down but they've


led to calls for Mr Corbyn not to attend.


Here's the former Labour minister Emma Reynolds.


I hope that Jeremy Corbyn will pull back from the Stop The War dinner,


because I believe that the leadership of Stop The War


In the immediate aftermath of the brutal Paris attacks,


they published an article saying that Paris was reaping the whirlwind


They've also recently published an article comparing the brave men


and women who went to Spain in the 1930s to fight


I think these views are unacceptable.


I think this organisation, unfortunately, is disreputable


and I hope that our party leader withdraws from the dinner.


That's the view of one Labour MP. At either of you going to the Stop The


War dinner tonight? Strangely I was not invited. I don't think you have


to be. I'm not going but I know the restaurant. I think I have spoken at


this restaurant, the acoustics are disastrous. Nobody will be able to


hear a word he says. They must be over the moon, look at how much


publicity they are getting. It is part of a very complicated story. If


you get in the mind of Jeremy Corbyn I can understand completely why he


is going. They were part of this campaign to win the leadership


contest. Do you, as a leader... This is all about loyalty and who you are


loyal to, disown your past and those who got you there? It would be


impossible for him to make that mental leap, so I can understand.


The problem I can see, and Emma Reynolds put her finger on it when


she said district of. That is a certain part of Stop The War who do


not like interventions, and that is fairer enough. That is Jeremy


Corbyn. Exactly. Why should he go? This muddled history about comparing


international brigades to jihadists, it is like a cat 's cradle argument.


Everything is the West's fault, never the very silent Russia, for


instance in was closer to home and in the Middle East. I think as


Labour leader that is the change you does need to make. All of that may


be true, but these are the people Jeremy Corbyn has mixed with for


over 30 is. He has been chairman of Stop The War, right at the heart of


this project. There his kind of people. He is their kind of


socialist, why should they not have a Christmas dinner?


Maybe over time... It would take a very different character... Neil


Kinnock, over time he disowned his support for unilateral disarmament,


which early on in his leadership he said if you -- if he disowned it his


wife would kick him out of the house. He didn't get kicked out of


the house. Heeded. A few months after getting the leadership, partly


via the support of groups like this, do not turn up is, I think, just


impossible, actually, if you are him. It does not mean everything


they say is sensible, but he chaired it. These Labour MPs have said it


would be disingenuous. You are suggesting... You use the example of


Neil Kinnock. Either he is going to change and become a bigger leader


and a more inclusive leader, which he promised to do, he can go to


whatever Danae likes, but we are talking about this symbolically, we


are not interested in what he eat at the restaurant night. Enough, I am


looking forward to it. Turkey is Turkey.


The question for today is, what competition have both


Samantha Cameron and former Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls


or D) Celebrity Great British Bake Off?


As every programme now got celebrity in the title?


We will get the answer. It has been in all of the papers. It is an easy


one. Asking a journalist what has been in the papers! You might even


get a mug. David Cameron offered


his "guarantee" that the Government


would reach a decision on whether to build a third runway


at Heathrow by the end of the year. Well, yesterday, he took


the decision not to make Instead, the Government kicked


the question of if and where to expand airport capacity


in the south of the UK back to next summer, pending more work


on the environmental impact Let's remind ourselves how this


all began. It is a long story so I hope you're


sitting comfortably. In 2009, the Labour Government,


led by Gordon Brown, said it would build a third


runway at Heathrow. In 2010 as head of the new coalition


government, David Cameron This was after he made a "no ifs,


no buts" pledge that he wouldn't In 2012 David Cameron set up


the Airports Commission, chaired by the economist


Howard Davies, to consider In July the Commission finally


reported, suggesting three options - a third runway at Heathrow,


which business groups favour, a second runway at Gatwick Airport,


or extending an existing Their preferred option


was a third runway at Heathrow. Heathrow says this would


contribute ?100 billion But last week a committee of MPs


said the airport still needs to prove that a new runway


would meet air quality standards. And last night it was announced that


no decision would be made until next summer,


which would be after This prompted Labour's


candidate Sadiq Khan, to claim the Government had


stalled in "order to avoid embarrassing their mayoral


candidate" Zac Goldsmith. Earlier this morning,


the Transport Secretary, Patrick McLoughin, denied


the postponement of a decision We have known for a very long time


when the mayoral elections were going to be, so if we


deliberately wanted to say we weren't going to make this


until after the mayoral election, we'd have just set the timetable


for another 12 months and we didn't do that, because we have had to come


forward with the extra Well, we'll speak to Conservative


mayoral candidate Zac Goldsmith this decision on lack of a decision


gutless, dilly-dallying, what adjective would you like to add? I


think it undermines business confidence in the


think it undermines business tough decisions on economic policy.


They called in to question the point of asking the airports commission to


come forward, and they considered quite a lot of the environmental


impact, if you are letting this be subject to political considerations.


Why do you think the government in general, Mr Cameron in particular,


has done this? I think it goes back a bit further than David Cameron.


have had decades of political dithering on a subject to different


have had decades of political brings into question if the


government is is about its exports target, why isn't it getting on with


the decision? target, why isn't it getting on with


you. Why do you target, why isn't it getting on with


out with this report and it is interesting to see the government is


so responsive to a select committee report, it hasn't usually been so


quick to jump report, it hasn't usually been so


is not for me to speculate on what is dragging them


is not for me to speculate on what consideration or another but it is


clear there is a role of politics to play here. Is it


despite this delay, that Heathrow will in the end be chosen for a


third runway? From the Institute of directors point of view the


consideration at this point is the lack of decision, lack of action. We


cannot forecast weather Heathrow will get the go-ahead or Gatwick or


any other option. We want to see a decision taken in the near future


because we are at risk of losing ?1.4 million a year in lost trade


with rival markets. Thank you very much for that.


We're joined now by the Conservative mayoral candidate Zac Goldsmith,


he's promised to resign as an MP if the decision is made to build


Zac Goldsmith, where you by Downing Street before the


announcement last night? No, I have had a one-way conversations at


Downing Street for a very long time, but meet them and not the other way


round. I had no tip off. When did you last beat to the Prime Minister?


I take every opportunity to speak to the prime Chancellor, the front


bench and that is what I have done for my five years as an MP. Did you


meet David Cameron at three o'clock on Wednesday? I met him earlier in


the week, I don't know if it was Wednesday... I don't want to be


caught out. We met to talk about housing and policing. Not actually


to talk about Heathrow. Did you talk about Heathrow at all? I used the


opportunity to repeat my position on Heathrow. So you did talk about it?


A one-way conversation. The Prime Minister did not respond me in


response to Heathrow. I took the opportunity to put my forward very


much on the agenda, in a much broader conversation. Heathrow at


the top of the agenda for the moment. Did you tell the Prime


Minister again that if he went ahead with Heathrow and an announcement


that you would resign your seat? I don't think I did, but I don't think


I need to. It was a promise I made, it is not a threat, it is a promise


I made eight years ago. I didn't call it a promise or a threat I just


said, did you repeat...? I don't think I did, I may have done but I


don't think I did. A member of your team. My promise is on record. It is


not promise anyone regarded as a bluff and it was not a promise... I


am not questioning the integrity of the promise but one member of your


team told Sky News that you had effectively held a gun to the Prime


Minister's head. My team question mark on very much doubt that. That


is what Sky are reporting. There are not going to make it up. You can


describe how you want. I think it is a red herring. I have spoken to the


Prime Minister about this issue. I lobbied two weeks ago and three


weeks before that about the housing bill. You haven't said you would


resign over the police budget? My job as an MP and candidate as Mayor


of London is to take every opportunity... You said you would


cause a by-election over the police budget? You did over Heathrow. This


is not an free nude issue, this is something I promised eight years ago


to my constituents, before I became an MP. I did so because although


they loved what David Cameron was saying in a position, they didn't


believe him. -- this is not a new issue. The Prime Minister... This is


not a new issue. I am well aware, we have talked about it... It is a


longer issue than most, that is part of the problem. The Prime Minister


in effect has kowtowed to your point of view? The Prime Minister has


reached the right position. I want to make the point, people have said


this is a delay, dithering, it is not a delay. It was clear in the


airports commission that even if the PM said yesterday we would go with


the throat he would have to go through the same process, still have


to subject that option to the environmental tests to which his


subject in the other options. Of the Prime Minister had said the


government's policies to go ahead with Heathrow it would have become


the process. It would have begun the process, this delay is a process


until the summer at the earliest. I would argue jobs. If he pinned all


his hopes on Heathrow expansion, subjected them to airport tests,


which we know Heathrow could not pass, we would be back to square one


in six months and looking at other options.


I don't even get one-way conversations with him??NO SPACE!


You do. I am not part of the decision-making process. If, through


what I have done, I have managed to influence the debate along with


thousands of other residents, I would not apologise for that. That


is my job, to campaign and succeed. Should people not be rightly angry,


regardless of their views on this issue, that one of the biggest


investment decisions facing this country, whether we do or don't, has


been hijacked to further Tory electoral ambitions? I don't accept


that. The government is doing what it has to do, which is to subject


Heathrow and the other options to a test that it was going to have to in


any case. The only new thing we heard yesterday was that the other


options will be treated on a par with the same testing. For me, that


is a good outcome, because it means Heathrow will be removed from the


menu because it cannot meet those tests. That is your view. It is not


the view of the Davies commission. Any independent authority would


agree with me. The Davies commission was independent. You asking our


viewers to accept that it is entirely coincidence that the


decision has now been postponed until you get through your mayoral


election campaign? I am not arguing it it away. I don't know why the


decision was made I was not part of the decision-making process. But I


am his with where we are. You are wrong about the airports commission.


With respect, Howard Davies himself said a few weeks ago that on the


back of the VW scandal, the government would now need to satisfy


its off-again that Heathrow's plans are considerable -- reconciliation


with the law. Let's look at would happen if the government had said,


we are going ahead with Heathrow. They would still have more


environmental studies to do. You would have resigned your seat and


caused a by-election. Would you have remained as Tory mayoral candidate?


Yes. So in a sense, the Tories would have gone into the mayoral election


with someone who was provoking a by-election. Would you have stood as


a Tory? I wouldn't have stood in the by-election. You cannot fight two


elections at the same time. The mayoral campaign is not about


Heathrow. It is an important issue, but not as important as housing,


policing or TfL investments. So I am delighted that Heathrow will not be


the dominant discussion. Haven't you fallen into the government's trap,


then? What is likely to happen is that after the mayoral election, the


government will, if you win, you will be mayor. You will resign as a


Tory MP presumably if you win, and the government proceeds with


Heathrow. But I don't think that is possible. That would be true if the


test that has been set is a false test, but you cannot falsify issues


around air-pollution. So if Heathrow is asked a tough question about air


pollution, however it is phrased, either account out answer that


question. Therefore, Heathrow, logically, is moving close to the


exit. The only I would be wrong would be if the test was fraudulent,


if Heathrow was able to mark its own homework like VW has been able to.


So you are putting everything on it not passing these environmental test


is? I would not say that is the only argument against Heathrow expansion,


but that is the only point that has been raised by government, and on


that point alone, let alone noise and of thing else, on air pollution,


Heathrow failed the test. So I am pleased that we are where we are.


The right question is being asked. Do you accept that if you win as


mayor, and you resign as a Conservative MP... I don't think you


can do both. I understand, but is it still possible for the government to


come out in favour of Heathrow, leaving you to oppose the government


policy as the Mayor of London? Theoretically possible. So in a


sense, nothing has changed. I think things have changed. The right


question is being asked. We are today where I would like us to be. I


was asked months ago, what is the outcome you would like when the


government response? It is more or less the decision we had from


government yesterday, which is to treat Heathrow and Gatwick on a par


and the third option, which I do not think is all that serious com but


treat the options on a par and make them answer the same questions. I am


as confident as it is possible to be. That was what the Davies


commission was meant to do, but it didn't give you the answer you


wanted. Are you in favour of Gatwick? If it is a choice between


Heathrow and Gatwick, Gatwick is a no-brainer. The question is about


monopoly versus competition. Notwithstanding what has been said


in relation to Heathrow, there is a good reason why Heathrow's biggest


customer is opposed to Heathrow expansion, because they know that


monopoly is not good for consumers. But as Mayor of London, if that was


to happen, and it is by no means a slam dunk for you, but if it


happened, you would not use City Hall to campaign against Gatwick?


No. The argument for me is that we must have competition. The arguments


in favour of Stansted are as good if not better than Gatwick. The issue


for me is that it does not better than Gatwick. The issue


such a way that we cobbled together the old monopoly, which serves no


one's interests. The first objective is to invest in improving links to


and from the quick, to and from Stansted. Allow those apples to


compete with each other Stansted. Allow those apples to


effectively as they can. Make use of existing capacity. If we


effectively as they can. Make use of expand, don't do it at Heathrow.


That simply expand, don't do it at Heathrow.


which are not in the interests of consumers, the environment or anyone


else. When you have one-way conversations with the Prime


Minister, who is doing the talking? They are not all one way. But in


relation to They are not all one way. But in


not respond to what I am saying. He had to wait until the committee


reported. had to wait until the committee


for a book or a nod. -- had to wait until the committee


order. But I am now pleased with where we are.


Listening to that from our Nottingham studio


What would Labour do? We are keen Lilian Greenwood.


What would Labour do? We are keen take a view on proposals when the


government brings some forward. But as we saw from the shambolic


announcement yesterday, David Cameron is breaking that guarantee


you Cameron is breaking that guarantee


by the end of the year, and for political reasons, has kicked it


into the long grass. This morning, Patrick McLoughlin only says he


hopes there will be a decision next summer. Goodness knows when there


will be certainty for business and residents close to and Gatwick. So


will be certainty for business and you have got an open goal in


attacking the government's dithering. Even the Tories have


called it a ditherama. Are you in favour or against the Davies


commission's conclusions? The Davies commission are right that we need


more runway capacity in the south-east. They have made


recommendations. I know what their recommendations are, I am asking if


you are in favour of them or not. We need to see what proposals the


government makes. I did not ask about the government proposals. The


Davies commission came to the conclusion that there were three


options for more capacity in the south-east. The option it preferred


was a third runway at Heathrow. What is your party's view on that? We


can't take a position until we see firm proposals for bringing forward


that much-needed airport expansion. You can have a view on the


commission. The commission demonstrates that there was a need


for additional runways. But do you support or are you opposed, as Zac


Goldsmith is? Are you in favour of the preferred conclusion of the


Davies commission? I cannot take a view on something that is just


recommendations from the commission. Why not? Because we need to see what


proposals the government is bringing forward. There are a number of


things that Davies sets out as being conditions he would like to impose,


like the ban on night flights. We know what is in the commission. I am


asking you if you agree. Since you cannot answer that or tell me what


Labour's policy is, what bit of ditherama should not apply to you


and the Labour Party as well? We have clearly set out how we will


make a decision on the government's proposals for bringing forward Apple


capacity. I am asking you for your view. I am still government. That


doesn't matter, you aspire to government. Oppositions take


positions all the time on what they would do in government. Let me try


one more time so that identify you along with the government and a


ditherama. Does Labour have a policy on a third runway at Heathrow or


not? Our policy is to subject the actual proposals the government


brings forward to full tests around whether it meets the long-term


capacity needs of the country, whether it is consistent with our


climate change obligations, can it deal with the local environmental


impacts in relation to noise and air pollution, and can serve the whole


country, not just London and the south-east? As soon as the


government wing forward proposals to take forward their policy, we will


be able to form a labour view on it. And if the government's policy


satisfied you on these considerations, you would be in


favour of a third runway? Of course. If they brought forward proposals


that satisfied our four tests, we would be able to form a view of the


Labour Party. Forming a view is different from telling me if you


would be in favour of a third runway. If it passed the four tests,


would you be in favour of a third runway? We would have to see the


detailed proposals. So you can't even and so that. So N thee for


ditherama for you as well. When the government brings forward its


proposals, the Labour party will form a view on this. It sounds like


you are both useless at coming to a decision. The last Labour government


dealt with this issue and we lost the election. You were in favour of


the Heathrow runway in 2009. We lost the election in 2010. We called for


an independent airports commission. You got that. Eventually, the


government agreed to do that, but decided it couldn't report until


after the general election. Now they have spent months doing nothing, it


seems, since babies reported, only to kick it down the road rather than


bring forward information about the environmental considerations --


since Davies reported. They are working to their own political


timetable. One final point. Your Shadow Chancellor has said it would


be an economic disaster to build a third runway at Heathrow. John has a


long held view. He is your Shadow Chancellor. It would have a


considerable impact on his constituency, but when there are


proposals, we have to reach a view as the Labour Party in the interests


of the whole country, albeit I understand that individual MPs have


individual views, particularly where it impacts their constituency.


Thanks for joining us. In years to come, this will be a


case study on how not to take a decision. Absolutely. I think I sat


here in 2009, having the same conversation. Labour was then


divided. Gordon Brown, to his credit, did come to a decision,


which was overturned the next year. Zac is a principled opponent. Lilian


Greenwood was sitting on the fence. I think that Labour, at the moment,


will come out as anti-Heathrow. And yet George Osborne is desperate to


expand Heathrow. London business is desperate to expand Heathrow. I know


there are other options. But the elephant in the room is that a lot


of people who have British business interests at heart really want this


to happen. I suspect that is the way it might go. I wonder whether these


tests we are arguing about will ultimately be swept aside by the


middle of next year. In power, Labour came out in favour of a third


runway. Cameron opposed it. Out of power, Ed Miliband as Labour leader


opposed a third runway. Bit by bit, the Tory government, under pressure


from the Treasury, started to become in favour of it. Now we are in a


Mexican stand-off, with both parties unable to tellers their policy.


Harriet Harman came out for Heathrow when she was acting leader. It is


interesting. You discussed with Zac Goldsmith the political implications


for the London election. It is wider than that, it is a reminder this is


a government with a tiny overall majority. I remember having a


conversation with one of Cameron's senior allies in May when there was


this euphoria of the Tory overall majority. He said, we have three


very big barriers to overcome. One, tax credits. Another Europe and the


third was the airports. They have struggled in all three. They haven't


got a big majority to do really tough decisions. I think that is


part of it. Cameron has never been gung ho. I think those two factors


play in. Enough. We have to go all the way through the summer. We are


sorry, Zac Goldsmith, to have held you hostage in the studio as you


listened to that. Now, there's been a huge conference


on climate change going on in Paris It's meant to lead to the first


new global climate deal in 18 years, and the deadline for a deal is 6pm


tonight, although when you're trying to get more than 190 countries


to agree, it's never a great surprise when the timetable slips


and indeed, it is now not expected In the last hour, the UN


Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon has put a positive gloss on how


the talks are concluding. There are still several outstanding


issues, like deforestation or ambitions and climate


financing etc. But during many years


of negotiations, they have Very good solutions have


already been presented. This morning, we have much cleaner,


streamlined text, and this is a good Many paragraphs have


been dropped and Ban Ki-Moon there, saying there is


disagreement, bits in the agreement which have not been written which


have brackets which will be fielded later.


He represented the British Government at the climate talks


in Kyoto back in 1997 and has held various other roles


Welcome back to the Daily Politics. We learned last month that China's


statistics agency, on its use of coal, 17% higher than the official


figures admitted. We know China still has to build a lot of coal


fire stations. Even still has to build a lot of coal


deal, how do you keep tabs on it? That is an important point, to see


of promises made are delivered on. The Kyoto one, it reminds me of a


of promises made are delivered on. lot of happen there but the


fundamental differences hundred and 90 countries,


think the one difference, one interesting point is, at the last


hour of Kyoto they broke down the agreement, that it was to be a 5%


cut in gas. I said, can you get another agreement. The Americans and


the Japanese in the same room, we all went up 1%. That had gone


through the night. That is a process, diplomacy by exhaustion. We


have exactly the same year now. In regard to the gas issue, the coal


issue, that is one of the central features of this organisation. They


are moving more and more from coal to renewables and we are going the


opposite way in this country. They are reducing the amount from coal.


They have a massive programme for renewable energy. That is one major


change. You say that, except climate action Tracker, on your side of this


argument, has calculated that 2440 action Tracker, on your side of this


around the world by 2030. I will say that again, 2440 new coal-fired


stations. Yes, and that is one of the distinctive


stations. Yes, and that is one of particular agreement. To move from


coal, oil and gas to renewables. Most of the countries want the extra


money. To transfer its energy requirements, and that is beginning


to take place in a number of these countries. That is quite distinctive


difference. China is opening a new coal-fired plant every week. Yes,


difference. China is opening a new true, but not as fast as it was for.


Why is huge, isn't it? India and China, they are still going to have


coal in the mix even though they are moving to renewables. To that extent


we have a principle which the moving to renewables. To that extent


general secretary, general secretary of the UN has pointed out. The


principle of the agreement is common but equal differential, but


differentials responsibility. If you measure China, more gas than


America, but if you did it per capita and tried to get a fairer way


of doing it, that is what they are discussing at this present time.


What is the fair burden for each country to carry? Not just the


absolute output but the proportion you have to take into account.


Weather is bearing the burden, whether or not it is distributed


fairly, CO2 emissions will be 150% higher under existing plans, 150%


higher than is consistent with a 2 degrees target, which is meant to be


the limit on temperature rise even in Paris. I don't see how this...


Two Celsius or 1.5, maybe the poorer countries are saying, we are already


suffering. They want the rich ones to give more resources to reduce the


carbon. That is a fair argument. It is how we would use it. If it is


business as usual, it is disaster. One thing about this decision here


in Paris is different from Kyoto, in Kyoto we argued whether the science


was relevant. That was the argument. That is not the case now, they all


accept that. You have to reduce the carbon level. If we go to those


figures you are talking about, it is concentrating the mind to get the


agreement at the last moment as we did in Kyoto. The fifth report of


the IPC seat said it could not with confidence established a link


between global warming trends and severe weather. It clearly does say


there is a connection. Not with confidence. You just put the three


words in. I work with the IPC every year. It is not sure severe weather


and global weather are linked. We're not sure we will get 2% or 1.5%,


that is what these arguments are about now. This is a significant


factor, what is important, what governments promised and the


results, will they deliver on those bonuses? We have to strengthen


national parliaments with a legal framework which we gave with them


climate change act, to make sure governments, when they come back


here, they carry out what they promise. That has got to strengthen


the legislation in national parliament and get legislators now


to make sure, when governments get press by powerful interests you


don't agree with theirs, begin to depart from what they have promised.


I can't even believe what Cameron says about anything. The developing


countries in Paris are asking, demanding as part of the agreement,


that there is a transfer from the rich world to the developing world


of $3.5 trillion by 2030. How can you assure British taxpayers, who


are putting up a fair chunk of that, that it will be money fair spent


does not well spent? It is a lot of money. It is more than what we


agreed to add 100 billion a year, now. Each has to make their


contribution. I am asking how can the tax payer, lose money this will


be, who are watching the show right now, how do they know that money,


their hard earned money will be well spent? Those people in Cumbria at


the moment were told there would be one flooding what every 100 years,


they are facing the consequences, they know about climate change.


Every country is affected, whether in India, China or in the Lake


District. We have to find the resources. Developing countries want


to switch from oil and gas to renewables. You have to give them


the money for the investment in renewables. We all gain from it. It


is a change but all the evidence is green growth gives us a better


return than we are getting from business as usual. You know what


business as usual is, you quoted it. I'm saying, let's doing something


about it rather than saying to the people in the Lake District, we


cannot do anything about it. As we have you here and you heard the


previous conversation. What is your view on airport expansion, briefly?


In favour of a third runway at Heathrow or not? Yes, at Heathrow. I


looked at this argument as transport Minister. I was in agreement for it.


We were divided. Gordon came up with this formula to give it to an


inquiry. We had the Davis inquiry. You've had the investigation on what


happening now is a purely political calculation about the election for


London mayor. I will be attacked the same... This attacks our


environmental policies, I was being attacked for that then. You need a


balance. I think it is Heathrow. We certainly need a third runway. John


Prescott, thank you, good to have you on the programme again.


Now, what do Boris Johnson, Muhammad Ali and more than half


a million members of the public have in common?


Well, they're all united in heaping opprobrium -


for Steve and Anne's sake, I should point out that that means


they're being critical - on the head of Republican


More than 500,000 people have signed a parliamentary petition calling


for him to be banned from entering the UK.


It stems from his announcement earlier this week that a Trump


presidency would see a ban on all Muslim people


He was roundly condemned by British politicians and other public figures


for that, and in response he tweeted: "The United Kingdom


is trying hard to disguise their massive Muslim problem.


Everybody is wise to what is happening, very sad!


But while the majority of people in British public life joined


in the condemnation, he had one champion ? yes,


the columnist Katie Hopkins, who said:


It turns out Donald is a fan of Katie's. He tweeted:


Well, Katie Hopkins, columnist for the Daily Mail online,


joins us now from our Plymouth studio.


Welcome to the Daily Politics. You supported Donald Trump's worked on


this but you also said it was totally impractical to do. How do


you square that? I think what I was saying is I


support the ideas behind what he is trying to do. Ultimately Donald


Trump is trying to show truly do ship. The Americans felt very let


down by what Obama said two days after 14 people were gunned down. I


think in that kind of vacuum, what you see is Donald Trump stand up and


at least say something that sounded like he wanted to protect his


nation, protect America. That is what I stand behind. We need strong


leadership at these times. I am personally a little tired of your


BBC bias, which keeps telling us that most people support banning


Donald Trump from the UK. It is only 500,000 people clicking on a mouse.


When did I say most people? You went through a long list of


Boris Johnson, people clicking on a petition.


When did I say most British people? I have no evidence. Let's go back.


Let's come back to... What about the people who do support


what Trump says. I ask the questions. You said what


Mr Trump says is a lot of hot air. Why is that showing leadership West


Mark because sometimes, in times of real difficulty and fear what you


want from your leadership is to say we're Naghemeh tolerate this, we


will protect our country, that is what Donald Trump has done.


If you look outside the bubble you are in, people are fearful. I work


with people in London that ring their families on a daily basis to


check they are OK. My family are not that keen on me going to London


right now. My friends won't go there. Paris has taken a 50% cut in


its tourist trade. What we see is there is fear on the streets. We may


not want to acknowledge it, but why do we talk about the other petition


of 400,000 signatures which people say, let's stop migration whilst we


think about how we're going to protect our country? One of the


things that really me is our Muslim community do not stand up and


separate themselves enough for my liking from the very fearful acts of


terrorism that are right here on our shores. There have been Muslim


demonstrations against what has been happening. There has been Muslim


leaders who have stood out and talked about and condemned what they


have been doing. You seem to keep an setting a test for them, that they


have to keep meeting all the time. If I may. Why is it when two


families in Luton disappeared Isis and no one knows anything. Not the


imam or the local community, the people they hang out with, nobody


knows anything. They just upped and vanished and nobody says anything.


Just speak to the police about that, teenagers are disappearing all the


time. The British public are disappointed


by the lack of pushback from the Muslim community. We don't see


people within those communities, when we lose people to Isis, we


don't hear them saying, yes, it was a terrible thing, I don't know how


they got radicalised. We don't see enough of that. If Mr Trump got his


way and Muslims were banned for a period from entering the United


States, how would you enforce it? How would you know who was a Muslim


and who wasn't? I have been clear in my article in the Daily Mail online.


You cannot enforce that sort of thing. You don't have religion and


announced in your passport. I said so myself. So your definition of


truly do ship is to propose something that is impractical?


truly do ship is to propose definition of leadership is able to


stand up and say, we will not tolerate that. Of course you cannot


cut the specifics, but he has a notion of a nation and he has


cut the specifics, but he has a millions of supporters. That


cut the specifics, but he has a what I am asking. His poll ratings


have risen, and if what I am asking. His poll ratings


British public, there are a lot of people behind the kind of sentiment


that Donald Trump is expressing, which is that we will not tolerate


being taken over by forces that make us fearful of living in our own


country. And his answer to that, a us fearful of living in our own


man who would be leader of the free world, is to propose something that


even new, his greatest riches supporter, admits is totally


impractical. I never claimed to be his greatest supporter. I will call


you a number of names in return, but I am better than that. I am standing


up for British people I am better than that. I am standing


some agreement with his sentiment, who are clicking on an alternative


petition, which the BBC are not speaking about, which says they do


not want any more immigration into the UK until we can control the fear


we feel in our own towns and cities. From what we know of British public


opinion on this issue, the latest poll suggests that about two thirds


of British people do not agree with Mr Trump. Yesterday, I was quoting


figures of 25% of British people standing strongly behind him. You


are now giving me an extra amount. One third of people stand behind


him. That is not how polls work. Two thirds are against him. This small


percentage don't know and a smaller percentage are in favour. Just


before the general election, your polls told us it was neck and neck


and we didn't know who would be in Number Ten. The BBC doesn't have


polls. I know you don't like us, but the BBC doesn't have polls. The one


poll it did have got the election spot on on the night. I think you


need to show balance. You said that we have gone too far in regards to


the Muslim population and "We have lost control of vast swathes of our


country". Where are these vast swathes? There are plenty of places


in the UK that other people can tell you and I can tell you I would not


walk through. It is not legally accurate to actually name certain


areas. There have been legal issues around that. There are no legal


issues. Tell us these vast swathes of our country where we have lost


control. If you didn't talk so much, I might be able to, darling. If I


was to walk through certain areas of our population, where over 90% of


people are Muslim, I wouldn't fare too well. And my friends in Jewish


communities have also found they have been spat at and shouted at.


They are intimidated. That is terrible behaviour, but it is not


losing control. Give me an example of the vast swathes of country.


Where the authorities have lost control? I know those places exist.


I am later going to my child's nativity play. I am proud that my


school has won, because so many don't. These days, all we can have


is multi-faith assemblies, which is not something I am proud of. So you


can't tell me, so you talk about your child's nativity play. I would


welcome the Daily Politics to follow me as I go through some of the areas


where I would be shouted at. We can't follow you unless you tell us


where they are. Come with me with your cameras and see who tells me to


cover up my hair, cover my face. That is not losing control. A large


percentage of our population stands behind Donald Trump, and I don't


think the BBC are giving that enough airtime. Katie Hopkins, thank you.


Are you not amazed at the wake-up's remarks have had such traction and


caused controversy in this country? I was in America when he made these


remarks, and it obviously dominated there, but I came back here on


Wednesday morning and it was like I hadn't left America. It has crossed


the Atlantic. If you have any sympathy is with Katie Hopkins's


position, not so much the practicality, as you pointed out,


but you would say that he allows people to say, yes, I am very


worried about what is happening in our communities. The problem that


does not address, either here or in the states, as you will know, is the


problem you already have to deal with. Your problem is in the


communities you have and to what extent be radicalised as --


deradicalisation is succeeding. To say, I would not let any more in, as


if you weigh Muslims by the tonnage, is not an answer. The problem is in


your communities now. That is where you need to focus. It is a red


herring to say, let's not let any more in. You have to look at what is


going on now. But here is the broader context, on both sides of


the Atlantic. Just as Paris wrought together what is a potentially toxic


mix of terrorism and immigration, because some of those involved in


Paris had come through as migrants into western Europe, so the events


in San Bernardino have brought together American citizenship, the


Muslim community and Terrell risen. And it opens the door -- it brings


together the Muslim community and terrorism. It is a toxic mix, and it


is such a highly charged mix. It opens the door to all kinds of


emotive arguments, which we have just heard. A lot of people would


have nodded along to the views we have just heard. It doesn't mean


that any of the policies that arise from that toxic mix, such as banning


Muslims from coming in, as Anne points out, there was a problem with


the people already here. American citizenship would not be covered by


the Trump exclusion order. It is not strong leadership to articulate the


range of fears brought about by that toxic mix and then come up with a


totally impractical, headline grabbing policy. That is easy. The


Economist has written about this. We have said this stands forever thing


we don't agree with, but there is a challenge for the political class.


You would think with the passion that Katy Holland kins argues,


people will be thinking, that says something I feel. It does not tell


you anything to do about it that you can deliver, and that is dangerous


territory that a lot of politics is getting into. Well, from the sublime


to a bit of the ridiculous. Now, we bring you news that


Jeremy Corbyn's position has this And it's not his job as Labour


leader they're after. No, it's a much more


prestigious honour. Mr Corbyn is a five times


winner of the award, which is given to the MP


with the beard that has made Given that he is now leader


of the opposition, he must have But despite shadow cabinet ally


Diane Abbott last night urging her Twitter followers


to lend him their votes, he was thought to be facing


a late surge from rival Well, we're joined now


by the man behind the award, the Beard Liberation


Front's Keith Flett. And in a Daily Politics exclusive -


and on this show, we take our exclusives where we can get them -


he's going to reveal So first, Keith, tell us


about this late surge Yes, the SNP came within a close


shave. Both the SNP and Mr Corbyn's supporters. The elevation of Mr


Corbyn to Labour leader must have created more interest in this. It


has. I am not sure it did him a favour, because he was behind for


most of the poll, until the last minute. I think being leader is


different to being on the backbenches. On the backbenches, one


does what one likes. Don't tell us who has won yet, but let's build up


to it. Are you surprised by the winner? I am a bit, actually. Did he


win by a big margin, or was it a close shave? Close shave. Who gets


to vote? Anybody can vote in an online poll, but only once. So it


could be fixed. We keep a close eye on that. You have anti-corruption


policing. The last time I looked, SNP supporters were still tried to


vote, but we took the pole down this morning. And before we find out who


has won bid of the year, what does the beard represent to you? It is


gravitas. It is positive in terms of the appearance. Obviously, we can


all think of people where that doesn't apply, so we tend to focus


on the more positive side. We will not give it to us on a Bin Laden,


who is dead now anyway. He would not appreciated. Are you going to give


the envelope to me? The Beard of the Year. It doesn't get better than


this. He has done it again, for it is Jeremy Corbyn. Sixth time in a


row? Not in a row, but he has won it six times. Very narrow this year.


The SNP guy, Stuart McDonald, is another becoming beard. A tip for


years to come. The star Corbyn, congratulations. You are the Beard


of the Year 2015. Thank you for giving us our first exclusive in 25


years. chancellor Ed Balls


agreed to take part in? It is the great British bake off,


British Bake Off? It is the great British bake off,


and Dave is going to get the grease-proof paper when she forgets


the eggs and all that. They recorded it weeks ago. I


the eggs and all that. They recorded could get another scoop!


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


I'll be back on Sunday with the Sunday Politics.


My guests will include former Labour leadership contender


Download Subtitles