11/12/2015 Daily Politics

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