:00:36. > :00:40.Stock markets around the world plunged again this morning
:00:41. > :00:43.after trading in China's Shanghai stock exchange was suspended
:00:44. > :00:49.The London FTSE100 is down 3%, there have been similar
:00:50. > :00:51.falls in Frankfurt and Paris and New York is
:00:52. > :00:58.With such a dismal global backdrop, Chancellor George Osborne has warned
:00:59. > :01:01.that the British economy faces a dangerous "cocktail of threats"
:01:02. > :01:02.from falling stock markets, stagnant emerging markets
:01:03. > :01:16.Jeremy Corbyn's slow-motion Shadow Cabinet re-shuffle
:01:17. > :01:25.We'll be talking to Labour's Ken Livingstone.
:01:26. > :01:32.We'll be looking at Britain's nuclear deterrent.
:01:33. > :01:34.And Happy Birthday "Yes, Prime Minister"!
:01:35. > :01:38.The classic sitcom will be 30 years old this weekend.
:01:39. > :01:45.But does the script still ring true today?
:01:46. > :01:53.If the right people don't have power, do you know what happens? The
:01:54. > :01:59.wrong people get it. LAUGHTER Politicians, councillors. But aren't
:02:00. > :02:02.they supposed to in a democracy? This is a British democracy!
:02:03. > :02:05.All that in the next hour and with us for the duration his
:02:06. > :02:10.THE World expert on all things constituional.
:02:11. > :02:19.Now, first today, lets talk about reports that GCSE
:02:20. > :02:22.and A level exams could be bought forward this summer to take
:02:23. > :02:24.into account the impact of Ramadan, when Muslims fast
:02:25. > :02:28.It's thought the tests could be taken earlier in the day,
:02:29. > :02:29.when Muslim students are the least hungry,
:02:30. > :02:32.or even before the start of the traditional exam season
:02:33. > :02:46.So is this political correctness gone mad, as some tweets have said,
:02:47. > :02:50.or is this just sensible? Sensible and humane. I used to have some
:02:51. > :02:53.students when I was teaching at Queen Mary and the University of
:02:54. > :02:59.London who were Ramadan and they were very weak by the end of the
:03:00. > :03:03.fast. They would turn up, they were very conscientious, but it did have
:03:04. > :03:06.a lot of effect on them so I have a lot of sympathy. The Times must
:03:07. > :03:10.change because it hasn't become an issue that we have particularly
:03:11. > :03:15.covered in the past. It follows round the calendar, it comes forward
:03:16. > :03:19.every year, so at this point in the overall Ramadan calendar, it falls
:03:20. > :03:24.at exam time. But it must have fallen on exam time at some other
:03:25. > :03:28.stage? A long while ago. On that basis, they say they are not going
:03:29. > :03:32.to change the dates, the exam board, but they might on rescheduling in
:03:33. > :03:39.the mornings, just a big things easier. Good idea, sensible, not
:03:40. > :03:44.political correctness at all. Do you think it will question as some
:03:45. > :03:49.people have said an attack on British values? We are a society at
:03:50. > :03:53.the Bowman looking to fallout over rather than to fall in the over.
:03:54. > :03:56.There is enough to worry about without making farces where there is
:03:57. > :03:59.no need for a farce. And it seems now that they have taken a sensible
:04:00. > :04:03.no need for a farce. And it seems view, the exam boards, they might
:04:04. > :04:13.schedule it in the mornings, make -- no need for a farce. These think
:04:14. > :04:16.that will be that? -- a fuss. I hope so. He is an emollient mood.
:04:17. > :04:20.The question for today is all about the Labour reshuffle,
:04:21. > :04:23.which is technically still going on, but at the height of the drama,
:04:24. > :04:25.senior Labour officials were overheard discussing a mystery
:04:26. > :04:27.vegetable, but what was the vegetable?
:04:28. > :04:34.At the end of the show, Peter will no doubt give us
:04:35. > :04:46.Or an answer. It is indicative of the life I live that I know the
:04:47. > :04:47.answer to that question, I really need to get out more often in this
:04:48. > :04:49.New Year. Today, Chancellor George Osborne,
:04:50. > :04:51.will issue a warning that the UK economy is facing a "dangerous
:04:52. > :04:54.cocktail" of new global threats this year, including
:04:55. > :05:01.slowing global growth. Far cry from the optimistic tone
:05:02. > :05:03.of his Autumn Statement Mr Osborne is expected to tell
:05:04. > :05:10.business leaders that Britain risks going into decline if it
:05:11. > :05:16.eases up on austerity. He'll also say that anyone
:05:17. > :05:18.who thinks it's "mission accomplished" for the British
:05:19. > :05:26.economy is making a grave mistake. So what's got Gorgeous George,
:05:27. > :05:28.all shaken and stirred? Let's take a look at what's
:05:29. > :05:34.in the Chancellor's dangerous cocktail that could lead
:05:35. > :05:39.to such a hangover... The turmoil in the Middle East
:05:40. > :05:42.is one big fear which could have a knock on effect on our
:05:43. > :05:45.economy, as could low oil prices. They may seem good when we fill
:05:46. > :05:48.up our cars but there are concerns it could adversely affect
:05:49. > :05:50.the oil and gas industry as well as countries
:05:51. > :05:52.who rely on its exports, such as Brazil and Russia where
:05:53. > :05:59.Mr Osborne foresees "deep problems". The Chinese economy is another
:06:00. > :06:02.major worry, they had to suspend their stock market
:06:03. > :06:05.after shares fell by more than 7% for the second time this week,
:06:06. > :06:08.and many economists believe this year could see the first interest
:06:09. > :06:10.rate rise since 2007, which could be very bad news
:06:11. > :06:13.for people with large mortgages, as well as affecting businesses
:06:14. > :06:22.who want to borrow to expand. The Chancellor argues "the biggest
:06:23. > :06:25.risk is that people think that it's 'job done'", a clear indication
:06:26. > :06:27.that he intends to stay Speaking earlier, Mr Osborne
:06:28. > :06:35.outlined some of the things the government were trying to do
:06:36. > :06:46.to improve the economy. We do as a country need to invest in
:06:47. > :06:51.the long term, that is partly how we deal with these risks we face from
:06:52. > :06:56.abroad, like instability in big markets like China and Brazil, or
:06:57. > :07:01.problems in the Middle East. And today, we are launching our plans
:07:02. > :07:06.for a permanent international infrastructure so that Britain
:07:07. > :07:09.thinks long-term about the big building products we need. We have
:07:10. > :07:11.built on the big projects we have started like high-speed rail.
:07:12. > :07:13.And with us now, The Telegraph's Business Editor and economist
:07:14. > :07:21.Let's start with what has been happening in China and the fallout
:07:22. > :07:27.through the global stock markets. As I understand it, the People's Bank
:07:28. > :07:30.of China, the central bank, effectively devalued the Chinese
:07:31. > :07:34.currency yesterday. The consequence has been that markets around the
:07:35. > :07:37.world including Shanghai think the Chinese economy could be a lot
:07:38. > :07:42.weaker than we thought and therefore the global economy could be dragged
:07:43. > :07:48.further down by it. Absolutely, if you look at what is aptly --
:07:49. > :07:51.actually happening from trade patterns, shipping, it seems the
:07:52. > :07:54.Chinese economy has been doing worse than the official figures would
:07:55. > :07:58.suggest. It is very hard to know exactly how much worse but clearly
:07:59. > :08:01.China has slowed dramatically, and of course the authorities are trying
:08:02. > :08:05.to kick-start the economy again but it is clear that emerging market as
:08:06. > :08:08.a whole, their big crisis that led up last year is continuing and that
:08:09. > :08:13.will clearly have an effect on the UK economy. It is one of many
:08:14. > :08:18.reasons why the price of oil has collapsed so much also. What is
:08:19. > :08:22.happening in China is linked to the stagnation of the decline in
:08:23. > :08:26.emerging markets too, is that right? Because China, the great buyer of
:08:27. > :08:30.commodities in its smoke stack days are not buying those commodities in
:08:31. > :08:38.anything like it, so from oil hitting Russia, two other minerals
:08:39. > :08:39.hitting Brazil, it is pushing these emerging market into recession?
:08:40. > :08:42.Absolutely, they are completely connected with one another. It is no
:08:43. > :08:46.longer the case that the emerging markets produce raw material and the
:08:47. > :08:50.West buys them. China is one of the main buyers, it has been the engine
:08:51. > :08:53.of the world economy for at least a decade and one of the reason why the
:08:54. > :08:57.emerging markets as a whole has powered ahead. Now something of a
:08:58. > :09:00.reverse. Result is facing a bit of a recession and all of these problems
:09:01. > :09:05.all over the world, but it is not really new. It is a trend that has
:09:06. > :09:10.been coming on any year now. I want to ask Miss Bock -- Mr Osborne that
:09:11. > :09:15.in a minute. The final question on the global backdrop of the remarks
:09:16. > :09:18.made by the Chancellor on the economy, I see that the global stock
:09:19. > :09:29.markets in the first six days of this year have lost $2.5 trillion in
:09:30. > :09:33.value. That of course is people's pensions funds and savings and so
:09:34. > :09:36.on. Where do we go from here? Markets can be volatile, they can
:09:37. > :09:41.slump and then bounce back, but there is a big question about equity
:09:42. > :09:46.prices, stock markets, for quite a while now, the UK fell last year for
:09:47. > :09:48.example, America stand badly in terms of stock markets, and that is
:09:49. > :09:54.hitting people's wealth and the ability of companies to raise
:09:55. > :09:57.capital and invest. It is also sending jitters among investors and
:09:58. > :10:01.decision-makers. But I think ultimately all of these things are
:10:02. > :10:03.connected, and the collapse in the price of oil will have severe
:10:04. > :10:10.geopolitical consequences rather than direct economic consequences.
:10:11. > :10:13.So I think the biggest danger from the slump in the price of oil is
:10:14. > :10:16.what happens in the Middle East, what happens to Saudi Arabia. The
:10:17. > :10:26.secondary impact is these countries that are spending a lot of money in
:10:27. > :10:30.the UK, Qatar, they were spending huge amounts, buying companies, and
:10:31. > :10:34.all of that has come to a halt. Let's come then, we have this grim
:10:35. > :10:40.global backdrop coming into the Chancellor's remarks about how it
:10:41. > :10:43.means that Britain is nothing but out of the woods yet despite recent
:10:44. > :10:49.growth. What does the Chancellor know now that he didn't know when he
:10:50. > :10:52.made his optimistic Autumn Statement at the end of November? That is a
:10:53. > :10:57.very good question, and one which sadly I don't have the answer to,
:10:58. > :11:03.but one can surmise to things, one it is possible that tax receipts are
:11:04. > :11:07.continuing to be weak. But he knew the summer tax receipts were weak
:11:08. > :11:10.going into the Autumn Statement. Perhaps there is additional
:11:11. > :11:13.information now, perhaps it does look like his targets will not be
:11:14. > :11:17.met for the financial year as a whole. These kinds of numbers are
:11:18. > :11:22.very volatile, they can change, so that perhaps might be one possible
:11:23. > :11:26.explanation, I'm speculating here. He talks about the need for
:11:27. > :11:31.mission-critical, that we are not out of the woods, yet in the Autumn
:11:32. > :11:34.Statement he found on the courtesy of the Office for Budget
:11:35. > :11:43.Responsibility, 20 odd billion down the Treasury sofa. 27. He didn't use
:11:44. > :11:49.that to consolidate the budget, to tighten the belt. Yes, and that is a
:11:50. > :11:54.great paradox of his comments that he will be making today of course on
:11:55. > :11:58.austerity. He knew a version of all of this just a few months ago, and
:11:59. > :12:04.it is strange that he didn't continue this... He is open to
:12:05. > :12:07.criticism, the talks about China, we knew there were troubles, he talks
:12:08. > :12:10.about Russia, we know that is in recession, Brazil we have known
:12:11. > :12:17.since the autumn is in the worst recession for 30 years. We know the
:12:18. > :12:24.Chinese currency was devalued in the summer. Several times. None of this
:12:25. > :12:28.is new, extreme volatility, that happens, and I think the Chancellor
:12:29. > :12:30.should have been more prudent a few months ago, identity should have
:12:31. > :12:34.done what he did and I think he needs to keep a tight grip on public
:12:35. > :12:44.spending. What is your take on this, Peter? The Treasury always has this
:12:45. > :12:49.tight and deep pessimism in its DNA. But I think there is a lot on what
:12:50. > :12:53.the Chancellor is saying, there are multiple fragility is, and Horizon
:12:54. > :12:58.scanning is a perilous craft, but the problems don't come when there
:12:59. > :13:01.is a malign and unexpected, nation, if you get two hotting up at the
:13:02. > :13:08.same time, these fragility is, then the markets get spooked. That the
:13:09. > :13:11.Middle East and China. And also presidential election in the United
:13:12. > :13:19.States and autumn, so it will be a rocky year, but most years are
:13:20. > :13:22.rocky. At the moment. Almost any possible question to answer, but is
:13:23. > :13:28.this a major correction or is this the beginning of a slide into
:13:29. > :13:32.another recession? I don't think this is the start of a new major
:13:33. > :13:35.recession, I could be proved completely wrong in six months but I
:13:36. > :13:38.really don't think so, there are still quite a lot of growth to be
:13:39. > :13:42.had at the world economy. People still think the economy will grow
:13:43. > :13:48.but at a less strong rate. But I think it is a collection. There has
:13:49. > :13:50.been far too much froth in the economy, the Federal reserve
:13:51. > :13:53.starting to put up interest rates, things are changing and moving on
:13:54. > :13:57.and the economy has not fully readjusted from the bad days of the
:13:58. > :14:01.financial crisis. One final question I forgot to ask you, because you
:14:02. > :14:05.mentioned interest rates. I would suggest if the economy seemed to be
:14:06. > :14:11.slowing down a bit, talking about 2% rather than 2.5% growth, slowdown in
:14:12. > :14:15.the global economy, that although America has started to raise its
:14:16. > :14:19.rates, British rates may not rise this year. I agree, I don't think
:14:20. > :14:23.they will come I think he will have to wait even longer before interest
:14:24. > :14:27.rates go up. For a lot of people it is quite good news to end on, we
:14:28. > :14:33.better end there. Alastair Heathcote to talk you.
:14:34. > :14:37.Jeremy Corbyn finalised his Labour front bench
:14:38. > :14:40.team yesterday, filling posts left vacant by the resignation yesterday
:14:41. > :14:43.Kevan Jones, Jonathan Reynolds and Stephen Doughty stepped down,
:14:44. > :14:45.citing policy differences with Mr Corbyn and concern
:14:46. > :14:49.about the treatment of two sacked colleagues.
:14:50. > :14:51.The Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, dismissed the three
:14:52. > :14:54.MPs as part of "a narrow right-wing clique" who refused to accept
:14:55. > :14:56.Jeremy Corbyn's mandate from party members and supporters.
:14:57. > :14:58.And on Newsnight last night, Labour front bencher,
:14:59. > :15:00.wasn't particularly complimentary either.
:15:01. > :15:16.When you look at some of the other people,
:15:17. > :15:18.if you look at Jonathan, Reynolds, Mr Dugher,
:15:19. > :15:22.if you look at some of these others, what do they have in common?
:15:23. > :15:27.And what you are seeing is people that came up under a certain system,
:15:28. > :15:30.where you did politics at uni, you became a special advisor,
:15:31. > :15:33.you became an MP, you became a minister, who are rightfully upset
:15:34. > :15:35.because Jeremy has brought a whole load of new energy
:15:36. > :15:42.Well, Jonathan Reynolds hit back on twitter last night.
:15:43. > :16:05.Joining us now is the former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone,
:16:06. > :16:19.Welcome to the Daily scam politics. Diane Abbott'sp comments, do you
:16:20. > :16:25.agree it has fuelled the in-fighting? No, Diane is responding
:16:26. > :16:30.to this wave of backstabbing by these dis - dis - dis-affected
:16:31. > :16:34.little group of old Blairites. What we have to remember is Jeremy has
:16:35. > :16:40.inherited a Parliamentary Labour Party well to the right of the
:16:41. > :16:49.membership and partly because that's under four general elections under
:16:50. > :16:54.Blair and Brown, Labour weren't able to select the candidates they want
:16:55. > :16:59.and keep critical of foreign policy or wanted to crackdown on tax on big
:17:00. > :17:06.corporations never got into the list. What those MPs cannot now do
:17:07. > :17:10.is say they have the right to overrule the party membership. You
:17:11. > :17:14.have called them disaffected Blairites. This is about personal
:17:15. > :17:19.insults. Do you not think her comments, which proved to be wrong
:17:20. > :17:23.in terms of accusing Jonathan Reynolds of being a special advisor
:17:24. > :17:29.is just fuelling the sort of tone and language you used there? She is
:17:30. > :17:34.responding to a consistent attempt by a disaffected group of MPs to
:17:35. > :17:40.undermine Jeremy Corbyn since the day he was elected. Well, Jonathan
:17:41. > :17:45.Reynolds, MacFadden and Dugher. Would you put them in that category?
:17:46. > :17:49.All of them. We have had all the leaks, coming from Jeremy Corbyn's
:17:50. > :17:53.key advisors. We were being told I was going to be made a member of the
:17:54. > :17:57.House of Lords and in the Shadow Cabinet. We knocked that on the
:17:58. > :18:00.head. I met some of the advisors over the last couple of weeks. They
:18:01. > :18:04.were really distraught at the amount of time they were having to waste
:18:05. > :18:07.dealing with the leaks to the press about how Jeremy was going to have a
:18:08. > :18:11.revenge reshuffle which anyone who voted for Syria would be sacked.
:18:12. > :18:15.That turned out not to be true. All these people are doing is allowing
:18:16. > :18:17.the Tory press to go on endlesslied about the conflicts between the
:18:18. > :18:21.Labour Party, rather than focussing on the economic alternative that
:18:22. > :18:26.John McDonnell and Jeremy are proposing. They will have to answer
:18:27. > :18:29.for themselves to some extent but John McDonnell the Shadow Chancellor
:18:30. > :18:36.has also called the three shadow ministers who resigned a narrow
:18:37. > :18:40.right-wing clique. The three resignations following on from the
:18:41. > :18:43.sacking of Pat McFadden and he was sack fwrd being disloyal. Did you
:18:44. > :18:48.think he had been disloyal? -- for being? Absolutely. That question he
:18:49. > :18:53.asked was specifically aimed. Over what? Over what motivates
:18:54. > :18:55.terrorists. The question he asked in Parliament was specifically done to
:18:56. > :19:00.effectively undermine the position Jeremy is putting. A lot of people
:19:01. > :19:03.like pact MacFadden who were central to Tony Blair's Government have
:19:04. > :19:08.never come to terms with the fact that invading Iraq was a disaster T
:19:09. > :19:10.led to 1 million people, almost all of them innocent civilians, men,
:19:11. > :19:17.women and children being killed. They can't ever come to terms when
:19:18. > :19:18.people like myself or Jeremy say - our interventions, overthrowing
:19:19. > :19:24.governments and trying to control the oil in the Middle East is a big
:19:25. > :19:29.factor in fuelling terrorism. Hang on a second, so Pat McFadden said in
:19:30. > :19:34.the Commons, he asked the Prime Minister to reject the view of
:19:35. > :19:39.seeing terrorists acts as always being a response or reaction to what
:19:40. > :19:45.we in the West do, that's why he was sacked. You dis'gree with that
:19:46. > :19:50.statement? I absolutely disagree. So the West brings it on itself. Just
:19:51. > :19:55.to be clear, as you said on Yes Time. That the West brings the
:19:56. > :20:01.terrorist attacks, like 7/7, the bombings on itself. No, no. We
:20:02. > :20:03.don't. The vast majority of people who get killed are innocent
:20:04. > :20:08.civilians. We have to recognise that Tony Blair was told, when he took
:20:09. > :20:12.the decision to invade Iraq, he was told by the Security Service, this
:20:13. > :20:16.will make us an increased risk of being subject to terrorist attacks.
:20:17. > :20:21.I know that because we were trying to defend ourselves. I need to pull
:20:22. > :20:24.you up. You said you didn't say that. In November you said on
:20:25. > :20:28.Question Time, Tony Blair bore responsibility for the London
:20:29. > :20:31.poppings and you went on to say the 7/7 bombers did the killings because
:20:32. > :20:36.of our invasion oof I rack. They gave their lives and said what they
:20:37. > :20:40.believed and took Londoners' lives in protest of the invasion of Iraq.
:20:41. > :20:45.Do you stand by the comments that you bring the things on ourself? You
:20:46. > :20:48.have to go and look at the messages they left on their websites where
:20:49. > :20:52.they were saying that they were doing this because of the way the
:20:53. > :20:56.West interintervenes in the Middle East. Particularly the invasion of
:20:57. > :21:02.Iraq. But more than that. They have had Iran subject to nearly a decade
:21:03. > :21:07.of really damaging sanctions because we fear they might get nuclear
:21:08. > :21:11.weapons yet Israel brought nuclear weapons into the Middle East and has
:21:12. > :21:15.had them for nearly 50 years and this has never been any sanctions.
:21:16. > :21:19.It is a double standard that turns many angry young Muslims into
:21:20. > :21:23.thinking -- we are being treated as second class citizens in our own
:21:24. > :21:30.country. You know it caused upset amongst the families of the victims
:21:31. > :21:36.of 7/7, the words you used. So, to be clear, the leader lead shorep,
:21:37. > :21:41.and people like you, believe that the actions of the 7/7 bombers were
:21:42. > :21:50.as a direct result of the actions the West take. Well that's what the
:21:51. > :21:57.terrorists said. Let's move on to defence. Maria Eagles. Would you
:21:58. > :22:03.like to have kept her? She has been a friend of mine. You would liked
:22:04. > :22:07.her to have stayed I will r I would have been happy working with her or
:22:08. > :22:10.Emily. Whether it was going to be Maria or Emily, we have to look at
:22:11. > :22:16.the facts. When Tony Blair decided he wanted four new nuclear
:22:17. > :22:24.submarines they said it would cost ?21 billion. Billion, the Government
:22:25. > :22:29.has set aside 41 billion now. A lot of your viewers would rather it
:22:30. > :22:33.stayed as flood defences. What is the timetable in your mind, we will
:22:34. > :22:37.leave the substance to one side? The timetable in your mind, when will
:22:38. > :22:43.Labour have a settled position on whether or not to renew the Trident
:22:44. > :22:46.missile system? If we are lucky it will be before David Cameron
:22:47. > :22:50.organisations a vote in the House of Commons, or it could take rate right
:22:51. > :22:53.the way through to the summer. We have to do a lot of detailed
:22:54. > :22:57.academic research on this. We have been told a lot of old nonsense
:22:58. > :23:01.about how we have an independent deterrent. The suggestion that they
:23:02. > :23:05.won't be independent. There is the latest report two years ago to the
:23:06. > :23:10.Pentagon saying that Russia and China the abilities through a cyber
:23:11. > :23:13.attack it make our weapons inoperable. The timetable is
:23:14. > :23:17.quicker. Before I bring in Peter when he iscy. You must
:23:18. > :23:20.quicker. Before I bring in Peter disappointed that Hilary Benn wasn't
:23:21. > :23:27.removed, earlier in the week you said he should have been removed
:23:28. > :23:36.because he held a contradictory opinion. 'Twas a mistake? They had a
:23:37. > :23:41.long discussion. It took about 20 hours. They have had come to the
:23:42. > :23:45.understanding where we won't have the Labour Leader opening with one
:23:46. > :23:48.line and the Shadow Foreign Secretary closing with another. I
:23:49. > :23:54.notice with the success of the Oldham by-election, the best result
:23:55. > :23:58.in that constituent, there has been a lot less criticism, including
:23:59. > :24:03.Hilary, about Jeremy and its policies.
:24:04. > :24:07.Peter Hennessey, looking at it from the outside, how does the Labour
:24:08. > :24:11.Leader look to you? I'm not a politician, I'm a cross-bench member
:24:12. > :24:14.of the House of Lords. It is agony to see this drama in the late. Our
:24:15. > :24:19.parliamentary system doesn't work unless we have a vibrant and viable
:24:20. > :24:22.opposition on the tail. Government. It debraids and it is bad for the
:24:23. > :24:26.Government and opposition and the country. And to he soo the Labour
:24:27. > :24:30.Party eating itself, day by day is extraordinary. What we are
:24:31. > :24:35.witnessing is a process of genetically modified of the Labour
:24:36. > :24:40.Party. It is a very different Labour Party I think Ken would agree from
:24:41. > :24:44.the run-up to the election, the quad ruling of the membership. It will be
:24:45. > :24:51.an entirely different Labour Party. I don't know Jeremy Corbyn. I'm
:24:52. > :24:56.fascinated by him, this man of herb iviour ways and carnivorous views is
:24:57. > :25:01.deeply intriguing. It seems to me his cunning plan, perhaps not
:25:02. > :25:04.cunning s to genetically modify the membership and the apex of the
:25:05. > :25:07.Labour Party, leaving the squeezed middle which happens to be the bulk
:25:08. > :25:11.of the MPs in the Parliamentary Labour Party. What really worries me
:25:12. > :25:16.is this Labour Party eating itself and all its investous energy going
:25:17. > :25:19.into the kind of things Ken has been talking about and we have been
:25:20. > :25:22.obsessing about in the media for weeks now, almost since the day or
:25:23. > :25:26.well, since the hour he was elected leader. It is a digs straction from
:25:27. > :25:29.the primary function of the Labour Party to be the viable opposition in
:25:30. > :25:31.the House of Commons. -- it is a distraction.
:25:32. > :25:36.Let's talk more about Trident itself. While we have been talking,
:25:37. > :25:41.breaking news t remains tense on the streets of Paris today. The
:25:42. > :25:46.anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo and a man has been shot by the police on
:25:47. > :25:49.the streets of Paris trying to enter a police station. According to
:25:50. > :25:55.reports he was carrying a knife and wearing suicide vest. According to
:25:56. > :25:59.the ministry of interior in Paris he shouted Allahu Akbar as he trued to
:26:00. > :26:04.enter the station. Anyway, he was shot in the way in. That will add to
:26:05. > :26:08.the tensions. We will you more as we get it. On the anniversary of
:26:09. > :26:10.Charlie Hebb doe. You will probably remember if you watch, we were live
:26:11. > :26:13.on air as that unfolded. So, Jeremy Corbyn's got a brand
:26:14. > :26:15.new Shadow Defence Secretary, and she's not that keen on keeping
:26:16. > :26:18.up Britain's nuclear deterrent. I think it's fair to say,
:26:19. > :26:20.Emily Thornberry wouldn't get The move comes before a debate,
:26:21. > :26:26.and vote, on the so-called "maingate" decision to order four
:26:27. > :26:28.new Vanguard nuclear-armed submarines to be based
:26:29. > :26:30.at the Faslane naval The vote is expected
:26:31. > :26:34.later this year. Here's our Giles to
:26:35. > :26:47.get us up to speed. To its supporters, it is CAS-D, the
:26:48. > :26:53.Continuous At Sea Deterrent, responsible for keeping the UK safe.
:26:54. > :26:57.To its opponents, it's immoral, vastly expensive, outmoded and
:26:58. > :27:02.irrelevant. Roger one, Roger two. To those who work on board, it's
:27:03. > :27:07.operation Operation Relentless. It is a correctly awe tenticated fire
:27:08. > :27:13.control message. I concur. Ship control, take the ship for a weapons
:27:14. > :27:18.test. Four submarines with nuclear war head carrying type 2 D5 nuclear
:27:19. > :27:22.missiles in rotation of service, re-fit training and operation, such
:27:23. > :27:25.that one is at sea hidden every second of every day, if the Prime
:27:26. > :27:33.Minister ever wanted to authorise a new clear strike. Much is made of
:27:34. > :27:42.renewing Trident. But actually, we are doing no such ho -- thing. It is
:27:43. > :27:45.to do with us and the Americans a different decision for a politician.
:27:46. > :27:50.We are looking at replacing the carriers of the missile. The Trident
:27:51. > :27:56.missile won't be up for discussion until 2030, 20 #450e. Parliament has
:27:57. > :28:03.already voted, in 2007, by 409 votes by 261 to commit to the submarine
:28:04. > :28:06.successor programme. It's the final no-going back vote, called Maingate
:28:07. > :28:12.that is expected soon, and now things have changed.
:28:13. > :28:15.As we speak, the Conservative and Labour Parties are still committed
:28:16. > :28:18.to renewal. The Tories will continue to be.
:28:19. > :28:24.But Jeremy Corbyn leads the Labour Party now.
:28:25. > :28:29.He's long been against renewal, has said, if in number 10 he wouldn't
:28:30. > :28:33.push the button, is having a review of Labour's policy and has just
:28:34. > :28:38.replaced his defence spokesperson from one in favour to one who isn't
:28:39. > :28:42.I don't think being against nuclear weapons is that Saddam Husseiny. If
:28:43. > :28:47.you look at how much it is going to cost P #13ds 00 billion on weapons
:28:48. > :28:50.we won't be in charge of, the Americans will be in charge of. Will
:28:51. > :28:56.he ever want to use? The ultimate weapons of mass destruction. As it
:28:57. > :29:00.happens, as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,
:29:01. > :29:04.under Article 6, the UK is committed to nuclear disarmament over time.
:29:05. > :29:08.And it is not just about Labour. The Lib Dems don't favour like-for-like
:29:09. > :29:10.replacement and a former Conservative Defence Secretary is
:29:11. > :29:14.very candid. It is neither independent because we couldn't use
:29:15. > :29:19.it without the Americans, neither is it any sort of deterrent because now
:29:20. > :29:20.largely we are facing the sorts of enemies, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda who
:29:21. > :29:24.cannot be deterred enemies, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda who
:29:25. > :29:30.weapons. Its a tremendous waste of money. There are those who agree,
:29:31. > :29:34.though many from parts of the more conventional military that have
:29:35. > :29:39.often eyed Trident's funding with envy, especially when committed to
:29:40. > :29:44.difficult combat missions but it won't takes a North Korean lady in
:29:45. > :29:48.pink as a reminder that there are states with nuclear weapons and
:29:49. > :29:52.wants more. The costs are in the hundreds of billions. It is hard to
:29:53. > :29:59.know because of the classified nature of the work. The subs won't
:30:00. > :30:03.be in the water until 2028. But the degate will be remains and the
:30:04. > :30:06.submarine will still be patrolling. And with us now, Chair
:30:07. > :30:08.of the Defence Select Committee, Conservative MP, Julien Lewis
:30:09. > :30:11.and Ken Livingstone who is in charge of Labour's Defence Review
:30:12. > :30:22.is still with us. Ken, you are leading the Labour
:30:23. > :30:27.defence review into Trident, along with the new Shadow Secretary, Emily
:30:28. > :30:33.Thornberry. You are both opposed to renewing Trident. Your leader of the
:30:34. > :30:38.party is opposed to renewing it, the chances of you coming out in favour
:30:39. > :30:46.of it, would I say are zero, sthant right? 00, because there are
:30:47. > :30:53.different options here, do we keep them existing ones to the end of
:30:54. > :30:56.their life, or should we spend ?41 billion on getting four new
:30:57. > :31:05.submarines and I don't think that is the best use of money. So you have
:31:06. > :31:14.made up your the best use of money. So you have
:31:15. > :31:22.Trident? If someone can demonstrate that it is worthwhile, I can be
:31:23. > :31:25.suspended. You have always been a unilateral disarmament a perfectly
:31:26. > :31:28.principled position to take it has been your long-held view, nothing
:31:29. > :31:34.could be said to change mind on that, that is the honest truth, be
:31:35. > :31:39.honest with our viewers on this. No, no, if you are America or Russia,
:31:40. > :31:43.you have a vast military nuclear Arsenal, you can start a war and win
:31:44. > :31:47.it. We have just enough nuclear weapons to start a war, not to win
:31:48. > :31:53.it. So it would be a suicide mission to launch an attack on Russia. What
:31:54. > :31:59.evidence is there that we would ever use nuclear weapons to start a war?
:32:00. > :32:06.What is the point of having them otherwise? To stop people attacking
:32:07. > :32:09.you. No, no, they didn't stop the Argentinians invading the Falkland
:32:10. > :32:15.Islands, and that I think is the most striking situation here. That
:32:16. > :32:20.demonstrated having nuclear weapons did not... They were never designed
:32:21. > :32:23.to stop Argentina invading the Falkland Islands, that is not the
:32:24. > :32:28.purpose of Britain's nuclear deterrent, you know that and I know
:32:29. > :32:32.that. But if we got rid of our nuclear deterrent, would you be
:32:33. > :32:38.happy to live under the Nato American nuclear deterrent? That is
:32:39. > :32:42.the reality of this. There is a vast Russian Arsenal, a vast American
:32:43. > :32:47.Arsenal, Britain and France are just side shows. But we are in a nuclear
:32:48. > :32:52.alliance with America, would you be happy if we declared unilateral
:32:53. > :32:57.nuclear disarmament, which is essentially your position, would you
:32:58. > :33:01.be happy to live under an American nuclear umbrella? We are, there is
:33:02. > :33:10.nothing we can do about it. Are you in favour of it? We are actually
:33:11. > :33:14.allies with America, and I know that this pleases you. I am just trying
:33:15. > :33:18.to work out would it be moral to get rid of our nuclear weapons but still
:33:19. > :33:24.be happy to live under the nuclear protection of the United States? You
:33:25. > :33:30.don't have a choice. America is the main nuclear power in the West. The
:33:31. > :33:34.issue is we in favour of being attacked by Russia? That is
:33:35. > :33:37.nonsense. We could leave Nato then we wouldn't be under American
:33:38. > :33:43.nuclear protection, should we do that? You still work, because
:33:44. > :33:46.America, if there is an American -- an invasion of anywhere in Western
:33:47. > :33:51.Europe, would use its nuclear weapons against Russia. It is a
:33:52. > :33:56.disastrous economic state, it hasn't got the resources to actually launch
:33:57. > :34:01.a world war. There is no prospect of that happening. Should we leave
:34:02. > :34:05.Nato? That is one of the things we will look at, many people would want
:34:06. > :34:09.to do that, I don't think it is a particularly big issue because of
:34:10. > :34:14.the Cold War it was, it isn't now. Russia is not planning to invade the
:34:15. > :34:18.West. Are you sound as part of your defence review, not only are you
:34:19. > :34:21.looking we should renew the nuclear deterrent but you are also looking
:34:22. > :34:27.at whether we should remain members of Nato or not? There will be people
:34:28. > :34:33.making those suggestions. For me, the main consideration is it doesn't
:34:34. > :34:37.really matter if you are in Nato or not terribly much because the Cold
:34:38. > :34:41.War is over. If we are to stay in Nato, what is its role going to be?
:34:42. > :34:49.Invading more countries in the Middle East? I am not in favour of
:34:50. > :34:51.that. We are signed up to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,
:34:52. > :34:56.the second pillar of that states that nuclear weapons should pursue
:34:57. > :35:01.disarmament, will pursue disarmament, how can we remain part
:35:02. > :35:06.of that treaty and renewed Trident? You have to look at the treaty
:35:07. > :35:09.provision in full, and what it actually says, and funnily enough I
:35:10. > :35:13.thought you might bring it up, is that each of the parties undertakes
:35:14. > :35:17.to pursue negotiations on good faith on effective measures in Malaysian
:35:18. > :35:26.to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and a...
:35:27. > :35:31.Surely renewing Trident is an escalation of the nuclear arms race?
:35:32. > :35:35.No, it isn't, first of all there will be no change under Trident and
:35:36. > :35:39.what is proposed now, because the Trident missiles and the warheads at
:35:40. > :35:43.many years of life left in them yet. All we are doing at the moment is
:35:44. > :35:47.renewing four submarines that carry the missiles, but coming back to the
:35:48. > :35:51.treaty, the point about it is the provision of the treaty is to end
:35:52. > :35:56.the nuclear arms race. But it is not. As Ken Livingstone said, the
:35:57. > :36:02.Russians and the Americans have actually got much larger arsenals
:36:03. > :36:05.than we have, they have got massive overkill capacity, we have a
:36:06. > :36:09.strategic minimum nuclear deterrent. Where he is wrong, I must make this
:36:10. > :36:15.point, is in saying that we are a sideshow. We can inflict
:36:16. > :36:19.unacceptable damage. It makes no difference to us if another country
:36:20. > :36:25.can annihilate as 50 times over. Having signed a treaty meant to stop
:36:26. > :36:29.proliferation, if we renew Trident will become part of the nuclear arms
:36:30. > :36:33.race, the Iranians have tried to develop one, we have seen what North
:36:34. > :36:38.Korea may have been trying to do, Pakistan is going through a massive
:36:39. > :36:41.modernisation... You are absolutely wrong! We do not become part of the
:36:42. > :36:44.nuclear arms race, we have never been part of the nuclear arms race,
:36:45. > :36:49.neither have France, neither have China. All three of the five powers
:36:50. > :36:57.that were allowed to have nuclear weapons under the treaty, all three,
:36:58. > :36:59.China, France and ourselves have pursued a policy of minimum
:37:00. > :37:03.strategic nuclear deterrence, and it has been the superpowers that were
:37:04. > :37:08.arms racing, and over the years since the end of the Cold War, their
:37:09. > :37:14.totals have come down. Who is Trident defending us from? Against
:37:15. > :37:20.any future potential aggressor who might blackmail or attack us with
:37:21. > :37:26.nuclear weapons was that who? If I knew that, I would be a politician,
:37:27. > :37:30.I must answer the question if you ask it, I would be writing old Moore
:37:31. > :37:33.'s almanac, because the history of almost all the wars, with the
:37:34. > :37:36.possible exception of World War II, that we have been involved in
:37:37. > :37:40.throughout the 20th century is that we never had much advance warning of
:37:41. > :37:45.who the aggressor was going to be. These things take us by surprise or
:37:46. > :37:50.at very short notice. Peter Hennessy, Ken Livingstone says two
:37:51. > :37:54.things, one that our independent nuclear deterrent is not independent
:37:55. > :37:58.and we could not use it without American approval, and secondly that
:37:59. > :38:02.it is highly honourable, that the Russians and Chinese could probably
:38:03. > :38:07.take it out in a cyber attack anyway so would-be Rhoose -- useless, is he
:38:08. > :38:15.right? Separate from anything to do with the internet, so it is cyber
:38:16. > :38:21.proof. Just to check, our deterrent is cyber proof? The site site -- the
:38:22. > :38:26.command and control, from the Prime Minister to the captain of the boat
:38:27. > :38:30.is quite removed from any cyber attack because it is old technology,
:38:31. > :38:38.it is not in the modern age. Air gap. That is the technical term. It
:38:39. > :38:41.is also operationally independent from the United States, the United
:38:42. > :38:46.States president is the one who could really disarm us but he could
:38:47. > :38:50.do that by 1963 Polaris sales agreement, and within about a year
:38:51. > :38:57.we would be out of the business. Because of needing the missiles. But
:38:58. > :39:01.operationally, is our deterrent independent or not? It is, and in a
:39:02. > :39:04.book I published just before Christmas, we have a letter from
:39:05. > :39:09.Frank Miller, who was the leading figure in the Pentagon throughout
:39:10. > :39:11.several administrations and out with the British to Tarrant, saying in
:39:12. > :39:15.cold print for the first time a thing that has happened
:39:16. > :39:18.unequivocally, that it is operationally independent. There is
:39:19. > :39:22.no switch the United States president can flick to stop a
:39:23. > :39:27.British ballistic missile flying, not that there is any intention to
:39:28. > :39:30.let a British ballistic missile fly. Ken Livingstone, do you think you
:39:31. > :39:34.should call it a Hennessy to your enquiry to find out why you are
:39:35. > :39:38.wrong of it being vulnerable to cyber attacks and that it is
:39:39. > :39:48.operationally independent? The simple fact is a scientific report
:39:49. > :39:50.for the Pentagon in 2013 said our nuclear weapons were subject to a
:39:51. > :39:53.cyber attack, other people disagreeing with that. One of the
:39:54. > :39:56.reasons we are having a defence review, we were to try to get a copy
:39:57. > :40:01.of that report and get people who are criticising it to see if it is
:40:02. > :40:06.true or not. This is the problem. Earlier you claimed that it was.
:40:07. > :40:12.That it was subject to cyber attack that was your view. Now you are
:40:13. > :40:15.saying it is a matter of debate. That report says we are subject to a
:40:16. > :40:19.cyber attack. We are clearly going to have a debate and try to examine
:40:20. > :40:23.it. If it turns out not to be true, that is something we can dismiss but
:40:24. > :40:28.we want to test that, because it will be vast sums of new money.
:40:29. > :40:33.Should you test it before you make the statements about it? I asked --
:40:34. > :40:36.you ask me a question, I told you what we know already, there has been
:40:37. > :40:41.a report to the Pentagon saying we are subject to a cyber attack, let's
:40:42. > :40:47.see if it is true or not. Julian Lewis, is there a Pentagon report
:40:48. > :40:51.that says we could be subject to a cyber attack? I read the newspaper
:40:52. > :40:58.accounts of these reports, and it is highly speculative. Not entirely
:40:59. > :41:02.without grounds then. There is a document from some people who say
:41:03. > :41:07.this might be the case and it has been authoritatively rebutted by no
:41:08. > :41:15.less a person than Dr Frank Miller, who is the key person in this area.
:41:16. > :41:19.A very simple thing, Jeremy Corbyn is utterly sincere in his opposition
:41:20. > :41:22.to British nuclear weapons come about the difference is Jeremy is
:41:23. > :41:26.not doing what Kerry is doing, Jeremy Zuttah open about it, Ken is
:41:27. > :41:30.pretending to have an open mind. Viewers will make their mind up
:41:31. > :41:35.about that. We will have to leave it there. -- is open about it.
:41:36. > :41:38.David Cameron is on another round of talks with his European
:41:39. > :41:41.chums, ahead of the referendum on whether the UK stays or leaves
:41:42. > :41:44.He's been meeting the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel,
:41:45. > :41:46.in Bavaria before heading off for discussions in Budapest
:41:47. > :41:47.with his Hungarian counterpart, Victor Orban.
:41:48. > :41:54.This morning, the PM claimed the talks were going well.
:41:55. > :41:58.I am even more confident after the excellent discussions I have had
:41:59. > :42:02.here in Bavaria with colleagues in the CSU that these things are
:42:03. > :42:05.possible, not just good for Britain but good for Europe, not simply
:42:06. > :42:11.because other European countries will benefit by Britain continuing
:42:12. > :42:14.to be a member of Europe, but I think it is important that this
:42:15. > :42:17.organisation shows it has the flexibility of a network and can
:42:18. > :42:21.address concerns of individual members, rather than the rigidity of
:42:22. > :42:25.a block. I am confident we can reach good conclusions but it will take a
:42:26. > :42:29.lot of hard work, but I have been very heartened by the goodwill I
:42:30. > :42:31.felt from fellow sister party members in the CSU here in Bavaria
:42:32. > :42:40.today. With us now, clinical Well, clinical this morning the UKIP
:42:41. > :42:42.Leader, Nigel Farage, politicians to put their political
:42:43. > :42:51.differences aside ahead of the EU know one should really be amazed
:42:52. > :42:55.that you two are joining forces, Nigel? The story over the last few
:42:56. > :42:58.months has been that the leave campaign is divided, they are at
:42:59. > :43:03.each other's throats, people are vying for position, and what this
:43:04. > :43:06.initiative led by Peter, and I am just a foot soldier following and
:43:07. > :43:10.hoping, there will be six of us on the platform in a couple of weeks'
:43:11. > :43:13.time and it will be the first of the big rolling series of meetings that
:43:14. > :43:17.will go right across the United Kingdom. There was a big positive
:43:18. > :43:22.message, what other difference is we might have had, irrelevant compared
:43:23. > :43:26.to what we see is the most important vote we will have in our lifetimes.
:43:27. > :43:32.You agree on that but lots of other things as well. Ruud where you are
:43:33. > :43:37.slightly wrong, go, grassroots out, that is a organisation set up by
:43:38. > :43:43.myself, we're bringing together Labour, Conservative, Ukip, DUP and
:43:44. > :43:47.nonaligned to work together at grassroots. Whatever the different
:43:48. > :43:52.people argue about, locally we are going to work together as one team
:43:53. > :43:57.and that is what is new. That has never happened before. What about
:43:58. > :44:01.the other groups? You say you have been united, but there have been
:44:02. > :44:04.problems and splits. There have been the two groups and there has been
:44:05. > :44:08.evidence for it in the sense that there has been infighting between
:44:09. > :44:12.yourself and Mr Carswell. I said quite the opposite because Mr
:44:13. > :44:16.Carswell backs one of those two groups that are vying for the
:44:17. > :44:20.umbrella group. We have no idea when the referendum will be. You said it
:44:21. > :44:27.would be in June. You almost made a bet on this programme. It may well
:44:28. > :44:30.be, but the point about Go, it is let's get off our backsides, get out
:44:31. > :44:35.and get campaigning and that is what we will do. Are you talking to
:44:36. > :44:40.Eurosceptic ministers who will now be offered a campaign freely? Have
:44:41. > :44:45.you talked to? LAUGHTER Eurosceptic ministers. Names,
:44:46. > :44:49.please! You know that they can't actually come out until the
:44:50. > :44:52.negotiations are finished, which will probably be in February, but
:44:53. > :44:58.there are ministers talking to us now. We will be setting up Go groups
:44:59. > :45:02.across the country everywhere, it is the working together. It is the
:45:03. > :45:04.first time I have ever known Labour, Ukip, conservatives working together
:45:05. > :45:11.on the ground and that is the key thing. From eight Go point of view,
:45:12. > :45:14.we don't care who gets negotiation, but you are talking about two
:45:15. > :45:21.groups, there are actually about 40 groups. We are getting them united
:45:22. > :45:24.on the ground. You cannot wait until mid-June to do it, we have to get up
:45:25. > :45:28.and running now and that is what we are doing. What about Boris
:45:29. > :45:32.Johnson's comments this morning, sounding pretty Eurosceptic, or
:45:33. > :45:39.hedging his bets one might say. He keeps on doing this! O We discussed
:45:40. > :45:43.this earlier. We want Boris Johnson and as many high-profile figures as
:45:44. > :45:46.possible, who knows, maybe even the Prime Minister. He might come back
:45:47. > :45:51.disappointed. Due believe that? Not for a moment. I asked in the Commons
:45:52. > :45:56.whether he would liked to join Go. He said he would consider it and
:45:57. > :45:59.make his decision after negotiation. And wouldn't it be wonderful if the
:46:00. > :46:05.Prime Minister decided to campaign to leave the EU. I think that would
:46:06. > :46:14.help enormously. Are you an in or outer? Aim I'm remain. I can't wait
:46:15. > :46:20.for the Kettering. We have not been able to handy it since Monet turned
:46:21. > :46:25.up from Paris, with a coal and steel plan. The reason we cannot handle
:46:26. > :46:29.it, it is not left-right, our country is not he auto quipped to
:46:30. > :46:34.handle the European question, it busts ups parties and families and
:46:35. > :46:41.also, I don't want to be unkind. You are both in benign mood, so am I.
:46:42. > :46:44.Your side of the argument is is lop Trotskyite in its capacity to have
:46:45. > :46:48.splits. If you can pull it off, it is quite something. That's the point
:46:49. > :46:53.about it. The youngest Conservative MP, is a founder member of Go. He is
:46:54. > :47:01.not old or young, it is cross-party, cross-age. Fascinating, though this
:47:02. > :47:05.is, we have to stop it there. The latest news from Paris is the
:47:06. > :47:09.man who tried to enter the police station with a knife and perhaps an
:47:10. > :47:11.explosive vest has been shot dead by the police.
:47:12. > :47:13.Now to the UK's relationship with Saudi Arabia -
:47:14. > :47:15.because the Government has been criticised for failing to condemn,
:47:16. > :47:18.directly, the execution of a prominent Shia cleric at the weekend
:47:19. > :47:21.as part of a mass execution of 47 alleged terrorists.
:47:22. > :47:23.Instead, a junior Foreign Office Minister expressed "disappointment"
:47:24. > :47:27.The UK-Saudi relationship was dismissed as sycophantic
:47:28. > :47:30.by the Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, and Labour called
:47:31. > :47:33.for an end to judicial cooperation with Riyadh.
:47:34. > :47:42.Let's talk now to Jane Kinninmont from Chatham House.
:47:43. > :47:50.How important is the British relationship to Britain w Saudi
:47:51. > :47:55.Arabia? It's an important trade partner and also an important
:47:56. > :47:59.partner in counter-terrorism and intelligence-sharing. All this in
:48:00. > :48:05.the context of a Middle East where many of the traditional governments
:48:06. > :48:11.had been massively weakened over the past few years and the gulf
:48:12. > :48:15.government are some of the few still standing. In the be stand-off
:48:16. > :48:19.between Iran and Saudi Arabia and we have learned this morning, at least
:48:20. > :48:26.the Iranians are claiming their diplomatic quarters in the 'em very
:48:27. > :48:31.has been bombed by Saudi jets, they are both fighting a proxy war there,
:48:32. > :48:37.the Iranians and Saudis. Does Britain have a side? Are Saudis
:48:38. > :48:41.allies and Iran not? Britain has traditionally been closer to Saudi
:48:42. > :48:44.Arabia but is trying to balance that relationship with Iran, even as both
:48:45. > :48:48.countries abuse human rights and are stepping up the ruse of the death
:48:49. > :48:53.penal titch but one of the reasons that Saudi Arabia is currently quite
:48:54. > :48:57.on the defences, is that it has a fear that its Western allies are on
:48:58. > :49:01.the brink of eye ban donning it in favour of Iran. That fear is
:49:02. > :49:03.misplaced and everstated but in Riyadh, it is very real. Thank you
:49:04. > :49:05.for joining us this morning. And we're joined now
:49:06. > :49:08.by the Conservative MP and member of the Foreign Affairs Select
:49:09. > :49:17.Committee, Daniel Kawczynski, Nigel Farage, you have talked about
:49:18. > :49:23.Britain having, "reshi its relationship" is a yudy oar andia.
:49:24. > :49:26.We are always saying they are great friends of ours and trading
:49:27. > :49:30.partners. We do a lot of trade but it is interesting, if you talk to
:49:31. > :49:34.experts on the growth of jihad #i678, extremism, whether in this
:49:35. > :49:38.country or across the rest of Europe. Every single independent
:49:39. > :49:41.expert would say the big change was large amounts of Saudi money, coming
:49:42. > :49:45.into the mosque, pushing an interpretation of the Koran which is
:49:46. > :49:52.extreme indeed. Look at what has been happening in Syria Ian Iraq. I
:49:53. > :49:57.understand that. That's the case Forestieri a thinking of the the
:49:58. > :50:02.financing. But what would a rethink mean? I think it would mean that we
:50:03. > :50:07.would actually have to make sure that if Saudi money is coming into
:50:08. > :50:11.British mosques and funding extremism, it would have to be
:50:12. > :50:15.declared. We need transparency for Saudi money. It is coming into
:50:16. > :50:18.British mosques. We know but we don't know the extent or amount.
:50:19. > :50:20.There should be a proper transparency register. Should we
:50:21. > :50:23.stop selling them arms? transparency register. Should we
:50:24. > :50:27.stop selling them arms. Not that much of a rethink? If there was a
:50:28. > :50:31.breakdown of diplomatic relations that led us to selling them fewer
:50:32. > :50:36.arms that would be a prays woefrt paying. We go on pretending they are
:50:37. > :50:40.our best chums in the middle East. I'm not sure they are. Should we be
:50:41. > :50:43.rethinking our relationship with Saudi Arabia. Certainly no. We have
:50:44. > :50:46.had a good relationship for decades chld our royal families have a very
:50:47. > :50:51.good working relationship. Is that something to boast about it? It is.
:50:52. > :50:56.It is in our strategic interest to be very close to Saudi oar and why.
:50:57. > :51:00.I understand the strategic interest, but is it something to boast about,
:51:01. > :51:04.that our Royal Family should be close to a regime which has done so
:51:05. > :51:10.many institutions recently that it has run out of trained beheaders.
:51:11. > :51:15.Well I think there are 47 countries in the world that killings of people
:51:16. > :51:19.who are being convicted for crimes of this nature. So Saudi Arabia is
:51:20. > :51:24.not the only country. No, but it is our ally. But it is very important
:51:25. > :51:27.that we continue to engauge with Saudi Arabia it make representations
:51:28. > :51:32.when we disagree with them, as we do on a regular basis. We can't just
:51:33. > :51:36.stop relations with them, as Jeremy Corbyn would have us do and have no
:51:37. > :51:39.contact with them. When we go to Saudi oar and y we make very strong
:51:40. > :51:46.representations on the things we disagree with. What difference has
:51:47. > :51:50.that made When I first went to Saudi Arabia, there were no women, for
:51:51. > :51:52.example, in the council. Now 30% of their representatives are women.
:51:53. > :51:57.Women have now been able to take part in elections. They still can't
:51:58. > :52:02.drive. Well, it is moving at a slow pace. What evidence is there that we
:52:03. > :52:06.have played any role in that? I think the Saudis are interested in
:52:07. > :52:10.having a close relationship with the u Nationwide kingdom. Is there
:52:11. > :52:14.anything that we have done for women's rights? I have no evidence
:52:15. > :52:20.that we have asked for very much, that has played a role in that? It
:52:21. > :52:24.is that contact that we have with NGOs and human rights organisations
:52:25. > :52:30.when we go to Saudi. When we go, we leave our minders hyped and go and
:52:31. > :52:32.engage with women's rights organisations one-to-one and they
:52:33. > :52:36.get comfort that British politicians are coming out to support them and
:52:37. > :52:40.to he help them to campaign for their rights. So we should be doing
:52:41. > :52:46.our right for women's rights but whatted about the fact that the
:52:47. > :52:51.Saudis have refused to take a single refugee or migrant from Syria or
:52:52. > :52:56.Iraq and yet will be funding. Would you disagree with experts that they
:52:57. > :53:01.have been funding extremism in British mosques? Isn't it time we
:53:02. > :53:05.said no to Saudi money coming into mosques? Do you not accept that
:53:06. > :53:18.there is damage being done by Saudi money coming in? Whether it is Saudi
:53:19. > :53:23.or Kuwait. They are President Al-Sadr to get away with
:53:24. > :53:29.ethnicically cleansing its country. Doesn't Saudi Arabia cleanse its owe
:53:30. > :53:35.Pope sneents no. It has executed 47 people. And those 47 were convicted
:53:36. > :53:40.by an independent judiciary, by 15 judges that they were involved in
:53:41. > :53:44.terrorist acts, we also eliminate opponents worldwide who were
:53:45. > :53:52.involved in terrorism. I'm afraid we have to - I must explain to our
:53:53. > :53:54.viewers, because we overran with the Trident discussion, with Mr
:53:55. > :53:56.Livingstone we have run out of time but we will come back. Thank you for
:53:57. > :54:01.being with us. Now, Saturday is the 30th
:54:02. > :54:03.anniversary of the first broadcast All these years later,
:54:04. > :54:06.the BBC comedy is still quoted by politicians
:54:07. > :54:08.and the watching commentariat. So why does it have
:54:09. > :54:10.such lasting appeal? If you were watching
:54:11. > :54:22.the Nine O'Clock News 30 years ago, it was all about the shock
:54:23. > :54:24.resignation of Defence Secretary. But if you wanted real political
:54:25. > :54:30.insight, well you should have been As always, BBC Two,
:54:31. > :54:34.because on the same night, Yes, Prime Minister was born and it
:54:35. > :54:36.soon had its own take Point one, everyone will accept
:54:37. > :54:43.collective decisions, Point 2, there will now be a cooling
:54:44. > :54:53.off period on the subject All speeches and press statements
:54:54. > :55:04.must in future be cleared We can't cool off discussion
:55:05. > :55:08.on something that hasn't been discussed yet and I cannot,
:55:09. > :55:11.on principle, accept that anything I have no confidence
:55:12. > :55:16.he will clear what I want to say. Well, that is my decision
:55:17. > :55:18.and you must accept it. Well, Dudley, I'm afraid you must
:55:19. > :55:28.consider your position. Just like it's predecessor,
:55:29. > :55:32.Yes, Minister, set here in the old Department
:55:33. > :55:41.for Administrative Affairs, people thought of Yes,
:55:42. > :55:43.Prime Minister as less Civil servants and politicians alike
:55:44. > :55:47.used to gossip with the writers and they helped inspire
:55:48. > :55:48.Sir Humphrey Appleby, the doyen of the Civil Service,
:55:49. > :55:51.who had spent his career trying So little that ministers might
:55:52. > :56:12.almost able to do it on their own, Well, I don't know whether
:56:13. > :56:15.I really want power. people don't have power,
:56:16. > :56:18.do you know what happens? But aren't they supposed
:56:19. > :56:24.to in a democracy? This is a British
:56:25. > :56:26.democracy, Bernard. This was Sir Humphrey's eyrie,
:56:27. > :56:29.right next door to Downing Street, so he could keep a beady eye
:56:30. > :56:31.on what Prime Minister Hacker But in case you think
:56:32. > :56:35.the satire is a bit dated, take a look at this extract
:56:36. > :56:38.which might have inspired Jeremy Corbyn's announcement
:56:39. > :56:40.that he would never press that I don't want to obliterate
:56:41. > :56:48.the whole of Eastern Europe. But they don't know that
:56:49. > :56:53.you probably wouldn't use it. Yes, they probably know that
:56:54. > :56:56.you probably wouldn't They probably certainly know that
:56:57. > :56:59.I probably wouldn't. Yes, but even though they probably
:57:00. > :57:02.certainly know that you probably wouldn't they don't certainly know
:57:03. > :57:04.that although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that
:57:05. > :57:06.you certainly would. Snr things haven't changed. What a
:57:07. > :57:25.pertinent discussion. And you can hear more from Shaun
:57:26. > :57:28.Ley's Hackers And Humphreys All, a three-hour celebration to mark
:57:29. > :57:31.Yes Prime Minister's 30th birthday, this Saturday on Radio 4 Extra
:57:32. > :57:34.at 9.00am and again at 7.00pm. With us now, Yes Minister groupie,
:57:35. > :57:40.former Home Office Minister, What is it you love of about it so
:57:41. > :57:44.much? Because it is entirely accurate. David Davis has said that
:57:45. > :57:47.you may think it is a comedy but we, aspiring ministers, think it is a
:57:48. > :57:56.training manual. Margaret Thatcher thought it was a documentary. She
:57:57. > :58:01.fame fame famously took part in a special episode, which wasn't very
:58:02. > :58:08.funny.tives written by Bernard Ingham. Surprise. It not only
:58:09. > :58:15.portrays the question of who runs the country. I once interviewed Gus
:58:16. > :58:19.O'Donnell and asked him what was the first duty of the Civil Service? He
:58:20. > :58:23.said it was to challenge ministers. I think it is extraordinary to say.
:58:24. > :58:29.Did you learn that lesson well. One of the characters were based on you.
:58:30. > :58:33.I was Peter Hennessey of the Times, I turned up as Peter Martel.
:58:34. > :58:37.Humphrey leaked me a document over the club lunch table. I would never
:58:38. > :58:41.accept leaked documents. Before we go, what was the answer to the quiz,
:58:42. > :58:50.the vegetable mentioned? I think it is observer gene. It was
:58:51. > :58:59.cauliflower. I'm disappointed. I will be become with This Week
:59:00. > :59:03.tonight. -- aubergine. Thank you to Nick Herbert. That was
:59:04. > :59:05.the shortest interview ever. Yes. Goodbye.
:59:06. > :59:10.'BBC Two will help you stick to your New Year's resolutions.'