07/01/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 07/01/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Stock markets around the world plunged again this morning


after trading in China's Shanghai stock exchange was suspended


The London FTSE100 is down 3%, there have been similar


falls in Frankfurt and Paris and New York is


With such a dismal global backdrop, Chancellor George Osborne has warned


that the British economy faces a dangerous "cocktail of threats"


from falling stock markets, stagnant emerging markets


Jeremy Corbyn's slow-motion Shadow Cabinet re-shuffle


We'll be talking to Labour's Ken Livingstone.


We'll be looking at Britain's nuclear deterrent.


And Happy Birthday "Yes, Prime Minister"!


The classic sitcom will be 30 years old this weekend.


But does the script still ring true today?


If the right people don't have power, do you know what happens? The


wrong people get it. LAUGHTER Politicians, councillors. But aren't


they supposed to in a democracy? This is a British democracy!


All that in the next hour and with us for the duration his


THE World expert on all things constituional.


Now, first today, lets talk about reports that GCSE


and A level exams could be bought forward this summer to take


into account the impact of Ramadan, when Muslims fast


It's thought the tests could be taken earlier in the day,


when Muslim students are the least hungry,


or even before the start of the traditional exam season


So is this political correctness gone mad, as some tweets have said,


or is this just sensible? Sensible and humane. I used to have some


students when I was teaching at Queen Mary and the University of


London who were Ramadan and they were very weak by the end of the


fast. They would turn up, they were very conscientious, but it did have


a lot of effect on them so I have a lot of sympathy. The Times must


change because it hasn't become an issue that we have particularly


covered in the past. It follows round the calendar, it comes forward


every year, so at this point in the overall Ramadan calendar, it falls


at exam time. But it must have fallen on exam time at some other


stage? A long while ago. On that basis, they say they are not going


to change the dates, the exam board, but they might on rescheduling in


the mornings, just a big things easier. Good idea, sensible, not


political correctness at all. Do you think it will question as some


people have said an attack on British values? We are a society at


the Bowman looking to fallout over rather than to fall in the over.


There is enough to worry about without making farces where there is


no need for a farce. And it seems now that they have taken a sensible


no need for a farce. And it seems view, the exam boards, they might


schedule it in the mornings, make -- no need for a farce. These think


that will be that? -- a fuss. I hope so. He is an emollient mood.


The question for today is all about the Labour reshuffle,


which is technically still going on, but at the height of the drama,


senior Labour officials were overheard discussing a mystery


vegetable, but what was the vegetable?


At the end of the show, Peter will no doubt give us


Or an answer. It is indicative of the life I live that I know the


answer to that question, I really need to get out more often in this


New Year. Today, Chancellor George Osborne,


will issue a warning that the UK economy is facing a "dangerous


cocktail" of new global threats this year, including


slowing global growth. Far cry from the optimistic tone


of his Autumn Statement Mr Osborne is expected to tell


business leaders that Britain risks going into decline if it


eases up on austerity. He'll also say that anyone


who thinks it's "mission accomplished" for the British


economy is making a grave mistake. So what's got Gorgeous George,


all shaken and stirred? Let's take a look at what's


in the Chancellor's dangerous cocktail that could lead


to such a hangover... The turmoil in the Middle East


is one big fear which could have a knock on effect on our


economy, as could low oil prices. They may seem good when we fill


up our cars but there are concerns it could adversely affect


the oil and gas industry as well as countries


who rely on its exports, such as Brazil and Russia where


Mr Osborne foresees "deep problems". The Chinese economy is another


major worry, they had to suspend their stock market


after shares fell by more than 7% for the second time this week,


and many economists believe this year could see the first interest


rate rise since 2007, which could be very bad news


for people with large mortgages, as well as affecting businesses


who want to borrow to expand. The Chancellor argues "the biggest


risk is that people think that it's 'job done'", a clear indication


that he intends to stay Speaking earlier, Mr Osborne


outlined some of the things the government were trying to do


to improve the economy. We do as a country need to invest in


the long term, that is partly how we deal with these risks we face from


abroad, like instability in big markets like China and Brazil, or


problems in the Middle East. And today, we are launching our plans


for a permanent international infrastructure so that Britain


thinks long-term about the big building products we need. We have


built on the big projects we have started like high-speed rail.


And with us now, The Telegraph's Business Editor and economist


Let's start with what has been happening in China and the fallout


through the global stock markets. As I understand it, the People's Bank


of China, the central bank, effectively devalued the Chinese


currency yesterday. The consequence has been that markets around the


world including Shanghai think the Chinese economy could be a lot


weaker than we thought and therefore the global economy could be dragged


further down by it. Absolutely, if you look at what is aptly --


actually happening from trade patterns, shipping, it seems the


Chinese economy has been doing worse than the official figures would


suggest. It is very hard to know exactly how much worse but clearly


China has slowed dramatically, and of course the authorities are trying


to kick-start the economy again but it is clear that emerging market as


a whole, their big crisis that led up last year is continuing and that


will clearly have an effect on the UK economy. It is one of many


reasons why the price of oil has collapsed so much also. What is


happening in China is linked to the stagnation of the decline in


emerging markets too, is that right? Because China, the great buyer of


commodities in its smoke stack days are not buying those commodities in


anything like it, so from oil hitting Russia, two other minerals


hitting Brazil, it is pushing these emerging market into recession?


Absolutely, they are completely connected with one another. It is no


longer the case that the emerging markets produce raw material and the


West buys them. China is one of the main buyers, it has been the engine


of the world economy for at least a decade and one of the reason why the


emerging markets as a whole has powered ahead. Now something of a


reverse. Result is facing a bit of a recession and all of these problems


all over the world, but it is not really new. It is a trend that has


been coming on any year now. I want to ask Miss Bock -- Mr Osborne that


in a minute. The final question on the global backdrop of the remarks


made by the Chancellor on the economy, I see that the global stock


markets in the first six days of this year have lost $2.5 trillion in


value. That of course is people's pensions funds and savings and so


on. Where do we go from here? Markets can be volatile, they can


slump and then bounce back, but there is a big question about equity


prices, stock markets, for quite a while now, the UK fell last year for


example, America stand badly in terms of stock markets, and that is


hitting people's wealth and the ability of companies to raise


capital and invest. It is also sending jitters among investors and


decision-makers. But I think ultimately all of these things are


connected, and the collapse in the price of oil will have severe


geopolitical consequences rather than direct economic consequences.


So I think the biggest danger from the slump in the price of oil is


what happens in the Middle East, what happens to Saudi Arabia. The


secondary impact is these countries that are spending a lot of money in


the UK, Qatar, they were spending huge amounts, buying companies, and


all of that has come to a halt. Let's come then, we have this grim


global backdrop coming into the Chancellor's remarks about how it


means that Britain is nothing but out of the woods yet despite recent


growth. What does the Chancellor know now that he didn't know when he


made his optimistic Autumn Statement at the end of November? That is a


very good question, and one which sadly I don't have the answer to,


but one can surmise to things, one it is possible that tax receipts are


continuing to be weak. But he knew the summer tax receipts were weak


going into the Autumn Statement. Perhaps there is additional


information now, perhaps it does look like his targets will not be


met for the financial year as a whole. These kinds of numbers are


very volatile, they can change, so that perhaps might be one possible


explanation, I'm speculating here. He talks about the need for


mission-critical, that we are not out of the woods, yet in the Autumn


Statement he found on the courtesy of the Office for Budget


Responsibility, 20 odd billion down the Treasury sofa. 27. He didn't use


that to consolidate the budget, to tighten the belt. Yes, and that is a


great paradox of his comments that he will be making today of course on


austerity. He knew a version of all of this just a few months ago, and


it is strange that he didn't continue this... He is open to


criticism, the talks about China, we knew there were troubles, he talks


about Russia, we know that is in recession, Brazil we have known


since the autumn is in the worst recession for 30 years. We know the


Chinese currency was devalued in the summer. Several times. None of this


is new, extreme volatility, that happens, and I think the Chancellor


should have been more prudent a few months ago, identity should have


done what he did and I think he needs to keep a tight grip on public


spending. What is your take on this, Peter? The Treasury always has this


tight and deep pessimism in its DNA. But I think there is a lot on what


the Chancellor is saying, there are multiple fragility is, and Horizon


scanning is a perilous craft, but the problems don't come when there


is a malign and unexpected, nation, if you get two hotting up at the


same time, these fragility is, then the markets get spooked. That the


Middle East and China. And also presidential election in the United


States and autumn, so it will be a rocky year, but most years are


rocky. At the moment. Almost any possible question to answer, but is


this a major correction or is this the beginning of a slide into


another recession? I don't think this is the start of a new major


recession, I could be proved completely wrong in six months but I


really don't think so, there are still quite a lot of growth to be


had at the world economy. People still think the economy will grow


but at a less strong rate. But I think it is a collection. There has


been far too much froth in the economy, the Federal reserve


starting to put up interest rates, things are changing and moving on


and the economy has not fully readjusted from the bad days of the


financial crisis. One final question I forgot to ask you, because you


mentioned interest rates. I would suggest if the economy seemed to be


slowing down a bit, talking about 2% rather than 2.5% growth, slowdown in


the global economy, that although America has started to raise its


rates, British rates may not rise this year. I agree, I don't think


they will come I think he will have to wait even longer before interest


rates go up. For a lot of people it is quite good news to end on, we


better end there. Alastair Heathcote to talk you.


Jeremy Corbyn finalised his Labour front bench


team yesterday, filling posts left vacant by the resignation yesterday


Kevan Jones, Jonathan Reynolds and Stephen Doughty stepped down,


citing policy differences with Mr Corbyn and concern


about the treatment of two sacked colleagues.


The Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, dismissed the three


MPs as part of "a narrow right-wing clique" who refused to accept


Jeremy Corbyn's mandate from party members and supporters.


And on Newsnight last night, Labour front bencher,


wasn't particularly complimentary either.


When you look at some of the other people,


if you look at Jonathan, Reynolds, Mr Dugher,


if you look at some of these others, what do they have in common?


And what you are seeing is people that came up under a certain system,


where you did politics at uni, you became a special advisor,


you became an MP, you became a minister, who are rightfully upset


because Jeremy has brought a whole load of new energy


Well, Jonathan Reynolds hit back on twitter last night.


Joining us now is the former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone,


Welcome to the Daily scam politics. Diane Abbott'sp comments, do you


agree it has fuelled the in-fighting? No, Diane is responding


to this wave of backstabbing by these dis - dis - dis-affected


little group of old Blairites. What we have to remember is Jeremy has


inherited a Parliamentary Labour Party well to the right of the


membership and partly because that's under four general elections under


Blair and Brown, Labour weren't able to select the candidates they want


and keep critical of foreign policy or wanted to crackdown on tax on big


corporations never got into the list. What those MPs cannot now do


is say they have the right to overrule the party membership. You


have called them disaffected Blairites. This is about personal


insults. Do you not think her comments, which proved to be wrong


in terms of accusing Jonathan Reynolds of being a special advisor


is just fuelling the sort of tone and language you used there? She is


responding to a consistent attempt by a disaffected group of MPs to


undermine Jeremy Corbyn since the day he was elected. Well, Jonathan


Reynolds, MacFadden and Dugher. Would you put them in that category?


All of them. We have had all the leaks, coming from Jeremy Corbyn's


key advisors. We were being told I was going to be made a member of the


House of Lords and in the Shadow Cabinet. We knocked that on the


head. I met some of the advisors over the last couple of weeks. They


were really distraught at the amount of time they were having to waste


dealing with the leaks to the press about how Jeremy was going to have a


revenge reshuffle which anyone who voted for Syria would be sacked.


That turned out not to be true. All these people are doing is allowing


the Tory press to go on endlesslied about the conflicts between the


Labour Party, rather than focussing on the economic alternative that


John McDonnell and Jeremy are proposing. They will have to answer


for themselves to some extent but John McDonnell the Shadow Chancellor


has also called the three shadow ministers who resigned a narrow


right-wing clique. The three resignations following on from the


sacking of Pat McFadden and he was sack fwrd being disloyal. Did you


think he had been disloyal? -- for being? Absolutely. That question he


asked was specifically aimed. Over what? Over what motivates


terrorists. The question he asked in Parliament was specifically done to


effectively undermine the position Jeremy is putting. A lot of people


like pact MacFadden who were central to Tony Blair's Government have


never come to terms with the fact that invading Iraq was a disaster T


led to 1 million people, almost all of them innocent civilians, men,


women and children being killed. They can't ever come to terms when


people like myself or Jeremy say - our interventions, overthrowing


governments and trying to control the oil in the Middle East is a big


factor in fuelling terrorism. Hang on a second, so Pat McFadden said in


the Commons, he asked the Prime Minister to reject the view of


seeing terrorists acts as always being a response or reaction to what


we in the West do, that's why he was sacked. You dis'gree with that


statement? I absolutely disagree. So the West brings it on itself. Just


to be clear, as you said on Yes Time. That the West brings the


terrorist attacks, like 7/7, the bombings on itself. No, no. We


don't. The vast majority of people who get killed are innocent


civilians. We have to recognise that Tony Blair was told, when he took


the decision to invade Iraq, he was told by the Security Service, this


will make us an increased risk of being subject to terrorist attacks.


I know that because we were trying to defend ourselves. I need to pull


you up. You said you didn't say that. In November you said on


Question Time, Tony Blair bore responsibility for the London


poppings and you went on to say the 7/7 bombers did the killings because


of our invasion oof I rack. They gave their lives and said what they


believed and took Londoners' lives in protest of the invasion of Iraq.


Do you stand by the comments that you bring the things on ourself? You


have to go and look at the messages they left on their websites where


they were saying that they were doing this because of the way the


West interintervenes in the Middle East. Particularly the invasion of


Iraq. But more than that. They have had Iran subject to nearly a decade


of really damaging sanctions because we fear they might get nuclear


weapons yet Israel brought nuclear weapons into the Middle East and has


had them for nearly 50 years and this has never been any sanctions.


It is a double standard that turns many angry young Muslims into


thinking -- we are being treated as second class citizens in our own


country. You know it caused upset amongst the families of the victims


of 7/7, the words you used. So, to be clear, the leader lead shorep,


and people like you, believe that the actions of the 7/7 bombers were


as a direct result of the actions the West take. Well that's what the


terrorists said. Let's move on to defence. Maria Eagles. Would you


like to have kept her? She has been a friend of mine. You would liked


her to have stayed I will r I would have been happy working with her or


Emily. Whether it was going to be Maria or Emily, we have to look at


the facts. When Tony Blair decided he wanted four new nuclear


submarines they said it would cost ?21 billion. Billion, the Government


has set aside 41 billion now. A lot of your viewers would rather it


stayed as flood defences. What is the timetable in your mind, we will


leave the substance to one side? The timetable in your mind, when will


Labour have a settled position on whether or not to renew the Trident


missile system? If we are lucky it will be before David Cameron


organisations a vote in the House of Commons, or it could take rate right


the way through to the summer. We have to do a lot of detailed


academic research on this. We have been told a lot of old nonsense


about how we have an independent deterrent. The suggestion that they


won't be independent. There is the latest report two years ago to the


Pentagon saying that Russia and China the abilities through a cyber


attack it make our weapons inoperable. The timetable is


quicker. Before I bring in Peter when he iscy. You must


quicker. Before I bring in Peter disappointed that Hilary Benn wasn't


removed, earlier in the week you said he should have been removed


because he held a contradictory opinion. 'Twas a mistake? They had a


long discussion. It took about 20 hours. They have had come to the


understanding where we won't have the Labour Leader opening with one


line and the Shadow Foreign Secretary closing with another. I


notice with the success of the Oldham by-election, the best result


in that constituent, there has been a lot less criticism, including


Hilary, about Jeremy and its policies.


Peter Hennessey, looking at it from the outside, how does the Labour


Leader look to you? I'm not a politician, I'm a cross-bench member


of the House of Lords. It is agony to see this drama in the late. Our


parliamentary system doesn't work unless we have a vibrant and viable


opposition on the tail. Government. It debraids and it is bad for the


Government and opposition and the country. And to he soo the Labour


Party eating itself, day by day is extraordinary. What we are


witnessing is a process of genetically modified of the Labour


Party. It is a very different Labour Party I think Ken would agree from


the run-up to the election, the quad ruling of the membership. It will be


an entirely different Labour Party. I don't know Jeremy Corbyn. I'm


fascinated by him, this man of herb iviour ways and carnivorous views is


deeply intriguing. It seems to me his cunning plan, perhaps not


cunning s to genetically modify the membership and the apex of the


Labour Party, leaving the squeezed middle which happens to be the bulk


of the MPs in the Parliamentary Labour Party. What really worries me


is this Labour Party eating itself and all its investous energy going


into the kind of things Ken has been talking about and we have been


obsessing about in the media for weeks now, almost since the day or


well, since the hour he was elected leader. It is a digs straction from


the primary function of the Labour Party to be the viable opposition in


the House of Commons. -- it is a distraction.


Let's talk more about Trident itself. While we have been talking,


breaking news t remains tense on the streets of Paris today. The


anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo and a man has been shot by the police on


the streets of Paris trying to enter a police station. According to


reports he was carrying a knife and wearing suicide vest. According to


the ministry of interior in Paris he shouted Allahu Akbar as he trued to


enter the station. Anyway, he was shot in the way in. That will add to


the tensions. We will you more as we get it. On the anniversary of


Charlie Hebb doe. You will probably remember if you watch, we were live


on air as that unfolded. So, Jeremy Corbyn's got a brand


new Shadow Defence Secretary, and she's not that keen on keeping


up Britain's nuclear deterrent. I think it's fair to say,


Emily Thornberry wouldn't get The move comes before a debate,


and vote, on the so-called "maingate" decision to order four


new Vanguard nuclear-armed submarines to be based


at the Faslane naval The vote is expected


later this year. Here's our Giles to


get us up to speed. To its supporters, it is CAS-D, the


Continuous At Sea Deterrent, responsible for keeping the UK safe.


To its opponents, it's immoral, vastly expensive, outmoded and


irrelevant. Roger one, Roger two. To those who work on board, it's


operation Operation Relentless. It is a correctly awe tenticated fire


control message. I concur. Ship control, take the ship for a weapons


test. Four submarines with nuclear war head carrying type 2 D5 nuclear


missiles in rotation of service, re-fit training and operation, such


that one is at sea hidden every second of every day, if the Prime


Minister ever wanted to authorise a new clear strike. Much is made of


renewing Trident. But actually, we are doing no such ho -- thing. It is


to do with us and the Americans a different decision for a politician.


We are looking at replacing the carriers of the missile. The Trident


missile won't be up for discussion until 2030, 20 #450e. Parliament has


already voted, in 2007, by 409 votes by 261 to commit to the submarine


successor programme. It's the final no-going back vote, called Maingate


that is expected soon, and now things have changed.


As we speak, the Conservative and Labour Parties are still committed


to renewal. The Tories will continue to be.


But Jeremy Corbyn leads the Labour Party now.


He's long been against renewal, has said, if in number 10 he wouldn't


push the button, is having a review of Labour's policy and has just


replaced his defence spokesperson from one in favour to one who isn't


I don't think being against nuclear weapons is that Saddam Husseiny. If


you look at how much it is going to cost P #13ds 00 billion on weapons


we won't be in charge of, the Americans will be in charge of. Will


he ever want to use? The ultimate weapons of mass destruction. As it


happens, as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,


under Article 6, the UK is committed to nuclear disarmament over time.


And it is not just about Labour. The Lib Dems don't favour like-for-like


replacement and a former Conservative Defence Secretary is


very candid. It is neither independent because we couldn't use


it without the Americans, neither is it any sort of deterrent because now


largely we are facing the sorts of enemies, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda who


cannot be deterred enemies, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda who


weapons. Its a tremendous waste of money. There are those who agree,


though many from parts of the more conventional military that have


often eyed Trident's funding with envy, especially when committed to


difficult combat missions but it won't takes a North Korean lady in


pink as a reminder that there are states with nuclear weapons and


wants more. The costs are in the hundreds of billions. It is hard to


know because of the classified nature of the work. The subs won't


be in the water until 2028. But the degate will be remains and the


submarine will still be patrolling. And with us now, Chair


of the Defence Select Committee, Conservative MP, Julien Lewis


and Ken Livingstone who is in charge of Labour's Defence Review


is still with us. Ken, you are leading the Labour


defence review into Trident, along with the new Shadow Secretary, Emily


Thornberry. You are both opposed to renewing Trident. Your leader of the


party is opposed to renewing it, the chances of you coming out in favour


of it, would I say are zero, sthant right? 00, because there are


different options here, do we keep them existing ones to the end of


their life, or should we spend ?41 billion on getting four new


submarines and I don't think that is the best use of money. So you have


made up your the best use of money. So you have


Trident? If someone can demonstrate that it is worthwhile, I can be


suspended. You have always been a unilateral disarmament a perfectly


principled position to take it has been your long-held view, nothing


could be said to change mind on that, that is the honest truth, be


honest with our viewers on this. No, no, if you are America or Russia,


you have a vast military nuclear Arsenal, you can start a war and win


it. We have just enough nuclear weapons to start a war, not to win


it. So it would be a suicide mission to launch an attack on Russia. What


evidence is there that we would ever use nuclear weapons to start a war?


What is the point of having them otherwise? To stop people attacking


you. No, no, they didn't stop the Argentinians invading the Falkland


Islands, and that I think is the most striking situation here. That


demonstrated having nuclear weapons did not... They were never designed


to stop Argentina invading the Falkland Islands, that is not the


purpose of Britain's nuclear deterrent, you know that and I know


that. But if we got rid of our nuclear deterrent, would you be


happy to live under the Nato American nuclear deterrent? That is


the reality of this. There is a vast Russian Arsenal, a vast American


Arsenal, Britain and France are just side shows. But we are in a nuclear


alliance with America, would you be happy if we declared unilateral


nuclear disarmament, which is essentially your position, would you


be happy to live under an American nuclear umbrella? We are, there is


nothing we can do about it. Are you in favour of it? We are actually


allies with America, and I know that this pleases you. I am just trying


to work out would it be moral to get rid of our nuclear weapons but still


be happy to live under the nuclear protection of the United States? You


don't have a choice. America is the main nuclear power in the West. The


issue is we in favour of being attacked by Russia? That is


nonsense. We could leave Nato then we wouldn't be under American


nuclear protection, should we do that? You still work, because


America, if there is an American -- an invasion of anywhere in Western


Europe, would use its nuclear weapons against Russia. It is a


disastrous economic state, it hasn't got the resources to actually launch


a world war. There is no prospect of that happening. Should we leave


Nato? That is one of the things we will look at, many people would want


to do that, I don't think it is a particularly big issue because of


the Cold War it was, it isn't now. Russia is not planning to invade the


West. Are you sound as part of your defence review, not only are you


looking we should renew the nuclear deterrent but you are also looking


at whether we should remain members of Nato or not? There will be people


making those suggestions. For me, the main consideration is it doesn't


really matter if you are in Nato or not terribly much because the Cold


War is over. If we are to stay in Nato, what is its role going to be?


Invading more countries in the Middle East? I am not in favour of


that. We are signed up to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,


the second pillar of that states that nuclear weapons should pursue


disarmament, will pursue disarmament, how can we remain part


of that treaty and renewed Trident? You have to look at the treaty


provision in full, and what it actually says, and funnily enough I


thought you might bring it up, is that each of the parties undertakes


to pursue negotiations on good faith on effective measures in Malaysian


to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and a...


Surely renewing Trident is an escalation of the nuclear arms race?


No, it isn't, first of all there will be no change under Trident and


what is proposed now, because the Trident missiles and the warheads at


many years of life left in them yet. All we are doing at the moment is


renewing four submarines that carry the missiles, but coming back to the


treaty, the point about it is the provision of the treaty is to end


the nuclear arms race. But it is not. As Ken Livingstone said, the


Russians and the Americans have actually got much larger arsenals


than we have, they have got massive overkill capacity, we have a


strategic minimum nuclear deterrent. Where he is wrong, I must make this


point, is in saying that we are a sideshow. We can inflict


unacceptable damage. It makes no difference to us if another country


can annihilate as 50 times over. Having signed a treaty meant to stop


proliferation, if we renew Trident will become part of the nuclear arms


race, the Iranians have tried to develop one, we have seen what North


Korea may have been trying to do, Pakistan is going through a massive


modernisation... You are absolutely wrong! We do not become part of the


nuclear arms race, we have never been part of the nuclear arms race,


neither have France, neither have China. All three of the five powers


that were allowed to have nuclear weapons under the treaty, all three,


China, France and ourselves have pursued a policy of minimum


strategic nuclear deterrence, and it has been the superpowers that were


arms racing, and over the years since the end of the Cold War, their


totals have come down. Who is Trident defending us from? Against


any future potential aggressor who might blackmail or attack us with


nuclear weapons was that who? If I knew that, I would be a politician,


I must answer the question if you ask it, I would be writing old Moore


's almanac, because the history of almost all the wars, with the


possible exception of World War II, that we have been involved in


throughout the 20th century is that we never had much advance warning of


who the aggressor was going to be. These things take us by surprise or


at very short notice. Peter Hennessy, Ken Livingstone says two


things, one that our independent nuclear deterrent is not independent


and we could not use it without American approval, and secondly that


it is highly honourable, that the Russians and Chinese could probably


take it out in a cyber attack anyway so would-be Rhoose -- useless, is he


right? Separate from anything to do with the internet, so it is cyber


proof. Just to check, our deterrent is cyber proof? The site site -- the


command and control, from the Prime Minister to the captain of the boat


is quite removed from any cyber attack because it is old technology,


it is not in the modern age. Air gap. That is the technical term. It


is also operationally independent from the United States, the United


States president is the one who could really disarm us but he could


do that by 1963 Polaris sales agreement, and within about a year


we would be out of the business. Because of needing the missiles. But


operationally, is our deterrent independent or not? It is, and in a


book I published just before Christmas, we have a letter from


Frank Miller, who was the leading figure in the Pentagon throughout


several administrations and out with the British to Tarrant, saying in


cold print for the first time a thing that has happened


unequivocally, that it is operationally independent. There is


no switch the United States president can flick to stop a


British ballistic missile flying, not that there is any intention to


let a British ballistic missile fly. Ken Livingstone, do you think you


should call it a Hennessy to your enquiry to find out why you are


wrong of it being vulnerable to cyber attacks and that it is


operationally independent? The simple fact is a scientific report


for the Pentagon in 2013 said our nuclear weapons were subject to a


cyber attack, other people disagreeing with that. One of the


reasons we are having a defence review, we were to try to get a copy


of that report and get people who are criticising it to see if it is


true or not. This is the problem. Earlier you claimed that it was.


That it was subject to cyber attack that was your view. Now you are


saying it is a matter of debate. That report says we are subject to a


cyber attack. We are clearly going to have a debate and try to examine


it. If it turns out not to be true, that is something we can dismiss but


we want to test that, because it will be vast sums of new money.


Should you test it before you make the statements about it? I asked --


you ask me a question, I told you what we know already, there has been


a report to the Pentagon saying we are subject to a cyber attack, let's


see if it is true or not. Julian Lewis, is there a Pentagon report


that says we could be subject to a cyber attack? I read the newspaper


accounts of these reports, and it is highly speculative. Not entirely


without grounds then. There is a document from some people who say


this might be the case and it has been authoritatively rebutted by no


less a person than Dr Frank Miller, who is the key person in this area.


A very simple thing, Jeremy Corbyn is utterly sincere in his opposition


to British nuclear weapons come about the difference is Jeremy is


not doing what Kerry is doing, Jeremy Zuttah open about it, Ken is


pretending to have an open mind. Viewers will make their mind up


about that. We will have to leave it there. -- is open about it.


David Cameron is on another round of talks with his European


chums, ahead of the referendum on whether the UK stays or leaves


He's been meeting the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel,


in Bavaria before heading off for discussions in Budapest


with his Hungarian counterpart, Victor Orban.


This morning, the PM claimed the talks were going well.


I am even more confident after the excellent discussions I have had


here in Bavaria with colleagues in the CSU that these things are


possible, not just good for Britain but good for Europe, not simply


because other European countries will benefit by Britain continuing


to be a member of Europe, but I think it is important that this


organisation shows it has the flexibility of a network and can


address concerns of individual members, rather than the rigidity of


a block. I am confident we can reach good conclusions but it will take a


lot of hard work, but I have been very heartened by the goodwill I


felt from fellow sister party members in the CSU here in Bavaria


today. With us now, clinical Well, clinical this morning the UKIP


Leader, Nigel Farage, politicians to put their political


differences aside ahead of the EU know one should really be amazed


that you two are joining forces, Nigel? The story over the last few


months has been that the leave campaign is divided, they are at


each other's throats, people are vying for position, and what this


initiative led by Peter, and I am just a foot soldier following and


hoping, there will be six of us on the platform in a couple of weeks'


time and it will be the first of the big rolling series of meetings that


will go right across the United Kingdom. There was a big positive


message, what other difference is we might have had, irrelevant compared


to what we see is the most important vote we will have in our lifetimes.


You agree on that but lots of other things as well. Ruud where you are


slightly wrong, go, grassroots out, that is a organisation set up by


myself, we're bringing together Labour, Conservative, Ukip, DUP and


nonaligned to work together at grassroots. Whatever the different


people argue about, locally we are going to work together as one team


and that is what is new. That has never happened before. What about


the other groups? You say you have been united, but there have been


problems and splits. There have been the two groups and there has been


evidence for it in the sense that there has been infighting between


yourself and Mr Carswell. I said quite the opposite because Mr


Carswell backs one of those two groups that are vying for the


umbrella group. We have no idea when the referendum will be. You said it


would be in June. You almost made a bet on this programme. It may well


be, but the point about Go, it is let's get off our backsides, get out


and get campaigning and that is what we will do. Are you talking to


Eurosceptic ministers who will now be offered a campaign freely? Have


you talked to? LAUGHTER Eurosceptic ministers. Names,


please! You know that they can't actually come out until the


negotiations are finished, which will probably be in February, but


there are ministers talking to us now. We will be setting up Go groups


across the country everywhere, it is the working together. It is the


first time I have ever known Labour, Ukip, conservatives working together


on the ground and that is the key thing. From eight Go point of view,


we don't care who gets negotiation, but you are talking about two


groups, there are actually about 40 groups. We are getting them united


on the ground. You cannot wait until mid-June to do it, we have to get up


and running now and that is what we are doing. What about Boris


Johnson's comments this morning, sounding pretty Eurosceptic, or


hedging his bets one might say. He keeps on doing this! O We discussed


this earlier. We want Boris Johnson and as many high-profile figures as


possible, who knows, maybe even the Prime Minister. He might come back


disappointed. Due believe that? Not for a moment. I asked in the Commons


whether he would liked to join Go. He said he would consider it and


make his decision after negotiation. And wouldn't it be wonderful if the


Prime Minister decided to campaign to leave the EU. I think that would


help enormously. Are you an in or outer? Aim I'm remain. I can't wait


for the Kettering. We have not been able to handy it since Monet turned


up from Paris, with a coal and steel plan. The reason we cannot handle


it, it is not left-right, our country is not he auto quipped to


handle the European question, it busts ups parties and families and


also, I don't want to be unkind. You are both in benign mood, so am I.


Your side of the argument is is lop Trotskyite in its capacity to have


splits. If you can pull it off, it is quite something. That's the point


about it. The youngest Conservative MP, is a founder member of Go. He is


not old or young, it is cross-party, cross-age. Fascinating, though this


is, we have to stop it there. The latest news from Paris is the


man who tried to enter the police station with a knife and perhaps an


explosive vest has been shot dead by the police.


Now to the UK's relationship with Saudi Arabia -


because the Government has been criticised for failing to condemn,


directly, the execution of a prominent Shia cleric at the weekend


as part of a mass execution of 47 alleged terrorists.


Instead, a junior Foreign Office Minister expressed "disappointment"


The UK-Saudi relationship was dismissed as sycophantic


by the Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, and Labour called


for an end to judicial cooperation with Riyadh.


Let's talk now to Jane Kinninmont from Chatham House.


How important is the British relationship to Britain w Saudi


Arabia? It's an important trade partner and also an important


partner in counter-terrorism and intelligence-sharing. All this in


the context of a Middle East where many of the traditional governments


had been massively weakened over the past few years and the gulf


government are some of the few still standing. In the be stand-off


between Iran and Saudi Arabia and we have learned this morning, at least


the Iranians are claiming their diplomatic quarters in the 'em very


has been bombed by Saudi jets, they are both fighting a proxy war there,


the Iranians and Saudis. Does Britain have a side? Are Saudis


allies and Iran not? Britain has traditionally been closer to Saudi


Arabia but is trying to balance that relationship with Iran, even as both


countries abuse human rights and are stepping up the ruse of the death


penal titch but one of the reasons that Saudi Arabia is currently quite


on the defences, is that it has a fear that its Western allies are on


the brink of eye ban donning it in favour of Iran. That fear is


misplaced and everstated but in Riyadh, it is very real. Thank you


for joining us this morning. And we're joined now


by the Conservative MP and member of the Foreign Affairs Select


Committee, Daniel Kawczynski, Nigel Farage, you have talked about


Britain having, "reshi its relationship" is a yudy oar andia.


We are always saying they are great friends of ours and trading


partners. We do a lot of trade but it is interesting, if you talk to


experts on the growth of jihad #i678, extremism, whether in this


country or across the rest of Europe. Every single independent


expert would say the big change was large amounts of Saudi money, coming


into the mosque, pushing an interpretation of the Koran which is


extreme indeed. Look at what has been happening in Syria Ian Iraq. I


understand that. That's the case Forestieri a thinking of the the


financing. But what would a rethink mean? I think it would mean that we


would actually have to make sure that if Saudi money is coming into


British mosques and funding extremism, it would have to be


declared. We need transparency for Saudi money. It is coming into


British mosques. We know but we don't know the extent or amount.


There should be a proper transparency register. Should we


stop selling them arms? transparency register. Should we


stop selling them arms. Not that much of a rethink? If there was a


breakdown of diplomatic relations that led us to selling them fewer


arms that would be a prays woefrt paying. We go on pretending they are


our best chums in the middle East. I'm not sure they are. Should we be


rethinking our relationship with Saudi Arabia. Certainly no. We have


had a good relationship for decades chld our royal families have a very


good working relationship. Is that something to boast about it? It is.


It is in our strategic interest to be very close to Saudi oar and why.


I understand the strategic interest, but is it something to boast about,


that our Royal Family should be close to a regime which has done so


many institutions recently that it has run out of trained beheaders.


Well I think there are 47 countries in the world that killings of people


who are being convicted for crimes of this nature. So Saudi Arabia is


not the only country. No, but it is our ally. But it is very important


that we continue to engauge with Saudi Arabia it make representations


when we disagree with them, as we do on a regular basis. We can't just


stop relations with them, as Jeremy Corbyn would have us do and have no


contact with them. When we go to Saudi oar and y we make very strong


representations on the things we disagree with. What difference has


that made When I first went to Saudi Arabia, there were no women, for


example, in the council. Now 30% of their representatives are women.


Women have now been able to take part in elections. They still can't


drive. Well, it is moving at a slow pace. What evidence is there that we


have played any role in that? I think the Saudis are interested in


having a close relationship with the u Nationwide kingdom. Is there


anything that we have done for women's rights? I have no evidence


that we have asked for very much, that has played a role in that? It


is that contact that we have with NGOs and human rights organisations


when we go to Saudi. When we go, we leave our minders hyped and go and


engage with women's rights organisations one-to-one and they


get comfort that British politicians are coming out to support them and


to he help them to campaign for their rights. So we should be doing


our right for women's rights but whatted about the fact that the


Saudis have refused to take a single refugee or migrant from Syria or


Iraq and yet will be funding. Would you disagree with experts that they


have been funding extremism in British mosques? Isn't it time we


said no to Saudi money coming into mosques? Do you not accept that


there is damage being done by Saudi money coming in? Whether it is Saudi


or Kuwait. They are President Al-Sadr to get away with


ethnicically cleansing its country. Doesn't Saudi Arabia cleanse its owe


Pope sneents no. It has executed 47 people. And those 47 were convicted


by an independent judiciary, by 15 judges that they were involved in


terrorist acts, we also eliminate opponents worldwide who were


involved in terrorism. I'm afraid we have to - I must explain to our


viewers, because we overran with the Trident discussion, with Mr


Livingstone we have run out of time but we will come back. Thank you for


being with us. Now, Saturday is the 30th


anniversary of the first broadcast All these years later,


the BBC comedy is still quoted by politicians


and the watching commentariat. So why does it have


such lasting appeal? If you were watching


the Nine O'Clock News 30 years ago, it was all about the shock


resignation of Defence Secretary. But if you wanted real political


insight, well you should have been As always, BBC Two,


because on the same night, Yes, Prime Minister was born and it


soon had its own take Point one, everyone will accept


collective decisions, Point 2, there will now be a cooling


off period on the subject All speeches and press statements


must in future be cleared We can't cool off discussion


on something that hasn't been discussed yet and I cannot,


on principle, accept that anything I have no confidence


he will clear what I want to say. Well, that is my decision


and you must accept it. Well, Dudley, I'm afraid you must


consider your position. Just like it's predecessor,


Yes, Minister, set here in the old Department


for Administrative Affairs, people thought of Yes,


Prime Minister as less Civil servants and politicians alike


used to gossip with the writers and they helped inspire


Sir Humphrey Appleby, the doyen of the Civil Service,


who had spent his career trying So little that ministers might


almost able to do it on their own, Well, I don't know whether


I really want power. people don't have power,


do you know what happens? But aren't they supposed


to in a democracy? This is a British


democracy, Bernard. This was Sir Humphrey's eyrie,


right next door to Downing Street, so he could keep a beady eye


on what Prime Minister Hacker But in case you think


the satire is a bit dated, take a look at this extract


which might have inspired Jeremy Corbyn's announcement


that he would never press that I don't want to obliterate


the whole of Eastern Europe. But they don't know that


you probably wouldn't use it. Yes, they probably know that


you probably wouldn't They probably certainly know that


I probably wouldn't. Yes, but even though they probably


certainly know that you probably wouldn't they don't certainly know


that although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that


you certainly would. Snr things haven't changed. What a


pertinent discussion. And you can hear more from Shaun


Ley's Hackers And Humphreys All, a three-hour celebration to mark


Yes Prime Minister's 30th birthday, this Saturday on Radio 4 Extra


at 9.00am and again at 7.00pm. With us now, Yes Minister groupie,


former Home Office Minister, What is it you love of about it so


much? Because it is entirely accurate. David Davis has said that


you may think it is a comedy but we, aspiring ministers, think it is a


training manual. Margaret Thatcher thought it was a documentary. She


fame fame famously took part in a special episode, which wasn't very


funny.tives written by Bernard Ingham. Surprise. It not only


portrays the question of who runs the country. I once interviewed Gus


O'Donnell and asked him what was the first duty of the Civil Service? He


said it was to challenge ministers. I think it is extraordinary to say.


Did you learn that lesson well. One of the characters were based on you.


I was Peter Hennessey of the Times, I turned up as Peter Martel.


Humphrey leaked me a document over the club lunch table. I would never


accept leaked documents. Before we go, what was the answer to the quiz,


the vegetable mentioned? I think it is observer gene. It was


cauliflower. I'm disappointed. I will be become with This Week


tonight. -- aubergine. Thank you to Nick Herbert. That was


the shortest interview ever. Yes. Goodbye.


'BBC Two will help you stick to your New Year's resolutions.'


Download Subtitles