07/01/2016 Daily Politics

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.'