22/04/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 22/04/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.


Barack Obama jets into London to wish the Queen a happy birthday


and tell the Brits we're better off staying in the EU.


Boris Johnson says the president should keep his views to himself,


but what impact will his comments have on the referendum?


President Obama will meet David Cameron in Downing


Top of their agenda, the fight against Islamic State.


We'll discuss the military campaign against Isis.


With less than two weeks until London goes to the polls


to elect a new mayor, we'll take a look at the campaign to


And who's had a good week and who's had a shocker?


We'll review the political week in just 60 seconds.


And with us for the duration, writer and journalist, Iain Martin,


and the Guardian's political editor, Anushka Asthana.


So Barack Obama arrived in the UK last night,


ahead of a big lunch at Windsor Castle today to celebrate


But it's President Obama's comments on the EU referendum -


rather than his birthday wishes to our monarch - that are sure


to dominate the headlines for the next 24 hours.


We're expecting the president to say more in a press conference


with the PM this afternoon, but in an article in today's


telegraph he's already said: "The European Union doesn't moderate


A strong Europe is not a threat to Britain's global leadership.


It enhances Britain's global leadership."


President Obama's wholehearted support for the Remain campaign has


obviously irritated Leave supporters, who have suggested


the US president should keep his views to himself.


Here's Nigel Farage talking to me last night


on This Week about whether he's right to intervene.


I was in Washington last year, meeting senators who


thought the EU was like Nafta, just like a friendly trade club.


A less generous one is that it's in his interests


of big giant American corporate businesses


that Britain stays part of the EU,


Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership treaty.


And earlier this morning, Boris Johnson also emerged


to criticise Barack Obama for his stance on the UK's


It's always very good to hear from Barack Obama.


I'm a big fan of Barack Obama on any subject.


But clearly, this is something where we have a disagreement,


and I do think it's perverse that we're being urged


by the United States to embroil ourselves ever more deeply


in a system where our laws, 60% of them are now emanating


from the EU, when the United States would not dream


of subjugating itself in any way


to any other international jurisdiction.


Let's talk now to our correspondent Sarah Campbell,


Sarah, I guess for the next couple of hours, any way, the politics gets


put aside by the ceremony of this lunch between the president and the


Queen. Indeed. It is a private lunch, but wouldn't it be


fascinating to be a fly on the wall on that lunch? We're not going to


hear about what is being discussed. As you say, the president and the


First Lady due to be arriving by helicopter shortly. They will go


into Windsor Castle. They have met the Queen on two previous occasions,


a state visit in 2011 at Buckingham Palace. That was memorable for the


picture of Michelle Obama with her arm around the waist of the Queen,


going rather against royal protocol. It was taken as a sign that the two


couples are quite close, that they have struck up a friendship. They


met in 2009 again on a private visit. But when Mr Obama was asked


in that Daily Telegraph interview, obviously this is a visit, very


close to the EU referendum, that's why his comments about the EU have


caused such headlines, but he said about the visit to the Queen and the


timing that simply he wanted to wish her a happy birthday in person. That


is of course what he's going to do here today. He will leave here, go


back to London, have the press conference with David Cameron. This


evening, another royal engagement, Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and


Prince Harry are hosting a dinner for the couple this evening. They


met William in 2014. Michelle Obama has met Harry a number of times,


because she's been a very vocal supporter of the Invictus Games. A


royal connection between the first family and the Queen and the rest of


the Royal Family. Two royal meals in one day for the president of a great


republic. You wonder why they had a revolution in the first place. Let


me ask you, is Michelle Obama, is the First Lady going to either the


lurchl, dinner or both? Both. Absolutely. The couple are both.


They will be arriving here very shortly. You remember presidents


have been here before. The Queen famously has met 11 of the last 12


US presidents. Two of them have been here at Windsor Castle, George Bush


and Ronald Regan. He was riding into the great park with the Queen. A


tight schedule today. I don't think we'll get that photo opportunity.


But it will be an interesting visit no less. Enjoy yourself covering


that event. If you want to get into the lunch, mention my name, I'm sure


that open a few doors. I'll do my best. What do you think? The think


the Brexiteers would be advised to take the day off. I mean... That's


not bad advice. I'm in the a great fan of Barack Obama personally, but


the guy looks great. He's about to be pictured all day being nice to


the Queen. He's the leader of the free world. Let's face it, if there


were an election tomorrow in which the two candidates were Nigel Farage


and Barack Obama in Britain, Obama would win by a landslide. What about


Boris, more chance? Possibly more chance. Two Americans, Boris and Mr


Obama. There's a danger for Brexiteers that it looks to normal


people watching the television news bulletins as though footage of Obama


looking cool, followed by footage of angry Brexit man shouting about


Obama. Are you saying that Nigel Farage being on my programme This


Week is not the equivalent of Mr Obama being with the Queen? Close!


It's quite an early intervention in the sense we're two months away from


the day. It's a powerful intervention in the sense that the


president doesn't, he doesn't speak in diplomatic code. He talks of we


have shed blood together in common battles, we have stood for common


values and so on. It's a no holds barred endorsement of the Remain


position We definitely know what the president thinks from the article


today. I think that it is very powerful. I mean, the Leave


campaigners had an argument that perhaps all the Remain arguments


were a bit OTT. The NHS would break down, there would be a lost


generation, we're waiting for a plague of frogs. But this week it


does start to feel a little bit like, you know, actually, these are


pretty powerful arguments, the former US Treasury secretary, now


President Obama. The Leave campaigners feel they need to hit


back. That Boris Johnson article out today. That's in the Sun. Does he


describe Mr Obama as part Kenyan? What he does is he refers to the


Kenyan ancestry of Barack Obama. He talks about a Winston Churchill bust


being moved out of the Oval Office when Barack Obama became president.


Number Ten that actually happened before he joined. But nevertheless,


that's the argument that Boris Johnson is making. He's essentially


arguing that some said the ancestry, the Kenyan ancestry makes him


anti-British. Oh, I see. People raising questions about that. Yvette


Cooper this morning saying actually that is bad judgment. If he was


anti-British, why urge us to stay in the EU which he thinks is in our


interests? You could make that choice. They would say he's not


talking about Britain's interests but support Forjatt the EU -- for


the EU. There's a long while to go and This could all be forgotten. But


so far this week the Remain has President Obama and Leave's got Mr


Botham. And Marine Le Pen. And Bernie Ekey. -- Bernie Ecclestone.


That was bad. Not a good comparison. By the time it gets to June 23,


we'll see if we even remember any of this. A long way to go.


What sports team did the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn,


say he suspected the Queen privately supports, when he paid tribute


a) St Louis Cardinals baseball team


c) Montreal Canadiens ice hockey team


d) Wigan Warriors rugby club


At the end of the show, Iain and Anushka will give


I bet you know it. Do you? Don't tell!


So, we're expecting Barack Obama to give a joint press conference


in the Locarno Room of the Foreign Office.


It's a grand space, and David Cameron will be


Before that, the president will hold talks on a range of issues


Top of their agenda will be discussions on countering


the terrorist threat from the so-called Islamic State.


More than 25,000 fighters have been killed and 22,000 targets damaged


or destroyed since August 2014, when coalition airstrikes


in Syria and Iraq began, according to Downing Street.


The president's visit comes as America increases


The US has agreed to deploy an additional 200 military


Eight Apache helicopters are also being deployed for the first time


It comes as the Iraqi government puts an offensive to retake


The Iraqi army has been make prog gross in a number of areas, but in


the determination to retake Mosul, after three weeks of fighting, it


had only captured three villages, casting doubt on whether it has the


capability to take back Iraq's second city.


Meanwhile in Syria, the truce, brokered as part of UN-led peace


negotiations in Geneva, came under threat as opposition rebels


The Syrian government has accused rebel groups of taking part


in fighting around Aleppo, breaking terms of the truce.


While rebels say they have been defending themselves.


However, there was better news this week in Libya,


with IS militants said to have been pushed out of the city of Derna,


retreating along the coast to their stronghold of Sirte.


Which they still hold along with about 180 miles of the Mediterranean


coastline on either side of the city.


Philip Hammond, travelled to Libya, where he said it was "quite


possible" that the UK would receive a request from Tripoli for naval


Let's talk now to our defence correspondent, Jonathan Beale.


Let's begin in Iraq and then move on to Libya. How do you assess the


position of the Iraqi forces as they attempt to retake Mosul at the


moment? How serious is this setback? Well, I think it's a setback. What


you've had from the US is the response that they have essentially


put pressure on Iraq to accept these Apache helicopters, not a lot of


them, eight, as you say. But there is now US artillery also surrounding


Mosul, including rocket artillery. You've had an increase of US


military personnel, another 200 people, US military personnel, in


the country. And you have the US advisors going in to battalion


level, not just brigade level, in other words getting closer to the


fight. That tells you that I think Americans are worried that the


Iraqis need support. They are obviously very cautious and not


overriding the Iraqi government. But they realise the Iraqi security


forces need help, if they are going to retake Mosul. And everybody, all


the military commanders I've spoken to say, that is the goal this year.


To be taken seriously they've got to start doing that. At the moment,


they haven't been successful. What do you make of these figures coming


out of Downing Street that 25,000 fighters have been killed in the


accumulation of allied air strikes against Islamic State in Iraq and in


Syria? Well, I think the first thing to say is I think you should treat


any figures cautiously, in that there are not boots on the ground as


in most conflicts. This is also a claim that there are no civilian


casualties. It's hard to identify exactly what's going on on the


ground. That figure of 25,000 is the same essentially, the Downing Street


street figure, as the US-led coalition figure. The problem has


been in the past that they said there were only 25,000 fighters on


the ground, they killed that number already and still there are more.


You have to be cautious about the figures but yes, a lot of Is


fighters have been killed. They are being targeted. US forces have been


going into snatch senior IS commanders on the ground. A lot of


people have been killed, IS commanders, fighters, still they are


clearly able to hold a lot of ground. The focus now seems to be


increasingly on Libya, where IS has a stronghold around the town of


Sirte. Because of the attacks in Iraq and Syria, a number of IS


people have fled from there and gone to there. They had a setback in


Syria, am I right in thinking they're still around that town and


the coastline, IS is pretty well dug in there? It's an important force in


Libya? If you're talking about Syria...


Sorry, I meant Libya. In the BR, IS is a huge worry for the US and for


Britain that IS has strong foothold in Syria. That is why they have been


hoping for this invites from one of the governments in Libya to put


trainers on the ground. We had those reports earlier that 1000 British


trainers were ready to go in. The invitation has not come in and it


has become clear from my conversations with British ministers


that they may not get the invitation. That said, Philip


Hammond has said as support of the positivity, plus maritime support


and train the coastguard to tackle the migration crisis, which is also


linked to the chaos going on in Libya at the moment. But really,


they haven't got a problem functioning government that is


confident enough to invite foreign forces in. There will be a meeting


with President Obama and other senior leaders like David Cameron in


Hanover soon to talk about Libya and try and look at the way forward. But


at the moment, the problem is that there was not a government that has


much clout and has the confidence to invite foreign forces in, and that


may backfire. So they are stuck at the moment. It is a worrying


situation, and they are not able to do much. Thanks for joining us.


We've been joined now from Southampton by the Conservative


MP and chairman of the Defence Select Committee, Julian Lewis.


Even if the Downing Street figures need to be taken with some kind of


warning, is it not clear to you that although you oppose these air


strikes, they are having an effect on degrading Islamic State in Iraq


and Syria? Well, you do have to take such figures with caution and I


noticed that a combined figure was given for alleged inflicted


casualties in both Iraq and Syria. The truth is that there has been a


credible air effort in Iraq, because there are forces on the ground,


Iraqi government forces, in support of which the air strikes are being


carried out. There have been far fewer such strikes in Syria. The


problem in Syria is that the government cannot make up its own


mind to choose one of the two not very attractive alternatives, namely


that the Assad regime succeeds or that the Islamists succeed. An air


power by itself is hardly ever decisive. Wars have to be won by


ground forces with air power in support. In Syria, we lack the


ground forces that we are supposed to be supporting, where the Russians


have ground forces that they are supporting. It is called the Syrian


army. But presumably you are not arguing for ground forces. No, I am


not. In 2013, I was one of the 39 conservative and Lib Dem so-called


rebels who prevented us picking the same disastrous mistake in Syria,


namely pulling down another dictator and replacing it with another


Islamist state, as had been made in both Iraq and Libya. So was a good


thing that Mr Putin went in to essentially says Mr Assad? Well, it


depends on whether you believe, as the Government believes, that there


is a third democratic, pluralistic option other than the authoritarian


dictatorship of Assad on the wrong hand and another Islamist radical


state on the other. But assuming there is not an Islington Labour


Party ready to take over Syria, which I think is a fair assumption,


was it a good thing that Mr Putin stopped Assad been toppled? It is


absolutely a good thing not to pull down Arab dictators if the result is


that you get another radical Islamist state. So the answer is, it


is not good that there are these dictators in power, it is just less


bad than the alternative. I want to move on to Libya, because it is


connect to the migration crisis. But firstly, you voted against these air


strikes. Of course, those of us who began our journalism in the Vietnam


era were well taught to take official figures with a pinch of


salt, but could you not admit that the air campaign has been more


effective than its critics have said, otherwise why would these


Islamic State militants be fleeing Syria to go to Libya? I don't agree


with that, for the simple reason that I did not vote against air


strikes in Iraq. In Iraq, there were ground forces which can benefit from


the use of air strikes and therefore, I supported them. In


Syria, however, the only ground forces that really count are the


ground forces of the Assad dictatorship on the one hand and a


ground forces of the Islamists on the other. And in Syria, there is


little evidence of air strikes by us having anything other than a


marginal effect, which is exactly what critics like myself predicted


at the outset. I should mention that these are my personal views. I


understand that, we are only asking you to speak for yourself. Some of


the reports we have been getting are that a number of IS people have fled


from Syria to go to Libya, which brings me onto Libya. There is talk


that the British may be asked to participate in what is being called


a stabilisation force that will be deployed in Libya. My understanding


is that it would be around the airport in Tripoli. They would


secure that and then start to do some training. Whether that is right


or wrong, should the Government get the permission of Parliament to do


that, or is it within the Government's power to do it without


Parliamentary approval? There is no doubt that the constitutional


position is that the Government has the right not only to put forces


into a country, but even to send forces to fight in a country without


asking Parliament first. But it would be very risky for a government


to take military action if it didn't have the support of Parliament.


Sometimes a government has to take military action urgently and and, of


course, it needs to try and get Parliamentary support thereafter.


They are meeting in Hanover in Germany on day, and this may be one


of the outcomes. The Germans, of course, will not participate, but


the British, French, Americans and possibly the Italians would be


involved. Does the Prime Minister have to come to Parliament to get


approval for this or not? In advance, no. Retrospectively, it is


not a constitutional requirement. But in practical political terms, it


is a necessity. Julian Lewis, thank you for joining us. Anuskha, it is a


complicated picture now with events in Iraq and Syria and now in Libya.


In Libya, given what Jonathan Beale was telling us, there is really a


government to support. This could be another quite a. One of the things


Julian points to is the question of whether you have to come to


Parliament and the complexity around this. One by one, some of the


invasions we have been part of have led to a situation where people are


very nervous now about whether we get involved. Let's remember that


after they declared victory in Libya, two years later, the British


Embassy was shutting down and everyone was having to leave. There


is not the appetite now to go in, and yet some MPs I speak to feel


terribly sad that we've therefore did not intervene earlier in Syria,


which they thought might have been the right thing to do. But when you


step back a bit and look, it is hard to see what our policy should be. We


invaded Iraq and occupied it with the Americans, not a huge success


story. We attacked Libya, but didn't occupy it, not a huge success story.


We did not invade Syria. Other than some air strikes, we have barely


attacked Syria. Not a great success story! Where to go next? This is an


example of Obama's failure. Luckily, it will soon not be his problem.


There is a presidential election coming. But that is frightening in


itself in that we know what is happening with Trump and Hillary.


The options don't look good. Mrs Clinton would be more of a


traditional president. Exactly what I was going to say. Surely the chaos


in the Middle East place to her strengths. Would mainstream middle


ground voters really trust a Ted Cruz or Donald Trump to try and


untangle this complexity and come up with a coherent western policy? I


would suggest that Hillary Clinton has the advantage is there. We will


leave it there. Julian Lewis is still listening, I don't blame you.


Now, in March's Budget, George Osborne unveiled proposals


to make every school in England an academy by 2022.


But the Government's plans haven't been met with universal acclaim


on the Conservative backbenches, with more than a dozen Tory MPs


expressing reservations, before any bill containing


the measures has even been brought before the Commons.


Yesterday, Schools Minister, Nick Gibb, told us the reforms


would boost performance in all schools.


This is about ensuring that we have good schools


in every part of the country and in every local authority area,


that become academies can spread that best practice


to underperforming schools in the area,


and underperforming schools get strong sponsors


It's all about improving the quality of schools so that when the parent


drops off their child at the school gates,


that the school they're going to is of a high quality.


We've been joined from Hull by the Shadow Schools


Can we step back from the business of whether schools should be forced


to become academies. Is Labour still enthusiasm about the concept of


academies? We have to look at parents and children's interest.


Whatever a school is, whether it is an academy or community School, what


matters is it performing for parents and children. That is why the idea


of forcing every school to become an academy is nonsense. That is not


what I asked you. I hesitate to say this, but your party started it with


academies under the Labour government. It does not sound to me


from what you have said that you are very enthusiastic about the concept


any more. When academies came in, they came in to support schools that


had a history of decades of not delivering for the young people. It


was a radical solution to a radical problem, and it worked in most


cases. But we then saw a situation where the new Coalition Government


made it possible for any school that wanted to to become an academy. The


schools that want to become academies already have that


situation in place. Those schools that are performing at good or


outstanding level, why should they be made to become academies and


distract all the energy and spend public money on it? This is a wrong


set of priorities. I will come onto that, but you are getting off the


point I am trying to get you to address. Is it your view now that


you should stick only to those schools which are in trouble and


that they should become academies and the rest shouldn't? Not at all.


We have a mixed estate now. Some schools are academies, some are


community schools. Let's not get worked up about the structure of the


school. All of these schools are welcome. Would you bring academies


under local government control against? I think there needs to be


local government oversight and accountability for local


communities. This week, we had a situation where many parents


couldn't get the school of their choice for the son or daughter. But


that always happens. It is getting worse under this Government. 80% of


parents got their first choice. But that is a loss of parents still but


didn't. We need better school place planning to make sure the places are


in the right place. At the moment, we have a Government creating


schools in places where they are not needed and not addressing problems


in places where the schools are needed, which is irresponsible and a


waste of public money. Labour has described the idea of forcing


schools to become academies as privatisation of the school system.


How did you work that out? We can go down a lot of ideological table


tennis on this, or we can focus on children and parents. But is it or


isn't it privatisation? It does move towards marketisation of the school


system, but that is a distraction... You would need to ask the people


doing that. But your party is to blame. We still haven't got an


answer from Nick Gibb or Nicky Morgan or the Prime Minister of why


they want to force schools to become academies. That is the question. You


are distracting a lot of attention of parents, teachers, head teachers


on to things like what we saw this morning, where the key stage one


test, a lot of effort was put into that and then it goes pear shaped at


the last minute because the Government has not got its act


together. 66% of secondary schools in England,


only England, are now academies. Isn't this the clear direction of


travel now? The Government is saying all schools should become academies.


Sir Michael Wilshaw said, wrote to the Secretary of State and said


seven large academy chains were failing and asked the Secretary of


State to do something about it. We should have systems in place to


address failure, whether it happens in an academy or in a maintained


school. That's the key issue to focus on, not to say that every


school must be an academy because we like that name above the door.


That's ideological nonsense. Thank you for joining us. It wasn't in the


Tory manifesto. It was kind of sprung on us by not the Education


Secretary, but by the Chancellor in the Budget. Was this just an idea to


give George Osborne something for what was then his campaign to be the


next Prime Minister? David Cameron actually did first speak about this


at his conference speech. I think they see this as an example of how


they are big reformers, that they can really shake up the


edgeindication system. So -- education system. So to that extent


it was there to hit back against critics who were saying actually


you're not doing anything, you're completely paralysed because of the


EU referendum. But I think it's causing them some problem. Most of


us would agree that Jeremy Corbyn had one of his best Prime Minister's


Questions this week, six questions based on this. Courting a lot of


Conservatives. Yeah, big figures Graham Braidy, Graham Stuart, the


former chair of the education Select Committee. It's not the people who


are against academies per se, you mention secondary schools, this is


more of an issue for primary schools. Because they will be


included in this plan. There's many more of them and they will be


included. Does acad piesation improve standards and should good


schools be forced to do it? Critics say no. The National Assocaition of


Head Teachers, not really trouble makers as far as unions go, wrote to


dozens of MPs this week to say village schools could be at risk


because the Government are trying to push people into multiacademy chains


and actually, that's not good for a lot of Conservative MPs. This is


really, this is the completion of a very long Tory story going back to


the early 1990s, when Major was under pressure to extend the grant


maintained programme. In that sense, and force all schools to become


grant maintained, and didn't. The sense among Tories was after that it


petered out and it was re-invented as the academy programme. If they're


going to do that, this is where the weakness is, you've got to get the


politics absolutely right. Doing it in the terms that Andrew described


in the Budget, let's face it George Osborne was looking for stuff to pad


out a Budget which was pretty thin and to make him look like a leader


in waiting. It made no sense whatsoever to have the Chancellor of


the Exchequer announcing that or making such a big play of it, rather


than doing it properly, calmly, via the Education Secretary and through


proper consultation. No consultation or debate. She will strive to unpick


it. She is listening. Innicy Morgan wants -- Nicky Morgan wants to do


it, but she's listening to the critics. Probably more than tweaks.


Concessions. Junior doctors are going


on an unprecedented, all-out strike next Tuesday


and Wednesday, in protest at the Government's decision to impose


a controversial new contract. That decision was taken


by the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, after negotiations


with the British Medical Association failed to come up with a compromise


both sides could back. Here is Jeremy Hunt announcing his


decision in a statement Progress has been made on almost 100


different points of discussion, with agreement secured with the BMA


on approximately 90% of them. Sadly, despite this progress


and willingness from the Government to be flexible on the crucial


issue of Saturday pay, advising that a negotiated solution


is not realistically possible. That was Jeremy Hunt in February,


announcing his decision to impose a new contract on junior doctors,


after the British Medical Association rejected


a best and final offer We've been joined by a junior doctor


and campaigner, Dagan Lonsdale. Welcome to the programme. As you


move to an all-out strike, you must be concerned that the public support


you have enjoyed so far could now atrophy. I think the first thing to


say as we're a few days ahead of unprecedented action in the NHS, it


is a real shame that the Government refuse continually to do the one


thing that would stop strikes, the one thing in their power to stop


strikes, that is to engage in a conversation with the people who


work on the shop floor and look after the patients. The Government


says it had 75 meetings with you and made 73 Government concessions. Why


would one more meeting make a difference? The Government love to


spin that they are the ones making all the concessions. The BMA have


done that as well. A contract is not finished until the contract is


finished. It is not good enough to simply throw your hands up in the


air and say it's going to be imposed. You don't need to just


listen to doctors. The vice-presidents of the Patients'


Association today say there are legitimate safety concerns over the


proposed contract and tone force it risks danger to patients and would


be neglect. So there are lots of people, the heads of all the royal


colleges, the junior doctors themselves, both grass-roots and BMA


all saying it's time to talk with the Health Secretary and until we


can have a negotiated settlement, we won't have an NHS that is safe and


sustainable. Are patients going to be at risk next week? The first


thing we need to be clear about is what's being proposed? The


Government are trying to spin that junior doctors are leaving patients


in the lurch. That is untrue. That's why I'm asking you, tell us the


truth. We're having nine hours where care will be delivered by the most


experienced doctors in the hospital, consultants and non-junior doctor


grade doctors. To suggest that those professionals are unable to look


after patients for nine hours is frankly insulting to them and - Are


they at risk or not? The fact of the matter is that Trusts have had six


weeks to prepare for this strike action. They have had plenty of time


to mitigate the risk. So they won't be at risk? My view is with the


notice that has been given to Trusts and the fact that Trusts have, in my


case, hundreds of consultants, at their call they have plenty of time


to make plans to make things safe. The fact remains, we don't want to


have to cancel patient appointments, we don't want operations to be


cancelled. We want to look after patients. What separates you now, is


it all down now just to Saturday pay? Again, this is just an example


of Government spinning and Government rhetoric. There are


legitimate safety concerns about the contract primarily around the fact


that seven day NHS was scribbled on the back of an envelope at the last


election. If the Government was more generous with Saturday pay, would


that pretty much do it? Again, I think this narrative that doctors


are just interested in money is not the truth. It's not a narrative,


it's a simple question. If the Government was more generous on


Saturday pay, would that bring the dispute to an end? No. Absolutely


not. Junior doctors have had a 15% real terms pay cut in the last five


years. The pensions attacked twice. This is not about money. This is


about a safe set of working conditions. What is the further


concessions the Government has to do to bring the dispute to an end? In


my view the first thing we need to do is have a full and Frank


discussion about what seven-day NHS means, what we can afford and what


can be safely staffed. Why haven't you had that in the 75 meetings


you've had? That's a for Government. I notice they haven't put anyone up


to debate the matter here. We see that a junior doctor is prepared to


come and stand and defend the arguments that junior doctors have


been putting forward but Government aren't prepared for debate. They


know if they're debated on facts, the lack of staff and funding


they'll be found wanting. This is a pledge to win votes in the election.


What you would need to ends this is the Government to say we're going to


deploy more star and we're going to deploy more funding? I think those


are key issues if we want a fully functioning seven-day NHS with


elective services across the weekend. I don't think that's


unreasonable. You and I both know that's highly - you may be right by


the way, in saying that's what needs to be done, that's not the issue for


me. You and I both know that the Government is not going to do that.


Where does this go? The first thing that needs to happen is that doctors


and Government need to talk and that is so, so simple. You have been


talking, we've ended up with a strike. You're absolutely right.


There needs to be honest discussions. The Government need to


be honest about what they can afford. It is not my job to come up


with the policy that is funded, that is staffed. It is my job to make


sure that patients are safe in the long-term of the NHS and that is


what junior doctors have been fighting for. Where will this go?


It's been extremely embarrassing and very damaging for the Government.


Now it's crossing that line whereas you move to all-out action, I think


you run a real risk of losing the public support and testing the


public's patience really. Also, I think the idea that it was yet again


a plea for more money and more resources. The country is still


running a ?70 billion - 74. ?74 billion deficit at the top of the


cycle, with the economy not looking too hot. I don't think there is


going to be that much more money to go around. Maybe the Government


should never have gone down this seven-day a week Health Service in


the first place, if it hasn't got the extra resources? One of the big


things ahead of the election they said they were going to sign up to


the call for more money in the NHS but never quite explained where the


money was actually going to come from. For the public with all of


this, one of the things that's complicated is they don't understand


what's going on in the contract. They don't know what this is about.


On the one hand, bad news for Jeremy Hunt to get into such a big fight


with the nation's doctors. On the other hand, clearly a bit of a risk,


because most people don't get paid as much as doctors.


We have to leave it there. We thank you for coming on. We'll keep an eye


on this. Grateful to you. Straight to Windsor. There you can see the


president has arrived with the First Lady. Just got off that enormous


helicopter that the president of the United States has, speaking to the


Queen. The Queen not wearing her crown today, some of you will have


noticed. Juf a headscarf. She's meeting a small "r" republican.


Prince Philip as well. We're told the chemistry between the four of


them is actually rather powerful. That's why the Queen was very happy


that both the president and the First Lady were coming to lunch.


Prince Philip there organising things, as always, as he climbs into


the car. They're going to lunch around 1pm at Windsor Castle. They


are then, the president will then zoom back into London where he's


going to meet the Prime Minister around 3pm. There we are, the


president and First Lady of the United States have arrived at


Windsor Castle to have lunch with the Queen to celebrate her 90th


birthday. In just under two weeks' time,


Londoners go to the polls to decide In a minute, we'll discuss the state


of the campaign, but first, let's take a look at the runners


and riders all hoping to take over I want London to be affordable


to Londoners, because if it's not, London will cease to be


the important city that it is. I think I've got the experience, the


vision and the values to be a mayor Quite leftie Liberal


Democrat manifesto. It's too dominated by


egos, this election. If you want a really radical mayor,


you do need to vote Green. There's huge division now in London,


and as a Londoner born and bred, that's one of the things that


worries me most. And we've been joined


by Ayesha Hazarika, who was political advisor


to Harriet Harman, and by Harry Phibbs, who writes


for the Conservative Home website. A number of Conservatives I speak to


say that Mr Goldsmith's campaign has been lacklustre. Boris Johnson is a


tough act to follow. You go on a walk about and there's the mania of


a pop star. That's a bit difficult for him. If we were talking about it


in terms of the polls, I think it will all be about turnout. The poor


old pollsters, we know to be sceptical about them. You think


there's still a chance? The polls are now, one of the polls I saw was


he was about 11 points behind. Yes, but then, we talk about lying


politicians but you have lying electorate. Those polls saying it's


going to be 50% turnout. I don't believe that for a second. There's a


trouble, the problem for Zac with the turnout that a lot of


Conservatives are on the edge, outer London, but London's bureaucratic


entity don't think of themselves as Londoners, they think of themselves


as living in Kent, Surrey or Essex. To try and persuade them, they find


it slightly insulting to be called Londoners. To persuade them to vote


is a challenge for the Conservatives. Is it a good way to


Garner votes to call them liars? The opinion pollsters end up with these


figures and you know, I think it's a problem for them. The attacks on the


kind of people Sadiq Khan has been mixing with, when he was a lawyer,


has been more virulent from the campaign. Is this a sign of


desperation? Of course it is an issue. Jeremy


Corbyn was challenged about his extremist links, and the idea that


Sadiq Khan should say it is anti-Muslim for him to be questioned


is ridiculous. It is not that he shares those views himself, but that


it is poor judgment. Just as he nominated Jeremy Corbyn but says he


doesn't agree with Jeremy Corbyn, then why is he standing up for


people if he doesn't agree with those views? He is mad, we will be


back with the Ken Livingstone thinks of people in City Hall pushing a


divisive message. What do you say to that? It smacks of desperation from


the Conservative campaign that they are having to resort to this. This


is one of the worst political campaigns we have seen in a long


time, and I include the Edstone, it is that bad! People feel that the


Zac campaign failed to launch. When Zac was selected, people on the


Labour side were worried because he is a charismatic guy, independent


thinking. He is of the centre, seems gentle and kind, he could be a real


threat. That it has almost been like the Zac has been locked away and a


very nasty campaign is taking place which even Zac looks uncomfortable


with. I know why they have done it. They have gone for the old school


playbook, push a brutal message of fear. I don't think it will work in


London. I think London is a very different type of city. It is a more


tolerant city, and I think it has misjudged the mood of the country.


You don't thing Zac has any questions to answer? He said to me


that he regretted giving the impression that by appearing on


platforms with these people, he shared their views. You mean Sadiq


Khan. Sorry, yes. He was a human rights lawyer and the nature of that


job is that you are mixing with people who are controversial. But he


wasn't just doing it as a lawyer, he often appeared on platforms with


them. As a lawyer, you have to represent whoever you are told to,


but it was more than that, he appeared on platforms. Is that not a


legitimate issue to raise? It is, and he has tried to explain himself


about to go on and on and trans mayhem by association seems


desperate. I think Sadiq should take heart from this. We have just seen


Barack Obama arriving and they have tried to smear him in terms of being


Muslim. Sorry, who? On this trip? You mean in earlier days. Yes, and


it didn't go so well. David Cameron, of course, mentioned the people


Sadiq had been sharing a platform within Prime Minister's Questions. I


did it in the debate as well. But it turns out that one that we both


mentioned is actually a member of the local Conservative Party and is


supporting Sadiq Khan's local Conservative rival. That was news to


the Conservative candidate for Tooting, who had no knowledge of him


supporting him. It is a question of judgment. If you are repeatedly


appearing on a platform and repeatedly trying to stick up for


people... What is unfair about it saying that Zac Goldsmith is only


being negative. He has a very positive manifesto which has not had


much attention. The most important difference between what Zac and what


Boris has been doing is over the tower blocks and what houses look


like. There is an agenda for saying if we want new houses, you have to


make them attractive and turn the NIMBYs into people who are


pro-beauty in my backyard. So instead of new buildings meaning


London gets more ugly, it is possible to have houses that are


more attractive. And you wonder why Zac Goldsmith is 11 points behind


with a slogan like that! Until now, the slogan has not been broadcast BA


Bimby, not a NIMBY. I can already see the hashtag! The polls suggest


that Labour will win London. I would suggest that the significance of


that is that although Labour are doing badly in Scotland, England and


in Wales, Mr Corbyn cannot afford to lose London. He is a London Labour


MP. He is surrounded by London MPs. It is a metropolitan Labour Party


now and he cannot you lose in his own backyard. No. I wrote about this


a long time ago, saying London was almost like a cup final for Labour.


They needed it to rally troops elsewhere in the country. There is a


big debate in the Labour Party about what success means elsewhere, but


London just has to come. Actually, it does look like Sadiq is on track


to win, despite what you have been talking about. And I think Zac


Goldsmith believes it is probably about judgment, and that is why they


are talking about Sadiq's individuals with certain


individuals. I think he might look back at the end of this and feel it


was a bit grubby. There were leaflets at the beginning talking


about radical people with Sadiq Khan. That was about politics, not


religion. There were people who have appeared with Goldsmith himself. As


someone who is non-white, why do we criticise non-white people when they


appear in this way? It makes me uncomfortable. I know people on


Zac's team who I am sure are not doing this in a grubby way and do


think it is about judgment, but it could backfire with people feeling


like this about it. I take that point, but it is pretty tame


compared to mayoral contests in the United States, the dog whistle


politics and borderline corruption. This has been a pretty gentle


affair. I think the Goldsmith campaign, it might not work this


time, but it worked for Boris twice and in both of those elections,


everyone said, let Boris be Boris. They have cut his hair, they are


constraining him, he is not the candidate he was, and it worked. It


is all about targeting what is referred to as the doughnut, those


voters in outer London. The use of the word radical is the deliberate


to say to people who live in Outer London and who pay the taxes, you


want a London run by Jeremy Corbyn and his friends? It is about


associating that link. But the undertone is, do you want London to


be run by a Muslim? Do you think Zac Goldsmith wants that question to be


asked? I think his campaign team do. That is unfair. That is absolute


nonsense. Jeremy Corbyn has been challenged about his links, rightly.


Yvette Cooper challenged him and now she is saying to make the equivalent


challenge to Sadiq Khan is racist. It is insulting to all the Muslims


who don't have these extreme views. Of course he should be challenged


and he should answer the questions being put. This time in two weeks,


we will know the result, I think. It is a competitive system and they may


still be counting! And you can see details


of all the candidates standing for London Mayor


and the London Assembly on the BBC's Continuing rows over Europe,


McDonald's bans, Her Majesty's 90th plus the leader of the free world


popping in for a visit. Here's the week's political


news in 60 seconds. George Osborne kicked


off the week warning GDP will be over 6% smaller,


and Britain will be worse off The next day, the Leave campaign's


heavyweight, Michael Gove, Treats people, I'm


afraid, like children. Labour's NEC banned McDonald's


from running a stall at the party's annual


conference, a move that During PMQs, Jeremy Corbyn raised


concerns about plans to turn Against the wishes of teachers,


parents, school governors David Cameron insisted


the Government will finish the job. On Thursday, the Business Secretary


said he was willing to take a 25% stake in any rescue


of Tata Steel's UK operation. And on the day of the royal 9-0,


US President Barack Obama flew in to wish Her Majesty well


and to give the British people a friendly warning of the dangers


of the UK leaving the EU. You sometimes hear people say there


is a disconnect between the Westminster bubble and what is


happening in the real world. And when you look at the EU referendum


and the arguments going on over the President's visit or whatever, even


the London elections, and then you look at what is happening in Port


Talbot, where proper jobs and communities are now at stake,


critics say the Government has not had a consistent policy. You begin


to see that there is a disconnect. There is a disconnect, and we in the


media deserve criticism as well. It was a huge issue for three or four


days, maybe slightly longer, and then it was just overtaken and


disappeared and the story has not been reported with the same


intensity. A few papers are accepted. And as you say, real jobs


are at stake, thousands of them. The media attention span on this has


been quite short. True, it was on the front pages for a few days and


it is not now. We are still writing about it every day and listening to


what MPs are saying about it. As you say, real jobs at risk and real


questions about a long term industrial strategy that might get


the steel industry through this difficult period with Chinese


dumping that is going on. But as you say, we need to stay on it. And it


looks like the Government may in four parts nationalisation, not done


by the Tories since Mrs Thatcher stepped in to rescue Caledonian. It


looks like they are about to concede. Personally, I think that is


a mistake. I think the lesson from the banking crisis is that it is


easy to demand nationalisation. But you can then often find yourself,


ten years down the line, owning a share of an industry which has


longer term problems. But very difficult to get out of this without


serious investment from the UK do it. These companies are in trouble.


The spark ah assets were losing ?2 million a day at one point -- these


Tata assets were losing. There's just time before we go


to find out the answer to our quiz. What sports team did


the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, suggest


the Queen privately supports? Which one was it? I am going with


Wigan. I think it is Wigan. You are both wrong, it is Arsenal.


Thanks to Iain, Anushka and all my guests.


I'll be back on Sunday at 11am with the Sunday Politics,


when I'll be talking to the Shadow Education Secretary,


Actually, I will be on at a later time of 1:40 p.m.. I know you are


looking forward to it.


Download Subtitles