:00:36. > :00:43.Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:44. > :00:51.Labour promises to get a grip, following the anti-Semitism meltdown
:00:52. > :00:54.within the party, Jeremy Corbyn says it is not a crisis.
:00:55. > :00:57.Just a week ahead of crucial elections, has the very public row
:00:58. > :00:59.which saw former Mayor defend Ken Livingstone defend controversial
:01:00. > :01:03.remarks about Hitler and Israel seriously damaged Labour?
:01:04. > :01:06.Nigel Farage says he's aiming for his enemy's goal as he puts
:01:07. > :01:09.immigration front and centre of his campaign to leave the EU.
:01:10. > :01:18.Barak Obama's intervention in the EU debate was high
:01:19. > :01:20.profile and controversial - we'll be asking a former US
:01:21. > :01:27.ambassador to Nato if it's advice America itself would ever follow.
:01:28. > :01:31.They were a true blue Conservative idea to strengthen
:01:32. > :01:34.But have Police and Crime Commissioners confused
:01:35. > :01:48.of the programme today two political soulmates in the making.
:01:49. > :01:51.Rachel Shabi writes for the Guardan and the Independent and Toby Young
:01:52. > :01:55.Actually they've yet to find an issue they agree on,
:01:56. > :02:04.First today let's talk about the anti-Semitism row that
:02:05. > :02:08.The former Mayor Ken Livingstone pushed the self-destruct button
:02:09. > :02:11.in an extraordinary sequence of events at Westminster.
:02:12. > :02:15.Mr Livingstone, who was co-chairman of the Labour's defence policy
:02:16. > :02:21.review, claimed in a series of interviews including one on this
:02:22. > :02:23.programme that Hitler had once supported Zionism; the movement
:02:24. > :02:27.to establish a Jewish state in what is now Israel.
:02:28. > :02:31.He said that anti-Semitism was not "exactly the same" as racism,
:02:32. > :02:34.adding that someone was only anti-Semitic if they hated
:02:35. > :02:44.all Jewish people, "not just the ones in Israel".
:02:45. > :02:48.You Nazi apologist. Re-writing history.
:02:49. > :02:51.As he came into this building to be interviewed
:02:52. > :02:54.on the Daily Politics Mr Livingstone was involved in a heated
:02:55. > :02:56.confrontation with the Labour MP John Mann, who accused
:02:57. > :02:58.Mr Livingstone of being a "Nazi apologist".
:02:59. > :03:01.Just a week away from elections across the UK that are crucial
:03:02. > :03:04.for the Labour Party, a series of MPs including the London
:03:05. > :03:08.mayoral candidate Sadiq Khan called for him to be suspended form
:03:09. > :03:14.the party for his "appalling and inexcusable" remarks.
:03:15. > :03:16.Well this is what happened when Mr Livingstone made
:03:17. > :03:24.But you seem to be implying, "Oh, well, he wasn't such a bad guy, cos
:03:25. > :03:27.he just wanted to deport them all, but he only went wrong later on".
:03:28. > :03:29.I mean, people will think it unbelievable, what they're hearing
:03:30. > :03:33.He was a monster from start to finish but
:03:34. > :03:36.it's simply the historical fact - his policy was initially to send all
:03:37. > :03:40.Hitler was not a Zionist and to suggest so
:03:41. > :03:47.I think you've lost it, Mr Livingstone.
:03:48. > :03:51.It's a deliberate, calculated attempt to cause
:03:52. > :04:01.You certainly shouldn't be on Labour's national executive.
:04:02. > :04:03.Soon after we went off air Ken Livingstone was suspended
:04:04. > :04:07.from the Labour Party, while John Mann was hauled before
:04:08. > :04:09.the Chief Whip to be told it was completely inappropriate
:04:10. > :04:15.to be involved with rows with other Labour members on TV.
:04:16. > :04:18.Well Mr Corbyn insists here is no crisis in the party,
:04:19. > :04:22.and that the small number of cases of anti-Semitism in the party have
:04:23. > :04:29.Mr Livingstone spoke to reporters this morning as he left his house
:04:30. > :04:34.I'm not making any statement until I do my LBC programme with David
:04:35. > :04:36.Mellor at ten o'clock tomorrow morning.
:04:37. > :04:40.If you got questions, phone in and ask us, just like all the
:04:41. > :04:44.What do you think Corbyn should do about...
:04:45. > :04:45.I've just told you, I'm not doing interviews.
:04:46. > :04:49.You can waste your time standing here all day.
:04:50. > :04:52.I've got to do the washing, then I'm doing some
:04:53. > :05:01.work on the pond, moving some of the newts.
:05:02. > :05:06.Good to boost your ratings in your show, we never miss an opportunity
:05:07. > :05:10.To bring us up to speed with what's been happening this morning,
:05:11. > :05:11.we're joined by our correspondent Iain Watson.
:05:12. > :05:19.Have there been developments this morning? It has, Andrew, apart from
:05:20. > :05:24.Ken Livingstone spending time with his much-loved reptiles rather than
:05:25. > :05:31.members of the press, regarded as much the same thing to be honest!
:05:32. > :05:35.But Watson called Ken Livingstone's remarks crass and in addition
:05:36. > :05:44.suggested that an investigation currently carried out by a Labour
:05:45. > :05:49.peer, Baroness Royal, connected to Neil Kinnock and into anti-Semitism
:05:50. > :05:53.by some of the students at Oxford University that investigation could
:05:54. > :05:59.have a wider remit to look at anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.
:06:00. > :06:02.There could be suggestions for changes to rules against
:06:03. > :06:07.anti-Semitism and racism. So he is going on the front foot But the
:06:08. > :06:14.criticism has been that while Jeremy Corbyn is not in the slightest bit
:06:15. > :06:18.anti-Semitic has been slow to act. So what we are beginning to see in
:06:19. > :06:22.the Labour Party is the issue being used as the soft underbelly against
:06:23. > :06:26.his own leadership and calling into question his judgments.
:06:27. > :06:32.There must be a danger that this story, as we say in the trade, has
:06:33. > :06:36.legs, over the weekend. That it will carry into the weekend, everybody
:06:37. > :06:40.trawling around for examples of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party,
:06:41. > :06:45.especially in Jeremy Corbyn's wing of the Labour Party. They may not
:06:46. > :06:50.find anymore, we don't know. But I get the sense this story will not go
:06:51. > :06:55.away quickly? I think that is right. For a number of reasons. Firstly, I
:06:56. > :07:00.think you are right, there will be a continuing trawl. Speak to a Labour
:07:01. > :07:05.MP offer the record he said there is more to the story. Some have been
:07:06. > :07:09.looking at the supporters of Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps some to the left of
:07:10. > :07:13.the Labour Party and came to the Labour Party in order to support his
:07:14. > :07:17.leadership, many of them prove Palestinian and anti-Zionist, or at
:07:18. > :07:21.the least, critical of some of the actions of the government of the
:07:22. > :07:25.state of Israel and people are looking to see if those comments
:07:26. > :07:30.have spilled over into anti-Semitism and can be used as a stick with
:07:31. > :07:35.which to beat Jeremy Corbyn's own supporters. In addition, there are
:07:36. > :07:40.former frontbenchers lining up to denounce what will be poor elections
:07:41. > :07:46.results for Labour in England. And I think that they have been given am
:07:47. > :07:50.mission, as they can say that Jeremy Corbyn's lack of grip will
:07:51. > :07:54.contribute to poor results. So pressure on his leadership and more
:07:55. > :07:59.pressure on his supporters in the next few days.
:08:00. > :08:04.Thank you. And before you start writing in to
:08:05. > :08:08.us, I think that newts are amphibians and with are the
:08:09. > :08:17.reptiles, the journalists? That is probably right.
:08:18. > :08:21.Rachel Shabi was it right to suspend Ken Livingstone? Anti-Semitism
:08:22. > :08:27.clearly is a problem. At the same time I think it would be naive to
:08:28. > :08:31.not see what is going on in the #4r5i7 in the context of there being
:08:32. > :08:35.elements of the reason and the Labour Party itself that are using
:08:36. > :08:39.this, that want to undermine the Jeremy Corbyn leadership and have
:08:40. > :08:43.openly spoken about him not wanting to be there.
:08:44. > :08:47.So was it right to suspend him? So there is that as a context and
:08:48. > :08:51.looking at the speed with which the Labour Party responded and the
:08:52. > :08:55.numbers involved, that is where the claim it is is a specifically a
:08:56. > :09:02.Jeremy Corbyn issue, start to lose credibility. Yes, it was right to
:09:03. > :09:06.suspend him. While we are at it, is there a wider issue with
:09:07. > :09:08.anti-Semitism in the wider progressive left, absolutely, yes,
:09:09. > :09:15.there is. Why? The progressive left has become
:09:16. > :09:20.desensitised and careless to anti-Semitism. One of the reasons is
:09:21. > :09:25.that they somehow feel that they can't be racist. Obviously a
:09:26. > :09:29.mistake, we are all capable of racism. I think when you see a
:09:30. > :09:34.strong and heavily ministerialised Jewish state, some people are
:09:35. > :09:39.incapable of understanding that Jewish people are also a minority
:09:40. > :09:45.and vulnerable to racist abuse. I think that anti-Semitism has been
:09:46. > :09:49.used to shut down legitimate criticisms of Israel so there has
:09:50. > :09:55.been an element that some have not been able to see beyond. And also I
:09:56. > :10:02.think there is a hypocrisy around this which fuelled resentment. We
:10:03. > :10:06.have a sitting Lord Mayor, that has made racist comments against a black
:10:07. > :10:14.American President... He has been taken to task on that.
:10:15. > :10:16.We have a Conservative mayoral candidate, openly dogging
:10:17. > :10:22.Islamophobia, and a perception of double standards in the way we
:10:23. > :10:25.handle these things. Which, to be serious about tackling
:10:26. > :10:30.anti-Semitism, we have to take it seriously and to be consistent.
:10:31. > :10:36.Toby Young is this used as a way to undermine Jeremy Corbyn's
:10:37. > :10:39.leadership? I think clearly the anti-Corbyn group within the Labour
:10:40. > :10:45.Party will use anything that they can to try and winkle him out. But I
:10:46. > :10:48.don't think that you can claim that they somehow prompted Ken
:10:49. > :10:52.Livingstone to behave in the way he did yesterday. That was an
:10:53. > :10:56.expression of how he actually feels. I think that the difficulty for
:10:57. > :11:01.Corbyn and the reason he hesitated before acting, I mean it was claimed
:11:02. > :11:07.yesterday when he was interviewed for the 10.00pm news that he acted
:11:08. > :11:12.decisively and quickly, when these episodes were brought to light.
:11:13. > :11:17.Actually he tried to avoid suspending Naz Shah and make do with
:11:18. > :11:22.her resigning, and delayed saying anything in response to the Ken
:11:23. > :11:25.Livingstone fiasco in the hope, imagine, that Livingstone could
:11:26. > :11:30.cling on. The reason for that is, I think that there is a lot of the
:11:31. > :11:38.same baggage in Jeremy Corbyn's past. He has described Hezbollah and
:11:39. > :11:42.Hamas as friends. Appearing on Iranian state television and also
:11:43. > :11:47.Ken Livingstone. And the denying of the Holocaust. It is difficult for
:11:48. > :11:50.him to come on top of Livingstone too heavily without trouble for
:11:51. > :11:56.himself. You can make the claim but all of
:11:57. > :12:01.these reactions have come within 24 to 48 hours. If you make it quicker,
:12:02. > :12:05.what you are doing is a witch hunt. You have not given fair
:12:06. > :12:11.consideration. I don't know why we think that 24 hours is too long to
:12:12. > :12:15.react to this. I think as there were a number of reports that Jeremy
:12:16. > :12:19.Corbyn was trying to avoid suspending Ken Livingstone.
:12:20. > :12:23.But the issue about the Labour Party and anti-Semitism is that this
:12:24. > :12:27.didn't happen... This is not a result of Corbyn becoming Labour
:12:28. > :12:30.Party leader. In all of the instances, these are instances that
:12:31. > :12:35.have been in play before he came in. It is not as though this suddenly,
:12:36. > :12:39.magically appeared as a result of his leadership. There has always
:12:40. > :12:45.been a toxic strand within the Labour Party who have had a blind
:12:46. > :12:49.spot when it comes to things like anti-Semitism.
:12:50. > :12:54.Do you think Jeremy Corbyn has a blind spot about anti-Semitism? I
:12:55. > :12:59.do. I think that his anti-western ideology means he is willing to
:13:00. > :13:06.embrass other groups that he sees are engaged in an anticolonial
:13:07. > :13:10.struggle... There are moral short comings as he thinks of himself and
:13:11. > :13:13.them on the side of the answeringels.
:13:14. > :13:21.I think there is a confliction there. I trust Corbyn's track record
:13:22. > :13:24.on all forms of racism. Tony Blair shared platforms with
:13:25. > :13:32.Hamas. The shared platform thing is really dodgy.
:13:33. > :13:36.Has he shared platforms a platform as leader of the Labour Party with
:13:37. > :13:43.Hamas? No. He had to speak for Hamas in the
:13:44. > :13:48.quartet... Are we to smear people as they stand next to somebody with
:13:49. > :13:53.unsavoury views? That is starting to sound like a witch hunt.
:13:54. > :13:59.If a Tory politicians shared a platform with BNP, what would you
:14:00. > :14:06.say? Tory people have shared plot forms with all kinds of unsavoury
:14:07. > :14:11.people... What leading Conservative in recent times has shared a
:14:12. > :14:17.platform with BNP... You trying to tar people on association as opposed
:14:18. > :14:20.to their track record on racism. I am trying to have a sensible
:14:21. > :14:24.conversation about anti-Semitism it is important.
:14:25. > :14:30.If you share a platform with people who think that the Jews and the
:14:31. > :14:36.Israels should be driven into the sea, is that not an issue? It is an
:14:37. > :14:42.issue whether you decide if you want peace and justice for both
:14:43. > :14:48.Palestinians and Israel is. I have seen nothing that contravenes that
:14:49. > :14:52.from Corbyn. When people attack Zionism, they are attacking Israel's
:14:53. > :14:57.right to statehood. What they are saying is that the Israeli people
:14:58. > :15:01.should throw themselves at the mercy of their enemies in what is probably
:15:02. > :15:05.the most dangerous and anti-Semitic parts of the world. I will have to
:15:06. > :15:10.move on. It is a very important subject but
:15:11. > :15:16.we have to have time for the daily quiz.
:15:17. > :15:18.The question for today is all about George Osborne's
:15:19. > :15:20.appearance at the Westminster correspondents dinner last night.
:15:21. > :15:22.The Chancellor surprised many of Fleet's Street's hungriest
:15:23. > :15:24.and thirstiest hacks by telling some quite good jokes.
:15:25. > :15:26.One of them was about Boris Johnson's timepiece,
:15:27. > :15:28.so the question for today is - who appeared on the face
:15:29. > :15:38.At the end of the show, Toby and Rachel will give us
:15:39. > :15:51.Westminster is shutting up shop for the bank holiday weekend
:15:52. > :15:53.but those campaigning ahead of the referendum on Britain's
:15:54. > :15:56.membership of the EU aren't taking any time off to catch up
:15:57. > :16:00.This morning the former Prime Minister John Major took aim
:16:01. > :16:02.at those arguing to leave, saying the only place
:16:03. > :16:06.they would find "undiluted sovereignty" in the modern world
:16:07. > :16:11.And just a few hours ago Ukip leader Nigel Farage,
:16:12. > :16:14.who of course is campaigning to leave, has tried to turn
:16:15. > :16:16.the debate to what he sees as his side's strongest
:16:17. > :16:25.Here is he is speaking in central London.
:16:26. > :16:28.He discussed immigration and the sexual attacks in Cologne on New
:16:29. > :16:30.Year's Eve. We saw the mass, open sexual
:16:31. > :16:32.molestation of hundreds of women appearing in public and,
:16:33. > :16:38.frankly, if we're prepared to accept - or if Germany and Sweden
:16:39. > :16:41.are prepared to accept - unlimited numbers of young males
:16:42. > :16:45.from countries and cultures where women are at best second class
:16:46. > :16:52.citizens, then frankly And I do not want those young men
:16:53. > :17:00.that were outside Cologne train station to have one of these,
:17:01. > :17:04.in a few short years, And Nigel Farage is
:17:05. > :17:16.here in the studio. Let's look at this issue of border
:17:17. > :17:22.controls. Not the right to come and work here, which I understand would
:17:23. > :17:29.change if we were to leave the EU. Anyone who comes into the UK, even
:17:30. > :17:33.from the EU, they are checked. We stop terrorism at the border. That
:17:34. > :17:37.won't change. The only people we can stop who got EU passports are people
:17:38. > :17:41.who pose a direct threat to national security, namely terrorists. People
:17:42. > :17:44.with criminal records, even serious criminal records, we have no right
:17:45. > :17:49.to stop. We have stopped thousands coming in. There's an awful lot we
:17:50. > :17:54.don't stop and there are people with... Whether it's burglary or
:17:55. > :17:58.sexual assaults up Bob it's very difficult for us to stop people with
:17:59. > :18:01.criminal records coming into Britain and once they are in Britain, it
:18:02. > :18:06.almost impossible to stop them residing here. We cannot completely
:18:07. > :18:09.insulate ourselves from the modern world, from the risks of terrorism
:18:10. > :18:12.and all of these things, what we can do is make ourselves a little bit
:18:13. > :18:20.safer by getting back control of our borders. But you won't be able to
:18:21. > :18:24.stop people coming in, even if we are outside the EU, if they've got
:18:25. > :18:29.EU passports, unless... Are you going to go through these assistant?
:18:30. > :18:33.Lets say for arguments sake, the people who were outside Cologne
:18:34. > :18:37.train station on New Year's Eve get convictions in Germany, all right?
:18:38. > :18:40.They then in five or six years have a German passport, which is the same
:18:41. > :18:45.as a British passport. They can come to Britain, they can settle here. We
:18:46. > :18:47.could at that moment in time, as a free country, stop them from
:18:48. > :18:51.entering the workplace and settling here. There's a problem with that
:18:52. > :18:57.because anybody convicted under German law cannot get a German
:18:58. > :19:02.passport. Under German law, you need to have a crime free record for up
:19:03. > :19:07.to eight years before you can get a German passport. If they are
:19:08. > :19:10.convicted, they will be ineligible for a German passport. In theory,
:19:11. > :19:15.German citizenship is eight years. In Hungary is about three years. But
:19:16. > :19:18.you don't get is at all if you get a criminal record. I think there is a
:19:19. > :19:21.feeling that that will be ignored given the scale of the problem. We
:19:22. > :19:26.are only one year in to Merkel's open door. The evidence thus far
:19:27. > :19:31.this year is that the numbers coming to Europe are many, many times
:19:32. > :19:36.bigger than they were last year. But it's eight years before you can get
:19:37. > :19:39.a German passport. That's what citizenship is. I see no politician
:19:40. > :19:43.in Germany recommending its going to change. You've got to speak the
:19:44. > :19:47.language, you've got to have a clean criminal record. So none of the
:19:48. > :19:51.Cologne attackers who been convicted would be accepted under German law
:19:52. > :19:57.and therefore they couldn't come here. It's an and Sally, isn't it?
:19:58. > :20:03.Very few of them are going to be convicted. Do we want to protect
:20:04. > :20:07.ourselves or don't we? Are we safer nation with border controls or
:20:08. > :20:11.without them? My point is that we still have that ability to control
:20:12. > :20:14.the border from the kind of people you're talking about and that
:20:15. > :20:19.doesn't change, whether we are in out of the EU. We cannot stop
:20:20. > :20:24.criminal is coming into this country if they've got an EU passport,
:20:25. > :20:27.simple as. The biggest threat to this country, I would suggest, given
:20:28. > :20:32.the recent record, is not from people coming from the outside, its
:20:33. > :20:38.home-grown terrorism, people with British passports. That was 7/7,
:20:39. > :20:46.that was the attack on Liebrich B. That's most of the attacks at the
:20:47. > :20:49.moment. -- Lee Rigby. Given that we have a huge home-grown problem
:20:50. > :20:53.already, which is our own fault, why on earth would you wished to
:20:54. > :20:57.compound that? Given that two of the eight attackers in Paris had come
:20:58. > :21:01.back to France through the Islands, posing as migrants, given that
:21:02. > :21:05.Europe also is that 5000 jihadis have come to Europe in the last few
:21:06. > :21:10.months posing as migrants, you can see the scale of the problem. I
:21:11. > :21:12.agree we have a problem. We cannot insulate ourselves completely from
:21:13. > :21:18.global problems but we can relieve the pressure. Let me come into the
:21:19. > :21:25.-- on to the economic arguments. You making more of an immigration case
:21:26. > :21:28.because you are losing the economic battle? It's very clear what the
:21:29. > :21:32.Remain camp have tried to do is pretty much what they did 40 years
:21:33. > :21:37.ago, to use arguments about trade. I believe are spurious arguments. My
:21:38. > :21:41.own view is that even with no successful renegotiation and just
:21:42. > :21:45.trading on WTO rules, we'd still be better off than we are now because
:21:46. > :21:50.the maximum cost of tariffs would only be two thirds of what our net
:21:51. > :21:55.contribution is. However, the leave camp have been playing in their own
:21:56. > :21:57.half of the pitch, defending the goal against these constant attacks
:21:58. > :22:02.from the international community, whether it's the IMF or the OECD or
:22:03. > :22:07.Obama or ogle tom Cobleigh, and where they are vulnerable, they are
:22:08. > :22:10.vulnerable on immigration. They know there is no way we can control the
:22:11. > :22:15.numbers coming into Britain as members of the European Union. I'm
:22:16. > :22:20.urging the Leave camp to get onto the other half of the pitch and
:22:21. > :22:26.start attacking their goal. You said that there would be no damage done
:22:27. > :22:30.to the British economy if we leave and you've got Patrick Minford now,
:22:31. > :22:37.a leading economist on your side, with six or seven other economists,
:22:38. > :22:42.but Patrick Minford says that if we beat the EU it would" lemonade
:22:43. > :22:47.manufacturing in the UK". Eliminate manufacturing. And is on your side!
:22:48. > :22:51.He says it would be cheaper and we would have the ability to have
:22:52. > :22:56.cheaper energy. So Patrick Minford says we would be better off by 4%
:22:57. > :23:02.and not being part of the EU. But he also says if we let the EU, it would
:23:03. > :23:06.seem likely that we mostly eliminate manufacturing, leading industry such
:23:07. > :23:09.as design, marketing and hi-tech, in other words services. That's someone
:23:10. > :23:12.on your side of the argument and anyone involved in manufacturing
:23:13. > :23:17.would think, why would I vote for that to be a limited? He takes the
:23:18. > :23:21.view that we are moving from a manufacturing to a service... But we
:23:22. > :23:26.know that. I was in Sheffield last week and went to a steel foundry
:23:27. > :23:29.where his Energy Bill is 60,000 quid a month. His competitors in America
:23:30. > :23:36.and India have energy bills of 30,000 a month. I think outside the
:23:37. > :23:40.EU, freed from some of the obligations that Blair signed us up
:23:41. > :23:43.to, we would have a better chance stop We could change our energy
:23:44. > :23:49.policy towards Manufacturing now. We don't have to leave the EU. The
:23:50. > :23:54.Germans have. French and German electricity for intensive users is
:23:55. > :23:58.much lower than ours and last time I looked, France and Germany were in
:23:59. > :24:01.the EU. There is no question that George Osborne has been a disaster
:24:02. > :24:05.for Manufacturing and has made the initial EU root words. But this
:24:06. > :24:08.debate gets that are where we started the stop I don't think Joe
:24:09. > :24:12.soap watching this hearing once I'd say we would be better off and
:24:13. > :24:16.another saying we would be worse off will be convinced by any of it. I
:24:17. > :24:20.think there will be a score draw because people will not get it and
:24:21. > :24:23.understand it. If we want to win, we have to make the argument not just
:24:24. > :24:27.for making our own laws, being in charge of our destiny, but
:24:28. > :24:30.controlling our borders, controlling immigration and being able to have
:24:31. > :24:34.something like the Australian style points system to measure the
:24:35. > :24:38.quantity and quality of who comes to Britain. If we get there, we will
:24:39. > :24:43.then motivate and mobilise Leave voters and that's how we win. But
:24:44. > :24:47.the vote League Cup a, the official campaign, don't agree with you. They
:24:48. > :24:51.don't think it's a score draw on economics. They think they are
:24:52. > :24:55.winning the economic argument. And on the case of economic, if you look
:24:56. > :25:01.at the polling, on the economic case the Remain people are winning by a
:25:02. > :25:07.substantial amount, and they think that you and others, buying on about
:25:08. > :25:11.immigration, it consolidates your core but it doesn't reach out to the
:25:12. > :25:15.wider British public who, by and large, have come to terms with
:25:16. > :25:18.immigration. And they are wrong. They back row wrong. All the polling
:25:19. > :25:22.of the undecided shows that by a massive factor immigration,
:25:23. > :25:25.controlling our borders, is the factor that would swing undecided
:25:26. > :25:30.voters one way or the other. However, we have moved on. The
:25:31. > :25:36.number of genuinely undecided voters now is quite small. It's changed a
:25:37. > :25:42.lot. How do we know that? Consistent polling. Some polls show it at 5%,
:25:43. > :25:48.some at 18%. But whatever, many undecideds won't vote. Maybe it is
:25:49. > :25:56.12 or 13%. It isn't a massive number. This referendum now gets won
:25:57. > :25:59.on turnout, gets won on passion, and the advantage that Leave has over
:26:00. > :26:02.Remain is that the people who have made their minds up to leave
:26:03. > :26:07.generally feel it quite passionately, and we have to
:26:08. > :26:11.mobilise. If we get every person in this country who says they want to
:26:12. > :26:15.leave and the big hook for nearly all of them, or the majority of
:26:16. > :26:20.them, is the immigration argument, we make that point, we mobilise them
:26:21. > :26:23.to vote, we win this referendum. You, Toby Young, are part of the
:26:24. > :26:28.Leave campaign. You want us to leave the European Union. What do you
:26:29. > :26:32.think of Nigel Farage's approach and how do you think the campaign is
:26:33. > :26:37.going from your point of view so far? On the one hand, I share some
:26:38. > :26:40.of the concerns you just flagged up, which is that people who are
:26:41. > :26:44.concerned about the immigration and security risks that come from
:26:45. > :26:49.freedom of movement and the enlargement of the EU are probably
:26:50. > :26:52.already going to vote Leave and that the vote leave campaign should be
:26:53. > :26:57.focusing on alleviating the anxiety about the economic risks that have
:26:58. > :27:01.been whisked up by the campaign. But I think Nigel has a point. The
:27:02. > :27:05.number of don't knows are shrinking and I also think that the outcome,
:27:06. > :27:09.the result, will in the large part hinge on how great the turnout is
:27:10. > :27:12.and if you can mobilise the levers, and I think the leave is generally
:27:13. > :27:15.are more passionate and care more about this issue than the
:27:16. > :27:19.remainders, that is one way to win and this is an issue that they care
:27:20. > :27:25.deeply about. Are you Leave or Remain? I think the idea of the
:27:26. > :27:28.right wing debating how leaving Europe could solve problems created
:27:29. > :27:33.by the right wing is frankly laughable. Before you get into that,
:27:34. > :27:38.are you Leave or Remain? On that basis, I am Remain because the
:27:39. > :27:42.problem is that you want to fix are caused by right-wing policies. It's
:27:43. > :27:48.not migration that has caused a drain on access to resources and
:27:49. > :27:50.jobs. Its austerity. It's the Conservative policies that have
:27:51. > :27:56.diminished trade and growth and production and the British economy,
:27:57. > :28:00.not migration and not the EU. So the problems you are seeking to fix are
:28:01. > :28:06.not EU problems. They are right wing austerity problems. Just come back
:28:07. > :28:11.on the austerities point, the IMS calculator that over the five-year
:28:12. > :28:14.term of the Coalition they save 36 billion from austerity measures.
:28:15. > :28:17.That is less than even our net contribution to the EU in the same
:28:18. > :28:25.period. So to blame our problems austerity is nonsensical. To say
:28:26. > :28:30.that people aren't worried about stagnating jobs and wages is...
:28:31. > :28:34.Statistic after statistic has shown that migrants are not a dream at any
:28:35. > :28:38.of those things. They do say that for the average worker their real
:28:39. > :28:42.income has declined by ten percentage 2008 and that is because
:28:43. > :28:46.we have oversupply in the labour market in this country. I take issue
:28:47. > :28:50.with you on one thing. I doubt that the case for or against Brexit has
:28:51. > :28:54.anything to do with left or right wing politics. It a basic question
:28:55. > :28:58.of democracy, of sovereignty, of controlling our borders, putting our
:28:59. > :29:01.own people first. And there are many millions of Labour voters who are
:29:02. > :29:04.attracted to that message. All right. We need to move on.
:29:05. > :29:06.Now, while we've got Nigel Farage here -
:29:07. > :29:09.or should that be Nigel "Farridge" - we can't let him go
:29:10. > :29:11.without attempting to answer one of the burning questions
:29:12. > :29:16.Have a listen to this from Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday.
:29:17. > :29:18.With the United Kingdom facing our most momentous decision
:29:19. > :29:22.for a generation in eight weeks' time, does the Prime Minister think
:29:23. > :29:25.it makes more sense for us to listen to all of our closest friends
:29:26. > :29:28.and allies around the world or to a combination of French
:29:29. > :29:32.fascists, Nigel "Farridge" and Vladimir Putin?
:29:33. > :29:39.Well, I'm glad he takes the English pronunciation of "Farridge",
:29:40. > :29:41.rather than the poncey foreign-sounding one
:29:42. > :29:47.I think that's a thoroughly good thing.
:29:48. > :29:53.And is one as English as John Bull, warm beer and county cricket?
:29:54. > :29:58.And is the other as foreign and, as the PM would say "poncey",
:29:59. > :30:00.as croissants, capuccinos and kissing on both cheeks?
:30:01. > :30:03.Well, who better to give us the definitive answer than the head
:30:04. > :30:05.of pronunciations for the Oxford English Dictionary,
:30:06. > :30:24.Over to you Dr Sangster. How does this play out? What is the correct
:30:25. > :30:31.pronounceation? We don't normally put surnames and first names in the
:30:32. > :30:35.dictionary unless a noun or a verb. So sadly, Farage is not in the
:30:36. > :30:40.dictionary. But I would say if it is your name,
:30:41. > :30:52.you can say it how you like. There are lots of word from English from
:30:53. > :31:01.the French that end in age. Some saying"age" like village. You can
:31:02. > :31:06.say barrage, balloon, or gashage, I think that Nigel used that example
:31:07. > :31:10.himself in his own defence. Is the English equivalent of
:31:11. > :31:18."Farage", "Farridge"? Is there a connection? If there is a D in the
:31:19. > :31:27.spelling, then yes. But surnames are funny things. They
:31:28. > :31:31.don't always behave like words. They often, the pronounceations can lag
:31:32. > :31:36.behind. The other thing that is worth saying
:31:37. > :31:40.about surnames, there are lots of British surnames with two
:31:41. > :31:47.pronounceations. Norman Lamont was an example.
:31:48. > :31:56.Relevant in this case. Most Scots, as you recognise, Andrew, would say
:31:57. > :32:03.Lamont. He used to say that but then after,
:32:04. > :32:10.he used the French pronounceation. . Stress shifting in names is fairly
:32:11. > :32:14.predictable. There is nothing especially foreign about it.
:32:15. > :32:26.Where does Farage come from? I have no idea. Perhaps Nigel does. It was
:32:27. > :32:30.originally a Huguenot name. If you look back, you can see that
:32:31. > :32:38.generation after generation spellings of names change. There was
:32:39. > :32:42.an Faridge going back. But at a wedding in East London this
:32:43. > :32:47.particular spelling arrived and Prime Minister, who is Home Counties
:32:48. > :32:54.educated, who went to Eton. Did he really? Do you think that
:32:55. > :33:01.David Cameron parks his car in a gashage? I don't think so. People
:33:02. > :33:07.from Bolton do. They call me "Farridge" and people from Oxford
:33:08. > :33:18.generally call me "Farage". How do you pronounce it? "Farage".
:33:19. > :33:24.I say "Farage". As I would say" garage." Thank you
:33:25. > :33:28.for talking about the F word it is wonderful! The finest.
:33:29. > :33:34.Dr Sangster, thank you very much for joining us this morning. Good to
:33:35. > :33:37.talk with you. Thank you. And thank you, "Farage"!
:33:38. > :33:38.Now did Barack Obama's attention-grabbing plea
:33:39. > :33:41.for the UK to vote to stay in the European Union
:33:42. > :33:45.The US president's visit was seen as a potentially decisive boost
:33:46. > :33:47.to the 'in' campaign, although polls since -
:33:48. > :33:50.which are still too close to call - haven't shown any rise in those
:33:51. > :33:53.planning to vote to remain a member on June 23rd.
:33:54. > :33:55.At the heart of President Obama's argument was trade -
:33:56. > :33:59.he said if the UK left the EU it would go "to the back
:34:00. > :34:01.of the queue" in getting a trade deal with America.
:34:02. > :34:06.He said that voting to leave would not be in Britain's economic
:34:07. > :34:08.interests given that 44% of our exports go to the EU -
:34:09. > :34:20.And he said that the UK strengthens both its own -
:34:21. > :34:22.and the United States' - security and prosperity
:34:23. > :34:28.His comments didn't exactly go down well with leave campaigners.
:34:29. > :34:31.Boris Johnson said it was "ridiculous" that Barack Obama
:34:32. > :34:36.would seek to "bully" the UK in this way.
:34:37. > :34:40.He also courted controversy by drawing attention
:34:41. > :34:46.Nigel Farage said the President would be out of office by the time
:34:47. > :34:49.Britain had left the EU, and said we should be wary
:34:50. > :34:54.of following foreign policy advice from the US after the Iraq war.
:34:55. > :34:56.Justice Minister Dominic Raab accused the President
:34:57. > :35:00.of being "hypocritical" because he would never
:35:01. > :35:04.dream of opening the US border with Mexico.
:35:05. > :35:08.And Liam Fox said President Obama was now "largely irrelevant"
:35:09. > :35:15.and was merely parroting lines given to him by Downing Street.
:35:16. > :35:18.Well to discuss this we're joined now by Kurt Volker.
:35:19. > :35:21.He's a former US ambassador to Nato, he now heads a think-tank
:35:22. > :35:24.founded by the Republican senator John McCain,
:35:25. > :35:27.and he's in London taking part in a US-European Forum
:35:28. > :35:31.organised by the Centre for European Reform.
:35:32. > :35:37.Welcome to the programme. . Thank you.
:35:38. > :35:43.What do you make of the bold point, we will listen to you, whether you
:35:44. > :35:47.open the bored tore Mexico? That is scoring points. You get a point
:35:48. > :35:50.coming in, you push back. That is what political dialogue and debate
:35:51. > :35:54.is about. What I would have said, I think that
:35:55. > :35:59.President Obama would have been wiser to make two points: The UK is
:36:00. > :36:06.a better, I'm sorry, the EU is a better partner for the US with the
:36:07. > :36:12.United Kingdom in it. That works well for us.
:36:13. > :36:17.And the EU would probably be more outward looking with the UK in it.
:36:18. > :36:22.That is a US interest. It is perfectly legitimate for a US
:36:23. > :36:27.President to express its interest. When it crosses the line to define
:36:28. > :36:31.for British voters, what the interest is, that is where you hear
:36:32. > :36:37.a backlash. That is what we got from Boris Johnson and others.
:36:38. > :36:44.And it is in America's interest. The reason is that if we leave the EU,
:36:45. > :36:52.the dominant form policy pure power in the EU becomes France.
:36:53. > :36:54.Overall France because diplomatically and militarily,
:36:55. > :37:00.Germany does not play to its strength. That is not in America's
:37:01. > :37:05.interest. That is the reason. The other thing he could have said
:37:06. > :37:10.as well. I think we must be wary of scaremongering. But while if the UK
:37:11. > :37:15.leaves the EU that America will no longer be a close ally and partner
:37:16. > :37:18.to the UK, I don't think anyone should say that. There is such
:37:19. > :37:23.goodwill in the United States, we will work it out it is really for
:37:24. > :37:27.the UK to define. Then many could not understand why
:37:28. > :37:32.the President said what he said. If you look at the extent of the
:37:33. > :37:36.intelligence sharing, you know better than me the military
:37:37. > :37:41.co-operation between the two countries, they are linked at the
:37:42. > :37:46.hip, especially on the military and the intelligence front. So why stick
:37:47. > :37:52.that on to the statement? Well, exactly. The NATO membership all of
:37:53. > :37:57.that prove dates membership to the EU. It would be the same either way.
:37:58. > :38:03.Our guests made a good point earlier on. Most of the things that affect
:38:04. > :38:06.how this will play out or the political decisions that the UK
:38:07. > :38:11.makes about governing itself, whether it is in the EU or not.
:38:12. > :38:15.These things can go both ways in both circumstances.
:38:16. > :38:19.I was looking through the websites of the US trade representative, if
:38:20. > :38:24.we were to go to the back of the queue on a trade deal, if we were to
:38:25. > :38:28.leave, who is ahead of us in the queue? It's a good question. It
:38:29. > :38:32.would not stay there very long. If you look at the amount of US and
:38:33. > :38:36.British cross-investment and the trade... We are the biggest
:38:37. > :38:41.investors in America, and you are in Britain? Exactly. It would be a huge
:38:42. > :38:44.business pressure to ensure nothing changes.
:38:45. > :38:49.Is it not right to say that there is no queue? The only negotiation I can
:38:50. > :38:54.see that the US is in is the negotiation with the EU? All other
:38:55. > :38:57.bilateral trade talks have been suspended or got nowhere? There are
:38:58. > :39:02.some. Which ones? The trance Pacific
:39:03. > :39:06.partnership is a big one. But that is waiting to be confirmed
:39:07. > :39:11.by Congress. We will see if the President can get that through
:39:12. > :39:15.before, I mean our man said he would try to shove that through in the
:39:16. > :39:19.lame duck period between the November election and the new
:39:20. > :39:27.President being sworn in. Good luck. That is a done deal in terms of the
:39:28. > :39:32.negotiations? That is not a matter for the democratic process. Who else
:39:33. > :39:37.is ahead of us? I don't want to challenge on TTP. The way that
:39:38. > :39:42.domestic politics played out in the US election campaign, all of the
:39:43. > :39:46.candidates are against it. Even if the President chooses to push it
:39:47. > :39:50.forward, anyone coming into office, even if they wish to see it
:39:51. > :39:55.ratified, they will push for changes before they do so.
:39:56. > :40:01.If Britain were to vote to leave, by the time it comes round to thinking
:40:02. > :40:05.of a bilateral trade deal, this could be no more? The I and US
:40:06. > :40:11.negotiations have been stumbling for some time. They met in New York this
:40:12. > :40:14.week. There is no sense of progress. There is even talk, the European
:40:15. > :40:18.Commissioner for trade saying that we will not get this done before
:40:19. > :40:24.President Obama steps down next January. In which case it will be
:40:25. > :40:29.nothing to do with Barack Obama. There will be a new President and
:40:30. > :40:33.Congress. More isolation as Congress as well? It is unknowable at this
:40:34. > :40:36.point. Anything can happen in the presidential election. That will
:40:37. > :40:40.have major consequences for the House and the senate elections at
:40:41. > :40:44.the same time it is really hard to know what will happen. In terms of
:40:45. > :40:47.the transatlantic trade deal, though, you are right. Nothing will
:40:48. > :40:51.happen in the current US administration. If something is to
:40:52. > :40:56.happen in the next one, it will have to be shaped by the new President.
:40:57. > :41:02.I mean, looking at the things that Britain has to do as a member of the
:41:03. > :41:09.EU, we negotiate trade deals through the EU now. We have open borders
:41:10. > :41:14.with the rest of the EU. We pull our sovereignty with these countries.
:41:15. > :41:19.They may be good or bad things, that is for the people of Britain to
:41:20. > :41:23.judge it on June the 23rd. A lot is simply a price you pay for being a
:41:24. > :41:30.member. That is decision we now have to take. But would America agree to
:41:31. > :41:37.any of that? We are unique. We go in for a trade deal... We go in for a
:41:38. > :41:41.trade deal that is comprehensive. Thankser is a good one. It is a free
:41:42. > :41:46.trade deal with Canada and Mexico. Two different economies. It has been
:41:47. > :41:51.great for the United States. So you would not, is the answer. You
:41:52. > :41:56.would not agree for America what you expect Britain to continue to have
:41:57. > :42:01.with the EU? I would it the other way around. The US is generous in
:42:02. > :42:05.terms of the way it deals with sovereignty issues, the UK is
:42:06. > :42:11.already a member of the EU, so it is asking itself a different question,
:42:12. > :42:14.is it better off in or out? Again that is something only the British
:42:15. > :42:20.voters can make a choice about. One of the arguments of those who
:42:21. > :42:24.vote to leave, is our special relationship with the United States,
:42:25. > :42:29.is our role in NATO, we are the second most important power in NATO,
:42:30. > :42:32.we have the best intelligence services in NATO other than the
:42:33. > :42:38.United States, and we all take that for granted but when you look at the
:42:39. > :42:42.rise of Donald Trump and his attitudes to NATO and to Europe,
:42:43. > :42:47.maybe we can't take that for granted now? There is a high degree of
:42:48. > :42:51.frustration in the US about the European levels of defence spending
:42:52. > :42:57.overall and the perception that we are doing more for European defence
:42:58. > :43:01.than Europe itself and should we continue doing that? If the
:43:02. > :43:11.Europeans don't do it, why should we? So the frustration comes not
:43:12. > :43:16.only from Donald Trump but Bob Gates, when leading the Secretary Of
:43:17. > :43:21.Defense, giving a speech, talking of how the expenditure Rose from 50 to
:43:22. > :43:27.75% after a ten-year period. And you have bigger fish to fry in
:43:28. > :43:31.the Pacific? Yes. There is a question why can't Europe take care
:43:32. > :43:35.of themselves, they are wealthy, rich, they are democracies. That is
:43:36. > :43:38.what Donald Trump is playing to. It is not defined policy. He is
:43:39. > :43:42.literally playing to people's emotions.
:43:43. > :43:50.Or even making it up as he goes along? Indeed.
:43:51. > :43:54.One of the reasons that the back of the queue comment was inappropriate
:43:55. > :43:58.and offensive is that we are the only member of NATO that meets the
:43:59. > :44:02.defence spending obligations. But can I ask, do we need a bilateral
:44:03. > :44:08.trade agreement with the US if leaving the EU? We don't have one at
:44:09. > :44:14.the moment, yet we sell about ?35 billion worth of goods and services
:44:15. > :44:21.in America, and each year they sell roughly the same amount. Would it be
:44:22. > :44:26.catastrophic if it did take 10 to 15 years to regulate the rules?
:44:27. > :44:30.Businesses need to know the rules. With the UK out of the EU,
:44:31. > :44:35.businesses want to know what is the basis of on we are trading? But the
:44:36. > :44:41.US does not have an agreement with the US.
:44:42. > :44:48.-- the UK. We do have substantial rules in
:44:49. > :44:50.place with the EU on trade, investment, data privacy, legal
:44:51. > :44:55.protections and intellectual property. A whole reservoir of
:44:56. > :45:00.things ironed out with the EU. We don't know how many have come
:45:01. > :45:05.here from America as we are inside the EU? It is a combination. It is
:45:06. > :45:08.the story of the relationship and the great business relationship with
:45:09. > :45:12.the UK. As President Obama's intervention
:45:13. > :45:16.been helpful? We are talking about two different things. Countries
:45:17. > :45:19.bristle when outsiders come in and tell them stuff. That is
:45:20. > :45:24.understandable. But there is something going on. The back of the
:45:25. > :45:27.queue was about economics. We are not talking about security
:45:28. > :45:34.arrangements and from what security officials have said it is clear it
:45:35. > :45:40.is not either or. It is both. We need both to do effective security.
:45:41. > :45:45.I don't really see what that has to do with Obama as back of the queue
:45:46. > :45:51.comments about trade? The case was given we are close on military and
:45:52. > :45:58.security matters... That if we are good friends... James Clapper, the
:45:59. > :46:01.director of national intelligence, he is worried that there are
:46:02. > :46:03.intelligence consequences from the free movement of peoples inside of
:46:04. > :46:12.the European Union? Absolutely. One of the things that is the US a
:46:13. > :46:16.lot of pause right now is the unchecked migration crisis affecting
:46:17. > :46:20.the EU, where you have a lot of people from Syria and the Arab
:46:21. > :46:26.world, Afghanistan, coming in, forming large, an integrated
:46:27. > :46:30.communities -- un-integrated communities that are connected to
:46:31. > :46:33.existing nonintegrated immigrant communities in places like France or
:46:34. > :46:41.Germany or the Netherlands, many of whom have EU passports, so that they
:46:42. > :46:44.are able to come to the US. So we are having to rethink, how do we
:46:45. > :46:48.screen a potential terrorists or radicalised persons who may be
:46:49. > :46:53.coming in as immigrants - that's one thing. You may be citizens of EU
:46:54. > :47:01.countries, who have been radicalised by some of this change in
:47:02. > :47:04.immigration. So if we were not only EU it might be more difficult for
:47:05. > :47:08.British is to get to America? Not all British tourists but we're going
:47:09. > :47:14.to have to have a look at what the rules are. So Remain has got
:47:15. > :47:20.President Obama and you have got dream the pen. There's a pretty even
:47:21. > :47:28.Stevens? -- Marine Le Pen. I don't think you can always choose your
:47:29. > :47:33.allies. A minute ago UL busting Corbyn for his eyes but your allies
:47:34. > :47:41.are fine! -- you were lamb busting Corbyn. If Ted Cruz doesn't win the
:47:42. > :47:49.Indiana primary next week, does Donald Trump get enough votes for
:47:50. > :47:55.Cleveland? If he wins Indiana, the presumption is that he is also going
:47:56. > :47:58.to win California because the accommodation will get him over. So
:47:59. > :48:02.he could well now be... I think it is very likely you will be. And Mrs
:48:03. > :48:12.Clinton is almost certainly be Democratic nomination. Does she beat
:48:13. > :48:17.Mr Trump? To early to say. I think in every poll that we look at today
:48:18. > :48:20.she would clearly defeat him but that has been the case with Donald
:48:21. > :48:25.Trump this entire campaign. Everyone says he can't win and he keeps
:48:26. > :48:31.winning. Well, we, being totally impartial at the BBC, hope that it
:48:32. > :48:33.is a contested convention in Cleveland because it is just such a
:48:34. > :48:49.good story. Thank you very much. Now, among the smorgasbord - do you
:48:50. > :48:51.like that? - of elections being held around the country next Thursday -
:48:52. > :48:54.that means there's a lot of them... Voters in England and Wales will be
:48:55. > :48:57.choosing their Police As long as you're not
:48:58. > :49:00.in London or in Manchester, where the role is
:49:01. > :49:02.taken by the Mayor. These commissioners are intended
:49:03. > :49:05.to be the voice of the people to hold police forces to account,
:49:06. > :49:08.but have they been a success? Here's our very own police
:49:09. > :49:09.cadet, Ellie Price. They
:49:10. > :49:17.are your democratically elected Police and Crime Commissioners
:49:18. > :49:19.and you're going to vote You see, operation PCC hit a bit
:49:20. > :49:26.of an early snag when not many The 2012 election saw the lowest
:49:27. > :49:39.turnout in British electoral I think the voters made it slightly
:49:40. > :49:50.easy for your staff on the basis that the numbers didn't make it too
:49:51. > :49:57.arduous task to actually count. This new role gave PCCs the power
:49:58. > :50:01.to set police budgets and to hire So, good idea or waste
:50:02. > :50:06.of police time? I think we've seen Police
:50:07. > :50:11.and Crime Commissioners trying out I think they've been more
:50:12. > :50:16.accessible, more visible, than the old police
:50:17. > :50:17.authorities were. And I think they've held the police
:50:18. > :50:22.to account much more So broadly, I don't think that PCCs
:50:23. > :50:28.have been the kind of disaster that It's a new role that's
:50:29. > :50:36.being invented by the government The main reason the role
:50:37. > :50:41.was invented was, said the Tories in their 2010 manifesto,
:50:42. > :50:43.to give people more of a say about how policing
:50:44. > :50:46.in their area was run. But four years on, it's fair
:50:47. > :50:48.to say the idea hasn't Do you know who your Police
:50:49. > :50:52.and Crime Commissioner is? Do you know who your Police
:50:53. > :51:00.and Crime Commissioners are? You've got to vote for them
:51:01. > :51:03.next week. It's already come and I haven't got
:51:04. > :51:08.a clue who they are. The point of it was to make policing
:51:09. > :51:12.more accountable, so... Well, I think Police
:51:13. > :51:15.and Crime Commissioners I think we'll see an expansion
:51:16. > :51:19.of their role, so we're already seeing fire and rescue coming under
:51:20. > :51:22.the remit of Police and Crime Commissioners and I think
:51:23. > :51:25.we might even start to see some things like bits of the prison
:51:26. > :51:29.estate, bits of probation, coming under the remit of Police
:51:30. > :51:31.and Crime Commissioners as well. And I think that's
:51:32. > :51:35.probably a good thing. Next week, 40 Police
:51:36. > :51:37.and Crime Commissioners around This time round, they may end
:51:38. > :51:41.up with more powers - and they may even end up
:51:42. > :51:49.with more voters. And we're joined in the studio now
:51:50. > :51:55.by Gordon Wasserman - he's a Conservative peer and has
:51:56. > :51:58.been described as the architect of the police and crime
:51:59. > :51:59.commissioner policy - and by Bella Sankey
:52:00. > :52:10.from the campaign group Liberty. Bella, let me come to you first. Has
:52:11. > :52:13.this been a worthwhile innovation or waste of time? I think it's been a
:52:14. > :52:17.huge waste of time, effort and money. There was never any evidence
:52:18. > :52:20.that the police authorities which previously were the body charged
:52:21. > :52:23.with holding blues to account locally were doing a bad job or that
:52:24. > :52:27.the public weren't pleased with the work they were doing. There was an
:52:28. > :52:31.element of democracy in that model but they were also independent
:52:32. > :52:36.people drawn from the community, that would genuinely representative
:52:37. > :52:38.of the community. The idea was that these Police and Crime Commissioners
:52:39. > :52:43.would be visible. They certainly have been visible but on so many
:52:44. > :52:47.occasions, in a really bad way. We think that has undermined, rather
:52:48. > :52:50.than increased, the legitimacy and credibility of police
:52:51. > :52:55.accountability. What do you say to that? I would say I think it's been
:52:56. > :52:59.a great successful stopped I think that police are to the community. I
:53:00. > :53:02.think there is a much more holistic approach taken to crime prevention
:53:03. > :53:08.and community safety, rather than simply having police and crime and
:53:09. > :53:11.they look beyond the police. I think there's been much more innovation in
:53:12. > :53:19.individual forces, rather than waiting for the Home Office to send
:53:20. > :53:22.out Mermoz. I think on the whole, it's been better value for money,
:53:23. > :53:29.mainly because the direction of policing is at the local level and
:53:30. > :53:33.local policing is a local service. Not the NCA and serious organised
:53:34. > :53:38.crime - that's national. But local policing, safety of our communities.
:53:39. > :53:41.No one has said it is not a local issue but the point is, there was a
:53:42. > :53:44.local model and structure that worked incredibly well. Were you
:53:45. > :53:49.happy with that model? A lot of people were... I'm not arguing that
:53:50. > :53:54.what's replaced it is any better. One of the constant complaints we
:53:55. > :53:59.hear, if you read over the past ten years, is how the police on many
:54:00. > :54:03.occasions were not held to account in an independent way, which is why,
:54:04. > :54:08.for many people, trust and confidence of the police has gone
:54:09. > :54:13.down. Absolutely. We have huge concerns about instances where the
:54:14. > :54:16.police have been properly held to account -- haven't been. But the
:54:17. > :54:19.answer to that is to have an independent body. At the moment, the
:54:20. > :54:26.police really deal with complaints that are brought against them and I
:54:27. > :54:29.think, as it is widely viewed, the IPCC, the body charged with looking
:54:30. > :54:33.at the more serious complaints, has been performing as it should, so
:54:34. > :54:36.there are definitely problems. There was a lot of reform that could
:54:37. > :54:41.improve that but the PCC model hasn't solved this problem is, it's
:54:42. > :54:43.just created more. Could you give a substantive example of where what is
:54:44. > :54:47.happening now is a clear improvement on what happened before? I really
:54:48. > :54:53.think that Hillsborough is a very good example. The events wouldn't
:54:54. > :54:55.have changed but those are operational police mistakes, done
:54:56. > :55:00.under the pressure of the day. The planning was no good and so on. The
:55:01. > :55:04.actual cover-up, I believe, would never have happened if the Police
:55:05. > :55:07.Commissioner had been there and would have been inundated,
:55:08. > :55:12.overwhelmed, by witnesses, by family, by social media, and you
:55:13. > :55:19.would have had to act to get to the truth in a much more the direct
:55:20. > :55:28.sway. -- vigorous way. It seemed to go along with the police. They
:55:29. > :55:34.inevitably... Did the PCCs coming are was in Sheffield but of a
:55:35. > :55:36.watershed, or Hillsborough, in that it was the Police and Crime
:55:37. > :55:42.Commissioner who removed the chief of police in South Yorkshire after
:55:43. > :55:46.what has happened? All of the powers that PCC is currently have were
:55:47. > :55:51.available to police authorities. The point was that they didn't use them.
:55:52. > :55:57.I think it's a huge stretch and potentially quite a dangerous thing
:55:58. > :56:00.to say that PCCs would have prevented Hillsborough cover-up.
:56:01. > :56:02.This model is one that was imported from the US, where corruption
:56:03. > :56:09.between police and the sheriffs that they have over their, their version
:56:10. > :56:17.of the PCC plea roll, is endemic. I simply don't accept that. I worked
:56:18. > :56:21.as a chief of staff for the third of the police department after I left
:56:22. > :56:25.the Home Office, I was in the NYPD. It's simply not. Of course there is
:56:26. > :56:30.corruption. There is corruption in individual police forces in this
:56:31. > :56:34.country. I'm not denying it. But it seems to me that a Police and Crime
:56:35. > :56:41.Commissioner who is a public figure, who is standing for election, will
:56:42. > :56:45.have to act on the kind of complaints, rather than people
:56:46. > :56:48.standing a police authority and there was a tendency to go along
:56:49. > :56:53.with it. Rachel, should we scrap them build on? I think the
:56:54. > :56:58.accountability issue is really important. The abuse that we have
:56:59. > :57:03.seen in the past... They work for us but sometimes they have abused that.
:57:04. > :57:05.I'm interested in, what kind of model might avoid this sort of
:57:06. > :57:08.cover-up that happened at Hillsborough quest Bob briefly
:57:09. > :57:18.because we are coming to the close and only to get to be in. What would
:57:19. > :57:21.be better than what we have now quest Bob you could have a local
:57:22. > :57:23.model that was similar to the one before. The key thing about
:57:24. > :57:27.Hillsborough is that the police need to be accountable to the rule of
:57:28. > :57:30.law. They need to act lawfully and do their jobs and you do that
:57:31. > :57:34.through the court system. The Human Rights Act, which we now have the
:57:35. > :57:36.statute book that we didn't have during Hillsborough has achieved
:57:37. > :57:39.this inquest and that's how you get the kind of lesson learning, the
:57:40. > :57:45.investigation and things been put right. Toby Young, final word? I'm
:57:46. > :57:48.in favour of it for dogmatic reasons about you can say that because so
:57:49. > :57:52.few people actually know the name of their Police Commissioner on you
:57:53. > :57:55.that they had about is a reason to do away with it. After all, not many
:57:56. > :57:58.people know the names of their MPs and a large percentage of the
:57:59. > :58:03.population don't actually vote in general elections. Are you voting
:58:04. > :58:07.for yours? Oh, no, you're in London, so you don't a vote. Thank you.
:58:08. > :58:11.There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
:58:12. > :58:14.According to George Osborne, speaking at a dinner last night,
:58:15. > :58:16.who appears on a watch owned by Boris Johnson?
:58:17. > :58:23.So, Rachel and Toby, what's the correct answer?
:58:24. > :58:29.I'm going to go with Mickey Mouse. Yeah. You're both wrong. It was Che
:58:30. > :58:34.Guevara. It was said that they execute people with the Che Guevara
:58:35. > :58:35.on their watch and George Osborne was disappointed to find that it was
:58:36. > :58:37.only a joke. I'll be back on Sunday at 11am
:58:38. > :58:43.on BBC One with the Sunday Politics, when we'll be talking
:58:44. > :58:47.about next week's elections