:00:37. > :00:38.Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:39. > :00:42.We know George Osborne likes to pull a rabbit out of the hat,
:00:43. > :00:47.but today, he pulled out two to help his EU referendum case.
:00:48. > :00:49.Yes, they haven't always seen eye-to-eye but the Chancellor
:00:50. > :00:53.was the filling in a Vince Cable/Ed Balls sandwich this morning.
:00:54. > :00:56.They all think we should stay in the EU but will the public be
:00:57. > :01:02.The Government is to unveil new measures to tackle extremism
:01:03. > :01:05.and plans to treat hate preachers like paedophiles.
:01:06. > :01:13.Campaigner Max Moseley takes to his soapbox to argue for greater
:01:14. > :01:20.But does the internet and social media make a mockery of such laws?
:01:21. > :01:23.And Cornwall, famous for its coastline, can sometimes
:01:24. > :01:27.But could this beauty spot soon become the gateway
:01:28. > :01:39.All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole
:01:40. > :01:41.of the programme today, we have Norman Lamont,
:01:42. > :01:43.a former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer,
:01:44. > :01:45.and Charles Clarke, one-time Labour Education Secretary
:01:46. > :01:52.First today - George Osborne has been joined by two blasts
:01:53. > :01:54.from the past this morning, in the latest salvo
:01:55. > :02:00.The Chancellor's old adversary Ed Balls and his old coalition
:02:01. > :02:03.colleague Vince Cable joined him on a platform in Essex
:02:04. > :02:05.to argue for Britain to remain in the EU.
:02:06. > :02:09.Let's have a listen to what they had to say.
:02:10. > :02:11.And there is a reason that the three of us
:02:12. > :02:14.are standing here today, putting aside our very
:02:15. > :02:21.It's not a conspiracy, it's called a consensus.
:02:22. > :02:24.The interventions of the last couple of weeks, from the IMF
:02:25. > :02:26.to the Bank of England, make very clear that the economic
:02:27. > :02:33.As someone who fought hard to stop Britain joining the euro,
:02:34. > :02:38.because it would have been economically really damaging
:02:39. > :02:42.for our country to join the euro, believe me when I say for us
:02:43. > :02:45.to leave the EU single market would be even more
:02:46. > :02:50.It is a risk that none of us, literally, can afford to take.
:02:51. > :02:57.The economic case is settled, it's clear, that British
:02:58. > :02:59.business and British workers have benefited,
:03:00. > :03:03.overall, from EU membership and stand to lose
:03:04. > :03:10.Well, also today, some of Britain's leading business figures are making
:03:11. > :03:17.300 businessmen and women have signed a joint letter
:03:18. > :03:19.to the Daily Telegraph saying the UK's competitiveness
:03:20. > :03:22."Britain's competitiveness is being undermined
:03:23. > :03:43.Charles Clarke, it is not just of the remaining camp that how the
:03:44. > :03:52.leading business figures supporting the case. -- be Remain. Speech at
:03:53. > :03:56.not at all, the British Chambers of Commerce had a survey of all small
:03:57. > :04:01.businesses and it runs about two to one of small businesses in favour of
:04:02. > :04:05.Remain and about a third against and those 300 in the Telegraph are part
:04:06. > :04:10.of the third, many of them very well-known names. As your report
:04:11. > :04:14.said, 5-.4 million small businesses in Britain, over which just over a
:04:15. > :04:19.million employ somebody and that 300 is again a pretty small number, so
:04:20. > :04:24.there isn't any real news in that. Of course, the big reality is the
:04:25. > :04:28.major economic interests in this country strongly favour our
:04:29. > :04:32.continued membership of the EU and that is what you saw George Osborne
:04:33. > :04:36.with Vince Cable and Ed Balls, arguing that so very, very strongly
:04:37. > :04:41.with their different experiences. No one will have a different view, I
:04:42. > :04:46.know, but the consensus view is the strong economic interests for the UK
:04:47. > :04:49.is to be part of the UK. It is difficult, isn't it, for the league
:04:50. > :04:53.campaign on the economics now, as they lead up all of these
:04:54. > :05:01.institutions that seemed to back Leave -- for the Leave Campaign. You
:05:02. > :05:04.have the IMF, the CBI, the Bank of England and this political
:05:05. > :05:08.consensus, George Osborne called it, saying the economic argument is
:05:09. > :05:13.without doubt and is settled. It is certainly not settled and beyond
:05:14. > :05:17.doubt. The Chancellor may call it a consensus, others may call it a
:05:18. > :05:21.certain amount of groupthink and there are people who think
:05:22. > :05:25.differently -- entirely differently, many entrepreneurs take a different
:05:26. > :05:30.view, many well-known professional investors in the city who take a
:05:31. > :05:33.different view and there are many individual private sector economists
:05:34. > :05:39.working in institutions who take a different view as well. But isn't it
:05:40. > :05:42.the case that that is not enough to counter the weight of economic
:05:43. > :05:46.argument? I am putting it to you that people watching this, when they
:05:47. > :05:50.see endless lines of people but they may or may not be familiar with, but
:05:51. > :05:54.they sound impressive, that you can pick out your odd 100
:05:55. > :06:00.businesspersons here and there but it won't be enough? That is for the
:06:01. > :06:03.voter to decide, we are not going to decide by counting up the number of
:06:04. > :06:07.organisations on one side or the other. It is going to be decided by
:06:08. > :06:12.ordinary people, by voters, by the individual small business, whichever
:06:13. > :06:16.way they voted in the chamber of commerce, one way or the other.
:06:17. > :06:20.Where I think the economic analysis is wrong, if I mistake my view, is I
:06:21. > :06:25.think they are overstating by a long way the value of the single market.
:06:26. > :06:29.The single market is about standards and the facts are that many
:06:30. > :06:34.countries worldwide sale into the single market without being part of
:06:35. > :06:38.the EU, without having any say in the rules. Those include Australia,
:06:39. > :06:44.Canada, Japan, America. They sell more than we do. Right, and it is a
:06:45. > :06:50.fallacy, isn't it, Charles Clarke, to say, as George Osborne did, that
:06:51. > :06:54.the EU would lose over ?200 billion overseas investment outside of the
:06:55. > :06:59.EU by 2030? Difficult to project that far ahead but that would be if
:07:00. > :07:03.we didn't have access to the single market, but we would have access? I
:07:04. > :07:07.think there is confusion about what is meant by access. Norman is right,
:07:08. > :07:11.everyone in the world trade is with the European Union. If we were
:07:12. > :07:15.outside, we would continue to trade with the European Union and in that
:07:16. > :07:18.sense, we would have access to the markets of the European Union
:07:19. > :07:23.countries. The key question is how easy is that access and what kind of
:07:24. > :07:29.trade issues, tariff issues, nontariff issues exist? What we do
:07:30. > :07:35.know is that the single market has worked very hard and Norman Lamont
:07:36. > :07:40.was a key member in part of this process, working to bring down those
:07:41. > :07:46.barriers to trade, reduced the areas where the nontariff barriers were
:07:47. > :07:49.there to increase trade and it has succeeded. And we would be
:07:50. > :07:54.withdrawing from that if we decided to leave the single market. Charles
:07:55. > :07:58.is absolutely right, the key is the meaning of the word access. The
:07:59. > :08:03.external tariff of the EU, if you exclude things like agriculture, is
:08:04. > :08:08.about 3%. Frankly, that is not a great obstacle. The 20 billion
:08:09. > :08:14.gross, 10 billion net that we paid to the EU annually, is a equivalent
:08:15. > :08:22.to a 7% tariff. We get the money back. We get half of it. So we would
:08:23. > :08:26.face a higher tariff, based on the net contribution, we face a higher
:08:27. > :08:31.tariff now than we would outside. One point, to agree with Norman,
:08:32. > :08:35.there is a wide range of opinions, a group of business people here and a
:08:36. > :08:39.group there, but the balance of opinion in all of these economic
:08:40. > :08:43.areas is that our interest is to stay in. But if we look at the
:08:44. > :08:48.governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, who has made, in some
:08:49. > :08:51.people's eyes, and unwise intervention but a powerful
:08:52. > :08:55.intervention, whatever you think about what he said, predicting that
:08:56. > :08:59.there would be slower growth in the short term, the risk of inflation,
:09:00. > :09:07.how much of an impact would he have on the debate? I remember in 1982
:09:08. > :09:10.when 365 economists, 365, wrote a letter to The Times saying the
:09:11. > :09:15.Government's policies cannot work, we will be stuck in recession for
:09:16. > :09:20.ever and what happened, from almost the day they wrote that letter? The
:09:21. > :09:24.economy took off. We get a lot of consensus but it is not necessarily
:09:25. > :09:29.going to be right. So you think it is all wrong? Of course I think the
:09:30. > :09:33.people forecasting doom and disaster are all wrong. It is fair enough for
:09:34. > :09:38.the Governor of the Bank of England to talk about the immediate impact
:09:39. > :09:42.but when you start to make longer-term impacts and talk of
:09:43. > :09:47.recession, they are paper darts in the air and nobody can... There will
:09:48. > :09:55.be, whether we stay in or come out, there are uncertainties on both
:09:56. > :09:59.sides. Do you agree that it is the duty of important institutions like
:10:00. > :10:04.the Bank of England, the Treasury, the IMF, to make some sort of
:10:05. > :10:09.assessment and inform the public of the likely impact of a Brexit
:10:10. > :10:12.decision? You may contest their assessment and say they are wrong
:10:13. > :10:17.but I think it is absolutely right that they make it and we should say
:10:18. > :10:22.it serious -- taken seriously. I do take it seriously but I don't find
:10:23. > :10:25.it convincing. The IMF forecast, frankly, was a bit of a disgrace
:10:26. > :10:32.because what it actually said is there are a range of outcomes from
:10:33. > :10:37.just under 1% decline in the economy up to 9%. That is a ridiculous range
:10:38. > :10:40.of forecasting, that is more like a fan chart than forecast. Do you
:10:41. > :10:47.agree with your colleague Iain Duncan Smith, who admitted yesterday
:10:48. > :10:53.that it is unlikely that there will be any serious economic institution
:10:54. > :10:57.that will back the Leave Campaign? The IMF, the OECD, the Bank of
:10:58. > :11:00.England, the Treasury, they are very much the same people, they like the
:11:01. > :11:03.landscape they are used to and dealing with the people they are
:11:04. > :11:07.used to dealing with. They are probably against any radical change.
:11:08. > :11:11.Look at the political leaders, the Prime Minister of Japan, the
:11:12. > :11:15.president of the United States, the Prime Minister of Australia. They
:11:16. > :11:20.are not part of some insidious plot, they are making a view based on the
:11:21. > :11:23.experience. You are entitled to save their view is wrong, but I don't
:11:24. > :11:30.think you are entitled to simply dismiss their view. I am not
:11:31. > :11:34.dismissing it. When you talk about prime ministers of Australia, John
:11:35. > :11:37.Howard, the former Prime Minister of Australia, the former Prime Minister
:11:38. > :11:45.and president of the Czech Republic, have said they would back a Brexit.
:11:46. > :11:55.As has Donald Trump. Is that good news for the Remain or the Leave?
:11:56. > :11:56.That is a Hitler point! I thought we would get through a whole programme
:11:57. > :11:59.without mentioning Hitler. Newquay is famous for its sea
:12:00. > :12:04.and beaches, but what exciting Government project is it also
:12:05. > :12:06.being tipped for? Norman and Charles will give
:12:07. > :12:15.us the correct answer. David Cameron has described the rise
:12:16. > :12:17.of Islamist extremism as "the struggle of our generation"
:12:18. > :12:20.and a new bill aimed at cracking down on extremism is expected
:12:21. > :12:23.to form the centrepiece of his government's
:12:24. > :12:24.legislative agenda Let's take a look at
:12:25. > :12:34.what's being proposed. The Counter Terrorism Bill is set
:12:35. > :12:37.to include new measures to ban extremists from working with young
:12:38. > :12:39.people and vulnerable people. The proposals are designed to stop
:12:40. > :12:41.people with radical views infiltrating schools, colleges,
:12:42. > :12:44.charities or care homes. The bill will also include plans
:12:45. > :12:47.to ban radical preachers And new powers to allow Ofcom
:12:48. > :12:53.to block broadcasts of "unacceptable These reforms form part
:12:54. > :12:58.of the Prime Minister's strategy to combat the "poisionous
:12:59. > :13:03.ideology" of extremism. But there are concerns that the bill
:13:04. > :13:06.could alienate Muslims and contain too broad a definition
:13:07. > :13:10.of extremist activity. Alistair Carmichael, the Lib Dem
:13:11. > :13:13.spokesperson for home affairs, said the proposals could "drive
:13:14. > :13:16.extremists into the shadows" and threaten the "very fabric
:13:17. > :13:35.of our multicultural society Charles Clarke, you were Home
:13:36. > :13:40.Secretary at the time of 7/7. What do you make of these proposals in
:13:41. > :13:44.the round? In the red, I support them but they are very difficult. It
:13:45. > :13:47.is hard to define extremism very, very clearly and it certainly is a
:13:48. > :13:50.problem in the legislation I took through Parliament to deal with
:13:51. > :13:55.these issues, both before and after 7/7. There are always difficult
:13:56. > :14:00.points of definition. If you take for example the role of hate
:14:01. > :14:04.preachers, I absolutely believe it is right to attack, focus,
:14:05. > :14:08.identified on the role but they play and how they try and destabilise
:14:09. > :14:11.society. And I agree that measuring back and putting it into effect than
:14:12. > :14:14.getting it right is not straightforward and the proof of the
:14:15. > :14:18.pudding will be in the actual legislation, I haven't seen the
:14:19. > :14:22.detailed proposals, but the direction of what the Government is
:14:23. > :14:26.trying to do I think is correct. But the problem is, as Charles Clarke
:14:27. > :14:30.has identified, what actually constitutes an extremist view and
:14:31. > :14:34.who would be making those judgments? In your opinion, Norman Lamont, what
:14:35. > :14:39.is extremism if you are looking at hate preachers? I think it is
:14:40. > :14:44.extremely difficult to define. Like Charles, I am in favour of laws that
:14:45. > :14:50.would prevent incitement of islands at -- violence and race hate. But
:14:51. > :14:55.where it gets very tricky is a concept like non-violent extremism.
:14:56. > :15:00.It is, for example, a person who does not advocate violence but says
:15:01. > :15:07."I don't believe in democracy, I believe in consultation with chut
:15:08. > :15:13.Rudd Government, which applies in parts of the Middle East"? Is that
:15:14. > :15:16.something you are going to ban? You can imagine all sorts of
:15:17. > :15:20.philosophers, like the teaching of Plato, who in many ways is regarded
:15:21. > :15:25.as anti-democratic, these are very difficult issues. There was a note I
:15:26. > :15:31.saw by a Government adviser who identified the teachings of one of
:15:32. > :15:35.the founders of the Muslim Brotherhood. Are we going to say
:15:36. > :15:42.they will be completely banned in this country? They already have an
:15:43. > :15:46.office in Cricklewood. We do have laws that cover incitement to
:15:47. > :15:49.violence and racial hatred, so where is the gap? Is it where Norman
:15:50. > :15:50.Lamont has just said, in these rather vague grey areas on the
:15:51. > :16:01.fringes? We do have laws. I put a number of
:16:02. > :16:06.those through parliament myself. I am aware of the criticisms that the
:16:07. > :16:10.Muslim community would be alienated and so on, which I don't think is
:16:11. > :16:14.actually right. But I think Norman is right that the actual definition
:16:15. > :16:19.is key. In the case of the examples he gives, it is not so much the
:16:20. > :16:23.question, what is the ultimate destination of a society? But what
:16:24. > :16:29.is the path by which you want to get there? If you both say, there is a
:16:30. > :16:33.society which behaves in a certain way, and we think it is acceptable
:16:34. > :16:39.to take violent action to get to that form of society, I would call
:16:40. > :16:43.that extremist action. And indeed, some hate preachers and some
:16:44. > :16:48.websites or about exciting action in those areas. It is an excellent
:16:49. > :16:52.question, whether the current law would catch that, and whether a new
:16:53. > :16:56.law is needed to do that. I think that depends on the precise wording
:16:57. > :17:01.of the law. So how worried are you that it could and probably would
:17:02. > :17:05.alienate parts of the Muslim community, if they feel that they
:17:06. > :17:08.are under threat for expressing philosophies, as you use that word?
:17:09. > :17:14.I think it has to be narrowly defined and it has to concentrate...
:17:15. > :17:18.We already have laws relating to the security service and monitoring
:17:19. > :17:23.people. This has to concentrate on hate, racial hatred and incitement
:17:24. > :17:27.to violence. I remember once, I happened to share a platform in the
:17:28. > :17:30.East End of London, I did not know quite what was coming, and there
:17:31. > :17:32.were a number of Muslims there who did not support democracy but were
:17:33. > :17:37.very firmly arguing against violence. Was it wrong that that
:17:38. > :17:42.meeting took place? I'm afraid I don't really think it was wrong. I
:17:43. > :17:47.think to suppress a meeting like that would cause more dangers than
:17:48. > :17:50.you would gain from panning it. So let's talk about how workable some
:17:51. > :17:56.of these things are. If you take the threat that it could destabilise a
:17:57. > :17:59.community, other include Barnicle banning radical preachers from
:18:00. > :18:06.posting material online, as such proposals workable? I think they can
:18:07. > :18:09.be done but it depends, and I am sorry to be agreeing with Norman on
:18:10. > :18:13.this, it depends precisely on the exact form of legislation, which it
:18:14. > :18:17.says what should be blocked and what should not. Technically I think
:18:18. > :18:22.these things can be blocked, but it's perfectly true, and some
:18:23. > :18:25.legislation has fallen into this trap, but if you do it in a
:18:26. > :18:29.cack-handed kind of way, you create an negative effects which were not
:18:30. > :18:34.intended. Who you trust the Government to do that only generally
:18:35. > :18:38.speaking, yes, actually. Let's talk about the Conservative Party, split
:18:39. > :18:44.on Europe, as we know. This is another of attempt by David Cameron
:18:45. > :18:48.to unite him party - will it succeed? I think there is a lot of
:18:49. > :18:56.support for the legislation. I have my own reservations. I think in the
:18:57. > :19:07.House of Lords, there will be very critical examination on this sort of
:19:08. > :19:11.issue. It is the sort of issue which the House of Lords likes to get its
:19:12. > :19:13.teeth into. We have a lot of law lords, a lot of lawyers. I think
:19:14. > :19:16.they will raise issues which have to be addressed. I think it is very,
:19:17. > :19:18.very important to realise one major division in the Conservative Party
:19:19. > :19:22.which took place some years ago, where you had the traditional
:19:23. > :19:26.Conservative view, worldly speaking, pro law and order and so on, ante-
:19:27. > :19:30.extremism, undermined by a substantial group of people who were
:19:31. > :19:34.civil libertarians, led often by David Davies. This was a big issue
:19:35. > :19:38.when I was in parliament. Even on big issues which in the past one
:19:39. > :19:42.would have expected the Conservatives to be united on, this
:19:43. > :19:46.civil liberties element of the Conservative Party was not. And I
:19:47. > :19:50.think it will be very interesting to see how that plays out. And of
:19:51. > :19:54.course there is already a division on issues of counter-terrorism and
:19:55. > :19:58.the risk of terrorism, within the EU debate. Do you agree with Iain
:19:59. > :20:05.Duncan Smith who says that staying in the EU exposes the UK to a
:20:06. > :20:12.terrorism risk? I am not an expert on that, but I did notice that Mr
:20:13. > :20:18.Noble, the former director of Interpol, actually said that he
:20:19. > :20:25.thought being in the EU actually increased... I think he described
:20:26. > :20:29.Schengen as a zone in which terrorists could operate. Did you
:20:30. > :20:35.agree with that? I also noticed one thing, that Mr Hayward, a former
:20:36. > :20:38.director of the CIA, said that actually, the real intelligence
:20:39. > :20:43.co-operation was between the United States and the UK, and to some
:20:44. > :20:46.extent France, but that one of the conditions of that sharing of
:20:47. > :20:51.intelligence was that it was not shared with other countries in the
:20:52. > :20:55.EU. You said ridiculous? I did because the suggestion that staying
:20:56. > :21:00.in the EU makes us more vulnerable to terrorism is a ridiculous
:21:01. > :21:03.argument. One, a former police officer, made the criticism that the
:21:04. > :21:07.EU does not do enough, and aspects of the Schengen system make
:21:08. > :21:11.terrorism more difficult to detect. I don't think he made the argument
:21:12. > :21:17.that the UK should be outside the EU. What he argued is that the UK
:21:18. > :21:21.should operate in these areas, the EU, far more effectively.
:21:22. > :21:25.Intelligence sharing has developed a lot in the last 10-15 years.
:21:26. > :21:29.Countries like Holland and Germany are now part of that intelligence
:21:30. > :21:34.sharing operation. Which used to be just the five countries and it
:21:35. > :21:38.gradually got wide to include more of the EU countries.
:21:39. > :21:40.The Green Party leader Natalie Bennett has announced
:21:41. > :21:43.that she will stand down this August after four years in charge.
:21:44. > :21:45.We'll talk to Natalie in a moment but, first,
:21:46. > :21:47.let's look at some of the Green Party's highlights
:21:48. > :22:02.Sunday Politics now has a new traffic and travel reporter.
:22:03. > :22:06.I'm pleased to say that Heathrow's third runway, "Boris
:22:07. > :22:10.Island", and all short-haul flights are, just like
:22:11. > :22:23.Do you also accept that Ukip consistently
:22:24. > :22:26.attracts more support than you in the opinion polls?
:22:27. > :22:42.It shouldn't be a crime to be a member
:22:43. > :22:49.Exactly - what we want to do is to make sure we're not punishing
:22:50. > :22:54.?1 million on the table that you will not form the
:22:55. > :22:59.I'm afraid my underwriting doesn't quite stretch that far!
:23:00. > :23:05.You want to control the BBC schedules so that we
:23:06. > :23:08.broadcast educational programmes in prime time - does The Sunday
:23:09. > :23:11.Politics count as an educational programme in prime time?
:23:12. > :23:13.I think I'll leave the viewewrs to decide that for themselves.
:23:14. > :23:25.If you'd said yes, you'd have had our vote.
:23:26. > :23:32.Natalie Bennett joins us now. Happy memories? Mostly, pull it has been a
:23:33. > :23:39.great four years and no regrets. When did you to step down? We had a
:23:40. > :23:43.chat, I cannot remember when exactly, but you said you had not
:23:44. > :23:47.decided. I thought you had made your mind up then that you were going to
:23:48. > :23:51.step down but you did not want to make it public? No, basically I
:23:52. > :23:55.thought the elections a couple of weeks ago and then I created some
:23:56. > :24:00.time after that. So it was literally a few days ago that I made my
:24:01. > :24:03.decision. What made up your mind? I went back to my proposal is that I
:24:04. > :24:07.put forward when I stood for leader four years ago and I said I wanted
:24:08. > :24:12.to grow the party, to make it a truly national party, to win our
:24:13. > :24:16.place in the national debates, and I thought, I've achieved those things.
:24:17. > :24:20.1.1 million votes in the general election, being able to look David
:24:21. > :24:23.Cameron in the eye in those leader debates and say, why are you so
:24:24. > :24:30.failing to deal with the issue of Syrian refugees? King Barrett on the
:24:31. > :24:35.lighter moments, with Ed Miliband and Nigel Farage in the debates. But
:24:36. > :24:39.above all, the travelling around the country, visiting local Green
:24:40. > :24:43.parties. There are scores more of them than there were. We have more
:24:44. > :24:48.than quadrupled the membership. And the Green Party leadership is not
:24:49. > :24:51.like it is in other parties, it is not a greasy poll, with people
:24:52. > :24:55.scrambling to the top. I am opening up the space for other people to
:24:56. > :25:00.come forward. I am not going away, I am planning to be involved full-time
:25:01. > :25:04.in politics, but there's a space now for other people to come forward. So
:25:05. > :25:09.what are you going to do, then? I will continue doing a lot of what I
:25:10. > :25:14.am doing now. I am very passionate about education. I have spent a lot
:25:15. > :25:18.of time speaking to young people and they are very angry and fed up about
:25:19. > :25:21.the way education has done real damage to their lives, the level of
:25:22. > :25:27.mental health issues. I first degree was agricultural science, going back
:25:28. > :25:31.to that and looking at issues of sustainable food. As leader, I have
:25:32. > :25:36.had to cover everything. This will be a chance to focus a bit more. Do
:25:37. > :25:39.you think that was your difficulty? You yourself admitted that there
:25:40. > :25:42.were times when it was bruising to be leader, particularly from a media
:25:43. > :25:47.pass. Was that in part having to cover so many areas, perhaps some of
:25:48. > :25:52.which you did not feel confident with? One of the problems is the
:25:53. > :25:56.resources that the Green Party has, even though we now have 60,000
:25:57. > :26:00.members, four times the size we were when I was elected. We do not have
:26:01. > :26:04.billionaire hedge fund owners finding a few spare millions. We
:26:05. > :26:08.have a fraction of the resources of the parties have. And so as I said
:26:09. > :26:13.in my message of farewell, I was saying thank you to all the Green
:26:14. > :26:16.Party members who volunteered around the country. There have been days
:26:17. > :26:20.when I have shoved my mobile phone into the hand of a sensible person
:26:21. > :26:25.and said, media manage me for the day. I suppose it is not always down
:26:26. > :26:31.to expensive backers, it is about the person as well - did you never
:26:32. > :26:35.feel entirely comfortable in your media role, would that be felt? No,
:26:36. > :26:41.it's interesting. I am not a lifelong, spin trained politician,
:26:42. > :26:46.and people sometimes said I look nervous, and I wasn't. I don't get
:26:47. > :26:52.nervous about these things. I simply speak in that moment. But maybe I
:26:53. > :26:55.haven't got some of the smooth mannerisms, the kind of smoothness
:26:56. > :26:59.which comes from decades of doing, training from a very young age, from
:27:00. > :27:03.the kind of background which produces that look. And do you think
:27:04. > :27:09.you need that to be a successful leader of a political party? I think
:27:10. > :27:12.what we need to see is, we need to see politics changing. That
:27:13. > :27:16.addresses broader issues about the nature of the media and the way in
:27:17. > :27:21.which politics is covered. This isn't a football game, it is not
:27:22. > :27:24.about points scoring. We need to see exploration of ideas and issues and
:27:25. > :27:30.policies, and it needs to be not about personalities. Natalie Bennett
:27:31. > :27:36.has put it in that sense, not being spin trained. I say to you that
:27:37. > :27:42.Jeremy Corbyn is not spin trained either, so do you think it is time
:27:43. > :27:46.for politics to reflect that? I do, basically. I don't criticise people
:27:47. > :27:51.for not being spin trained at all. I never thought I was particularly,
:27:52. > :27:58.either. But do you not have to deal with the media? You have to be able
:27:59. > :28:01.to prepare yourself in offering a physically demanding process. I
:28:02. > :28:05.don't think it is so much about being spin trained, it is about your
:28:06. > :28:09.confidence in dealing with the argument as it comes through, having
:28:10. > :28:15.a proper media management system so you can make your arguments in
:28:16. > :28:22.detailed and clear ways. Natalie and I had a conversation in knowledge
:28:23. > :28:25.about three -- in front of about 300 students, a few months ago, going
:28:26. > :28:30.through all of her views and beliefs, and she came over extremely
:28:31. > :28:34.powerfully to a wide audience. It was not about the spin and the
:28:35. > :28:37.precise language that she used. The power of her convictions came across
:28:38. > :28:44.very strongly, even to those who were not Green Party supporters. Do
:28:45. > :28:47.you agree, can politicians succeed at the highest level without that
:28:48. > :28:51.ability to deal with some intense questioning and scrutiny of their
:28:52. > :28:57.policies on a constant basis? I think it is difficult. But I think
:28:58. > :29:02.the keyword in your question is intense. I think some questioning in
:29:03. > :29:08.the media, I am not against being questioned, I enjoy it, but
:29:09. > :29:13.sometimes the interviews are so aggressive that what it produces in
:29:14. > :29:17.politicians is a blandness. And interviewers, if you will forgive
:29:18. > :29:21.me, are constantly looking for a gaffe, and that this can often be
:29:22. > :29:26.when somebody just speaks an uncomfortable truth. And it is then
:29:27. > :29:30.trivialised. The result is, are lot of politicians are very determined
:29:31. > :29:36.not to mention this, not to get into this, it is too tricky, give a bland
:29:37. > :29:40.answer, avoid the difficult times, even if it is the truth for one. Do
:29:41. > :29:44.you agree, Natalie? Yes, I have often been accused of answering the
:29:45. > :29:50.question too often. I think that has been my strength and my week less as
:29:51. > :29:53.a politician. That is my first instinct, to answer the question.
:29:54. > :29:57.And lots of politicians have been trained never to answer the
:29:58. > :30:04.question, just to repeat the phrase which they have been told to repeat
:30:05. > :30:10.endlessly. One ought to be able to answer every question, I agree. And
:30:11. > :30:12.yet sometimes, I think with today's politics, people deliberately set
:30:13. > :30:16.out not to answer the question, simply because of the way in which
:30:17. > :30:21.it will be portrayed, even though what is being said is a valid answer
:30:22. > :30:23.Allah book let me ask you a question which you might not want to answer -
:30:24. > :30:33.who are you backing? If you look at the last 12 hours,
:30:34. > :30:37.the amount of media coverage that who will succeed me has had, it was
:30:38. > :30:41.scores more than the last two leadership races. I don't know, it
:30:42. > :30:50.is a great opportunity. Anybody in mind? No, but if we had a fair
:30:51. > :30:55.proportional system, the Green Party would have 25 MPs in the Commons,
:30:56. > :30:58.and we don't have that so this is a real chance for somebody to come
:30:59. > :31:01.forward and have a platform and speak for the 1.1 million voters
:31:02. > :31:03.that the system has currently denied representation in Parliament. Thank
:31:04. > :31:06.you very much and good luck. So, the Queen's Speech
:31:07. > :31:09.is the big event this week. But what else is in store
:31:10. > :31:11.for the next few days? Today, Jo Johnson,
:31:12. > :31:13.the Universities Minister, which would make it possible
:31:14. > :31:16.for tuition fees to increase above ?9,000 and make it easier to
:31:17. > :31:19.open new universities. a second vote is expected
:31:20. > :31:24.in the Welsh Parliament The last vote was a tie
:31:25. > :31:31.between Plaid Cymru's Leanne Wood All eyes will be on which way Ukip
:31:32. > :31:35.Assembly members will vote. On Wednesday, it's
:31:36. > :31:36.the Queen's Speech, As well as the bill
:31:37. > :31:42.tackling extremism, and there are rumours there could be
:31:43. > :31:50.a new British Bill of Rights. the EU referendum at least once
:31:51. > :31:56.in this item, and on Thursday, it's the deadline for EU referendum
:31:57. > :31:59.campaigners to register donations and loans with the
:32:00. > :32:00.Electoral Commission. the full list of candidates
:32:01. > :32:04.in the Tooting by-election to replace new London
:32:05. > :32:07.Mayor, Sadiq Khan. We're joined now by Paul Waugh
:32:08. > :32:09.from the Huffington Post and James Forsyth from
:32:10. > :32:20.The Spectator. Welcome to both of you. Paul Waugh,
:32:21. > :32:25.Donald Trump's intervention in the EU debate, what do you make of it?
:32:26. > :32:29.Well, there is an American T-shirt which says "I'm with stupid" and I
:32:30. > :32:32.think lots of remain as were thinking that was the perfect
:32:33. > :32:40.T-shirt today, that you have Donald Trump on the side of Brexit along
:32:41. > :32:48.with possibly Vladimir Putin and marine Le Pen, it is a gift to those
:32:49. > :32:53.in Number Ten who think the best painting could be slightly fringe
:32:54. > :32:58.and extreme. It is very unfair, but there is no question Donald Trump's
:32:59. > :33:04.words will be used against the Leave Campaign. In terms of other sources
:33:05. > :33:08.being drawn on, we have seen George Osborne flanked by Ed Balls and
:33:09. > :33:12.Vince Cable, do you think that helps, James Forsyth? All about
:33:13. > :33:17.trying to get the turnout on the Labour side, certainly. With the
:33:18. > :33:22.Tory vote divided, they need left-wing members to decide the
:33:23. > :33:25.referendum and ways to get to those voters. I think the photo Op this
:33:26. > :33:30.morning was slightly undercut by the fact that Ed Balls and Vince Cable
:33:31. > :33:34.both lost their seats at the last election. It didn't look like three
:33:35. > :33:36.great economic figures coming together, it looked like two guys
:33:37. > :33:40.who were vanquished by George Osborne coming back on board for him
:33:41. > :33:45.in the hopes of being thrown some scraps from the table. They will be
:33:46. > :33:49.delighted by that analysis, but yes, you are right. Paul Waugh, in terms
:33:50. > :33:53.of who the bedfellows are for everybody, does that help the
:33:54. > :33:57.campaign? The cross-party consensus idea or the 300 businesses that have
:33:58. > :34:03.written in the Telegraph? Does this change people's minds? Don't forget,
:34:04. > :34:07.George Osborne wants to scare the heck out of people, to say if you
:34:08. > :34:11.leave Europe, the cost of living and the average income is going to be
:34:12. > :34:14.hit directly and that is the economic message today, and it is
:34:15. > :34:19.Project Fear again. It is ironic that as James says, both Ed Balls
:34:20. > :34:23.and Vince Cable were bashed very hard last year by Project Fear from
:34:24. > :34:28.George Osborne when it came to the economy. The curious thing is, and
:34:29. > :34:31.it relates to the Queen's Speech, we are in a holding pattern in politics
:34:32. > :34:36.this week because everybody is waiting for the EU referendum. The
:34:37. > :34:39.only constant will be the Queen herself, so she will deliver the
:34:40. > :34:43.Queen's Speech but come June the 24th, she will be the only person we
:34:44. > :34:47.are sure will be there. David Cameron may not be there, we may not
:34:48. > :34:52.be in the EU and as a result, today, the launch with George Osborne in
:34:53. > :34:58.the RyanAir factory, with Ryanair plane behind him, the holding
:34:59. > :35:02.pattern applies to politics as well. Let's take this analogy further,
:35:03. > :35:06.James Forsyth, that is how it is going to be. The Queen's Speech, in
:35:07. > :35:11.a way, in your view, is it going to mean anything ahead the EU debate?
:35:12. > :35:16.There is a divide in the Government about when they can do it. Someone
:35:17. > :35:19.to use it after the referendum and reunite the Tory party and others
:35:20. > :35:23.are saying they have to show they are getting on with Government. But
:35:24. > :35:28.normally June the Queen's Speech, the Government cleared the decks, it
:35:29. > :35:33.doesn't do anything else to give as much publicity as possible. There is
:35:34. > :35:38.no ceasefire in the campaign. The Government will devote Wednesday to
:35:39. > :35:43.it and that is it. What about the substance? Even if that is the
:35:44. > :35:47.backdrop, what about the substance? Things were promised, like Michael
:35:48. > :35:51.Gove's British Bill of Rights? Again, the referendum casts a long
:35:52. > :35:55.Shadow because the Bill of Rights, Michael Gove quite clearly thinks it
:35:56. > :35:59.has been watered down, and Theresa May, as it happens, clearly think we
:36:00. > :36:02.should leave the European Convention on human rights and have a bold
:36:03. > :36:07.legislative step within the new bill of rights and that is not going to
:36:08. > :36:12.happen, for a variety of reasons. Number Ten didn't like the idea, it
:36:13. > :36:15.would may be scared too many people during the referendum campaign,
:36:16. > :36:20.despite the PM himself promising this six years ago and despite the
:36:21. > :36:24.rhetoric about Abu Qatada, the only person the British public are really
:36:25. > :36:30.worried about, cases like that. Not so much worried about Europe, more
:36:31. > :36:34.about this bill of rights issue getting in a way of cases like Abu
:36:35. > :36:36.Qatada, so the Government has been undermined by its own rhetoric in
:36:37. > :36:40.the last few years and this is one of the real problems with the list
:36:41. > :36:48.of bills you are going to see, it is a bit like John Major's Hotline, you
:36:49. > :36:51.have the idea of lists for prisons and performance league tables, you
:36:52. > :36:55.have got an expansion of the idea that you can have a few more garden
:36:56. > :37:02.cities. It doesn't seem to add up to much. Does it add up to anything,
:37:03. > :37:06.James Forsyth? There is a social reform agenda in there that is quite
:37:07. > :37:09.interesting but it is a soft launch by Number Ten, because they know
:37:10. > :37:12.nothing is going to get that much attention now because we are all,
:37:13. > :37:17.including them, talking about the EU referendum all the time. Gentlemen,
:37:18. > :37:24.thank you very much. Only another few days to go.
:37:25. > :37:34.How much privacy can and should celebrities expect? It is the debate
:37:35. > :37:37.over press and privacy that keeps coming back. Someone who has
:37:38. > :37:39.experienced this at first hand is Max Mosley.
:37:40. > :37:42.In 2008, he became the subject of pages of newspaper allegations
:37:43. > :37:44.over his private life, which he denied and eventually
:37:45. > :37:46.won ?60,000 in damages from the News of the World.
:37:47. > :37:50.Since then, he has been campaigning to reform celebrity privacy laws,
:37:51. > :38:08.Privacy is a fundamental human right. So often, the media crosses
:38:09. > :38:13.the line and shines a light into areas of our lives when it
:38:14. > :38:18.shouldn't. The arguments that the editors offer our about as concrete
:38:19. > :38:25.as the papers they produce. Whether it's the recent threesome case, or
:38:26. > :38:29.my case back in 2008, they have absolutely no basis on which to
:38:30. > :38:34.publish anything. When I appeared in front of a parliamentary committee
:38:35. > :38:38.in 2009, the assumption seems to be that because I was known, I was fair
:38:39. > :38:45.game and they could publish anything they liked. You suggested that you
:38:46. > :38:49.got a phone call out of the blue at ten o'clock on a Sunday morning,
:38:50. > :38:54.saying have you seen the News of the World? And you were horrorstruck to
:38:55. > :38:58.discover it. You also said that you had been attending parties of that
:38:59. > :39:02.kind for 45 years. You are a public figure. You know the British press,
:39:03. > :39:07.you know the appetite of the British press. Is of this kind. Had you not
:39:08. > :39:12.always felt that this was a time bomb that sooner or later was going
:39:13. > :39:15.to go off? I have to confess, I didn't.
:39:16. > :39:19.As Prince Harry said the other day, everyone is entitled to a private
:39:20. > :39:23.life and the media have destroyed their own defence by crossing the
:39:24. > :39:25.line into areas of no public interest so many times and
:39:26. > :39:30.ironically, when the newspapers themselves have something to lose,
:39:31. > :39:36.by exposing John Whittingdale's relationship, they chickened out.
:39:37. > :39:41.That is why I believe injunctions still do have a valuable role to
:39:42. > :39:45.play in maintaining privacy. Once something is published, no judge on
:39:46. > :39:50.earth can make it private again. An injunction is the only safeguard. Of
:39:51. > :39:56.course, there are problems with the Internet, because it is all over the
:39:57. > :40:00.world. But the technology companies must take responsibility for
:40:01. > :40:03.protecting privacy in cases where it should be protected. There are cases
:40:04. > :40:09.of hypocrisy, of misleading the public, which must be exposed. I
:40:10. > :40:13.accept that. But exposing people's Private lives for no better reason
:40:14. > :40:19.than increasing circulation is completely unacceptable.
:40:20. > :40:30.You politely glossed over your feelings on John Whittingdale,
:40:31. > :40:35.giving his robust questioning of you on the cultural select committee.
:40:36. > :40:39.How did you feel about the story on him coming out, was a public
:40:40. > :40:42.interest or did you feel sympathy for him? I felt sympathy for him as
:40:43. > :40:47.far as the story is concerned and the public interest is not the story
:40:48. > :40:51.but the fact that the newspapers had the story and didn't reveal it,
:40:52. > :40:56.which of course normally they would. I mean, anything slightly untoward
:40:57. > :41:00.with an MP, they would reveal. But in his case they didn't. Why didn't
:41:01. > :41:05.they? Well, the obvious inference is they had this, he knew they had it
:41:06. > :41:09.and it was hanging over him like the sort of Damocles. As you know, the
:41:10. > :41:12.press have robustly defended themselves, saying it wasn't
:41:13. > :41:18.interesting enough to publish and print at the time. Tell me another.
:41:19. > :41:23.If you think of the famous celebrity threesome, I mean, what could be
:41:24. > :41:28.less of interest, less significant than a celebrity having a threesome?
:41:29. > :41:32.So they had a threesome? Yet that, they are fighting tooth and nail all
:41:33. > :41:36.the way to the Supreme Court to try and publish something massively
:41:37. > :41:41.trivial. Back in 2011, you put in a bid in the European Court of human
:41:42. > :41:44.rights to force newspapers to warn public figures before exposing their
:41:45. > :41:48.private lives but the court refused, saying a private life was already
:41:49. > :41:52.protected by self-regulation in the press in UK and access to civil
:41:53. > :41:56.courts to seek damages. Do you see the reason for the decision? I can
:41:57. > :42:00.understand what they said but it is of course completely wrong. If you
:42:01. > :42:04.know about the story that is coming out, which most people do, because
:42:05. > :42:08.they have do put the story to you, then you will have an opportunity to
:42:09. > :42:11.go for an injunction. If they are going to publish something which
:42:12. > :42:18.they know is illegal, as they did in my case, what they do is they keep
:42:19. > :42:21.it secret. They even published a spoof first edition of the News of
:42:22. > :42:25.the World so I had no chance of finding out until it was in every
:42:26. > :42:30.home in the UK. So what is really important is in those minority of
:42:31. > :42:35.cases where it is completely illegal and they do ambush you, they should
:42:36. > :42:41.be forced to tell you. The court also said that newspapers could opt
:42:42. > :42:44.to pay a fine instead of notifying people if pre-notification became
:42:45. > :42:47.law, and I suppose they might just think, we will bung the money over
:42:48. > :42:52.because of the story is that good, it is worth paying. I think the
:42:53. > :42:55.courts that would probably impose a fine that would make their eyes
:42:56. > :42:59.water if they deliberately broke an injunction and quite rightly so. Do
:43:00. > :43:03.you think the future of the injunction looks fragile as it
:43:04. > :43:07.stands, Charles Clarke? I think it is fragile and the keyword is what
:43:08. > :43:11.you said in the introduction, I am very sympathetic to what Max is
:43:12. > :43:14.arguing, it is public interest and it is difficult to analyse, there
:43:15. > :43:18.are all courts matter that it sorts of issues that have to be tested in
:43:19. > :43:22.court the public interest is not the same interest of the public, nor is
:43:23. > :43:26.it the same as selling newspapers, and I don't think it is clear in
:43:27. > :43:32.many of these cases that there is a public interest in publishing in a
:43:33. > :43:37.way that people think. I am very sceptical about the self-regulation
:43:38. > :43:40.of the media, even after the Levenson changes. I am not convinced
:43:41. > :43:46.they create a stable regime and I think we will have do see how it
:43:47. > :43:50.evolves in the next period. At the newspapers, having rebounded on the
:43:51. > :43:53.hacking case, are beginning to be a bit more careful, but how long it
:43:54. > :43:58.will last is a major question. Do you think injunctions are needed to
:43:59. > :44:02.protect people's Private lives? I think there is a huge amount of
:44:03. > :44:05.humbug about public interest, newspapers have fun pub and write
:44:06. > :44:12.pompous editorials about public interest when often there is
:44:13. > :44:18.absolutely zero interest in it -- newspapers half and puff. When there
:44:19. > :44:22.are issues of hypocrisy or conflict with people's jobs, these things are
:44:23. > :44:25.right but I do think it is very difficult to have injunctions in the
:44:26. > :44:30.age of the Internet, I don't see how it is going to work. That is the
:44:31. > :44:34.point, how can you put an injunction into effect if globally there are
:44:35. > :44:39.not rules that are applied, or because the Internet and social
:44:40. > :44:43.media are printing it anyway? That is where the arguments for the
:44:44. > :44:47.newspapers has a fundamental flaw in the reasoning. Take the famous
:44:48. > :44:51.threesome. I don't actually know who the person was because I don't want
:44:52. > :44:57.to know. So you didn't look it up to find out? I didn't hunt for it. The
:44:58. > :45:01.differences, if there is no injunction, it is all over the
:45:02. > :45:05.place, you can't help but see it and no. If there is an injunction, even
:45:06. > :45:08.if you could find it on the Internet, you have to be a peeping
:45:09. > :45:12.Tom Orrock curtain twitching before you will luck, because if you know
:45:13. > :45:17.for example that your neighbours get up to something interesting every
:45:18. > :45:22.morning at ten o'clock, unless you are a peeping Tom, you don't go and
:45:23. > :45:25.watch. Nobody needs to look for it on the Internet, you have do hunt
:45:26. > :45:30.for it, so the people who are the people Toms -- peeping Toms will
:45:31. > :45:32.find it but ordinary people who couldn't care less about it will not
:45:33. > :46:02.see it. What do you say to that? People may not care, in a moral
:46:03. > :46:12.sense, but I think the whole world are peeping Toms these days. I did
:46:13. > :46:16.not actually look up the threesome case, but you do not have to look
:46:17. > :46:23.very hard, I don't think. I think you underestimate, Norman, the
:46:24. > :46:29.extent to which injunctions inhibit lawyers. I remember when I was
:46:30. > :46:34.working with Neil Kinnock a whole series of battles with newspapers,
:46:35. > :46:37.including before the 1992 general election, publishing complete
:46:38. > :46:40.untruths about Neil Kinnock's alleged use of private health, which
:46:41. > :46:44.was completely false. We battered them and battered them with lawyers,
:46:45. > :46:46.and finally they caved in. I remember going to see Kelvin
:46:47. > :46:50.MacKenzie, then editor of the Sun, and he said, I have got these BLEEP
:46:51. > :46:52.Ritz, why are you sending us these Ritz?! The reason was, because he
:46:53. > :46:56.was telling lies and kicking people's doors in, to do it. You can
:46:57. > :46:58.argue about, that but I do not think it is right that even very
:46:59. > :47:02.aggressive media corporations, to say that they would not be affect
:47:03. > :47:05.did by the legal process and the legal regime. Which is why
:47:06. > :47:08.fundamentally I am sympathetic to what Max is trying to achieve. One
:47:09. > :47:11.basic thing is that someone has to decide, should this be published, or
:47:12. > :47:14.shouldn't it? If I think it shouldn't and the newspaper thinks
:47:15. > :47:17.it should, the right person to decide is a judge, not an editor. It
:47:18. > :47:38.is really that simple. Shami Chabrabarti has been giving a
:47:39. > :47:41.briefing to journalists this morning. Alex Forsyth was there.
:47:42. > :47:47.What did she say? She said effectively this was a opportunity
:47:48. > :47:51.to consult with Labour Party members and representatives from ethnic
:47:52. > :47:54.minority groups and where necessary to make recommendations about
:47:55. > :47:57.changes which are needed in the Labour Party to try and stop such
:47:58. > :48:01.allegations from coming to the fore again. Shami Chabrabarti said she
:48:02. > :48:06.was hoping that this inquiry would report back by the end of June, and
:48:07. > :48:10.she's actively seeking submissions from party members and supporters,
:48:11. > :48:15.including the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn. As she launched the terms of
:48:16. > :48:18.reference for this inquiry, she made the point that while it was
:48:19. > :48:22.triggered by those allegations of anti-Semitism, it will look at all
:48:23. > :48:27.aspects of racism, including Islamophobia. Shami Chabrabarti said
:48:28. > :48:32.it would be a nonsense just to focus on one area, given this opportunity.
:48:33. > :48:36.She did say that she herself had joined the Labour Party on the very
:48:37. > :48:41.day she was appointed to lead this inquiry inquiry. She stared that
:48:42. > :48:45.this was an inquiry about the Labour Party and she wanted those who may
:48:46. > :48:48.give evidence to know that she is viewing it in the parties best
:48:49. > :48:52.interest. She made the point that she hopes that this will set the
:48:53. > :48:55.standard for all democratic parties, especially in terms of equality.
:48:56. > :49:00.I'm joined now by journalist and author Rachel Shabi.
:49:01. > :49:07.She has written extensively on Israel and the Middle East. Is this
:49:08. > :49:12.inquiry necessary into anti-Semitism in the Labour Party? I think
:49:13. > :49:17.anti-Semitism is always bubbling underneath society. It is good to
:49:18. > :49:21.see that the Labour Party is taking these accusations seriously. It
:49:22. > :49:24.looks like a robust review, the review of a party which wants to
:49:25. > :49:28.look at this issue and take it seriously. It is not just looking
:49:29. > :49:32.into issues around compliance, changing the rules of conduct
:49:33. > :49:37.potentially, and seeing what to do if they are breached, but it's also
:49:38. > :49:41.looking at things like training, so people can spot what anti-Semitism
:49:42. > :49:46.looks like, which I think is really important. Is there a problem with
:49:47. > :49:51.anti-Semitism, in your view, in the Labour Party, when you look at the
:49:52. > :49:55.tweets by Naz Shah, the comments by Ken Livingstone, and some other
:49:56. > :49:59.Labour councillors? There is a problem with anti-Semitism in
:50:00. > :50:03.society. About 9% of the population is considered to hold anti-Semitic
:50:04. > :50:07.views. They are not all in the Labour Party. Do you think there is
:50:08. > :50:12.a particular problem in the Labour Party? I think there is a particular
:50:13. > :50:15.owners in the Labour Party because we tend to expect Progressive
:50:16. > :50:19.parties not to be anti-Semitic, which is resume agree why we do not
:50:20. > :50:23.have the same wait of expectation on the Conservative Party, who could
:50:24. > :50:27.equally be accused of racism, but aren't. Do you think there has been
:50:28. > :50:35.a robust enough response from the Labour leadership, an hour Lily
:50:36. > :50:38.Jeremy Corbyn? There was also the inquiry into claims of anti-Semitism
:50:39. > :50:42.at the Oxford Labour club. But the accusations about the leadership
:50:43. > :50:47.dragging its feet and not wanting to do these enquiries, are they valid?
:50:48. > :50:51.I don't think so. As I understand it, this review has been in
:50:52. > :51:00.consideration for some time. It did not just appear when does a
:51:01. > :51:04.accusations came into play. Rachel Shabi says the onus is on the Labour
:51:05. > :51:07.Party, even though she says these things no doubt exist in the
:51:08. > :51:13.Conservative Party as well, so is this about Jeremy Corbyn's
:51:14. > :51:18.leadership? I think the word onus is absolutely correct. I am a proud
:51:19. > :51:21.member of the Labour Party. I would hope the Labour Party would always
:51:22. > :51:27.stand for values like anti-Semitism and antiracism. And so therefore if
:51:28. > :51:32.there is a suspicion of it, there is an owners to root it out. I have no
:51:33. > :51:36.doubt myself that Jeremy Corbyn is not an anti-Semite. There are
:51:37. > :51:39.political issues about his relationship with Hezbollah and
:51:40. > :51:43.Hamas in the Middle East, which is a different question, and which raises
:51:44. > :51:47.people's doubts about this. Myself, I think he did not react anything
:51:48. > :51:52.like fast enough to these issues. But I do think it is quite right to
:51:53. > :51:55.have an inquiry into these matters, like the one Shami Chabrabarti is
:51:56. > :51:59.dealing with. But I thought the whole messaging Sadiq Khan was
:52:00. > :52:03.dramatically different on this, in the process before he was elected
:52:04. > :52:07.Mayor of London, and then as Mayor of London, in absolutely taking
:52:08. > :52:11.every opportunity to broadcast the message that he in particular and
:52:12. > :52:16.Labour in London in particular was not anti-Semitic. I don't think
:52:17. > :52:20.Jeremy did that, and that was a leadership requirement which he did
:52:21. > :52:23.not live up to, which in my opinion he should have done. Do you agree
:52:24. > :52:28.with that, that Sadiq Khan captured it much more effectively than Jeremy
:52:29. > :52:31.Corbyn? Yes, Sadiq Khan was excellent on that. The review is
:52:32. > :52:36.also looking into whether there is a need to make the Labour Party more
:52:37. > :52:39.welcoming to minorities. Anyone who is a minority in the UK will know
:52:40. > :52:44.that that is something which organisations and employers say,
:52:45. > :52:48.they talk the talk, you obviously need to see some action to ensure
:52:49. > :52:51.that that is the case. But it is just the start of the review and we
:52:52. > :52:55.need to see what it finds. What about the language wallet when we
:52:56. > :53:00.interviewed Ken Livingstone, he said there is this problem between Andy
:53:01. > :53:04.Zionism and anti-Semitism, criticism of the Israeli government, illegal
:53:05. > :53:09.occupation of occupied territories, the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and
:53:10. > :53:15.anti-Jewish sentiment. Do you think there is evidence that people use
:53:16. > :53:20.that as proxy for anti-Semitism, is there a problem with that now? I do.
:53:21. > :53:26.I don't think that anti-Semitism is the same as anti-Zionism. But two
:53:27. > :53:32.things. Firstly, people who are Jewish... There's going to be things
:53:33. > :53:36.said about the Israeli DuPage and which are not pleasant to hear. That
:53:37. > :53:41.is one thing. Secondly, if we are trying to build a progressive
:53:42. > :53:44.movement for peace and justice for Israelis and Palestinians, then yes,
:53:45. > :53:50.we do need to examine the language we use, because we want to include
:53:51. > :53:54.people and not alienate them. These are very, very difficult issues to
:53:55. > :53:58.handle, and therefore, conduct and language is extremely important.
:53:59. > :54:03.People have to be very, very careful about how they address these
:54:04. > :54:06.important and difficult issues in a way which is not provocative and
:54:07. > :54:12.inflammatory. I think there have been occasions, like the tweet from
:54:13. > :54:15.Naz Shah was an example, where they went beyond a line of acceptable
:54:16. > :54:22.conduct and language. Cause she spoke about deporting Israelis. What
:54:23. > :54:25.was great about that, though, you could see that it was an issue of a
:54:26. > :54:29.lack of awareness, and getting carried away. What was great was
:54:30. > :54:36.that she did realise and she did apologise. That is what we want to
:54:37. > :54:42.see happening. Precisely, I was moved by her apology and response.
:54:43. > :54:46.Should she have been suspended? Certainly, she should, but beyond
:54:47. > :54:50.that, that is another issue. Personally, I was moved by her
:54:51. > :54:54.apology, I felt it was genuine. Obviously, that is something the
:54:55. > :54:57.party will explore. But I emphasise this point of conduct. Ken
:54:58. > :55:03.Livingstone is a classic example of somebody who seeks to shock, seeks
:55:04. > :55:12.to dramatise rather than seeking to conduct a proper debate. Should he
:55:13. > :55:15.be expelled? I have argued that many times but unfortunately his saviour
:55:16. > :55:19.was Tony Blair, who brought him back into party membership and changed
:55:20. > :55:22.all of that, against my advice, I may say. Well, you have got that on
:55:23. > :55:26.record! Now if you remember earlier,
:55:27. > :55:29.we asked you, what exciting government project is being tipped
:55:30. > :55:31.for seaside town Newquay? Lord Lamont and Charles Clarke,
:55:32. > :55:46.what's the correct answer? I do know, it is a spaceport, and
:55:47. > :55:53.not just because Charles told me! I did know that! And that is the
:55:54. > :55:58.correct answer. I thought it might be something to do with Boris
:55:59. > :56:00.Johnson, if it is a Cornish pasty museum. He seems to get his face in
:56:01. > :56:03.everywhere these days! Yes, this is the news that seaside
:56:04. > :56:06.town of Newquay could become It's just one of the proposals
:56:07. > :56:10.in the Government's new Modern Transport Bill,
:56:11. > :56:12.to be outlined in the Queen's Six sites have been tipped
:56:13. > :56:16.for the ?150 million base - But Newquay in Cornwall
:56:17. > :56:20.is the hot favourite. With me now is Dr Robert Massey
:56:21. > :56:29.from the Royal Astronomical Society. So, when Newquay? Actually,
:56:30. > :56:33.different sites have been identified, on existing airfields.
:56:34. > :56:41.That is almost a prerequisite for this kind of thing, establishing a
:56:42. > :56:46.spaceport. Is there a solid business case for it? I think that is an open
:56:47. > :56:50.question. We put evidence into this elect committee inquiry a couple of
:56:51. > :56:54.months ago and we were a bit ambivalent about it. I think if it
:56:55. > :56:59.is just going to operate on a commercial basis, it has to prove
:57:00. > :57:02.itself. If we need, for example, a booming space tourism industry,
:57:03. > :57:05.there is not actually much of a space tourism industry at all at the
:57:06. > :57:10.moment, except for wealthy Americans paying the Russians to go to the
:57:11. > :57:13.space station. With this be the beginning of seeing Britain and the
:57:14. > :57:19.UK as a world commercial space power? Well, if it does work, it
:57:20. > :57:23.will rely on a new engine being developed by a company called
:57:24. > :57:27.Reaction Engines. Rather than relying on vertical lift capacity,
:57:28. > :57:30.they are trying to have a space plane. That is being supported
:57:31. > :57:34.partly by the Government, which is a good thing. The idea is that it
:57:35. > :57:42.would be almost entirely a reusable system, returning the system to
:57:43. > :57:44.Earth. You could then envisage, say, someone like virgin Galactic coming
:57:45. > :57:51.in and delivering people on short trips. But there are an awful lot of
:57:52. > :57:55.but more along the way. It is not the ideal location in the world. You
:57:56. > :57:58.really want to be close to the equator, for reasons connected with
:57:59. > :58:04.the physics. And I'm not sure, commercially. If it gets built, I'm
:58:05. > :58:07.sure scientists will use it, we are happy to exploit these things. What
:58:08. > :58:15.about surfers, they're going to get a fright, aren't they?! I am sure my
:58:16. > :58:21.guests here are keen surfers! A lot of politics is involved in surfing!
:58:22. > :58:25.How would that look? I think you would have a shock if you did not
:58:26. > :58:28.know what was happening. One would assume it would be once a day at
:58:29. > :58:41.most, rather than every half an hour. I'm extremely sceptical about
:58:42. > :58:42.the business case. And you? It might increase the tourism. On the other
:58:43. > :58:44.hand, it might not! I'll be here at noon tomorrow,
:58:45. > :58:51.and I'll be joined by former Conservative
:58:52. > :58:54.leader Michael Howard.