16/05/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 16/05/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


We know George Osborne likes to pull a rabbit out of the hat,


but today, he pulled out two to help his EU referendum case.


Yes, they haven't always seen eye-to-eye but the Chancellor


was the filling in a Vince Cable/Ed Balls sandwich this morning.


They all think we should stay in the EU but will the public be


The Government is to unveil new measures to tackle extremism


and plans to treat hate preachers like paedophiles.


Campaigner Max Moseley takes to his soapbox to argue for greater


But does the internet and social media make a mockery of such laws?


And Cornwall, famous for its coastline, can sometimes


But could this beauty spot soon become the gateway


All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole


of the programme today, we have Norman Lamont,


a former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer,


and Charles Clarke, one-time Labour Education Secretary


First today - George Osborne has been joined by two blasts


from the past this morning, in the latest salvo


The Chancellor's old adversary Ed Balls and his old coalition


colleague Vince Cable joined him on a platform in Essex


to argue for Britain to remain in the EU.


Let's have a listen to what they had to say.


And there is a reason that the three of us


are standing here today, putting aside our very


It's not a conspiracy, it's called a consensus.


The interventions of the last couple of weeks, from the IMF


to the Bank of England, make very clear that the economic


As someone who fought hard to stop Britain joining the euro,


because it would have been economically really damaging


for our country to join the euro, believe me when I say for us


to leave the EU single market would be even more


It is a risk that none of us, literally, can afford to take.


The economic case is settled, it's clear, that British


business and British workers have benefited,


overall, from EU membership and stand to lose


Well, also today, some of Britain's leading business figures are making


300 businessmen and women have signed a joint letter


to the Daily Telegraph saying the UK's competitiveness


"Britain's competitiveness is being undermined


Charles Clarke, it is not just of the remaining camp that how the


leading business figures supporting the case. -- be Remain. Speech at


not at all, the British Chambers of Commerce had a survey of all small


businesses and it runs about two to one of small businesses in favour of


Remain and about a third against and those 300 in the Telegraph are part


of the third, many of them very well-known names. As your report


said, 5-.4 million small businesses in Britain, over which just over a


million employ somebody and that 300 is again a pretty small number, so


there isn't any real news in that. Of course, the big reality is the


major economic interests in this country strongly favour our


continued membership of the EU and that is what you saw George Osborne


with Vince Cable and Ed Balls, arguing that so very, very strongly


with their different experiences. No one will have a different view, I


know, but the consensus view is the strong economic interests for the UK


is to be part of the UK. It is difficult, isn't it, for the league


campaign on the economics now, as they lead up all of these


institutions that seemed to back Leave -- for the Leave Campaign. You


have the IMF, the CBI, the Bank of England and this political


consensus, George Osborne called it, saying the economic argument is


without doubt and is settled. It is certainly not settled and beyond


doubt. The Chancellor may call it a consensus, others may call it a


certain amount of groupthink and there are people who think


differently -- entirely differently, many entrepreneurs take a different


view, many well-known professional investors in the city who take a


different view and there are many individual private sector economists


working in institutions who take a different view as well. But isn't it


the case that that is not enough to counter the weight of economic


argument? I am putting it to you that people watching this, when they


see endless lines of people but they may or may not be familiar with, but


they sound impressive, that you can pick out your odd 100


businesspersons here and there but it won't be enough? That is for the


voter to decide, we are not going to decide by counting up the number of


organisations on one side or the other. It is going to be decided by


ordinary people, by voters, by the individual small business, whichever


way they voted in the chamber of commerce, one way or the other.


Where I think the economic analysis is wrong, if I mistake my view, is I


think they are overstating by a long way the value of the single market.


The single market is about standards and the facts are that many


countries worldwide sale into the single market without being part of


the EU, without having any say in the rules. Those include Australia,


Canada, Japan, America. They sell more than we do. Right, and it is a


fallacy, isn't it, Charles Clarke, to say, as George Osborne did, that


the EU would lose over ?200 billion overseas investment outside of the


EU by 2030? Difficult to project that far ahead but that would be if


we didn't have access to the single market, but we would have access? I


think there is confusion about what is meant by access. Norman is right,


everyone in the world trade is with the European Union. If we were


outside, we would continue to trade with the European Union and in that


sense, we would have access to the markets of the European Union


countries. The key question is how easy is that access and what kind of


trade issues, tariff issues, nontariff issues exist? What we do


know is that the single market has worked very hard and Norman Lamont


was a key member in part of this process, working to bring down those


barriers to trade, reduced the areas where the nontariff barriers were


there to increase trade and it has succeeded. And we would be


withdrawing from that if we decided to leave the single market. Charles


is absolutely right, the key is the meaning of the word access. The


external tariff of the EU, if you exclude things like agriculture, is


about 3%. Frankly, that is not a great obstacle. The 20 billion


gross, 10 billion net that we paid to the EU annually, is a equivalent


to a 7% tariff. We get the money back. We get half of it. So we would


face a higher tariff, based on the net contribution, we face a higher


tariff now than we would outside. One point, to agree with Norman,


there is a wide range of opinions, a group of business people here and a


group there, but the balance of opinion in all of these economic


areas is that our interest is to stay in. But if we look at the


governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, who has made, in some


people's eyes, and unwise intervention but a powerful


intervention, whatever you think about what he said, predicting that


there would be slower growth in the short term, the risk of inflation,


how much of an impact would he have on the debate? I remember in 1982


when 365 economists, 365, wrote a letter to The Times saying the


Government's policies cannot work, we will be stuck in recession for


ever and what happened, from almost the day they wrote that letter? The


economy took off. We get a lot of consensus but it is not necessarily


going to be right. So you think it is all wrong? Of course I think the


people forecasting doom and disaster are all wrong. It is fair enough for


the Governor of the Bank of England to talk about the immediate impact


but when you start to make longer-term impacts and talk of


recession, they are paper darts in the air and nobody can... There will


be, whether we stay in or come out, there are uncertainties on both


sides. Do you agree that it is the duty of important institutions like


the Bank of England, the Treasury, the IMF, to make some sort of


assessment and inform the public of the likely impact of a Brexit


decision? You may contest their assessment and say they are wrong


but I think it is absolutely right that they make it and we should say


it serious -- taken seriously. I do take it seriously but I don't find


it convincing. The IMF forecast, frankly, was a bit of a disgrace


because what it actually said is there are a range of outcomes from


just under 1% decline in the economy up to 9%. That is a ridiculous range


of forecasting, that is more like a fan chart than forecast. Do you


agree with your colleague Iain Duncan Smith, who admitted yesterday


that it is unlikely that there will be any serious economic institution


that will back the Leave Campaign? The IMF, the OECD, the Bank of


England, the Treasury, they are very much the same people, they like the


landscape they are used to and dealing with the people they are


used to dealing with. They are probably against any radical change.


Look at the political leaders, the Prime Minister of Japan, the


president of the United States, the Prime Minister of Australia. They


are not part of some insidious plot, they are making a view based on the


experience. You are entitled to save their view is wrong, but I don't


think you are entitled to simply dismiss their view. I am not


dismissing it. When you talk about prime ministers of Australia, John


Howard, the former Prime Minister of Australia, the former Prime Minister


and president of the Czech Republic, have said they would back a Brexit.


As has Donald Trump. Is that good news for the Remain or the Leave?


That is a Hitler point! I thought we would get through a whole programme


without mentioning Hitler. Newquay is famous for its sea


and beaches, but what exciting Government project is it also


being tipped for? Norman and Charles will give


us the correct answer. David Cameron has described the rise


of Islamist extremism as "the struggle of our generation"


and a new bill aimed at cracking down on extremism is expected


to form the centrepiece of his government's


legislative agenda Let's take a look at


what's being proposed. The Counter Terrorism Bill is set


to include new measures to ban extremists from working with young


people and vulnerable people. The proposals are designed to stop


people with radical views infiltrating schools, colleges,


charities or care homes. The bill will also include plans


to ban radical preachers And new powers to allow Ofcom


to block broadcasts of "unacceptable These reforms form part


of the Prime Minister's strategy to combat the "poisionous


ideology" of extremism. But there are concerns that the bill


could alienate Muslims and contain too broad a definition


of extremist activity. Alistair Carmichael, the Lib Dem


spokesperson for home affairs, said the proposals could "drive


extremists into the shadows" and threaten the "very fabric


of our multicultural society Charles Clarke, you were Home


Secretary at the time of 7/7. What do you make of these proposals in


the round? In the red, I support them but they are very difficult. It


is hard to define extremism very, very clearly and it certainly is a


problem in the legislation I took through Parliament to deal with


these issues, both before and after 7/7. There are always difficult


points of definition. If you take for example the role of hate


preachers, I absolutely believe it is right to attack, focus,


identified on the role but they play and how they try and destabilise


society. And I agree that measuring back and putting it into effect than


getting it right is not straightforward and the proof of the


pudding will be in the actual legislation, I haven't seen the


detailed proposals, but the direction of what the Government is


trying to do I think is correct. But the problem is, as Charles Clarke


has identified, what actually constitutes an extremist view and


who would be making those judgments? In your opinion, Norman Lamont, what


is extremism if you are looking at hate preachers? I think it is


extremely difficult to define. Like Charles, I am in favour of laws that


would prevent incitement of islands at -- violence and race hate. But


where it gets very tricky is a concept like non-violent extremism.


It is, for example, a person who does not advocate violence but says


"I don't believe in democracy, I believe in consultation with chut


Rudd Government, which applies in parts of the Middle East"? Is that


something you are going to ban? You can imagine all sorts of


philosophers, like the teaching of Plato, who in many ways is regarded


as anti-democratic, these are very difficult issues. There was a note I


saw by a Government adviser who identified the teachings of one of


the founders of the Muslim Brotherhood. Are we going to say


they will be completely banned in this country? They already have an


office in Cricklewood. We do have laws that cover incitement to


violence and racial hatred, so where is the gap? Is it where Norman


Lamont has just said, in these rather vague grey areas on the


fringes? We do have laws. I put a number of


those through parliament myself. I am aware of the criticisms that the


Muslim community would be alienated and so on, which I don't think is


actually right. But I think Norman is right that the actual definition


is key. In the case of the examples he gives, it is not so much the


question, what is the ultimate destination of a society? But what


is the path by which you want to get there? If you both say, there is a


society which behaves in a certain way, and we think it is acceptable


to take violent action to get to that form of society, I would call


that extremist action. And indeed, some hate preachers and some


websites or about exciting action in those areas. It is an excellent


question, whether the current law would catch that, and whether a new


law is needed to do that. I think that depends on the precise wording


of the law. So how worried are you that it could and probably would


alienate parts of the Muslim community, if they feel that they


are under threat for expressing philosophies, as you use that word?


I think it has to be narrowly defined and it has to concentrate...


We already have laws relating to the security service and monitoring


people. This has to concentrate on hate, racial hatred and incitement


to violence. I remember once, I happened to share a platform in the


East End of London, I did not know quite what was coming, and there


were a number of Muslims there who did not support democracy but were


very firmly arguing against violence. Was it wrong that that


meeting took place? I'm afraid I don't really think it was wrong. I


think to suppress a meeting like that would cause more dangers than


you would gain from panning it. So let's talk about how workable some


of these things are. If you take the threat that it could destabilise a


community, other include Barnicle banning radical preachers from


posting material online, as such proposals workable? I think they can


be done but it depends, and I am sorry to be agreeing with Norman on


this, it depends precisely on the exact form of legislation, which it


says what should be blocked and what should not. Technically I think


these things can be blocked, but it's perfectly true, and some


legislation has fallen into this trap, but if you do it in a


cack-handed kind of way, you create an negative effects which were not


intended. Who you trust the Government to do that only generally


speaking, yes, actually. Let's talk about the Conservative Party, split


on Europe, as we know. This is another of attempt by David Cameron


to unite him party - will it succeed? I think there is a lot of


support for the legislation. I have my own reservations. I think in the


House of Lords, there will be very critical examination on this sort of


issue. It is the sort of issue which the House of Lords likes to get its


teeth into. We have a lot of law lords, a lot of lawyers. I think


they will raise issues which have to be addressed. I think it is very,


very important to realise one major division in the Conservative Party


which took place some years ago, where you had the traditional


Conservative view, worldly speaking, pro law and order and so on, ante-


extremism, undermined by a substantial group of people who were


civil libertarians, led often by David Davies. This was a big issue


when I was in parliament. Even on big issues which in the past one


would have expected the Conservatives to be united on, this


civil liberties element of the Conservative Party was not. And I


think it will be very interesting to see how that plays out. And of


course there is already a division on issues of counter-terrorism and


the risk of terrorism, within the EU debate. Do you agree with Iain


Duncan Smith who says that staying in the EU exposes the UK to a


terrorism risk? I am not an expert on that, but I did notice that Mr


Noble, the former director of Interpol, actually said that he


thought being in the EU actually increased... I think he described


Schengen as a zone in which terrorists could operate. Did you


agree with that? I also noticed one thing, that Mr Hayward, a former


director of the CIA, said that actually, the real intelligence


co-operation was between the United States and the UK, and to some


extent France, but that one of the conditions of that sharing of


intelligence was that it was not shared with other countries in the


EU. You said ridiculous? I did because the suggestion that staying


in the EU makes us more vulnerable to terrorism is a ridiculous


argument. One, a former police officer, made the criticism that the


EU does not do enough, and aspects of the Schengen system make


terrorism more difficult to detect. I don't think he made the argument


that the UK should be outside the EU. What he argued is that the UK


should operate in these areas, the EU, far more effectively.


Intelligence sharing has developed a lot in the last 10-15 years.


Countries like Holland and Germany are now part of that intelligence


sharing operation. Which used to be just the five countries and it


gradually got wide to include more of the EU countries.


The Green Party leader Natalie Bennett has announced


that she will stand down this August after four years in charge.


We'll talk to Natalie in a moment but, first,


let's look at some of the Green Party's highlights


Sunday Politics now has a new traffic and travel reporter.


I'm pleased to say that Heathrow's third runway, "Boris


Island", and all short-haul flights are, just like


Do you also accept that Ukip consistently


attracts more support than you in the opinion polls?


It shouldn't be a crime to be a member


Exactly - what we want to do is to make sure we're not punishing


?1 million on the table that you will not form the


I'm afraid my underwriting doesn't quite stretch that far!


You want to control the BBC schedules so that we


broadcast educational programmes in prime time - does The Sunday


Politics count as an educational programme in prime time?


I think I'll leave the viewewrs to decide that for themselves.


If you'd said yes, you'd have had our vote.


Natalie Bennett joins us now. Happy memories? Mostly, pull it has been a


great four years and no regrets. When did you to step down? We had a


chat, I cannot remember when exactly, but you said you had not


decided. I thought you had made your mind up then that you were going to


step down but you did not want to make it public? No, basically I


thought the elections a couple of weeks ago and then I created some


time after that. So it was literally a few days ago that I made my


decision. What made up your mind? I went back to my proposal is that I


put forward when I stood for leader four years ago and I said I wanted


to grow the party, to make it a truly national party, to win our


place in the national debates, and I thought, I've achieved those things.


1.1 million votes in the general election, being able to look David


Cameron in the eye in those leader debates and say, why are you so


failing to deal with the issue of Syrian refugees? King Barrett on the


lighter moments, with Ed Miliband and Nigel Farage in the debates. But


above all, the travelling around the country, visiting local Green


parties. There are scores more of them than there were. We have more


than quadrupled the membership. And the Green Party leadership is not


like it is in other parties, it is not a greasy poll, with people


scrambling to the top. I am opening up the space for other people to


come forward. I am not going away, I am planning to be involved full-time


in politics, but there's a space now for other people to come forward. So


what are you going to do, then? I will continue doing a lot of what I


am doing now. I am very passionate about education. I have spent a lot


of time speaking to young people and they are very angry and fed up about


the way education has done real damage to their lives, the level of


mental health issues. I first degree was agricultural science, going back


to that and looking at issues of sustainable food. As leader, I have


had to cover everything. This will be a chance to focus a bit more. Do


you think that was your difficulty? You yourself admitted that there


were times when it was bruising to be leader, particularly from a media


pass. Was that in part having to cover so many areas, perhaps some of


which you did not feel confident with? One of the problems is the


resources that the Green Party has, even though we now have 60,000


members, four times the size we were when I was elected. We do not have


billionaire hedge fund owners finding a few spare millions. We


have a fraction of the resources of the parties have. And so as I said


in my message of farewell, I was saying thank you to all the Green


Party members who volunteered around the country. There have been days


when I have shoved my mobile phone into the hand of a sensible person


and said, media manage me for the day. I suppose it is not always down


to expensive backers, it is about the person as well - did you never


feel entirely comfortable in your media role, would that be felt? No,


it's interesting. I am not a lifelong, spin trained politician,


and people sometimes said I look nervous, and I wasn't. I don't get


nervous about these things. I simply speak in that moment. But maybe I


haven't got some of the smooth mannerisms, the kind of smoothness


which comes from decades of doing, training from a very young age, from


the kind of background which produces that look. And do you think


you need that to be a successful leader of a political party? I think


what we need to see is, we need to see politics changing. That


addresses broader issues about the nature of the media and the way in


which politics is covered. This isn't a football game, it is not


about points scoring. We need to see exploration of ideas and issues and


policies, and it needs to be not about personalities. Natalie Bennett


has put it in that sense, not being spin trained. I say to you that


Jeremy Corbyn is not spin trained either, so do you think it is time


for politics to reflect that? I do, basically. I don't criticise people


for not being spin trained at all. I never thought I was particularly,


either. But do you not have to deal with the media? You have to be able


to prepare yourself in offering a physically demanding process. I


don't think it is so much about being spin trained, it is about your


confidence in dealing with the argument as it comes through, having


a proper media management system so you can make your arguments in


detailed and clear ways. Natalie and I had a conversation in knowledge


about three -- in front of about 300 students, a few months ago, going


through all of her views and beliefs, and she came over extremely


powerfully to a wide audience. It was not about the spin and the


precise language that she used. The power of her convictions came across


very strongly, even to those who were not Green Party supporters. Do


you agree, can politicians succeed at the highest level without that


ability to deal with some intense questioning and scrutiny of their


policies on a constant basis? I think it is difficult. But I think


the keyword in your question is intense. I think some questioning in


the media, I am not against being questioned, I enjoy it, but


sometimes the interviews are so aggressive that what it produces in


politicians is a blandness. And interviewers, if you will forgive


me, are constantly looking for a gaffe, and that this can often be


when somebody just speaks an uncomfortable truth. And it is then


trivialised. The result is, are lot of politicians are very determined


not to mention this, not to get into this, it is too tricky, give a bland


answer, avoid the difficult times, even if it is the truth for one. Do


you agree, Natalie? Yes, I have often been accused of answering the


question too often. I think that has been my strength and my week less as


a politician. That is my first instinct, to answer the question.


And lots of politicians have been trained never to answer the


question, just to repeat the phrase which they have been told to repeat


endlessly. One ought to be able to answer every question, I agree. And


yet sometimes, I think with today's politics, people deliberately set


out not to answer the question, simply because of the way in which


it will be portrayed, even though what is being said is a valid answer


Allah book let me ask you a question which you might not want to answer -


who are you backing? If you look at the last 12 hours,


the amount of media coverage that who will succeed me has had, it was


scores more than the last two leadership races. I don't know, it


is a great opportunity. Anybody in mind? No, but if we had a fair


proportional system, the Green Party would have 25 MPs in the Commons,


and we don't have that so this is a real chance for somebody to come


forward and have a platform and speak for the 1.1 million voters


that the system has currently denied representation in Parliament. Thank


you very much and good luck. So, the Queen's Speech


is the big event this week. But what else is in store


for the next few days? Today, Jo Johnson,


the Universities Minister, which would make it possible


for tuition fees to increase above ?9,000 and make it easier to


open new universities. a second vote is expected


in the Welsh Parliament The last vote was a tie


between Plaid Cymru's Leanne Wood All eyes will be on which way Ukip


Assembly members will vote. On Wednesday, it's


the Queen's Speech, As well as the bill


tackling extremism, and there are rumours there could be


a new British Bill of Rights. the EU referendum at least once


in this item, and on Thursday, it's the deadline for EU referendum


campaigners to register donations and loans with the


Electoral Commission. the full list of candidates


in the Tooting by-election to replace new London


Mayor, Sadiq Khan. We're joined now by Paul Waugh


from the Huffington Post and James Forsyth from


The Spectator. Welcome to both of you. Paul Waugh,


Donald Trump's intervention in the EU debate, what do you make of it?


Well, there is an American T-shirt which says "I'm with stupid" and I


think lots of remain as were thinking that was the perfect


T-shirt today, that you have Donald Trump on the side of Brexit along


with possibly Vladimir Putin and marine Le Pen, it is a gift to those


in Number Ten who think the best painting could be slightly fringe


and extreme. It is very unfair, but there is no question Donald Trump's


words will be used against the Leave Campaign. In terms of other sources


being drawn on, we have seen George Osborne flanked by Ed Balls and


Vince Cable, do you think that helps, James Forsyth? All about


trying to get the turnout on the Labour side, certainly. With the


Tory vote divided, they need left-wing members to decide the


referendum and ways to get to those voters. I think the photo Op this


morning was slightly undercut by the fact that Ed Balls and Vince Cable


both lost their seats at the last election. It didn't look like three


great economic figures coming together, it looked like two guys


who were vanquished by George Osborne coming back on board for him


in the hopes of being thrown some scraps from the table. They will be


delighted by that analysis, but yes, you are right. Paul Waugh, in terms


of who the bedfellows are for everybody, does that help the


campaign? The cross-party consensus idea or the 300 businesses that have


written in the Telegraph? Does this change people's minds? Don't forget,


George Osborne wants to scare the heck out of people, to say if you


leave Europe, the cost of living and the average income is going to be


hit directly and that is the economic message today, and it is


Project Fear again. It is ironic that as James says, both Ed Balls


and Vince Cable were bashed very hard last year by Project Fear from


George Osborne when it came to the economy. The curious thing is, and


it relates to the Queen's Speech, we are in a holding pattern in politics


this week because everybody is waiting for the EU referendum. The


only constant will be the Queen herself, so she will deliver the


Queen's Speech but come June the 24th, she will be the only person we


are sure will be there. David Cameron may not be there, we may not


be in the EU and as a result, today, the launch with George Osborne in


the RyanAir factory, with Ryanair plane behind him, the holding


pattern applies to politics as well. Let's take this analogy further,


James Forsyth, that is how it is going to be. The Queen's Speech, in


a way, in your view, is it going to mean anything ahead the EU debate?


There is a divide in the Government about when they can do it. Someone


to use it after the referendum and reunite the Tory party and others


are saying they have to show they are getting on with Government. But


normally June the Queen's Speech, the Government cleared the decks, it


doesn't do anything else to give as much publicity as possible. There is


no ceasefire in the campaign. The Government will devote Wednesday to


it and that is it. What about the substance? Even if that is the


backdrop, what about the substance? Things were promised, like Michael


Gove's British Bill of Rights? Again, the referendum casts a long


Shadow because the Bill of Rights, Michael Gove quite clearly thinks it


has been watered down, and Theresa May, as it happens, clearly think we


should leave the European Convention on human rights and have a bold


legislative step within the new bill of rights and that is not going to


happen, for a variety of reasons. Number Ten didn't like the idea, it


would may be scared too many people during the referendum campaign,


despite the PM himself promising this six years ago and despite the


rhetoric about Abu Qatada, the only person the British public are really


worried about, cases like that. Not so much worried about Europe, more


about this bill of rights issue getting in a way of cases like Abu


Qatada, so the Government has been undermined by its own rhetoric in


the last few years and this is one of the real problems with the list


of bills you are going to see, it is a bit like John Major's Hotline, you


have the idea of lists for prisons and performance league tables, you


have got an expansion of the idea that you can have a few more garden


cities. It doesn't seem to add up to much. Does it add up to anything,


James Forsyth? There is a social reform agenda in there that is quite


interesting but it is a soft launch by Number Ten, because they know


nothing is going to get that much attention now because we are all,


including them, talking about the EU referendum all the time. Gentlemen,


thank you very much. Only another few days to go.


How much privacy can and should celebrities expect? It is the debate


over press and privacy that keeps coming back. Someone who has


experienced this at first hand is Max Mosley.


In 2008, he became the subject of pages of newspaper allegations


over his private life, which he denied and eventually


won ?60,000 in damages from the News of the World.


Since then, he has been campaigning to reform celebrity privacy laws,


Privacy is a fundamental human right. So often, the media crosses


the line and shines a light into areas of our lives when it


shouldn't. The arguments that the editors offer our about as concrete


as the papers they produce. Whether it's the recent threesome case, or


my case back in 2008, they have absolutely no basis on which to


publish anything. When I appeared in front of a parliamentary committee


in 2009, the assumption seems to be that because I was known, I was fair


game and they could publish anything they liked. You suggested that you


got a phone call out of the blue at ten o'clock on a Sunday morning,


saying have you seen the News of the World? And you were horrorstruck to


discover it. You also said that you had been attending parties of that


kind for 45 years. You are a public figure. You know the British press,


you know the appetite of the British press. Is of this kind. Had you not


always felt that this was a time bomb that sooner or later was going


to go off? I have to confess, I didn't.


As Prince Harry said the other day, everyone is entitled to a private


life and the media have destroyed their own defence by crossing the


line into areas of no public interest so many times and


ironically, when the newspapers themselves have something to lose,


by exposing John Whittingdale's relationship, they chickened out.


That is why I believe injunctions still do have a valuable role to


play in maintaining privacy. Once something is published, no judge on


earth can make it private again. An injunction is the only safeguard. Of


course, there are problems with the Internet, because it is all over the


world. But the technology companies must take responsibility for


protecting privacy in cases where it should be protected. There are cases


of hypocrisy, of misleading the public, which must be exposed. I


accept that. But exposing people's Private lives for no better reason


than increasing circulation is completely unacceptable.


You politely glossed over your feelings on John Whittingdale,


giving his robust questioning of you on the cultural select committee.


How did you feel about the story on him coming out, was a public


interest or did you feel sympathy for him? I felt sympathy for him as


far as the story is concerned and the public interest is not the story


but the fact that the newspapers had the story and didn't reveal it,


which of course normally they would. I mean, anything slightly untoward


with an MP, they would reveal. But in his case they didn't. Why didn't


they? Well, the obvious inference is they had this, he knew they had it


and it was hanging over him like the sort of Damocles. As you know, the


press have robustly defended themselves, saying it wasn't


interesting enough to publish and print at the time. Tell me another.


If you think of the famous celebrity threesome, I mean, what could be


less of interest, less significant than a celebrity having a threesome?


So they had a threesome? Yet that, they are fighting tooth and nail all


the way to the Supreme Court to try and publish something massively


trivial. Back in 2011, you put in a bid in the European Court of human


rights to force newspapers to warn public figures before exposing their


private lives but the court refused, saying a private life was already


protected by self-regulation in the press in UK and access to civil


courts to seek damages. Do you see the reason for the decision? I can


understand what they said but it is of course completely wrong. If you


know about the story that is coming out, which most people do, because


they have do put the story to you, then you will have an opportunity to


go for an injunction. If they are going to publish something which


they know is illegal, as they did in my case, what they do is they keep


it secret. They even published a spoof first edition of the News of


the World so I had no chance of finding out until it was in every


home in the UK. So what is really important is in those minority of


cases where it is completely illegal and they do ambush you, they should


be forced to tell you. The court also said that newspapers could opt


to pay a fine instead of notifying people if pre-notification became


law, and I suppose they might just think, we will bung the money over


because of the story is that good, it is worth paying. I think the


courts that would probably impose a fine that would make their eyes


water if they deliberately broke an injunction and quite rightly so. Do


you think the future of the injunction looks fragile as it


stands, Charles Clarke? I think it is fragile and the keyword is what


you said in the introduction, I am very sympathetic to what Max is


arguing, it is public interest and it is difficult to analyse, there


are all courts matter that it sorts of issues that have to be tested in


court the public interest is not the same interest of the public, nor is


it the same as selling newspapers, and I don't think it is clear in


many of these cases that there is a public interest in publishing in a


way that people think. I am very sceptical about the self-regulation


of the media, even after the Levenson changes. I am not convinced


they create a stable regime and I think we will have do see how it


evolves in the next period. At the newspapers, having rebounded on the


hacking case, are beginning to be a bit more careful, but how long it


will last is a major question. Do you think injunctions are needed to


protect people's Private lives? I think there is a huge amount of


humbug about public interest, newspapers have fun pub and write


pompous editorials about public interest when often there is


absolutely zero interest in it -- newspapers half and puff. When there


are issues of hypocrisy or conflict with people's jobs, these things are


right but I do think it is very difficult to have injunctions in the


age of the Internet, I don't see how it is going to work. That is the


point, how can you put an injunction into effect if globally there are


not rules that are applied, or because the Internet and social


media are printing it anyway? That is where the arguments for the


newspapers has a fundamental flaw in the reasoning. Take the famous


threesome. I don't actually know who the person was because I don't want


to know. So you didn't look it up to find out? I didn't hunt for it. The


differences, if there is no injunction, it is all over the


place, you can't help but see it and no. If there is an injunction, even


if you could find it on the Internet, you have to be a peeping


Tom Orrock curtain twitching before you will luck, because if you know


for example that your neighbours get up to something interesting every


morning at ten o'clock, unless you are a peeping Tom, you don't go and


watch. Nobody needs to look for it on the Internet, you have do hunt


for it, so the people who are the people Toms -- peeping Toms will


find it but ordinary people who couldn't care less about it will not


see it. What do you say to that? People may not care, in a moral


sense, but I think the whole world are peeping Toms these days. I did


not actually look up the threesome case, but you do not have to look


very hard, I don't think. I think you underestimate, Norman, the


extent to which injunctions inhibit lawyers. I remember when I was


working with Neil Kinnock a whole series of battles with newspapers,


including before the 1992 general election, publishing complete


untruths about Neil Kinnock's alleged use of private health, which


was completely false. We battered them and battered them with lawyers,


and finally they caved in. I remember going to see Kelvin


MacKenzie, then editor of the Sun, and he said, I have got these BLEEP


Ritz, why are you sending us these Ritz?! The reason was, because he


was telling lies and kicking people's doors in, to do it. You can


argue about, that but I do not think it is right that even very


aggressive media corporations, to say that they would not be affect


did by the legal process and the legal regime. Which is why


fundamentally I am sympathetic to what Max is trying to achieve. One


basic thing is that someone has to decide, should this be published, or


shouldn't it? If I think it shouldn't and the newspaper thinks


it should, the right person to decide is a judge, not an editor. It


is really that simple. Shami Chabrabarti has been giving a


briefing to journalists this morning. Alex Forsyth was there.


What did she say? She said effectively this was a opportunity


to consult with Labour Party members and representatives from ethnic


minority groups and where necessary to make recommendations about


changes which are needed in the Labour Party to try and stop such


allegations from coming to the fore again. Shami Chabrabarti said she


was hoping that this inquiry would report back by the end of June, and


she's actively seeking submissions from party members and supporters,


including the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn. As she launched the terms of


reference for this inquiry, she made the point that while it was


triggered by those allegations of anti-Semitism, it will look at all


aspects of racism, including Islamophobia. Shami Chabrabarti said


it would be a nonsense just to focus on one area, given this opportunity.


She did say that she herself had joined the Labour Party on the very


day she was appointed to lead this inquiry inquiry. She stared that


this was an inquiry about the Labour Party and she wanted those who may


give evidence to know that she is viewing it in the parties best


interest. She made the point that she hopes that this will set the


standard for all democratic parties, especially in terms of equality.


I'm joined now by journalist and author Rachel Shabi.


She has written extensively on Israel and the Middle East. Is this


inquiry necessary into anti-Semitism in the Labour Party? I think


anti-Semitism is always bubbling underneath society. It is good to


see that the Labour Party is taking these accusations seriously. It


looks like a robust review, the review of a party which wants to


look at this issue and take it seriously. It is not just looking


into issues around compliance, changing the rules of conduct


potentially, and seeing what to do if they are breached, but it's also


looking at things like training, so people can spot what anti-Semitism


looks like, which I think is really important. Is there a problem with


anti-Semitism, in your view, in the Labour Party, when you look at the


tweets by Naz Shah, the comments by Ken Livingstone, and some other


Labour councillors? There is a problem with anti-Semitism in


society. About 9% of the population is considered to hold anti-Semitic


views. They are not all in the Labour Party. Do you think there is


a particular problem in the Labour Party? I think there is a particular


owners in the Labour Party because we tend to expect Progressive


parties not to be anti-Semitic, which is resume agree why we do not


have the same wait of expectation on the Conservative Party, who could


equally be accused of racism, but aren't. Do you think there has been


a robust enough response from the Labour leadership, an hour Lily


Jeremy Corbyn? There was also the inquiry into claims of anti-Semitism


at the Oxford Labour club. But the accusations about the leadership


dragging its feet and not wanting to do these enquiries, are they valid?


I don't think so. As I understand it, this review has been in


consideration for some time. It did not just appear when does a


accusations came into play. Rachel Shabi says the onus is on the Labour


Party, even though she says these things no doubt exist in the


Conservative Party as well, so is this about Jeremy Corbyn's


leadership? I think the word onus is absolutely correct. I am a proud


member of the Labour Party. I would hope the Labour Party would always


stand for values like anti-Semitism and antiracism. And so therefore if


there is a suspicion of it, there is an owners to root it out. I have no


doubt myself that Jeremy Corbyn is not an anti-Semite. There are


political issues about his relationship with Hezbollah and


Hamas in the Middle East, which is a different question, and which raises


people's doubts about this. Myself, I think he did not react anything


like fast enough to these issues. But I do think it is quite right to


have an inquiry into these matters, like the one Shami Chabrabarti is


dealing with. But I thought the whole messaging Sadiq Khan was


dramatically different on this, in the process before he was elected


Mayor of London, and then as Mayor of London, in absolutely taking


every opportunity to broadcast the message that he in particular and


Labour in London in particular was not anti-Semitic. I don't think


Jeremy did that, and that was a leadership requirement which he did


not live up to, which in my opinion he should have done. Do you agree


with that, that Sadiq Khan captured it much more effectively than Jeremy


Corbyn? Yes, Sadiq Khan was excellent on that. The review is


also looking into whether there is a need to make the Labour Party more


welcoming to minorities. Anyone who is a minority in the UK will know


that that is something which organisations and employers say,


they talk the talk, you obviously need to see some action to ensure


that that is the case. But it is just the start of the review and we


need to see what it finds. What about the language wallet when we


interviewed Ken Livingstone, he said there is this problem between Andy


Zionism and anti-Semitism, criticism of the Israeli government, illegal


occupation of occupied territories, the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and


anti-Jewish sentiment. Do you think there is evidence that people use


that as proxy for anti-Semitism, is there a problem with that now? I do.


I don't think that anti-Semitism is the same as anti-Zionism. But two


things. Firstly, people who are Jewish... There's going to be things


said about the Israeli DuPage and which are not pleasant to hear. That


is one thing. Secondly, if we are trying to build a progressive


movement for peace and justice for Israelis and Palestinians, then yes,


we do need to examine the language we use, because we want to include


people and not alienate them. These are very, very difficult issues to


handle, and therefore, conduct and language is extremely important.


People have to be very, very careful about how they address these


important and difficult issues in a way which is not provocative and


inflammatory. I think there have been occasions, like the tweet from


Naz Shah was an example, where they went beyond a line of acceptable


conduct and language. Cause she spoke about deporting Israelis. What


was great about that, though, you could see that it was an issue of a


lack of awareness, and getting carried away. What was great was


that she did realise and she did apologise. That is what we want to


see happening. Precisely, I was moved by her apology and response.


Should she have been suspended? Certainly, she should, but beyond


that, that is another issue. Personally, I was moved by her


apology, I felt it was genuine. Obviously, that is something the


party will explore. But I emphasise this point of conduct. Ken


Livingstone is a classic example of somebody who seeks to shock, seeks


to dramatise rather than seeking to conduct a proper debate. Should he


be expelled? I have argued that many times but unfortunately his saviour


was Tony Blair, who brought him back into party membership and changed


all of that, against my advice, I may say. Well, you have got that on


record! Now if you remember earlier,


we asked you, what exciting government project is being tipped


for seaside town Newquay? Lord Lamont and Charles Clarke,


what's the correct answer? I do know, it is a spaceport, and


not just because Charles told me! I did know that! And that is the


correct answer. I thought it might be something to do with Boris


Johnson, if it is a Cornish pasty museum. He seems to get his face in


everywhere these days! Yes, this is the news that seaside


town of Newquay could become It's just one of the proposals


in the Government's new Modern Transport Bill,


to be outlined in the Queen's Six sites have been tipped


for the ?150 million base - But Newquay in Cornwall


is the hot favourite. With me now is Dr Robert Massey


from the Royal Astronomical Society. So, when Newquay? Actually,


different sites have been identified, on existing airfields.


That is almost a prerequisite for this kind of thing, establishing a


spaceport. Is there a solid business case for it? I think that is an open


question. We put evidence into this elect committee inquiry a couple of


months ago and we were a bit ambivalent about it. I think if it


is just going to operate on a commercial basis, it has to prove


itself. If we need, for example, a booming space tourism industry,


there is not actually much of a space tourism industry at all at the


moment, except for wealthy Americans paying the Russians to go to the


space station. With this be the beginning of seeing Britain and the


UK as a world commercial space power? Well, if it does work, it


will rely on a new engine being developed by a company called


Reaction Engines. Rather than relying on vertical lift capacity,


they are trying to have a space plane. That is being supported


partly by the Government, which is a good thing. The idea is that it


would be almost entirely a reusable system, returning the system to


Earth. You could then envisage, say, someone like virgin Galactic coming


in and delivering people on short trips. But there are an awful lot of


but more along the way. It is not the ideal location in the world. You


really want to be close to the equator, for reasons connected with


the physics. And I'm not sure, commercially. If it gets built, I'm


sure scientists will use it, we are happy to exploit these things. What


about surfers, they're going to get a fright, aren't they?! I am sure my


guests here are keen surfers! A lot of politics is involved in surfing!


How would that look? I think you would have a shock if you did not


know what was happening. One would assume it would be once a day at


most, rather than every half an hour. I'm extremely sceptical about


the business case. And you? It might increase the tourism. On the other


hand, it might not! I'll be here at noon tomorrow,


and I'll be joined by former Conservative


leader Michael Howard.


Download Subtitles