16/05/2016 Daily Politics


16/05/2016

Jo Coburn is joined by former ministers Lord Lamont and Charles Clarke to talk about the EU referendum, extremism and Natalie Bennett standing down as the Green Party leader.


Similar Content

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

Transcript


LineFromTo

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

:00:37.:00:38.

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

:00:39.:00:42.

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

:00:43.:00:47.

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

:00:48.:00:49.

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

:00:50.:00:53.

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

:00:54.:00:56.

The Government is to unveil new measures to tackle extremism

:00:57.:01:02.

and plans to treat hate preachers like paedophiles.

:01:03.:01:05.

Campaigner Max Moseley takes to his soapbox to argue for greater

:01:06.:01:13.

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

:01:14.:01:20.

And Cornwall, famous for its coastline, can sometimes

:01:21.:01:23.

But could this beauty spot soon become the gateway

:01:24.:01:27.

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

:01:28.:01:39.

of the programme today, we have Norman Lamont,

:01:40.:01:41.

a former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer,

:01:42.:01:43.

and Charles Clarke, one-time Labour Education Secretary

:01:44.:01:45.

First today - George Osborne has been joined by two blasts

:01:46.:01:52.

from the past this morning, in the latest salvo

:01:53.:01:54.

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

:01:55.:02:00.

colleague Vince Cable joined him on a platform in Essex

:02:01.:02:03.

to argue for Britain to remain in the EU.

:02:04.:02:05.

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

:02:06.:02:09.

And there is a reason that the three of us

:02:10.:02:11.

are standing here today, putting aside our very

:02:12.:02:14.

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

:02:15.:02:21.

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

:02:22.:02:24.

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

:02:25.:02:26.

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

:02:27.:02:33.

because it would have been economically really damaging

:02:34.:02:38.

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

:02:39.:02:42.

to leave the EU single market would be even more

:02:43.:02:45.

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

:02:46.:02:50.

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

:02:51.:02:57.

business and British workers have benefited,

:02:58.:02:59.

overall, from EU membership and stand to lose

:03:00.:03:03.

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

:03:04.:03:10.

300 businessmen and women have signed a joint letter

:03:11.:03:17.

to the Daily Telegraph saying the UK's competitiveness

:03:18.:03:19.

"Britain's competitiveness is being undermined

:03:20.:03:22.

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

:03:23.:03:43.

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

:03:44.:03:52.

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

:03:53.:03:56.

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

:03:57.:04:01.

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

:04:02.:04:05.

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

:04:06.:04:10.

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

:04:11.:04:14.

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

:04:15.:04:19.

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

:04:20.:04:24.

major economic interests in this country strongly favour our

:04:25.:04:28.

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

:04:29.:04:32.

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

:04:33.:04:36.

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

:04:37.:04:41.

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

:04:42.:04:46.

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

:04:47.:04:49.

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

:04:50.:04:53.

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

:04:54.:05:01.

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

:05:02.:05:04.

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

:05:05.:05:08.

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

:05:09.:05:13.

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

:05:14.:05:17.

certain amount of groupthink and there are people who think

:05:18.:05:21.

differently -- entirely differently, many entrepreneurs take a different

:05:22.:05:25.

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

:05:26.:05:30.

different view and there are many individual private sector economists

:05:31.:05:33.

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

:05:34.:05:39.

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

:05:40.:05:42.

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

:05:43.:05:46.

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

:05:47.:05:50.

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

:05:51.:05:54.

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

:05:55.:06:00.

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

:06:01.:06:03.

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

:06:04.:06:07.

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

:06:08.:06:12.

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

:06:13.:06:16.

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

:06:17.:06:20.

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

:06:21.:06:25.

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

:06:26.:06:29.

countries worldwide sale into the single market without being part of

:06:30.:06:34.

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

:06:35.:06:38.

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

:06:39.:06:44.

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

:06:45.:06:50.

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

:06:51.:06:54.

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

:06:55.:06:59.

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

:07:00.:07:03.

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

:07:04.:07:07.

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

:07:08.:07:11.

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

:07:12.:07:15.

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

:07:16.:07:18.

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

:07:19.:07:23.

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

:07:24.:07:29.

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

:07:30.:07:35.

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

:07:36.:07:40.

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

:07:41.:07:46.

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

:07:47.:07:49.

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

:07:50.:07:54.

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

:07:55.:07:58.

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

:07:59.:08:03.

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

:08:04.:08:08.

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

:08:09.:08:14.

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

:08:15.:08:22.

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

:08:23.:08:26.

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

:08:27.:08:31.

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

:08:32.:08:35.

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

:08:36.:08:39.

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

:08:40.:08:43.

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

:08:44.:08:48.

people's eyes, and unwise intervention but a powerful

:08:49.:08:51.

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

:08:52.:08:55.

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

:08:56.:08:59.

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

:09:00.:09:07.

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

:09:08.:09:10.

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

:09:11.:09:15.

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

:09:16.:09:20.

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

:09:21.:09:24.

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

:09:25.:09:29.

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

:09:30.:09:33.

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

:09:34.:09:38.

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

:09:39.:09:42.

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

:09:43.:09:47.

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

:09:48.:09:55.

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

:09:56.:09:59.

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

:10:00.:10:04.

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

:10:05.:10:09.

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

:10:10.:10:12.

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

:10:13.:10:17.

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

:10:18.:10:22.

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

:10:23.:10:25.

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

:10:26.:10:32.

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

:10:33.:10:37.

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

:10:38.:10:40.

agree with your colleague Iain Duncan Smith, who admitted yesterday

:10:41.:10:47.

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

:10:48.:10:53.

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

:10:54.:10:57.

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

:10:58.:11:00.

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

:11:01.:11:03.

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

:11:04.:11:07.

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

:11:08.:11:11.

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

:11:12.:11:15.

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

:11:16.:11:20.

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

:11:21.:11:23.

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

:11:24.:11:30.

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

:11:31.:11:34.

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

:11:35.:11:37.

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

:11:38.:11:45.

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

:11:46.:11:55.

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

:11:56.:11:56.

without mentioning Hitler. Newquay is famous for its sea

:11:57.:11:59.

and beaches, but what exciting Government project is it also

:12:00.:12:04.

being tipped for? Norman and Charles will give

:12:05.:12:06.

us the correct answer. David Cameron has described the rise

:12:07.:12:15.

of Islamist extremism as "the struggle of our generation"

:12:16.:12:17.

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

:12:18.:12:20.

to form the centrepiece of his government's

:12:21.:12:23.

legislative agenda Let's take a look at

:12:24.:12:24.

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

:12:25.:12:34.

to include new measures to ban extremists from working with young

:12:35.:12:37.

people and vulnerable people. The proposals are designed to stop

:12:38.:12:39.

people with radical views infiltrating schools, colleges,

:12:40.:12:41.

charities or care homes. The bill will also include plans

:12:42.:12:44.

to ban radical preachers And new powers to allow Ofcom

:12:45.:12:47.

to block broadcasts of "unacceptable These reforms form part

:12:48.:12:53.

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

:12:54.:12:58.

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

:12:59.:13:03.

could alienate Muslims and contain too broad a definition

:13:04.:13:06.

of extremist activity. Alistair Carmichael, the Lib Dem

:13:07.:13:10.

spokesperson for home affairs, said the proposals could "drive

:13:11.:13:13.

extremists into the shadows" and threaten the "very fabric

:13:14.:13:16.

of our multicultural society Charles Clarke, you were Home

:13:17.:13:35.

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

:13:36.:13:40.

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

:13:41.:13:44.

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

:13:45.:13:47.

problem in the legislation I took through Parliament to deal with

:13:48.:13:50.

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

:13:51.:13:55.

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

:13:56.:14:00.

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

:14:01.:14:04.

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

:14:05.:14:08.

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

:14:09.:14:11.

getting it right is not straightforward and the proof of the

:14:12.:14:14.

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

:14:15.:14:18.

detailed proposals, but the direction of what the Government is

:14:19.:14:22.

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

:14:23.:14:26.

has identified, what actually constitutes an extremist view and

:14:27.:14:30.

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

:14:31.:14:34.

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

:14:35.:14:39.

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

:14:40.:14:44.

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

:14:45.:14:50.

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

:14:51.:14:55.

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

:14:56.:15:00.

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

:15:01.:15:07.

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

:15:08.:15:13.

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

:15:14.:15:16.

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

:15:17.:15:20.

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

:15:21.:15:25.

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

:15:26.:15:31.

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

:15:32.:15:35.

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

:15:36.:15:42.

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

:15:43.:15:46.

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

:15:47.:15:49.

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

:15:50.:15:50.

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

:15:51.:16:01.

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

:16:02.:16:06.

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

:16:07.:16:10.

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

:16:11.:16:14.

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

:16:15.:16:19.

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

:16:20.:16:23.

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

:16:24.:16:29.

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

:16:30.:16:33.

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

:16:34.:16:39.

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

:16:40.:16:43.

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

:16:44.:16:48.

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

:16:49.:16:52.

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

:16:53.:16:56.

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

:16:57.:17:01.

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

:17:02.:17:05.

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

:17:06.:17:08.

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

:17:09.:17:14.

We already have laws relating to the security service and monitoring

:17:15.:17:18.

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

:17:19.:17:23.

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

:17:24.:17:27.

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

:17:28.:17:30.

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

:17:31.:17:32.

very firmly arguing against violence. Was it wrong that that

:17:33.:17:37.

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

:17:38.:17:42.

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

:17:43.:17:47.

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

:17:48.:17:50.

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

:17:51.:17:56.

community, other include Barnicle banning radical preachers from

:17:57.:17:59.

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

:18:00.:18:06.

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

:18:07.:18:09.

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

:18:10.:18:13.

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

:18:14.:18:17.

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

:18:18.:18:22.

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

:18:23.:18:25.

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

:18:26.:18:29.

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

:18:30.:18:34.

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

:18:35.:18:38.

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

:18:39.:18:44.

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

:18:45.:18:48.

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

:18:49.:18:56.

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

:18:57.:19:07.

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

:19:08.:19:11.

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

:19:12.:19:13.

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

:19:14.:19:16.

very important to realise one major division in the Conservative Party

:19:17.:19:18.

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

:19:19.:19:22.

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

:19:23.:19:26.

extremism, undermined by a substantial group of people who were

:19:27.:19:30.

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

:19:31.:19:34.

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

:19:35.:19:38.

would have expected the Conservatives to be united on, this

:19:39.:19:42.

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

:19:43.:19:46.

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

:19:47.:19:50.

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

:19:51.:19:54.

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

:19:55.:19:58.

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

:19:59.:20:05.

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

:20:06.:20:12.

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

:20:13.:20:18.

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

:20:19.:20:25.

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

:20:26.:20:29.

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

:20:30.:20:35.

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

:20:36.:20:38.

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

:20:39.:20:43.

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

:20:44.:20:46.

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

:20:47.:20:51.

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

:20:52.:20:55.

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

:20:56.:21:00.

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

:21:01.:21:03.

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

:21:04.:21:07.

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

:21:08.:21:11.

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

:21:12.:21:17.

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

:21:18.:21:21.

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

:21:22.:21:25.

Countries like Holland and Germany are now part of that intelligence

:21:26.:21:29.

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

:21:30.:21:34.

gradually got wide to include more of the EU countries.

:21:35.:21:38.

The Green Party leader Natalie Bennett has announced

:21:39.:21:40.

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

:21:41.:21:43.

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

:21:44.:21:45.

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

:21:46.:21:47.

Sunday Politics now has a new traffic and travel reporter.

:21:48.:22:02.

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

:22:03.:22:06.

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

:22:07.:22:10.

Do you also accept that Ukip consistently

:22:11.:22:23.

attracts more support than you in the opinion polls?

:22:24.:22:26.

It shouldn't be a crime to be a member

:22:27.:22:42.

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

:22:43.:22:49.

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

:22:50.:22:54.

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

:22:55.:22:59.

You want to control the BBC schedules so that we

:23:00.:23:05.

broadcast educational programmes in prime time - does The Sunday

:23:06.:23:08.

Politics count as an educational programme in prime time?

:23:09.:23:11.

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

:23:12.:23:13.

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

:23:14.:23:25.

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

:23:26.:23:32.

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

:23:33.:23:39.

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

:23:40.:23:43.

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

:23:44.:23:47.

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

:23:48.:23:51.

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

:23:52.:23:55.

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

:23:56.:24:00.

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

:24:01.:24:03.

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

:24:04.:24:07.

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

:24:08.:24:12.

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

:24:13.:24:16.

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

:24:17.:24:20.

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

:24:21.:24:23.

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

:24:24.:24:30.

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

:24:31.:24:35.

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

:24:36.:24:39.

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

:24:40.:24:43.

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

:24:44.:24:48.

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

:24:49.:24:51.

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

:24:52.:24:55.

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

:24:56.:25:00.

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

:25:01.:25:04.

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

:25:05.:25:09.

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

:25:10.:25:14.

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

:25:15.:25:18.

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

:25:19.:25:21.

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

:25:22.:25:27.

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

:25:28.:25:31.

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

:25:32.:25:36.

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

:25:37.:25:39.

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

:25:40.:25:42.

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

:25:43.:25:47.

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

:25:48.:25:52.

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

:25:53.:25:56.

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

:25:57.:26:00.

billionaire hedge fund owners finding a few spare millions. We

:26:01.:26:04.

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

:26:05.:26:08.

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

:26:09.:26:13.

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

:26:14.:26:16.

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

:26:17.:26:20.

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

:26:21.:26:25.

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

:26:26.:26:31.

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

:26:32.:26:35.

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

:26:36.:26:41.

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

:26:42.:26:46.

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

:26:47.:26:52.

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

:26:53.:26:55.

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

:26:56.:26:59.

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

:27:00.:27:03.

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

:27:04.:27:09.

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

:27:10.:27:12.

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

:27:13.:27:16.

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

:27:17.:27:21.

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

:27:22.:27:24.

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

:27:25.:27:30.

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

:27:31.:27:36.

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

:27:37.:27:42.

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

:27:43.:27:46.

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

:27:47.:27:51.

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

:27:52.:27:58.

to prepare yourself in offering a physically demanding process. I

:27:59.:28:01.

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

:28:02.:28:05.

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

:28:06.:28:09.

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

:28:10.:28:15.

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

:28:16.:28:22.

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

:28:23.:28:25.

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

:28:26.:28:30.

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

:28:31.:28:34.

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

:28:35.:28:37.

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

:28:38.:28:44.

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

:28:45.:28:47.

ability to deal with some intense questioning and scrutiny of their

:28:48.:28:51.

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

:28:52.:28:57.

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

:28:58.:29:02.

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

:29:03.:29:08.

sometimes the interviews are so aggressive that what it produces in

:29:09.:29:13.

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

:29:14.:29:17.

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

:29:18.:29:21.

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

:29:22.:29:26.

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

:29:27.:29:30.

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

:29:31.:29:36.

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

:29:37.:29:40.

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

:29:41.:29:44.

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

:29:45.:29:50.

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

:29:51.:29:53.

And lots of politicians have been trained never to answer the

:29:54.:29:57.

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

:29:58.:30:04.

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

:30:05.:30:10.

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

:30:11.:30:12.

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

:30:13.:30:16.

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

:30:17.:30:21.

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

:30:22.:30:23.

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

:30:24.:30:33.

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

:30:34.:30:37.

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

:30:38.:30:41.

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

:30:42.:30:50.

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

:30:51.:30:55.

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

:30:56.:30:58.

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

:30:59.:31:01.

that the system has currently denied representation in Parliament. Thank

:31:02.:31:03.

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

:31:04.:31:06.

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

:31:07.:31:09.

for the next few days? Today, Jo Johnson,

:31:10.:31:11.

the Universities Minister, which would make it possible

:31:12.:31:13.

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

:31:14.:31:16.

open new universities. a second vote is expected

:31:17.:31:19.

in the Welsh Parliament The last vote was a tie

:31:20.:31:24.

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

:31:25.:31:31.

Assembly members will vote. On Wednesday, it's

:31:32.:31:35.

the Queen's Speech, As well as the bill

:31:36.:31:36.

tackling extremism, and there are rumours there could be

:31:37.:31:42.

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

:31:43.:31:50.

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

:31:51.:31:56.

campaigners to register donations and loans with the

:31:57.:31:59.

Electoral Commission. the full list of candidates

:32:00.:32:00.

in the Tooting by-election to replace new London

:32:01.:32:04.

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

:32:05.:32:07.

from the Huffington Post and James Forsyth from

:32:08.:32:09.

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

:32:10.:32:20.

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

:32:21.:32:25.

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

:32:26.:32:29.

think lots of remain as were thinking that was the perfect

:32:30.:32:32.

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

:32:33.:32:40.

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

:32:41.:32:48.

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

:32:49.:32:53.

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

:32:54.:32:58.

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

:32:59.:33:04.

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

:33:05.:33:08.

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

:33:09.:33:12.

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

:33:13.:33:17.

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

:33:18.:33:22.

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

:33:23.:33:25.

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

:33:26.:33:30.

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

:33:31.:33:34.

great economic figures coming together, it looked like two guys

:33:35.:33:36.

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

:33:37.:33:40.

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

:33:41.:33:45.

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

:33:46.:33:49.

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

:33:50.:33:53.

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

:33:54.:33:57.

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

:33:58.:34:03.

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

:34:04.:34:07.

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

:34:08.:34:11.

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

:34:12.:34:14.

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

:34:15.:34:19.

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

:34:20.:34:23.

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

:34:24.:34:28.

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

:34:29.:34:31.

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

:34:32.:34:36.

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

:34:37.:34:39.

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

:34:40.:34:43.

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

:34:44.:34:47.

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

:34:48.:34:52.

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

:34:53.:34:58.

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

:34:59.:35:02.

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

:35:03.:35:06.

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

:35:07.:35:11.

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

:35:12.:35:16.

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

:35:17.:35:19.

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

:35:20.:35:23.

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

:35:24.:35:28.

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

:35:29.:35:33.

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

:35:34.:35:38.

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

:35:39.:35:43.

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

:35:44.:35:47.

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

:35:48.:35:51.

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

:35:52.:35:55.

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

:35:56.:35:59.

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

:36:00.:36:02.

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

:36:03.:36:07.

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

:36:08.:36:12.

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

:36:13.:36:15.

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

:36:16.:36:20.

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

:36:21.:36:24.

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

:36:25.:36:30.

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

:36:31.:36:34.

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

:36:35.:36:36.

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

:36:37.:36:40.

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

:36:41.:36:48.

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

:36:49.:36:51.

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

:36:52.:36:55.

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

:36:56.:37:02.

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

:37:03.:37:06.

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

:37:07.:37:09.

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

:37:10.:37:12.

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

:37:13.:37:17.

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

:37:18.:37:24.

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

:37:25.:37:34.

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

:37:35.:37:37.

experienced this at first hand is Max Mosley.

:37:38.:37:39.

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

:37:40.:37:42.

over his private life, which he denied and eventually

:37:43.:37:44.

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

:37:45.:37:46.

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

:37:47.:37:50.

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

:37:51.:38:08.

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

:38:09.:38:13.

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

:38:14.:38:18.

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

:38:19.:38:25.

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

:38:26.:38:29.

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

:38:30.:38:34.

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

:38:35.:38:38.

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

:38:39.:38:45.

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

:38:46.:38:49.

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

:38:50.:38:54.

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

:38:55.:38:58.

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

:38:59.:39:02.

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

:39:03.:39:07.

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

:39:08.:39:12.

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

:39:13.:39:15.

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

:39:16.:39:19.

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

:39:20.:39:23.

line into areas of no public interest so many times and

:39:24.:39:25.

ironically, when the newspapers themselves have something to lose,

:39:26.:39:30.

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

:39:31.:39:36.

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

:39:37.:39:41.

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

:39:42.:39:45.

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

:39:46.:39:50.

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

:39:51.:39:56.

world. But the technology companies must take responsibility for

:39:57.:40:00.

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

:40:01.:40:03.

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

:40:04.:40:09.

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

:40:10.:40:13.

than increasing circulation is completely unacceptable.

:40:14.:40:19.

You politely glossed over your feelings on John Whittingdale,

:40:20.:40:30.

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

:40:31.:40:35.

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

:40:36.:40:39.

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

:40:40.:40:42.

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

:40:43.:40:47.

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

:40:48.:40:51.

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

:40:52.:40:56.

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

:40:57.:41:00.

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

:41:01.:41:05.

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

:41:06.:41:09.

press have robustly defended themselves, saying it wasn't

:41:10.:41:12.

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

:41:13.:41:18.

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

:41:19.:41:23.

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

:41:24.:41:28.

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

:41:29.:41:32.

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

:41:33.:41:36.

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

:41:37.:41:41.

rights to force newspapers to warn public figures before exposing their

:41:42.:41:44.

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

:41:45.:41:48.

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

:41:49.:41:52.

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

:41:53.:41:56.

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

:41:57.:42:00.

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

:42:01.:42:04.

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

:42:05.:42:08.

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

:42:09.:42:11.

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

:42:12.:42:18.

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

:42:19.:42:21.

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

:42:22.:42:25.

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

:42:26.:42:30.

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

:42:31.:42:35.

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

:42:36.:42:41.

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

:42:42.:42:44.

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

:42:45.:42:47.

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

:42:48.:42:52.

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

:42:53.:42:55.

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

:42:56.:42:59.

you think the future of the injunction looks fragile as it

:43:00.:43:03.

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

:43:04.:43:07.

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

:43:08.:43:11.

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

:43:12.:43:14.

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

:43:15.:43:18.

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

:43:19.:43:22.

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

:43:23.:43:26.

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

:43:27.:43:32.

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

:43:33.:43:37.

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

:43:38.:43:40.

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

:43:41.:43:46.

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

:43:47.:43:50.

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

:43:51.:43:53.

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

:43:54.:43:58.

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

:43:59.:44:02.

humbug about public interest, newspapers have fun pub and write

:44:03.:44:05.

pompous editorials about public interest when often there is

:44:06.:44:12.

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

:44:13.:44:18.

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

:44:19.:44:22.

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

:44:23.:44:25.

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

:44:26.:44:30.

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

:44:31.:44:34.

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

:44:35.:44:39.

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

:44:40.:44:43.

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

:44:44.:44:47.

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

:44:48.:44:51.

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

:44:52.:44:57.

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

:44:58.:45:01.

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

:45:02.:45:05.

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

:45:06.:45:08.

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

:45:09.:45:12.

for example that your neighbours get up to something interesting every

:45:13.:45:17.

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

:45:18.:45:22.

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

:45:23.:45:25.

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

:45:26.:45:30.

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

:45:31.:45:32.

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

:45:33.:46:02.

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

:46:03.:46:12.

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

:46:13.:46:16.

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

:46:17.:46:23.

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

:46:24.:46:29.

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

:46:30.:46:34.

including before the 1992 general election, publishing complete

:46:35.:46:37.

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

:46:38.:46:40.

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

:46:41.:46:44.

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

:46:45.:46:46.

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

:46:47.:46:50.

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

:46:51.:46:52.

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

:46:53.:46:56.

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

:46:57.:46:58.

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

:46:59.:47:02.

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

:47:03.:47:05.

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

:47:06.:47:08.

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

:47:09.:47:11.

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

:47:12.:47:14.

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

:47:15.:47:17.

is really that simple. Shami Chabrabarti has been giving a

:47:18.:47:38.

briefing to journalists this morning. Alex Forsyth was there.

:47:39.:47:41.

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

:47:42.:47:47.

to consult with Labour Party members and representatives from ethnic

:47:48.:47:51.

minority groups and where necessary to make recommendations about

:47:52.:47:54.

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

:47:55.:47:57.

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

:47:58.:48:01.

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

:48:02.:48:06.

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

:48:07.:48:10.

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

:48:11.:48:15.

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

:48:16.:48:18.

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

:48:19.:48:22.

aspects of racism, including Islamophobia. Shami Chabrabarti said

:48:23.:48:27.

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

:48:28.:48:32.

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

:48:33.:48:36.

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

:48:37.:48:41.

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

:48:42.:48:45.

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

:48:46.:48:48.

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

:48:49.:48:52.

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

:48:53.:48:55.

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

:48:56.:49:00.

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

:49:01.:49:07.

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

:49:08.:49:12.

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

:49:13.:49:17.

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

:49:18.:49:21.

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

:49:22.:49:24.

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

:49:25.:49:28.

into issues around compliance, changing the rules of conduct

:49:29.:49:32.

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

:49:33.:49:37.

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

:49:38.:49:41.

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

:49:42.:49:46.

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

:49:47.:49:51.

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

:49:52.:49:55.

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

:49:56.:49:59.

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

:50:00.:50:03.

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

:50:04.:50:07.

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

:50:08.:50:12.

owners in the Labour Party because we tend to expect Progressive

:50:13.:50:15.

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

:50:16.:50:19.

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

:50:20.:50:23.

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

:50:24.:50:27.

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

:50:28.:50:35.

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

:50:36.:50:38.

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

:50:39.:50:42.

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

:50:43.:50:47.

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

:50:48.:50:51.

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

:50:52.:51:00.

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

:51:01.:51:04.

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

:51:05.:51:07.

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

:51:08.:51:13.

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

:51:14.:51:18.

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

:51:19.:51:21.

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

:51:22.:51:27.

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

:51:28.:51:32.

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

:51:33.:51:36.

political issues about his relationship with Hezbollah and

:51:37.:51:39.

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

:51:40.:51:43.

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

:51:44.:51:47.

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

:51:48.:51:52.

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

:51:53.:51:55.

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

:51:56.:51:59.

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

:52:00.:52:03.

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

:52:04.:52:07.

every opportunity to broadcast the message that he in particular and

:52:08.:52:11.

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

:52:12.:52:16.

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

:52:17.:52:20.

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

:52:21.:52:23.

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

:52:24.:52:28.

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

:52:29.:52:31.

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

:52:32.:52:36.

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

:52:37.:52:39.

that that is something which organisations and employers say,

:52:40.:52:44.

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

:52:45.:52:48.

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

:52:49.:52:51.

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

:52:52.:52:55.

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

:52:56.:53:00.

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

:53:01.:53:04.

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

:53:05.:53:09.

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

:53:10.:53:15.

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

:53:16.:53:20.

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

:53:21.:53:26.

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

:53:27.:53:32.

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

:53:33.:53:36.

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

:53:37.:53:41.

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

:53:42.:53:44.

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

:53:45.:53:50.

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

:53:51.:53:54.

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

:53:55.:53:58.

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

:53:59.:54:03.

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

:54:04.:54:06.

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

:54:07.:54:12.

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

:54:13.:54:15.

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

:54:16.:54:22.

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

:54:23.:54:25.

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

:54:26.:54:29.

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

:54:30.:54:36.

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

:54:37.:54:42.

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

:54:43.:54:46.

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

:54:47.:54:50.

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

:54:51.:54:54.

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

:54:55.:54:57.

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

:54:58.:55:03.

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

:55:04.:55:12.

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

:55:13.:55:15.

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

:55:16.:55:19.

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

:55:20.:55:22.

record! Now if you remember earlier,

:55:23.:55:26.

we asked you, what exciting government project is being tipped

:55:27.:55:29.

for seaside town Newquay? Lord Lamont and Charles Clarke,

:55:30.:55:31.

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

:55:32.:55:46.

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

:55:47.:55:53.

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

:55:54.:55:58.

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

:55:59.:56:00.

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

:56:01.:56:03.

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

:56:04.:56:06.

in the Government's new Modern Transport Bill,

:56:07.:56:10.

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

:56:11.:56:12.

for the ?150 million base - But Newquay in Cornwall

:56:13.:56:16.

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

:56:17.:56:20.

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

:56:21.:56:29.

different sites have been identified, on existing airfields.

:56:30.:56:33.

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

:56:34.:56:41.

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

:56:42.:56:46.

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

:56:47.:56:50.

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

:56:51.:56:54.

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

:56:55.:56:59.

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

:57:00.:57:02.

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

:57:03.:57:05.

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

:57:06.:57:10.

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

:57:11.:57:13.

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

:57:14.:57:19.

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

:57:20.:57:23.

Reaction Engines. Rather than relying on vertical lift capacity,

:57:24.:57:27.

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

:57:28.:57:30.

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

:57:31.:57:34.

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

:57:35.:57:42.

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

:57:43.:57:44.

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

:57:45.:57:51.

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

:57:52.:57:55.

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

:57:56.:57:58.

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

:57:59.:58:04.

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

:58:05.:58:07.

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

:58:08.:58:15.

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

:58:16.:58:21.

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

:58:22.:58:25.

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

:58:26.:58:28.

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

:58:29.:58:41.

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

:58:42.:58:42.

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

:58:43.:58:44.

and I'll be joined by former Conservative

:58:45.:58:51.

leader Michael Howard.

:58:52.:58:54.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS