18/07/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

The two people challenging Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour

leadership will be making their pitch to fellow MPs today,

but will a unity candidate emerge and if so, who?

The Labour leader seems to be taking the threat to his position as a bit

We'll be looking at what happens next in this battle

The vote on whether to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system

could hardly have come at a worse time for Labour.

Is the government forcing the issue just to divide their opponents?

Politics has been a pretty rough business recently,

but can some of the blame for that be laid at the door

And as Boris Johnson takes to the world stage for the first

time as foreign secretary, we'll be asking is he the right man

And things may be hotting up here at Westminster,

in more ways than one, but I'm joined by two MPs who are

always as cool as cucumbers - it's the Conservative MP

Nicholas Soames and the Labour MP Lisa Nandy, both sheltering

from the heatwave in our studio for the rest of the show.

First today, Theresa May is in Cardiff this morning meeting

with the first minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones.

We're told the new Prime Minister will emphasise her strong personal

support for the union, and repeat her commitment to working

with the devolved governments of the UK ahead of negotiations

The man who'll be responsible for those negotiations

is David Davis, the Secretary of State for exiting the EU,

and he talked to Sky News yesterday about his hopes for new trade deals

Liam is going around the world and he is going to be making huge

trade deals all over the place and we'll get a very,

very large trade deal, much bigger than the European Union,

I'm not going to set Liam targets, but a multiple of the size

And the moment we leave they will all come in.

That is actually an enormous upside to this thing.

He sounded very confident, do you think this Brexit idea from a remain

perspective may succeed? Let's hope for all our sakes that it does.

David Davis is right, there are big opportunities for trade, but the

problem is it is all very well to get agreement in principle on a

trade deal, but to get from point a to point B is a very complex and

difficult matter. That will be a factor in the speed at which these

transactions will be undertaken. Do you think this optimism is not going

to be genuinely felt when it comes to former negotiations? No, we have

to be optimistic about the future, but it has to be optimism tinged

with realism. Australia has already called for a free-trade deal with

Britain following our exit from the European Union when it comes, so

people are up for it. It is right we should be exploring all of the

opportunities, but I was worried when I saw David Davies claiming

they would have a trade deal that was perhaps bigger than the whole of

that world trade that is available to us. It seems we have learned very

little from the Brexit campaign which made claims that did not stack

up and which they later abandoned. What we want to see in a job like

that is somebody who is optimistic but realistic and he does not fit

the bill. In terms of scaremongering, some of that came

from the remain side, particularly from people like George Osborne, and

Liam Fox, the new International trade Secretary, he says he is

working on about a dozen trade deals and out of that welcome something

that will benefit us. I agree with the idea about being entirely

realistic. I think David Davis is right to be optimistic and to get

people to lift their eyes to the hills and to see what is going to

come, but it will be a long, hard slog. Of course the Canadians and

the Americans will all want to do trade deals with us and it does not

happen overnight. We will have to be realistic about how long this will

take. How long will it take? David Davis has already set out a broad

timetable, trigger article 50 and it is all set up by January 20 19. None

of these things go like rail lines and a train on rail lines and I

think we need to press on as quickly as we can. You would go for a quick

starts I would do what Liam Fox is doing, which is to get on with

overtures to our friends. The Trade Minister, together with Mark Price,

the former Trade Minister, they will go round all our potential partners

getting in place the architecture so that we can press forward. If we

cannot formally negotiate until Article 50 is triggered... No one

knows when that will be. Is he the right man for the job? When I was

Minister for the Armed Forces David Davis was a minister for Europe and

he is a very confident, clever, tough negotiator. You were shaking

your head. What we need to hear from David Davis, or whoever Theresa May

chooses in this critical position, him and Liam Fox and Boris Johnson

have all been tasked with major relations with the rest of the

world. We need to hear about the terms of the deals and who they

benefit. They cannot be conducted behind closed doors and they must

benefit the workforce here and not just be done on the basis we will

take whatever deal we can get. Deals have been consistently one of the

ways that the UK has been a force for good in the UK and the rest of

the world. I have not heard anything from any of the people she is

accounted about anything like that. The UK could continue to get tariff

free access to the European market whilst allowing it to impose rules

on immigration. That sounds like having it all. There is no such

thing as having it all. We are at the beginning of this very long

process and Lisa knows that very well. These trade deals need to be

good trade deals. Would that be a good one? That would be wonderful if

we could get it. But one does not assume that it is all going to be

plain sailing with the European Union, but we have to make our case

for the best possible deal we can get.

The question for today is about Labour leader Jeremy

He learnt about a new playground craze thanks to Adam

on the Sunday Politics, but what was that craze?

At the end of the show, Nicholas and Lisa will give

I know this one. I have never seen you so excited. There is no prize.

MPs will vote this afternoon on whether to renew the UK's Trident

In one of her first acts as Prime Minister, Theresa May

will move a motion in the commons saying that Trident remains

essential to the UK's security and to protecting our way of life.

The Trident weapons system currently operates

To maintain this requires four submarines, one armed

The current fleet of submarines is due to become obsolete by the end

of the decade and will begin to end their working lives some

MPs need to decide now whether to replace them

as new submarines could take up to seventeen years to develop.

The government says it will cost ?31 billion to renew,

but opponents like the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament put

the estimate far higher at over ?200 billion.

The Conservatives committed to renewing Trident in their 2015

manifesto, but the Labour party is split over the issue.

While leader Jeremy Corbyn opposes renewal and will vote

against the motion he has given his MPs a free vote

and many look set to support the Government's renewal plans.

Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry, however,

says she will abstain because the Government

is using the decision to "play games with the Labour Party".

The SNP are unanimous in their opposition to Trident

and all 54 of their MPs will vote against today's motion.

Speaking to the BBC this morning defence Secretary Michael Fallon

insisted the vote, which isn't binding,

We have postponed this vote for several months now

because of the referendum and the elections before it.

There will be a large number of Labour MPs,

I hope MPs from all sides of the House, who have always

supported a nuclear deterrent and I hope will be voting

We don't see this as a party political issue.

I hope we will get the largest possible majority from Parliament.

That was Michael Fallon. We are joined by the Green Party MP

Caroline Lucas. Welcome. Lisa Nandi, which way will you go? I will not be

supporting the motion because having read it, it has become very clear

that what Theresa May is doing is abandoning the commitment to

multi-natural disarmament which my party has believed in ever since the

beginning of nuclear weapons. This marks a shift in the Tory party's

position. I will listen to what she has got to say, but if I do not hear

a plan around multilateral disarmament, I will be voting

against. You had been in favour, you are changing your position. I am not

a pacifist, I believe there are reasons to think we may need a

nuclear deterrent now and Trident may be that solution. But the truth

is just you recognise the conditions

for disarmament do not currently exist, it does not mean we should

not aspire to rid the world of nuclear weapons and take concrete

steps to do that. What Theresa May has done in the wording of this

motion today is to take that off the table, definitely for 20-30 years,

but potentially for good, and I am concerned about that. There was a

phrase that said, we commit ourselves to nuclear weapons for as

long as the global security situation demands. That is an open

ended, vague statement which goes back on the commitments we have made

as a country and for my party in government and I cannot support

that. What do you say? Of course I respect views like that and there

are very honourable views held on both sides. I was a defence Minister

for five years in the 90s and nothing has changed my views since I

was party to the information that I knew about them. I think the world

has become more dangerous, not less dangerous, and nothing that I have

seen that I can usefully forecast myself as far out as I can possibly

see leads me to believe that would be the case. What about the point

about in terms of removing some sort of commitment are looking at this

idea of disarmament if the world becomes more secure? I do not think

that is the case. If there was an opportunity for us to decide on an

equal, sane, sensible, Safeway, I am quite sure we would. That moment

does not exist now and we must take the decision to get on and that is

why the Prime Minister has brought this motion today. We have made the

decision to get on. Parliament had about several years ago. Part of

that was that Margaret Beckett at the time made concrete steps that

the government would take to lead the world in multilateral

disarmament. Whichever way you look, the behaviour of the Russians, the

nuclear situation all over the world is becoming more and more difficult.

Do not go ahead with this would not be a safe thing for our country. In

the past you have sent thousands of jobs would be at stake. Have you

changed your mind? Will you let down those people whose jobs would be at

risk? This is something I have to make a decision about as every

member of Parliament does today. If I was in Theresa May's position and

in my civil servants brought me a motion, a plan that said, we will

renew Trident, we will not consider any alternatives, we will not

consider how much it costs because we do not know over the lifetime how

much it will cost because the government has not done a

projection, and we are not going to do that alongside any multilateral

disarmament. I would say to them, take it away and bring me something

better. The Labour Party does not know what its position is and are

you disappointed that Jeremy Corbyn, who will vote against it, as he has

done, but he has not taken the party with him, it will be a free vote? I

am disappointed. Jeremy Hunt is a fantastic record on nuclear

disarmament and nobody could have any doubts about where he comes from

and it has been a challenge for him to bring his party with him and that

is a shame. There is a process going on right now at the UN, 130

countries are engaged in discussions about banning nuclear weapons. Our

government has boycotted even being involved in those discussions which

is unacceptable. Meanwhile, nuclear weapons make us less safe, not more

safe. There was a scary report from Chatham House a couple of years ago

talking about 13 near misses which you do not hear about much of the

time. There is always the possibility of accidents and

materials falling into the hands of terrorists and that is a far greater

risk. The government's own Strategic Defence Review put nuclear war at a

tiered two risk, below international problems. But we are still living in

unstable times if you look across the world from the Middle East to

Russia to perhaps even closer to home with Turkey and this would not

be the time to send the wrong message?

It is the time to send a message we will not be threatening the rest of

the world, one submarine could wipe out 10 million civilians and the

moral arguments, they are huge. We live in an uncertain world with

terrorism and the more countries that aspire to get nuclear weapons,

the more likely terrorists will get hold of it. We are a mature nuclear

weapons state, we have had the nuclear weapons for very long time.

We are of Nato. Fully integrated into the American and global Nato

system. Is it the right answer? Yes, in my view. Lisa said something, an

important point. There is an enormous amount of work going on for

years about the alternatives, it is not true to say they have not done

that, that work has been done. As the conclusion that the Prime

Minister has drawn and the government is that it would be wrong

to gamble with the safety and security of Britain and we must go

ahead and ordered the new generation. The bigger gamble is

nuclear weapons. The Chatham House report mentions Jimmy Carter left

the nuclear code in his trouser pocket when they went to the dry

cleaners! This is the madness of nuclear weapons. I do not think that

is a serious point. It is a very serious point. Let's not bring it to

the dry cleaning. There is another point about safety. In 1968, we

struck a bargain with other countries who did not have nuclear

weapons that I would not look to acquire nuclear weapons on the basis

we would take steps to disarm. Whichever way you look at it, we

have not done that. We have not done it in the last decade. We are

breaking a bargain with other countries and that makes is

fundamentally unsafe. The Chilcot report in Iraq, what did we learn?

When you break the international rules binding us together, you

create new threats and make everybody fundamentally unsafe. Do

you think other countries will disarm if we do? Only if Britain

takes a read Will we see a world free of nuclear weapons. Like

Margaret Beckett, I am not sure we will see it in my lifetime. The idea

we now take this from the table which is what this motion does

today, is something nobody... Will the let Eber MPs change their mind

-- other Labour MPs change their mind? I genuinely do not know. You

said the Labour party is split and I think a number of MPs were going to

the chamber as I will do is listen to what Theresa May has the same.

The motion and the way it is worded is so hard. It is very difficult. If

that is the case, what respectable opposition goes into an important

vote like this without a policy one way or the other? The policy... We

do have a policy. You are allowed a free vote. The Shadow Foreign

Secretary and Shadow Defence Secretary will abstain. How you

abstain on such an important issue? Emily and Clive have written a piece

together saying they believe this is a game and they will not play a part

in it. Part of the reason, let me make this point, is because

Parliament has already voted for this so the fact Theresa May has

chosen as the first act as Prime Minister... Is it incredible to

abstain or not? The reason I am going into the chamber today and

likely will vote against is because I do not agree with the wording of

the motion. You still represent a party that does not have a view one

way or the other that has been agreed upon. Looking at that article

that Clive wrote, essentially, it is saying they think it is a game

because they assume it will definitely go through. If we had an

opposition opposing, it would not necessarily need to be that way,

this is an opportunity for Labour to join with the Green Party and the

SNP and Plaid Cymru and oppose this policy and it could make a

difference and the idea this is a game does not stand up. Can I

endorse that? I agree, it is not a game. It is not going to change

anything. The final sanction of going ahead is going to go ahead.

Everything is reduced in commentary to politics being a game. This is

not a game, this is one of the biggest decisions any government has

to make. To provide for continuous deterrence. They need to get on with

it. The Prime Minister will also shortly make a statement about other

stuff the government needs to get on with. This is not a game, this is

fundamental and of primary importance to the safety and

security of this country and of course I respect the views of those

who have strong views against it, it is a complex and difficult decision.

But it is not a game. If it is not just a game, is it strange Theresa

May has brought this forward with any projections about the cost and

plan for disarmament and answers to questions like, if Scotland was to

vote for independence, whether submarines would be based? Critical

questions. She literally has no answer! What does happen in the

event of Scotland? The SNP is clear in their position, we do not know

what will happen in terms of a second referendum, what would happen

to where they will be based and built? I cannot answer that. Sadly,

the Prime Minister did not make me a Defence Minister! Maybe that will

happen! We will have to do the cost another day. Thank you.

In less than an hour, the two MPs who are challenging

Jeremy Corbyn for the leadership of the Labour Party will make

their pitch to their fellow MPs at a hustings in parliament.

The two hopefuls are former Shadow Business Secretary Angela Eagle

and former Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Owen Smith.

Mr Smith says there needs to be a unity candidate to take

on Mr Corbyn, but Ms Eagle says it's too early to talk about that idea.

Here they both are sharing a sofa together on the Andrew

How do you decide between the two of you who is the more

That is one way which we could do it, or we could make

an agreement between ourselves, but my view is whoever is the person

who commands the largest degree of support in the PLP is the unity

candidate and that is the person who should go forward

I think we have to have the person who is most likely to beat

You are not standing aside, under any circumstances?

The restaurant is still open, you know.

We're not going to do a deal here on your sofa,

So will there be an anyone but Corbyn candidate,

Our correspondent is on College Green.

Predictions are hard these days and we do not get them right! Is it a

case of just one candidate going forward eventually? I do,

eventually. I do not think one candidate will emerge this week.

Owen Smith might like one candidate after these hustings but I think

Angela Eagle wants a slightly longer time frame to see what support she

gets from constituency parties before they agree any deal. I think

both of them recognise it would be disastrous for two candidates to go

up against Jeremy Corbyn, apart from the risk of splitting the

anti-corporate vote. Inevitably, they will take each other on,

criticise each other and there will be a lot of collateral damage to the

anti-corporate and wing of the vote. There is a recognition they will

have the do a deal. There are issues around, do they have a joint ticket?

And my understanding is nothing has been sorted out. Both gradually

feeling their way. The one thing that might change it is once we have

had these hustings and we know how Labour MPs have nominated and we

will get that in black and white on Wednesday evening, if one candidate

was to have many, many more nominations than the other, you

could be in a Theresa May, Andrea Leadsom situation whether one with

fewer decides to bull out. If they are very close, it could go on for

quite a bit yet. Reaction in the Jeremy Corbyn camp?

I think they are quite relaxed. It goes back to the Trident vote. That

has come as a god's gift to Jeremy Corbyn because he has said he is

going to make his stands on Trident, opposition to renewal, central to

his campaign. It reminds me of the last leadership contest when he did

the same with his opposition to the benefit changes which Andy Burnham

and others supported. And that was used to drive his grassroots

campaign. It got momentum going and widespread support. And I think they

think they can do exactly the same with the issue of nuclear weapons,

which Angela Eagle and Owen Smith have said they were back.

We come up for it to a long, hot Summer with this going on.

Who will you back? Owen Smith. Why? I want the leader of the Labour

Party and ultimately Prime Minister with real socialist values and a

plan to put them into action. I want somebody relentlessly focused on the

future and not interested in fighting former battles. And who

understands that to unite the party and to win a general election, you

need to draw on the best traditions from the entire Labour Party, from

the left to the right. I think Owen Smith is by far the best candidate.

You think nobody at the moment could bring those sides together. Do you

accept that unity candidate as you describe but I want should go for it

and Angela Eagle should drop out as soon as possible? It would be

preferable to only have two candidates, Jeromy and one other.

For me, very preferable that is Owen Smith. He is best placed to win the

leadership election and I think he has ideas about the future of the

country and is capable of uniting a very divided nation. He is in favour

of Trident renewal. Yes, we have discussed this and I have known him

for quite a long time since I was first elected to Parliament. We both

passionate about multilateral disarmament. Not unilateral like

Jeremy. We not pacifists. Would we do want to see us moving to a

situation where we take steps to step down the ladder of nuclear

weapons. Most of their colleagues -- do you think your colleagues will

have mostly made up their minds before the hustings? I think some

colleagues have some opinions about it and others probably will go into

that hustings at one o'clock today and listen to what the candidates

have got to say. The key thing is that people feel very confident that

the candidate they have chosen is somebody who can unite the Labour

Party. That is a very difficult thing to do. Looking at the group of

people that have come together around Owen Smith, he is in a very

strong position to do that. He has managed to attract many of the

younger, new MPs, relentlessly focused on the challenges we have

got now, whether it is an ageing population, child poverty, clean

energy jobs and how Britain redefines itself after Brexit with

the rest of the world. That is the thing is Owen is talking about and

why he has attracted people from the left to the right. Would you -- you

resigned from the Shadow Cabinet saying Jeremy Corbyn could not form

a team, how would Owen Smith bring the Jeremy Corbyn side of the party

into his side? It is about culture as much as anything. I have no Owen

well about five years now and he has always been somebody who has worked

with every bit of the party, who has respect for different parts of the

party and he is a socialist at heart but not an idealist, a realist. He

believes in things like renationalisation of the railways

which is one of the most popular policies of Jeromy, he believes

austerity was a mistake as an economic programme and morally

unsustainable. He says the policies of Jeremy Corbyn, they are not

wrong, it is just the messenger? It is not good Saint you want austerity

and you want renationalisation of the railways, you need an idea of

that and I think Owen is that person. Jeremy Corbyn has a very

good chance of winning again, what happens then is the mark the job of

everybody trying to save the Labour Party at the moment is to have a

candidate who can unite the party. It is a real possibility he can win

again, it is a real proposition, he cannot fill a front bench team

completely now, would you serve under Jeremy Corbyn if he wins

again? I resigned from Jeremy Corbyn's bench because I left a

private meeting with him attended by John McDonnell and it became very

clear that not only was the current leadership not able to unite the

party, but not willing either. That in my view is completely

unsustainable, I cannot defend and support it and I cannot see any way

I would serve on his frontbench again. So the party would have to

split at that point? I could sit and wildly speculate about the end of

the Labour Party but we cannot allow that to happen. Not least because

for most of my constituents in Wigan and around the country, that would

leave them with no forceful voice in British politics and we cannot allow

that to happen. France Maude, your former colleague, was on the

programme and he voiced a beer that many Tory MPs feel that without a

working opposition, it is bad news for the Serbian government, however

much it may seem like it is a wonderful thing to have an

opposition not functioning. Francis was absolutely right. Our

unwritten constitution depends on an effective opposition holding the

government to account in the House of Commons. The House of Commons is

where it has to be done. Lisa did a very good job when she was in the

Shadow Cabinet and all of us were sad to see her go. But the fact is I

do not think the Labour Party can pull it together and I am very

worried about the next few months because I think there will be a

split in the Labour Party. It may lead to the formation of something

stronger and better, but at the moment, although I am glad to say it

is one of the few decisions in the last few weeks where I do not have

to do anything, I want to see a proper labour opposition led by a

proper labour opposition led by a good sound leader.

Now, staying with Labour, from today until Wednesday,

members of the public can pay ?25 to become a registered

supporter of the party, giving them the chance to vote

either for Jeremy Corbyn or a challenger to become leader.

More than 100,000 new members who've joined since the EU referendum

won't get a say, thanks to rules agreed by the ruling

National Executive Committee last week.

But some in the party aren't happy, including Mr Corbyn.

Here he is taking a walk in the park with our Adam,

There is going to be some quite intense discussions over the next

few days and I hope our party officials and national executive

will see sense on this and recognise that those people who have freely

given their time and their money to join the Labour Party should be

welcomed in and given the opportunity to take part

in this crucial debate, whichever way they decide to vote.

Well, I'm hoping there will be an understanding that it is simply

not very fair to say to people who joined the party

in the in the last six months, sorry your participation is no

longer welcome because we are having a leadership contest.

So, with another meeting of the National Executive

Committee due tomorrow, could the new membership

rules, which some think will favour Mr Corbyn's

And could it all get even more confusing?

Well, we're joined now by Christine Shawcroft,

Welcome back. Do you think there should be another routers? It is not

really the rules, it was a decision made on the timetable. Should be

overturned? I do not know if we can overturn it. I will be raising it

tomorrow because we have had so many complaints, whether we can overturn

that I am not sure. The ?25 and the six months together, one of them on

their own might not have been so bad. But it is really people joined

on the promise on the website that they would have about in any

leadership election. If you overturn it, you will be accused of a stitch

up again if you reopen it to maybe people who have not been in the

Labour Party long enough and who have not been vetted properly. No

one knows the people who have joined since January. It is not in the last

few weeks, it is people since January who will not be able to

vote, no one knows how those people will vote. It is a simple question

of democracy. What do you say about the ?25? It is a lot more than ?3

which is what people had to enter to vote in the leadership contest. It

looks like you will be accused of a stitch up by trying to restrict the

rules. It is very steep but my understanding is part of the reason

the NEC reached that conclusion is because we had so many problems when

we changed the system last time. One of Nicholas's colleagues, Tim

Loughton, he signed up to join the Labour Party to vote for Jeremy

Corbyn. My understanding is it was designed to try and stop that. On

the general point about six months and the fee, being a member of a

political party is a long-term commitment and you have to stick

with it, debate and listen as well say your piece and compromise. That

is the reason that parties like Labour and the Conservatives have

lasted for such a long time. Do you think people who joined the first

time round do not hold those sorts of values? No, we have always had a

freeze date. When I was selected as an MP, the NEC decided that people

had to be a member of the party for a year. It seems to me it is not

unreasonable to say that you have to have been in the party for a while

and to have taken part in party activity before you get a chance to

vote for whoever is our leader. That is not what it says on the website

unfortunately. But there needs to be a cut-off point? I was a supporter

of a cut-off date. The original recommendation was for ?12 of

registered supporters. Somebody suggested ?10, but it was moved by a

member of the GMB that it should be ?25. When people have paid ?4 in the

middle of January and then they are being asked for another 25... A lot

of members have knocked on doors and delivered leaflets in the rain and

supported the party through thick and thin when they were pretty

depressed about the director of the Labour Party and for those members

who have stuck with it and worked hard and kept going and shown

loyalty to the party, it is not unreasonable to say that you have to

have been in the party for six months before you can vote. Does not

show that the divide in labour cannot even be bridged, you are even

arguing over these rules? We always argue over the rules. That does not

mean there is a huge breach in the labour loyalty. There is. The other

we have debates and we all come together at the end of the day. You

say that but John McDonnell has said he is convinced the Labour

leadership contest will be amicable. And was a brick not thrown through

Angela Eagle's office with John McDonnell accusing the useless

plotters who failed to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn. A constituency

meeting had to be stopped because of violence. There have been no threats

or problems at all in my constituency. Why was immediately

put out that they had to be stopped? It was nothing to do with people in

the Labour Party anyway and it was exaggerated. This is coming from

members of the Labour Party who are saying it. The person who was

trolling one member was the neo-Nazis professional troll. But

this has happened in the time that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell had

been in charge. As a being saturated? I do not think it has. We

met in my party a couple of weeks ago and we had to have the police

present because of the number of threats and abuse that had been

flying around not destiny, but to the chair of my party and other

members. Absolutely there are threats from the far right and I

have had those since I was elected and many of my colleagues as well.

But what is recent is the threats from the left as well and Jeremy

Beadle is right to go out and called for a calm and comradely debate, but

let's not seek to pretend it is not happening, it is and it is

troubling. Not just because nobody should have to live in fear of

threats and intimidation and violence, but the effect it has is

so many MPs, Labour MPs, particularly women, feel they do not

want to get out and engage in public life and say the things they want to

say. We cannot allow people to be silent. We will talk more about

Politicians from different parties have been attending a conference

in London today called 'Reclaim the Internet'.

It claims that political debate online has seen rising levels

Well, in today's Soapbox, the journalist and Conservative peer

Matt Ridley gives us his take on how the internet is shaping the way

The world of social media has given us exciting ways

of communicating with politicians, our idols, and of delving

But it's also fuelling abuse and driving us apart.

Schisms of hatred seem to be fracturing the political landscape

The police versus the black community in America,

Sunni versus Shia, Trump V Hillary, Brexiteers V the Remainers -

all are glaring at each other across cyber chasms

Social media is polarising our discourse more

It amplifies the personal and the extreme, hots up the echo

Communications technologies can decide the political temperature.

After decades in which they aided moderate discourse outside

autocracies, now they're inflaming it.

Opinions boil down to a single shout.

Not all of this is spontaneous, some of this is the result of deliberate,

coordinated and well funded action, creating armies of online trolls.

Critics are abused, threatened and misrepresented to silence them.

After the shootings in Dallas, terror attacks across the globe,

the murder of Joe Cox, and even brutal fear tactics

within the Labour Party, we may be entering a more dangerous age.

We need to find a way to tame Twitter, fence in Facebook,

insist on net neutrality and revive moderation.

To do so while respecting free speech and without handing

government the power to propagandise and censor, will not be easy.

But it must be attempted before the mutual shouting gets worse.

What is the evidence that politics has become more polarised as a

result of a contributing factor from things like twitter? It is pretty

anecdotal so far, but we do have evidence from the past from the way

road radio inflamed people in the 1930s, the way radio made the Rwanda

crisis worse. We have pretty good evidence, sector by sector in a

country that communications technology can have an influence. It

did in Nancy Germany and in Rwanda and radio was important because it

was controlled by the state. With Twitter it is free, everyone can

have a go. That is right, but in the early days of technology it gets

violent and extreme and then it gets tamed and calmed down. Television

became a centralising force for the latter half of the 20th century and

the same may happen to social media. We may be over worrying. Blogs were

pretty nasty ten years ago, now nobody minds about them. Perhaps it

may tame itself. But I am worried at the moment and it may not be

specifically Twitter or Facebook, but the way people seem to be so

much more easily polarised on issues and they get very cross very

quickly. Is it polarising on a political front or is it personal

abuse? If you look back at Margaret Thatcher and Michael Foot, that was

polarised politics, ideological and, perhaps what you are talking about

is more personal anger and abuse, less to do with politics in that

sense. People quite close to each other on the political spectrum can

flare-up quite badly on Twitter and social media. Do you agree with

that? Have you had any examples? I am a twitter user. I agree entirely

with what Matt says. It is the equivalent of the introduction of

the breach leg rifle which blew military operations apart and

enabled a supreme dominance. I think it is a very dangerous

manifestation. We are also worried about how angry people get with each

other. It is almost like road rage, and immediate reaction to someone

you do not agree with. If anyone is remotely rude to me, which they are

the whole time, I delete it. Or you block it? I block it and if you

allow the debate to go on it gets more aggressive. I think I can tell

when your tongue is in your cheek, but other people might not. But I am

not rude offensively. I am not trying to pick a fight with them. I

had a fight with Boris on twitter and he got very angry. That is

picking a fight. But on a serious point, what can actually be done? I

know anecdotally female MPs, particularly on the Labour side, but

I am sure it is happening across the board, they are suffering with awful

abuse, death threats of the time and it is mainly on twitter. Twitter is

a bit different to other forms of social media. Most of my

constituents are on Facebook and the debate on Facebook is more about

people's lives and families and it is much kinder and with a sense of

fun. Twitter attracts many more people, including politicians, who

are obsessives, and we get into that world and cannot stop it. There is a

problem, what can you do to tackle it? You say it could happen

organically. Is there anything else we can do? When I wrote this last

week, lots of people got very cross with me on Twitter because they

thought I was suggesting censorship because I said we must tame Twitter.

What I mean is not government intervention, but social change,

cultural change. Fining people? Government might have a role to play

in nudging people to being nicer on twitter. I do not know how they will

do that. We used to have something called the behavioural team and it

was privatised and maybe we can get it back on this case.

We could change the debate on Twitter with people in positions

like my making sure when we have debates on Twitter, we behave in a

way as we would in the real world. You often see people genuinely nice,

decent and normal people who would never dream of using the language

they do on Twitter. The distance helps. We could set an example. A

debate became furious within seconds, do you remember that? Thank

you very much. Now, the appointment of

Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary raised some eyebrows

in the chancelleries of Europe, not least because he's said some

rather disobliging things about European politicians

in the past, and they've sometimes Well, Mr Johnson seemed to be trying

to put all that behind him today as he made his debut

on the international stage. Here he is arriving at a meeting

of EU foreign ministers in Brussels. Very, very good to be

here for my first overseas trip and the message I'll be taking

to our friends in the council is that we have to give effect

to the will of the people and leave the European Union,

but that in no sense means abandoning our leading role

in European cooperation I had a very good conversation

to that effect last night with high representative Mogherini

and she agreed very much that that was a role Britain should

continue to play. Boris Johnson speaking

earlier today in Brussels. So, can a man who has in the past

managed to offend everyone from Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton

to the President of Turkey really get on in a top job that requires

a sensitive diplomatic touch? Well, we're joined now

by the Spectator He's written a book called the Wit

and Wisdom of Boris Johnson. Can he? I think he can. You can see

in that clip, he is already trying to be serious. In the day's

Telegraph, he has stopped his column and he has paid back half ?1 million

in an advance for a biography of Shakespeare so is making a big

effort to be serious. It is going to be really hard work for him, it is

not his natural domain, you have conceded that. How long before that.

Art? There are two forces in the mind of Boris. One is to use. He

sees a joke and he is logging to amuse. The other force is to be

incredibly ambitious. As a little boy, he said he wanted to be world

King. This is his step to becoming world King. Is that the right person

to be on the diplomatic stage after an attempted coup in Turkey? I have

had my differences with Boris and I agree entirely, he will be a very

good Foreign Secretary. Because he is a very clever man. Secondly, we

need people who can get on with people in politics. He is very

affable, Boris. We are going to open a new world. And we need people like

that who are recognisable, understandable and company and

support. I will make a forecast that he would be an outstanding Foreign

Secretary. What did you mean when you said, Mr Johnson was seriously

adrift in the argument when he blames Barack Obama of the cup -- of

hypocrisy for telling British voters to remain in the EU and he

questioned his part union ancestry, and you said he was wrong and

everything. This was during a referendum campaign -- Kenyan. You

said stupid things about President Obama and my grandfather. How will

he become a good Foreign Secretary? He is reverting to type. He will now

be bringing all those... I did have a big fight with him. But he will be

an outstanding Foreign Secretary. Is it all right to say stupid and

offensive things about our allies. And remember the comparison he made

with EU constitutions that they would carrying on God expansionism

of Adolf Hitler. Can people get over that? Boris makes joke, some of

which are deeply offensive, the part Kenyan ancestry is bordering on

racism and disgraceful for any politician. I am not concerned

whether he has offended many people, he clearly has, but whether he is

capable of telling the truth. And listening to what he said in the

referendum campaign. Riding around with that figure on that bus. He has

written things that he must know if he is very clever, that is not true.

Being a buffoon is one thing but a Foreign Secretary that is

fundamentally dishonest, this country is in real trouble. What

about those claims that people including Boris Johnson distanced

themselves from? The thing about Boris is that for 20 years, he was

on extremely successful journalist and columnist and you have to

attract leaders and so he entertains. We are talking about the

truth. No, the supposed gaffes ways to entertain leaders. He has to make

the transition to a serious Foreign Secretary and he can leave

journalism behind. People will be offended and it was very

uncharacteristic, the comment Barack Obama coming he is not malicious,

that was wrong. Will he be truthful about what he

says? The claims about the Turkish people coming to the EU, 75 million

joining now, the ?350 million a week is sent to Brussels, and that amount

will be spent on the NHS, is that true? It was like the build-up to a

general election when people sex up what is going to happen and the

manifestos do not necessarily take place. He did not just bring up that

figure of the ?350 million, it was put out by the Brexit campaign. But

he is the Foreign Secretary. We will see, I think we will be going

through transition Boris. He will still be amusing, you cannot help

that. But he will say goodbye to the supposedly gaffes. How will the

Russians greet him? He described Putin is a character from Harry

Potter and a manipulative tyrant. You could produce endless examples.

I can! They recent things. You could produce endless examples but

business is business, he is now the Foreign Secretary, he would behave

like a Foreign Secretary and he will bring charisma and excitement and

more than anything else, Britain needs a recognisable figure as

Foreign Secretary. What if that recognisable figure is a disaster?

You do not know that. You seem to be arguing he will be fantastic on the

basis of no evidence. The evidence points to the country. I hope for

the sake of Britain that he does get serious and discover the truth for

the first time in his life and stop needlessly offended our allies.

Nobody is denying his abilities, he is a very clever and brilliant man.

But I make this forecast to you that he will be a fantastic Foreign

Secretary. We will get you both back on. Thank you very much.

Now, we're saying goodbye to Lisa Nandy at this point

in the programme because she's got to dash off to the hustings

between the two candidates who want to challenge Jeremy Corbyn

Thanks for being with us, Lisa, and have fun.

Now, politics continues to surprise everyone,

In a moment, we'll talk to a journalist who will be hoping

as she covers all the big developments this week.

But first, let's take a look at some of the big events in the diary.

Tomorrow, US State Secretary John Kerry arrives in London on his first

Also, on Tuesday, Prime Minister May holds her first Cabinet meeting,

with plenty of new faces and some rather old ones too.

Another first for Theresa May on Wedneday - PMQs against JC.

Live on the Daily Politics, of course!

Wednesday also sees the close of nominations for challengers

to the Labour leadership and is also the last day for non-members to sign

The Prime Minister will travel to Berlin for a "working dinner"

The following day, she will meet President Hollande in Paris.

And Parliament doesn't even make it to the end of the week,

as MPs and peers finish up on Thursday.

They'll all be back at work on 5th September.

Isabel Hardman, from the Spectator...

The camera supporters had been sent to the backbenches, will that be a

problem for Theresa May? I was surprised given she had a reputation

for being cautious that she had such a brutal clear out of the goblet

frontbench and there are threats from Cameron supporters and those

around George Osborne that there will be revenge for this and she has

a small majority and it has not changed and when you have a

reshuffle, it you upset people who have lost their job or want a job.

Perhaps she's not intending to get through controversial legislation

during the Premiership, she will struggle to do that practically.

What about Scotland? The talks with Nicola Sturgeon and this idea of, I

am going to give Scotland a say, says Theresa May. What does that

mean in practice? Nicola Sturgeon does not have a veto on the decision

to have left the EU although she would like Scotland to stay as part

of it. Theresa May's UK wide approach as she calls it has

concerned people that Scotland's does have a veto that would cause

resentment and upset Tory Eurosceptics, which the reason may

need to worry about. Downing Street have denied this is a veto --

Theresa May. It depends on the talks with the devolved administrations

and how well her ministers for six mat like David Davis get on with the

officials from the devolved administrations. What about Labour,

will Angela Eagle drop out? She seems to be bleeding support to Owen

Smith for MPs minded to support somebody like Angela Eagle but they

want to dislodge Jeremy Corbyn and think that is the most important

thing. If Owen Smith can win amongst the Labour membership and is more

appealing than Angela Eagle, even though she has done the brave thing

and went and did the challenge first and is also a women -- a woman which

a lot of female MPs want a female leader at some point this century,

you may feel they have two abandon her to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn

which is the most important problem. Plenty to be chasing over the

Summer! Have a good break if you get one!

There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was: Which new playground craze did our Adam

introduce to to Jeremy Corbyn on the Sunday Politics?

It has to be Pokemon Go. No flies on year!

Let's have a look and see if you're right.

So you are holding up the Pokemon and you have to move aside.

Seamus is blocking the Pokemon, no, the Pokemon is OK.

So there's Crabby, he's jumping up and down.

And then what you do is you use this ball and you throw it at them to try

Well, my work this morning has not been in vain.

We might be the judge of that! How did you know that? I have a teenage

son. Yes. What does he think of it? I saw in the papers it was becoming

a craze so I assumed your man would not be behind the curve. Indeed, and

now the is Jeremy Corbyn. Well done, you got the answer right. -- and now

the is. The One O'clock News is starting

over on BBC One now. I'll be here at noon

tomorrow with all the big