12/01/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 12/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Any thoughts that Donald Trump was planning on toning


down his style as he heads to the White House were banished


yesterday as he answered head-on extraordinary allegations


about Russian attempts to blackmail him.


Mr Trump also went on the offensive against the media bigly,


as he might say, and now seems to have gone to war with his own US


Theresa May's claims that the NHS has more money than it asked


for were challenged yesterday by the man who runs


What's the truth of it, and is money the whole answer?


We'll be paying tribute to Professor Anthony King,


political expert and veteran of the BBC's election coverage


for more than 20 years, following news of his death this


Protest should ensure people coming here filling gaps in the labour


market not taking jobs British people could do.


And did this really amount to a 'hate incident'?


The police apparently think so - we'll be joined by the man


who complained about a speech by the Home Secretary.


All that in the next hour, when we'll bring you more stories


than a Donald Trump press conference.


And joining us for the whole of the show, it's the former


Conservative leader - he's now a Tory peer -


The President-elect of the United States hadn't given


a press conference for six months, and if we'd perhaps been


beginning to forget just how different his style of politics


is to the Washington consensus, then we were reminded


In a free-wheeling and, at times, chaotic hour of taking


and answering questions, he had plenty to say


about what he intends to do with his business interests once


he takes office, about his tax returns, job creation


But the most explosive part was his response to allegations,


so far unsubstantiated, but published in some media outlets


that his election team colluded with Russia,


and that Russia held compromising material about his private life.


I saw the information, I read the information outside of that meeting.


It is all fake news, it is phoney stuff, it didn't happen, and it was


gotten by opponents of hours. Since you are attacking our news


organisation... Your organisation is terrible. I think it is a disgrace


and I say that and that is something Nazi Germany would have done and did


do. I think it is a disgrace that information that was false and fake


and never happened got released to the public as far as BuzzFeed, which


is a failing pile of garbage, writing it, I think they will suffer


the consequences, they already are. Does anyone believe that story? I


We're joined now by the foreign affairs analyst Tim Marshall.


And by what some say will be the ambassador to the EU. It cannot be


confirmed until it comes from his mouth. Tim Marshall, let's look at


the providence of this stuff, particularly what BuzzFeed has been


publishing. A company in Washington called Fusion GPS started by a


journalist from the Wall Street Journal is hired by a billionaire


Republican to gather dirt on Donald Trump to stop him becoming the


Republican candidate. That fails. Rich Democrats pick up the contract


from Fusion GPS because they want to stop him becoming president of the


United States. The information is provided largely or compiled largely


by a former British intelligence officer. This is paid for


information that we cannot verify. Was it right to publish it? Probably


not. And people that are desperate to believe it and want to believe


it, especially the most lurid allegations, which has garnered all


the attention, are desperate to believe it and I think their


suspension of disbelief is suspended. Let me tell you a story,


young reporter, 30, first time in Moscow, knock on the door, a young


Natasha. I knew what was going on and I closed the door with her on


the outside of it because the way they work, they try to get you on


camera when you are younger and if you become a senior reporter they


have something on you. I knew that at 30 years old. Do I believe Donald


Trump will be in a Moscow hotel suite acting in that manner in his


60s when he knows the way the world works? I don't. If that does not add


up, and not does not add up. It was doing the rounds, what gave it some


credibility was when it was distilled into two pages and the


authorities thought, we need to show it to the president and President


elect and that opened the floodgates. I can understand it


being published but I ask people that view things through the otter


dislike of Mr Trump, which, for give me, some of which I share, future


ambassador to the EU! Yet to be confirmed. I am not a fan but I ask


people to look at this story not through the prism of their dislike


of this man but the prism of its reliability and if it was the same


thing about President Obama, would you be thinking, this looks dodgy?


This is what Mr Trump did with Mr Obama when he tried to make out he


was not born in the United States. He is playing by the sword and dying


by it but it does not make the allegations against him right. Let


me come to the presumptive ambassador of somewhere, it could be


Moldavia, you never know. Is this damaging Donald Trump? Yesterday, it


was an incredible news conference. He comes out the winner, he looks


confident, robust, he defends himself and he proves that the news


media, some part of it, is trying to delegitimise his presidency and


election and doing it by the use of fake news. If it is not fake news,


and we don't know... Let me tell you what British intelligence told me.


This person, who was MI6. It is Christopher Steele, who was also


FBI, say he has an intelligence background, but he was paid by the


people you have mentioned who were working for Jeb Bush. He kept adding


to the dossier and using information given to him by the FSB in Russia,


most of it fabricated, the more he put into the dossier of the more he


got paid, so he made a sensationalist Bosnia and just like


your lawyer charges you more hours to get paid more. You said most of


it fabricated, what was not fabricated? I do not know what was


fabricated. You do not know if most is fabricated? The salacious stuff


we have read... Some of it might be true? It is true Mr Trump was in


Moscow. For be Miss universe contest.


Interesting, what British intelligence has been saying here.


Why was Mr Steele so keen to get this out? I understand he sent it to


Senator McCain, no friend of Donald Trump, he was touting it around and


suddenly he says, gosh, I have to disappear, the Kremlin could now be


after me. If he is a former MI6, he would have worked that out. We know


what happened to Alexander Litvinenko. Poisoned in London. The


former FBI man who took it to McCain, you can justify this in that


if he genuinely feels this is swirling around about the future


leader of the free world, it is necessary that the administration


knows this stuff is swirling around and knows this is what people are


saying, I think it is legitimate to have passed that on, legitimate for


James Clapper to pass it on. Was it legitimate to be done in the way it


was done? The intelligence services in America had a report for the


president which they were going to share with Mr Trump and parts of


Congress, which was their best intelligence on Russia's involvement


in the US election. Authenticated, their work, they stood by it. It was


a proper intelligence briefing for the oval office and two that they


attached a 2-page summary of Mr Steele's 35 page report which they


don't know whether it is gossip or anything, the Washington Post, no


friend of Mr Trump, as it says, that devalues the intelligence that the


president is getting. The New York Times has a similar approach. You


can make the case that if this is swirling around, they need to be


aware of it. When you are at the very top, you only know as much as


the people below you tell you. Two things yesterday were overlooked


which was Donald Trump shifting and saying it was the Russians he thinks


who hacked originally and the other is Rex Tillerson, the incoming


Secretary of State, evidence to the House, where his attitude, excuse


me, the Senate, where it was so far away from what Donald Trump is said


about Russia we either have a disconnect between the Secretary of


State and incoming president or we saw the real US policy. This must've


happened to you every day when you were Home Secretary, Michael? My


memory must be playing the tricks. I cannot quite bring it to mind! We


have the dossier at! I agree with what Tim has been saying, it may be


entertaining in a way, it is not much to do with us. This man... As


the United Kingdom? This man in eight days will be president of the


most powerful country in the world and president of our most important


ally. We have to do what we can to build good relations with the


administration to try to influence them where we can, that is what we


in this country should focus on. There is a serious undertone and


that is that we know now from the BBC's Paul Wood, who has been


well-informed in this, that on October 15 the US secret


Intelligence Corps issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks and


had to do it because the CIA discovered, and that is not allowed


theoretically to operate in the US itself, so joined with the FBI and


other agencies to investigate if Russian money went into the Trump


campaign and this is an ongoing investigation, a warrant issued by


the US court. If that was true it would be illegal and a major problem


for Mr Trump. It sound so, I do not know if it has been proven yet. It


is being investigated. There are constant investigations about


foreign entities dabbling in American... They are not allowed to


finance? That is correct. This happened in previous elections where


we discovered after the fact some governments have tried to have


influence. That would be untoward and illegal. It would be dangerous


for Mr Trump if it is true? Certainly. These hypotheticals. It


would be dangerous if the Chinese or North Koreans did it. It is not


hypothetical in the sense... We do not know if it happened but there


are six US agencies involved in the investigation and a US court has


issued a warrant. There is some thought, trying to step back from


the lurid detail, that what is going on is all our emphasis is on Russia


and Mr Trump's relationship or attitude to Russia, whereas the real


story is his hard-line attitude to China and that came out in the Rex


Tillerson hearings yesterday. That is probably more important. If these


are true allegations they are devastating, but I do not see any


reason to believe them and it is tittle tattle but the substantive


stuff is what you say. Policy on Russia are laid out yesterday and


policy on China. We may be heading and I say we, a major trade war with


China. Led by the Trump administration. The Chinese will


lose more but the Americans will lose and we will lose if they have a


trade war and that is the tough stuff. We are worried about the


Russian battalions on the Estonian border and we should be worried


about what the Americans and Chinese are doing and yesterday the Chinese


aircraft carrier sailed close to Taiwan, within its air


identification zone, a deliberate push back to the Americans. The tie


with the scramble jets and ships and went out to see them. They sending


signals but it is that signal and more important, more than likely the


trade war, that will impact our lives.


President Obama told us at the start of the referendum campaign that the


way forward for trade deals were multilateral regional block trade


deals, and that if Britain left the EU we would be at the back of the


queue for a bilateral deal. Could I suggest to you that he was wrong on


both counts, that the future is now back to those deals, cheated is


over, the Brent Celek 's elections will kill it dead -- TTIP is over. I


have said all this in print, the UK is now at the front of the cube. You


heard it here first. Good news? It is, if it happens, and


I hope it will, but Tim is right, if the Trump Administration plunges the


world into the kind of protectionism we saw in the nineteen 30s... Which


was a Republican administration which did that. It would be


disastrous for the whole world economy and for us as well as the


United States and China. Would you want to work with Nigel Farage? I'm


not a UK citizen, I don't belong to a political party... He is not an


American citizen but thinks he can get a job there! I have had


conversations with him on numerous occasions. Wherever you are


Ambassador of, would you come back and speak to us? I would be glad to,


I watch your show. Along with the Queen! Jeremy Corbyn


has repeated his offer to Donald Trump to visit a London mosque with


him as and when he comes over. I think that would be a very high


priority. Let's turn our attention back


to home now, and what is probably the biggest story of the week


and the year so far, It was the focus at yesterday's


Prime Minister's Questions, but probably the more significant


moment came later on when the chief executive of NHS England appeared


before the Public Accounts Committee and was asked about


whether the health service You may remember the Prime Minister


was asked about this at the weekend, and she said, "We asked the NHS


a while back to set out what it needed over the next five years


in terms of its plan for the future They did that -


we gave them the funding. In fact, we gave them more


funding than they required, so funding is now at record levels


for the NHS." But yesterday Mr Stevens said that


interpretation of the funding Well, it's right that, by 2020,


NHS England will be getting an extra 10 billion over the course


of six years. I don't think that's the same


as saying we're getting more than we asked for over five years,


because it was a five-year forward And, over and above that,


we've obviously had a spending review negotiation in the meantime


and that has set the NHS budget for the next three years,


and it's a matter of fact, I've said it previously


to Select Committee back in October that, like probably every part


of the public service, we got less than we asked


for in that process, and so I think it would be


stretching it to say that the NHS And we're joined now


by Saffron Cordery, who's the director of policy at NHS


Providers, which is the public voice We did ask to speak to a minister


from the Department of Health, Welcome to the programme. The Royal


College of Nursing and the Royal College of physicians say conditions


in the NHS are the worst their members have experienced. The


opposition has said there is a crisis in the NHS and the Government


is in denial, but yesterday the Prime Minister maintained the real


problems are confined to a few areas. Which is it in your mind, is


it a national crisis or a handful of struggling first? You might expect


me to say this, but I think it is somewhere between the two. What


we are seeing is extreme pressure in hospitals up and down the country,


we have heard talk about trolley waits and talk about people facing


some really difficult situations, whether you are a member of staff or


a patient in A, but what I would say is that NHS trusts are really


stretching every sinew to make sure that they manage the pressure on


them. I don't think it is the humanitarian crisis that we heard


talked at the weekend from the Red Cross, but what we can't deny is the


fact that there is severe pressure out there and there is a funding


shortfall for the NHS. Spiralling demand is what some NHS trusts have


said, where has that come from? It is spiralling demand and it comes


from many, many places. We have seen things like social care cut to such


a level that people are not receiving the care they need in


their own homes, which means the severity of their conditions might


increase so they are more likely to turn up at A Also things like


cuts in local authority services for things like drug and alcohol


services, which means people who need those


services, perhaps people with mental health conditions, are turning up at


a D because they are not receiving the preventative support they need,


so we see it coming from all sources. Also we have to look at


things like GP care, so when people cannot get an appointment with their


GP, and we know how difficult that is up and down the country, when


they cannot get an appointment they often turn up at A, so there are


many sources. Could the demand have been better anticipated by some of


the hospital trust? I think it is a very, very difficult position, a


very complex picture, and it is hard to anticipate the level of demand


increases when they are already running at such a high level, so


even if you anticipate that demand, when you reach 100%, you reach 100%,


it is impossible to run at 105% capacity, so that is


a difficult question to answer. Theresa May said yesterday at Prime


Minister's Questions that there have only been a small number of


incidents in which unacceptable practices have taken place, evidence


of people being left on trolleys for hours and hours, some people dying


on them unfortunately in hospital corridors. Is that a fair


assessment, that it is only a small number of incidents? I think it is


fair that it is only a small number of severe incidents, but what is not


acceptable to anyone in the NHS or any patient turning up to a D is


the fact that we are now in a situation where trusts are not


meeting the 95% of patients being seen in four hours target, it is


about 70 to 80% at the moment, lover in many places, and that is not


acceptable, it is a constitutional target that trusts should meet.


Michael Howard, listening to Saffron Cordery, if you take on board what


she says, do you accept that at this stage when many trusts have reached


100% capacity with many others just below, 95 to 100%, that more money


is now urgently needed? No, because if you talk about now what is


clearly beyond dispute, as Sieben Stevens has accepted, the ?4 billion


extra funding I think is 4 million this year, is what the NHS after


four... He is very clear between now and 2020 what he asked for, but


needed now to prevent a further crisis in future years... Let's talk


about future years and the possibility of future crises. The


Prime Minister was right to emphasise the fact that it is a


minority of trusts which are finding it extraordinarily difficult to deal


with these extreme pressures, and that it was very important to spread


best practice across the NHS. Let me give you two specific examples. I


have the privilege of chairing Hospice UK, the umbrella


organisation for our hospices. We have a plan which we are about to


test which would enable us to take out of hospital before they died


50,000 of the 250,000 people who died in hospital every year, many of


them don't want to die in hospital, don't need to die in hospital, and


should not die in hospital. That would relieve pressure on beds.


Another example, in Cardiff Bay have a treatment centre for people who


have had too much to drink, so people who have had too much to


drink are referred to that centre, not accident and emergency, they


don't add to the pressure in accident and emergency, they don't


make life difficult for the staff and other patients, and what I think


is necessary, what the NHS should be better at, is spreading best


practice, taking advantage of initiatives of this kind and making


sure that the money is much better spent. But they cannot do that


because there have been cuts to council services, and I take the


preset... They do it in Cardiff. Councils themselves say they have


had to cut the kind of care that leads to the bottleneck at A How


do you answer those points, that the kind of best practice he has


outlined could be spread more widely across the NHS? I have two points to


make, it is ?3.7 billion this year and Simon Stevens was clear in


saying that unless there is significant extra investment in


social care and broader services then this would not be enough, and


it is important to take that on board. In terms of beds, best


practice, we are seeing NHS trusts up and down the country working with


partners, the voluntary sector, other bits of the public sector to


put those schemes into place but it takes time, and to really transform


services takes time. What we need to do is double running, fun and what


we have got there and fund investment in transformation. There


has been some briefing against Simon Stevens in the newspapers, has he


been treated unfairly by Number Ten? At a time of extreme stress and


pressure in the NHS when everyone is doing everything they can, I don't


think it is fair at this point, or acceptable, to focus the blame on


NHS leaders and, by extension, NHS staff and the patients that turn up


at A What we have to see is maybe standing back on this and starting


to look at the problem in hand, which is demand going through the


roof, nowhere to divert patients to, and we need to start preventing some


of these problems from arising, rather than starting to call for


people to look at their own position. And you think it was


Number Ten that has been briefing against him? I don't have any


information on that. Thank you very much.


Now, who remembers the EU referendum?


Well, in case you had, too, here are some of our favourite moments.


And I will go to Parliament and propose that the British people


MUSIC: Should I Stay Or Should I Go? by the Clash.


I'm actually ringing you from the Vote Leave campaign.


It's nonsense, it's not true. I couldn't be clearer than that.


Why should they tell us how powerful our vacuum cleaners should be?


Why should they tell us how powerful our hairdryers should be?


The UK is going to be in the back of the queue.


Britain will be permanently poorer if we left the European Union.


The shock to our economy after leaving Europe will tip


They have done this in order to scare the pants off


The UK asparagus will be just as sprouting, just as delicious,


The European Union, many warts and all, has proved itself to be


If we vote Leave and take back control, I believe that this


Thursday could be our country's Independence Day.


Ah, it seems like it was only last summer.


It was. Oh, right there you go!


Well, we're going to reflect a little on the referendum campaign


now, and look ahead to what might happen once the Brexit process has


really begun with two pivotal figures from the Leave


It's Paul Stephenson - he worked on the victorious


And James McGrory, who worked on the not-so-victorious


Let me come to the victor first, what is the single biggest reason


why you one, looking back? I think the renegotiation, the failure of


the renegotiation to deliver anything that was sellable on the


doorsteps to the British people. The British people have been sceptical


of the EU for a long time, only about a third of the public really


like the EU and want to stay in regardless, and a whole bunch of


people in the middle that both campaigns were chasing, the swing


vote, needed to be convinced, and one way


to convince them was to scare them about the consequences of change,


the other way was to get a good deal out of Europe. Lots of people like


me were in favour of reform who might have been convinced by a


better deal but when you are forced into a binary choice, it is, if this


is what is on the table, let's go for God. What do you think was the


biggest reason that you lost? I think what Paul said, especially


when there was 30 years of almost unchallenged Euroscepticism in this


country that had been allowed to take hold and people on my side of


the argument have to take responsibility for not challenging


that in the decades running up to the referendum. When you had such


clear messages about money, border and laws, which the Leave campaign


did, trying to counter them in, what, six months, without anything


new to show that European reform was a big deal that was going to be able


to deliver, changes that people wanted, made it difficult.


There are always mistakes made in campaigns, looking back, were their


mistakes you made that if you had not made them, the campaign, would


have made a difference? You cannot point to one single finger and say


if we did this differently we would have won, there were too many


different factors involved. The fact that our campaign was reluctant to


attack the Leave campaign in the same way the Leave campaign were


perfectly ready to attack our campaign did not help. Was it a blue


on blue problem? It was, coming from Downing Street, and I understand the


reasons, there were political reasons why they wanted to keep the


party together afterwards but sometimes it was like bringing a


spoon to a knife fight. I think they were right because it was when


Downing Street authorised attacks on people like Boris Johnson and


Michael Gove and suddenly these people realised they were in a death


match. The Prime Minister and Chancellor's language was severe


throughout the campaign. They said people were economically literature


and half the MPs were threatening World War III. I take the point that


when they started going for senior figures, they got John Major and


Michael Heseltine out to attack people on our campaign that people


like Boris and Michael foot they needed to go on the attack. What are


your thoughts, Michael? I am more interested in the future. It is a


huge historic event. I agree, David Cameron and his Bloomberg speech


saying he was setting out to achieve fundamental reform of the European


Union. If he had got it, like Paul, I would have been on his side in the


referendum campaign, but the deal he brought back was so inadequate, it


was barely mentioned during the campaign. No one could say... In my


experience, it was not mentioned. Nobody could say look at this


wonderful deal it was a dreadful deal. The same is true of Harold


Wilson in 75 when he brought back a deal barely mentioned and he won. He


did but it was a different time and different European community and I


think there is a limit to which you can draw parallels. Who was the hero


of your campaign? The single most important person? Can I have three?


No. I would say Boris. Will Straw deserves credit for running a


professional campaign. Bringing parties together without falling


out. Let's look forward. Is it not clear although the government will


not quite say it, but the Prime Minister came close on Sky News the


weekend, that we will not be members of the single market, and the


argument will be how much access will we have and on what terms, but


it will not be membership and therefore the access cannot be as


great as membership and the question is is it 90%, 70% of what we have


now? That is at the crux of negotiations? I think so. People


accept we will leave the debate now is whether we stay in the customs


union and get benefits of free trade deals with countries like America,


and what length of transition period and will there be one and what


length? Beyond the two years? Correct, if we leave the customs


union and single market there is an argument for having a transitional


deal of two, five years that allows you to move from one complicated


system to another. Do you accept that although there will be an


argument over the degree of access to the single market, we will not be


members in the way we are now? It is interesting the government have not


ruled it out. They have been given ample opportunity to do so. You have


to consider whether it is on the table because it is the best trading


model available. I think signs are there that is the direction of


travel the government is headed and if so, we are in a phoney debate


between in and out and the points you make are right, what is the


degree of access and if there is less Access, who are the winners and


losers under any free trade agreement? You cannot have full


access without membership therefore you will have losers, which will


mean real impact on some sectors and a debate about who the winners and


losers will be. What is your view? We must leave, it is not called the


single market, it is called the internal market and the clue is in


the name and if we leave the EU we cannot be part of the internal


market or single market and I do not believe we should be members of the


customs union. I do not think it is a question of negotiating 90%


access, 80% access, I think it's basically a choice between two


models. One which will be in the interests of the EU and of the UK,


which would be to have free trade in goods and access for services on the


basis of equivalence of regulation, something like that, that would be


the best, that is in their interests as well. If they are not interested


in that and want to somehow punish us, we should say we are very happy


with WTO rules, we can trade with you perfectly happily on that basis


and what's more, if that is what you want, we will have six, 12 months


after we leave when we will give you free access and then you can decide,


the onus is on you, do you want to follow our lead and have free


access, or do you want to put up tariffs, in which case we will too.


In the campaign you were credited with coming up with policies that


could be implemented if we left the European Union, things like an


Australian style points system on migration and more money for NHS and


cutting VAT on energy bills. These were discussed, but it is clear from


the Theresa May government that of course the Brexit campaign had no


authority to promise these things. It hasn't happened. It has not


happened but those people at the top of the Leave campaign went into a


leadership campaign they lost and Theresa May does not feel obligated


to do what we set out in the policy platform, which is a shame will stop


I think the government will give more money to the NHS. They would


have had to do that anyway. The OBR identifies money coming back from


the EU and it should be spent on the NHS. Are you reconciled now to us


leaving the EU, or do you still think there may be ways, once the


deal is done for example, perhaps a push for another referendum, that it


could be stopped? That is not what we are arguing for, but I think MPs


should be given a say on the deal in the same way they would be given a


vote on the triggering of Article 50. David Davis said it would be


inconceivable they wouldn't. If the European Parliament also had. But in


your mind, it is on what terms we leave rather than stopping it? I


think we are leaving but we should have a frank debate about the terms


without being shouted down and saying you are a democracy denier


and trying to frustrate the will of the people because you make the case


for the single market, the customs union, any of those things. We need


to debate that moves beyond remain and leave. No shouting down here. We


will end our mature debate. Now, our guest of the day


Michael Howard was of course Home Secretary under John Major,


and if there is one phrase from his time in office that has


stuck in the public's mind then it But, since then, the Conservative


Party has taken some quite different views on what prison is for,


and how many people should be in it - questions that have again been


thrust into the spotlight following recent disturbances


in English jails. Strangeways, Manchester,


27 years ago. Two people died and ?60 million


of damage was caused in the riots. Overcrowding and harsh


conditions were blamed. Three years after the Strangeways


riots, the new Home Secretary, Michael Howard, told his party


conference that he wanted to lock more criminals up and keep them


in austere conditions. It ensures that we are protected


from murderers, muggers and rapists, and it makes many who are tempted


to commit crime think twice. Michael Howard's "prison works"


speech without doubt hit a nerve and it offered an apparently very


powerful answer to the problem From then on, the prison


population grew. This continued under


New Labour, who also wanted Crime fell, but when Ken Clarke


became the Justice Secretary under the coalition government,


he turned years of Conservative Too often prison has proved a costly


and ineffectual approach that fails to turn criminals


into law-abiding citizens. Since 2010 we've seen a bit


of a kind of ambivalent shift between different justice ministers


and different governments. So under the coalition government,


you had Ken Clarke gently trying to drive the prison population down


a little bit, then his successor, Chris Grayling, showed


no interest in that. Under this government,


if you commit a crime, you are more likely to be caught


and charged, you are more likely to go to prison,


you will go there for longer, and it will cost the hard-working


taxpayer less to keep you there. But, under his watch, a series


of reports highlighted rising Then there was another


change, when Michael Gove He wanted to bring the focus back


to the rehabilitation revolution It's because I'm a Conservative I


believe evil must be punished, but it is also because I'm


a Conservative and a Christian that After the EU referendum,


the new Prime Minister, Theresa May, gave Liz Truss the justice brief


and her challenges include overcrowding,


understaffing and riots. She's promised the biggest reform


of the system in a generation. My starting point is refocusing


the system so that everyone is clear that safety and rehabilitation


is the purpose of the prison system, setting this out for the first


time ever in statute. But some feel the government


is still failing to address Both Labour and Conservative


politicians have made the mistake of allowing sentence length


to increase, so they are always Our prisons have never been


resourced to the degree that they need to be to do


what all parties want, which is they should be


places of rehabilitation Soon after the recent riots,


two former Home Secretaries and the former Deputy Prime Minister


called for the prison population to be halved


to the level it was at before But the jury is out on how long it


would take to achieve this and how much public appetite


there is see this happen. Michael Howard, author


of the "prison works" We heard from the Prison Reform


Trust that says it has been a mistake by Conservative and Labour


governments to allow prison sentence length to increase, is he right? No,


look, you can argue and I would strongly dispute that perhaps the


prison population as it is today is a little bit too high, much higher


than it was when I left office, but what this discussion all too often


fails to take into account is the relationship between the prison


population and crime. It is true the prison population has increased


since I was Home Secretary. And recorded crime, crime according to


the British crime survey has fallen by two thirds. Why is there a high


prison population? Because the people who would otherwise be


committing the crimes cannot commit them because they are in prison.


There is often confusion. Or they should not be there with the first


place or as long, which is what the Prison Reform Trust says? I do not


agree. When I said prison works I did not been in the sense it should


rehabilitate people. I am all for rehabilitation but nobody has found


the best way to achieve rehabilitation and offending and


reoffending rates for people sentenced in the community, not sent


to prison, are also far too high, so rehabilitation I am in favour of, it


is a very difficult nut to crack. Meanwhile, when you have serious


professional criminals who are wreaking havoc on the community in


which they live, you can prevent them continuing to commit crimes by


putting them in prison so that they cannot continue to commit those


crimes. You say it is a hard nut to crack but were you willing to look


at the idea of rehabilitation, putting it at the centre in the way


Ken Clarke would say he tried to do and perhaps arguably Michael Gove


and Liz Truss are trying to do now, whereas you and Chris Grayling


concentrated more on rhetoric. It was more about locking up people,


punishing people and rehabilitation was a secondary thought. It was not


just rhetoric because the prison population did rise and crime fell.


My main objective was to stop the rising crime. When I became Home


Secretary I was told crime had risen by an average of 50% for the


previous 50 years and there was nothing I could do about it and I


was determined to do something about it and I did so crime fell by 18% in


the four years I was Home Secretary. I was also keen on improving


education and we spend more on education in prisons when I was Home


Secretary because that is a key to rehabilitation.


You say you think the prison population is too high... I do, I


don't know... You said it may be too high, we can debate whether it is


too high or not but the prison system is in some sort of crisis,


there are overcrowded jails and understaffing of resources and we


have seen outbreaks of violence. Would you say the prison system as


it is currently does not work any more? I certainly wouldn't say that.


You do need to build more prison places if the population continues


to rise, and when I was Home Secretary we set out a programme for


building more prisons. I entirely accept that. But they have not come


on board, Chris Grayling announced a seven wood close in 2013, two more


partially shut, the new ones will not come on board until February and


2020. There is a gap of six or seven years and the prison population is


rising, that is a mistake in the planning? You have got to try to


keep the rising places in pace with rising population, but it is judges


who send people to prison, not politicians, and it is the judges


who determine the length of sentences. All right.


Now, according to the Crown Prosecution Service,


a hate incident is "any incident which the victim, or anyone else,


thinks is based on someone's prejudice towards them


because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability


British businesses have driven the economic recovery


in this country with, employment at record levels.


However, we still need to do more so all British people get


the opportunities they need to get on in life.


The tests should ensure people coming here are filling gaps


in the labour market, not taking jobs that


But it's become a tick-box exercise, allowing some firms to get away


We won't win in the world if we don't do more


It's not fair on companies doing the right thing,


so I want us to look again at whether our immigration system


provides the right incentives for businesses to invest


That was Amber Rudd speaking at last year's Conservative conference.


Journalists were told after her speech that a consultation


paper would include an option to require companies


to publish the proportion of international staff they employ.


She was fairly roundly criticised, with Labour accusing her of "fanning


Well, we learn from this morning's Times that one


academic was so concerned about the implications


of the Home Secretary's speech that he reported it to the police,


and, under a new policy approved by Amber Rudd,


it has been recorded as a "hate incident".


The complainant is Joshua Silver, and he joins us now


Welcome to the programme. At the Tory conference, the speech of which


you complained, she said, we need to do more so all British people get


the opportunities they need to get on in life, the test should ensure


people coming here are filling gaps in the labour market, not taking


jobs British people could do. In what conceivable way was that a


hate speech? What I had been looking at is to what extent statements made


by senior politicians about foreigners can be interpreted as


some sort of mechanism, if you like, to help foster the idea in the


country against the EU. That is a broad brush approach, and I


understand that, but what was hateful about Amber Rudd's speech,


on these words? Well, you just picked a few words... That is the


key part of the speech from the briefing later talked about... What


would be hateful about looking at companies... It is discriminating


against, picking on foreigners? Why is it picking on foreigners to say


people should be able to get on in life? She did say that she would


keep lists of foreigners. That is not what the briefing was, I was at


the conference, it was a press report that said that. Well, I


certainly picked up, the press report was not accurate. What the


briefing was, we had people at the briefing, it was an option, didn't


happen in the end, but it was an option to look at a breakdown of


companies of what percentage of foreign-born workforce they were


employing and British-born, roughly an idea that Ed Miliband had


proposed himself several years ago. You are a physicist, right, at


Oxford? A Labour economist may well find that information very useful to


work out where we are failing to give people already in this country


of all hues and ethnicities and colours the proper skills. What is


hateful about it? Keeping lists of foreigners is something... But that


is not what was proposed. You just said it was. No, the proposal was,


it was an option that was never done, was to find out if a company


was employing 25% migrants or 30... What do you mean it was an option,


what are you saying? It was an option, they didn't proceed. But


they floated it. Did you watch the speech? No, but I read the draft and


read all the feedback. But it was the speech you complained about?


Yes. So you complained about a speech you haven't watched? I have


read it carefully and looked at the feedback. I understand the feedback,


politicians and sometimes journalists can't believe the


feedback in itself. I'm still trying to find out what is hateful about


the remarks... It is discriminating against foreigners, that is what it


is about. Why? Because you pick on them and say, we want to give jobs


to British people and not foreigners. That is not what she


said. She simply wanted to find out if there are skills shortages and we


are bringing people into do these jobs because our people don't have


them, why would you not want to give British people the skills? It can be


interpreted that way. The police in the end did not do a formal


investigation but did recorded as a hate incident. Yes. Was this a hate


incident? Michael Howard, I was asking you. Of course it wasn't. I


think, you cited Ed Miliband, what Amber Rudd said was no different to


what Gordon Brown said when he was Prime Minister, that there should be


British jobs for British workers. That was much more expert is! It


was, and nothing was done about it. I think Mr Silber should be


thoroughly ashamed of himself, because what he's doing is to bring


a piece of well-intentioned legislation into disrepute. The


meaning behind the legislation is very important. It is meant to deal


with hate crimes and Mr Silver, who has been unable to justify what he


has done in the face of your questioning, is bring dingbat


legislation into disrepute. I will give you a quick response,


Professor. The response of the public was that this was


discriminating. Have you made other complaint about politicians'


speeches? Well, no, I'm not a typical, normal complainant but I


have also looked at one of the statement, a statement made by Mrs


May. Mrs May stated that she... Very briefly. Mrs May said she was in


effect going to expel all foreign doctors. And that was also picked


up. We are going to leave it there, I don't run by Mrs May saying that,


but if you take it forward I will look forward to it. Thank you very


much. Now, some sad news this morning


as we learned of the death of Professor Anthony King,


one of Britain's leading experts He helped us understand electoral


trends, the opinion polls and political history,


and for more than 20 years helped Let's look back at some of his most


memorable contributions. Conservatives are deeply


schizophrenic about the Labour Party. On the one hand they don't


like the idea of red in tooth and claw socialism but they also believe


they are the party to beat so they find it difficult to make up their


minds on this issue, quite understandably.


Even if our forecast did not exist I would say on the strength of these


results that Mrs Thatcher will be back in Number Ten for the next four


or five years with a much reduced majority but a perfectly adequate


working majority, more than a slender majority.


Paddy Ashdown is still talking the language of somebody who thinks one


day the Liberal Democrats can be a major force, possibly even oust the


Labour Party as the main opposition to the Conservatives. I really think


that particular balloon needs to be punctured. If our exit poll is


correct, this is a sensational night that we face. Absolutely. Landslide


is too weak a word. I offer you the following, it is an asteroid hitting


the planet destroying practically all life on Earth.


Brilliant! The master of understatement!


And we're joined now by Professor John Curtice,


You are smiling, give us your memories of him. The extraordinary


thing about Anthony King, especially on television, was that you could


give him a relatively dry statistical essay, for example,


maybe the Labour Party doing relatively well in places with lots


of students, and at 2am or 3am Tony King would be able turn that into an


interesting story, and to do so with butter fluency and with remarkable


elegance. I think probably if you were to go through the whole of the


recordings that you still have of Tony King's contributions to the


BBC, you will probably struggle to ever hear and umm or ahh or any sign


of linguistic evidently, he was extraordinary in his turn of phrase,


a broadcaster's dream, and it also meant he was somebody who conveyed


to the public the story of election night, what was interesting, what


was the implication for the politicians, and to that extent at


least turned it from simply being a night about numbers into a night


about politics. How did he come to dominate our screens in terms of the


coverage in the 80s and 90s, how did he get here and into our political


life, as a Canadian? He came to the UK in the 1960s as a scholar, having


done a degree in Canada. He went on to do a degree at Oxford and moved


not long thereafter, and with the contributions he has made he is one


of those people who could turn lessons into a place where the study


of politics was one of his strengths, and it became one of the


leading department, partly to do with Anthony King. He worked with


Doctor Gerald Butler, also a doyen of election television, on the 1966


election and he became part of the world of those academics who on the


one hand are very serious academics, no doubt that Anthony King was a


serious academic, but at the same time are also contributing to the


world of journalism. Apart from his involvement with the BBC he was also


the Daily Telegraph's psephologist the many, many years and wrote up


monthly polls and weekly during the general election, said he was


involved not just in broadcasting but also writing and that is how he


came into that world because, like David Butler, he had that


combination of talents. Do you remember his coverage well?


Of course I do, and I think this is an opportunity for us to pay tribute


and remember the importance of people like Anthony King, but not


just him, who explain clearly to the public... Make it accessible. What


lies behind the story, make it interesting, give it great depth.


Well, John Curtice, thank you very much, I am sure you will miss him


very much, thank you for coming onto the programme to talk about Anthony


King, who has died, very sadly. Very sad, Professor Anthony King.


The one O'Clock News is starting on BBC One, I will be back on BBC One


tonight for the first This Week Of The Year.


That's with Michael Portilo, Chris Leslie, Dr Saleyha Ahsan,


Miranda Green and Paul McKenna from 11:45.


And I am back here again at noon tomorrow with all the big


If we don't do something, it's going to burst, and it'll kill him.


It'd be good to get it over and done with


There is a rumour, there is a rumour that they have a bed.


Download Subtitles