06/03/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Unions seek government assurances about the future of 4,500 jobs

at two Vauxhall car factories, after the company is bought

Jeremy Corbyn publishes his personal tax return and insists he's paid

Should all political leaders have to follow suit?

Ahead of Chancellor Philip Hammond's first Budget on Wednesday,

just how reliable are the economic forecasts used by the Treasury

to work out the UK's tax and spending plans?

And after Donald Trump accuses Barack Obama of being a "bad or sick

man" over claims the former US president tapped his phones, we'll

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

of the programme today I'm joined by the Business Minister

Margot James, and the shadow Treasury Minister Jonathan Reynolds.

Let's kick off with the mini-media storm over

Yesterday the Labour leader published details

of his income for 2015/16 - amounting to ?114,342.

But his return didn't appear to list additional income he's entitled

to as Leader of the Opposition, something his office later cleared

up by explaining it was listed under the heading "public office".

Speaking on the Andrew Marr show yesterday, the chancellor

Philip Hammond said it was all a bit of a gimmick.

He was asked if he would be willing to publish his tax return.

Just for the record, my tax affairs are

all perfectly regular and up-to-date.

This demonstration politics isn't helping

to create a better atmosphere in British

politics and I note the Labour Party is now

proposing a policy that anybody earning over

a ?1 million, which I as a cabinet minister certainly am not, will have

to publish their tax returns, make them public.

That is likely to drive away talent and investors that

Britain needs to create the global future that we are trying to build.

If he hasn't got anything to hide, why shouldn't he publish it? He is

abiding by all the rules, his tax affairs are up-to-date and it is a

private matter between him and the revenue and I think he is absolutely

right. It has gone wrong for Jeremy Corbyn. It was not clear up what his

tax return was stating and whether it included his salary for being

Leader of the Opposition? His tax return is correct. There was some

confusion when it was first reported but it is correct. This shows why

transparency is a good thing. If there is any confusion than having

it out in the public domain is a good thing. For the Chancellor, you

are in charge of the tax rates for a whole range of things and I think

people do want to know that it is transparent and it is the right

thing for the Chancellor to publish that. Looking at this policy of

people earning over ?1 million should also publish their tax

return, wouldn't people be reassured about is people

earning whatever they are earning have a proper relationship with HMRC

which doesn't include any favours and as far as HMRC are concerned it

is transparent between the individual and the tax authority. I

think the Chancellor has a good point that people have all sorts of

legitimate arrangements involving their children and other matters of

that nature if they are earning that sort of money and I think we should

respect their privacy as long as we have faith with the tax authorities

to apply the law evenly which I think after several reforms under

the last government, we will now have.

That policy is gesture politics, it is symbolic, a gimmick? How much

money we raise? It is not about raising money, it is about

transparency. There is a lack of trust in politics and people playing

by the rules of their very powerful or if they are earning a lot of

money. In Scandinavia it hasn't had any of the negative consequences

that Philip Hammond mentioned when he was asked about it, if there is

best practice in other countries, shouldn't we look at that and have

of that and say they have more transparent systems, why can't we

apply that he? I think that gimmick does more to undermine trust in

politics. Why? Rushing out this policy that everyone earning over a

certain amount has got to publish their tax returns says there is

something wrong with the system and HMRC are going after everybody, I

think trying to make out that unless you have published your tax return

there is something wrong with the system is merely trying to whip up a

lack of trust which I think is completely unnecessary. But those

concerns do exist already. If you do reduce tax avoidance than that will

be a different thing. You have admitted it would not raise any

money by doing it because these tax returns are verified by HMRC sir

Howard it reduced tax avoidance? I think anything that is more

transparent makes it harder to be involved in tax avoidance. That is

an obvious point to make. Really it is about public trust. It is a shame

that public trust is lacking in politicians and how the tax system

works. There are concerns from individuals and businesses as well.

Would all MPs in your mind have to publish your tax returns? In my case

there are not many MPs who earn over ?1 million that if they are involved

they should be treated the same way as individuals, but clearly, ?1

million would be a starting point. There would be a review on what goes

on in other countries, particularly Scandinavia. If there are things to

learn then we must be willing to learn them. No MPs are allowed to

earn that money but some ministers have outside money which ministers

are not allowed to engender. I think the Labour Party are clear, they

want other people to publish their tax returns, entrepreneurs and

business people but not politicians. I don't think that does anything to

further public trust? Philip Hammond could publish his. But he is not

going to so I don't think you will have much luck there.

The former Shadow Chancellor and Strictly contestant hinted

yesterday that he was thinking of a new job,

so our question for today is, what is he toying with doing?

At the end of the show Jonathan and Margot

The future of 4500 jobs at two Vauxhall car factories in England

are the centre of a huge business deal confirmed this morning. The

parent company of French car-maker Peugeot, PSA, has confirmed it will

by the European operations of the US firm General Motors, in a ?2 billion

deal. The leader of the Unite union Len McCluskey was asked what he

wanted to see the government. Simply be there, simply make certain

that whatever debates and discussions are taking place,

whatever the French Government and the German Government are offering

in terms of incentives, we should also be looking at that and of

course the Government's talk about an industrial strategy, well, now

they have to demonstrate it is more than words, we have to make sure

there is proper government-led Speaking in the last hour

the Business Secretary Greg Clark Well, Vauxhall is a very important

company, it is a successful company and the conversations

that the Prime Minister and I have have had with both GMA

and PSA tell me they plan to safeguard the plant, honour their

commitments and look to increase the performance

and the sales of cars. So we want to hold them to those

commitments, but the messages we have had leave me to be

cautiously optimistic. Our assistant political editor

Norman Smith joins me now. Greg Clark is cautiously optimistic

but there is a lot at stake here, not just the 4500 jobs but also the

suppliers which are connected to those car plants? That is right.

Estimates of up to 25,000 additional jobs are at risk. The position is in

the short-term ministers are fairly confident now that production will

continue in the UK. They have received reassurances from PSA he

recognised that Vauxhall is an iconic brand and so on. The

difficulty becomes after 2021 when decisions have to be made about

where future car production will be based and in particular, from the

middle of next year, positions will have to be made about future

Vauxhall car lines. That is where I think it gets difficult. We are

right slap bang in the middle of the Brexit negotiations. Although Greg

Clark was trying to play down the impact of Brexit, I don't think

there is any getting away from it. That creates an element of

uncertainty. We do not know what our future trading relationships will

be. It could be advantageous for PSA to retain a manufacturing base in

Britain. On the other hand, it could be so difficult and problematic, the

trading relationships, that they don't want to. But I think the real

difficulty is the politics of this. Very obviously, we will be involved

in a 3-way wrestling match with the French and German governments. PSA

is partly French owned state company. They will fight tooth nail

to keep their come please open. Angela Merkel is the big beast of

the EU. She will use every bit of influence she has got to keep the

German car plants open, and the real danger is do we lose political

leverage outside of the EU? In that sense, Vauxhall could well be a test

case of our economic prospects after Brexit. Fighting with the French and

Germans if you like over whether future of these car plants should

be. We also know the Peugeot boss Carlos Tavares is a renowned cost

cutter, that is his reputation. If he wants to consolidate can we

assume there will be fewer plants and therefore the decision you are

talking bout will happen post-2021? The consensus in the car industry is

that he has 24 plants at the moment. There will be a rationalisation. I

think there is some comfort in government that Barral some strong

economic if not political reasons for keeping production in the UK, in

part because Vauxhall is such a big product here. 16% of total car

sales, so why would you want to relocate production? Secondly, it is

argued that we are at the forefront of leading car technologies, be it

an electric cars, no carbon, battery storage. In other words, there is a

massive incentive to have car production here. It is even

suggested it could be a good idea to bring some Peugeot production here

to expand on the Peugeot market. The difficulties are whether the

economics are trumped by the politics Post Brexit. Norman Smith,

thank you. Jonathan Reynolds, what impact do you think this will have?

The automotive industry is the jewel in the crown of the British economy.

It has been exported and a huge story. The Vauxhall brand is strong

in the UK but now everything that has moved to the UK will no longer

count as being a single market product for exports from the EU. I

grew up in Sunderland next to the Nissan car factory. I'm very proud

of what British workers can do but the government has got to address

some uncertainty. The government has got to fight hard for the car

workers. What incentives should the government be offering to show? The

government has had a lot of discussions with Peugeot, with the

French government and unions. Both Greg Clark and the Prime Minister

have met Carlos Tavares, the CEO of Peugeot. And we can be cautiously

optimistic. Until about 2021? The reassurances we have had have not

been likely given and Peugeot recognises that Vauxhall is an

iconic brand and that it is fundamental to the British car

market, in which they are investing. But of Britain comes out of the

single market and the customs union then everything changes? Not

everything changes. The fundamental performance of the automotive sector

does not change. Ellesmere Port is one of the most competitive car

plants in the whole of Europe. We are continuing to invest in the auto

sector. The industrial strategy has fantastic plans in the future to

make sure that Britain is at the epicentre of battery development, of

vehicle emissions and all of those things. But there will be changing

relationships once Britain comes out of the single market and the current

trading relations that exist and whatever deal is done? There will be

that the industrial strategy is quite clear. We want to make Britain

play to its strengths and that will be included as a top priority within

the Brexit negotiations. The furtherance of our auto sector as

well as top sectors within our economy. It could be that Peugeot

decide to put more of their focus on plants in the UK? There would be

some argument for that. That is why I wish the government would give us

more detail. Some of these car plants make cars in seconds. You

cannot possibly foresee how any delay at customs or even with a

database of getting products from one country to another could impact

on those in a way which would keep them productive. I do resent that

when we ask in Parliament how was this going to happen that we are

accused of being against business. How do you guarantee that trade at

customs points? We have established that the sectors

are top priorities when the Article 50 is triggered and the formal

negotiations start. It will be impossible to give any guarantees at

what is a two-way process of negotiations that will last at least

two years. But we are putting those sectors of the economy at the

forefront in terms of a good trade agreement with our neighbours and

indeed the negotiation of free trade agreements around the world. Thank

you. Now on Wednesday the Chancellor will

stand up and present the Budget. But before he announces any

new spending promises or tax cuts, Mr Hammond will read out

the economic forecasts This is the Government -

and other independent bodies - scanning the horizon to try

and predict what will happen to the key economic indicators

such as economic growth, But not everyone is convinced these

forecasts are useful guides. And now the Taxpayers' Alliance has

produced research showing just how wide of the mark some

of the numbers can be. The TPA has looked back to 2010,

when George Osborne was Chancellor, to see whether the five-year

forecasts made then When it came to predictions

on economic growth, The forecast in 2010 was for the UK

economy to be worth ?1.9 trillion. And in 2015 it came

in at ?1.88 trillion - But on the deficit, the Government

failed to anticipate choppy waters, assuming borrowing would be cut

to ?20 billion. In fact in 2015 the deficit

was almost four times Meanwhile, it didn't see the black

clouds massing around government revenues,

thinking income tax would raise In the end, the take was a fifth

less than what had been expected. But with employment,

the weather turned out to be better than predicted,

with 200,000 more people in work I'm now joined by Alex Wild

from the Taxpayers' Alliance, who compiled the figures we've

just been looking at. It is hardly surprising that

five-year forecasts aren't completely accurate, isn't the point

the Government uses rolling forecasts and events change things.

Yes and there have been a lot of policy change with income tax,

personal allowance has gone up and corporation tax has come down. Even

on GDP, you said it was plain sailing and they were just about

right, but the path to getting there has been different to what was

initially forecast in 2010. But the point of exercise is ahead of

budget, any wind fall that comes to the Chancellor, it is a ridiculous

concept, when we're borrowing so much. We have got to be careful we

don't spend all this wind fall, because things, this is very

difficult to predict and the OBR has a difficult job. So fuel duty it is

policy that fuel duty will go up with inflation. But nobody expects

them to do that. But that is the constraints they're under. Are you

saying predictions should be dumped. How would governments be able to

plan if not for some sort of guideline, however difficult it is.

I'm not saying they should be dumped. But I'm saying we,

politicians, journalists, etc, should be sceptical about these

things. Some are easier than others. If you look at the GPD numbers being

OK. If you look at exports, business investment and earnings growth, that

is the almost pin the tail on the donkey and they have got to be

careful with this. Do you agree it is often pinning the tail on to the

donkey. If you look at the previous forecasts and Paul Johnson said

there is uncertainty and the forecasts are not worth the paper

they're written on. I the fact the economy is roughly the size the

former Chancellor predicted. But the deficit is far higher. They said

they would eliminate it. The new Government came in and put back the

time at which we would be living within our means to 2021 and I think

that there are some, sometimes some sensible decisions that need to be

need as you go through a period that may involve more spending, but

sometimes revenues are beyond the Chancellor's control. If you're

basing policies, isn't that the point, on the predictions and you

believe the deficit would come down and you are trying to plan, you're

going to be way off the mark? No, your adjusting it on an annual basis

and determining the decisions based on current forecalveses, not

forecasts -- forecasts. You mentioned the jobs miracle and it

has been a miracle. We were all warned that when the public sector

had to come under control in terms of spending that people would lose

their jobs and unemployment would mount. The opposite happened and we

have a million more businesses operating since 2010. That was one

of the predictions that Labour got wrong? When warning about high

unemployment figures, it didn't happen. There is a variability about

forecasts and each year you see people arguing against things that

they were in favour of the year before when the forecalveses are

different. Forecalveses were -- forecasts were different. So the we

have to make political choices and the government makes bad ones. And

if you look at social care, the Chancellor will be forced to throw

additional money to ameliorate the effects of policy changes, because

they were the wrong ones? No, I think that any way we have got to

wait until Wednesday, I don't know what the Chancellor will do. There

have been comment, I would add anything to what you have said. You

understand that will happen? No, I don't know what will happen. But

there has been newspaper comment that those areas, but there has been

comment there will be investment in technical education and in

productivity with the national productivity council with more

money. So there has been some announcements that we shouldn't

overlook. Wonder where those comments came from? I can't imagine.

You accept the Government do need to have some kind of estimates to work

off. What are you suggesting as a sort of alternative. I'm not

suggesting any alternative. It is important that I think when we look

at budgets we look more at what the policy decisions are, rather than

the forecasts. It seems a lot of coverage centres around the

forecasts. At the last, the autumn statement, there were sort of some

reporting of we found out what the cost of Brexit is and it is 59

billion, that is crazy, we have no idea, well we have some idea, but it

is difficult to tell. Last week there was numbers from the

resolution foundation about inequality and poverty. But in 2011

there was numbers projecting child poverty numbers which have been been

way wide of the mark. So we have or the kabful. Are I you saying you

don't believe the predictions that say if the benefit cuts are

implemented and the poorest 15% of population will have lower incomes

in five years time, because of that freeze in benefits? What I'm saying

is I don't believe the predictions from 2011. What do you think of

these? I'm sceptical about it. A lot 06 this hinges on, wage growth and

the forecasts for that have been all over the place. But mostly on the

negative side. You will use the figures and predictions as

ammunition to fire at the Government, but don't you share the

scepticism if they were worried about the poverty indicators in 2010

are you sceptical now? I'm not saying there is anything better to

go on. Well that is not very helpful. You have to use the figures

that are available. Do you use the ones that support your political

narrative. We would like them to analyse our plans and clarify health

spending to see how much money it needs. We are in favour of more

independent scrutiny. Why haven't you got any costed spending plans?

We have spoke on the members of Shadow Cabinet who said they would

spend the money on the NHS and social care, but there are no

costings. That is not true. If you look at the tax cuts that are

programmed, it is ?70 billion. That figure is disputed and you're

respent the money you say would be saved from corporation tax cuts

There is the cut to capital gains tax and we are at the point if you

would tackle the deficit and have money to spend to address social

care and the NHS and the cuts to disability benefits. The Chancellor

can't hide and say he can't tackle the problems. If the tax reseats

have been more promises, should that go to alleviate the suffering caused

by cuts in social care. I don't accept what Jonathan said about the

NHS. We are spending more on the NHS year on year and the Conservative

was the only party that committed itself to funding what the Chief

Executive of the NHS said was needed. I don't accept. Answer my

question about social care. Should the ?12 billion that has been found

should that go in to plug the funding gaps in social care? I think

the Chancellor may have something to say on social care, I don't know.

But I think that we to be careful, we we have still got a deficit and

need to bring that down to keep maintain, the confidence of

investors. And we have got to do a job to make sure that British

business is competitive. So it is a mistake to look at pots of money and

say we should divert it here. That is a mistaken way at looking at what

we expect from the Chancellor. After last week's Stormont elections

in Northern Ireland, party leaders in Belfast are today

getting down to the business of trying to negotiate

a new power-sharing deal - which could see the Democratic

Unionist Party and Sinn Fein working together again

in the Northern Ireland Executive. Let's talk now to the BBC's

Northern Ireland Political Editor Mark Devenport who's outside

Stormont House where If you were a betting man, do you

think they will agree a deal that means they could work together

again? I'm a bit sceptical as to whether they will be able to agree a

deal within the three weeks that is set aside at the moment under the

time table. I think it is possible that he will try and play for time

and stretch out that deadline maybe into April, in the hope of providing

some common ground. At the moment the stand off between the two party

is whether Aileen Foster can continue as First Minister, will the

green energy scheme scandal has not been solved, Sinn Fein say they

won't work her her. What the is balance of power now? Historically

it has been a blow to unionism. Stormont was a by word for unionist

rule and this is the first time since the creation of Northern

Ireland state that it does not have a unionist majority. The balance of

power is held by the non-aligned people. What impact do you think

that will have in terms of balance of the debate. If the unionists have

lost their power of veto, within the power-sharing Government, what

impact will that have on the negotiations? One thing to bear in

mind is Stormont doesn't operate like a normal democracy, although

the others hold the balance of power, the nationalists and

unionists have a veto and you need a cross community vote. So a bit of a

recipe for stalemate. The question that has to be sorted out is whether

there will be a new Stormont, because at the moment, there is

still a stand off over that position of Arlene Foster. We don't know

whether he may nominate a care taker. Do you think there is any

movement that would suggest that Arlene Foster would step aside for

Sinn Fein to accept going back to power sharing? Well we are hearing

some talk from within the DUP and some politicses are unhappy about --

political politicians are unhappy about Arlene Foster. But the

question is whether that concern within the DUP ends up with her

maybe making that offer to put in a care taker First Minister or whether

the DUP simply rally around her and say because it is a Sinn Fein demand

they won't bow to it. It is hard to second guess this one. Thank you.

Three weeks has been given for some sort of timetable, do you see Arlene

Foster as being the sticking point here? James Brokenshire will be

talking to politicians today. And they have also been talking to the

Republic of Ireland Premier. I think it is for them to sort out who will

be leading the Northern Ireland Assembly and who should not be.

People have voted, they have exercised their democratic right.

They are in the same situation? You will still have the two main parties

of the DUP and Sinn Fein, does not solve anything. It is up to those

parties to work together and maybe the independents will help them to

work together and James Brokenshire as Northern Ireland Minister will be

doing his best to bring them together. They have to work

together. The prospect of direct rule is hanging over Stormont. Do

you think the secretary of state should play a more interventionist

role to try and bang heads together? It is difficult. The system is

designed to make the two blocks cooperate. That is why the

power-sharing agreement is in place. Direct rule is not an option. The

Conservative Party is dependent on some unionist votes for Brexit in

the House of Commons. In the rest of the UK we have become complacent

about the politics in Northern Ireland. Not just in Westminster,

I'm talking about whole country. People were not really interested in

the impact of Brexit Northern Ireland. I think the rest of the UK

has to be aware that they cannot be as complacent as that. They are

important for this country and we must take it more seriously. We will

see what happens. Let's take a look at the main

political events this week. This afternoon, MPs will gather

in Westminster Hall to debate whether it should be made illegal

for companies to require women This comes after a petition calling

for a change in the law was signed The European Union Withdrawal Bill

is back in the House of Lords Peers will consider further possible

amendments to the Bill, including giving parliament

a so-called "meaningful vote" on the final deal that is agreed

between the government and the EU. On Wednesday, Theresa May

and Jeremy Corbyn will face each other for Prime Minister's

Questions. Immediately after PMQs, Philip

Hammond will present the Budget. He'll set out his tax and spending

plans and we'll also get new economic forecasts

from the This is due to be the

last Spring Budget - after today, budgets will take

place in autumn. And EU leaders will be in Brussels

on Thursday and Friday for a meeting On their minds will be the fact that

Theresa May's deadline for triggering Article 50

and beginning the Brexit negotiations is now less

than four weeks away. We've been joined on College Green

by the Guardian's Rowena Mason, and James Forsyth of

the Spectator magazine. Welcome to both of you. First of

all, Rowena, tomorrow the Lords will vote on giving Parliament and

meaningful vote for the end of Brexit negotiations, do you think it

will make Tory MPs vote against the government? That is a possibility

that the government will be worried about and perhaps that is the reason

why they have explained in a little more detail today why Theresa May

doesn't think this meaningful vote will take place. What they are

saying is they think it could incentivise other EU countries to

give the EU a bad deal and therefore scupper the UK's chances of leaving

the EU. That is the argument they will be presenting tomorrow but it

does still look pretty likely that the House of Lords, on a cross-party

basis will vote to pass that amendment. And if it is passed there

will be limited ping-pong do you think between the two houses? The

government hopes there will only be one round of ping-pong. But if the

government strips out the amendments then it will go back. Without Labour

and the ability of the -- without Labour, the ability of the Liberal

Democrats to create mischief is quite high. A meaningful vote could

be one where they send back the deal and say revise it or improve it. I

do not think they will be worried about the Lords voting for it. There

is the second round of ping-pong in the Lords and we think Labour will

probably back down. The risk for the government is that more Conservative

MPs in the House of Commons joins together with Labour and the Lib

Dems to force it through at that stage, and we don't really know what

will happen after that, that could delay things a lot longer. Either

way Article 50 will not be triggered by the time Theresa May goes to the

summit in Brussels. What sort of reception will she get there, do you

think? I think things are less frosty than they were but I think

the European Union has stuck to its line of no negotiation until

notification. That is why the rights of EU residents in the UK and UK

residents in the EU cannot be sorted out because the EU says we're not

doing any negotiation until you tell us you are formally starting Article

50 process. Do you think that the initial theory is dying down

somewhat? I think there is a degree of that. At the moment we are in

this strange limbo process where Theresa May is attending the summit

but she doesn't really have a great role to play. I think what she's

going to be aiming on Thursday is not to look like a billy no mates

and the odd one out and to have nothing to do. The EU during this

period where we have not triggered Article 50 yet says absolutely there

will be no start of negotiations. It is difficult for her at the moment.

And she doesn't want to seem to be being cold shouldered. Meanwhile,

August talk of a Brexit war chest of some substantial size? Thing that

just means that Philip Hammond will not spend the money that we have not

borrowed. It is a funny kind of war chest. I think what it shows is

there is such uncertainty at the moment. Even though Philip Hammond

has been more upbeat and optimistic about Brexit in public, I think in

private he thinks there will be some kind of economic slowdown and he

wants to have something in reserve if that was to happen. And that has

been a lot of talk about plugging some of

the funding perhaps ameliorating some of the impact of the business

rate changes, and bearing in mind the Tory manifesto commits the

government to not raising income tax of VAT, we are presuming there will

be stealth taxes on the up? That is an idea which has been mooted quite

a lot over the weekend and I wonder how some of the right-leaning press

will respond to that, if it does look like there are tax rises. The

fact is, that he is, the Chancellor is probably going to have to do

something about social care, given the clamour among Conservative MPs

as well as Labour MPs for the pressure on councils to be eased and

then this issue of business rates as well will have to be dealt with.

Won't it be strange for a Conservative government to increase

taxes on the self-employed, for example, to try and get some more

money into the coffers? I think there will be some unease on the

Tory benches. I think what Hammond will portray any move like that is

we have to deal with the new nature of the economy, with far more people

being self-employed and also being self-employed but working for big

corporations, Uber being a classic example. You have to find some way

of adjusting so you don't erode the tax base through self-employment.

His reputation is Spreadsheet Phil. Will he stick to that in this

budget? I think he is more likely to produce a spreadsheet from a hat

than a rabbit. We look forward to that excitement! Do you agree,

Rowena? I do agree. One of his aims is to make this a boring budget. He

does not want to make waves. He has already said he will make the autumn

fiscal event the big event of the year and he will keep his powder dry

for now. Thank you. Muslims in the UK are becoming

increasingly victimised, that's according to the journalist,

campaigner and Muslim She argues that there

is an increasingly toxic narrative against Muslims,

caused in part by the rise of right wing nationalism across Europe,

here's her soapbox. Europe's new far

right is on the rise. to Denmark, Holland,

France, Germany, there has been a rapid growth

of right-wing parties over As a white woman from

a working-class background, that makes me a target

for their vote. I'm a Muslim, one of nearly

three million in the UK, and that Here at the former Byker Grove

studios, where Ant and Dec rose to fame in Newcastle,

windows have been smashed and a pig's head was dropped

just here, only after it emerged that the building was going to be

transformed into an Islamic Academy. Hate manifests itself

in many different ways. Women are reported as having

their hijabs pulled off. One pregnant woman was kicked

in the stomach And another veiled woman

who was wearing Islamic dress was stabbed many times at the university

campus where she was studying. There are fears we

are standing at the head of the same street our Jewish

cousins were dragged down in the 1930s, and we all know

where that ended. The far right are using the weapons

of fear, nostalgia and resentment against mainstream

politics to galvanise voters. This in turn is fuelling anxiety

and unfounded fears of terrorism, which in turn is fuelling demands

for tougher immigration policies. It's a simple enough message

and one that worked so well for Donald Trump in America,

but when people fear that they are not being listened to, they will

head to the lure of the populists, who will trade

on their fears instead. Even if the far right doesn't win,

they've already changed the political landscape in Europe,

forcing mainstream parties to adopt These extreme views are now

being perceived as normal. And Yvonne Ridley is here,

and we're also joined by You talked about the fact that some

of the far right's policies and rhetoric is now being adopted by

mainstream parties. What evidence is there that policies are being passed

by mainstream parties which are anti-Muslim? Just recently we had in

Austria our European government minister there saying he wanted to

ban the macabre. The reality is that the niqab was warned by a few

thousand women in Austria. The headlines were that it was right

across Europe. There is a big story at the moment brewing in Germany in

one particular school where Muslim pupils have been praying and the

school is having a difficult time with the large congregations. Peter

Whittle, Yvonne Ridley said in her film that the political rhetoric

from some far right parties and other politicians has fuelled hate.

Nigel Farage said Germany's open-door policy to a million

migrants from fought on Syria opened the doors to Isis and extremism. Do

you think that is the sort of rhetoric that fuels the hate it

Yvonne Ridley is talk about? First of all we're not far right. I did

say other politics. I think this has been borne out by recent events the

difference is that he was to radical Islamist, extremists who want to do

us harm. He was therefore not opening out to a general attack on

Muslims. Of course he wasn't doing that. To accept there a difference

about talking about Isis and extremism and ordinary Muslim

families? I think sometimes politicians from all parties can be

extremely vocal about Muslims in a negative way and you get cases that

I talked about where a pregnant woman in Milton Keynes was kicked in

the stomach. But that is an anecdotal incident. It definitely

happened. She lost her babies. Another goal was stabbed to death.

These happens because politicians say things and they trigger idiots

out there who are listening to them. I know you can't legislate for

idiots, but you know with the rhetoric, if it can just be toned

down and said in a thoughtful less hateful way.

What we have seen is a narrative of a rise in hate crimes, which if you

look at the figures does look like that on paper, the problem is the

way they're reported is almost unique in the sense that no evidence

is required. It relies on the perceived or the alleged victim and

what they think happen or anybody else. Which means that someone

watching this programme could report us, this is a hate crime f they

thought it was. Are you denying there wasn't a spike in hate crime

after the Brexit vote. There was a narrative that people were

determined to make fit their theory. The police claim the figures are

borne out. If you look at the figures of hate crime and that is

all hate crime, the amount that amount to a prosecution is something

like 35%. In other words, a fraction of the figures. The problem is as

soon as you report it, it immediately becomes a hate crime

statistic and it is reported by the press. That is pretty much unique,

you don't have any other crime with that situation. Looking back when

Nigel Farage unveiled that vile poster of Syrian refugees. They were

not all refugees, many were economic migrants and he was talking about

Europe, a poster was around Europe. Don't you regret that? No? No the,

the whole narrative is somehow Brexit unleashed this hate. Some

people would like everybody who voted Brexit to be made you know...

Culpable of a hate crime. This is ridiculous and I think as well that

it does a rude service to people who are the least racist in the world.

Now Margot James, one study looking at terrorist-related incidents had

looked at data from the national police chiefs council that said the

number of far right refer rals has increased. Do you think the threat

of far right extremism has been ignored? That might have been the

case a few years ago, but the Government have caught up with the

far right threat and taken steps to deal with it. I represent a Black

Country constituency and almost every year we have our way of life

totally abused by far right people who come and march in the centre of

Dudley. All the shops have to close. People's well being is threatened

and in particular the Muslim population. So it is right that the

Government have cracked down on it and it is necessary and I agree with

Yvonne there has been a rise in hate crime and it should be dealt. There

has been a rise in reporting. I represent a constituency and part of

a wider area I can see it and I have individual reports and I also would

argue with the point with you based on the fact that the hate crime that

goes unreported. I have people come to me to talk about instances and

they want don't to go to police. I don't agree with your argument. Can

I comment. In terms of spike in hate crime, much was directed at eastern

Europeans, rather than Muslims, do you accept all politicians have a

role to play in the language they use, how much do you think the focus

on Islamic extremism has fed into a fear if you like of the Muslim

community? It is absolutely every politician's responsibility. If you

look at the history of prejudice it was Irish people and Jewish people

and now the Muslim community is receiving the threat. I do not

believe that senor people in Ukip are interested in a serious

discussion about immigration. What do you say to that? It is

outrageous. One of the biggest rises in hate crime has been anti-Semitism

against Jewish teemest people. People -- people. People are

reporting them and the police have to take them at their word, so that

basely base economy it comes to that. It won't have any party linked

with the rise in hate crime. It is outrageous. Can I put to you, you

have said, Yvonne, this has been fumed by irrational fears over

terrorism, but you must accept the attacks, some of the high profile

attacks like Woolwich and 7/7 have been driven by Islamist ideology.

Yes can I fear some of fear. Is it irrational? Having lived in London

for 20 odd years, and seen the and experienced the... Irish troubles

and the Irish situation. The fears towards Muslims is irrational, you

know we went in this country through more than 30 years of so-called

Irish troubles. You can understand why people feel worried? Yes,

because you look at the news stands and the headlines and the words from

the politicians. They whip up fear... Yvonne this is an altern

Nate reality, you're in. You didn't say that yes those attacks were down

to a form of Islamist ideology, you didn't accept that. That speaks

volumes. Lee Rigby was killed near where I live. The 7/7 was an

Islamist ideology. I'm not in denial and I would refute what you say, but

we had more than 30 years of Irish terrorism and dealt with it in a

calm way, not th hysteria that you bring to it. Thank you both very

much. Let's take a look now

at the latest developments Over the weekend, President Trump

made allegations that his predecessor Barack Obama had ordered

a wiretap to be carried out On Saturday morning Donald Trump

tweeted: "Terrible! Just found out that Obama

had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower He then compared it to Watergate,

writing "How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones

during the very sacred Obama's spokesman Kevin Lewis

strongly refuted the allegations, tweeting "Neither @barackobama nor

any WH official under Obama has ever ordered

surveillance on any US Citizen. Any suggestion is

unequivocally false." We've been joined by

Charles Kupchan, who's a professor of international affairs

at Georgetown University in Washington and who's just arrived

in the UK to deliver a talk in parliament on the

Trump presidency. As wove explained, Donald Trump said

his phone was hacked, something President Obama has denied. Why

would he tweet such a thing if he didn't have proof? Trump seems to be

someone who doesn't act according to script. He may wake up in the

morning and be in a bad mood and he pops off with these tweets that in

many cased -- cases are not based on fact and create some media spin that

takes the conversation away from where he doesn't want it to be,

which is on Russia. That seems to be the only explanation. In your mind,

it is a diversion tactic, which is what it looks like, because he has

not got the evidence to back up his claims. I think it is a combination

of diversion as a strategy, but also using things that are not based in

fact to keep everyone off balance and turn the system upside down, so

we don't know what is true and what is not and he seems to be president

who revels that in kind of uncertainty. It is a chaos theory,

while everyone is running around trying to prove or disprove his

claims, it takes up people's time. It chaos theory that wedded to his

political brand and he has been elected by people who think the

system doesn't work for them. He is challenging the establishment and

the intelligence communities and the press to say, hey, I represent you

disaffected people. Does it Is it that thought out to say I will

challenge the establishment? I don't think it will work, if you look at

the poll numbers, they're the low nest history for a new president and

the average working American doesn't want disruption, he or she wants

more income and Trump needs to deliver on that and he has not given

us any detail. But he says he will deliver on that promise that he will

make jobs and bring back Josh -- jobs to the rust belt states. Don't

the people like that he is challenging the establishment

authority? There is a core Trump base that is enjoying this. Whether

that enjoyment stays there, I am doubtful, because at the end of the

day people will get tired of this and want a sense of normalcy. Is

this a water shed moment? If there is no evidence, if we have had the

FBI reject it, it is a moment at which there is a turning point for

what Donald Trump does on social media. I don't think we are there. I

I think we need something that sticks. My own sense is that as we

investigate what is going on in the Russia file, there is more to be

had. That story has not come to an end. Whether there is information

there that could fundamentally damage Trump, compromise the

presidency, we don't know. But I think that right now is his most

vulnerable flank. What do you think it is doing to America's standing in

the world? Well it is damaging, spats between the president and the

Security Services in the United States are worrying for all of

NATO's members. And we just have to hope that the situation improves. He

said he doesn't like the mainstream media, it is a way of challenging

the media using social media? It gets people's attention. After he

tweeted the claims, he tweeted something about The Apprentice.

Imagine discovering a Water gate level scandal and then forgetting I.

But this is causing damage to American and causing uncertainty.

The real story is the Russian link. There is a stand off between the

media and the White House, ow sustainable is that conflict? It is

going to be bloody, because the New York Times and others are out for

him. And banned. Banned from coming to a briefing. This is still heating

up. I think the one silver lining is that he has appointed people around

him that are adults. The Secretary of State, the Secretary of defence.

We have a serious national security advisor. If he listens to them and

that is a big if, he could push them in the right direction. But we don't

know. Thank you. There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was what job

is Ed Balls considering next? He is quite good on the piano. He

said never say never about a return to Westminster. I think there is a

job there. That is the right answer. From all of here today good bye.

Were back tomorrow at 1 o'clock.