27/04/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 27/04/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Boris Johnson hits the election campaign


is not just a "mutton-headed mugwump",


but has the Foreign Secretary undermined his own credibility


Tensions are high on the Korean peninsula


but the US says it wants to bring the North Korean leader


we'll ask one of Donald Trump's advisors what that means.


Zac's back but other prospective candidates are sacked -


with the Daily Politics Desk of Election News.


And parliament shuts up shop today in a quintessentially British way -


Obviously, all this coverage of the French elections is catching on!


All that in the next hour and with us for the duration today,


someone who's well used to hearing Norman French


as a member of the House of Lords -


So, for the first time since Theresa May called the election,


Boris Johnson has been deployed this morning.


the Foreign Secretary launched a personal attack on Jeremy Corbyn,


referring to him as a "mutton-headed old mugwump".


A "mugwump", by the way, is apparently a person


who remains aloof or independent from party politics.


It comes from the 1886 American presidential campaign, where


Republicans left their candidate and put the support behind Grover


Cleveland, who won, the first Democratic candidate to win since


the end of the civil war. They became known as mugwump. What that


has to do with Mr Corbyn, I have no idea.


Having suggested that Britain's security would not be safe


in Mr Corbyn's hands, Mr Johnson was asked to clarify


the Government's own position on supporting US action in Syria.


I think it would be very difficult if the United States has a proposal


to have some sort of action in response to a chemical weapons


attack and if they come to us and ask for our support,


whether it's with submarine-based cruise missiles in the Med


or whatever it happens to be, as was the case back in 2013,


John, in my view, and I know this is also the view


of the Prime Minister, it would be very difficult


What do you make of that? Well, we would have to know what we were


saying yes to. Syria has been going on since 2011. We have had a


chemical attack before in 2013. We have had a policy where we have


consistently said Assad must go, but he's still there. In 2017, we need


to be careful because the US hasn't made it clear what the strike was


about and what next. What the endgame was. Exactly. Targeted


strikes are important, because it could be part of a strategy to get


Assad to the negotiation table, but the fact that we haven't heard since


that strike what the US are trying to achieve, they haven't been saying


Assad must go in the way have in recent times. The relationship


between them and Russia, of course, impacts on what happens in Syria. So


we can't just say yes, we have to ask why. He also seemed to muddy the


waters a bit in that if such a decision was required, he said it


would be up to the Prime Minister to decide, whereas recent practice has


been to go to Parliament on these matters. What do you think? It is


not entirely clear what the convention this. The Prime Minister


does have absolute right to commit our troops without going to


Parliament. And sometimes the element of surprise is necessary.


Because of what has happened in recent times, before we commit our


troops, I think prime ministers do come back to the House and I presume


Theresa May would follow that. Is there a distinction between going to


the Commons and committing troops, as opposed to firing cruise missiles


from submarines in the Met? I suppose our young men and women are


not at risk in the same way if we were to put troops on the ground,


but I still go back to this question - what are we trying to achieve as


an international community, and what would Britain bring to that


coalition which makes it necessary to be involved? Those are questions


that need to go before Parliament. Is Jeremy Corbyn a mutton headed old


mugwump? This is just Boris being Boris. Jeremy Corbyn is an


ineffective leader of the Labour Party, which means he can never be


an effective Prime Minister. Without sounding ultra-confident, Jeremy


Corbyn is not going to be Prime Minister. I don't think we need to


resort to personal attacks on him. It is obvious that he can't run a


political party and would not be able to run the country. Using the


phrase mutton headed old mugwump, which, other than the alliteration,


I'm not sure what the purpose of that phrase is... I had to look it


up. Is it personal? It was something I felt comfortable with as party


chairman. I don't think we need to resort to personal attacks,


certainly not in the current general election, where we are so far ahead


in the polls. It is clear from everything coming back but the


question is not whether Theresa May will be Prime Minister, it is what


the size of her majority will be. We should get on with telling the


country the mandate that we want, how we are going to govern, the


policies that are important to us, publish our manifesto. Jeremy can


damage himself by himself. How big a part should Mr Johnson played in the


campaign? Is he an asset to your party or a loose cannon? It depends


on the kind of campaign we want to run. He certainly gets a lot of


attention and a lot of people like him. He has huge face and name


recognition and certainly provide entertainment and light-heartedness


to some campaigns. But I think Theresa wants to run this as a


serious campaign, and it is a serious time. The reason the


election has been called us because we are going into serious


negotiations. And he is the Foreign Secretary. But Boris is always


Boris, whether as Foreign Secretary or Mayor of London. He is a great


guy, I just don't think that this election requires us to have any


personal attacks on anybody. At least it brought mugwump back into


the political lexicon. It hasn't been used for a long time. And we


all missed it. I missed it, actually! But that is just me.


Now, another morning and another party leader is out


on the campaign trail - this morning, Jeremy Corbyn took


Very little actual concrete policy - they tell us we'll have to wait


for the manifesto on May 15th for the actual detail.


But this morning as they visited voters,


Jeremy Corbyn reiterated his pledge to build 100,000 affordable


council and housing association homes


They have also claimed that Labour-led councils build more homes


This is what Jeremy Corbyn had to say.


A Labour Government won't stand by and watch


We will build a million homes over the period of a Parliament,


half of which will be council and housing association for rent


We want our young people growing up with security, so they can


achieve more in school, in college and go on to university.


We can speak now to Labour's Jack Dromey,


So just an aspiration here, no policy? It is a firm commitment to


build a million homes a year. Not a million a year. I beg your pardon, a


million over a five-year period. And half of those homes would be built


by councils and housing associations to rent and to buy. It is a welcome


commitment because we are engulfed by the biggest housing crisis in a


generation. No government has done enough, to be frank, but our record


was so much better. We built 2 million new homes, a million more


homeowners now. Home ownership is now falling for the first time since


the 1920s. We brought up to standard the 1.8 million council and social


homes. We slashed homelessness. And when we had the financial crisis in


2008, I worked with John Healey when he was the housing minister and I


was typically general secretary of my union. We worked together to put


a programme together, the kick-start programme, which sold 120,000 homes


built, workers kept in the building jobs and avoided the collapse of the


construction industry. Why should we believe a firm commitment to you all


from you to build 200,000 new homes a year when you never succeeded in


doing that in the 13 years you were in power? Because that is what the


country now demands. But you didn't do it before. In the way I have


described, we have a good track record. You never built 200,000 new


homes a year. I made it clear that no government has ever done enough.


The question is who has got the determination to build affordable


homes to rent and to buy that the country wants. The idea that you


have a generation now growing up, often into their 40s, having to stay


at home with mum and dad or in costly, insecure rented private


sector accommodation is plain wrong. It would be one of our top


priorities. Not just the homes that people want, but the jobs it


creates. If you have good homes, that helps improve people's health,


because damp and overcrowded homes damage health. It is an utter


determination to tackle the housing crisis. But the only way we can


judge that determination is to look at your past record. We have no


details of the policy of how you are going to do this. You are talking


about 100,000 new council housing houses as part of the mix. In the 13


years you were in power, how many council houses did you build? Not


enough. How many? You built 7870. That was in 13 years. But you expect


us to believe you will build 100,000 a year now? But we inherited from a


Conservative government when we came to power in 1997 social housing


stock in this country that was a scandal. Damp homes, badly heated


homes. We made a decision that with those already in those homes, we had


to bring them up to standard. It has transformed the lives of millions.


Did we build enough new social homes? No, we didn't. But if you


look at what is happening now, if you live in an area where you have a


Labour council, you see 50% more homes being built by that Labour


council. Here I am in Birmingham, where we are getting close to 3000


homes a year. A third of those are being built by Birmingham City


Council. A leading Labour member of the London Assembly says Labour


should apologise for its record on council housing in government. I


have made it clear. No government has ever done enough. He is saying


you should apologise. He said more council homes were built in the last


year of Thatcher's government than were built in 13 years of a Labour


government. But the Thatcher government and John Major government


than left us with the mess of the best part of 2 million social homes,


most of them in disrepair. We acted to put that right. That was our


priority. Should there be more council homes built? Yes, without


doubt. But look at the record of what Labour councils do compared to


Conservative councils. We build homes, they don't build anywhere


near far enough or fast enough. How will you pay for 100,000 new social


homes a year? Both by way of direct investment, but also intelligent


arrangements. As shadow housing minister, I worked with the housing


associations. I have seen it in my own constituency of the Abbey Fields


estate is working with housing associations but also Birmingham


City Council. We have mixed housing. But where will the money come from?


The mixed housing is different and buy. On a basic level, you have an


estate where you have people from different backgrounds living


together. Some people buy, and that helps you build homes for social


web. It is a combination of investment and that kind of


intelligent mixed community building that generates the money necessary.


Here in Birmingham, we now have something called the Bromley bond,


where you have private sector companies who are wanting to invest


in a new social housing come in mixed tenure estates in the way I


have described. We also have a Chinese company which is going to


invest ?2 billion in housing in Birmingham. So if you have the will,


there is a way. Have you costed 100,000 new social houses? Yes. And


you will see that in our manifesto. You can't tell me today? I have


given you a strong steer about how we do it. It is a combination of


direct investment, and this government has been cutting back on


investment in social housing. Councils of all political


persuasions have been complaining bitterly about what the Government


is doing. So it is a combination of investment in social housing with


the kind of intelligent approach which levers in investment from the


private sector in building mixed community areas. Family, Mr Corbyn


campaign for the Labour leadership on rent controls. Were those feature


in the Labour manifesto? We are certainly going to act on a chronic


problem of insecurity in the private rented sector, often poor


accommodation in the private sector and soaring and unpredictable rents.


Will there be rent controls? That will be at the heart of our


manifesto. You will see what we say. One more time, will there be rent


controls? Mr Corbyn is in favour of them. Will they feature in the


manifesto? Wait and see. We will transform the private rented sector


in the best interests of private tenants, good landlords, of which


there are many in this country, but also tackling bad landlords. More


secure, higher quality private rented sector.


Depufrp We will leave it there. You are not answering my question, all


I'm getting is rhetoric You are getting answers. The one thing I am


not getting. Never mind always a pleasure to discuss these matters


with you. Housing is a problem. A big problem. This Conservative


Government has been in power now for six, into its seventh year and you


are still way short of 200,000 new homes a year. We are. I think the


last figures were 190,000. We think that the figures should be... Not as


high as that I think that was the UK overall. Less in England. 2015-16 I


think it was 2700,000. You will have to correct me on the area. We said


we have to build 225,000 to 275,000 houses, new additions a year. Not


just building new houses but conversions as well. Where I agree


with Jack is that successive governments, we are talking back to


the Thatcher years as to when council housing was being bi.


Successive governments have failed to keep up with demand and the needs


of Britain. Starts in England around 142,000 in the past two years I was


looking at some figures this mornings the latest figures I had


for 2015-16 were 190,000, I was comparing them to the last Labour


figures we had. I think you will find it is for the UK as a whole.


Right. I think Labour figures were 130,000.


Now, it's a truism in politics that one campaigns in poetry


Your view of Donald Trump's campaign rhetoric


may have you doubting the timeless quality of that remark,


so as we reach the hundredth day of Mr Trump's Presidency,


perhaps he ought to chew over another maxim,


one put forward by a British Prime Minister:


that "events, dear boy, events" are the things most likely


And like so many occupants of the Oval Office before him,


Mr Trump's been buffeted by cold political winds from


Tensions have risen in north-east Asia amid concerns over new nuclear


weapons tests conducted by North Korea.


Washington, Beijing and Seoul believe that North Korea could very


soon have nuclear weapons with inter-continental capability,


meaning they could be used to target cities


North Korea says it'll "never stop" testing nuclear weapons so long


as the US continues alleged "acts of aggression",


while US Vice-President Mike Pence promised his country would meet


with an "overwhelming" military response.


Donald Trump invited all 100 American senators


to a White House briefing to discuss the situation.


But the rhetoric from Washington appears to have been dialled down,


with the US military's commander in the Pacific theatre saying


they wanted to bring Kim Jong-Un


"to his senses, not to his knees".


And we're joined now to discuss this by Sebastian Gorka.


He's a deputy assistant and strategist in the White House.


Welcome to the programme. # Thank you. Bring the Korean dictator to


his senses, not his knees. What would it mean in policy terms? Well


this up thing about this administration, we do not tend to


give away the play book in advance. But if you look at events over the


past three weeks it is clear we have sent a message to several nations


that have client states that they have to draw their own internal red


lines for what kind of behaviour they will countenance from those


client states, whether it is Russia with Syria or whether it is China


with North Korea. North Korea will not be solved in by lateral


discussions. It's not a normal nation, so right now, I think the


summit, the results of that summit, especially the turn around the


Korean coal shipment, tells you things are going in the right


direction. What do you expect core China to do? North Korea relies on


China. China has leverage. Zo they can exercise that. What is the game


here? What do you want China to do? The game is a very simple one. North


Korea has to stop taking action that is are destabilising to the region


and stop behaving in a way that in material breach of the numerous


international requirements with regards to weapons of mass


destruction programmes and ballistic missiles. What indications do you


have that China is prepared to use its leverage in that direction? The


most obvious is what happened with the coal shipment but beyond that we


are thot going to force our hand or Beijing's hand. This is very


delicate stuff. Remember, it is a nation that is more Stalinist than


Joseph Stalin's USS R was and as such, it is not your normal actors


let's put it like that. The British secretary said today, military


actions are "not the way forward" and risk "huge and hideous


reprisals" what do you say? I say that what the President has


demonstrated in the past 14 weeks is that state craft is never the only


function. There is not only one way of solving things, diplomacy without


the option of force is just words and pieces of paper, a state craft


requires the application of all the tools of state craft, all the


instruments of power at the right time. That is why we sent a very


clear message. It's not about leading from behind. It is not just


about meetings in Geneva or vee ennia. It is about the -- Vienna, it


is about the toppings, should it be required to use other tools as well.


-- it is about the option. What is the message? That America is


back, there are red lines and we will execute. What is the red line?


Well, in recent weeks it's the use of weapons against innocent women


and children. But in North Korea what is the red line? Again, we


don't give our play book away. You have said you have made it very


clear but it is not... We have made it clear at a political level but we


will not talk about the tactical or operational theatre triggers, that's


what the Obama administration did with Mosul and what the Clinton


administration did with the Balkans. If you broadcast all of your


potential triggers those will be used against you. One Republican


senator after the briefing said it lacked "Straight answers on the


policy of North Korea and its testing of ICBM?" I would disagree.


But you weren't there? This is making a discussion, a comment about


an unclassified meeting, then, I would disagree. But what is the


policy on ICBMs? The North Koreans continue to test missiles to give


them an ICBM capability and with that they are able to miniaturise


the nuclear weapons so they could nuclearise an ICBM, if they continue


down that road f Chinese pressure either doesn't happen, or doesn't


deter them, what is the American reaction? Again, we do not show our


cards to the players at the poker table. But, the vice-president was


very clear in his tour of Asia last week, the capacity to inflict


physical damage on our Allies or partners or our nation will not be


countenanced. How we will get to that point, whether it will be


through multilateral diplomacy, behind the scenes, second track,


third track negotiations, the use of force in some demonstrable fashion


to send a message are options on the table but we will not declare what


those options will be at a certain time. Do you accept, though, that if


there was a military response to undermine or destroy North Korea's


ICBM capabilities, that the price would be a rain of fire on the South


Korean capital? Everybody knows the geography and the distance. About 70


miles And the North Koreans have massive artillery to hit a modern,


big population, Westernised city Nevertheless, there are numerous


other tools that can be used. I'm not going to comment, I'm in the


going to confirm or deny but there have been stories about why that


recent test failed. It didn't fail because a bomb was dropped on the


missile pad. Cyber warfare Is one theory I'm in the going to comment


on. I'm not going to confirm or deny it. Then there were missiles


launched on the Syrian airfield after the attacks, you can see that


in terms of a punishment act of what had been done by the Assad regime


but what is the strategy behind it? What is the strategy? Yes Very


similar to what we are doing in North Korea. Assad's regime has


significant sponsors, one of them is Russia and we sent a message that


you may want to reconsider just how far your sponsorship goes when you


have a client that is prepared to use chemical weapons against its own


citizens. That is a strategic response. And as you saw with


regards to Secretary Tillerson's cancelled meeting with Vladimir


Putin and what led to that meeting, the desired effect of that use of


force were arrived at. Hang on, what has been different about Russian


actions in Syrian since the attack? It is not actions in Syria, it is


clearly their reassessment of just how deep and how far that


relationship will go and their openness to talk to our Cabinet


members on these issues. But I don't know what's changed on the ground


since that attack. I mean within 24 hours the Syrian Air Force was


taking off from that very airfield and hitting civilian areas, which


were deemed to be rebels. So what changed? By the way, why the 59


cruise missiles, why did they do so little damage? What were those


aircraft? They were prefueled. They didn't have the capacity to fuel


them. It was smoke a irmirrors, in almost every interview I give, I


have to remind people this is week 14, not month 14. Patients is a


virtue. What do you make of what you have heard? It goes to the questions


I was asking at the beginning - what is the strategy and what we are kind


of hearing, well there is a strength we're not going to tell anybody what


it is, we'll not deny or confirm the strategy. As international partners


of somebody who sat in the Foreign Office for two-and-a-half years, if


we are going to commit to supporting strategies, well, we need to know


what is going on, and I think even in relation to Syria, it was obvious


that we didn't know what was going on until it had happened In World


War Two, what did we do with regard to the Third Reich? Did we advertise


our strategies? In fact we did the opposite. We convinced Hitler we


were coming over Calais, not in fact coming over on the beaches of


Normandy, that's strategic action. Well that was a tactic, what we did


in temples strategy, was leave nobody in any doubt that we were


going for the total destruction of Nazi Germany. That was the strategy


and nobody was in any doubt... But how you achieve it. A tactic not a


strategy. Don't mix terms. The discussion between Allies was clear


on what the strategy was. Ultimately there is no doubt in anybody's mind


that Assad has committed the most vile murders and acts in his own


country. He is still there. But he is still there. We have been saying


since 2011, Assad must G I'm not sure what the US policy is now on


whether he must or must not G that hasn't been clarified We don't can


have what the Obama administration had, an article of faith that he


must G we are going to deal with the people that support him because it


has to be. The bottom line is the killing has to sto. You asked about


the difference between strategies and objectives, our objective is the


killing has to stop. What the permutation is for that, who is in


power, that lab political -- that will be a political power, a


political process. Now, it's a snap general election,


so the parties have had to work at breakneck speed


to select candidates. But don't worry - our Ellie's been


keeping up with it all and has all the details of those


and more besides with the Daily Politics


Desk of Election News. Yes and here it is, welcome, with a


hastily erected sign, we have a chair and a computer. So what more


could you want? Today we have been getting more details of who is going


to fight this election and it is a blast from the Tory past. Esther


McVey, remember her, she has been selected to fight George Osborne's


seat. He is delighted Tweeting: Down shout, Zac is back, he resigned


his Tory seat last year in protest to Heathrow expansion and promptly


lost his seat to the Liberal Democrats. Well once again he is now


the Tory candidate. It's a practical decision -


who is most likely And on that basis,


people have made the I think it's the right decision,


I wouldn't have put my hat The Ukip leader is in the headlines


for comparing Ukip to Gandhi. It is a bit like the Gandhi thing, he


said. First they laugh at you, then they attack you and then you win. We


don't know if he is planning to stand in the coming election.


Elsewhere, Tim Farron and the Lib Dems have been on the campaign trail


in Cambridge this morning. Not sure what he was talking about,


maybe a new Lib Dem Slocombe. Elsewhere, we have been hearing from


Jeremy Corbyn. He has been in Harlow, keen not to turn his back on


people there. He has been funding up to the electorate in a campaign


stump speech. Labour may be cheered by some diverse and high profile


support from the snooker community today. Ronnie O'Sullivan yesterday


tweeted his support for Jeremy Corbyn, before going on to get


knocked out of the World Championships. And here is one for


you. I know you are into grime, a maker of hip-hop, garage and jungle.


Jeremy Corbyn, or Jay Z, has the backing of the crime artist JME, and


I think I can use my high-tech studio to do this. Yes, we had


better get out of that before the swearing. One last piece of news is


that we have heard that there will be a State Opening of Parliament on


the 19th of June, with a Queen's Speech for whoever wins. Thank you


for playing one of my more recent recordings.


Now, the Government has a strategy to stop people becoming terrorists


It's received enormous scrutiny over recent years,


and is now in the middle of yet another revamp.


In a moment, we'll hear from our guest of the day


Baroness Warsi on this, but first, Emma Vardy looks back


at the development of Prevent in city that found itself


In 2013, six young Muslim men from Portsmouth travelled


Initially, some believed this to be for humanitarian work,


as a sinister extremist organisation.


The realisation that six friends from Portsmouth had gone to join


them was a huge shock for the local community.


A police team from Special Branch began carrying out


Officers built new relationships with leaders at the city's mosques


They urged people, especially mothers, to speak up


if they felt their children may be being radicalised.


We really need families, schoolteachers, nurses and doctors


to tell us about their concerns long before someone goes on to become


a jihadi bride or commits a criminal act.


The city also had increasing problems with right-wing extremism.


The English Defence League targeted Portsmouth's largest mosque.


We've noticed that a lot of people that go to Syria actually


What sort of stereotypical views do we think of


Prevent officers in Portsmouth brought the fight against


radicalisation into the classroom, beginning a new programme


The goal is for students to understand


We want to get our message across that as far as possible,


we don't want to criminalise anybody.


They engaged with thousands of young people, discouraging travel


to Syria, but also discouraging radicalisation


It was one of the first cities in the UK where Prevent


was being used extensively to discourage radicalisation


The Prevent statutory duty prompted a significant step forward


in the delivery of Prevent work across all public


Now social workers, health care staff and teachers had a duty


Hundreds of front line staff in Portsmouth received


It prompted criticism that ordinary workers were being asked to spy


on people in their care, something repeatedly


refuted by those who work with the Prevent strategy.


Responsibility for Prevent was transferred from the police


The main part of our role is education to keep people safe.


We talk about British values, challenging extremism


through promoting democracy, freedom of speech.


Today if someone raises concerns about someone who may be


Portsmouth City Council's Prevent team


will carry out intervention work if they believe it is needed.


The process is usually kept highly confidential,


but Prevent teams are keen to stress that they see their work primarily


The long term solution has to be in the counter-extremism strategy


where civil societies come together and take on this ideological


that we have been challenging homophobia, racism and fascism.


That has to be the future and that is something


No one else from Portsmouth has since been known


to have travelled to Syria, but authorities believe


their counter-extremism work must continue.


Now, our guest of the day, Sayeeda Warsi,


is a long-standing critic of the Prevent programme and has


just written a book, The Enemy Within,


What is the evidence that Prevent has lost the confidence of the


Muslim community? Firstly, I have not been a long-standing critic of


the Prevent tragedy. I called a brave, dynamic and cutting edge when


it started in 2003 and when it was first published. The concern I have


is that over the years, you have to look at the way it is written as a


strategy. The iterations of it have changed. What started as a genuine


battle of ideas led by the community and prevention of people getting


into terrorism has ended up being a policy which has had concerns raised


from across the board. People like rights watch, Helena Kennedy,


Michael Mansfield, QC, the George Soros foundation, even David


Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has said


it is time to independently reviewed Prevent. But it has been reviewed a


lot. What is the evidence that it has lost the confidence of the


Muslim community? Like I said, there is a platter of reports in which


members of the Muslim community have given evidence. I can give you my


own evidence of people who are consistently bringing me up, parents


and teachers who are concerned about the level of training, the training


material, the people who are trained to train others, the number of


referrals, the opaqueness of all of this. Those of us who want Prevent


to work are saying it is time for an independent review. The fact that


the Government is digging its heels in, not prepared to have an


independent review, not putting into the public domain so much of what


could be contentious material and the opaqueness of the whole


strategy, I think is raising deep concerns. The president of the


national association of Muslim police said two years ago that


Prevent has moved on a lot. There were teething problems, but it is


moving in the right direction. Prevent has made a difference. We


have made a lot of progress. For every quote from someone who thinks


dock there are two sides to this. There are those who want to get rid


of Prevent. Others say it is working. The reality is somewhere in


the middle. Some bits of it have worked, others haven't. If I took


this as a very personal thing, it is up kind of thing where if I had


concerns about my children, I should be open to feel I could take them


there and it would not impact on them at their lives and we would get


genuine support. It is not that kind of place. It is not a space that


parents feel they can refer their children, and it should be. But some


are suspicious that Prevent is being undermined by a deliberate strategy


by reactionary forces in the Muslim community. I agree. There is


definitely a lobby out there which wants to do nothing but trash


Prevent. But the other side of the argument is that some believe that


if Prevent is such a great policy dock the Government has consistently


said it is a good policy. But it has openly said it doesn't apply in


Northern Ireland. There was a question in Parliament Ma Long ago


when a member of pollen said yes, but we were told that Prevent


doesn't apply to counterterrorism, it applies to Muslim communities.


But they have other programmes in Northern Ireland, as you know,


because similar issues have been a problem in Northern Ireland for


decades. And Prevent is seen as the golden standard. We are exported to


other parts of the world. Because there are these questions, the fact


that there is this debate, I am saying, let's have an independent


review of this. Let's have somebody like David Anderson, a well


respected lawyer, review all of this, somebody with expertise. And


let's have everybody who has concerns give evidence and hopefully


emerge from this with a stronger programme which a lot of us can


support. You write in your book that there is a disproportionate focus on


Islamist related terrorism. Why would there not be? Identical said


that. Have you read the book? I have just seen a summary. Well, I say in


the book that there is a policy at the moment which has a definition of


Islamist extremism which in my view and according to many other experts


is fundamentally flawed. But we don't have a definition of any other


form of extremism or terrorism. And if you look at the figures, you see


that these arguments, unfortunately, are far too complex to be dealt with


in a 32nd sound bite. It is why I wrote a book about it. But what is


not complex is that the overwhelming terror threat to us is Islamist.


That is a fact. So that is what we should be focusing on. We should be,


but if you look at the definition of Islamist extremism as it stands, we


are looking for the tell-tale signs of what makes a terrorist. The


tell-tale signs are anything from 15 to about 30. This is borne out by


the evidence of people who have studied the lives and profiles of


people who have been involved in terrorist attacks. And yet despite


these 15 to 30 tell-tale signs, government policy focuses on one.


That should worry us all, that we have a counterterrorism strategy


which follows a definition which doesn't encompass all the tell-tale


signs of what makes a terrorist. Do you think it was wrong for the


Government to want people to ascribe to British values? What I say about


British values is that it is a list which is reductive. We should be


talking about British ideals. What should Britain be in 2017? When we


talk about British values, and I unpick this again in the book, we


cite the values that we break in policy-making. I give example after


example of where we say "These are our values", but in policy-making,


we fail to follow those values. We need a much more honest debate about


what Britain wants to be in 2017. When we have had that debate and we


have a set of British ideals to which we can all sign up, that


includes government. If we say we believe in X, we should be doing X.


But is there not a continuing problem with the growing isolation


of some Muslim communities, parts of our cities, especially in the north,


which are now overwhelmingly Muslim and inward to interact purely within


themselves and are not integrated with the rest of society? One of the


things I explore is the diversity amongst British Muslim Awards. I


talk about how from ethnicity to theology to class to profession, to


the way in which they live and where they live, as Muslim communities, we


are so diverse. One of the things I argue for it to make sure that we


talk about Britain's Muslim communities, we don't see them as a


monolithic block. That is true. The Muslim community is more diverse


than the French community, which is overwhelmingly from north Africa.


But there are clearly problems of a lack of integration, and it is


getting worse. Some Muslim communities are increasingly


isolated from the rest of us. I talk about some Muslim communities which


believe in a separatist isolation. We have those amongst all


communities. We have a Orthodox Jewish community which lives in a


separatist way. But one of the things I go back to in this book is


that I have a frank conversation with Britain's Muslim communities. I


said to them, we are not terrorists. There are 3 million of us. If we


were, we would have killed everybody. But how are we fit for


purpose in Britain in 2017? And I challenge them to raise their game


to make sure we are part of a bigger community. We should always bear in


mind that integration is a middle-class pastime. You and I


don't have a problem with integration because we presumably


live in nice houses and send our kids to nice schools and probably go


to the same nice resorts on holidays. But if you're at the


bottom of the pile, it doesn't matter what colour or religion you


are, then unfortunately, integration is not the top of your priority


list, it is survival. We have to be careful to draw a distinction


between those communities that are deliberately choosing to live


separate lives, and those that live separate lives because they have no


choice. Because of economic circumstances. Your book is called


The Enemy Within. Now, despite the best attempts


of the Lib Dem leader Tim Farron to focus attention back


on to the UK's relationship with the EU, he's had a bruising


couple of days which have seen him face scrutiny over his views on gay


sex and sack a would-be MP over At PMQs, Theresa May blasted


the decision to allow David Ward to stand in his old constituency


of Bradford East when asked about it by ex-Bradford


councillor Sir Eric Pickles. The Prime Minister has shown


considerable leadership in adopting the IHRA


definition of anti-Semitism. Does she believe it's


the duty of all party leaders within this House,


not just to pay lip service to it, And does she share my


disgust that a former Affairs Select Committee


for his anti-Semitic utterances, is now the official


candidate in Bradford East? People will be, I think,


rightly, disappointed to see the Liberal Democrats readopt


a candidate with a questionable It is important that all parties


maintain the strongest possible censure on all forms of intolerance


and send that message Just hours after that broadside,


Mr Farron reversed the decision to let David Ward stand


for the party on June 8th, At one stage he said it was nothing


to do with him and he didn't want to interview but a few hours later he


described him as "unfit to represent the party."


that he was "stunned and somewhat ashamed of my own party".


You know, how do you stop the House of Commons raising issues of Israel?


Well, what you do is you make sure that supporters of the Palestinians


don't get into the House of Commons and ask awkward questions


and this is the strategy and it works, doesn't it?


To discuss this, we're joined by James Sorene,


who used to work for Nick Clegg and is now the CEO of


the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre.


David Ward said his sacking is designed to stop supporters of


Palestinians being elected, is he right nonsense. People in this


country have a rigorous debate about foreign policy issues, there are


lots of debates about Israel and the Palestinians and how to solve that


conflict. It is a smoke screen that is thrown up by people like David


Ward it make it seem like he is being silenced. If he wanted to


engage in a sensible debate about Israel and the Palestinians would've


been welcome to do so but what I did do was engage in a very dark side of


that kind of discussion which quickly trips into anti-Semitism. We


have mentioned the new definition of anti-Semitism talked about the


house, he pretty much ticked every box of the guidance notes of what


that definition is. So Mr Farron in your view was right to sack him? I


believe he was right. So what, in terms of the definition of


anti-Semitism, what is it that Mr Ward has said that was anti-Semitic


as opposed to being very strongly, perhaps virulently, anti-Israel? If


you look at the tweets he has written and the blogs, also that he


has written, he has various themes as caped of dangerous fantasy about


Israel no longer existing, or Israel not existing any more. He supported


Nsa Shah with a comment of Israelis being transferred to America and he


talked about things that is in the definition, that should be avoided.


He said if he lived in the Gaza strip he would fire rockets too. For


a British parliamentarian, it is stupid to say but is it anti


Semitic? I wouldn't think that was particularly anti-Semitic. He talks


about the apartheid state of Israel. To call it an apartheid state is a


long-standing Meme for anti-Israel but is it anti-itic as oi posed to


virulently anti-Israel. That particular comment may or may not


be. It depends on the context and what he is doing but if you look at


the to tality of his beliefs and what he said there are clear things


which are basically anti semitism, they are not having a sensible


debate about Israel and the Palestinians. My entire career is


based on sensible discussions about Israel and the Palestinians, what he


is doing is not that. What Tim Farron right to sack David Ward? He


was. I looked at some of the detailed stuff he said and what


David does is, he consistently confuses his very clear opposition


to the Israeli government... Which... Which I do all the time.


The current Israeli administration, I think lots of people within


Britain's Jewish communities would have concerns about the current


Israeli administration and he confuses that and a couple of


comments are about what he feels Jews are doing to Palestinians.


Interested you said, that I was looking through so. Things he said,


not all by any means a lot of what he said was, it seems to me, you are


clearly a real enemy of Israel but that may, that is not always the


same as being anti-Semitic but then I saw ones where he said "the Jews",


not Israel, he said "The Jews are inflicting atrocities on


Palestinians." I authority that may have been the, the use of "Jews." It


is an absolutely classic meme as you said of anti-Semite, that they will


talk about the Holocaust and talk about Israelis being like Nazis. It


is a classic, it is the most offensive thing you could possibly


do and you can talk about Israel, you can talk about all sort of


Middle East issues, you don't need to use Nazi imagery to make your


point and is clearly designed to be offensive, you are back in the Ken


Livingstone interview, by defending someone by talking about Hitler. It


is transparent and clear. It is like a dog whistle an air raid siren for


the followers, they know what is being talked about and they jump in


on it. James is right. I talk about these issues all the time. I say -


why would you even reach for the Holocaust or Hitler? How can they be


answers to what is happening in the Middle East. Interestingly, what


was, when Nas Shah said what she did and apologised. She said it was a


stupid car too, I shouldn't have put it out. And anyone coming out and


supporting a cartoon for which the original MP apologised for was a


daft thing to do. You said the British volunteer who is fight for


the Israeli Army should be treated as foreign fighters and prosecuted


on their return? No, what I have said if you are British and you want


it fight, you will fight for an army and fight for Britain only. It is a


very clear view I have. And that is whether you are British Pakistani,


British Indian, British Israeli, British whatever you may happen to


be. I think the law in this area is unclear. Should they be prosecuted,


so if you join the US Army or French for legion, if you come back you


should be prosecuted? This is the issue, at the moment the law is


unclear about who you join and which bit you join and how you are


prosecuted to how you come back. I think to clear it all up and to make


clear where you stand, if you are British, and you want to fight, you


fight for the British Armed Forces and you fight for no-one else. OK,


we'll leave it there. We asked David Ward to come on the programme but


declined. Parliament is shutting


up shop today. MPs and peers will not return


to their respective debating chambers until after the general


election on June 8th. But it will not be doing


so without ceremony. It's called prorogation and BBC


Parliament's Daniel Brittain went behind the scenes of the ceremony


in 2015 to explain The time of year when Parliament


is put into a deep sleep This time, though, there'll


be no fairy godmother Instead, with one stroke


of her wand, the wicked witch will dissolve them all next week


and the MPs will be sent into outer darkness,


or the election, as it's called. If you are looking for the heart


of the British constitution, then I think it's here


because sooner or later you're going to find yourself


in this hidden away coridor It leads to the Crown Office


and I think they keep it deliberately hidden away and it's


here that the final seal is put Within this office,


on instructions from the business managers of the House,


I will prepare this Royal Commission, it deals firstly


with the appointment of the Royal Commissioners


and will also give the commissioners or any three of them full power


and authority in our name to proroge This document will then go


to the Queen, she will sign the document at the top


at a Privy Council meeting which It'll then be returned


to me and will be dated, sealed with the great seal


of the realm. So it is literally signed,


sealed and delivered. Paperwork in place,


the show can begin. The peers are gathered


in the Chamber of the House of Lords and they despatch Black Rod off


to the Commons, collect the Commons, they bring them down here,


rabble from the Commons, they go into the Chamber


of the House of Lords and they meet Part of the ceremony of prorogation


is the giving of Royal Assent to those bills that await Royal


Assent and the Clerk of the Crown announces the title of each bill


and then I look at the Commons and use the words of Royal Assent


on behalf of the Queen. And that, of course,


is done in Norman French. That is to say - the Queen


wishes it and we go There are actually two variations


on that formula, one of which I shall be


using on this occasion. The longest is for what's called


supply bills which are effectively La Reyne remercie ses bons


sujets, accepte leur In other words, the Queen


thanks her good subjects, accepts their benevolence


and thus, wishes it so. Is it any different to ordinary


French, Norman French? I'm afraid I know no Norman French


other than the words that I thought you all went


around chatting in Norman At Her Majesty's command this


Royal Variety Performance is due As some would say -


La Reyne, le veult. And we're joined now


from Central Lobby by our Parliamentary Correspondent,


Sean Curran. We were going to conduct this


interview in Norman French but have run out of time N this wash-up


period, what has got through and what hasn't? . -- in this wash-up


period? What has the Government dropped because of time? The


northern Bill was rushed through. The Finance Bill, enacting Philip


Hammond's Budget and in the last couple of hours, a private member's


bill on the registration of Farriers looks like it'll make it on to the


statute Bill. The biggest casualty the Prison and Court Bill which will


overhaul the prison system in England and Wales. That is shelved


for now. Obviously if the Conservatives get back in, that


could be resurrected in the Queen's Speech. Parliamentary business lend


in a few hours' time. Parliament will be dissolved at one minute past


midnight on Wednesday. At that point there are no more MPs, all the


people who normally work here are ordinary citizens with no special


privileges. They will continue to get paid until polling day. That's


good to know. Thank you very much. The One O'Clock News is starting


over on BBC One now. I will be joined by Michael


Portillo, Alan Johnson, Giles Fraser, Helen Lewis,


John Nicolson, Sian Berry and Dustin Lance Black


on This Week from 11.45.


Download Subtitles