27/04/2016 Newsnight


Topics include Labour and anti-semitism, the future of South Yorkshire Police, public perceptions of Donald Trump and the potential for a Labour comeback in Scotland.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 27/04/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



I accept and understand that the words are used caused upset and hurt


to the Jewish community, and I deeply regret that. Anti-Semitism is


racism, full stop. less than four hours


after saying sorry. Labour is struggling to deal


with the charge that it has Liverpool commemorates the loss


of life at Hillsborough. South Yorkshire's chief


constable is out. Where has trust in the police gone,


and how do they get it back? And, the effects


of a President Trump? Candidate Trump has given his first,


serious foreign policy speech: My foreign policy will always put


the interests of the American people and American security above all


else. It has to be first. It has to be.


A promising young Labour MP, Naz Shah, suspended from the party


for comments she put on social media about Israel.


In some, she gleefully suggested the solution to the Israel-Palestine


problem was for Israel to be moved into the United States.


She apologised for those and other remarks today,


it seemed that was enough to satisfy Jeremy Corbyn.


and the eventual decision to suspend her,


are a sign of Labour's sensitivity to the charge


An accusation that has been gathering traction in recent weeks.


Fighting for equality and fairness and justice. Not only here, just


inbred food, but across the world, and in particular, for Palestine and


Kashmir. VOICEOVER: Less than one year ago, Naz Shah set out her pitch


on election night, it is comments she made about Israel and the


Palestinians before being elected that have today seen her suspended


from Labour. The Jewish are rallying, she wrote in one Post, she


likened Israel to Nazi Germany, in another, and suggested the implied


transportation of Israelis Jewish to America. How offensive are these


comments? Newsnight spotted one of the same posts in the comments left


by the public on the page of another Labour MP. That was two years ago.


When we pointed out to miss mood, it was deleted almost immediately. --


Miss Mahmood. Yesterday, Naz Shah, who had posted the comment herself,


resigned as aide to John Madonna, he had made a point of how


anti-Semitism should be treated by the Labour Party. If people have


express those views, there is no role for them in the party, I would


like them out for life. Spike meeting Jeremy Corbyn this morning,


Naz Shah had not been suspended from the party, instead, Jeremy Corbyn


issued a statement, appearing to draw a line under the matter. What


Naz Shah did was offensive and unacceptable, I have spoken with her


and made this clear... Not good enough for the Shadow


Cabinet minister. -- this. We have a policy in the Labour Party that


people who make anti-Semitic remarks are suspended and an investigation


is carried out, I have made clear to the leader 's office my view that


this policy should be followed without exception. All of this


allowing David Cameron to pile on the pressure at prime ministers


questions today. The fact that frankly we have a Labour member of


Parliament with the Labour whip who made remarks about the


transportation of people from Israel to America, and talked about a


solution, and is still in receipt of the Labour whip is quite


extraordinary. Naz Shah later apologised. I accept and understand


that the words are used caused upset, and hurt, to the Jewish


community, and I deeply regret that. Then, another twist. Labour


announced that she would be suspended, and investigated, after


all. The honourable lady has spoken... The problem is that the


Labour leadership are facing in terms of allegations of


anti-Semitism do not just boil down to a lack of decisiveness, it is


more than that, Labour MPs say that it is about their leader, Jeremy


Corbyn, and whether he has the sincerity to really tackle this as


an issue. This leader of a Blairite group


inside Labour says that the party has a problem, and the leadership is


too hesitant. I love the Labour Party and it does great things but


there is sadly a problem and too many instances through to former


candidates, chairs of parties, although way through now, where


people think that it is acceptable to say these things and what has


been sad is the response has not been what we should have expected


and quite frankly it has not been the response that it would have been


of any other racism. Over the past few months, a number of Labour


councillors have been suspended over what appears to be anti-Semitic


results, -- remarks. The chair of the University Labour club has


stepped down, his reasoning: the Labour Party is increasingly


feeling like somewhere that is not a natural home for Jewish people in


the UK, what troubles me is that Jeremy Corbyn, as leader of the


party, has not adequately dealt with these problems. This Labour MP


thinks that the comments by Naz Shah are the latest to cross the line


from acceptable criticism of Israel, which is not anti-Semitic, into


something more troubling. Criticism of Israel is personally justified,


like any other country can be criticised, I have done a good deal


of criticism of it myself, is ready policies. The way in which she put


forward her remarks, the outburst, given the history of the Jewish


people, it is totally unacceptable. She has apologised and says she


understands the harm and the hurt that has been done as a result of


these remarks. Newsnight has learned that Labour is now working on a


proactive package on anti-Semitism, including news new ways for Jewish


Mahmut Ozen become more actively involved in the party. That might be


easier said than done. One backbench Labour MP has told the programme


that they are worried that a tsunami of anti-Semitism has been joined up


-- has joined up, emboldened by Jeremy Corbyn's past associations


with people who are anti-Semitic and critical of Israel.


A lot of questions are being asked about Labour, and there is a debate


among those in the Jewish community as to how serious it is.


I'm joined by two prominent members of that community now.


From Tel Aviv, Lord Levy, the Labour Peer and former Chief


and in the studio with me, Rabbi and Baroness Julia Neuberger.


Does Labour have a problem with anti-Semitism? Yes, in a word, that


is not to say that other parties have not had problems, or that it is


not elsewhere, but Labour has a particular problem, a particular


problem at the moment, this Naz Shah case illustrates that, and more than


anything else, the Oxford University Labour club. You are a crossbench


peer. You are not a member of Labour. I was a Lib Dem peer, I have


been a crossbench peer the five-year is, I was brought up in the Labour


Party, true, my parents would be turning in their graves. Lord Levy,


how serious a problem do you think that Labour has in this regard?


Well, unfortunately, I have to say that I think that it is a serious


problem. The lack of sensitivity when a member of Parliament talks


about transportation of the largest Jewish community in the world... I


think it just shows such ignorance. The comments, the Twitter posts that


she made an Adolf Hitler... I begin to scratch my head in despair as to


how people like this can enter our Parliament with such a lack of


knowledge, discretion, such a lack of sensitivity. Julia just said that


she does not believe that this is restricted to the Labour Party comic


yes, the Labour Party is coming under a microscope at the moment. --


Julia just said she did not believe that this is restricted to the


Labour Party, yes. Every party needs to put anti-Semitism on their agenda


and make sure that it is eradicated, that there is zero tolerance of


anti-Semitism right across the political spectrum. I'm not quite


clear, are you saying Labour has a worse problem than other parties or


that all parties are equally bad in this regard? You heard what Julia


had said, when she was a member of the Liberal Democrats, she knows


what some of the members of that party have said. When I went into


the House of Lords, as I have said before, I was told that those on the


Tory benches said, who is the Jewish lad brought into the house now?


There are definite issues of anti-Semitism across the political


spectrum. At this moment in time, I have to say it seems more prominent


within the Labour Party, and it is absolutely crucial that the


leadership of the party stamp this out. And for once and for all, and


our system needs to deal with it, because there can be criticism of


the state of Israel but anti-Semitism, using the word


Zionist as another form of anti-Semitism, frankly that can no


longer be tolerated. How specific do you think it is to Labour? Do you


agree with Lord Levy? At the moment it is much more specific to Labour,


it is attached to the Jeremy Corbyn becoming leader, and therefore,


old... For those of us old enough to remember Militant, it existed there,


it is an issue with the hard left and in particular a criticism of


Israel, and I suspect that peoples whose views would not have been


acceptable in the Labour Party have rejoined or they have joined, and I


think we have seen that. In a way it is a problem of the left, what you


might call the hard left, they have a much harder line on Israel, the


state of Israel, and Palestine. Specifically, yes, at the moment,


that is where it comes, also seems to be the case with student


politics, and this awful use of... Have you seen this?... The use of


zio zio as a term of abuse, to Jewish students. It is easy to band


about these claims. You just disagree with them, easy insult,


does that happen? Of course, and it has happened on many occasions, I


ought to lay on the line, this is the first time I have gone seriously


public saying that there is a real problem of anti-Semitism, I have


often said when people have cried anti-Semitism, you know what, I am


not sure... But this time I'm absolutely sure, it is a concerted


thing, lots of different places at the same time. Let's talk about how


the party is dealing with it, Lord Levy, do you think that Jeremy


Corbyn, the senior party officials, have taken this problem seriously


enough, for your satisfaction? I think that it has taken too long for


them to have taken this action. Somehow, they just at the beginning,


there has been talk of a statement being changed. One statement made,


and then action taken thereafter. I think that this must be dealt with


in almost eight proactive way, so that members of the party, and


anyone associated with the Labour Party coming out with this sort of


anti-Semitic verbiage, it cannot be tolerated. But you know, Julia just


said, about her position on anti-Semitism, I have always taken


that you, I had my office in the Foreign Office, the Foreign Office,


-- Foreign Commonwealth Office, for ten years, I never thought that


there were anti-Semitic people in the cupboard, but we must look at


this very carefully, with great respect to Julia, if we just look at


the situation and say that it is from the left and not on the far


right as well, then I think that is being somewhat naive. Every party


needs to look very carefully in their cupboards as to what is going


on on anti-Semitism at the moment. You know, it is very difficult...


For a very small community in our country. We need to work closely


with the Muslim community, we need to work closely with all


communities, there needs to be an understanding of what our


differences are, there needs to be an understanding of what is going on


in the Middle East. There needs to be an education process as to what


is happening. I think that is crucial. Thank you very much. Last


one, there will be people watching, they say that this gets used as a


cover to close down discussion, legitimate discussion, about the


state of Israel and its policies, how does Jeremy Corbyn, who feel


strongly on that issue, how does he steer the line between eradicating


anti-Semitism but opening the discussion to Israel? It has to be


legitimate to criticise Israel, as it is possible to criticise any


other country but look at the way language is used, when the word


Zionist is used, instead of the word Jewish, and you began to talk about


conspiracies, that is not about Israel, that is about Jewish people,


that is when you have two pick it up and run with it. Quite a lot of


criticism of Israel is also anti-Semitic, I must say, but there


is a particular strand going on at the moment. -- have to. That is why


I disagree with Michael, there is anti-Semitism on the right, in the


middle, and on the left. This particular anti-Semitism that is


going on at the moment is a conflation of using the word Zionist


to mean Jewish, to begin talking about some kind of Zionist


conspiracy, which is loyal, and in praise of Hitler... That really is


very shocking! Naz Shah was not the only high


profile suspension today. The chief constable


of South Yorkshire Richard Crompton was cast aside by the Police


and Crime Commissioner there in the wake of


the Hillsborough inquest verdict. Because trust in the police


force was fading, It came shortly before


the commemoration in Huge crowds at St George's Square,


it was an emotional occasion. When we were sitting in that court


these past two tears and listening to the same lies to blame our fans,


the system itself, the police force of South Yorkshire to be ashamed of


themselves and hang their heads. it was perhaps important to be seen


to act ahead of this. Now the police were


still the subject of public anger at the fact


that the Hillsborough inquest had taken two years, which was


blamed on the police Andy Burnham made the point


on our programme last night, and expanded on it


in the commons today. Mr Speaker let me be clear, I don't


blame the orderly police officers, the men and women who did their very


best on that day and who today are out there keeping our streets safe.


But I do blame their leadership and culture which seems rotten to the


core. How much more evidence do we need before we act?


South Yorkshire may have had more than its fair share of problems,


but the police nationally have faced criticism after criticism -


where do you start in listing all the problems, from Jean Charles


de Menezes to the original hacking investigation to Operation Midland.


I'm joined by the former Minister for policing,


Damian Green, and from Liverpool by Elkan Abrahamson,


lead solicitor for 20 of the families involved


It's been quite a day, or two days for those families, how much


difference do you think that the Chief Constable makes? Will this


suspension solve the problems of South Yorkshire Police? I don't


think it will, it's a welcome first step and we hope it will be followed


not by scapegoating him but by examining his conduct whether it


amounts to misconduct and what steps should be taken. But also by


examining the culture of the force and considering if special measures


should be taken to ensure South Yorkshire Police adopt a more


ethical policy of conducting the way they do their business. At heart


what do you think because of the problem is, is it a culture problem


at the heart of the police in your view? I think there is a culture


problem in any large organisation whether it be the police, the army


or private companies. We see again and again the reluctance of people


at the top these organisations to admit to their faults, whether those


are criminal or otherwise. We also see again and again that those


companies that do accept their responsibility when they do


something wrong are the quickest to change the culture within their


organisation. And encourage those lower down in the company to act


ethically. I think that is the main problem with the police but as I


say, not just the police. Damian Green, did you find when you were


responsible for the police a particular resistance to recognising


when they had got something wrong, trying instead to cover it up and be


defensive? They were defensive but I agree that many other organisations


are defensive as well and we should not forget that confidence in the


police is quite high. Compare to other institutions. Is it? Yell yes.


Clearly it is not in Liverpool for reasons which are terribly obvious


but puttable do still have a high level of trust in the police. What


has happened and one of the reasons the police are better than they used


to be, you now have someone who can hold the police to account,


introducing things like the College of policing to improve


professionalism, all of that is good and make things better but I


absolutely agree that one thing you can do, but in the long and much


more deeply what you need to do is change the culture. But why is the


culture so hard, so resistance to change in the police? It does seem


very difficult to get mistakes properly analysed like they would in


the aviation industry for example, how do you get that culture into the


police? Some of it, we as citizens expect the police to do difficult


and dangerous things every day and to get them to do that they need to


develop a huge esprit de corps, the act collectively. At the margin that


can go over into it is us against the world, we will defend each other


whatever. Trying to create a culture of whistle-blowing in that kind of


institution is very difficult. Elkan, some people have called for


the disbanding of South Yorkshire Police and the police and crime


commission said he did not know what that would mean because you cannot


cause the police down in South Yorkshire. What do people mean when


they say we should disband it and would that make sense as a solution


to the culture problem you have spoken about? It would be possible


in theory to merge two forces but whether that would be a solution or


not is impossible to say at this stage. What I am asking the Home


Secretary to consider is special measures which would require an


examination as to whether there are special steps which need to be taken


because there is not enough legitimacy responsibility at the


top. I don't know if that is definitely the case or not but


perhaps an enquiry by the Home Office would reveal that. And can I


just pick up the point about the problem the police have with, to use


the phrase esprit de corps, it's right that the more difficult and


dangerous the job the more an organisation has two encourage its


members to protect themselves but that should not become what may. We


need people to understand the ethics that they should adopt wherever they


are. Police forces have a code of ethics and have had for several


years and it need to be at every level so people accept that


responsibility. Last one for you Damian, to the police make more


mistakes than they should? A large organisation will make a lot of


mistakes, statistically... It is more than 100,000 people doing a


very difficult job. It is just that a lot of what they do is so


sensitive that when they make mistakes terrible things can happen,


as happened there. I agree about the code of ethics, this is something


you introduced a few years ago, you might have assumed there had always


been a code of ethics but there hasn't been. Making that an


instinctive part of the culture so that everyone in the police service


lives and breathes a code of ethics, that is the long-term aim. Thank you


both very much. We did ask to speak to both


and to the South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner


Donald Trump has called himself the Republican


And he is not being that presumptious in


The bookies have put an 83% chance of him


Now, while Mr Trump has been a phenomenal campaigner and a good


laugh along the way, even his best friends would concede


that he hasn't always looked Presidential.


So today was a very big moment in his campaign,


He gave a foreign policy speech without any of that


"who'll pay for the wall?" rhetoric;


it was his statement of what he calls an "America First"


foreign policy, with lots of implications for us all.


We'll discuss those shortly, but first Mark Urban looks


We have all heard Donald Trump on the stump, uncompromising and at


times outrageous. Total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the


United States. I am going to build a wall and Mexico will pay for it.


When was the last time anybody saw us feeding, let's say, China. We are


going to have our borders nice and strong, we are going to build the


wall. Would I approve water boarding? You bet your as I would. I


would knock the hell out of Isis, you have to take out their families.


When did we feed Japan? But with delegates priming up in one primary


after another it was Jane Fonda gear change, from the contender talking


to the Republican base to the nominee apparent addressing the


wider American public. So today we got a detailed foreign policy


speech, it was scripted unlike some of his off the calf campaign marks


and the tone was softer than before as well. At the under lying message


was the same, an assertion of American exceptionalism. My foreign


policy will always put the interests of the American people and American


security above all else. It has to be first. It has to be. He roundly


attacked President Obama's Iran nuclear dear, what many think is his


biggest foreign policy achievement. We have a president who dislikes our


friends and bones to our enemies, something we have never seen before


in the history of our country. He negotiated a disastrous deal with


Iran and then we watched them ignore its terms even before the ink was


dry will stop Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, cannot be


allowed, remember that, cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.


Letting the militaries ball to rack and ruin, he promised to restore its


relevance. There would be much more spending on defence and a warning to


allies in Europe that scene is expected of them. Our allies must


contribute towards their financial, political and human costs, they have


to do it, of our tremendous security burden. But many of them are simply


not doing so. The countries we are defending must pay for the cost its


defence and if not the United States must be prepared to let these


countries defend themselves. We have no choice. What is all this hardware


for? Restoring American power and global onslaught against a radical


Islam he said. Nato would be welcome he said to join in that effort and


encountering migrants. But should steer wheel clear of going up


against Russia as President Trump would be negotiating our resected


inhalations with them as part of his vision for foreign policy. We will


no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of


globalism. The nation state remains the true foundation for happiness


and harmony. I am sceptical of international unions that tie us up


and bring America down. Trump instils joy among


some, strikes the fear And others simply say they don't


know what he believes, Let's ask which is


the right view of him.. I'm joined from Washington


by Edward Luttwak, a historian and political scientist,


and by David Frum, who was a speechwriter


for George W Bush. Edouard, is there a Donald Trump


that is not as crazy as some people say he is? The Donald Trump that


exists exists in the United States of America. He talks about a wall on


the border of Mexico and in fact under the Obama administration a lot


of money has been spent on a fence along the Mexican border. He talks


about not giving a Visa to people from Muslim countries, or elsewhere


and under the Obama administration entering the United States for


people holding passports from the Muslim countries, and recently with


the restriction on the Visa waiver programme, British people who have


travelled to Muslim countries are no longer Visa free. In other words


they are caught between the existing Obama and the existing Donald Trump,


the gap is far narrower than you might imagine. Look at what he says


about immigration and so on, or Bama's record in the number of


deportations and so it goes. Equally, in regard to getting the


situation of course with spending and Nato is that Nato where only 2%


criteria which is half the Cold War spending. Nobody is spending 2%, web


hello, including Britain, yet they still pretend to set up the table


and pronounce... We will come back to that. Let me put this point to


David Frum, two day definitely he looked a little more serious and a


bit more presidential and that was partly the decor but do you think


there is a serious Donald Trump trying to get out of the comedy


Donald Trump we have seen in the campaign?


did not try very hard to make sense, Donald Trump began with one


paragraph he said that we are going to drop allies, as allies who do not


pay, and then in the next paragraph he complained that America buzz


allies see the country as unreliable. Perhaps they see it as


that because of the thing you said just one paragraph previous(!) the


speech did not try to make sense, but there was something serious at


work, something disquieting, politico Europe reported that in the


front row of the talk, not a big talk, not a big room, Russian


ambassador. We know that the Kremlin has made big attempted penetrate


Democrats that all systems, the Front National in France, the


national front in the UK, also persistent rumours of involvement


with the Scottish Nationalist... We cannot go into any of that, because


we do not know what the financing is but... The point is... Yes,


something with Russia... A little bit more than a rapprochement with


Russia, it is an open door, look at the advisers of Donald Trump, look


at some of the most important people in his operation, this is beginning


to look like something that a lot of French people, German people,


British people would recognise as uncomfortable. Edward, on that


specifically, a kind of warmer, reaching out to Vladimir Putin, good


or bad? Again, maybe good, maybe terrible, but if you were to go and


ask the normal foreign policy experts, the people in my line of


business, talk with former senior ambassadors, at the highest level,


all of them believe that the United States as to improve relations with


Russia. There is talk about reviving an algorithm society, and because of


the notion of hostility to Russia is only affected in the degree that you


can actually stop Russia. -- Elbe River Society. If there was a


willingness in Nato, among members, Italy, France, Britain, Germany, to


send trips to the Ukraine, in the United States could be there and


confront Russia, if you cannot confront Russia, because of the


American position, or the Allied position, then you should improve


relations with Moscow. There is a consensus, go to the Council for


foreign relations, that is exactly what they say. Let me put that point


to David, it sounds like Europe should be quite worried by Donald


Trump, threatening Nato, obviously taking a different attitude towards


Russia, is that the right leading of what we heard today? -- right


reading. Europe should be worried not because of what Donald Trump is


saying but Europe should be worried because the likeliest outcome of


this Donald Trump candidacy and nomination, a historic collapse in


Republican strength. We are looking at the high likelihood of a Clinton


presidency, you will not find that uncomfortable, but major Democratic


gains in the Senate and possibly the house as well, congressional


Democrats are well to the left of where a Clinton presidency would be,


from trade to giving support on the migration measures, that Britain


desperately needs to take. You may find that there is a second order of


the trump candidacy, that you are facing a United States less


sympathetic and understanding to the problems of Europe than the historic


norm, which has prevailed between the two continents. Inky very much


indeed. -- thank you very much indeed.


You don't need to be a psephologist to notice that politics


Fights within big parties; smaller parties exerting huge influence.


And huge regional and national variations.


Scottish politics is in a very different place to that of England


and Wales for example, we'll probably get more evidence


of that in the Scottish election, a week tomorrow.


Psephologist John Curtice has been struck by the changes


VOICEOVER: The question that Labour MPs at Westminster will be asking


themselves when they see the results of the local and devolved elections


on May the 5th, what do they tell them about Labour's prospects for


winning an election under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership in 2020? In so


doing, they are in danger of making a big mistake, the truth is, British


politics is dead. No longer is electoral success confined to


parties like Labour and the Conservatives, who fight elections


on a Britain wide basis. Party support no longer necessarily moves


in the same direction, across the country. The issues that mattered


the most two voters have diverged. Scotland's links with British


politics were already weakened, by the failure of the Conservatives


north of the border to make any significant recovery from the slump


in their support and representation back in 1997. Then in last year 's


general election, Labour suffered a historic collapse in support. Now,


the key test that Labour MPs say Jeremy Corbyn must pass is the


restoration of Labour's dire position in Scotland, on May five.


Things are going really well. There is now fundamental differences


between elections in Scotland and those in England and Wales. The


electoral scene in Scotland is now dominated by the SNP, a party that


does not even contest elections south of the border. The


Nationalists provide virtually all of Scotland's MPs at Westminster,


which means Labour and the Conservatives are effectively only


English and Welsh parties. So, the outcome in last year 's general


election in Scotland was in truth completely different from that in


England and Wales, in Scotland, the Labour vote collapsed, whereas


Labour actually gained some ground in England and Wales. Equally, the


Conservative vote in Scotland, already unbelievably low, fell yet


further, to a new record low, whereas in England and Wales, again,


the party was making progress. Here is very clear evidence that the


fortunes of Labour, the fortunes of the Conservatives, can be very


different in Scotland from what they are in either England or Wales, the


only similarity that Scotland now enjoys with England and Wales is the


rather sad fate of the Liberal Democrats, now a very small party in


Scotland, much as is true in England and Wales. The issue that now above


all divides voters in Scotland is the independence question, an issue


that is peripheral to voters in England and Wales. If we look at


what happened in last year 's general election, around 85 to 90%


of those people who had voted yes to independence in September 2014 in


the referendum held then went on to reaffirm their faith by voting for


the SNP, whereas only around 15 to 20% of those that voted no to


independence were willing to buck to the Nationalists. This is a


constitutional question, that is now at the heart of the Scottish


electoral politics, whereas in England and Wales, it hardly figures


at all. The polls in Scotland have not moved


forward it is, indeed not four months. As a result, it looks as


though Labour could do at least as badly on May the 5th as they did 12


months ago. The truth is, for voters in Scotland, it is independence that


matters. Not what they think of Jeremy Corbyn.


STUDIO: John Curtice's view of our non-national politics.


Let's stay in Scotland; the leader of the Labour party there has


all the challenges set out in John's piece.


The rug pulled from under the party by the SNP.


The election will be a test for Kezia Dugdale, who has


been in charge of Labour there since last summer.


Some have speculated on whether the party could even


Isn't it the case that the referendum changed the way that


elections are framed in Scotland, and the key divined is either


whether you are for independence or the union? The trouble was that


Labour did not see this coming. That is fundamentally correct, what you


have said, Scottish politics has completely changed since the


referendum, the Labour Party must change with it, that is what I have


done as the labour of the Scottish Labour Party, tried to renew a sense


of who we are and what we stand for, what I'm trying to do, it is


important and quite brave, to appeal to people who voted both yes and no,


because I believe it is a dark day, dark future for Scotland, if how we


vote in the general election, even for your local councillor, is


defined by what you did on one day in September in 2014. You can say


that the way that people voted for years and years and years, they


voted time and again for Labour. The problem is, Labour did not


understand over the years, Labour talked about evolution killing


nationalism stone dead, arrogant and lazy, and it was not true. That was


one voice, George Robertson, he make the case, the rest of the Labour


Party was making the case for devolution, more power from London


to Edinburgh. Ends must change. We are talking about my leadership, the


time that I have been in charge, I am responding to the worst general


election results almost possible in the Scottish election last year,


going from 41 MPs down to one MP. But what we have now is eight


prospectus for change, policy platform which is about ending


austerity. Is it about realism, one political commentator at the weekend


talked about she said that she is so relentlessly upbeat it is troubling,


that you are like a puppy that does not see the bus coming, you are not


going to win. What drives me out of my bed every day is tackling poverty


and inequality, and opposition I can deliver some of that, but I can


transform that country from a position of power. I will not give


that up. You are set to lose 20 seats, by the latest polls, the


lowest standing since devolution, that would be, surely it is going to


take a lot more than just the same old same old, to win a Scottish


electorate, which in the moment has got its head. I do not accept those


numbers, when they run the numbers, they produce different results, I


intend to campaign with every last breath over this next week or so to


make the case for why people should vote Labour. You say same old same


old, this election is very different, it is the Labour Party,


the only party that is able to say that we have an anti-steroid to


pledge. Our tax proposals, raising enough revenue to stop the cuts,


one-year ago, Nicola Sturgeon was the one saying that she was the


anti-austerities champion, who was going to tax the rich, now she's


supports austerity and refuses to tax it. The problem with the tax


plans, they are not about taxing the rich, it is a penny in income tax


which hits taxpayers over 20,000 a year, last time that was put


forward, John Smith, 1993, Shadow Chancellor, it is suggested that is


what lost the election. We live in different time, people in Scotland


desperately wants to stop the cuts and end austerity, we have a


platform for that. When you look at the opinion polls you have just


cited, three show overwhelming support for our tax proposals, the


BBC's own poll, the number one most popular policy was the 50p tax, and


then income tax. It is Labour plans to stop the cuts which are proving


most popular in this election.


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Evan Davis. Topics include Labour and anti-semitism, the future of South Yorkshire Police, public perceptions of Donald Trump and the potential for a Labour comeback in Scotland.

Download Subtitles