06/06/2017 Newsnight

There's one day of campaigning left in an election dominated by two

terrorist attacks in the space of two weeks.

We now know the identity of all three London Bridge killers.

What does who they were tell us about how well protected we are?

In the case of Youssef Zaghba there are questions about why if the

Italian authorities were worried about him going to Syria to fight

that the information was not passed on and if it was, it was not dealt

with more efficiently. We hear from a former head

of Prevent at the Foreign office about the Government's

anti-radicalisation strategy. Undoubtedly there is a branding

problem, the brand of the Prevent strategy has become tarnished. We've

had cases where teachers or those working in the NHS are not willing

to be involved. Tonight, Theresa May says

she will consider changing human rights law to restrict the freedom

of movement of suspected militants. If our human rights laws stop us

doing it we will change them so we can do it.

We put that to the Shadow Attorney General and a former

The polls have shown a race that's been tightening.

The seat in the north of this town is one that the Labour

and Conservative parties both really want to win.

I think it's a definite choice for people to choose either

I mean, the old way has not been doing too well.

Stephen Bush looks at who and what shaped his politics as a young man.

And the Home Secretary had to reply to attacks on the police, like this

If this Government can find time and money, apparently,

to appease the police, how is it they have not found

the time to do anything to bring about democratic control

We begin tonight's extended programme here in London on the day

we learned the name of the third London Bridge attacker.

He was Youssef Zaghba, an Italian national of Moroccan

His background is different again to the two killers we already know.

As the Prime Minister announces tonight that a Tory government

would consider amending human rights law to restrict the freedom

and movement of terrorist suspects, we examine the depth and breadth

of the terror threat and how to counter it.

First, with what we know so far about the attackers,

here's our Diplomatic Editor, Mark Urban.

For the police and MI5, the three perpetrators

are worthy of study, not least in understanding how

Today the authorities confirmed the identity of Youssef Zaghba.

Of Moroccan and Italian parentage, he lived in Bologna before

TRANSLATION: He went to London to go back. Here there is not anything, he

went to work. At least that is what he said. In March of last year the

Italian authorities had stopped Youssef Zaghba using a one-way air

to Turkey and they believed he was about to join the jihad in Syria.

The Italian said that they told Britain. The UK authorities say that

he was not a subject of interest. We see this a lot where one agency has

the intelligence and it says we passed it to our partner agency but

obviously a lot of these organisations rely on liaison

officers to do this. And quite often sometimes the liaison officer will

not have done it all it has not been put on the right system. And

troubling new facts have emerged about Khuram Butt also. Pakistani

born but raised in this country, he had long associated with the

Al-Muhajiroun militant group featuring in a documentary on them.

But it also became clear today that he had threatened summer Hassan last

July in a park. He you work for Quilliam, used by Muslims and

government money to work against Muslims. How dare you come to a

Muslim event, you are an apostate. All very aggressive. And very

threatening. Because in the mind of extremists, if you declare a Muslim

and nonbeliever then there is an automatic death penalty in their

mind. It is a well-known technique of intimidation. A scuffle resulted

and Khuram Butt received a police caution after Doctor Hassan reported

him. I said in my professional judgment he is part of the network

which is openly pro-Islamic state in the UK. And the threat to national

security. But -- Khuram Butt had been the subject of interest but his

status had been downgraded because it was not thought to be involved in

any active plots. The type of judgment that MI5 guy monitoring

3000 suspects, must constantly make. Some of these people come from

backgrounds where they had long-standing patterns of

Association with radical networks, a history of radical activism. One of

the individuals in this plot, Khuram Butt for example, fits into bad

character and personality type. But in other cases people come from a

completely fresh background without ever having been known to the

authorities. The third London Bridge killer, Rachid Redouane, fits into

that last category. He was not on the radar. Libyan and Moroccan, 30

he was the oldest of group. This afternoon police raided this address

in Ilford in east London. They remove some items, part of the

search to map the relationship of the suspects with one another and

the wider militant network in the capital. Three men with quite

different backgrounds. Inevitably some of the questions in this

investigation will become central to planning how to prevent similar

actions in the future. How did they meet if it was not online or at a

mosque. What was the basis of the relationship between the men. And

when exactly did they form the intention for this joint enterprise

of murder on London Bridge. Certainly it is plausible and likely

that an attack of this kind could be put together in a matter of hours

because it uses everyday items, a rented van, knives are no sense of

building an explosive device or doing something that would require a

lot of planning and reconnaissance. This is very instantaneous and easy,

a dumbed down form of terrorism. Those are now investigate and would

try to stop another attack has found a disparate group of fanatics armed

with everyday objects. It is a fearsome challenge for anyone to

stop. Over the past few weeks,

there have been repeated questions around the Government's Prevent

strategy - designed to stop Our reporter Richard Watson has been

speaking to a former head This is a time of difficult

questions for the police and MI5. Absolutely. The Italian attacker was

on the radar in Italy and so the focus will be what specific

information was given to British authorities. We know from yesterday

that the first attacker to be identified, Khuram Butt, was on the

radar as well. He was investigated themes and even featured in a

Channel 4 documentary. So he had strong links with Al-Muhajiroun. In

a rare interview I spoke to the former head of the Prevent strategy,

a man called Arthur Snell and he spent his career in government

counter terrorism circles. This is what he said.

I think, you know, that situation, somebody who has, as you say,

has appeared in a TV documentary almost sort of celebrating his own

kind of hardline views and hardline status.

But I would go back to the point that you've got 500 active

investigations, 3000 people being looked at.

Now, in the case of Khuram Butt, what we must assume is the police

took a look at him, and the police and other authorities drew

a conclusion at that time that he wasn't planning

What does this say about prevent? Most people accept there was some

serious problems in the early days of the Prevent strategy. There was a

lot of money around, and in some cases money was given to people with

ultraconservative views quite inappropriately. I spoke to Arthur

Snell and he accepts the argument but says beyond that the core

activity of the Prevent strategy needs to continue.

Undoubtedly a branding problem, you know.

The brand of Prevent has become tarnished for various reasons.

We've seen cases where, for example, teachers or people working

in the NHS are very unwilling to be involved.

But if we ask, what is the point of Prevent?

The point of Prevent is to stop people from becoming

terrorists in the first place, to address the underlying

causes that drag people into terrorist activity.

That is an important activity for the Government,

and it has never been more important than the time we are in now.

If Prevent needs to be rebranded, I don't have any problem with that.

Is there an issue now of the direction of travel of the

government anti-terrorism strategy? Get them early on ordeal -- ordeal

with extremists? This has been under debate for more than a decade, do

you focus just on violent extremists or do bogus as well on the so-called

non-violent extremists, people with ultraconservative views which may be

unpalatable but do not breach the law. That question is very tricky.

The live music seems to be moving towards tackling extremism now,

non-violent extremism but there are risks to that. If you effectively

alienate a large section of your Muslim population then the damage

the flow of community intelligence and so some people think you need to

look more structured questions such as how to give these young people

avenues to success so that they do not otherwise have those. But

critics could say that could be a 20 year plan.

Let's drill down now into one question -

how should terrorists who fit the profile of Kaurem Butt,

a man known to the authorities, who could be said to be hiding

As we now know, Khuram Butt was on the radar of the security

services well in advance of the London Bridge attack,

As we now know, Khuram Butt was on the radar of the security

but was still able to carry out his murderous rampage.

So, what type of reform should we be looking

at across a range of areas to prevent known troublemakers

from planning and executing further deadly attacks?

We asked four experts for their thoughts.

As Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation throughout

the period of control orders, I saw how effective they were.

They relocated people from the people with

They put controls on their use of computers and mobile telephony,

they enabled the authorities to know exactly what they were doing.

They worked, and I believe they saved many lives.

Khuram Butt should have been subject to something like a control order.

If he'd been under a control order, he would not have done

what he did, and probably the others wouldn't, either.

We know that at least one of the London Bridge attackers had

been watching extremist videos on YouTube, and, you know,

this follows so many concerns about the way in which it's

incredibly easy to access content about how to make a nail bomb,

how to commit an attack, it's so easy to access that content

The US tech companies have got to start taking action.

That means aggressively and proactively taking down content,

and it means hiring enough people that they can respond to complaints

The threat that we are facing here is low-tech terrorism.

It's a bunch of guys in someone's front room making a plot,

arming themselves with kitchen knives and then going on the street

We mustn't forget that the 20/7 attackers were identified

by a community officer who dealt with a simple dispute

on Oxford Street that led to their identification

And that is the value of community police officers.

And they're the ones suffering from these cuts.

As a community organiser, I feel that we need a third option.

One that can be used by families and communities to engage

with people who are vulnerable to radicalisation, before a formal

However, the current political climate doesn't allow for that

Also, we need the reassurance that information and intelligence

provided by communities will be taken seriously and be acted upon.

Let's pick up on one of those points there -

do the authorities have the powers they need to tackle extremism?

It would appear that Theresa May, a former Home Secretary,

At a rally tonight, she indicated she would be prepared to change some

human rights laws to bear down harder on the terror threat.

I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport

foreign terrorist suspects back to their own country.

And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom of movement of terrorist

suspects when we have enough evidence to know they are a threat,

but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full import.

And if our human rights laws stop us from doing it,

we'll change the laws so we can do it.

We did ask to speak to the Government tonight,

Joining me now - for Labour, Shami Chakrabarti,

the Shadow Attorney General, and Dominic Grieve, the former

Conservative Attorney General and Chair of the Intelligence

Good evening to both of you. Shami Chakrabarti, you could be Attorney

General in two days' time if the authorities came to you and said, we

need to make an alteration to the human rights law so that we can

exclude more easily or crack down on them, would you deny it? Our

commitment is to deal with terror suspects within the rule of law,

including the human rights. It is interesting, this is a familiar knee

jerk of Theresa May that we have heard before. A few years ago she

was talking about caps. Now she has gone for an anti-human rights dog

whistle. A few days earlier when she was standing in Downing Street, she

said that terrorists are against human rights and we are going to

protect our liberal society. There is no detail from Theresa May this

evening. You are confident that the Human Rights Act is sufficient to

the task? We will always listen to whatever the security agencies say

that they need. But we are confident that we can provide any new powers

that are truly necessary and proportionate within the human

rights framework and within the rule of law. Clearly something is not

working. You agree that the atmosphere has changed, two terror

attacks in two weeks proceeded by Westminster, it is a different

atmosphere and different climate. People want to know that everything

in the Government's armoury is being used. Perhaps that armoury isn't

right? We are concerned about the armoury, our biggest concern is

about resources. Everything I've heard from your clips this evening

and everything that I've heard from the agencies themselves in recent

weeks suggests that cuts for example in the number of police officers,

cuts to the Borders agency, austerity, it is a potential problem

and we are committed to making that the priority. You have a situation

where you have heard Lord Carlile say tonight that actually control

orders are what we need back. Lord Carlile and I have debated control

orders on your programme over the years and we have disagreed. If

there is a need for any new powers to monitor suspects who are not yet

able to be charged, we are convinced that could be dealt with within the

criminal justice system and not as an extra justice system measure like

control orders. We have said, Jeremy Corbyn has said even this evening

that he will look at the law. But the primary focus that we are making

is resources. If you have an extremist in your midst, you know

for example somebody like Khuram Butt is in your midst but there is

not enough to prosecute him but actually you want to detain and

restrain him in some weight and you don't have the powers to do so just

now, but keeping him off the streets is the main thing to do, you would

look at a new law? We will always keep the law under review. At the

moment we are convinced that with additional weasels is we can deal

with these people within the rule of law. Is Shami Chakrabarti right,

there is no need for any movement on the Human Rights Act? Certainly the

architecture that we have of human rights allows the derogation. There

is no difficulty derogating if you can show it is necessary and

proportionate to do so. The Prime Minister is therefore absolutely

right when she says that within the structures of our easy HR

obligations, we could, if necessary, for example, if we felt it was

vital, detain people without trial. Whether it would be a good thing to

do it or not is another matter, but the powers do exist to allow that to

happen. She is actually not saying anything new tonight at all, that is

not the way she is putting it out first book that is not what I

understood her today, and I was present when she spoke. She was

going to review the legal framework and see what areas it would be

improved, that is compatible with our human rights obligations and

from my point of view it is a common-sense thing to do. It seems

we are in familiar territory in one way. Actually when she was talking

about before about social care, would that all would then not be a

cap, that was the same story just a different form of language. You seem

to be saying the same about this. This is clearly what you are saying

tonight. We need to alter the law in some way to increase the possibility

of fibre restraint or exclusion, we will look at that. Dominic Grieve,

you or a lawyer, you know she was saying something different. I

understood she wanted to review the law in terms of restricting people's

liberty if there was evidence which could not be produced in court but

there was intelligence evidence. Yes, it can be looked at further.

80p, which we have at the moment, could be changed or improved. There

are only seven restrictions at the moment. History has shown that they

and control orders may have a limited use. That is not a reason

why you shouldn't go away and look at them again. That is a sensible

reaction by Government, and not one with which I have any difficulty.

You are saying two days before an election, you have been on this

programme many times arguing it against 90 days, arguing against 42

days, arguing against control orders. You have always been the one

to say that the law as it exists just now is sufficient to the tasks.

You must be crossing your fingers. Not at all, I am always want to

argue against gimmicks, absolutely. And given three does creep in

because people feel that they have got to do something. But in fairness

to the Prime Minister, if you listen to what she had to say this evening,

reviewing how T -- Howell Tpims operate... She was saying

amendments. Amending Tpims is perfectly reasonable, it can be done

within the framework of our human rights obligations without any real

difficulty of the situation warrants it. I don't have a problem with

that. Clearly the detail will have to be looked that, but she is not

wrong to raise such an issue. Two days before an election?

Unfortunately these events have taken place four days before an

election, we have to live with the consequences of that. We can't just

ignore it and say, we will come back to it on Saturday. That is

unreasonable for the opposition by Government. Thank you both very

much. Hello, good evening

from Walsall's New Art Gallery, here in the crucial political

battleground of the West Midlands. The second last day

of the election campaign is over. We'll hear the views

of our own focus group in Walsall, and we'll have a profile

of Jeremy Corbyn, the man who is Well, because this may prove to be

an important signifier of the direction Britain is taking

on Thursday night. That's because one way of describing

the traditional election map of England is that Labour

own the north, the Tories own the south, and the Midlands

is a swing region that holds the balance of power

and decides who runs A caricature, but one

with a grain of truth in it. Now, that old order -

that election map may be challenged on Thursday,

but it is still interesting to look at this campaign

from the perspective of a West Midlands marginal seat,

and I'm sitting in one here. Walsall North is number 23

on the Tory target list. It is one the party needs to win

if Theresa May is to get a substantial majority,

the kind of majority that justifies her decision

to call the election. It is also the kind of seat

she wants to win, because she wants to reach out to the parts of Britain

the Tories have struggled to reach - places like this, with

the characteristic industrial Here in Walsall, they've got a dry

saying about the place. But international competition has

made life more difficult and it is still one of the more

deprived constituencies Today, nearly a fifth

of the constituents receive some That's almost double

the national average. David Winnick is up early

looking for Labour votes. This has long been

natural Labour territory. David Winnick captured

the seat for Labour in 1979. But the old order is under

challenge, and he is now defending Two years ago, he got 39% of

the vote to the Conservatives' 33%. But this seat is one where Ukip's

strong showing last time can shape If just half of those

defect to the Tories, That's the outcome that

Theresa May was hoping So, is that what will

happen on Thursday? Well, we'll come back

to Walsall in a minute. But, the penultimate day

of the campaign is over. Nick Watt, our Political Editor,

has been notching up the miles during the last few weeks,

and is with me now. Almost there, Nick! What is the

feeling, particularly in the Tory camp at the moment? There are some

pretty nervous and some pretty angry ministers. One minister told me,

Theresa May has had the worst imaginable campaign and her stock

has absolutely plummeted. There is furious about U-turn on social care,

and also the less than sort of Sunni approach of this Tory campaign. A

minister told me, this whole campaign has gone sour. They think

they are going to win, but not win as emphatically as they had hoped,

and the blame is being laid squarely at the door of the Prime Minister's

joint chiefs of staff, Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill. We all here in

Walsall, I have been up in the North East looking at another seat that

the Tories would dearly love to win. Here is my report.

At last, our strong and stable Prime Minister has located...

Theresa May briefly took up residence in a sturdy stable to

deliver her main campaign message of the day.

The clear choice for people is, who do they trust to get the best

Who has got the will, who has got the plan

for those Brexit negotiations, because they start only 11 days

after polling day, and they are the basis of everything else.

A big focus on Brexit could only mean the

We were told at the beginning of this campaign that

it would be a presidential tour by Theresa May,

with you only playing a

Now, with 48 hours to go and after a faltering campaign by

Theresa May, you are playing a prominent role.

So is the Prime Minister is so alarmed by the

success of Jeremy Corbyn, the man you described as a mugwump,

I think wholly accurately, by the way!

Is she hoping that the Boris Johnson Heineken effect is going to reach

out to voters in parts of this country where she is struggling?

Nick, I have been engaging with you, with the voters in this country,

But the point is, there is one choice for people on Thursday.

It boils down to a clear and simple choice between a

strong and determined woman in the form of Theresa May,

who in my view has a fantastic plan for Brexit, and

understands we need to take this country forward.

And Jeremy Corbyn, who is at very best weak and

So Boris Johnson travelled to the North East seat of

To deliver an impassioned speech about the dangers

A month ago, Newsnight launched its general election

Corbyn-mania had yet to sweep into one working men's club.

He's stronger, he has come back and he is

So he is coming round, he has two days to go.

So, Danny, I saw you a month ago at the beginning of the campaign. I'm

wondering, one month on, have you changed your views at all? No,

definitely not. It's nice to see you again. It's nice for you to come and

see us for the feedback. But definitely not. Theresa May had high

hopes of capturing this rock-solid Labour seat at the start of the

election campaign. One month on there are some signs that Jeremy

Corbyn's successful campaign is paying dividends. But there are

natural supporters who simply will not support him. Over in the rule

all Tory supporting area of the constituency, there is support for

Theresa May, although her campaign slips have been noticed. What do you

think of Theresa May's campaign? Well, she's basically spoilt it when

she did the U-turn. She was going all right until Ben. Well, I did

like Theresa May very much. But I think she's been very indecisive

over a lot of things. I just don't know. The Prime Minister of the

United Kingdom, Theresa May. The feel of Theresa May's campaign early

in the day gave way to a more energetic rally tonight in the

gritty surroundings of Slough, the final stretch in which our leader's

feat for barely touch the ground. It has been a strange election -

to me, it feels as though the important debates about Brexit

and the overall direction of And now we know they have to finish

by this time tomorrow. And to get a taste of how all this

has played with voters in this marginal seat,

we convened a panel A small focus group of people

who have been Labour or Tory, or undecided

between Labour and Tory. Ipsos Mori selected

the panel for us, and, as this is a Labour seat,

there is a tilt towards Labour in the numbers,

but Tories and undecideds I looked back on the campaign

with the panel, to gauge their views on some of the key moments

and themes. Thank you for coming and let's talk

about the election campaign and which bits made an impression on due

and which have not. And where you think he is. -- made an impression

on you. To start with security and terror which has dominated sadly

much of the campaign. Samantha, has that effect it for you your view of

the political parties, you're thinking about this election? It has

not changed my thoughts on the political parties, it has remained

the same as before. It has made the undecided because I want to feel

safe on the streets, I want my children to be safe and then

obviously my children will have children. As it is now I am

uncertain, I feel we are on site. -- I feel we are on say. We'll bring

the perpetrators of the attacks but is anywhere else you blame, people

you think of lead the country down? -- we will blame. Personally I think

the government has let us down. It seems to be dividing communities. We

are supposed to be multicultural and we are on paper but we are not. All

the communities are separate. If you're not together there will never

be peace. I think security is let us down as well. They knew one of them,

in the London terrorist attack that carried out the attack. They could

have done something earlier and they did not. Has that affected your

thinking about the political parties? I think that it has. I

think Theresa May, I do not think she is doing herself any favours

with the things she has said. She said things previously about the

police that they are bringing back but I do not think that is helping

her at the moment. Thinking back to the Manchester or London attack, is

that anyone who comes to mind you think captured the moment, who spoke

the nation? Who gave the impression of leadership on the issue? I think

Jeremy Corbyn did quite well with what he had to say. I think what I

do -- I think we need more police on the streets. They have been reduced

and local police station has been shut down. If we have an emergency,

we're waiting half an hour, and are for something to be done. One of the

things often said about voters and terror attacks, is when you're

thinking about security they tend perhaps to think in more

conservative, right wing ways. For health that is more left. Both --

but if anyone who has felt more inclined to vote Conservative as a

result of what has happened in this campaign? Heads shaking. How many

would say you feel more inclined to vote for Labour as a result of the

terror attacks? Several of you. I would like to talk about leadership

because that has been quite a big issue in the campaign, both parties

made something of that. Who would like to say what the Tories slogan

was relating to leadership in the earlier part of the campaign. If I

say there was a three word slogan they were using a lot? Strong and

stable. How many of you recognise those words is being used by the

Conservative Party? Did you hear them repeating that a lot because

people used to said they only had three words. They were saying that

often. I never heard anyone say something so often. I'm tired of

seeing Theresa May, she's always there. Strong and stable. OK, I get

it. I think the Jeremy Corbyn one stands out more. For the many and

not the few. How many of you know that phrase, for the many, not the

few? That one was getting a bit battered. How many of you think that

strong and stable is a good way to describe Theresa May? How many of

you do not think strong and stable is a good way of describing Theresa

May? A couple of abstentions. Why were you laughing when I said strong

and stable? Were not strong and stable with Theresa May because of

the policing cuts. I think that is the number-1 issue. We cannot be

strong and stable without police and we are not secure. We need to

prevent these attacks from happening. None of you thought

Theresa May represents and stability? You were not persuaded by

the slogan? I have never seen anyone so weak and feeble in my life. I

didn't think she was quite clever to be asking for this election because

she thought she was in a very strong position to win. But as the time has

gone on I think she could have shot herself in the foot. What has she

shot herself in the foot on? The series of events with the terrorism

things, the policing, the things that she is saying and all that

about dementia and people's homes to pay for their care. I do not think

that helped her. That has overshot the campaign. How many of you have

seen your opinion of Theresa May go up during this election campaign?

None of you. How many of you think your opinion of her has gone down

during the election campaign? What about Jeremy Corbyn, has your

opinion of Jeremy Corbyn gone up during the campaign? You're putting

your hand up tentatively. I would not stay up or down, I am undecided

about him in general. But it has not gone. How many dig your opinion of

him has gone down during the campaign? None of you. I'm going to

weed out some words and I want you to shout simultaneously. Shout the

name Jeremy Corbyn or Theresa May. Which one looks more confident?

Jeremy Corbyn. More prime Mysterio? Jeremy Corbyn. More serious? Theresa

May. More confident? Jeremy Corbyn. More compassionate? Jeremy Corbyn.

So you are entering Jeremy Corbyn to most of those questions. -- you are

answering. I want to ask you a question to finish, the choice you

are facing, you have expressed the view that it comes down to Labour or

Tory. Other parties would beg to differ I know. How many of you think

that the choice you have this time is a good choice? I've -- but it is

a good election with a fair selection of candidates. How many of

you think oh my goodness it is a dilemma, you are picking the least

bad rather than the most good? Just go round on whether it is an

election we are picking a good one or a least bad one? You have to go

with what is important to you. So the policies that Jeremy has and

Theresa May has come at you go with which our most important to you

overall. How do you think you will go? Undecided. I was going to vote

Tory but as Theresa May has gone a long her campaign has kind of weak

and whereas I have seen Jeremy Corbyn get stronger. That has made

me weep a bit. So I am a bit undecided. Mark, to have the last

word! I am sitting on the fence. From what I've heard, I think it is

going more towards the Labour Party. Roy, you were a Labour voter, do you

think that this is an election where it is a choice or a dilemma, is it

about the best or the least bad? I think is a different choice, between

a new weight or an old way. The old way has not been doing so well so

let us try the new way. I think the Labour Party are setting out the

things that are important to most people, the NHS, education,

policing. A better choice than last time when it was David Cameron or Ed

Miliband? Definitely, much better. A really good election with a clear

choice, Jeremy Corbyn all the way and a lot of optimism here and

exciting times it hopefully he gets in. Tory voter lifetime, where are

you now? Still undecided. The last time when it was David Cameron and

Ed Miliband it was a clear choice because Cameron was the stronger

leader. But this time, I am going to wait until Thursday I think. Just

choose the last minute. Quite a few undecideds. You have not got long.

On paper I do not think any of them are standout leaders. Not like

Barack Obama, you think he is a leader. How do you think you will

go? I would rather not say. You see Jeremy Corbyn

getting a relatively warm reception in that group -

is that the prevalent view in places like this,

or was the panel untypical? You never know until

the day, do you? Well, here in Walsall's

New Art Gallery with me are Andrew Mitchell,

who has been the MP for Sutton Coldfield since 2001

and is the former Secretary of State Liam Byrne has been the MP

for Birmingham Hodge Hill since 2004, and was a member

of the Shadow Front Bench Andrew Mitchell, do you agree with

those other senior colleagues, that this has been a terrible Tory

campaign? This is my ninth general election as a Parliamentary

candidate and I have never known any of those elections not experience

quite a lot of turbulence in the Conservative Party and this is no

exception. But over the past month I have been in a number of targeted

and marginal seats across the Midlands. I think it was never as

good for the Conservative Party as at the beginning, I do not think it

is as bad as some media are suggesting it is now. I think on the

ground there is a different battle going on to the battle going on in

the national media. You say you have done nine, can you think of a worse

Conservative campaign than this? I think there have always been

difficulties with campaign. I'm not going to do that. I think they have

always been difficulties. But on the doorstep I think a lot of the media

froth that characterises the national campaign is not bear and I

think people across the Midlands are making up their minds who they want

to deal with Brexit and who they think will run the economy best

after the general election is over. Liam Byrne, what is your critique of

the Tory campaign? I think it has been interesting, Theresa May went

into the election thinking it was a con election. She wanted to make the

pitch to hire me as your chief negotiator but that has not worked

because people already have factored in Brexit and they want to move

beyond it. So the election has been revealed actually as I change

election. And Labour have put some bold offers on the table, around 6%

increase in public spending and that has resonated. People do not want

more of the same. At the beginning it was thought that this could

redraw the map and bring the Tories back into blue-collar areas, destroy

Ukip, replace Labour as a party of aspiration and the working class. In

your opinion is that happening or basically is it retreating to the

traditional two parties? I think is retreating to the traditional

2-party election but that is not inconsistent with some of the points

we made about the collapse of Ukip and so on. But I think the media set

of very low bar for Jeremy Corbyn. He has had a good election campaign,

to be fair. But as he goes blasting up the arterial roads of Britain

lobbing 50-pound notes at every interest group that there is, I

think here in the Midlands on the doorsteps the reaction I'm getting,

people are suspicious of that. They do not think there is a magic cure

and I think it will come down to those two points I made at the

start, Brexit and the economy. In focus group Brexit, they did not

know enough about the different pitches for that to be decisive. But

to talk about vulnerabilities of the quadrant campaign and money.

Starting with money because you the guy who wrote the famous note about

the money that the money running out. Do you think people will buy

the pain of idea that you can raise public spending by five, 10%, and

not notice or find any, that you are paying for?

Is Labour being honest? Look, the costed programme is about ?48.6

billion, 80% of that money would come from Corporation Tax going back

up, the financial transaction tax. The experts said that that will have

costs, it will feed through to prices, wages, shareholders,

pensions. The figures that have been put on the table are the best

available. The key thing is that the spending plans, it is about a 6%

increase in public spending, are matched by the tax plans, which are

seen as fair. Theresa May's problem is that she went into this election

without having a pre-election budget. Her manifesto has unravelled

very quickly because there are no numbers to go with it. The other

vulnerability is that everybody in the Parliamentary party, most of

them, voted that they have no confidence in the guide, including

yourself. We're not talking about ancient history, it's less than a

year ago that you said I have no confidence in the sky. Do you now

have confidence in him? This is not a presidential election. Do you have

confidence in him or not Brazil and I am voting for him, so I do have

confidence in him. We have put together a plan which has united

what is a broad church in the Labour Party. You must have either been

wrong one year ago when you said you had no-confidence in him, or not

have confidence in him now. There is a logic in that. I'm not avoiding

the question. The key thing that has changed from one year ago is that

one plant has been put on the table which has been drawn from all parts

of the Labour Party, the broad church of the Labour movement. It is

a very different proposition. Do you think the Tories underestimated

Jeremy Corbyn at the beginning of this campaign? The media set a low

bar. I have never underestimated Jeremy Corbyn, I have worked with

him in parliament and probably know him better than many parliamentary

colleagues. Liem is existing wished former businessman and he will know

that you cannot -- is a distinguished former businessman.

You cannot get all of this money by just taxing the 5%. On the doorsteps

in the Midlands, people's eyes have narrowed and I believe they will

vote for the Conservative Party on Thursday. Thank you both very much.

You can find a full list of the candidates from both the Walsall

constituencies on the BBC website. You probably know the old saying

that you never get a second chance Well, maybe Jeremy Corbyn has belied

that particular claim. For many people, first impressions

of him were drawn from his apparent reluctance to sing the national

anthem back in 2015 just after becoming Labour leader -

a moment that had Tory But in this campaign,

many people have evidently come His approval ratings

have improved markedly. Which is interesting,

as he has of course been We asked Stephen Bush,

a special correspondent at the New Statesman magazine,

and the journalist who perhaps before anyone else recognised that

Mr Corbyn was going to be Labour leader, to make a film for us

offering us his account Jeremy Corbyn comes from a place

unlike any other Labour leader. He leads a party where his own MPs

have voted against him twice. He's abandoned everything history

tells us Labour must do to win. Yet, the more the country has seen

of him in this campaign, the more his appeal has

seemed to grow. So what have we all missed

about the Corbyn project? By day, he's fighting to change

the Labour Party and campaigning. By evening, he is fighting

to change the Labour It is in effect not just

the end of Blairism, It is the end of an entire moment

in British politics. His appeal is too wide

and too deep to be ignored. Corbyn was born in 1949,

and grew up in the small Shropshire Other Labour leaders

from comfortable upbringings, like Clement Attlee and Tony Blair,

discovered their ideals But Jeremy Corbyn emerged almost

fully formed from his upbringing I am from a working-class part

of London, he is a very And what struck me, he'd

had quite a privileged He didn't have things

of the inner-city. But that is what he wanted

for everyone else. His parents, David and Naomi,

had met while campaigning for the Republicans

during the Spanish Civil War. David was an official in the local

Labour Party, and Corbyn joined The young Jeremy was often

tasked with connecting But it was at home where his

politics were shaped. There was an atmosphere both

in my house and indeed in Jeremy's house of the parents

and the youngsters talking together quite seriously about politics

and being taken seriously, Their first campaign

was the 1964 election, when Harold Wilson ended 13

years of Conservative rule. We did do things together,

fundraising, it was in a marginal constituency and it was worth

getting out on the streets for. And that's what every party wants

to know from its canvassers. It wants to pinpoint its supporters

and make sure that it can get everyone to the polls

on October 15th. He left his traditional school

with only two E grades at A-level, In an early example of activism,

he had refused to join the school's Conscientious objectors like Corbyn

were instead allowed to mow We had a little room

where we could disappear when we had done all the jobs

and make ourselves a cup of tea. Because it was a time of great

political discussion. But Vietnam, combined

with Wilson's failure to really transform Britain,

meant many on the left By the time Corbyn moved

to London in the 1970s, To fix Labour, its members needed

to take over the party. To fight the leadership

at every level. On everything from foreign policy

to management of policing. And the Home Secretary had to reply

to attacks on the police, like this If this government can find time

and money, apparently, to appease the police,

how is it they have not found the time to do anything to bring

about democratic control You have to remember that

on the left, at end of the 1970s, our most important campaign

was the campaign for And the point about the campaign

for Labour Party democracy was that it placed the most value

on members and members That is why today I think

Jeremy thinks, correctly, that his legitimacy comes

from the fact that so many people If you want to understand

Jeremy Corbyn's professional life, you have to understand this

particular patch of From Haringey to Hornsey

to Islington, he's always been more of a movement man

than a professional politician. As a union organiser in Haringey,

then a councillor in Hornsey, and finally in 1983,

a safe seat in Islington North, his career covers the entirety

of the Labour movement. His guiding principle

in all these roles - Jeremy sees himself first

and foremost accountable to the mass And much less so to

the Parliamentary Labour Party. And he sees them as having been over

the last two years, awkward, difficult, trying to undermine him,

trying to obstruct what he has You have just seen the new Labour

Party of Neil Kinnock. Glossy brochures, glossy

words, glossy images. It all looks very comfortable

and cosy, doesn't it? But when you look behind all

the rosy covers, what do you find? Jeremy Corbyn, Labour candidate

for Islington North. Defeat of the Tory government

will be brought about by a series of disputes of which Parliament

is only a part. The quote the Tories picked

out was very important. Corbyn does see Westminster as only

one front in a much bigger fight These positions were

a gift to the Tories. This is Valerie Furness,

Labour candidate for Nuneaton. A Labour government has got to take

on the people who obstruct it, Somebody said, oh, Val,

you're on the television. And that is when I

first saw the poster. You know, I was on a

poster with my friends. Even in the febrile 1980s,

Corbyn and his allies They believed in stronger trade

unions, significant redistribution, and that power was won not just

in Westminster, but on the streets. Their associations too

offended Middle England. Corbyn embraced Martin McGuinness

when he was still a pariah, and he campaigned for those

convicted wrongly of pub bombings. Critics saw him as an

advocate for the IRA. It didn't work in 1987,

those people got elected. It didn't work, the Guildford four

were exonerated along And there was a peace

agreement in Ireland. Mrs Thatcher is now edging towards

an overall majority of 100... The problem for Corbyn

was, in the late 1980s, the country and the Labour Party

thought he was wrong. And it is going to be

a record-breaking night. Three victories running

for the Prime Minister... The Parliamentary Labour Party

concluded, for Labour to ever win again, it had

to bury its Corbynite elements. In 1996, Tony Blair joked

about the very idea of a Corbyn leadership, saying you really don't

have to worry about Jeremy Corbyn And in the resulting battle

for the party's soul, We have been elected as New Labour

and we will govern as New Labour. Jeremy Corbyn has always

wanted one thing, which is And if you think of it in terms

of who your opponents and who your enemies are,

for Jeremy Corbyn Theresa His political enemies

are in the Labour Party. People like me, people

like Tony Blair, and it is Blairism. Just like after Harold Wilson,

Corbynism was born out of disillusionment with

the Labour government. After the party's second defeat

in 2015, changes to the party's rules for electing its leader,

intended to revive the party's I thought he had no chance

of winning in May 2015. But convinced myself

and others that if he fought a good populist campaign,

he could get a decent And use it to start building

what he has always wanted, which is an extra-parliamentary mass

movement of progressive people. Under Corbyn, Labour

membership has surged. And the Corbynites believe that

a large base will keep the party on the left,

preventing the compromises A Labour Party which was out

of power but purged New Labour members and New Labour

influence is the ambition Power is a by-product,

because if you go to the root of what is supporters always talk

about, it is always framed in terms Moving the terms on which

we consider things in. All radical parties aim to change

the language of politics. Clement Attlee in 1945,

Margaret Thatcher in 1979. The Corbyn project aims

to shift the debate, too. And this partly explains

their defensiveness with the press. If you want to try and get good

coverage, you want to try and get a page lead in the Daily Mail,

page lead in The Sun, and work with the press,

first of all you genuinely have to compromise on your policies

and your politics. And, secondly, come a general

election, as they did to Ed Miliband, they just throw

the kitchen sink at you. So that compromise isn't

worth it in the long one. Let's be clear that it's been

very hard for him to get over a lot of the media,

all through the time Now it's a general election,

and there has got to be some sort of fairness in the media,

even from the BBC. he is getting it over,

he is getting it over. Any rise in support may be

because Corbyn has compromised. Where once he railed

against appeasing the police, he is now a loud defender

of the Met. He abandoned decades

of Euroscepticism to hold onto the leadership,

and then switched back once Both those choices

will form key planks To remain in charge,

no matter the result on Thursday. A lot depends on June the 8th,

but I think if he does better than Ed Miliband in terms

of the vote share, then he would be well within his rights

to stay on as leader. Having had only two years to try

and change the Labour Party. Labour's performance in recent polls

suggests that aim might be achieved. to restructure Labour so party

members pull the strings, for policy to be made

by the grassroots, For Labour to remain

firmly on the left. That would all but guarantee

Corbynism endures, through this Matthew Parris will be profiling

Theresa May in tomorrow's programme. Two days to the vote, and this

election has not been leading news bulletins today, as other grave

matters have been concerned with. One day to go. Do they think there

is much that can happen in the last day? This campaign will go American

tomorrow, as the two candidates rack up a lot of miles as they travel

across Great Britain. The interesting thing about this

campaign is that it is going to test the idea that election campaigns to

not have much of an impact in the result. In the Labour Party they are

upbeat about the campaign but cautious about the result. They have

to get out young voters, as we were saying earlier. The Tory campaign,

senior figures are nervous and not happy about that campaign. Whatever

the result, come Friday morning, I think the British political

landscape will look different. Thanks, Nick.

Thank you to the art museum for hosting us. I will be in Bolton

tomorrow for the day before the vote. We will be in the place where

Theresa May picked off her campaign. Another of our election guides. What

is the fundamental choice you are making? See you tomorrow. Good

night. Elections are sometimes a fight

between tribes. Workers versus capitalists, unions versus

nationalists, taxpayers versus welcome their recipients. Drivers

versus cyclists. -- welfare recipients. Elections are often a

fight between who is on top and who gets more of the pie. Not this one,

though. Both the Conservatives and Labour fought to be on the same

side, fighting for the same people. They are not fighting for those at

the bottom. Neither side is making generous promises on welfare.

Certainly they are not fighting for those at the top. This is a bad

election for fat cats. Nobody is even paying lip service to trickle

down economics these days. Everybody is fighting for the same ordinary

working families. It is the lower middle that is moving up the

political charts. With the main parties agreeing wombat, the choice

comes down to this. Labour say the Tories don't mean it, they revert to

type. A Tory leopard can't change its spots. The Tories say Labour

cannot deliver, they will screw up. The Conservatives do socialism

better than Labour ever can. That's this election - Paul Lawrie

insincerity versus Labour incompetence, which is the greater

risk? -- Tory insincerity. If you don't like ordinary working

families, you'd best sit this one out.