06/02/2018 Newsnight

Just when they thought

the world economy was safe...

Stock markets have tumbled

and bond markets too.

Is it time to hide under

the blanket again?

We are told rising interest rates

are causing the commotion, but rates

are still at incredibly low levels.

Imagine how difficult things

will be when they go

back to the old normal.

We'll discuss with a pair of doctor

doom economists who both say

they predicted the last crash.

You'll have heard much this week

about women getting the vote

a hundred years ago.

Not so much about the working class

men getting the vote

at the same time.

We'll ask if the fight for class

justice has been eclipsed

by other cultural battles.

And meet the member of the Germany's

far right AfD party...

who's converted to Islam.

Yes, I was born three months ago.

I am Ahmed.

This is your new name?

Correct.

Ahmed.

Ahmed Wagner.

Ahmed Wagner.

Hello.

The FTSE was down 2.5% today,

that's hardly a crash and certainly

nothing to compare

to recent fluctuations

in the price of bitcoin.

But it still wipes 50

billion off its value.

And it came as turmoil in the US

sent markets see-sawing too -

finally closing an hour

and a half ago around 2% up

on yesterday's record fall.

Although the day ended more

positively than it began there's no

doubt that this has been

a wobbly few days.

So, how worried should you be?

The basic explanation of

the volatility is interest rates -

rates potentially going up faster

than expected makes profits

harder to earn, and shares

relatively less attractive.

And the good news spin

is that higher rates

are the result of growth,

so these are problems of success.

Which is all reassuring.

But there's a bigger

way of looking at this:

that this is a turning point.

We had a crash ten years ago;

we still haven't got back to normal

and this kind of disruption is just

a starter as to what

to expect as we do.

The banking crisis of ten years ago

has spread across the West and was

like in a comic heart attack -- and

was like an economic heart attack,

leaving banks slow to lend so

companies couldn't get credit to pay

for new investment and too many

households were stranded with big

debts and couldn't afford to spend.

Across the West, grows inevitably

slowed.

For the time being at least,

the nice decade is behind us. The

credit cycle has turned.

Central

banks had to step up to stop the

economy is falling down even

further, printing money and slashing

interest rates to nearly zero. In

normal times with everything under

control and inflation low, you might

expect the main interest rates to be

about 5%. That is the UK historic

average but for the best part of a

decade the West has got used to

rates at or below 1%. Time after

time people prematurely predicted

that growth would return and rates

would rise.

It would not seem

unreasonable to me to expect that

once monetary policy normalisation

begins, interest rates would proceed

slowly and rise to a level in the

medium term that's perhaps about

half as high as historic averages.

In fact the year's recovery was

slow, economies were lacklustre and

rates stayed low. Now, solid growth

looks to have returned by the

looming question is how we get back

to normal. Everybody has got used to

easy money.

to normal. Everybody has got used to

easy money. The US Federal bank has

started normalising rates but they

are still only 1.5%. The expected

path is for three quarter point rise

is for a year but this isn't an

path is for three quarter point rise

is for a year but this isn't an

exact science. And for investors who

famously vulnerable to overreacting

to everything, small changes to the

expected trajectory of rates can

make a big difference to the value

of bonds or shares. The path into

the era of low rates was

unprecedented and the path out of it

is also uncharted. Who knows how

painful it may turn out to be?

So what should we expect next -

and what does all of this mean

for finance ministers,

investors and for the

likes of me and you?

Gillian Tett is the managing editor

of the Financial Times

and joins us from New York.

Ann Pettifor is an economist

who for a while was an advisor

on financial matters

to Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party.

Good evening to you both. How

worried should we be, Gillian?

Well,

in the short term, moderately

uneasy, not too panic stricken but

in the long term we should be

concerned because there is a big

dislocation in the global economy

and we need to address them.

Expand

on that, what are we talking about?

Very simply, there is too much debt,

there is 40% more debt per GDP in

the global system than there was a

decade ago just before the crash and

the only reason we haven't noticed

it is because interest rates are

very low. The question is what will

happen when interest rates go up.

Indeed so. Ann, how worried should

we be?

We should be very worried

because we have a new crowd at the

Fed who want to raise rates and

tighten monetary policy which

represents a big shift from what

we've been through over the last ten

years.

You agree that this is a

transition, a turning point?

It's a

turning point and I'm not sure

they'll get it right.

It's very hard

to get it right but Ann you accept

that they can't sit around, in the

UK it is half a percent and the US,

1.5%, should they sit around?

No,

our point is that the economic model

out of the crisis is deeply flawed,

it is about injecting trillions of

dollars into the financial system

come into markets and property, bond

markets, and at the same time

imposing austerity. The model has

not led to recovery and in fact I

would disagree, we aren't really

seeing growth, we are seeing a

little uptick in wages here and

there but actually we aren't even

seeing real inflation in the US. My

worry is that we are shifting into

the mode of tightening monetary

policy while there is massive fiscal

expansion by the club

administration.

So this is another

false alarm where people are seeing

rates going up but not the real

recovery we need?

There isn't a real

recovery so we have to be careful.

Wary about raising. On that point,

Gillian, do you believe the global

economy has turned around to mark

most of the world is enjoying what

would be regarded as OK growth.

I'd

be a bit more optimistic than Ann in

terms of their being growth going on

but the problem, the image use is

that you have a financial system

before 2007 that was addicted to

cheap private-sector debt, heroin if

you like, we were weaned off that by

becoming addicted to morphine,

government help and what we are

seeing is an explosion in government

borrowing around the world which

will eventually create problems.

What has rocked the markets over the

last few days in America has been a

very funky project linked to

something that is complicated, I

went to describe it -- I won't

describe it, it is like the

sub-prime mortgages of a decade ago

but it is the symptom of the

problems in the system as people

have responded to free money from

the central banks by doing some

weird things to try and get yields

and returns and that eventually

comes back to bite everybody.

Are

you saying that you can't raise the

rates now because in many respects

this is a problem of the methadone,

whatever the drug substitute is? It

is the withdrawal from that that is

the problem but you do want to get

people off it, right?

I couldn't

agree more, I am in the cab of

people who say that we should have

started the withdrawal process a bit

earlier and there is going to be

inevitable lurches like this as the

system goes through withdrawal.

That's part of the process. I'd

argue that the Fed and other central

banks must press ahead with what has

been a pretty rocky ride so far.

If

we've seen any growth, as Gillian

has suggested, it is because last

year the central banks pumped in $3

trillion. When the economy is meant

to be recovering they had to pump in

$3 trillion of liquidity to keep it

alive.

The growth of debt and

pumping it up but you can't have

growth without that and you can't do

it for ever.

Exactly come at the

point is that there is something

wrong with the actual model is the

problem and the colour mists haven't

come up with a solution to the

crisis that was caused in 2007 and

what's going to happen -- and the

economists. We have a president who

is going to spend money on tax cuts

and so on and putting people onto

the board of the Fed who are going

to tighten monetary policy and we

know aren't going to work. We don't

have an answer to the thing that

will satisfy the people who voted

for Donald Trump, they voted for him

because their living standards

aren't...

How do you think of the

politics of this is going to play

out? Donald Trump tied himself to

the rises in the stock markets, does

he have to eat humble pie?

Does he

ever eat humble pie? He's not going

to say get is what, I was wrong. He

was pretty nutty to tie himself to

the fate of the stock market in

terms of using it as a scorecard for

success but what he's going to do,

he'll distract everyone with

something else going forward and he

probably won't talk about it again.

People are talking about tax cuts

and deregulation instead and there

is quite a good feel-good sentiment

in America.

Thanks very much indeed.

The Tories were ahead of Labour

in an ICM opinion poll

for the Guardian today.

One point ahead.

That might seem surprising given

Conservative divisions -

ably demonstrated last night on this

programme when Anna Soubry urged

Theresa May to sling Boris Johnson

and Jacob Rees-Mogg out

of the party.

Those Europe sparks will likely fly

again tomorrow when Mrs May

convenes her Brexit 'war cabinet'

to hammer out her next moves.

Our political editor

Nick Watt is with me.

Your interview with Anna Soubry

yesterday kick-started a bunch of

extra troubles for the Conservatives

today.

Quite a wee action on the

Leave side -- a reaction. One person

said, Anna Soubry is doing a great

job for Brexit and on the

pro-European side there is strong

sympathy for Anna Soubry but not

total agreement. On this point about

whether she could remain in the

party run by Jacob Rees-Mogg, she

said no. Justine Greening, former

Education Secretary, expressing some

sympathy for that view. I understand

a handful of Conservatives would

leave the party of Jacob Rees-Mogg

became the leader. An Anna Soubry's

point about slinging the likes of

Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg

out of the party, no agreement among

the remains of porters on that but

there is sympathy for her view that

the main Eurosceptic group is overly

influential to which the ERG say

thank you, you are over influential

because your mindset is running the

Treasury. -- remain

Treasury. -- remain supporters. I

have heard from Anna Soubry who said

she has at hundreds of e-mails from

supporters and she has had some very

private agreement from Conservative

colleagues. But then she said, of

course I have received a number of

critical e-mails and some unpleasant

phone calls including one death

threats to me and my constituency

manager, who takes the calls. Now,

Anna Soubry has reported this call

to the police.

And on the day that

the Prime Minister was talking about

a more decent civic discourse. Where

does it go from here? Tomorrow there

is this big meeting when they are

going to hammer it out, the

compromise, whatever it is.

The

Cabinet Brexit subcommittee meeting

tomorrow and Thursday. Tomorrow they

discussed Northern Ireland and then

it is the economic relationship with

the EU and trade the following day.

These talks are going at two levels

to the EU summit in Brussels in

March. Level number one, the

political agreement on the

intimidation phase in December,

which must be put into a legally

binding text. The second thing, the

UK Cabinet must agree what it wants

for the future economic

relationship. So, by the end of

February, beginning of March, there

is a month to try and influence the

guidelines of the commission

negotiations.

Look forward to that,

thank you.

Transport Secretary Chris Grayling

was accused today of misleading

parliament in his statement

to the Commons yesterday,

about the problems of

the East Coast Mainline.

Lord Adonis, former transport

secretary, was the accuser,

and he has been tormenting

Mr Grayling for weeks over his

handling of the problems of the East

coast Virgin-Stagecoach franchise.

The franchise is on the brink

of collapse, but Mr Grayling

is allowing Virgin Stagecoach

to carry on winning train contracts;

Lord Adonis thinks the companies

have been bailed out and need

to face a penalty, and in effect,

be restricted in bidding

for future franchises.

It's quite a challenge to the case

for privatised rail.

Here's our business

editor Helen Thomas.

The three railway line that link

London to the North were built over

100 years ago by private companies.

London ended up with three separate

stations nearly next to each other.

What role if any that Stagecoach

should be playing in the running

of those same three line today

is the latest battlefront

in an acrimonious debate

about the future of our rail.

Slowing passenger growth has put

the squeeze on Britain's rail

operators and senior industry

figures privately concede

that the franchising model just

is not working very well.

Big complicated rigid contracts

are not good for operators,

who cannot control many

of the factors that

determine revenue growth.

And the latest fiasco over

the East Coast franchise suggest

that those contracts might not be

working brilliantly

for government either.

It has now been confirmed that

the situation is much more urgent.

It is now clear that this franchise

will only be able to continue

in its current form for a matter

of months and no more.

I need to put in place,

in the very near future,

a successor arrangement to operate

this railway and to end

the current contract.

But Stagecoach's business

could stay on track,

with partners, Virgin,

the company could still continue

running the East Coast

on a not-for-profit basis.

Next door, Stagecoach has short

listed for the East Midlands

franchise and on the West Coast,

where Virgin is a majority partner,

the companies had just been

given a new franchise

until potentially 2020.

Stagecoach is short listed

for other franchises as well.

The Transport Secretary

said that he cannot

borrow them from bidding.

Not so, say some.

If the company is deemed to be

unsatisfactory and doubtful in terms

of economics, it can be stopped from

bidding.

Stagecoach were committed

with Virgin to deliver

services until 2023.

They were made to do so.

And if they walk away from it,

it should be banned from future

franchises and if the Department

for Transport then runs

the service at a loss directly,

Stagecoach and Virgin should be

built for the cost of that.

The problems with the East Coast

will cost Stagecoach 106

£5 million under its contract.

Rail operators argue that they have

no incentive to gain

the system and over a bed.

the system and over bid.

They are on the hook for potentially

hundreds of millions

of pounds to the government.

There is another reason

the government might want to keep

Stagecoach on board.

They need them.

As franchises have got bigger,

there are fewer big experienced

players to bid for them and the rule

of thumb is, you need at least three

bidders to ensure value for money.

Knocking someone like Stagecoach out

of the proceedings could reduce some

short lists to only two.

There are clearly not enough

companies. What we have had since

2012 we have had as many contracts

that have been directly water, than

those that have come about as a

result of a franchise competition.

The whole system is flawed and it

simply needs to be replaced.

Labour

would get rid of the Private firms

altogether but other critics of

franchising argued that the system

is already largely government

control. What has not worked is

forcing risk onto the private sector

and they are better kept as low

margin managers. In terms of rail

travel, the results of the model are

more mixed.

This is showing real

problems. It has not yet worked.

Delivered some things, a lot of

investment and it has delivered much

more passenger journeys in the

jargon that many more people are

taking train journeys. It has also

delivered very high prices compare

too much of Europe and it has not

really deliver the improvement and

efficiency that were part of the

rationale for the whole thing.

Slower passenger growth means other

operators are struggling. The threat

to the model is not just a worry

that companies are somehow being let

off the hook, it is also private

operators going cold on bidding for

these large and risky contracts.

Helen Thomas there.

We asked the Department

for Transport to join us

but nobody was available.

In a statement the Stagecoach group

said the company had neither walked

away from the East Coast franchise

nor asked for any special treatment.

It added that the firm had operated

trains for the government for 21

years, raising billions of pounds

for the taxpayer - and

that the government is clear

there is no basis to preclude them

from bidding for future franchises.

The nation has been celebrating

the hundredth anniversary

of the 1918 Representation

of the People's Act today -

and with it, women getting

the vote for the first time.

But actually, that's

not quite the case -

a few women did have the vote

in local elections

decades before that.

And a very few had been voting even

before 1832 as well.

Those were some

property-owning women.

But for many more women to vote

in national elections

is obviously a big thing,

which is why today is marked

as the real birthday

of women's suffrage -

and if you were watching yesterday,

we devoted half our programme

to that milestone.

However, it has not escaped

the notice of some that February

the sixth 1918 also marked the day

that many working class men,

the non-householders,

got the vote too.

A fact far less prominent

in today's festivities.

For some, this is a metaphor

for identity politics -

we are so preoccupied

by the traditionally defined

underprivileged groups -

based on colour, gender,

or sexuality - we forget just

how many white straight

men have been, or are -

or at least feel -

underprivileged as well.

Has class got lost?

We'll discuss in a minute,

but first here's John Sweeney.

100 years ago today,

women under 30 who owned

property got the vote.

100 years ago today,

women over 30 who owned

property got the vote.

And working-class men too.

Since then, some

working-class men might be

forgiven for thinking things have

got better for women than for them.

Take politics.

To begin with, working-class

men got a Prime

Minister first.

Ramsay MacDonald in 1924.

James Callaghan and John

Major followed suit.

Women have Margaret

Thatcher and Theresa May.

There is little prospect

of a working-class

hero in Number Ten now that

Jeremy Corbyn nor Vince Cable are

horny-handed sons of toil.

Still less Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Back in 1918, most people

were working-class.

Free State education helps catapult

millions out of poverty and

ignorance.

Today, only four in ten

are working class but what is

striking is how the privately

educated rich, less than one in ten

of the population, still do so much

better than the working class.

As the liberal elite's

growing focus on

race, gender and sexuality left

working-class people overlooked in

favour of identity politics?

And did this neglect

help propel Brexit and

Donald Trump?

Interesting question.

Claire Fox is the director

of the Academy of Ideas.

Faiza Shaheen is from the Centre

for Labour and Social Studies.

They both say they are from

the working classes.

I'll come to them in a moment -

but I want to start with a US

perspective, because in New York

is the political scientist

and author Mark Lilla,

who wrote a much discussed piece

after the Trump election victory,

arguing that Hillary Clinton

and American liberals had put too

great a focus on identity politics

around gender, race or sexuality.

Due to the success of that article

he has expanded his argument

into a new book "The Once

and Future Liberal:

After Identity Politics"

which is out in the UK in May.

Good evening. Do you want to explain

why you think that the identity

politics thread of liberal politics

has gone too far?

I think the shift

has really been from a politics of

interest and there can be interest

of particular groups, the vote is

one such interests, economic games,

the end of Jim Crow in the American

South. A politics of interest has

been substituted in this country by

a politics of recognition. And the

politics of recognition is about

being recognised as a member of the

group, not only the group being

recognised, but the individuals,

particular individuals feel

recognised and as we see in this

country, affirmed in their

identities. The shift from interests

to identity and to recognition has

meant that it has been harder to

build bridges among various groups

who share common interests are who

have overlapping interest, so when

you have a politics of interest, the

workings of the working class, women

together, then you can build a

Coalition, but when it is a politics

of representing yourself and fiddly

recognise, that tends to divide

people.

Let me pin you down. We have

all seen videos of the American

police shooting black people over

the last couple of years. Black

lives matter is a result of that, a

classic piece of identity politics,

what can you say against that?

I

would not call it identity politics

in the way that I mean it or rather

that there are elements there in

their Black Lives Matter movement

that are concerned mainly about

recognition. If you are concerned

about actually changing concrete

conditions that have led to this

terrible situation of what we call

driving while in black and having

problems with the police, then you

have to think about how you govern.

The only way to change that is by

winning elections and governing over

the long-term. A politics that focus

on interests and shared interests

and overlapping interest can achieve

that. A politics of recognition

tends to fall into symbolic gesture,

so for example, Black Lives Matter

did not only worked to change things

on the streets of many of our

cities, activist showed up at the

rallies of Bernie Sanders and

Hillary Clinton and tried to stop

the proceedings in order to get

recognition of their movement and

their own conception of American

history. Politics of recognition can

divide people over what it means to

be recognise, what the nature of

history has been. Hillary Clinton

and Bernie Sanders were the allies

of these people.

of these people.

I want to take what

you have said and put it to my other

guests. Thank you for setting that

out. Do you recognise any of that

critique of the way identity

politics can divide as applied to

the UK, we have had here?

Yes and

no. I am suspicious of an argument

that says that groups coming out

that have legitimate grievances

should not talk about them because

otherwise it hurts them from winning

elections and divides groups. What I

would say is that different equality

groups, we have not always been good

at connecting to broader issues in

the economy. We are not very good at

recognising that this is also an

economic issue.

There is the fight

for equality for the LGBT

communities as well.

There is an

element of discrimination and

prejudice that we have to address

but also if you look that feminism

and what has happened in terms of

the economy we have seen that

traditional women's work is lower

paid. Why is it that social care is

low-paid? We need to be doing much

more to understand back connection

with the system. The idea is not to

equalise misery. The aim is not to

say, my job is not done if I do not

say that white men are not as

affected by as dirty as brown women.

Do you think the identity politics

has

has gone has gone far stop am

affected by that.

I think what it

has led to is jockeying for position

in recognition and actually a

competition to play the victim and I

am concerned that when we talk about

class in this, what end up doing is

saying what about white working

class men, they are an identity as

well. That has happened in America

with Trump. It is the only place to

go. I am a victim who is suffering

and oppressed but I think that class

is not to be ignored. I have been

news today in relation to the vote

that in fact the celebration was of

women getting the vote and all hail

the celebrations, it is a big thing,

but I could not get over the fact

that the millions of working class

men who got the vote.

men who got the vote. It was not

hardly mentioned at all. I thought

that that was an interesting thing

and I think that we can see that

jockeying for position that what has

happened is, into sexuality and all

of this, is that there is a real

sense in which there is a snobbery

for a lot of working-class things

and Brexit has brought that to the

fore.

Was it a tactical mistake, if

you go on about minorities and women

too much, you create a backlash

amongst a group who feels they have

not been recognised and that is what

he thinks has happened in the US.

You have shouted out for every group

and you have and shouted out for me.

It is weird to argue to silence

groups that have legitimate

grievances. You cannot say to black

men that they should be quiet. This

is where the argument goes. There is

a real thing about class identity,

it annoys the vet every time we hear

working classes, multiethnic, women,

we should build solidarity but if we

were arguing here that class is

really important and we should go

back to class identities we will be

arguing for a trade union movement.

I do not think that the point is

whether your white working class,

because of the emphasis on identity

and the fact that people stress

ethnicity, gender, LGBT, we have

campus politics, and people

jockeying for their identities and

there are certain groups that get

left out and the white working class

have fared badly. It is not that I

want them to become the white

working class. What is wrong with

politics is it has to be organised

around ideas and not identities.

We

could continue this discussion but

we have to stop there. Thank you

very much.

Talking of identity,

the far right Alternative

for Germany party,

or AfD, took third

place in the elections

to the Bundestag last year.

Their success came, in large part,

thanks to their unequivocal

messages about identity,

immigration and Islam.

Germany had been swamped, they said,

by a tide of migrants

during the refugee crisis of 2015;

Germany was under threat,

they believed, of "Islamization".

Their success at the ballot box sent

Germany's consensus-politics

into confusion, and out of it,

the traditional parties have

still so far been unable

to form a coalition.

If and when they do,

AfD could become the main party

of opposition in the Bundestag.

But now, a member of the AfD

in the state of Brandenburg has sent

shockwaves through his own party.

He's announced that he's

converted to Islam.

Gabriel Gatehouse went to meet him.

This is a journey into the world

of identity politics.

We're off to meet a man who's just

taken a pretty big decision.

I had a vision.

A man who's crossed the line.

I have understood I will be Muslim.

It's six o'clock in the morning.

He's already texting me saying,

"I'm ready, waiting for you."

Not really sure what to expect.

Arthur.

Wonderful, good morning, gentlemens.

Hi, how are you?

A pleasure to see the BBC.

I'm fine, thank you.

Very nice to meet you.

Very interesting now.

Indeed!

You're going to tell

us all about it.

Arthur Wagner was born

in the Soviet Union.

An ethnic German, he moved

to the country of his ancestors

after the collapse of Communism

and settled in this

quiet Berlin suburb.

You see, I do not eat schwein,

pig fleisch nine months.

We meet him the day after he's

announced to the world

he's converted to Islam.

I do not know how they are happy

with me, my children.

My daughter is very,

very conservative.

Very conservative, yes.

Your daughter's

a conservative Christian?

Very.

So how is your conversion going down

around the breakfast table?

We speak to it sometimes

but we have found a solution.

It is difficult, yes.

But if you have trust

to God, you can speak.

Around the time he joined the far

right AfD party, Arthur commissioned

a Wagner family crest.

It says "the good country family."

Values he says he still stands by.

And this is important

for all conservatives,

Muslims or not Muslims.

And now I go to my...

Mr Wagner is on his way to work.

He's a driver at a local children's

centre and he's worried

about how people will react

to his religious conversion.

How can I explain to my colleagues

that I'm at the same?

I'm a Muslim since three months.

I'm a Muslim in my soul since two

or three years and I have not

changed the negative,

I am the same.

But they have changed,

in one minute, in one minute,

50 people do not like me.

Bit of a character!

His workmates are one

cause of anxiety.

His friends in the AfD are another.

This is, after all, a party that

campaigned against what it calls

the "Islamisation of Germany."

Arthur Wagner was actively

involved in that campaign.

I've been trying to call the local

party for the last two days now

and there's simply no answer.

But they have put out

a press statement online.

They say the press should be

made aware that a member

of the AfD in Brandenburg has

converted to Islam.

And then it goes on to say,

"We've taken note of this fact."

"Not without surprise," I bet

you can say that again.

They say it's a private

matter for Mr Wagner

but they maintain that,

as they put it, "Islam does

not belong in Germany"

and that the religion is a grave

danger, as they see

it, to the country.

I caught up with Arthur Wagner

on his lunch break.

He told me about his

spiritual journey.

It seems like you're

searching for something.

First you said you had

a midlife crisis.

Yes.

Then you found the AfD.

Yes.

And then I have found this.

They helped me.

And now you've found Islam.

What are you searching for?

Today changed the whole world

and I need, I must find

the solution, how can we work

the European

conservatives and Islam.

This is my target.

Lunch break over and Arthur has

a meeting with his boss.

He is convinced that

he's about be fired.

But this is Germany, people don't

get fired for their religious

or political beliefs.

His boss tells him

to take some time off.

Tell us where we are going now.

I'm now a really happy guy

because I have a holiday, one week,

and I can plan my life now,

how I would like to do it.

You've undergone a transformation.

I'm another guy, yes.

I was born three months

ago, I am Ahmed.

This is your new name?

Correct.

Ahmed.

Ahmed Wagner.

Suddenly the whole world

wants to talk to Ahmed.

There are endless requests

for interviews with radio stations,

newspapers, and a Russian language

TV station in Berlin.

In the evening, Ahmed is the guest

of honour at a lecture on Chechnya,

organised by a group that helps

refugees integrate

into German society.

This is about the least likely

place you'd think to find

a member of the AfD.

This may be a den of lefty liberals

but Mr Wagner has been helping out

here as a translator

for a few years now.

I'm a little bit shocked because...

It's so weird.

At the positive side,

in a positive way.

It's nice to hear that people

can change their minds.

Arthur has become Ahmed

but he hasn't in fact

changed his political worldview,

especially on the subject

of the refugee crisis,

one of the most important topics

for the AfD.

I have understood what kind

of problem we have since September,

2015, in our land and I'm very clear

I'm right.

I'm right national and I would

like to lose this problem.

I must understand, this is very

important, I must understand.

I returned the following day

to Mr Wagner's Berlin suburb.

After the whirlwind following his

announcement, I wanted to know

what was really driving him.

I would like to show

you my old flag.

But in the attic, Wagner showed me

the souvenirs and knick-knacks he'd

collected over a lifetime

in search of belonging.

This is about the Wehrmacht.

Right.

The German military.

And this is the Russian military.

This thing.

This is a fake.

Fake ID of Russian special forces.

Yes.

This is you?

This, I am.

At some point Wagner had acquired

a bit of memorabilia with national

socialist overtones,

something he was keen not

to show the cameras.

What about the knife that

you didn't want to show me?

Err...

Cannot, I can't do it.

Why not?

It's not allowed, it not allowed.

Why not?

It's not allowed, it's German.

It's not allowed.

Right.

OK.

It's almost as if his conversion

to Islam is an attempt to escape

a decades-long identity crisis,

rooted in his Russian past.

The German guy didn't know,

am I Russian or am I German?

And Russian guy didn't know,

am I am Russian or am I German?

And because of this,

I never will be success,

I never had the chance

to be success.

If there is a common thread that

runs through Wagner's improbable

journey then it is this.

A love of authority and fears

about the erosion of conservative

values in a changing society.

This is changing in our society

comes not from Islam.

It comes from the left people,

which, they do not trust in God.

They would like to turn around.

This is like a ideology.

I hate it.

So, do you see Islam as an ally

in your conservative

political worldview,

against the liberal left?

Against liberal, 100%, yes.

Have you spoken to your AfD

colleagues about this?

What do they think?

They think that I'm crazy.

I will speak, in one ear, maybe.

Arthur Ahmed Wagner wants to remain

a member of the AfD.

He may have some trouble

persuading his party

that there is no contradiction

between his politics

and his new religion.

Gabriel Gatehouse on a man in search

for his identity.

That's all we have time for.

I'm back tomorrow.

Till then, goodnight.