15/06/2014 Sunday Politics London

Well, this is the closest I'll get to Rio.

The advance of the Islamist army on Baghdad has been slowed.

The Iraqi army claims the fightback has begun.

But the country now faces a de facto partition.

What should Britain, Europe, or the US be doing - if anything?

It's been a big week in the Scottish referendum.

But has the tone of the debate become too downright nasty?

Both sides join us to go head to head.

I will swap Ed Miliband for Tim Farren. What is the significance of

that? And as World Cup sticker fever grips

even Westminster, we'll be asking if any of the parties are looking

to make last-minute substitutions The Sunni Islamist army known

as ISIS is now in control In London, why the minority vote one

recent elections Labour, but recent support amongst people is bigger

than assumed. The Sunni Islamist army known

as ISIS is now in control of huge swathes of northern

and western Iraq, including Until the weekend they looked

like advancing relentlessly on Baghdad but that offensive has

now been slowed or even halted The Iraqi army

and its Shia milita allies vow that Baghdad will not be taken and that

a counter-attack will soon begin. Iraq's Shia Prime Minister Nouri

al-Maliki has to do something to reverse the humiliation

of recent days, which saw his US-trained and equipped Iraqi

army, which outnumbered the Islamists 15 to 1 melt away or

surrender when confronted by ISIS. The conflict has already created a

humanitarian crisis, with hundreds The Kurds have used the conflict to

consolidate their hold on their autonomous area in the north, parts

of the west and the north are in the grip of ISIS control and the Shias

are hunkering down in the east. All of which makes a three-way

partition a real possibility with The US is moving another

of its massive aircraft carrier battlefleets to the Gulf,

though the White House shows no While Iran says it's ready to help

its Shia allies and there are unconfoirmed reports

that its revolutionary guard has Well, I'm joined now by Newsnight's

diplomatic editor Mark Urban. Let's start with some basics. Who

are ISIS and why are they controlling big chunks of Iraq? ISIS

is an extremist militant jihad organisation and they have a pure

Islamic concept based on 14th century history and jurisprudence.

What they want to do is correct -- create this caliphate that do not

recognise colonial boundaries so it involves Syria and Iraq, and they

could go down to Lebanon and Palestine, that is all fair game as

far as they are concerned. And they have this strict interpretation of

Islam. The more interesting question is why have semi-Sunni Muslims,

along with them, these are precisely the sort of people who in 2006,

2007, tribal leaders in the west of the country rose up against. It was

called the Awakening and the Americans in power did and

bankrolled it. These people turned against them and admired them in

large numbers, so why do they have so many Sunni Muslims on their

side? We hear about people going back to Mosul. I think the answer is

a perception back to Mosul. I think the answer

that the current government is ruling in sectarian interests, Shia

Muslim interest, and the Sunni Muslims want self-determination and

this is their best bet. Muslims want self-determination and

this is their Let me put up this map to find out where we are going. We

can see Mosul in the north, they took that, and then they started,

South, reports that the crit was involved -- to grit -- to grit. What

is the situation on the ground now? We are in what you might call a

consolidation or strategic pause as American called it in 2003. ISIS are

trying to consolidate their power in Mosul, and now they have this major

city and they are trying to show they can run the city and get the

power going, etc. Their southernmost forces, that is a gorilla army, guys

in pick-up trucks. They cannot deal with serious opposition. They would

like to get the tanks and other things into action but that could

take weeks for them to be able to do it. The government side is that they

have counter-attacked, but it will take a little while before these

newly raised militia and other task forces, call them what you will,

newly raised militia and other task forces, call them what you will can

forces, call them what you will, can effectively counter-attacked. But

that is what will happen in the next week or two. We will see

increasingly large and serious government counter-attacked trying

to retake those places, and I fear a really difficult, bloody Syrian

style street by street battle for some of these urban centres. I would

like to have a look at this map, like to have a look at this map

because the Kurds, as I mentioned, they are consolidating their

position in the autonomous region in the north. The Islamist are taking

over huge chunks of the Sunni Muslim West. And of course the Shia Muslim

are still dominant in control of Baghdad and in parts of the south

and east. Back to me looks like the beginnings of the partition of Iraq.

-- back to me. Well, it is, but we have to caveat it in a few ways

Firstly, there are millions of people in Iraq, so-called sushi

combined families, who do not fit easily into the pattern. Do we see

millions of people becoming refugees under this scheme? There would be a

lot of human tragedies if people really did try to enforce this type

partition. Secondly, there are Sunni Muslim communities in the south of

Baghdad, those places, once again, a lot of misery and fighting will

occur if people try to enforce a de facto partition. There are still an

awakening of forces. They are on the side of the government. We heard

about one group in Samarra of Sunni Muslims fighting on the same side.

It's a complex picture. They factor, it does look like a partition, and

if it goes further in that direction it will. And partition will always

be messy because people end up on the wrong side of the lies.

Finally, the big thing on that map, Iran, a huge place, a huge border

with Shia Muslim Iraq. Iran now becomes a key factor. It is becoming

a proxy war for Iran. Yes, when I was in Baghdad a few months ago, I

was in Baghdad a few months ago I did actually see Iranians

revolutionary guards in uniform. They were protecting a senior

Iranians official, so some numbers have been never some time and they

are also said to protect the political leaders and -- in his

compound. They are there. We think more of them are trying to

compound. They are there. We think the Iraqi army, and

compound. They are there. We think allow the Iraqi government to fall.

Mark, thank you for marking archive this morning. -- marking our card.

Tony Blair took Britain into the Iraq conflict in 2003.

He's now, among other things, envoy to the Middle East representing

That's the UN, the EU, the US and Russia.

This morning he entered the debate about what should be

My point is simple. If you left Saddam in place in 2003, when 2011

Saddam in place in 2003, when 2 11 happened and you have the Arab

revolutions going through Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Egypt and

Syria, you would still have had a major problem in Iraq. You can see

what happens when you leave the dictator in place, as has happened

with Bashar al-Assad. The problem doesn't go away. What I'm trying to

say is, we can rerun the debates about 2003, and there are perfectly

legitimate points on either side, but where we are in 2014, we have do

understand that this is a regional problem, but a problem that will

affect us. And I'm joined by the former Foreign

Office minister Mark Malloch-Brown, Here in London are James Rubin,

he was chief spokesman for the State Department under

Bill Clinton, and Bayan Rahman, she represents the Kurdistan

Regional government in the UK. Intervened in Iraq, it's a shambles,

we don't intervene in Syria, it s a we don't intervene in Syria, it's a

shambles. What lessons should we draw? That is a well framed

question, because that is the problem. Tony Blair is half right.

Iraq, like Syria, would probably have been a problem even without an

intervention. But one wishes someone would tell him to stay quiet during

moments like this, because it does drive a great surge of people in the

other direction. The fact is, what has been missing in western politics

towards the Middle East throughout both episodes, Syria and Iraq, is a

drive to build an inclusive, democratic centre which is secular

and nonsectarian. That has been missing amongst the threats of

invasion Manon invasion, we have just constantly neglected the

diplomatic nation-building dimensional this. I want to come

onto what is happening on the ground. I want to begin with what

the Western response by me, and by that we mean the United States,

because of it doesn't do anything, nobody will do anything. All of the

signals I see coming out of the White is that Barack Obama has no

appetite for intervention -- out of the White House. I don't think he

does have an appetite. He would be very unlikely to do anything very

large. He might feel pressured to act because of the fact that this

particular group, this Al-Qaeda inspired group, fits into the

strategy he has pursued in Yemen and Afghanistan and Pakistan, to use

drone strikes against individual terrorists. So it is possible that

the threat of ISIS in the region and the West in general might inspire

him to act, but the idea he will do enough, militarily, to transform

Iraq from its current state of civil War into something along the lines

that Mark was talking about, nation-building diplomacy, a big

operation, I don't see President Obama sees his historic mission as

having got the United States as out of it. Leave it to the Pacific,

perhaps. What would the Kurds like the West to do? First of all, in

Kurdistan we face a huge humanitarian crisis. We already have

had bought a quarter of a million Syrian refugees and we were

struggling to cope with that. And now we have at least double that

number of refugees coming from Mosul. First and foremost, we are

calling on the international community to help us with that. So

we need humanitarian aid? Let's assume we do that in some way, maybe

not enough, but what else if anything? I think it is an incumbent

on the west and other powers to assist Iraq to get rid of ISIS. I

think the Sunni Arab community, some of whom have joined ISIS and may be

supported the uprising, have justified complaints against the

federal government. But we need the terrorists out of Iraq. That is

first and foremost. And what the West can do is not necessarily

intervene with boots on the ground, but provide technical assistance,

provide intelligence and help the Iraqi army and air force to be more

targeted. Can you defend yourselves? In Kurdistan, we can in terms of the

disciplined troops. In this situation, I hope they won't be

abandoning their post, that is for sure. It is a national cause fires.

But we are not armed in the way that the Iraqi army is -- cause for us.

We are not armed in the way that ISIS seems to be now they have

seized some of the American kit We are not asking for weapons, but we

ask for assistance for all of Iraq to deal with the situation. Mark,

this is not just an Iraqi problem. This is a regional conflict, and

from the Levant on the shores of the Mediterranean, all the way through

to the Gulf, the region is gripped with what is essentially a Sunni and

Shia Muslim sectarian war. Yes, with the caveats that Mark bourbon made

earlier, it's not quite that straightforward, but the basic

divide is exactly that -- Mark Urban. People have been looking for

this to begin in Lebanon or Jordan and have been taken by surprise

although with hindsight I'm not sure why, that it has begun in Iraq

instead. At its most extreme, it risks redrawing the 20th century

boundaries of the region in a way which would be highly unstable

because it would pit a Shia Muslim bloc against the Sunni Muslim bloc

and would undo all of the sort of social and economic advance of the

last century, so the stakes are suddenly very, very high indeed. Are

we seeing the redrawing? The lines were drawn secretly, not far from

here, about a mile away, and may have survived through thick and

thin. They now look pretty fragile. The map is being redrawn. I think it

is true that there is a key factor partition going on -- des facto.

partition going on -- des facto Woodrow Wilson probably gave a bit

of a hand to the promotion of the idea of self-determination, and in a

way, there is a self determination going on, particularly in the

Kurdish region, and perhaps they may end up the big winners in all of

this, because they have proceeded with a relatively moderate,

reconcilable government. The key thing that the Kurdish region has

done. They used to fight the two groups, and now they fight together.

What the Sunni Muslims have not done is figure out how to let politics

let the side things instead of guns. We need to look clearly and in Syria

and Iraq, if there is a Sunni extremist with ISIS that carves out

a place for itself, it will be the great irony of the modern era.

President Bush said he wanted to go into Iraq to fight terrorism. There

was no terrorist. There are now. into Iraq to fight terrorism. There

was no terrorist. There are now If in Iraq and Syria together thereat a

thousand strong Al-Qaeda capability that threatens the region, the

West, the world, we are all going to have to do something about it.

The danger is that power will spread. This could grow in power.

You would not want it on your southern border. Absolutely, we

would not. The point we are all making indirectly is that things

have changed in Iraq and will never be the same again. Whether Iraq

completely disintegrates into three countries, or whether it stays

together as one country, but a countries, or whether it stays

together as one country, but loose federation, either way, Iraq has

changed. It will not go back to what it was. I hope it will change for

the better. I think we're at the make or break point for Iraq. Either

the political readers -- the political leaders of a right wake up

and smell the coffee and put aside their differences or there will be

problems. This provides that opportunity, in a very nasty way. If

we take it? Yes, and if not, I think this is the end of a rack as we know

it. If anything resembling a caliphate emerges, that is very

destabilising for the region itself. More so I would suggest than even

the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. At some stage, you have

to assume that they will be coming for us. That is correct. This is

extremely dangerous. The only way forward is for these political

groups to talk to each other and find a compromise that allows the

rates of cinemas and minorities in Iraq to be protected within or the

rates of cinemas and minorities in Iraq to be protected with an

autonomous federal-state. Any support for the government must be

premised on that. There is no military solution for this which is

in during -- there is no military solution for this. There must be

serious political negotiation, not with ISIS, but with Sunni Muslim

moderates, to form a more representative government. This is

the last chance for Iraq. I think we are all saying that that is going to

need to be some major western leadership to make some big

decisions here for the future of the region. I am concerned that after

Afghanistan and Iraq, my country is quite world-weary, quite

world-weary. It does not seem to be giving leadership. Certainly we are

not seeing that in Europe. I am deeply concerned that we are not

going to take the leadership role that needs to be taken. These are

big issues. When Britain and France carved up the Middle East, they were

world powers, operating as global powers, and without that global

leadership by somebody, this is just going to get worse and worse. I

think we will leave it there, thank you very much.

The danger is that power will spread. This could grow in power.

It is just under 100 days until the referendum on Scottish independence.

So, for once, it'll be a long hot-summer

But the campaign isn't just getting heated.

In places it's also down-right nasty. When

Scotland's best-selling author announced she was giving

the unionist cause a million pounds this week, she received

Independence supporters online, so-called cybernats,

called JK Rowling a traitor and much worse, using a variety of

For its part, the Better Together campaign has been accused

Even Gordon Brown seems to think so, and this week he criticised

Conservative ministers for relying on "threats

With the Edinburgh Festival approaching, reports suggest even

comedians are now reluctant to engage in the subject because

I'm joined by Blair Jenkins from Yes Scotland and Jackie Baillie

They're both in our Glasgow studio, and they're going head to head.

Blair Jenkins, let me come to you first. Why have you and the Better

Together campaign and Alex Salmond not done more to slap down the cyber

nationalists who are poisoning the debate? Good morning. I think both

sides tried to stop the tiny number of people on both sides who are

incapable of controlling themselves. We should not get this

out of proportion. We are having a fantastic, decent and democratic

debate. The people who probably total no more than 100 on both sides

who post offensive material or not to be allowed to deflect from that

fact. Of course there are nasty people on the Better Together side

as well, but are you saying there are as many of those as the cyber

nationalists? I have not done the Kent. Lots of people are certainly

posting nasty in defensive things to people in the yes campaigners well.

I imagine that people do what I do, and block them. You stop them from

sending anything further. There is a democratic and in gauging progress

going on throughout Scotland. It is characterised by good humour and

good debate. We should not get out of proportion and the activities of

the number of people. I want to get to Jackie Baillie. The debate is

actually pretty good-humoured and you should be doing more about the

nasties on your side as well? I think we have reached a new low this

week. Despite many people engaging in the politics of the decision and

the debate about that, whether we want to retain the best of both

worlds are separate from the United Kingdom, what we have seen is the

most abusive and vitriolic attack, particularly on women, JK Rowling

and a Labour supporter who dared to support the no campaign. When you

look at the number of people on social media, there are more from

the yes campaign than the no site. We should all be condemning attacks,

from whatever quarter they come. from whatever quarter they come

This seemed to be connected to the office of the First Minister. What

is the evidence for that? There was an e-mail from one of the... I

understand about that, but it did not use vile words. It did not, but

it repeated the same mistake as on the website. We should be clear that

we need to condemn these attacks, but it is not just the water works,

it is taking action. There was an IpsosMORI poll this week which was

varying testing. It showed the population as a whole, farmer people

think that Yes Scotland is running an effective campaign as against

Better Together. It is a undecided voters think this by a majority of

four 21. Some people are worried about of the campaign. JK Rowling,

Scotland's most successful author of all time. She gives ?1 million to

the Better Together campaign. She then faces some of the most

incredible abuse. I know what it is like because I have had some myself.

Traitor, Quisling. I cannot use some of the words, it is Sunday morning.

Why does Scottish Nationalists culture have such a revolting

fringe? JK Rowling is entitled to our views and it is unacceptable if

people say offensive things about her or anyone else who voices and

opinion in this debate. Who are obese people? When you look at the

accounts of some of the people who were posting these things about JK

Rowling, they were using the same sort of language about film stars

and football stars. This was just part of their language on Twitter.

How often has Alex Salmond condemned the cyber nationalists? Very often.

Everyone in the campaign hands. By common consent, Yes Scotland is

running a thoroughly positive campaign, much more positive than

Better Together. Jackie Baillie, it hardly helps matters when Alistair

Darling, who runs your campaign, compares Alex Salmond to Kim Jong Il

and North Korea. That hardly elevates the debate? I think we need

to elevate the debate. There are less than a hundred days to go. It

is a massive decision. We need to elevate the debate beyond attacks. I

think there is much more that Yes Scotland and the SNP can do. You

have made that point. Why are you running a campaign based on fear?

The codename of your campaign is even project fear. It is threats.

You cannot have the pound, there will be no shipbuilding. You will be

flooded by immigrants. Why are you so negative? I am not negative at

all and neither is the campaign. so negative? I am not negative at

all and neither is the campaign The all and neither is the campaign. The

campaign has asked questions and I think it is legitimate to ask

questions of the people proposing such a fundamental change. People

care about the economy, their jobs, their families. What would happen to

them if they leave the rest of the United Kingdom. I think it is

legitimate to ask questions. I refuse to be asked of

scaremongering. People deserve answers. The yes campaign is equally

guilty of some of the most outrageous scaremongering. Maybe you

are both scaremongering. Blair Jenkins, the First Minister said of

the cyber nationalists, that they are just Daft folk, as if they were

mischievous little children. It is worse than that. When you look at

what they say, they are twisted, what they say, they are twisted

perhaps even evil minds. I would not disagree with his comments, but they

are directed at just a small number of people. The story of this

campaign is not the story of what people are saying on Twitter. Around

Scotland, lots of people are getting engaged in debate to have been tuned

out of the political process. Today, we have 47% support for the yes

campaign. The movement in the campaign is towards yes. People know

we have a better campaign, a vision for Scotland. The latest poll of

polls does not show that. Both sides, you always take the opinion

polls that show you in the best light. All politicians do that.

Jackie Baillie, your campaign is not just negative, it is patronising.

You make dubious claims that Scots would be ?1400 better off by staying

in the union, and then you say that the kids use the money to scoff 280

hotdogs at the Edinburgh Festival. The fate of the nation is in your

hands and that is the best you can do? I think you will find that the

campaign is something that we are taking the message to people. Then

why are you talking about hotdogs? I do not. The campaign did. We are

taking a positive message to people across Scotland about the benefits

of the United Kingdom. We believe we are stronger and more secure and

more stable, being part of that family of nations that is the United

Kingdom. At the same time, we have the strange and power over things

like education and transport. I understand that. I am not doing the

issues today, I am talking about the tone of the campaign. I have one

very important question. Who would you supporting last night in the

England-Italy match? I was not watching the game. I would be

delighted to see England do well in this tournament. I have Argentina in

the office sweepstake. I have to keep some attention on them, but I

would be delighted to seeing Clint do well. That is because you think

it will help your campaign. It will annoy the Scots. Jackie Baillie I

annoy the Scots. Jackie Baillie? I was supporting England. I was also

supporting Portugal. Now most of you probably missed last

night's football match between England and Italy because

you wanted to get an early night and England lost

despite a plucky effort, I'm told. But even Westminster is

in the grip of World Cup fever and with speculation

about the fitness of each political party's team we sent Adam out to

tackle some of the big players. Well, this is

the closest I'll get to Rio. This year everybody seems to have

gone a bit mad Belize, football stickers. Let's see who I will get.

Oh, the suspense -- a bit mad for these. George Osborne? That is

because we leapt on the bandwagon and made Alan political stickers.

They're hotter than a Brazilian barbecue.

And at Westminster they're turning into collector?s items.

Sunday politics political stickers. We have one of you, Norman. Would

you like it? Do you want to start collecting, Bob? Would you like a

packet? collecting, Bob? Would you like a

Thank you. No album, I'm afraid collecting, Bob? Would you like a

Thank you. No album, I've got Michael Gove, next to to Reza, and

two of the Prime Minister. -- next to Theresa. I am sure Michael has

Theresa in her stick around, and vice versa.

These Tory ones are proving very popular

since she fell out with him out how to handle extremism in schools.

And there's been open speculation about him taking on him in

Then there are rumours of a reshuffle of the whole Tory album.

Do you think there will be any swapping in the Tory leadership

soon? Who knows? David Cameron has also got to replace the EU

commissioner, Cathy Ashton, who is standing down.

Does he go with the favourite the former health secretary

Or the grassroots choice, Martin Callanan, the Tories old

Or does he rehabilitate Andrew Mitchell after Plebgate?

Do you fancy being European Commissioner? I would rather be

spending the money on the world s spending the money on the world's

poor and spending it well. Glad to hear it. Happy collecting.

Right, there must be some Labour stickers out there.

Right, there must be some Labour of the others? Can't I keep them

all? This is almost the perfect team.

There have been grumblings about the fitness of the Shadow

And Ed Miliband's got a kicking in Liverpool after posing

I'm told grown men are meeting up in pubs for sticker swaps -

With Danny Finkelstein - Tory peer and Times columnist,

He would be the card I would not want to trade. Do people want to

trade him in? I don't think anybody wants to trade him in at the moment.

He is the best person to lead the Labour party and will lead us into

the next election. There's been a lot about Michael Gove, and he's

very combative. That's been a huge strength as an education Secretary,

despite the fact it's brought in trouble. I would think the prime

minister would tell him not to get himself into peripheral battles at

the moment but stick to what has been successful. I haven't got Nick

Clegg, but I got me. Controversy amongst collectors of Lib Dems. I

need to give away me in return for Nick Clegg. That would be far

better. There you are. Some local parties are holding

meetings about his leadership, but at one in Cambridge this week

they voted to stick with him. You have got a Euro Commissioner.

Why don't I swap, I will swap Ed Miliband for Tim Farren. Can I do

that? What is the significance of that? Very significant. Happy

collecting. These beauties are popping up

everywhere, but sadly they won't Adam is still doing the samba around

Westminster as I speak. I'm joined

by three journalists who've been furiously swapping stickers

throughout the show, they certainly weren't allowed to stay up to watch

the football, it's Nick Watt, We will talk about Labour after the

break, and I want to concentrate on the Tories, but the moment, Nick,

senior Tories are saying privately that they might win next May. They

are beginning to dream the dream. So why are they doing all this

jockeying? I think the jockeying for the leadership is about a year old.

What stoped it up was when Theresa gave a speech to the conference, and

gave a speech to the conference and people said she was doing it just in

case, when things were not looking too good. She is not on manoeuvres.

I think it was a policy row that drove the differences with Michael

Gove. But Michael Gove is on manoeuvres, and he is trying to

protect George Osborne from, he believes, a serious threat from

Boris Johnson and possibly Theresa. It is quite self-indulgent when you

are a couple of points behind, the economy is going your way, to be

involved in this sort of stuff. Extraordinary. It shows the toxic

disease that gnaws at the entrails of the Tory party, and Cameron is

their great asset. He is more popular than the party, he bridges

the gap is, and he has an extraordinary dissemble and some

pretending to be this moderate while never the lens -- nevertheless

leading the most far right wing government we have had since the

war, and that has been a brilliant piece of political Charente and they

would be crazy to get rid of it -- political Charente.

piece of political Charente and they would be crazy to get rid of it --

charades. Does this rumble on? I have an unfashionable view as there

aren't half as many leadership plots taking place in Westminster as we

assume, and the willingness to read strategic calculation into anything

that takes place comes from people watching I Claudius or house of

cards. That hasn't been off -- on for years. I needed a reference from

your time. I needed something. Maybe brief encounter? It's a stylised

view of how politics works, and so much more in life is about

randomness and mistakes. Boris Johnson, Theresa May, Michael Gove

as George Osborne's man on earth, they are positioning themselves. --

Janan wrote an eloquent comment this week about this, but there are

certain realities that. Michael Gove had that famous dinner with Rupert

Murdoch a few weeks ago in which he said that you must not make Boris

Johnson leader of the Conservative party, George Osborne is my man.

party, George Osborne is my man Theresa May set out her credo two

years ago and people on her team were saying that she was doing it

just in case. People are out there and are thinking of the future, but

I do think Janan is right. In the village, in the thick of it mindset,

you can get a bit carried away and you can be a bit in the famous. That

is before your era. He died. What did he mean by it. You can get a bit

carried away by it. I will have words with you during the break.

It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now

Coming up here in 20 minutes, we'll be talking about Ed Miliband's

First though, the Sunday Politics where you are.

A little later on we will be hearing white building upwards is not

necessarily the solution to the housing crisis, and coming up as

well, Trevor Phillips tells us why it was support for ethnic minorities

that gave Labour its London election victories. And why he thinks support

for UKIP is higher amongst white Londoners than people tend to

assume. To discuss all of that and more, Clive Evatt and Lynne

Featherstone. Welcome to you both. Before we get on to other matters,

can we kick off with the question of the water cannon? The Mayor of

London is buying three machines from the German police because they think

it could be necessary to deal with disorder, and he's doing it before

the Home Secretary has gone through the approval and licensing process.

What is your view on that? He has taken leave of his senses. Firstly,

to buy second-hand water cannons when you have not got the go-ahead

from the Home Office is in itself provocative, but I also think that

water cannon are the answer to any crowd control issues. We have very

good crowd control, and the answer to good policing is not a water

cannon. It's not something that we in this country need or want, and I

think it would be a step in the wrong direction towards the sort of

control that we don't admire in other places. Do you agree with

that? It's extraordinary that the Mayor of London is driving this

major step, to deploy a water cannon on the streets of London when the

Home Secretary has not made a decision. I am opposed to the idea.

We have policing by consent in London, but we have few incidents

where you would need to call on a water cannon, if ever, and let's go

back and at what happened in the riots back in 2011 because there

weren't enough police to deploy over the weekend it's not necessary that

we might use it, just have it available. Why waste taxpayers money

if you don't want to use it? There might be circumstances where we

might need it. We have always decided previously there was no need

for water cannons to be destroyed on -- deployed on the streets of

London. This is a major step and it has to be debated beyond the mayoral

office. I don't think it is that clear where public opinion is. You

can't tell me for certain that you think Londoners don't want to see

water cannon as an option, if there were serious problems. I can't tell

you that because I haven't done any research on the subject, but I do

think Londoners take great pride in the policing and policing by

consent. Therefore they can keep control. But what about the Home

Office, and Theresa May, what does she make of the fact that Boris

Johnson does this, and he buys them, but he knows -- she knows he cannot

use them. Not till he has gone through the proper process. I think

she will be fed up. It's a provocative move. She has made it

clear that she has been considering this and it's a for the Home Office

to consider Musso Boris going ahead to buy them is something of a sign.

It is back to front. What happens next? Does Boris buy guns for every

police officer and then challenges the Home Secretary to agree to him

arming the police? It's not the way to do it. We will leave that

question hanging there. One of the recent signals from the European

elections was that London were less keen on UKIP than anywhere else in

England. But why, and how important is the ethnic dimensional. Trevor

Phillips, the former chair of the equalities and human rights

commission says if you took away the ethnic minority population the backs

labour, among white Londoners, support for UKIP is stronger than

people have been saying. He makes his case for us now. To me it feels

like yesterday, but it's over 30 like yesterday, but it's over 3

years since I first started reporting on London politics. Back

then, the great political divide was symbolised by this bridge. To the

south, red, Labour Lambeth. To the north, true blue Westminster Tories.

Today, it's all different. The colours that matters aren't so much

the ones on your rosette, but the colours on Londoners faces, black,

brown, white. Back in 1980, 90% of Londoners would have described

themselves as white British. Today, that number has halved, 45%. And

nearly as many are black or brown. But we all get along pretty well,

don't we? People vote on issues, not ethnicity. Well, when we number

crunched the results of the recent elections, we discovered that London

isn't quite the multi-coloured, happy clappy picture of harmony that

we would love it to be. The 22nd of May revealed a deeply divided city.

Two out of every three minority Londoners supported the Labour

Party. Two out of every three white Londoners back either the Tories or

UKIP. UKIP were level pegging and outpolled Labour by almost two

against one. Does it matter? Well, here is a thought. Today, from an

ethnic point of view, the rest of the country is where London used to

be 30 years ago. In 30 years time, they will have caught up to where

London is right now. The fact is, that London is not an oddity. It's

not another country. It is, in fact, the future. And that is a future

that people over there are going to have to get used to. Trevor Phillips

is with me now. Welcome to you. You would agree at the outset that you

had to be careful. You make a strong assertion that that this is how

people voted. But we don't know do people voted. But we don't know, do

we, because there is no evidence. We do know how they voted. There are

three accepted facts. One, the British election studies that tells

us that 60% of minorities routinely vote Labour and nobody challenges

that. Secondly, the demographic of London, and we know that 45%, white

British, 15% others. And we know from the outcomes of the Euro

elections. And so on. But the figures together. I would love to

see its conjugated, at its AS-level. The point I am making is

that is it as a voting pattern and you don't know how people voted in

these past elections. You are basing it on assertions about past voting

passions. election. Analysts say that people

do different things at European elections. You know that. I am

saying there are limitations. I am not saying that you may not be

right. You need more evidence. I would not want to argue with you

about that. But actually the British election study of 2010 is a better

get to what people will do in the next general election than what

happened on May 22. The point is, we can have an argument about the

technicalities, but this has been true consistently. The big question

will be about whether people acted in a consistently clear way in the

decisions they made in the European ballot. Did ethnic minorities vote

according to the way that you think they did? Let's assume they did It

they did? Let's assume they did. It is hard for me to say let's assume

we did. People have done something for 25 years. I cannot think of any

reason why they would certainly do something different last Thursday. I

accept that point. I want to make it clear that the outset. You make the

point, why does it matter? I am not sure that you answer it. Why does it

matter? There are two reasons why it matters. The reason we did this is

not to do with politics. We are interested in choice and the

influence of inheritance and culture and environment. Politics and the

behaviour of ethnic minorities is a good way of testing methodology.

behaviour of ethnic minorities is a good way of testing methodology We

good way of testing methodology. We are more interested in, for example,

do people give to charities and what sort of charities? This is a good

way of testing it. Trying to understand how people behave matters

because it helps us to understand how to serve them better. Secondly,

the point I made is that what happens in London today is probably

what the country will be doing in 20 to 25 years time. The third and most

important thing is that people have got to make a decision about whether

they like or feel comfortable with this patronage in. We can see it in

the United States. It is completely dominant in American politics. There

is an important question about whether that is appropriate for this

country. So is your year -- so is your conclusion that there is a

worry about what would be a division in ethnic voting patterns? I am not

going to take a view on that. I am a researcher on this context.

You know that it's what people want to hear from you?

Has it got implications we should be worried about?

I think it is important I am not neutral.

It is also important in relation to how the political parties conduct

themselves so, for example, if you are a party where getting on for

three quarters of the people who voted for you are from an ethnic

minority, you might want to think, does our representation

Is this something you would be concerned about, that really you are

The issue about the impact of UKIP at the last election is

It is about how people feel about migration,

particularly within Europe and how it has affected them over the last

That is felt by everybody, not just the white working class

It is felt right across all groups. It is about how people feel about

migration, communities are very unlikely to go out and vote UKIP.

Also, white voters are not voting Labour?

There is a lesson for every party in this, whether it is Labour,

People at that election were saying, we are going to protest.

Even in London, we have this impression that somehow

we have been immune from this, you're saying that we are not,

Yes, you see this division within London.

You can see examples of different turnout

and voting patterns, where you have a different ethnic mix within the

Do not forget that there were lots of no-shows in the European

election, lots of people protested by not voting.

I think it is probably even more complicated.

I think people are worried about their employment prospects

You do not have any problem with the figures?

I am taking the view, Trevor is an expert, he has done the research,

but where I am in Haringey, the battles I see are quite different.

It is the already heres against the newly arrived, it is

a competition over scarce resources that dictates election, lots

I think it is probably even more complicated.

I think people are worried about their employment prospects

Just to be clear, this is not my opinion. This is what the numbers

tell us. I am not saying this because it is something I

like to hear, it is what the numbers tell us. The patterns were similar

in Germany for many years. But for reasons that

nobody quite understands, over the last 10 years,

Labour's sister party in Germany, the SDP, which used to attract 0%

of the Turkish vote, in 2009 declined to 50%. Last autumn

it declined to 42%. In Canada, something similar has

happened. These things are not immutable. My point is that it is

better for us to know what is happening. A final thought,

again. If one lesson has got to come from this, what

do the policymakers need to do? If I had a particular thing that I would

say, I would say that every party has to grasp that

not all voting is just about economics. It is not

about the pound in your pocket, it is also about, does this party look

and feel like me? The question that all of the

political parties have got to understand is, why is it that

we are in a situation where there should be something like 90 minority

MPs in Parliament and there are only 27? Thank you for

coming in. Its population is growing, demand for

housing is huge, space is limited, but is building upwards the answer?

More than 230 skyscrapers are in the pipeline for

the capital prompting a growing debate. Andrew Cryan

reports. It used to be the case that no building in the capital was

allowed to be taller than St Paul's Cathedral. One by one

in the 20th century, skyscrapers started to appear,

culminating in the 21st century with the Shard, giving London the tallest

building in Western Europe. From the top, you

can see that most of the city remains fairly low rise.

But that is not going to be the case for very much longer. There are

currently 230 buildings in the pipeline in London

which are going to be 20 storeys or more in height.

None are as tall as the Shard, but the skyline of London is set to

change forever. In a few years, Nine Elms in South London

is expected to look a bit more like this. The view

from Waterloo Bridge will be more like this, and the vista south from

Blackfriars Bridge will be something like this, giving

London thousands and thousands of new square feet of

office space. Office buildings are actually just a small bit of the

story. 80% of the new tall buildings planned for London

are places where people are going to be able to live.

Far from council flats of the 1960s, this is mostly prime residential

real estate, which, thanks to the housing boom now makes

developers more money than building offices would.

These are tall buildings which provide smaller units. One,

two-bedroom apartments, and they are generally linked to

wealthier occupiers, at least in Central London, partly

because developers can actually get a huge premium. As you go higher up,

the cost of the apartments get higher. According to

the city of London's chief planner for nearly three

years, the new residential skyscrapers do not offer much of a

solution to London's housing problems. It does not matter

whether they are for foreign buyers or homebuyers,

they are being bought purely for investment purposes. They are

frequently left under occupied or unoccupied and not let

out to other occupiers so we are getting great

underuse of the land at a time when London is desperately short of homes

and could do with those sites being developed

with more appropriate accommodation. This week, the

London Assembly echoed this, saying that London needs to look for other

solutions to its housing needs. Almost as certain as

the fact that London's skyline is going to change is

that the debate around the new towers will go on and on. Is this

the way? Is your government allowing too many of

these, are we supplying the housing we need? You have a

choice, build out or build up. The key thing is it should be beautiful.

The Shard is beautiful. What is it doing to the

skyline, does it benefit the local community? You are

asking the questions, but are they? They are in prime sites. They are

making a lot of profit for developers. That is one

of the issues. If you look at Boris Johnson, he has

great powers in planning terms. It is public who he meets, but it is

not public what he said. I think that is what we need

to know. If it is not benefiting local people, if it

is not supplying affordable housing, it is not a good thing. It is not

solving London's problems. If part of it is solving

London's problems, then commercial and domestic can

mix. The argument is surely that because it is difficult times, we

need to get the economy going, construction is an

important part of that. Perhaps we do not get the kind

of deal or affordable housing element that we would want, but you

have got to be realistic? Boris Johnson has turned

London into the Klondike for foreign investors to

come over here, buy properties, leave them vacant or rent them out

at extortionate rates. It is pricing the younger generation

of London and people who want to come to London out

of the market. It is just insane what has been going on. I would love

to get to the point where we are worried about the

aesthetics of it, but first and foremost, we have got to

ask who is benefiting from this? Who are we building these properties

for? We have not been building enough for the people

who live and want to live in London, whether they

want to rent or buy, and... You need to show you are open to development?

We have got to make sure that what is being

developed is going to be affordable at the end of the day

and is targeted at the right people. We do not need million pound luxury

flats that are completely out of the price range of

local people. Developers will say, we're not going

to develop the land? If you are not going to develop the land, we have

said, use it or lose it. We have got to apply that

strong policy. Are there tougher ways of getting the

land developed? I would be tougher. The government has pledged ?3.3

billion for 165,000 affordable and social houses... They

are being built. Then there is a further pledge of

300,000 per year. Under Labour, they were not built. In Haringey,

Haringey built no houses for 25 years. This government

has built fewer houses than in the 1920s. An end

thought? I think you can build up as long as it is for the people of

London. Time for a look at the rest of this week's

political news in 60 Seconds. Thousands of taxi drivers

brought part of central London to a standstill in protest at a rival

service, a mobile phone application that allows

customers to hail minicabs which black cab drivers say is

breaching regulations. Metal spikes placed outside a block of flats in

Southwark to deter homeless people sleeping rough have

been removed. People signed a petition in protest

condemning the developer who had placed them there. The mayor had

also expressed his opinion and called for their

removal. The route that Crossrail 2 could take across London

has been altered following public consultation. The new plans now

extend the terminal destination from Alexandra Palace to

New Southgate in North London. Revelations by this

programme that in 2013 Boris Johnson had into Doha more often than

Dagenham caused the issue to be raised at Mayor?s

Question Time. You are a hypocrite. Let's be realistic, it

is not possible to be everywhere at once. Boris Johnson has been out to

Greenwich. He has seen you. I think he came to

Greenwich once. I do not care where Boris goes. If he builds

houses were he has not been, I would be pleased. He has not been to

Havering or Kingston. He is not listening to his own

words. Given what Trevor is saying about voting patterns,

if he wants to stand again, he might want to get to where people vote.

That is an interesting point. A word on the

spikes. They have been removed from this building,

presumably you approve. I do approve, but quite frankly, public

buildings have deterrents as well. It is not about that, it is

about what we're doing about homeless people. People

suffering from drug addiction, the issues that make people homeless.

Those are the issues we need to tackle. A Labour

authority building great new flats, in a Labour authority,

and not allowing... Boris Johnson said that there would be no homeless

people living on the streets of London so these

devices should not be necessary. We have nearly 7000

people sleeping rough in London I believe the outskirts of City Hall

have deterrents for people sleeping rough, so the mayor

is doing it as well. Do they? There is some paving

arranged so it is not so comfortable, I am told. On that

note, we have run out of time. Thanks very much indeed. Back to

There are big changes afoot in the EU following last month's

European elections, not least who'll get the top job

But behind the scenes the parties have

also been jockeying for position as they try to form the big groups that

And UKIP seems to have been struggling to keep its influence

Here's Adam to explain how it all works.

If you want your party to be a big cheese in the European Parliament,

you need to form a political group. By doing this, the party gets more

money, more positions on committees and even more speaking rights in the

chamber. But the parliament's rules are strict. And to form a group you

need a group of 25 MPs from at least seven different countries. For UKIP,

the number of MEPs will not be a problem because they already have 24

of their own, but the different nationalities are more of a

challenge. Nigel Farage was not helped by the Tories stealing --

stealing his former Danish and Finnish allies, and the pen pinching

his Italian charms. Nigel needs a new charm and fast. He has already

signed up Lithuania's order and justice, a free citizen from Prague,

and the Dutchman from the reformed political party. The big signing was

the 17 members of the Italian Beppe Griego's 5-star movement, but it

leaves UKIP short of two more international powers, and with the

clock ticking, it looks like his hopes resting on the Swedish

Democrats and the Polish new right Congress. They both make their

decisions next week. What is the latest? UKIP have enough

MEPs with their pals, but they need seven countries, as I understand it.

They are not there yet. They are wrapped five countries and need

another two. UKIP are being quite buoyant and say they will be meeting

MEPs from five countries next week and are pretty confident they will

get those countries, but as Adam was saying, the problem UKIP have had is

that the Conservatives have nicked two of the parties. That is why they

have been struggling, but they say they are confident they will do it.

Meanwhile, the Tories new best friends are the German Eurosceptic

party, which has put Mrs Merkel's party, which has put Mrs Merkel s

nose out of joint, but we don't quite know whether she really cares

or not. I think Cameron has played his hand badly since he committed to

pulling out of the EBP. And he should be in there with Angela

Merkel and if he needs to make a major renegotiation, he needs to

have the Germans onside. Instead there is a breakaway party and its

like supporting UKIP. His party are supporting her worst enemy. It

certainly causing him a lot of problems, and undermines his

negotiating position, but isn't there an honesty that the

centre-right group is explicitly Federalist, and the Tories are

anything but, so they came out, and Labour are in the Socialist group,

which is explicitly Federalist, and they are not Federalist either. If

you want support and influence in Europe, you have to trade, and he

hasn't done this well. The whole business with who will be the next

president, he needs Angela Merkel's support. Without that, it won't

happen. He should have been trading behind-the-scenes, but he has

exposed himself in public, and if he doesn't win it looks uncertain, and

he will be in a position where he has to go back to his own party and

say they are not getting anywhere. That is dangerous and takes us

closer to the Exeter, which I don't think would want. The danger for Mr

Cameron is if it is the president of the commission, he will save you

cannot stop a federalist becoming head of the European commission,

head of the European commission what chance do you have of

repatriating lots of powers back to London. There are lots of Tory MPs

dying to make the argument. My hunch is that he won't make it. There are

too many countries opposed to his presidency and even the country

notionally in favour of it, Germany, is failing in youth -- enthusiasm.

Angela Merkel cannot be seen to give in to the Brits this. Her own side

once it as well, though some reason the German media says it. When she

tried to reach out and said to look at the other candidates, she got

such abuse on the right wing press from her own country and party she

had to retreat. Janan is right that there is opposition to Juncker, but

as long as Cameron turns it into an argument about Britain and Europe,

he will strengthen the hand of Juncker. Angela Merkel thinks

Juncker is inappropriate. She did not like the process, which was a

power grab by the European Parliament, but when David Cameron

went to the council and said that if I don't get my way, we could leave

the EU, that led to the backlash, most significantly from the SPD in

Germany. As Tony Blair says, if only David Cameron had made the argument

that Juncker is bad for Europe, then he would have found his natural

allies would have felt more comfortable following behind. Enough

Europe. I want to show you a picture. See what you think of this.

When I saw that picture, I thought it was so ludicrous that it had to

have been photo shop. Discuss. He is holding it with a certain disdain,

looking a bit hangdog. A disastrous picture for Ed Miliband. His

strength is authenticity, sincerity and cleverness. And he blows all of

that. He was the one who took on Murdoch, very bravely and

dangerously, and one, really. Now there he is supporting Murdoch's

son. It's a big mistake, not just in Liverpool, where obviously they are

particularly incensed. And then he apologises. Sort of apologises and

understands why Liverpool feels upset. But it is a fundamental error

and I hope he learns from this, that he must absolutely stay true to

himself. That's all he's got going for him. Who do we blame? His

advisers or himself? In the end, himself. Nobody forced him to do it.

On this one, he called it wrong. On this one, he called it wrong

It's a sign of the rather the bridal state of the Labour Party is that

his candidates were vocal in attacking him doing this. It's a

sign of how readable Ed Miliband is at Parliamentary level. I don't

think you should have apologised. The mistake he made was associating

himself with that newspaper. The mistake was the prior three years

when he went too far as portraying the Murdoch empire beyond the pale.

He made a case against phone hacking and offences in that regard without

going as far as he did with the rhetoric. To do that, and then pose

with the Sun newspaper, the juxtaposition is what did for him,

not the mere fact of posing with it. Maybe he did not know what he was

doing because we were told he doesn't read the British

newspapers. It was football, and he has posed with the Sun newspaper

before. Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg posed as well. But with the Sun

newspaper and football, you tread carefully. That was the mistake. You

get the impression from the picture that he looks so uncomfortable that

you wonder whether there was a full process of consultation that went on

within his media operation, within his political operation. Was he

fully aware of what would happen question what he looks so incredibly

uncomfortable. But at the end of the day, leaders have to take

responsibility. It is cultural as well. That picture says, I am down

there with the football blokes and you think, you are not. That is not

what people will vote for. Be yourself and don't pretend to be

something else because it never works. But the polls suggest that

the British voters don't yet see Ed Miliband as prime ministerial. The

worst thing you can then do is get involved in stunts that are more

likely to reinforce that idea than counter it. There was a precedent

for it in the last parliament which was Gordon Brown's attempts to feign

a populist touch. He did it by telling the contents of his iPod.

The Arctic monkeys. It always jarred because he was trying too hard. Not

uniquely guilty of, Ed Miliband, all uniquely guilty of, Ed Miliband all

the other leaders have done it. At the moment he more vulnerable. Yes,

and he is less popular than his party. Labour has quite a popular

brand, in a resilient way, in a way they don't with the Tories, yet

their leader is a personal problem. The pressure is on him to do stunts

like this. Will there be a shadow cabinet reshuffle? Yes, we have to

get the cabinet reshuffle out of the way first, and that might come next

week, maybe by the time of the summer recess, but the first thing

that the prime Minister do is work out who is the UK candidate for the

European Commissioner. Is it not the case probably that Ed Balls is

becoming semi-detached from the Ed Miliband project? I don't think

entirely. Nothing gets agreed without both of the end are green.

Ed Balls is controversial. He has great pluses and minuses and is a

big figure. Labour doesn't have that many big figures. It's quite hard to

think who would be a heavy hitter as a possible Chancellor. He is a

convincing chancellor to the future, Love him. He has the heft -- love

him or hate him. Any possibility Ed Balls could be moved as shadow

chancellor? The timing is convenient because the Scottish referendum ends

in the autumn and Alistair Darling becomes a free man, win or lose. I

don't think Ed Balls will be removed because moving him would be an

admission that everything the Labour Party said about the economy to the

preceding four years has been a mistake. And you can't do that nine

months before a general election. You invite ridicule. But relations

between Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are not great at the moment. The Ed

Miliband team are very, very suspicious of this new love in

between Ed Balls and Peter Mandelson. Mandelson likes to say

that he spotted the Ed Balls talents in the original place and appointed

him to the Gordon Brown team after the disaster of 1992. But things

obviously went awry, and now Ed Balls and Peter Mandelson Avenue

Rappaport, and that is with enormous suspicion -- they have a new

Rappaport. With good reason because it's about policy. It's about the

attitude towards business. Should they be out there saying they will

get the tax dodgers, Starbucks, Vodafone, are we going to take on

business in a big way? In a way that Ed Miliband has quite bravely said.

On the other hand, Ed Balls and Peter Mandelson are saying, hang on,

we only won in 1997 by being business friendly. Sorry to rush

you. We are running out of time. The Daily Politics will be back

every day this week at midday, and I'll be back here next Sunday

when I'll be joined by the shadow work and pensions

secretary Rachel Reeves.Remember if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics. Magnificent. The power base

of medieval England. Charles' ceiling was a piece

of breathtaking arrogance. You get a sense of the people

who made the palaces. as I unlock the secrets

of Britain's great palaces.