28/05/2017 Sunday Politics North East and Cumbria


Jo Coburn and Richard Moss with the latest political news, interviews and debate. John Curtice, Ben Wallace, Richard Burgon, Douglas Murray and Sara Khan are among the guests.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 28/05/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Good morning and welcome to the Sunday Politics.


New CCTV images are released showing suicide bomber, Salman Abedi,


on the night he attacked Manchester Arena, killing 22 people.


Are the politicians and the security services doing


Theresa May says Britain needs to be "stronger and more resolute"


in confronting extremist views, as she outlines plans


for a new Commission to counter extremism.


We'll be talking to the Security Minister.


Jeremy Corbyn says a Labour government would recruit 1,000


Here: and intelligence agencies.


Seven people from the North East died


in the Manchester bombing - how do we prevent more loss of life?


Which party has the best plan for our roads and railways?


supporters. In London, we look at what the Conservatives are offering


the capital, having voted Remain. To help guide me through this


morning, I'm joined by Steve Richards, Julia


Hartley-Brewer and Tim Marshall. They'll be sharing their thoughts


on Twitter and you can join So, with a week and a half to go,


the election campaign And some recent polls


suggest the race is just We'll be taking a closer look


at that in just a moment but, first, here are some of the key events over


the next 10 days or so: Tonight at 6pm will see the third


of the party leader interviews. This time it's the SNP's


Nicola Sturgeon facing questions While many across the UK will be


enjoying tomorrow's bank holiday, there will be no break


in campaigning for And in the evening it will be


the turn of Ukip's Paul Nuttall On Tuesday the SNP


publish their manifesto - the last of the major parties to do


so - after last week's Then on Wednesday, the BBC's


Election Debate will see representatives from the seven main


parties debate in front On Thursday, Lib Dem leader Tim


Farron will have his interview... Before Friday's Question Time


special with Theresa May They won't debate each other,


but will take questions consecutively from members


of the audience. The final week of campaigning


is a short one, with politicians cramming in three days


of door-knocking before voters go We'll have an exit poll once


voting has ended at 10pm, with the result expected early


in the morning of June 9th. Well, it's Sunday, and that always


means a spate of new opinion And they make for fascinating,


if a tad confusing, reading. There are five new opinion


polls today, which have the Conservative lead


over Labour anywhere from six points to 14 points.


So, what's going on? Professor John Curtice


is the expert we always turn to at times like this,


and he joins me from Glasgow. Take us through these polls. They


seem to be all over the place? They may seem to be but there is a very


consistent key message. Four of these five polls, if you compare


them with what they were saying before the Conservative manifesto


launch on the 18th, four say the Conservatives are down by two


points. Four of them say the Labour vote is up by two points. A clear


consistent message. The Conservative lead has narrowed. Why does this


matter? It matters because we are now in a position where the leads


are such that the Conservatives can no longer be sure of getting the


landslide majority they want. Some posters suggesting they may be in


trouble and it is going to get rather close. Others suggested is


further apart. There are two major sources of... The Poles agree that


young voters will vote Labour if they vote. Older voters will vote


for the Conservatives. How many of those younger voters will turn out


to vote? The second thing is whether the evidence in the opinion polls


that the Conservatives are advancing more in the North of England and the


Midlands is realised that the ballot box? If it is not realised, the


Tories chances of getting a landslide look remote. If it is,


they could still well indeed get a majority more than 80%. The


Conservatives have lost some ground depending on which opinion poll you


look at. What about the Labour Party? It is gaining ground. It has


been gaining ground ever since week one. They started on 26, they now


average 35. There were a lot of people out there at the beginning of


the campaign who were saying, I usually vote Labour but the truth is


I'm not sure about Jeremy Corbyn. They seem to have decided the Labour


manifesto wasn't so bad. They have looked at Theresa May and have said,


we will stick with Labour. Labour have managed to draw back into the


fold some of their traditional voters who were disenchanted,


together with, crucially, some of those younger voters who have never


voted before, who have always been a particular target for Jeremy Corbyn.


What is your reaction to previous opinion polls and elections weather


has been a feeling that some of the Labour support has been overstated?


This be a worry this time? That is one of the uncertainties that faces


the opinion polls and the rest of us. We had a conference on Friday at


which it was carefully explained that pollsters have been trying to


correct the errors that resulted in an overestimation of Labour support


a couple of years ago, particularly among younger voters. You shouldn't


assume the opinion polls will be wrong this time because they were


wrong the last time. We want in truth know whether or not the polls


have got it right. Even if they are wrong in terms of the level, they


are not wrong in terms of the trend. The trends have been dramatic so


far. A big rise in Tory support early on at the expense of Ukip. And


subsequently, a remarkable rise in Labour support, albeit from a low


initial baseline. This election has already seen quite a lot of


movement. We shouldn't rule out the possibility there will be yet more


in the ten days to come. That is his analysis. Let's talk to


the panel. Julia, how concerned should Conservative headquarters be


at this particular point at what looks like an apparent surge by


Labour? Depends if you want a massive landslide majority or might


not. I assume the Tory party do. Whether anybody thinks that is a


good idea is a different matter. Undoubtedly the manifesto league was


a total disaster. Social care policy and the U-turn. Lots of stuff in the


Labour manifesto was very appealing. The tactic from Sir Lynton Crosby


was clear. It is all about Theresa May. Don't even mention the


candidate or the party. The Labour Party, the candidates are on the


moderate side are saying, don't mention Jeremy Corbyn. This has been


a battle between two big people. The more we have seen of Theresa May,


she has gone down. The more we have seen of Jeremy Corbyn, he has gone


up. If you make it about strong and stable leadership and then you do


something like a massive unprecedented U-turn on a key policy


like social care, the knock is even greater. Do you think that is the


reason for the change in the opinion polls or is Labour gaining some


momentum? I think it is part of the reason. You can understand why the


focus was on her at the beginning because her personal ratings were


stratospheric. What is interesting is all successful leaders basically


cast a spell over voters in the media. None of them are titans. All


of them are flawed. It is a question of when the spell is broken. This is


a first for a leader's spell to be broken during an election campaign.


That was a moment of high significance. The fact the Labour


Party campaign is more robust than many thought it would be is the


other factor. I think it is the combination of the two, that the


trend, as Professor John Curtis said, the trend has been this


narrow. There has not been much campaigning. Local campaigning


resumed on Thursday, national campaigning on Friday. Do you think,


Tim Marshall, that the opinion polls are reflecting what happened in


Manchester and people's thoughts about which party will keep them


safe? No, I think that will come next week. I think it is too soon


for that. It was quite understandable from the V -- the


very beginning for Lynton Crosby to frame the campaign in terms of


Theresa May and Brexit. The electorate can have its own view.


You always have to go back to Clinton's it's the economy stupid


for most of the electorate. It is framed in your electricity bill. It


is framed in your jobs. Both manifestos have got more holes in


them than Swiss cheese. It comes down to which manifesto you believe.


The Labour manifesto makes more promises about things you care about


like your electricity bill. Interesting, but in the end despite


while we thought would be a Brexit election, it has been a lot about


public services. It always comes down to bread-and-butter issues. I


don't think we have quite seen how the terrorist you has played out. We


had the Westminster attack only a couple of months ago. That was


already factored in in terms of who you trust and who you don't trust.


The IRA stuff from Jeremy Corbyn is already factored in. People actually


care about how ordinary government policies affect their lives. Thank


you very much. The election campaign was,


of course, put on hold following the terrorist


attack in Manchester But now that campaigning has


resumed, it's hardly surprising that security


is now a primary concern. The Labour Party has announced it


would recruit 1,000 more Jeremy Corbyn, speaking on ITV at


short while ago, says previous cuts have undermined security.


It seems that the cuts in police numbers have led to some very


dangerous situation is emerging. It is also a question of a community


response as well. So that where, an imam, for example, lets the police


he is concerned about a muddy, I would hope they would act. And I


would hope we have -- and I would hope they would have the resources


to act as well. Joining me now from Leeds


is the Shadow Justice Good morning. You have announced a


thousand more Security and Intelligence agency staff. That is


in line with what the government has already announced and the Shadow


Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, has said you would not be spending any


more money. It doesn't amount to much, does it? That is just one of


the parts of our pledge card on the safer communities. There is also


10,000 extra police, because the Conservatives cut the police by


20,000. That 10,000 extra police would mean in -- and extra police


officer in each neighbourhood. There are 3000 extra put -- prison


officers. Prison staff has been cut by 6000. That is a third. It is not


helping keep communities safer. We are pledging 3000 extra


firefighters. Also, a thousand extra security staff and 500 extra border


guards. There have been 13 areas identified where our borders are not


as secure as they should be. That is the list of numbers you have given.


If we concentrate on the security services, because it was Jeremy


Corbyn he said there will be more police on the streets under Labour.


If the security sources need more resources they should get them. Why


aren't you giving them more? We are committing to a thousand more


police. The Godinet is doing that as well. You are not committing


anything more. The government has not delivered on that promise. We


will deliver on that promise is -- promise. What Jeremy has made very


clear is that you can't do security on the cheap. Austerity has to stop


at the police station door, and at the hospital door. But we will be


giving the resources required to keep our communities safer. So you


will give them the resources and more powers? Well, the police need


to be empowered. But when you listen to what the Police Federation are


saying, they have been speaking out for a long time about the danger


caused by police cuts. And I'm talking not only about terrorism,


not only about acts of extreme violence, but anything from


anti-social behaviour to burglary. Use it more powers. What sort of


powers are you thinking of giving the security services? We need to


listen to them. That is not a power. We need to listen to the


intelligence community and the security service, to the army and


the police, about what they think and how they think our communities


could be made safe. One thing is clear. Cutting the number of police


by 20,000 makes our community is less safe, not more safe. You said


you will listen to the security services. Can voters be reassured


and guaranteed that Jeremy Corbyn will listen to the security services


and the police in terms of more powers if that is what they want?


Until now he has spent his whole political career voting against


measures designed to tackle home-grown and international


terrorism. Jeremy Corbyn's speech on safer communities earlier this week


made clear he is listening to the security services. So he would grant


those new powers. He voted against the terrorism Act in 2000, into


thousands and six. In 2011. And in 2014, the data retention and


investigatory Powers act. Which new powers will he be happy to enact?


Just to say, Jeremy Corbyn along with Theresa May, David Davis and


many Conservative MPs, voted against legislation where they thought it


would be ill-advised, ineffective or actually counter-productive. It is a


very complex situation. What we don't want to do is introduce


hastily prepared laws with one eye to the newspaper headlines, which


can act as recruiting sergeants for terrorism. And actually, when I said


earlier that Jeremy Corbyn made clear in his speech this week that


he has been listening to the security services, what he said


about the international situation has also been said by the former


head of MI5, Stella Rimington, and her predecessor. As well as


president of back -- President Barack Obama.


You say he will give the police and security services the resources and


powers they need. If we look back at some of the legislation Jeremy


Corbyn and others voted against in 2000, it gave the Secretary of State


the -- new powers... Does Jeremy Corbyn still think that is a bad


idea? Jeremy Corbyn along with Theresa May, David Davis and


others... I know you want to bracket it with Conservatives but I'm


interested in what Jeremy Corbyn will do when he says we are going to


be smarter about fighting terrorism. If he's not prepared to vote in


favour of those sorts of measures, or trying to impose restrictions on


suspects, I'm trying to find out what he will do. It is a complex


situation. With this legislation the devil is often in the detail. If it


was a simple and stopping terrorism by voting a piece of legislation


through Parliament, it would have been stopped a long time ago. Sadly


there are no easy answers, and that is recognised by Barack Obama,


Stella Rimington, the head of the MI5, by David Davis and other


Conservative MPs. What is clear, as Jeremy made clear in his speech this


week, is the way things are being done currently is not working. We


have got to be tough on terrorism and the unforgivable acts of murder,


but also tough on the causes of terrorism as well. The sad truth is


there are no easy answers. If there were, the problem would have been


solved a long time ago. If you more security and terrorism officers but


your leader is still uncomfortable with giving them the powers they


need to do their jobs because it is complicated legislation, they will


want to know how you are going to do it. At another stop the War rally in


2014, Jeremy Corbyn said the murder of a charity worker was jingoism. At


the beginning of that speech he mentioned the importance of the


one-minute silence for the memory of Alan Henning who was murdered. What


he has also made clear is responsibility for acts of terrorism


and murder lies with the murder, and something that's really disappointed


me is that the Prime Minister said the other day that in Jeremy


Corbyn's speech on this on Monday, he said... Whether she agrees with


him on his politics, she knows he didn't say that in his speech, but


what troubles me is you have got a Prime Minister who must have sat


down with her advisers earlier that day and said, well I do know he


didn't say that but if we say he did we might win some votes. I think


that is shameful and it shows Theresa May cannot be trusted. These


issues should transcend party politics. We need to pull together


on this issue. Thank you very much. Well, the Conservatives have


promised a new statutory commission The party says it will identify


extremism, including the "non-violent" kind,


and help communities stand up to it. Also this morning,


the Security Minister, Ben Wallace, has attacked internet giants


for failing to tackle terror online, and accused them


of being ruthless money-makers. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.


Those comments you have made about social media companies failing in


their responsibility to take down extremist material, what will you do


to compel them? I think we will look at the range of options. The Germans


have proposed a fine, we are not sure whether that will work, but


there are range of pressures we can put onto some of these companies.


Some have complied. In the article in the Sunday Telegraph today I did


say it is not all of them. They are not immune to pressure. We can do


internationally, and the Prime Minister urged at the G7 and


international response. I think there are a range of issues. We


could change the law. You mentioned the G7, and rhetoric and warm words


are fine to an extent but it is action people want. If you have made


these impassioned remarks in the newspapers about them failing to do


the job, people want to know what powers do you have now to say to


social media companies take down this material? We have an act that


was recently passed. In this area we have just finished consulting on one


of the areas we could use but we cannot pre-empt the consultation. We


have right now officials from my department over in the United States


with American officials working with CSPs because what we see is that


they do respond to pressure. The best example is we think they have


the technology and the capability to change the algorithms they use that


maximise profit over safety. But you are relying on these companies


devoting more resources to this line of work that you would like to see


them do. Have you got any evidence they will do that? They said, only a


few weeks ago before the election was called the Home Secretary hosted


a Round Table with them. We have evidence they are trying to improve


it. A few are refusing to or being difficult, and that's why the Prime


Minister was right to step up not only the language she was using but


to say we are not going to allow this to progress any more. People


will be worried about who will make the judgment about what is


unacceptable and what should be taken down. Let me show you this,


which was shared widely across social media. If you read that quote


you could argue it is at the same end if you like. The man in the


picture is a terrorist hate preacher, the jihadist who was


killed in Yemen by the Americans. Is this the sort of thing you would be


demanding social media companies take down? You have to look at the


context it was deployed in. I could show you some of the 270,000 pieces


we have had removed since 2010 from internet sites that have been


extreme. The big issue is not often the individual image, it is the way


these companies set up the algorithms to link you. If you were


watching that on Facebook delivered to you, perhaps you would like to


look at this, because that's how they set it up. If you go onto


YouTube, you can get let down the path from looking at Manchester... I


understand your example, but from a practical level are you expecting


media companies to take down that sort of posts if it appeared? Yes...


You are? Who will make the decisions about what will radicalise young


people that could lead someone down the path to let off a bomb? If I


invite your viewers to look at the work the Guardian have done on


Facebook guidance, to say for example it is OK to produce videos


or broadcast videos of seven-year-olds being bullied as


long as it wasn't accompanied by captions, I don't think you need to


be an expert to say that is not acceptable. Something more worrying


for you as a journalist and me as a politician, another set of guidance


that says... I think this is quite menacing... That certain people


don't deserve our protection. That includes journalists and politicians


and people who are controversial. So I think there is more work to be


done but at the end of the day it is the pathway this stuff leads to. It


is more about examining how much progress you can make. The


Government says there are up to 23,000 potential terrorist attackers


in this country, 3000 of those posing a serious threat being


monitored. That is pretty disturbing, these are big numbers.


Yes, and the tragedy of Manchester shows this is not about failure, it


is about the scale of the challenge we face and that is why it is


important that alongside people is powers. Should you double the size


of MI5 for example? We have increased year-on-year in real terms


not only the money but the numbers of people in MI5. It is now 2000 we


have committed to increased to... Before the attack. Before our


manifesto we had recruited, we have increased the whole of government


spending on counterterrorism from ?11.7 billion in 2015 up to 15.7


billion. Would you expand the number of people in MI5? I have asked them


on a regular basis if they have the resource if they are happy with it,


and the answer comes back time and time again, yes we are. You have


quite extensive powers at your disposal, the question is if you are


using them. Measures were introduced in 2012 to replace control orders,


but they have rarely been used. Only seven are currently in operation.


Why? Because there are a whole... It is just one tool in the tool box.


Other powers we use, we take away people's passports if we think they


are about to travel. How many? I cannot comment, it is a sensitive


issue. Plenty of people are finding their passport has been removed and


at the same time we strip people of citizenship to make sure they don't


come back. On top of that, because of the investment made in GCHQ, MI5


and counterterrorism, we have more powers and more ability to monitor


them. But are you using them enough? Only seven TPIMs are in operation.


You won't give me any of the other measures at your disposal, but if


they are only in single figures, that doesn't seem to compare with


the numbers who are being monitored. Also, we have to strike a balance


between... We have to satisfy the court so we have to make sure there


is enough evidence to restrict people's freedoms. TPIMs do all


sorts of good things to keep people safe. It sends people away from


where they live, it tags them... I tell you why they are better. The


control orders were on track to be struck down by the courts because


one of the things we have to satisfy is the courts but we also have to


satisfy, we have to make sure we get the balance between the community is


right and the measures we take. If we alienate our communities, we


won't get the intelligence that allows us to catch it. There is no


point in having more police and intelligence services if you don't


give them the powers to do the job. Jeremy Corbyn were licensed James


Bond to do precisely nothing. And -- thank you.


The revelation that the Manchester suicide bomber, 22-year-old


Salman Abedi, was born in this country has raised fresh concerns


about the effectiveness of the UK's counter-extremism policy.


In a moment we'll be talking to two people who've spent their careers


investigating radicalisation in the UK.


Douglas Murray, of the Henry Jackson Society,


and Sara Khan, author of The Battle for British Islam and CEO


of the counter-extremism organisation Inspire.


We asked both for a personal take on how to confront the problem


of Islamist extremism. First up, here's Douglas Murray.


Even after all these dead, all this mourning and defiance,


We remain stuck in the John Lennon response to terrorism -


Our politicians still refuse to accurately identify


the sources of the problem, and polite society


This country gave asylum to the Libyan parents of Salman Abedi.


Their son repaid that generosity by killing 22 British people,


one for each year of life this country had given him.


We need to think far more deeply about all this.


Eastern Europe doesn't have an Islamic terrorism problem


France has the worst problem because it has the most Islam.


Are we ever going to draw any lessons from this?


For the time being, the game is to be as inoffensive as possible.


The rot isn't just within the Muslim communities.


Consider all those retired British officials and others who shill,


and are in the pay of the Saudis and other foreign states,


even while they pump the extreme versions of Islam into our country.


It is high time we became serious too.


Islamist extremism is flourishing in our country.


We're failing to defeat it, so what can we do about it?


Whenever I say we must counter those Muslim organisations


who are promoting hatred, discrimination, and sometimes even


violence, I'm often either ignored by some politicians out


of a misplaced fear of cultural sensitivity, or I find myself


experiencing abuse by some of my fellow Muslims.


These groups and their sympathisers tour Muslim communities,


hold events, and have hundreds of thousands of followers


Yet there is little counter challenge to their toxic


anti-Western narrative, which includes opposition


I've seen politicians and charities partner


with and support some of these voices and groups.


Many anti-racist groups will challenge those on the far


right but not Muslim hate preachers, in the erroneous belief that to do


But it's Islamophobic not to challenge them because it implies


Following the attack on Monday, it cannot be business as usual.


We must counter those who seek to divide us.


Sarah Karen Allen Douglas Murray join me know. You wrote a book,


strange death of Europe. What did you mean in your film when you said,


let's get serious? Several things. Let me give you one example. The


young man who carried out this atrocious attack was a student at


Salford University for two years. He was on a campus which is, from its


leadership to its student leadership, opposes all aspects of


the government's only counter extremism programme. They boast they


are boycotting it. They always did this. The university he was at was


against the only counter extremism policy this state has. This is just


one example of a much bigger problem. What are you suggesting?


Shut down the University? Force them to change their policies? I think in


the case of Salford, which discourages students from reporting


Islamic extremism... When you discover you have produced a suicide


bomber in Manchester, you should be held responsible. What do you say to


that? I think it is quite clear from I am experienced there have been


politicians who have undermined Prevent, community organisations,


Islamist groups who have been at the forefront of undermining and


countering Prevent, but also wider counter extremism measures. Islamist


-- Islamist extremes and has flourished in this country. If


Summer Rae had given us a crystal ball ten years ago and said, look


forward and you will see hundreds of people leave this country to join


Isis, we will have hundreds of people convicted of Islamist


offences, I think we would have been quite shocked that things have got


worse as opposed to getting better. Douglas Murray, the essence of your


argument when you made the comparison between the numbers of


Muslims in other countries is that we have too much Islam in Britain?


The aunt Tilly Muslim Brotherhood give is that the answer to


absolutely everything is Islam. Less Islam is a good thing. Let me


finish. The Islamic world is in the middle of a very serious problem. It


has been going on since the beginning. I think it is not worth


continuing to risk our own security simply in order to be politically


correct. I would disagree with Douglas on that. Nobody is going to


deny that since the end of the 20th century there has been a rise in


Islamist extreme terror organisations. Yes, there is a


crisis within contemporary Islam, but there is a class. There are


competing claims about what the faith stands for. While we are


seeing Islamist terror organisations, leading theologians


are saying that the concept of a caliphate is outdated. Muslims


should be adopting a human rights culture. I entirely agree with that.


There are obviously people trying to counter that. I would urge us to


take the long view. In the history of Islam there have been many


reformers. Most of the time they have ended a up being the ones on


the brunt of the violence. I deeply resent what you and others do in


this country. I want you to win. But they are a Billy good minority. A


poll last year found that two thirds of British Muslims found they would


not report a family member they found to be involved in extremism to


the police. You are proposing more Draconian measures. I wish they


could win. We should do everything we can to support people like that.


What we should recognise the scale of the problem is beyond our current


understanding. You counter radicalisation on a university


campus or online? Discussion we had with Ben Wallace about the material


that is out there. If we pursue in a hard-line way perhaps the sort of


thing Douglas Murray is suggesting, gone is freedom of speech, gone is


freedom of debate and discussion? The best way to counter extremism is


through the prism of human rights. We cannot abandon our human rights


to fight extremism. Where I think we are going wrong, where there is a


gap, is the lack of counter work to challenge Islamist ideals. How many


people are going to say we need to counter that strict narrative? That


is where we are not doing enough work. What about the human rights


point, that you cannot take away people's human rights? I'm not


suggesting that. I'm suggesting we do things that ensure that 22 people


don't get blown up on an average Monday again, OK? Dissent to be


opposed to people want to blow up our daughters is not opposing human


rights. If you're taking government money and you are an institution


like Salford University you should be held responsible for not


cooperating with standard security measures. You can challenge


extremism without abandoning human rights. We have got to actually


counter the Islamist narrative. We're not doing enough. This is not


about closing down free speech. This is encouraging it. This is the most


effective way of countering the Islamist narrative. Why isn't it


doing better? A number of reasons. One is there is a denial taking


place. A lot of apologetics. Part of it is the way we talk about Muslims


in this country. We use the term Muslim community as if they are


homogenous. There is a positive trend but there is a negative trend


among British Muslims. We need to counter those promoting the idea


that Muslims are part of a collective identity. I agree. It is


also the case there is massive push back because a lot of Muslims are


defending the faith in this country. We think we can push them down a


better path but they are defending absolutely everything. We need to


get real about that. Thank you very much.


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, the Week Ahead.


Hello and welcome to your local part of the show in a week in which seven


North East people lost their lives in the Manchester bombing.


We'll be discussing that and Labour's pledge to reverse cuts


to the police and emergency services, which Jeremy Corbyn


says is making the fight against terrorism even harder.


My guests are James Wharton, who is hoping to retain


his Stockton South seat for the Conservatives.


Laura Pidcock, who is standing for Labour in the North West


Anne Marie Curry is the Liberal Democrat contender in Darlington.


Andy Redfearn is the Green Party's candidate in Gateshead.


We'll also be taking a look at another of the big issues


in the North in this election - transport.


Which party, if any, will deliver much-needed


investment in our roads, railways and the Tyne


Let's start with the response in our region to the attack


Hundreds of people turned out at a vigil in Newcastle


to show their support and solidarity with those affected.


While flags were flown at half-mast and flowers laid


at the Town Hall in South Shields, as well as at many other public


buildings across the region, a minute's silence was observed


A lot of emotion this week, some defiance, determination not to be


beaten by the terrorists. It is enough being done to protect the


public? I think it is very difficult to counter these sort of threats,


individuals motivated by things they see or read online or things that


they see in their own lives. The security services do an incredibly


good job. A number of attacks have been stopped. We always need to be


vigilant and careful. We rely on communities to work with our


security services to prevent this sort of thing, but we need to


recognise the emergency services, security services doing a good job


and often difficult circumstances. Do you think Jeremy Corbyn head to


the right tone with his response? I want to starts by saying that I


couldn't stop thinking about my three nieces on that day because


they really wanted to go to that concept. I asked them after the


event that they would still want to go to construct and they all said


yes. That is the kind of defiance that we need. The emergency services


did an incredible job. It brings out the best in people. They saved


whoever they save. Once people are less raw, once the nation has the


chance to grieve, I think there are questions to be answered about


whether cutting 20,000 police from our streets had an impact on the


kind of intelligence we are able to gather. Jeremy Corbyn raised on


Friday, was that too soon? They are conversations happening on the


doorstep so he is raising the voice of the people. What does follow


these numbers do to their ability to gather information? There is no


evidence that the attack on Manchester could have been prevented


by more police on the street. I work with young people over the last


eight years, and I have worked with extreme young people, with young


people radicalise towards the far right. When we look at interventions


for those jumpy but we see the impact of cuts. We say, can we


repair them there, can we have a youth worker... You can say that the


cuts had anything to do with that motivation for the person who


planted the bombs in Manchester? That person is responsible for what


they did. When we have all had time to grieve, there are questions to be


answered about the police cuts. High up these officers are saying that


the piece are under pressure. It is valid for boaters to look at this


and say I would be safer if these cuts to boost officers hadn't


happened? It is perfectly valid reporters to make judgments. The


truth is that this sort of activity is not straightforward old-fashioned


policing. It is very complex and requires a complex response which


includes the security services. Nonetheless, people will have a


choice in this election to feel safe with Jeremy Corbyn Ord Theresa May.


Labour promising more police officers, you're not. Labour seems


to have rediscovered the magic money tree and the selection. In Jeremy


Corbyn you have a leader that this week on Terror and the causes of it,


and Theresa May as an experienced Home Secretary. Tim Farron criticise


Jeremy Corbyn scented with politics before people on Thursday. There is


a time and a place to do it. A couple of days after the event is


not the right time to do it. Maybe in a week's time would been a better


time because people then have got over the horrific shock. A lot of


people are in shock about the situation. Do you disagree with the


general thrust of what he said? I have concerns because the reporter,


that the imam and Muslim community were telling the police did this guy


had gone rogue yet nothing was done. Was that due to lack of policing or


was it due to people not believing the imam? That needs to be


investigated. The response has been firm on this post the attack. The


terror alert level has been lowered. Could more have been done? It is


hard to say looking back in hindsight that nothing more could


have been done. Clearly lots more could have been done in this


specific case. What people are interested in is what can we do on a


more general level to make our country safer, to make people feel


more included? For somebody to actually want to blow themselves up


and kill other people... What do you think is the solution? We have


created a culture in this country or allowed a culture to beat created,


particularly in the light of Brexit, for it to be OK for people to say


things that are wrong and reassessed and cause people to feel


marginalised, disadvantaged. We don't know what the motivation of


this man was. He was a young man he has clearly decided his only hope


unlike this to blow himself up. Somebody has done the evil thing of


persuading him that was the right thing to do. People behind that of


the people we should be making sure we find. It is not a great issue for


Labour, the polls suggest that people trust Theresa May over Jeremy


Corbyn on this issue. Amber Rudd admitted after this that she needed


to look again at police cuts. I am not saying anything outrageous or


anything the Home Secretary has not said, that there would be a rethink


of the police cuts. It makes people feel secure is that they know they


have a lease officers who are not stressed than being supported. That


bomber was responsible for his actions. Is it so wrong for Labour


leader make some connection with saying that foreign wars, the


instability of foreign countries, is a problem that feeds this. Jeremy


Corbyn is entitled to make the contribution as he sees fit. Most


people looking at what he said at his track record in Parliament, over


his entire life in politics, see somebody who cannot be trusted on


this issue. Well, let's look at an issue


now that doesn't always gets much attention at a general


election - transport. It is crucial of course,


as anybody who has battled through roadworks or stood for hours


in an overcrowded But investment is also vital


for the region's economic success. The North East and Cumbria has


lagged far behind London and the South East in transport


spending for years, but now the parties are making


promises to change all that. Washington, Tyne and Wear,


and a man on the mission trying And this, apparently,


is Railway Terrace. But, sadly, it seems I am


destined for disappointment. Well, just my luck, I seem to have


missed the last train here by 54 years because,


actually, there has been no train station here in Washington,


not even a link to the Tyne That is despite an 80,000


population that, as you can Washington is the largest town


in the North with no trains. And that means a lot of this,


waiting for buses, especially for Adam Robson during his time


at Newcastle College. It took me well over


an hour, two buses and then eventually the Metro,


to get there and it I was thinking there


are probably thousands of people within Washington who would commute


to Newcastle and if they don't drive, they will probably have


to go through equally But Adam didn't take


that lying down. He started a campaign to bring


the Metro to Washington, Nowadays, he is at university,


but remains convinced I did enjoy growing up


in Washington, but if I came back to work in the North East I would


probably choose somewhere else. So having the Metro here


could make the difference between whether you come back


here or not, really? But even the existing


Metro has problems. This station needs TLC


and the trains are even worse - 40 years old and increasingly


unreliable. A ?500 million bid for new


investment is with ministers now. Campaigning passengers say the cash


should be found and without delay. We need new trains,


we need a new power system, we need infrastructure or we close


the Metro down and that's And the infrastructure on the roads


just couldn't cope with that, so it's not just for people


who travel by Metro, it's for the whole of the North East


that this is needed. But at least our roads


are seeing some investment, including a new ?100 million bridge


across the Wear. But, actually, this is more


than just about building a spectacular bridge or even cutting


journey times because the hope is that when this opens


in about a year's time it will help to regenerate Sunderland


and bring new jobs to both Further north in Cramlington,


an example of investment This ?2 million lorry test centre


was built by a local haulier, but the boss here still wants to see


the brakes taken off We have talked now for probably 30,


40 years about dualling the A1. We are always more comfortable


when we see the diggers on the road. Businesses like ours invest


when we can see what the future is. This facility we are in today,


for example, the vehicle testing centre, is built at the junction


of the A19 and A1. It is here because the


road network is here. The same would happen


if the roads were further north. The same would happen if the roads


were built further north. Back in Washington,


the weeds continue to grow Of course, this isn't the only place


waiting for transport investment. Teesside would love its own Metro,


Ashington the return of passenger services,


West Cumbrians the So wouldn't it would be nice


if we could make decisions about that here rather than waiting


for Westminster and Whitehall? Some say that could happen


if councils and mayors were given more control over local taxes


and allowed to borrow to invest. We really think the North should be


leading not pleading Local leaders should have the kind


of control necessary to be able to make the investments


that they know are going to benefit the local area, and also be able


to borrow upfront to fund that economic growth that


will come in the future. For now, though, the people


of Washington and beyond must wait to see what Westminster politicians


promise and, more crucially, John McDonnell came up a few weeks


before the election and pledged Metro investment, hundreds of


millions of pounds of investment. Labour and the selection is


promising to pay for everything for everyone and they don't know whether


money is going come from. They are going to borrow that money and put


it into an infrastructure fund. They are going to borrow some. There


would be huge tax rises needed if they were to deliver on what they


are saying. Transport investment is important for growth. We want to see


more in the North. All politicians in our region, whoever is elected,


we will need to make the case to get that investment into the north-east.


The case at the moment is being made by Labour. Metro investment is


critical, we have pledged Labour, not from you. The Labour manifesto


is a fantasy shopping list. Better than no pledge at all. We have seen


transport for London established, significant investment on our roads,


but we need to do more. We need to make a case for this region. ?500


million for the Metro, that will be considered against other bids around


the country. We need to make our case is the strongest and


successful. You are proposing too great a mountain of debt to fund


them. It is not credible. That is not true. The Tories are on the


roads here because we have costed manifesto. They don't. They talk


about consultations and Green Paper is, when you are asking the public


to place trust in you... You are going to borrow a massive wedge of


money. It is cost neutral if you are borrowing to invest. It costs us and


massive amount of money to have privatised rail systems at the


moment when that money could be coming back into the Treasury. It


doesn't make any sense... As the Minister for the Northern powerhouse


and shareholders that could be coming into the Treasury, the


Conservatives have presided over a massive transport authority. It is


over ?1000 per head in the south-east, it is only ?200 per head


in the North East. We are seeing nutrients on the lines... Labour's


rhetoric doesn't match up to what is happening, does it? We have seen bus


deregulation, seeing the people in North West Durham are completely cut


off, they can't get buses on Sundays or bank holidays. They have to walk


for hours to get to a shopping centre. Who would say local


authorities should be able to set timetables and routes. Labour has


come up with a plan to spend hundreds of millions of pounds. They


are in a better position to deliver the newcomers away but would you? Is


what Labour and the Tories are banking on his infinite growth,


infinite resources, infinite everything because that high


everything will be funded. We think that should be more questions about


how we just only build more stuff, but begin to ask questions about why


people need to travel? When the A1 was recently upgraded through to


Newcastle, the upgrade there, employers knew it was coming, Newton


was going to be chaos, they came up a full-time of creative ways to work


with their employees, early start, early finishes, traffic fell. If you


want your road in your area improved, don't go green? If you


want to have cheap foreign travel, dopant green? It is easy to do


through that kind of stuff at us. I couldn't get the bus here today


because the buses couldn't get me here. Rather than spending billions


of pounds investing three miles on the A1 without one single point been


spent on bus pass, cycle lanes. We would spend it on making Joe the


buses were regulated again so we could ensure people to get public


transport again. Looking at your manifesto, take promises and warm


words. No even than two dual the A1. words. No even than two dual the A1.


Lib Dems locally are campaigning locally to do one all the way up.


Why wasn't that in the manifesto? The manifesto is a national policy.


believe that is the right thing to believe that is the right thing to


are you promising? We are promising are you promising? We are promising


to get more sustainable transport, give a reduction in fares for 18-21


-year-olds, to get the blood of using the buses. But private


companies using the buses, they will only go where they can get a return


on the journey. Or we could get more people using the buses...


Well, the campaign is entering its last full week.


So far, we've seen Theresa May in Northumberland and in North Shields.


UKIP leader Paul Nuttall stopped off briefly in Hartlepool.


But no sign yet of Jeremy Corbyn, although we do understand


he will make an appearance in the North East


So let's take stock of what we've seen so far and look ahead


The polls have suggested that Labour is picking up support, but goodness


knows that they are right, we have been better map -- by that before.


There was a real sea change when both manifestos came out. People


could see a stark contrast between what the Labour Party was offering


knocked on doors when people were knocked on doors when people were


really scared that the rooms were going to be taken of them if they


had to use to social care system. had to use to social care system.


There are some affluent places in North West Durham as well, and older


people were scared. People started to see a real offer that we are


about a party of investing to grow. We are a party that is interested in


making sure that we had signed finances through fiscal credibility


rule and we have costed manifesto. The Tories have costed there is.


There is already talk of relaunching the Conservative campaign. It has


been a bit lacklustre. There were some positive policies in the Labour


manifesto that people could get hold of, what was there in the


Conservative manifesto apart from doom and gloom over social care? I


think the polls have narrowed and this election is in contention. You


can't assume that result is going to prevail. At the beginning of it like


it was going to be an easy win for the Conservatives and Theresa May.


That is not the case any more. Labour have promised everything to


everyone. Principal effect a generation of people in this country


and people have to vote between Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn. Making


the presidential hasn't worked so far. The tarnish has come Theresa


May in the last few weeks about what has been happening. I would love to


sit here and say we are going to glide to a win, but the polls have


narrowed. The big issue that will affect this were a generation is he


will undergo sea of exit, and that will either be Theresa May or Jeremy


Corbyn. Ten days to go, no sign of a Lib Dem left off. No sign of


high-profile campaigning from your party. If anything, your voters


drifting to Labour. I think it is a lot of tactical voting that is


happening across the region. Because of that we may lose out in our


nontargeted seats. We have plenty of seats around the country whether


tactical voting has helped us. Apart from Berwick, it is pretty grim.


Derek is getting a good response on the seats. They are squeezing the


Labour vote and it seems to be working there. Labour is the only


challenge to the Conservatives, is what many people are saying. It has


been for many years. Some people will giving get the chance to vote


Green. But the most part your party are supportive of Jeremy Corbyn, so


why do but the vote in other places to the Greens? Sums Labour policies


that the Green party can overlap with. In other areas, we don't feel


that Jeremy Corbyn is taking the Labour Party to a place that we


don't think right. We would abandon Trident. We would save us and the


country ?10 billion. It is important that we are campaigning on those


issues, issues like electoral reform, issues about sustainability.


The Tories had a manifesto that said there are five big issues facing


this country and not one of them was the environment. How could that be?


You might be looking to reduce the scale of debate, but it was to be a


big one. We are taking every vote seriously. We're right there all day


everyday... Are you really think we can win? I think there has been an


atmospheric change in the country so I think we can win. Personal debt in


this country is ?14,000 per household. Why is that, because


people's pay has been frozen and they are on low pay. We propose to


change all of that. You have to put some hope back into your campaign,


haven't you? A positive future? Absolutely, and I think there is,


but that doesn't change the fact that this is about Brexit. I think


there is a lot of hope in Brexit. On Tuesday we'll be in Gateshead


where an audience of voters from across the North East


and Cumbria will be putting THEIR questions


to a panel of candidates re-elected. Is the only choice for


strong and stable leadership. Now, after the Manchester attack,


will the final week of election campaigning different in tone from


what came before? My panel are here. Tim Marshall, it will be very front


of Centre for the next few days. Is that a good thing for the election


if it is going to be framed to who do you feel more safe with? It is


inevitable but I think it will only be part of the election. As I said


before the opt out, for many voters this is also about economics,


unemployment. It is not all about Brexit, nor is it only about


security. What it will do, I hope, is get the tone of the debate right.


Although I have already seen the tone being lowered. I wasn't


impressed with Mr Corbyn's speech last week blaming it on a foreign


policy, which is a wafer thin analysis of what is going on.


Inappropriate timing too soon? No, I think the argument is utter


nonsense. I don't want to attack just one side. The Conservative


party, I've forgotten which minister has already said that we would be


safer under a Tory Prime Minister, it has got nothing to do with Labour


or Tory government, the next Islamic attack. It is to do with jihadist


ideology, not party policies. You raise an important issue about tone.


It also points to a broader argument, one we were having


earlier, has politics been two courses with this issue of


extremism? Has the conversation about it tiptoed around some of the


sensitive issues? And by the media. You highlight the problem of this


being part of the election campaign by saying, has politics been too


cautious? Who do you mean by politics? And in an election


campaign there is a duty to be a divide, and adamant about values,


policies etc. Security is an issue that transcends those political


divides. So I think it is deeply unhealthy. It is nobody's fault a


tragedy occurred. But if you ask me does it help or enhance an election


debate? Emphatically not. A tragic event brings politics, as you call


it, together. Security is an issue that is complex and doesn't divide


neatly. Elections are political battles, by definition. So I think


the coming together of this, a tragedy occurred anyway, but it is


an unfortunate context. Do you agree or do you think this is a time to


talk about these issues? Is it a time to review the level of


argument? This is a political debate. I personally think the


politicians should have been out and about on Wednesday. There is no


wrong time to get it right. We mustn't let the terrorists affect


our way of life. But they have when we disrupt the election campaign. It


may be party political. But for a lot of voters, including me, I want


to hear from party leaders. What do you plan to do about this? Right


now, I've not heard anything that suggests any of these parties have


got to grips with the real problem, which is that we are not actually


tackling the problem in our midst. Douglas Murray touched on it


earlier. We have not even come to grips with the scale of the problem.


Does Labour have a grip -- Power Point in terms of terrorist


legislation? It is complicated. And not all of it has worked or is used


enough by government? It is another example where this doesn't work in


an election debate because David Davis has opposed a lot of this


terrorism legislation. He is now heading Brexit. There is a civil


liberties argument which I personally have doubts about. Again,


it brings people together from the major parties. And Corbyn didn't


actually say it was the cause of terrorism, British foreign policy,


but it helped to facilitate terrorism, which is a different


argument. Again, that would be supported by some Tories as well.


That is why it is difficult in an election campaign for this issue to


dominate. The front page of the Sunday Times talks about a campaign


relaunch, which may not, grow as a great surprise following the social


care fiasco. Do we know what that will entail? It sounds like Boris


Johnson will play a role. The whole point is it was all about Theresa


May and it turns out that is not quite good enough. The more we have


seen of Theresa May, the less impressive she has looked. Certainly


the Andrew Neil interview just repeating the same thing again and


again. Voters don't like that. They like people who are honest and


actually engage with them. When we see beat interviews in the next few


days, I think it will be interesting to see if she changes tack and tries


to engage with what people are asking. If it is back to leadership


and Brexit, and the economy, will that be more comfortable ground? I


think so. I understand framing it in terms of Brexit. But she has got to


broaden it out. I think that is why she is broadening it out. I don't


think the tragic events will absolutely dominate. That would be a


small victory for terrorism. This is a country of 65 million people with


an awful lot of issues. We have 65 million votes, well, 65 million


people with opinions in two weeks. It is quite a long campaign. There


is still time to go. What do you think Labour will be focusing on


from now on? I would imagine they will look very closely at where they


are well ahead in the opinion polls and focus on that relentlessly.


Public services, NHS etc. And try to get it off as soon as possible from


security and fees is used which, on one level at least, appear to be a


gift to the Conservatives. I assume that is what they are going to do.


But this is a very unpredictable campaign where nothing has gone


according to plan. Let's look ahead. On Wednesday evening we have got an


election debate. It is in Cambridge. Leaders of some of the parties.


Amber Rudd will be representing the Conservatives. We don't know yet who


will represent Labour. Today we have had Amber Road and Diane Abbott


against each other on Andrew Marr. Let's have a look. I think there is


something to be said for a Home Secretary who has actually worked in


the Home Office. I work in the home office for nearly three years as a


graduate trainee. This government has always felt that urgency. That


is why we have been putting in additional money. It is significant


that the commission for extremism in the manifesto was put in before


Manchester. We need to do more. You voted against prescribing those


groups. Because there were groups on that list I deemed to be dissidents


rather than terrorist organisations. We are making good progress with the


companies who put in place encryption. We will continue to


build on that. It was 34 years ago. I had a rather splendid Afro at the


time. I don't have the same hairstyle. And I don't have the same


views. It is 34 years on. The hairstyle has gone. Some of the


views have gone. So you no longer, you regret what you said about the


IRA? The hairstyle has gone, the views have gone. I would say to


Diane Abbott that I have changed my hairstyle are few times in 34 years


but I have not changed my view of how we keep the British public safe.


Let's get away from hairstyle sides talk about the prospect of the two


of them taking part in the election debate. Would you like to see that?


On one level I would like to see it and another the level I would like


to see an intelligent debate. I'm glad I never had an Afro or


supported the IRA. Whenever Diane Abbott steps out in a TV studio or a


radio studio, Labour haemorrhage votes. She cannot say things like my


regret supporting this or that legislation. She is an absolute


disaster. If Labour put her up, they are beyond mad. Who do you think


Labour should put up? By the way, I did have an Afro! I based my whole


log on Kevin Keegan and it was good. That is the wrong question. I will


explain why. The Labour campaign, it seems to me there were only five or


six people put up. That is the fault of others who refused to take part.


It also shows the degree to which the current leadership can only rely


on five or six people. I would imagine we are talking about a pool


of five or six people. As for my judgment as to who the best public


performer is in that pool, it would be by some margin John McDonnell,


who is a very good interviewee and performer. I think he is a very good


performer. It would come back to the economy at some point, presumably.


But then it comes back to the IRA. I don't think the debate will be very


illuminating. I think if Amber Rudd is there, Diane Abbott should be


there. I think the leaders should be debating. Some people say it is


froth. I think the leader -- the electorate gets a sense of the


leaders. On haircuts, I would like to thank both of them are talking


about the haircuts. I am looking forward to tomorrow's papers and the


theme that will run through the week. Let's not finish on the hair.


Thank you very much for being our guests. That is it for today. Thank


the panel for Jonny May. Andrew Neil will be back next weekend. And I


will be back on BBC Two on Tuesday. That is at midday with more daily


politics. In the meantime, have a very lovely bank holiday. From all


of us here, bye-bye.


Jo Coburn and Richard Moss with the latest political news, interviews and debate.

Professor of politics John Curtice, minister for security Ben Wallace, shadow justice minister Richard Burgon, author and commentator Douglas Murray, and director of Inspire (counter-extremism and women's rights organization) Sara Khan are among the guests.

Journalists Steve Richards, Tim Marshall and Julia Hartley-Brewer make up the political panel.

Download Subtitles