28/05/2017 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

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

more staff at security and intelligence agencies.

And coming up here: As election campaigning resumes

after Monday's Manchester bomb attack, I'll be joined live

in the studio by the leader of the SDLP, Colum Eastwood.

Join me in half an hour. 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 Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland.

Election campaigning has resumed following a pause for a number

of days as a mark of respect for the victims of the

We'll ask how much the events of last Monday night have changed

the tone of the debate in the run up to June 8th.

And we'll hear from the leader of the SDLP, Colum Eastwood,

on the challenge of retaining his party's three Westminster seats.

Plus, here to share their thoughts on all of that and more,

my guests of the day are Patricia MacBride

Politicians are back on the campaign trail this weekend after a pausing

as a mark of respect to those killed in the Manchester bomb.

Unionists accused Sinn Fein of hypocrisy by condemning

the attack but not condemning the previous IRA

Sinn Fein says the criticism is outrageous and that the party has

Let's hear the thoughts of Sophie Long and Patricia MacBride.

Welcome to you both. Let's talk about that situation, the SDLP and

alliance accuse the unionist parties are playing part of tics foot --

politics by attacking Sinn Fein over this issue. Is that fair? I think it

is. It's simply not going to happen. More importantly, the people who are

considering voting for Sinn Fein are not going to be swayed either way

whether that statement is made or not, they will vote the way they

intended. It was an attempt at trying to bring her into a position

where Michelle doesn't have any baggage in terms of the conflict,

she was never a Republican prisoner, she has no background in that area.

She has family connections. But if you delve deep enough into any one's

family is, there will be connections. It is a doll and it is

disingenuous politics, trying to get her to react in that way.

Is it a damned if they do damned if they don't

It's incredibly difficult to ask them to make these broad moral

statements when their existence and their identities as a political

party is founded on this partial moral view on the use of violence

which a lot of her supporters still see as having some legitimacy. As

Patricia points out, they are looking ahead to the election. I

think on the one hand you can say that, yes, absolutely all violence

is wrong. If you want to be taken as a publicly reasonable person, you

cannot make any exceptions. But Sinn Fein are in a difficult spot here.

Of course certain parties are tried to push them into a corner to make

controversial statements and alienate themselves from their base.

Jeremy Corbyn has come in for a lot of criticism for his past

He has now condemned all acts of irate violence after coming under

pressure to distance himself from the group's activities. To think

that will continue to be an issue between now and June eight? The

Tories will continue to make it an issue, but it was touring ministers

who are meeting the Republicans in the 1970s, before Jeremy Corbyn ever

did. We will hear more from you later in the programme.

Now - will unionists ride to the rescue of the SDLP to help it

hold on to its three Westminister seats?

As the party comes under pressue from Sinn Fein,

Colum Eastwood has called on unionists to vote for his party.

Or has Brexit made them more concerned about the Union

than helping the SDLP outpoll Sinn Fein?

I'm joined by the SDLP leader, Colum Eastwood.

Welcome to you. Thank you for joining us. It looks as though you

were openly concerned that you will struggle to hold onto your receipts

on June eight. How worried are you that the market decline in recent

years will be accelerated in the selection? We just had an election a

few weeks ago where we retained 12 seats and a reduced Assembly. The

SDLP just had a very good election. You want me to list the previous

elections were you did badly? We have had four campaigns in the month

I've been the leader. We just had a very good election. We've gone up

for the first time in a long time and I think that is a very good

start. Different electoral system, much more challenging I would think

for the SDLP this time around. It is and it isn't. We are in a tight

fight in all three of the constituents that we hold. --

constituencies. We are telling people that we are in a tight fight

and we're telling people to come out and vote for us. And I think people,

whether you vote for Sinn Fein, traditionally in SDLP boater or

union is concerned about Brexit, the only choices to vote SDLP, we have

been the most pro-European party, we campaigned against Brexit, we have

worked against Brexit ever since we voted against it, we have spoken

against it in the House Commons. The other party will support Theresa

May, they think he is a fantastic Prime Minister and Sinn Fein won't

do anything at all. A vote for Sinn Fein in the election is a wasted

vote. The fight for these seats will be take, you push the unionist vote

for the SDLP. How could that be considered anything other than a

lasted ditch move? Diver member Martin McGuinness standing and

appealing for unionist votes. I remember Jerry McAdams as well. We

are asking people to vote for the party that will stand up for their

interests. I am an Irish nationalist, there was no denying

that or returning I am not. If you tell people, if you vote for

Unionists normally or Sinn Fein, you're worried about a heart Brexit,

the only party in this election in this Parliament in this Chamber who

I actually stand up for you as the SDLP. I don't think anybody can say

otherwise. Sinn Fein don't even go, they make it public, in this

election they will have no impact at all in Westminster. It's a strange

mixed mission. You are telling unionist to vote SDLP or they'll get

Sinn Fein. I have not mentioned Sinn Fein when appealing for unionist

votes. If people want strong representation, standing up against

a hard border and heart Brexit and hard Tory government, of coarse they

should vote for the SDLP. We are not going to pretend we are not Irish

nationalists. Rather than Sinn Fein is what you are effectively saying?

I don't think unionist will vote for Sinn Fein. Or you will get Sinn

Fein? I am asking traditional Sinn Fein voters to vote for us as well.

I asked for Sinn Fein voters to do the same. I am saying, if people

want proper representation in Westminster, it is a pretty obvious

choice. If they want to see people standing against Tory cuts, people

standing against a hard border, of course they have to vote for the

SDLP. Other parties won't do that. At the start of this campaign, you

were at the forefront of trying to put together a pack that included

your party in Sinn Fein, much to the annoyance of unionist. That pact

crumbles in a few days, it was a disaster, you were exposed. Now

you're turning around and saying how Unionists, over me. I was trying to

create a broad-based alliance. It didn't work. Because the Alliance

Party came out straightaway and told us we were all sectarian for even

considering working together. That forced the Green Party... But they

said... It was very clear that that is not what she was saying, Naomi

Long. The Alliance Party said that the Green Party were now tainted.

She did not say that. When I spoke to Naomi Long about it, she said she

absolutely didn't say it, wouldn't say it and wasn't happy that it was

a party statement. A party statement that was saying something like that

would not go out unless I had seen it. No way. When the party, the

Alliance Party say that the Green Party are tainted for working with

nationalists, it's a very strange departure for the Alliance Party.

You have to go looking for other party's voters to get you over the

line. Where are your own voters? Every party looks for voters right

across the spectrum in every election. I told you already, Sinn

Fein asking for unionist votes. This is an election where we are looking

for every vote we can possibly get. We are looking for traditional SDLP

voters as well. Are great Richie said, when she was returned in 2015,

she did it without unionist votes. She said she didn't need them. Now,

surprise, surprise, she has changed her tune and she is looking for

unionist votes. She always said she would take votes from anybody who

wants proper representation... With a margin that she won that the bike,

it meant that she didn't need all the unionist votes. She represents

people from whatever background in South Down. The problem is,

Margaret's main opponent won't represent anybody because he won't

go to Westminster. He admits that upfront. If people vote for them,

they know that is the deal. We accept that. But in this particular

election with Brexit on the horizon, for any influence at all, we should

go everywhere we possibly can go, whether it's a European Parliament,

where Sinn Fein have four MPs out of 751, or Westminster where we have

three. Etiquette is important that we turn up, give a voice to the

people who are worried about the heart Brexit, goods or to a

potential Tory government in the polls are now nearing so much that

it looks as if we could even have a hung parliament if those polls stay

the same. The idea that not turning up is a viable option in this

election, I don't think it is true at all. Using Margaret Ritchie is

the clear choice in South down. The reason I ask this question is that

you're hugely critical of him when you are campaigning to unseat him

not long ago, as party leader. Why should people believe you when you

say he is up to the step? When did I say I was critical of Alasdair

McDonnell? Because he wasn't... This is a battle for Westminster. The

battle in South Down, whatever anybody tries to tell you it is

between two people, it is between Alasdair McDonnell and Emma. Have

you been out campaigning for him? It's a bit late in the campaign.

Have you been out with Margaret Ritchie and Mark Durkan? A number of

times. But not Alasdair McDonnell? I have a plan for next week. I was

meant to be with him next Tuesday, but we took a positive campaign. He

wanted 2015 with the smallest share of the vote ever in Westminster

election. People in South Belfast understand that 78% of them voted to

remain in the European Union. It is between Emma, who will be a

cheerleader for Theresa May, or Alasdair McDonnell. They put out

figures that didn't stack up, a finance minister who put up figures

that didn't stand up about the results in the last number of years.

I don't know the figures stack up or don't stack up, they are not here,

but the SDLP vote is down in a constituency in the Sinn Fein vote

is up. You don't deny that, do you? No. But even the commentators are

telling us Alice McDonnell is the only chance to wind in a

constituency against Emma. People on the ground understand that, the know

he has stood up for them in the last couple of years. And he has won

every time people have told them he wouldn't wind. It is a two horse

race, between Alastair and Emma. Other candidates wouldn't see as a

two horse race, but we will see in due course how that goes out. You

went and put your neck on the line to get an anti-Brexit put together,

and you failed. Do you accept that as a misjudgment on your part? Not

at all. Would you do the same thing again with the benefit of hindsight?

Absolutely. I think we should reinforce the referendum result in

Northern Ireland in we should send a strong message here who don't want a

heart Brexit or heart border, wanted remain in the custom union, in a

single market... -- hard border, heart Brexit. There was a lot of

negotiation... He doesn't want a hard border, but he wants custom

checks of some sort. We will see how that goes out in the next couple of

years. We had one year to negotiate this. The SDLP are on the Brexit

committee in Westminster. It was the SDLP who for Steven Davis to make a

concession that Northern Ireland would be able to automatically

re-enter the European Union, a hugely significant thing that the

British Government has accepted because in Scotland, for example,

unionist debug Scotland, the Tory government have been saying that

Scotland not be able to enter the European Union. -- unionist of

Scotland. What other people were talking about border control what

ever about Brexit, I don't know if you believe this election will be

about art that, but it is about getting the institutions up and

running again at storm and for a lot of people. Do you believe that is

doable between the election on June eight and the deadline which is now

been put by the secretary of state of June nine? -- Stormont. I am an

optimist, I bequeath you do this if we get our heads together. We have

been negotiating for weeks, we know how to fix this. At the people in

the DUP understand they have to accept that Irishness is here to

stay covered the people who care about the Irish language is here to

stay. We need to get this deal done. If we change the Petition of

Concern, if we put it back to where it's supposed to be, it should be

used to protect rights, not blocked them. We could move forward. Other

red bias, whether or not Sinn Fein will support Arlene Foster as First

Minister, and one has said that they want on this side of a report...

There are ways around that. I think Arlene Foster should go early to

that inquiry and get that evidence out of the way and let's see that.

She says should be First Minister. This incentive issues are what

matter to me. -- substantive issues. I know what people to block progress

on gay rights or Irish language or anything else. -- I don't want

people to block. We think we he get this over the line. You think Sinn

Fein wants a return to the devolved situation? They keep telling me that

they do. Do you believe that? I don't know. You don't know whether

to believe them? I think there was an internal debate whether it is

right strategy reform them. We need to make sure there is no scorched

earth, we have to work on all the issues. There was no point in

winning a big mandate if you don't use it. How will we know with this

election has been a success for Colin Eastwood and the SDLP? If you

lose two seats come with three seats, you are in deep water. I

don't know how... What I worry about is if the SDLP lose seats to people

who are either going to go and support Theresa May or people who

aren't going to go in the poll, but... You could lose all three

seats, but you would continue being the leader. Is that what you're

saying? This is my fourth campaign in 18 months. No one expected that.

We have a long-term plan to change the SDLP and bring around a good

change in society here. I'm confident we could do that in the

long term. You're confident you will win them. If you don't win those

seats, will there be an SDLP to lead? Absolutely, if there wasn't it

would be a poorer place. Every election, journalists and

commentators tell us that we are finished, and every election they

change their mind. A few weeks ago, we came back with more seats

proportionate to the Assembly. Thank you very much indeed.

Let's hear more from my guests Sophie Long and Patricia MacBride.

There are challenges for the SDLP. Would you be positive that it will

come out to the other end of this process with its tail up or not? I

did the SDLP will be in a difficult position in this election at the

Assembly election, there percentage of the vote increase. They may see

themselves losing seats even if that happens in this election. South is

addressed and South Belfast is at risk to a DUP loss. I'm not sure not

Sinn Fein can take that seat, but they are putting in a very strong

fight there. What about Foyle? I don't think that is at risk at this

point in time, Mark Durkan has a solid enough base. But there may be

a position where SDLP vote share goes up with a number of seats go

down. That would be a difficult one to spin when it came out to the

other side of the election. You think that anyone will heed his call

to vote for the SDLP? 85% of TV voters voted for Brexit. -- TUV. You

think he will change the dynamics? There are unionist and South Danae

who have voted for Margaret Ritchie in the past. And the difficulty is,

in Northern Ireland, it's going to come down to keeping the extreme,

which some people perceive as Sinn Fein out. Unionists might give their

vote to the SDLP, but there are other issues that have not been

raised in SDLP, like their strong NT opinion on women accessing sexual

health services. It is quick obligated. Attend the what basis

people decide to cast their ballot, doesn't it? I do agree with you.

Part of this election is we are election wary after just coming

through an Assembly campaign. There were certainly not the same level of

dynamism as he was in the campaign. The stakes of the Messiah. This

election is being fought on what are we going back to Stormont, not how

we are going to deal with Brexit. -- the stakes are quite high.

The Conservatives are running candidates in seven constituencies

The party has failed to gain any substantial foothold over the years

despite a collaboration with the Ulster Unionists which gave

birth to the failed UCUNF experiment in the 2010 general election.

So what do Conservatives have to offer?

On the 8th of June, the option for the people of Northern Ireland and

the United Kingdom is very simple. You can either vote for the

coalition of chaos, Jeremy Corbyn and Labour, and of course the very

clear in Northern Ireland, we have our own coalition of chaos, that is

a correlation of Stormont between DUP and Sinn Fein. Just yesterday we

had the updates on the RHI scandal costing upwards of ?490 million, so

my message to the people ,, the great people, is that you could vote

for the party of Government, the Conservative Party, to do a late

with this coalition of chaos so we can move to that stronger leadership

of Theresa May from the 8th of June. Mark Logan from the NI

Conservatives. Patricia and Sophie

are still with me. The Conservatives have never made

much of an impact here - why not? The political right is a crowded

field here. People have other options. There has always been a

sense that they are disinterested in Northern Ireland, you could see that

in the refusal of Theresa May to come here during the crisis talks. I

think that speaks volumes. It is a crowded field and also people are

responding to disinterest. You Seo reason for that to change in this

election? -- you don't see a recent? People don't identify with the

conservative party, it is as simple as that. Some do. Not in a great

number. They have indications have... Success. But there was also

his spectacular failure that someone left the unionist party because of

the agreement that was made between the Ulster Unionist and

Conservatives in the past. That was obviously a big loss. I don't see

them coming back in terms of being able to secure any significant

number of seats, even in local Government. Final question, again

something to churches had earlier. Are voters election wary? The fact

that we could have significant change Thomas we haven't been able

to put this into practical use. People are losing their faith in the

electoral political process. If you very much indeed. That is it from

us. very much indeed. That is it from

re-elected. Is the That's it - now back

to Jo in London. That's it - now back

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

are beyond mad. Who do you think 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. It's cold.

Tastes a bit like avocado. And soon we're all

going to be eating them. Four crickets have the same amount

of calcium as a glass of milk,