30/10/2016 Sunday Politics


With guests Iain Duncan Smith, Chi Onwurah and Haras Rafiq of the Quilliam Foundation (see regional variations for details).

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 30/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.


Theresa May says she wants to help people who are


"just about managing" - so should she reverse


George Osborne's cuts to benefits that are supposed to help people


Prominent London Imam Shakeel Begg is an extremist speaker,


says the High Court, after claims made on this programme.


So why is Mr Begg still being allowed to advise the Police?


Hillary Clinton fights back over the FBI's renewed investigation


into her use of a private email server - is this the boost


Donald Trump needed to reignite his chances of winning the White House?


London, a decision finally taken. Now it is just a question of


building that runway with the political problems that lie ahead.


And haunting the studio on this Halloween weekend,


the most terrifying political panel in the business -


Tim 'Ghost' Shipman, 'Eerie' Isabel Oakeshott and


First this morning, two new models of car to be built,


securing 7,000 jobs at the car plant in Sunderland and a further 28,000


The news from Nissan on Thursday was seized on by Leave campaigners


as evidence that the British economy is in rude health


This morning, the Business Secretary, Greg Clark, was asked


what assurances were given to the Japanese firm's bosses


Well, it's in no-one's the interest for there to be tariff


barriers to the continent and vice versa.


So, what I said is that our objective would be to ensure that we


have continued access to the markets in Europe and vice versa, without


tariffs and without bureaucratic impediments.


That is how we will approach those negotiations.


We're joined now from Newcastle by the Shadow Business


Welcome to the programme. Labour has been a bit sceptical about this


Nissan decision. Can we begin by making it clear just what a great


achievement this is, above all for the workers of Sunderland who have


some of the highest productivity in the world, have never been on strike


for 30 years, and produce cars of incredible quality. This is their


victory, isn't it? Andrew, you are absolutely right. The Nissan plant


in Sunderland is among the most productive in the world. The workers


of Nissan are amongst the most productive as well. And it's really


a victory for them and for the trade unions and the business


organisations, and everybody who campaigned to make sure that the


government couldn't ignore their future. It's our future. I'm the MP


for Newcastle. It makes a huge difference to the region. We are a


region that still likes to make things that work. It is a huge part


of our advanced manufacturing sector. So it's really something we


welcome as well as the job security. I'm glad we have got that on the


record from the Labour shadow business secretary. But your Shadow


Chancellor, John McDonnell, claims the government is ignoring


manufacturers and cares only about a small banking elite. In what way is


safeguarding 30,000 industrial jobs in the North safeguarding a


financial elite? As I said, we're really pleased that the campaigning


by trade unions and the workforce, and business organisations, meant


the government felt they couldn't ignore Nissan workers. Let's also be


clear that we want that kind of job security for all of those working in


manufacturing and in other sectors as well. And sweetheart deals for


one company, no matter how important they are, that does not an


industrial strategy make. Why'd you say it is a sweetheart deal? Greg


Clark told the BBC this morning that what was assured to Nissan is an


assurance he gives to the whole industrial sector? I was really


pleased to see Greg Clark felt he had to say something, even though


it's sad that we having our industrial strategy, you like, or


our approach to Brexit delivered piecemeal to the media rather than


to the British people and Nissan, actually. But he want published the


letter. He said he has told us what is in the letter and that


reassurances given on training, on science and on supporting the supply


chain for the automated sector. You must be in favour all -- of all of


that? We are in favour of an industrial strategy. Greg Clark,


unlike Sajid Javid, cannot say industrial strategy. I'm still


puzzling to find out what it is you disagree with. Let me put the


question. You said the assurances he has given to Nissan are available to


the car manufacturing sector in general and indeed to industry in


general. What is your problem with that? Two things. Let him publish


the letter so we can see that, let him have the transparency he's


pretending to offer. But also, we need an industrial strategy that


values -- that is values based and joined. He talked about electric


cars and supporting green cars. That was in regard to Nissan. At the same


time the government has slashed support for other areas of green


technology. So what is it? That is not to do with the Nissan deal.


Labour implied at some stage there was some financial inducement, some


secret bribes, that doesn't seem to be the case. You are not claiming


that any more -- any more. Then you claimed it was a sweetheart deal for


one company. That turns out not to be the case. What criticism are you


left with on this Nissan deal? I would be really surprised if all


that Nissan got was the reassurances that Greg Clark is shared with us.


He didn't answer the question of what happens if we can't get


continued tariff free access to the single market, if we are not within


the single market or the Customs Union. Do you really think a


negotiator like Nissan, who are very good at negotiating, they would have


excepted making this significant investment without some further


reassurances? Do you think there is some kind of financial bride and if


so what is the evidence? I would like to see the letter published and


I would also like to understand what would happen... There are 27


countries which need to agree with the deal we have from Brexit. What


will Nissan, how will Nissan remain competitive? How will the automotive


industry remain competitive? Greg Clark says he reassured them on


that. But how will that be so if we do not get access? We haven't heard


anything about that. He talks about reassurances given to Nissan. We


need to make -- to know where we're going to make sure Brexit is in the


interest of all workers, not only those who work for a Nissan and not


only those who can get the attention of Greg Clark. He assured Nissan


that Britain would remain a competitive place to do business.


That was the main assurance he gave them. He would help with skills and


infrastructure and all the rest. Since you are -- intend to repeal


the trade union laws that have made strikes in Britain largely a thing


of the past, and you plan to raise corporation tax, you couldn't give


Nissan the same assurance, could you? We could absolutely give Nissan


the assurance that we will be, our vision of the future of the UK, is


based on having a strong manufacturing sector. Repealing


trade union laws? As we have seen at Nissan, the industrial sector is


dependent on having highly trained, well skilled workers. -- highly


skilled, well-trained. You don't have that by getting -- having an


aggressive policy and trade union laws or by slashing corporation tax


and not supporting manufacturing investment. Remember, the last


government took away the Manufacturing allowances which


supported Manufacturing and slashed corporation tax. That is their


solution. It is a low tax, low skill economy they want.


Thank you. Sorry I had to rush you. I'm grateful for you joining us.


I'm still struggling to see what is left of Labour's criticism? Yeah,


except for this. This was a valid point she just made. What we know


for sure is that Greg Clark could say to Nissan, my aim is to get


tariff free deal. There is no way he could guarantee that. None of us


know that. I don't think that was enough. I think clearly there was a


more detailed package involving training and other things. He has


acknowledged this, albeit we do not know the precise mechanism. What I


think is interesting about this is if you reverse what happened this


week, at a time when the government says Britain is open for business


and it is going to have an industrial strategy, so far it is a


bit vaguely defined. Nissan hadn't made this commitment. Imagine what


would have happened? It is an impossible scenario. The government


seems to me was obliged to make sure this didn't happen. Let's not forget


Nissan has invested hundreds of millions in the north-east. It has


been a huge success story. When I spoke to workers from Nissan, they


were so proud because they went to Japan to teach the Japanese had to


be more productive. The idea that Nissan was just going to walk away


from this given its track record, its importance, wasn't really


credible. The government had some bargaining chips. Absolutely, of


course they weren't going to walk away. The majority of people in the


area in which Nissan is braced -- based, voted for Brexit. Nissan


knows it is in a powerful position because it is an emotive sector.


Clearly the government didn't want to have some big showdown. I


honestly don't think this is a smoking gun. The Labour Shadow


minister really struggled to articulate what exactly she thinks


the government is hiding. I think the reassurances were given were


pretty anodyne, really. They were anodyne and general. And what Greg


Clark was setting out was an objective and he made the right


noises, and Nissan exercised its right to sabre rattle. It does have


a history of doing that. The one thing that would now be clear given


Greg Clark's performance this morning on the BBC, is that if we


were to discover some kind of financial incentive directly linked


to this investment, not more for skills or infrastructure, that is


fine, but some direct financial investment, compensation for


tariffs, which would be illegal under World Trade Organisation


rules, what you might call a financial bride, the sect -- the


business Secretary's position would be untenable? He would be in a very


difficult position indeed. Just released the letter. There is


nothing to hide. Put it out there. The most revealing thing is that


people are getting wildly excited about the fact Greg Clark announced


Britain's negotiating position would be that we would like tariff free


trade with Europe. This is regarded as an insight into what this comment


is doing and it says a great deal about how little we have been told


in Parliament and the media about what they are up. Do you think it is


exciting we are going for tariff free trade? We're easily excited


these days. We don't know. This is where these things are at such a


tentative phase. We don't know how the rest of the European Union is


going to respond to Britain's negotiating hand. We know Britain


once the best of everything, please. It is a starting point. But that is


not how it is going to end up. We are getting wider than that. We have


will have to see. Now, Universal Credit,


a single payment made to welfare claimants that would roll together


a plethora of benefits whilst encouraging people into work


by making work pay. But have cuts to the flagship


welfare scheme reduced work incentives and hit the incomes


of the least well-off? Well, some of the government's


own MPs think so, and, as Mark Lobel reports,


want the cuts reversed. Theresa May says she wants


a country that works for everyone, that's on the side


of ordinary, working people. It means never writing off people


who can work and consigning them to a life on benefits,


but giving them the chance to go out and earn a living and to enjoy


the dignity that comes But now some in her party


are worried that the low earners will be hit by changes


to Universal Credit benefit system originally set up to encourage


more people into work. We also need to focus tax credits


and Universal Credit Concern centred on the Government's


decision in the July 2015 budget to find ?3 billion worth of savings


from the Universal Credit bill. Conservative MP Heidi Allen


is working on a campaign to get MPs in her party to urge


the Prime Minister to think again. I want her to understand for herself


what the outcomes might be if we press ahead


with the Universal Credit, Do you think Theresa May, right now,


understands what you understand? To be fair, unless you really


get into the detail, and I have through my work


on the Work and Pensions Select Committee, I don't


think anybody does. Independent economic analysts


at the IFS agree with Heidi Alan that cuts to Universal Credit weaken


incentives to work. One of the key parts


of the Universal Credit system That is how much you can


earn before your credit As the Government has


sought to save money, both under the Coalition and now


they Conservative Government, both under the Coalition and now


the Conservative Government, that work allowance has been cut,


time and time again. The biggest cuts happened


in the summer budget of 2015. That basically reduces the amount


of earnings you get to keep It weakens the incentive people have


to move into work. What do changes to the Universal


Credit system mean? The Resolution Foundation think-tank


has crunched the numbers. If you compare what would have


happened before the July 2015 summer budget to what will happen by 2020,


even if you take into account gains in the National Living Wage


and income tax cuts, recipients will be hit


by annual deductions. Couples and parents would receive,


on average, ?1000 less. A dual-earning couple with two


children under four, with one partner working full-time


on ?10.50 an hour and the other working part-time on the minimum


wage for around 20 hours a week, they would


receive ?1800 less. Hit most by the changes


would be a single parent with a child under four,


working full-time I think, if I'm honest,


it is unrealistic, given the economic climate,


to expect everything to be reversed. What I would like to see


is an increase in the work allowances to those people


who will be hardest hit. That is single parents and second


earners hoping to return to work, because they are the people we need


to absolutely make The Sunday Politics understands that


about 15 to 20 Conservative MPs are pushing for changes ahead


of the Autumn Statement. A former cabinet minister told us


that they believed further impact analysis should be done to find out


if any mitigation measures Former Work and Pensions Secretary


Iain Duncan Smith, an architect of the system, now says


the cuts should be reversed. But his former department has told


us that it has no plans to revisit the work allowance changes announced


in the budget last year. What I would say to Heidi Allen


and IDS, they got it right the first time and they should stick


to the vote they cast last year, because these reforms actually


do make sense. What interests me is the fact


we are trying to move people off welfare into work,


we are raising the wages people earn by massively increasing


the minimum wage and this People are coming off


welfare and into work. Campaigners are pushing for savings


to come from other areas to relieve The other thing we have to start


looking at is the triple Financially it has been a great


policy, and it was absolutely right that we lifted pensioners


who were significantly behind, for many years, in terms of income


levels, but they have I think it is time for us to look


at that policy again, because is costing us an awful


lot of money. With just over three weeks to wait


until the Conservative leadership's new economic plan is unveiled


in the Autumn Statement, its top team is under pressure


from within its own ranks to use it And I'm joined now by former Work


and Pensions Secretary, Welcome back to the programme.


Theresa May said she is on the side of the just managing, the working


poor. But they are about to be hit from all sides. Their modest living


standards are going to be squeezed as inflation overtakes pay rises,


they will be further squeezed because top-up benefits in work are


frozen. Incentives to work are going to be reduced by the cuts in


universal benefits. So much for being on the side of those just


managing? Theresa was right to focus on this group. The definition has to


be the bottom half, in economic terms, of the social structure. It


doesn't look good for them? This is the point I am making, it is an


opportunity to put some of this right. One of the reasons I resigned


in March is because I felt the direction of travel we had been


going in had been to take far too much money out of that group of


people when there are other areas which, if you need to make some of


those savings, you can. The key bit is that the group needs to be helped


through into work and encouraged to stay in work. There was a report


done with the IFS, when we were there, at Universal Credit. It said


Universal Credit rolled out, as it should have been before the cuts,


people would be much more likely to stay in work longer and earn more


money. It is a net positive, but that is now called into question.


Let's unpick some of the detail, but first, do you accept the words of


David Willets? It says on the basis of the things I read out to you that


the just managing face a significant and painful cut in real terms if we


continue on the way we are going. I do, in essence. That is the reason


why I resigned. I felt Heidi raised that issue as well, that we got the


balance wrong. It is right that pensioners get to a certain point,


when they are on a level par, doing the right thing over five years.


Staying with that process has cost us ?18 billion extra this year, in


total. It will go on costing another 5 billion. Then there is the issue


of tax allowances. I want to remind you and viewers what David Cameron


told the Conservative conference in 2009. If you are a single mother


with two children, earning ?150 a week, the withdrawal of your


benefits and the additional taxes that you pay me on that for every


extra you earn, you keep just 4p. What kind of incentive is that? 30


years ago, this party won and election fighting against 98% tax


rates for the Rex richest. I want us today to show even more anger about


96% tax rates for the very poorest in our country. Real anger, and


effective rate of over 90%. Universal Credit reduces that. Some


will still face, as they lose benefits and pay tax, a marginal


rate of over 75%. That is still too high? Yes, it is the collision


between those going into work at the moment they start paying tax. A


racial Universal Credit is set at 65%. You can call that the base


marginal tax rate. 1.2 million will face 75%? That is the point about


why the allowances are so important. The point about the allowances which


viewers might not fully understand is that it was set, as part of


Universal Credit, to allow you to get certain people, with certain


difficulties, as they cross into work, to retain more benefit before


it is tapered away as they go up in hours. A lone parent, who might have


various issues, you want her to have a bigger incentive than a single


person that does not have the same commitments. It is structured so


that somebody who has difficulty going to work, they all have


slightly different rates. What happened is that last year a


decision was taken to reduce tax credits, and, on the back of that,


to reduce allowances. I believe, given everything that happened now,


we need to restore that to the point where it helps those people crossing


over. You say a decision was taken, it was a decision by the former


Chancellor George Osborne in the summer budget. Other decisions were


taken in successive Budgets to raise the Universal Credit budget, which


resulted in the disincentive being higher than many people wanted. Do


you accept that has been the consequence of his decisions? I was


in the Government, we take collective responsibility. I argued


this was not the right way to go, but when you are in you have to stay


with it if you lose that argument. There was another attempt before the


spending review last year to increase the taper, so the marginal


rate would have gone up. I managed to stop that. I'm Sibley saying,


what we made as a decision last year, given the circumstances and


given that the net effect of all of that, I think it is time for the


Government to ask the question, if we are in this to help that group of


people, Universal Credit is singularly the most powerful tool.


One of the Argentine aid in the paper published on Thursday, we are


set going on doing two more races of the tax threshold, taking more


people out of tax. That has a diminishing effect on the bottom


section. Only 25p in that tax rate will help any of those. Most of it


goes to middle income? You and I will benefit more from that. With


Universal Credit, every pound you put into that will go to the bottom


five tenths. That is why I designed it like that. He pressed the button


and immediately start to changed circumstances. Should the cuts in


Universal Credit that Mr Osborne introduced, against your argument,


should they be reversed? I believe so. I believe you can do it even if


there is concern about spending. I don't believe you need to go through


with the continuing raise the tax threshold. Cost is dependent on


inflation, but give or take. It is in the Tory manifesto? Has more than


doubled. What is in the manifesto, and Lasse Prime Minister made this


clear in conference, we want to improve the life chances of people.


Today's announcement on the Green paper is what I wrote over the last


two and a half years. Big changes necessary to how we deal with


sickness benefit. That can now be done because of Universal Credit,


because people can go back to work and it tapers away their benefits.


It is the most powerful tool to sort our people that live in poverty,


Universal Credit. We need to make sure it lands positively. If Mr


Osborne's cuts were reversed, what you and some of your backbench Tory


colleagues want to do, how would that improve the incentives of the


working poor, as they try to get on in life? They have to pay more tax,


they lose some benefits. How would it improve it? Would many still face


a 75% rate? The key question is, first and foremost, as people move


through income to the point where they are getting taxed, that group


will be enormously benefited by the re-emergence of these allowances at


the right level. That is what the IFS have said, that is what the


Resolution Foundation are saying, and the Centre For Social Justice is


saying. You have to get that group, because they are most likely to be


drifting into poverty and less incomes are right. Would it help


those who face a 75% margin? We don't face that. Exactly right.


People much poorer than us do. I would love to get the marginal rate


down to testify percent, and lower,. -- down to 65%. It is a balance of


how you spend the money. I would prefer to do that rather than


necessarily go ahead with threshold razors. I think the coronation of


the marginal reduction of 65%, getting it down to 60%, plus more


allowances, will allow Universal Credit to get to the group that is


going to be, and the report written by the IFS and ourselves, it shows


it is going to be the most dynamic and direct ability of a Government


to be able to influence the way that people improve their incomes in the


bottom five deciles. Would you take on extra work if you knew you were


going to lose 75% of it? Even 65%? This has been my argument all along.


Universal Credit can help that enormously. One point that goes


missing, 70% of the bottom five deciles will be on Universal Credit.


Whatever change you make to Universal Credit has a dramatic and


immediate effect I am arguing, genuinely, it is time to rethink


this. The Prime Minister wants to make this a priority. I am


completely with her on this. I think she made a really good start. To


deliver this, we need to... You have a lot of work to do to deliver it.


Because it is a manifesto commitment, or because they want to


do it, stopping increasing the personal allowances are not


acceptable, what about bringing to an end, by the end of the


parliament, the pension triple lock that pensioners enjoy to improve and


put more money to the working poor? What about that? Well, you are


absolutely right that there is now the danger, I think, of a mess


balance between the generations. Quite rightly at the beginning, when


we came in, we have a commitment as a Conservative Party in a manifesto


to get pensions back onto earnings. It was moved to a triple lock that


guaranteed a minimum. What about ending up now? I understand it is a


promise through the Parliament, but after 2020? I am in favour of


getting it back to innings and allowing it to rise at reasonable


levels. Moving from earnings to the triple lock has cost ?18 billion


this year. Here was a high, under pressure, as the Government was


scratching around to pay more money out of working age areas, when the


budget was almost out of control on the pension side. I'm in favour of


helping pensioners, but now they are up to a reasonable level, at a


steady rate, that can be afforded by Government, which takes the pressure


off, working age people have to pay for that. In years to come, time to


end the triple lock and use the savings to help these


people we have been talking about? As part of a load of packages, yes.


It would also help with the intergenerational fairness argument.


Thank you for being with us. Now, a prominent London Imam


called Shakeel Begg - who is Chief Imam the Lewisham


Islamic Centre - is an extremist. That was the verdict of the judge


in a libel action that Mr Begg took against the BBC, after we described


him as an Islamic extremist Mr Begg had complained about a short


segment in an interview in November 2013 with Farooq Murad,


the then head of the Muslim Council of Britain, an organisation


which claims to represent British In that interview, we described


Mr Begg as an extremist speaker who had hailed jihad


is the greatest of deeds. From his base of the Lewisham


Islamic Centre, Mr Begg has been involved in a number of community


organisations, including the Police Independent


Advisory Group in Lewisham, Lewisham Council's Advisory Council


on Religious Education and as a volunteer chaplain


at Lewisham Hospital. But in his judgment,


Mr Justice Haddon-Cave called Mr Begg a Jekyll and Hyde character


- a trusted figure in his local community, but when talking


to predominantly Muslim audiences he shed the cloak of respectability


and revealed the horns of extremism. The judge cited one speech made


by Mr Begg at a rally outside Belmarsh Prisonm-


the high security prison that houses terrorists -


as particularly sinister. The judge said the imam


was expressing admiration and praise Following Friday's judgment,


the hospital trust have told us that Mr Begg's status as a voluntary


chaplain has been terminated. We have been told by


Lewisham Council he is no longer on their Religious


Education Committee. The Metropolitan Police


have confirmed that Mr Begg remains a member


of their Independent Advisory Group in Lewisham, as well as


the borough's faith group. I am joined by Haras Rafiq, chief


executive of the Quilliam Foundation. Welcome to the


programme. I have here in my hand a statement from the trustees of the


Lewisham Islamic Centre. They reject the judge's ruling as fanciful and


say they are unequivocal and unwavering in their support of


Shakeel Begg as their head imam. What do you make of that? To be


honest, it doesn't surprise me. At the end of the day he is only the


imam of that mosque because he belongs to the same theological


fundamentalist views that the mosque would portray. If they were to say


he was an extremist, they would be saying in fact that they have


allowed extremist preaching and extremist theology within their


walls. I think this is a very important decision and a very


important judgment by the judge. First of all, these people like to


operate in a linear, under a veneer of respectability. When that veneer


is taken away, there are a number of things that can happen. First of


all, the BBC did very well to stand by their guns and say, we're not


going to be intimidated by somebody who is threatening to taking -- to


take us to court for potential libel. Many other media companies


have done that in the past and people have capitulated. Also, this


has exposed him. Legally now, here's some deal can be classified as an


extremist preacher, somebody who promotes religious violence. I think


the mosque really needs to take a step back and say, how we part of


the problem that we are facing within society? Or are we going to


be part of the solution? It really concerns me. The High Court judge


says that Mr Begg's speeches were consistent with an extremist


Salafist is the most worldview. What is Salafist is and how widespread is


it in UK mosques? -- mosque. It comes from the Middle East. It is


from Saudi Arabia. The enemy for them was the old colonial Ottoman


Empire. There is the quiet Salafist to get some with their lives, lives


outside society. There is a revolutionary who tries to convert


other people to their worldview. And then there is the Salafist jihad


ease. People like Islamic State etc. We have seen of increased in recent


decades because of money that has, growing from the Middle East. When


that is mixed with a political ideology, it becomes potent. Do we


have a political -- particular problem in Britain with this in our


mosques? Absolutely. Without the theology that says hate the other,


hate other Muslims, that excommunicate other people, that


says it is OK to fight and is good to fight when you have got an enemy,


we wouldn't really have a jihadi problem. Really that is something we


have to tackle. The number of mosques and institutions supporting


Salafist and Islam is has been on the increase. Do we have a problem


with what the judge called Jekyll and Hyde characters who hide their


extremism except when they are speaking to specific groups?


Absolutely. One of the things we have focused on in the past, a


number of hate preachers now in prison, people like Anjem Choudary,


and everybody focused on them. But there is a range of people operating


under that level. People who will show one face to the community


because they actually need that for a respectability. They need that for


a legitimacy. They need that to operate. When they are behind closed


doors and talking to their constitution, that is when you will


see the real face of what these people believe. It is an increasing


phenomenon. We are seeing it more. And we're going to carry on seeing


it. Not just has the Lewisham mosque stuck by him, but given the clarity


of the judge's ruling, are you surprised that the Metropolitan


police would wish to continue with Mr Begg as an adviser? I'm


absolutely shocked that that decision. What Uzzy going to do?


Advise them on how to deal with extremist preachers and promote


religiously motivated violence? I don't know what he's going to advise


them on. Because we now have a judge that has ruled against him and


actually classified him as an extremist and somebody who promotes


religious violence, we actually have a possibility for the CPS to


actually prosecute him. There is a law that has been in place since


2005 called religiously motivated violence. If he has been classified


as somebody who promotes this, there is a potential for the CPS to


prosecute. I want to called into question other organisations,


interfaith organisations, other Muslims groups, who say they want to


fight extremism, I call on them to say, this guy is an extremist


preacher, we should cut our ties from him. This was a very high risk


strategy by the BBC. The exposure could have been over ?1.5 million of


licence payers money. Will this make it more difficult for Jekyll and


Hyde characters to behave as Mr Begg has behaved? Absolutely. It will do.


One of the things they will now have to make sure is that they are a lot


more careful. Careful with what they say to their own constituency. It


won't solve the theological problem. But it will actually stop other


people from operating in this manner and allow other media organisations


to have the confidence to expose them when they do. Haras Rafiq,


thank you for joining us. 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. Barely more than a week


now until polling day, and a new revelation rocks the US


Presidential election campaign. If it wasn't bizarre enough, it just


got more bizarre. The FBI have reopened their


investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of private email servers


whilst she was Secretary of State, after the discovery


of further emails. Though not on her laptop or even the


State Department. Donald Trump is saying that it's


bigger than Watergate - so could it swing the election


in his favour? We spoke to top US


pollster, Frank Luntz. The FBI investigation is happening


so late in the election process that it would be very difficult


to derail a Clinton victory. That said, if there is one thing


that could keep Hillary Clinton from the presidency,


it's an FBI investigation. But there's still only four states


that really matter, Florida, Ohio, Right now, Clinton has


beyond the margin of error leads This would have to have a truly


significant impact for the election There is a point about a week ago


when I was prepared to say that Clinton had a 95% chance


of winning this election. Based on what has happened


in the last 48 hours, It is still very likely,


but I wouldn't bet on it. I thought the 2000 election would be


the best election of my lifetime, And then I thought 2008 would be


amazing, because we had two challenger candidates and the first


African-American President. It is ugly, it's painful,


it is as negative as anything The public is angry,


the country, overall, is frustrated. But for entertainment value,


these candidates probably should have charged us money,


because it's better than any movie at ever seen, it's


better than any TV show. That was Frank Luntz. He may be


right or wrong about Mrs Clinton still having an 80% chance of


winning. I would bet on an 80% chance? Yes, absolutely. I spoke to


a high-profile American pollster and strategist last night and he took a


rather different view to Frank Luntz. He thought, and I think some


other high-profile commentators agree, that this is actually much


more serious than some people realise. There are an awful lot of


undecided voters out there looking for an excuse to vote Trump. They do


not like what they see in either candidate. But because this FBI


probe is not going to conclude before the election, the question,


the doubt over Hillary Clinton, gives them an excuse to back Trump.


The thing that will play on the minds of the voters is, could the


100 day honeymoon turning to the 100 day divorce? Which even be


impeached? It may give some people an excuse not to vote for Mrs


Clinton. It could provide a problem in terms of energising her base. The


battle ground almost matters more than the polls. Florida and


Pennsylvania have been trending to Mrs Clinton. Mr Trump needs to win


both. He does not get in without both. He needs both. Just coming up


in the latest BBC News, the Washington Post tracking poll, Mrs


Clinton is now only one point ahead in the national poll. One point.


Even given my caveat that the state battles are most important. That is


incredibly close? It is. Polls yesterday showed Trump nationally


closing of. -- up. There is a clear trend and movement. This has


reinforced everything that people who have a problem with Hillary


Clinton know about Hillary Clinton. Trump is running this insurgent


campaign. We have seen at here with Brexit. If you are running an


insurgent campaign, you want to be against the ultimate establishment


insider and that is what Hillary Clinton is. I suggested it was


bizarre. Fathoming the behaviour of the FBI is interesting as well. This


is a separate investigation into a former congressman, Anthony Wiener,


who had done all sorts of things. He seemed to be sex text thing a minor.


A 15-year-old girl. The FBI investigate. They get his laptop to


see what else he has been too. In the course of that, his wife, now


separated, the closest adviser to Hillary Clinton, they find on the


laptop e-mails involving the Clinton server to her. And yet the FBI


cannot, it needs now a separate warrant to access these e-mails. It


hasn't got that yet. It has got a warrant to do the congressman


e-mails. On the basis of not knowing the content, this has happened.


Yeah. Who knows? He is a Republican, this guy. Earlier this year he was


being praised to the hilt by Democrats. Absolutely. The timing is


a nightmare for her. You described the whole sequence. There is nothing


definitive to doubt in this sequence. All he is saying is he has


discovered more e-mails in effect. They are from the congressman's


former wife. On Anthony Wiener's laptop, which apparently she used


sometimes. But what that shows is that for all the scrutiny of modern


politicians, they cannot escape caricature. And as Tim was just


saying, her weakness is perceived to be secretive, elitism and


complacency about that elitism. And so just the announcement of a


reopening of the investigation so fuels that caricature, you have just


revealed a poll giving her a 1% lead. That must be related to what


has happened. It is without a shred of evidence that she has done


anything wrong. You can see how, because people only see things


encourage kids, that is deadly serious. -- in caricature. An


American friend of mine said we have got our October surprise but we


don't know what it is. The FBI must surely come under massive pressure.


It did its -- it did this against the Justice Department. The


difficulty the FBI had was that this information, for what it's worth, it


came to them. Were they not to have said something and it worked to have


come out later, they would have been accused of a massive cover-up. They


are dammed if they do, dammed if they don't. There is still time for


another surprise. And early November surprise. Who knows if there might


still be something that comes out on Donald Trump? This is the first


election where I can remember we have had two October surprises


already. There are is stuff about tapes knocking around about Donald


Trump saying racist things. The Clintons have got a lot of friends.


It would be a big surprise if we did not see anything else in the next


few days. Just when you think it could not get


more interesting, it has. There has been plenty in the papers lately


about the Ukip leadership saying unpleasant things about each other.


But what about Mr Farage himself? What's he up to?


Well, on BBC Two tonight we may find out the answer.


Well, I'm led to believe she's very experienced.


But I don't think Strictly Come Dancing is for me.


That is, unless, of course, you fancy popping a cheeky zero


No, I don't think Strictly Come Dancing is for me.


Well, you tell Mr Balls he has just lost your programme one viewer.


I might have nothing to do these days but, realistically,


Well, that wasn't Nigel Farage. It is a BBC comedy on tonight. Nigel


Farage gets his life back. A number of runners and riders. Let's come


straight down to it. Who would be the next leader of Ukip? Probably


Paul Nuttall. He is the favourite. The one who has the backing, not


very enthusiastic backing, is Rahim Cassandra. And also Aaron Banks, a


big donor. The best of a rather weak lot. I think Paul Nuttall should


squeak through. I interviewed all three of them this week. Mr


Cassandra is a lively character and he knows how to make a few


headlines. With a bit of money behind him, anything is possible.


This is a guy who has been to the States, who has literally studied


what Trump has done. Pees on secondment for the time being. The


guy who is his line manager is one of Donald Trump's campaign stop. He


is extraordinarily right-wing. I am told he kept a picture of Enoch


Powell by his bed. Barry Goldwater is one of his heroes, for example.


There are other candidates. I would suggest, put out as a hypothesis,


Paul Nuttall is Labour's worst nightmare. They are more vulnerable


in the North. Paul Nuttall is from Merseyside, a working-class


background, performs well on television. He is a really good


interviewee. He is one of the best around in politics at the moment.


However, I think whoever gets it has a massive task. The clip of this


Nigel Farage satire partly shows why. His dominance was overwhelming.


He, in many ways, did a brilliant job at keeping the show on the road.


The trouble for all new political parties is keeping it going is


tough. A very different party, the SDP, with all those glamorous


figures in it, lasted eight years, something like that. I think they


are in real trouble at the moment because of the implosion we have


been seeing in front of our eyes and the ideal -- ideological splits.


Whoever gets it will face a tough tussle. All three of the main


contenders want to put Nigel Farage in the House of Lords. They were


falling over themselves to soak up two farads. That is how you win this


election. Mr Aaron Banks, who is he putting


his money on? He said he supports Rahim. I know Mr Banks is utterly


fed with the shenanigans in Ukip. He thinks it is terribly disorganised,


dysfunctional and doesn't want a great deal to do with it for the


foreseeable future. It is not quite Trump the Clinton


but it is interesting. That is it. The Daily Politics is back tomorrow.


And all of next week. Jo Coburn will be your next Sunday because I am off


to the United States to begin to rehearse presenting the BBC's US


election night coverage on the 8th of November. It will be here on BBC


One, BBC world, BBC News Channel and BBC


online. Remember if it's Sunday,


it's the Sunday Politics. A stone stained with blood


and beset with a curse. The Moonstone is of


inestimable value in India. Its appointed guardians would move


heaven and earth to reclaim it. Let us not let the past haunt


all of our actions. You've got to do something!


It's only you that can! He's a scientist,


brilliant apparently.


Andrew Neil is joined by Iain Duncan Smith, Chi Onwurah and Haras Rafiq of the Quilliam Foundation. The Daily Mail's Isabel Oakeshott, commentator Steve Richards and Tim Shipman of The Sunday Times are on the political panel (see regional variations for details).

Download Subtitles