28/05/2017 Sunday Politics


Jo Coburn presents the latest political news, interviews and debate (see regional variations for details).

Similar Content

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



Good morning and welcome to the Sunday Politics.


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


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


Are the politicians and the security services doing


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


in confronting extremist views, as she outlines plans


for a new Commission to counter extremism.


We'll be talking to the Security Minister.


Jeremy Corbyn says a Labour government would recruit 1,000


more staff at security and intelligence agencies.


We will be talking to one of his key supporters. In London, we look at


what the Conservatives are offering the capital, having voted Remain.


To help guide me through this morning, I'm joined by


Steve Richards, Julia Hartley-Brewer and Tim Marshall.


They'll be sharing their thoughts on Twitter and you can join


So, with a week and a half to go, the election campaign


And some recent polls suggest the race is just


We'll be taking a closer look at that in just a moment but, first,


here are some of the key events over the next 10 days or so:


Tonight at 6pm will see the third of the party leader interviews.


This time it's the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon facing questions


While many across the UK will be enjoying tomorrow's bank holiday,


there will be no break in campaigning for


And in the evening it will be the turn of Ukip's Paul Nuttall


On Tuesday the SNP publish their manifesto -


the last of the major parties to do so - after last week's


Then on Wednesday, the BBC's Election Debate will see


representatives from the seven main parties debate in front


On Thursday, Lib Dem leader Tim Farron will have his interview...


Before Friday's Question Time special with Theresa May


They won't debate each other, but will take questions


consecutively from members of the audience.


The final week of campaigning is a short one, with politicians


cramming in three days of door-knocking before voters go


We'll have an exit poll once voting has ended at 10pm,


with the result expected early in the morning of June 9th.


Well, it's Sunday, and that always means a spate of new opinion


And they make for fascinating, if a tad confusing, reading.


There are five new opinion polls today, which have


the Conservative lead over Labour anywhere from six


points to 14 points. So, what's going on?


Professor John Curtice is the expert we always turn


to at times like this, and he joins me from Glasgow.


Take us through these polls. They seem to be all over the place? They


may seem to be but there is a very consistent key message. Four of


these five polls, if you compare them with what they were saying


before the Conservative manifesto launch on the 18th, four say the


Conservatives are down by two points. Four of them say the Labour


vote is up by two points. A clear consistent message. The Conservative


lead has narrowed. Why does this matter? It matters because we are


now in a position where the leads are such that the Conservatives can


no longer be sure of getting the landslide majority they want. Some


posters suggesting they may be in trouble and it is going to get


rather close. Others suggested is further apart. There are two major


sources of... The Poles agree that young voters will vote Labour if


they vote. Older voters will vote for the Conservatives. How many of


those younger voters will turn out to vote? The second thing is whether


the evidence in the opinion polls that the Conservatives are advancing


more in the North of England and the Midlands is realised that the ballot


box? If it is not realised, the Tories chances of getting a


landslide look remote. If it is, they could still well indeed get a


majority more than 80%. The Conservatives have lost some ground


depending on which opinion poll you look at. What about the Labour


Party? It is gaining ground. It has been gaining ground ever since week


one. They started on 26, they now average 35. There were a lot of


people out there at the beginning of the campaign who were saying, I


usually vote Labour but the truth is I'm not sure about Jeremy Corbyn.


They seem to have decided the Labour manifesto wasn't so bad. They have


looked at Theresa May and have said, we will stick with Labour. Labour


have managed to draw back into the fold some of their traditional


voters who were disenchanted, together with, crucially, some of


those younger voters who have never voted before, who have always been a


particular target for Jeremy Corbyn. What is your reaction to previous


opinion polls and elections weather has been a feeling that some of the


Labour support has been overstated? This be a worry this time? That is


one of the uncertainties that faces the opinion polls and the rest of


us. We had a conference on Friday at which it was carefully explained


that pollsters have been trying to correct the errors that resulted in


an overestimation of Labour support a couple of years ago, particularly


among younger voters. You shouldn't assume the opinion polls will be


wrong this time because they were wrong the last time. We want in


truth know whether or not the polls have got it right. Even if they are


wrong in terms of the level, they are not wrong in terms of the trend.


The trends have been dramatic so far. A big rise in Tory support


early on at the expense of Ukip. And subsequently, a remarkable rise in


Labour support, albeit from a low initial baseline. This election has


already seen quite a lot of movement. We shouldn't rule out the


possibility there will be yet more in the ten days to come.


That is his analysis. Let's talk to the panel. Julia, how concerned


should Conservative headquarters be at this particular point at what


looks like an apparent surge by Labour? Depends if you want a


massive landslide majority or might not. I assume the Tory party do.


Whether anybody thinks that is a good idea is a different matter.


Undoubtedly the manifesto league was a total disaster. Social care policy


and the U-turn. Lots of stuff in the Labour manifesto was very appealing.


The tactic from Sir Lynton Crosby was clear. It is all about Theresa


May. Don't even mention the candidate or the party. The Labour


Party, the candidates are on the moderate side are saying, don't


mention Jeremy Corbyn. This has been a battle between two big people. The


more we have seen of Theresa May, she has gone down. The more we have


seen of Jeremy Corbyn, he has gone up. If you make it about strong and


stable leadership and then you do something like a massive


unprecedented U-turn on a key policy like social care, the knock is even


greater. Do you think that is the reason for the change in the opinion


polls or is Labour gaining some momentum? I think it is part of the


reason. You can understand why the focus was on her at the beginning


because her personal ratings were stratospheric. What is interesting


is all successful leaders basically cast a spell over voters in the


media. None of them are titans. All of them are flawed. It is a question


of when the spell is broken. This is a first for a leader's spell to be


broken during an election campaign. That was a moment of high


significance. The fact the Labour Party campaign is more robust than


many thought it would be is the other factor. I think it is the


combination of the two, that the trend, as Professor John Curtis


said, the trend has been this narrow. There has not been much


campaigning. Local campaigning resumed on Thursday, national


campaigning on Friday. Do you think, Tim Marshall, that the opinion polls


are reflecting what happened in Manchester and people's thoughts


about which party will keep them safe? No, I think that will come


next week. I think it is too soon for that. It was quite


understandable from the V -- the very beginning for Lynton Crosby to


frame the campaign in terms of Theresa May and Brexit. The


electorate can have its own view. You always have to go back to


Clinton's it's the economy stupid for most of the electorate. It is


framed in your electricity bill. It is framed in your jobs. Both


manifestos have got more holes in them than Swiss cheese. It comes


down to which manifesto you believe. The Labour manifesto makes more


promises about things you care about like your electricity bill.


Interesting, but in the end despite while we thought would be a Brexit


election, it has been a lot about public services. It always comes


down to bread-and-butter issues. I don't think we have quite seen how


the terrorist you has played out. We had the Westminster attack only a


couple of months ago. That was already factored in in terms of who


you trust and who you don't trust. The IRA stuff from Jeremy Corbyn is


already factored in. People actually care about how ordinary government


policies affect their lives. Thank you very much.


The election campaign was, of course, put on hold


following the terrorist attack in Manchester


But now that campaigning has resumed, it's hardly


surprising that security is now a primary concern.


The Labour Party has announced it would recruit 1,000 more


Jeremy Corbyn, speaking on ITV at short while ago, says previous cuts


have undermined security. It seems that the cuts in police


numbers have led to some very dangerous situation is emerging. It


is also a question of a community response as well. So that where, an


imam, for example, lets the police he is concerned about a muddy, I


would hope they would act. And I would hope we have -- and I would


hope they would have the resources to act as well.


Joining me now from Leeds is the Shadow Justice


Good morning. You have announced a thousand more Security and


Intelligence agency staff. That is in line with what the government has


already announced and the Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, has


said you would not be spending any more money. It doesn't amount to


much, does it? That is just one of the parts of our pledge card on the


safer communities. There is also 10,000 extra police, because the


Conservatives cut the police by 20,000. That 10,000 extra police


would mean in -- and extra police officer in each neighbourhood. There


are 3000 extra put -- prison officers. Prison staff has been cut


by 6000. That is a third. It is not helping keep communities safer. We


are pledging 3000 extra firefighters. Also, a thousand extra


security staff and 500 extra border guards. There have been 13 areas


identified where our borders are not as secure as they should be. That is


the list of numbers you have given. If we concentrate on the security


services, because it was Jeremy Corbyn he said there will be more


police on the streets under Labour. If the security sources need more


resources they should get them. Why aren't you giving them more? We are


committing to a thousand more police. The Godinet is doing that as


well. You are not committing anything more. The government has


not delivered on that promise. We will deliver on that promise is --


promise. What Jeremy has made very clear is that you can't do security


on the cheap. Austerity has to stop at the police station door, and at


the hospital door. But we will be giving the resources required to


keep our communities safer. So you will give them the resources and


more powers? Well, the police need to be empowered. But when you listen


to what the Police Federation are saying, they have been speaking out


for a long time about the danger caused by police cuts. And I'm


talking not only about terrorism, not only about acts of extreme


violence, but anything from anti-social behaviour to burglary.


Use it more powers. What sort of powers are you thinking of giving


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


We need to listen to the intelligence community and the


security service, to the army and the police, about what they think


and how they think our communities could be made safe. One thing is


clear. Cutting the number of police by 20,000 makes our community is


less safe, not more safe. You said you will listen to the security


services. Can voters be reassured and guaranteed that Jeremy Corbyn


will listen to the security services and the police in terms of more


powers if that is what they want? Until now he has spent his whole


political career voting against measures designed to tackle


home-grown and international terrorism. Jeremy Corbyn's speech on


safer communities earlier this week made clear he is listening to the


security services. So he would grant those new powers. He voted against


the terrorism Act in 2000, into thousands and six. In 2011. And in


2014, the data retention and investigatory Powers act. Which new


powers will he be happy to enact? Just to say, Jeremy Corbyn along


with Theresa May, David Davis and many Conservative MPs, voted against


legislation where they thought it would be ill-advised, ineffective or


actually counter-productive. It is a very complex situation. What we


don't want to do is introduce hastily prepared laws with one eye


to the newspaper headlines, which can act as recruiting sergeants for


terrorism. And actually, when I said earlier that Jeremy Corbyn made


clear in his speech this week that he has been listening to the


security services, what he said about the international situation


has also been said by the former head of MI5, Stella Rimington, and


her predecessor. As well as president of back -- President


Barack Obama. You say he will give the police and


security services the resources and powers they need. If we look back at


some of the legislation Jeremy Corbyn and others voted against in


2000, it gave the Secretary of State the -- new powers... Does Jeremy


Corbyn still think that is a bad idea? Jeremy Corbyn along with


Theresa May, David Davis and others... I know you want to bracket


it with Conservatives but I'm interested in what Jeremy Corbyn


will do when he says we are going to be smarter about fighting terrorism.


If he's not prepared to vote in favour of those sorts of measures,


or trying to impose restrictions on suspects, I'm trying to find out


what he will do. It is a complex situation. With this legislation the


devil is often in the detail. If it was a simple and stopping terrorism


by voting a piece of legislation through Parliament, it would have


been stopped a long time ago. Sadly there are no easy answers, and that


is recognised by Barack Obama, Stella Rimington, the head of the


MI5, by David Davis and other Conservative MPs. What is clear, as


Jeremy made clear in his speech this week, is the way things are being


done currently is not working. We have got to be tough on terrorism


and the unforgivable acts of murder, but also tough on the causes of


terrorism as well. The sad truth is there are no easy answers. If there


were, the problem would have been solved a long time ago. If you more


security and terrorism officers but your leader is still uncomfortable


with giving them the powers they need to do their jobs because it is


complicated legislation, they will want to know how you are going to do


it. At another stop the War rally in 2014, Jeremy Corbyn said the murder


of a charity worker was jingoism. At the beginning of that speech he


mentioned the importance of the one-minute silence for the memory of


Alan Henning who was murdered. What he has also made clear is


responsibility for acts of terrorism and murder lies with the murder, and


something that's really disappointed me is that the Prime Minister said


the other day that in Jeremy Corbyn's speech on this on Monday,


he said... Whether she agrees with him on his politics, she knows he


didn't say that in his speech, but what troubles me is you have got a


Prime Minister who must have sat down with her advisers earlier that


day and said, well I do know he didn't say that but if we say he did


we might win some votes. I think that is shameful and it shows


Theresa May cannot be trusted. These issues should transcend party


politics. We need to pull together on this issue. Thank you very much.


Well, the Conservatives have promised a new statutory commission


The party says it will identify extremism, including


the "non-violent" kind, and help communities stand up to it.


Also this morning, the Security Minister, Ben Wallace,


has attacked internet giants for failing to tackle terror


online, and accused them of being ruthless money-makers.


Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Those comments you have made about


social media companies failing in their responsibility to take down


extremist material, what will you do to compel them? I think we will look


at the range of options. The Germans have proposed a fine, we are not


sure whether that will work, but there are range of pressures we can


put onto some of these companies. Some have complied. In the article


in the Sunday Telegraph today I did say it is not all of them. They are


not immune to pressure. We can do internationally, and the Prime


Minister urged at the G7 and international response. I think


there are a range of issues. We could change the law. You mentioned


the G7, and rhetoric and warm words are fine to an extent but it is


action people want. If you have made these impassioned remarks in the


newspapers about them failing to do the job, people want to know what


powers do you have now to say to social media companies take down


this material? We have an act that was recently passed. In this area we


have just finished consulting on one of the areas we could use but we


cannot pre-empt the consultation. We have right now officials from my


department over in the United States with American officials working with


CSPs because what we see is that they do respond to pressure. The


best example is we think they have the technology and the capability to


change the algorithms they use that maximise profit over safety. But you


are relying on these companies devoting more resources to this line


of work that you would like to see them do. Have you got any evidence


they will do that? They said, only a few weeks ago before the election


was called the Home Secretary hosted a Round Table with them. We have


evidence they are trying to improve it. A few are refusing to or being


difficult, and that's why the Prime Minister was right to step up not


only the language she was using but to say we are not going to allow


this to progress any more. People will be worried about who will make


the judgment about what is unacceptable and what should be


taken down. Let me show you this, which was shared widely across


social media. If you read that quote you could argue it is at the same


end if you like. The man in the picture is a terrorist hate


preacher, the jihadist who was killed in Yemen by the Americans. Is


this the sort of thing you would be demanding social media companies


take down? You have to look at the context it was deployed in. I could


show you some of the 270,000 pieces we have had removed since 2010 from


internet sites that have been extreme. The big issue is not often


the individual image, it is the way these companies set up the


algorithms to link you. If you were watching that on Facebook delivered


to you, perhaps you would like to look at this, because that's how


they set it up. If you go onto YouTube, you can get let down the


path from looking at Manchester... I understand your example, but from a


practical level are you expecting media companies to take down that


sort of posts if it appeared? Yes... You are? Who will make the decisions


about what will radicalise young people that could lead someone down


the path to let off a bomb? If I invite your viewers to look at the


work the Guardian have done on Facebook guidance, to say for


example it is OK to produce videos or broadcast videos of


seven-year-olds being bullied as long as it wasn't accompanied by


captions, I don't think you need to be an expert to say that is not


acceptable. Something more worrying for you as a journalist and me as a


politician, another set of guidance that says... I think this is quite


menacing... That certain people don't deserve our protection. That


includes journalists and politicians and people who are controversial. So


I think there is more work to be done but at the end of the day it is


the pathway this stuff leads to. It is more about examining how much


progress you can make. The Government says there are up to


23,000 potential terrorist attackers in this country, 3000 of those


posing a serious threat being monitored. That is pretty


disturbing, these are big numbers. Yes, and the tragedy of Manchester


shows this is not about failure, it is about the scale of the challenge


we face and that is why it is important that alongside people is


powers. Should you double the size of MI5 for example? We have


increased year-on-year in real terms not only the money but the numbers


of people in MI5. It is now 2000 we have committed to increased to...


Before the attack. Before our manifesto we had recruited, we have


increased the whole of government spending on counterterrorism from


?11.7 billion in 2015 up to 15.7 billion. Would you expand the number


of people in MI5? I have asked them on a regular basis if they have the


resource if they are happy with it, and the answer comes back time and


time again, yes we are. You have quite extensive powers at your


disposal, the question is if you are using them. Measures were introduced


in 2012 to replace control orders, but they have rarely been used. Only


seven are currently in operation. Why? Because there are a whole... It


is just one tool in the tool box. Other powers we use, we take away


people's passports if we think they are about to travel. How many? I


cannot comment, it is a sensitive issue. Plenty of people are finding


their passport has been removed and at the same time we strip people of


citizenship to make sure they don't come back. On top of that, because


of the investment made in GCHQ, MI5 and counterterrorism, we have more


powers and more ability to monitor them. But are you using them enough?


Only seven TPIMs are in operation. You won't give me any of the other


measures at your disposal, but if they are only in single figures,


that doesn't seem to compare with the numbers who are being monitored.


Also, we have to strike a balance between... We have to satisfy the


court so we have to make sure there is enough evidence to restrict


people's freedoms. TPIMs do all sorts of good things to keep people


safe. It sends people away from where they live, it tags them... I


tell you why they are better. The control orders were on track to be


struck down by the courts because one of the things we have to satisfy


is the courts but we also have to satisfy, we have to make sure we get


the balance between the community is right and the measures we take. If


we alienate our communities, we won't get the intelligence that


allows us to catch it. There is no point in having more police and


intelligence services if you don't give them the powers to do the job.


Jeremy Corbyn were licensed James Bond to do precisely nothing. And --


thank you. The revelation that the Manchester


suicide bomber, 22-year-old Salman Abedi, was born in this


country has raised fresh concerns about the effectiveness of the UK's


counter-extremism policy. In a moment we'll be talking to two


people who've spent their careers investigating


radicalisation in the UK. Douglas Murray,


of the Henry Jackson Society, and Sara Khan, author of The Battle


for British Islam and CEO of the counter-extremism


organisation Inspire. We asked both for a personal take


on how to confront the problem of Islamist extremism.


First up, here's Douglas Murray. Even after all these dead,


all this mourning and defiance, We remain stuck in the John Lennon


response to terrorism - Our politicians still refuse


to accurately identify the sources of the problem,


and polite society This country gave asylum to


the Libyan parents of Salman Abedi. Their son repaid that generosity


by killing 22 British people, one for each year of life this


country had given him. We need to think far more


deeply about all this. Eastern Europe doesn't


have an Islamic terrorism problem France has the worst problem


because it has the most Islam. Are we ever going to draw


any lessons from this? For the time being, the game


is to be as inoffensive as possible. The rot isn't just within


the Muslim communities. Consider all those retired British


officials and others who shill, and are in the pay of the Saudis


and other foreign states, even while they pump the extreme


versions of Islam into our country. It is high time we


became serious too. Islamist extremism is


flourishing in our country. We're failing to defeat it,


so what can we do about it? Whenever I say we must counter those


Muslim organisations who are promoting hatred,


discrimination, and sometimes even violence, I'm often either ignored


by some politicians out of a misplaced fear of cultural


sensitivity, or I find myself experiencing abuse by some


of my fellow Muslims. These groups and their sympathisers


tour Muslim communities, hold events, and have hundreds


of thousands of followers Yet there is little counter


challenge to their toxic anti-Western narrative,


which includes opposition I've seen politicians


and charities partner with and support some of these


voices and groups. Many anti-racist groups


will challenge those on the far right but not Muslim hate preachers,


in the erroneous belief that to do But it's Islamophobic not


to challenge them because it implies Following the attack on Monday,


it cannot be business as usual. We must counter those


who seek to divide us. Sarah Karen Allen Douglas Murray


join me know. You wrote a book, strange death of Europe. What did


you mean in your film when you said, let's get serious? Several things.


Let me give you one example. The young man who carried out this


atrocious attack was a student at Salford University for two years. He


was on a campus which is, from its leadership to its student


leadership, opposes all aspects of the government's only counter


extremism programme. They boast they are boycotting it. They always did


this. The university he was at was against the only counter extremism


policy this state has. This is just one example of a much bigger


problem. What are you suggesting? Shut down the University? Force them


to change their policies? I think in the case of Salford, which


discourages students from reporting Islamic extremism... When you


discover you have produced a suicide bomber in Manchester, you should be


held responsible. What do you say to that? I think it is quite clear from


I am experienced there have been politicians who have undermined


Prevent, community organisations, Islamist groups who have been at the


forefront of undermining and countering Prevent, but also wider


counter extremism measures. Islamist -- Islamist extremes and has


flourished in this country. If Summer Rae had given us a crystal


ball ten years ago and said, look forward and you will see hundreds of


people leave this country to join Isis, we will have hundreds of


people convicted of Islamist offences, I think we would have been


quite shocked that things have got worse as opposed to getting better.


Douglas Murray, the essence of your argument when you made the


comparison between the numbers of Muslims in other countries is that


we have too much Islam in Britain? The aunt Tilly Muslim Brotherhood


give is that the answer to absolutely everything is Islam. Less


Islam is a good thing. Let me finish. The Islamic world is in the


middle of a very serious problem. It has been going on since the


beginning. I think it is not worth continuing to risk our own security


simply in order to be politically correct. I would disagree with


Douglas on that. Nobody is going to deny that since the end of the 20th


century there has been a rise in Islamist extreme terror


organisations. Yes, there is a crisis within contemporary Islam,


but there is a class. There are competing claims about what the


faith stands for. While we are seeing Islamist terror


organisations, leading theologians are saying that the concept of a


caliphate is outdated. Muslims should be adopting a human rights


culture. I entirely agree with that. There are obviously people trying to


counter that. I would urge us to take the long view. In the history


of Islam there have been many reformers. Most of the time they


have ended a up being the ones on the brunt of the violence. I deeply


resent what you and others do in this country. I want you to win. But


they are a Billy good minority. A poll last year found that two thirds


of British Muslims found they would not report a family member they


found to be involved in extremism to the police. You are proposing more


Draconian measures. I wish they could win. We should do everything


we can to support people like that. What we should recognise the scale


of the problem is beyond our current understanding. You counter


radicalisation on a university campus or online? Discussion we had


with Ben Wallace about the material that is out there. If we pursue in a


hard-line way perhaps the sort of thing Douglas Murray is suggesting,


gone is freedom of speech, gone is freedom of debate and discussion?


The best way to counter extremism is through the prism of human rights.


We cannot abandon our human rights to fight extremism. Where I think we


are going wrong, where there is a gap, is the lack of counter work to


challenge Islamist ideals. How many people are going to say we need to


counter that strict narrative? That is where we are not doing enough


work. What about the human rights point, that you cannot take away


people's human rights? I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting we


do things that ensure that 22 people don't get blown up on an average


Monday again, OK? Dissent to be opposed to people want to blow up


our daughters is not opposing human rights. If you're taking government


money and you are an institution like Salford University you should


be held responsible for not cooperating with standard security


measures. You can challenge extremism without abandoning human


rights. We have got to actually counter the Islamist narrative.


We're not doing enough. This is not about closing down free speech. This


is encouraging it. This is the most effective way of countering the


Islamist narrative. Why isn't it doing better? A number of reasons.


One is there is a denial taking place. A lot of apologetics. Part of


it is the way we talk about Muslims in this country. We use the term


Muslim community as if they are homogenous. There is a positive


trend but there is a negative trend among British Muslims. We need to


counter those promoting the idea that Muslims are part of a


collective identity. I agree. It is also the case there is massive push


back because a lot of Muslims are defending the faith in this country.


We think we can push them down a better path but they are defending


absolutely everything. We need to get real about that. Thank you very


much. It's just gone 11.35,


you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers


in Scotland, who leave us now Coming up here in 20


minutes, the Week Ahead. Coming up here in 20


re-elected. Is the only choice for strong and stable leadership.


Now, after the Manchester attack, will the final week of election


campaigning different in tone from what came before? My panel are here.


Tim Marshall, it will be very front of Centre for the next few days. Is


that a good thing for the election if it is going to be framed to who


do you feel more safe with? It is inevitable but I think it will only


be part of the election. As I said before the opt out, for many voters


this is also about economics, unemployment. It is not all about


Brexit, nor is it only about security. What it will do, I hope,


is get the tone of the debate right. Although I have already seen the


tone being lowered. I wasn't impressed with Mr Corbyn's speech


last week blaming it on a foreign policy, which is a wafer thin


analysis of what is going on. Inappropriate timing too soon? No, I


think the argument is utter nonsense. I don't want to attack


just one side. The Conservative party, I've forgotten which minister


has already said that we would be safer under a Tory Prime Minister,


it has got nothing to do with Labour or Tory government, the next Islamic


attack. It is to do with jihadist ideology, not party policies. You


raise an important issue about tone. It also points to a broader


argument, one we were having earlier, has politics been two


courses with this issue of extremism? Has the conversation


about it tiptoed around some of the sensitive issues? And by the media.


You highlight the problem of this being part of the election campaign


by saying, has politics been too cautious? Who do you mean by


politics? And in an election campaign there is a duty to be a


divide, and adamant about values, policies etc. Security is an issue


that transcends those political divides. So I think it is deeply


unhealthy. It is nobody's fault a tragedy occurred. But if you ask me


does it help or enhance an election debate? Emphatically not. A tragic


event brings politics, as you call it, together. Security is an issue


that is complex and doesn't divide neatly. Elections are political


battles, by definition. So I think the coming together of this, a


tragedy occurred anyway, but it is an unfortunate context. Do you agree


or do you think this is a time to talk about these issues? Is it a


time to review the level of argument? This is a political


debate. I personally think the politicians should have been out and


about on Wednesday. There is no wrong time to get it right. We


mustn't let the terrorists affect our way of life. But they have when


we disrupt the election campaign. It may be party political. But for a


lot of voters, including me, I want to hear from party leaders. What do


you plan to do about this? Right now, I've not heard anything that


suggests any of these parties have got to grips with the real problem,


which is that we are not actually tackling the problem in our midst.


Douglas Murray touched on it earlier. We have not even come to


grips with the scale of the problem. Does Labour have a grip -- Power


Point in terms of terrorist legislation? It is complicated. And


not all of it has worked or is used enough by government? It is another


example where this doesn't work in an election debate because David


Davis has opposed a lot of this terrorism legislation. He is now


heading Brexit. There is a civil liberties argument which I


personally have doubts about. Again, it brings people together from the


major parties. And Corbyn didn't actually say it was the cause of


terrorism, British foreign policy, but it helped to facilitate


terrorism, which is a different argument. Again, that would be


supported by some Tories as well. That is why it is difficult in an


election campaign for this issue to dominate. The front page of the


Sunday Times talks about a campaign relaunch, which may not, grow as a


great surprise following the social care fiasco. Do we know what that


will entail? It sounds like Boris Johnson will play a role. The whole


point is it was all about Theresa May and it turns out that is not


quite good enough. The more we have seen of Theresa May, the less


impressive she has looked. Certainly the Andrew Neil interview just


repeating the same thing again and again. Voters don't like that. They


like people who are honest and actually engage with them. When we


see beat interviews in the next few days, I think it will be interesting


to see if she changes tack and tries to engage with what people are


asking. If it is back to leadership and Brexit, and the economy, will


that be more comfortable ground? I think so. I understand framing it in


terms of Brexit. But she has got to broaden it out. I think that is why


she is broadening it out. I don't think the tragic events will


absolutely dominate. That would be a small victory for terrorism. This is


a country of 65 million people with an awful lot of issues. We have 65


million votes, well, 65 million people with opinions in two weeks.


It is quite a long campaign. There is still time to go. What do you


think Labour will be focusing on from now on? I would imagine they


will look very closely at where they are well ahead in the opinion polls


and focus on that relentlessly. Public services, NHS etc. And try to


get it off as soon as possible from security and fees is used which, on


one level at least, appear to be a gift to the Conservatives. I assume


that is what they are going to do. But this is a very unpredictable


campaign where nothing has gone according to plan. Let's look ahead.


On Wednesday evening we have got an election debate. It is in Cambridge.


Leaders of some of the parties. Amber Rudd will be representing the


Conservatives. We don't know yet who will represent Labour. Today we have


had Amber Road and Diane Abbott against each other on Andrew Marr.


Let's have a look. I think there is something to be said for a Home


Secretary who has actually worked in the Home Office. I work in the home


office for nearly three years as a graduate trainee. This government


has always felt that urgency. That is why we have been putting in


additional money. It is significant that the commission for extremism in


the manifesto was put in before Manchester. We need to do more. You


voted against prescribing those groups. Because there were groups on


that list I deemed to be dissidents rather than terrorist organisations.


We are making good progress with the companies who put in place


encryption. We will continue to build on that. It was 34 years ago.


I had a rather splendid Afro at the time. I don't have the same


hairstyle. And I don't have the same views. It is 34 years on. The


hairstyle has gone. Some of the views have gone. So you no longer,


you regret what you said about the IRA? The hairstyle has gone, the


views have gone. I would say to Diane Abbott that I have changed my


hairstyle are few times in 34 years but I have not changed my view of


how we keep the British public safe. Let's get away from hairstyle sides


talk about the prospect of the two of them taking part in the election


debate. Would you like to see that? On one level I would like to see it


and another the level I would like to see an intelligent debate. I'm


glad I never had an Afro or supported the IRA. Whenever Diane


Abbott steps out in a TV studio or a radio studio, Labour haemorrhage


votes. She cannot say things like my regret supporting this or that


legislation. She is an absolute disaster. If Labour put her up, they


are beyond mad. Who do you think Labour should put up? By the way, I


did have an Afro! I based my whole log on Kevin Keegan and it was good.


That is the wrong question. I will explain why. The Labour campaign, it


seems to me there were only five or six people put up. That is the fault


of others who refused to take part. It also shows the degree to which


the current leadership can only rely on five or six people. I would


imagine we are talking about a pool of five or six people. As for my


judgment as to who the best public performer is in that pool, it would


be by some margin John McDonnell, who is a very good interviewee and


performer. I think he is a very good performer. It would come back to the


economy at some point, presumably. But then it comes back to the IRA. I


don't think the debate will be very illuminating. I think if Amber Rudd


is there, Diane Abbott should be there. I think the leaders should be


debating. Some people say it is froth. I think the leader -- the


electorate gets a sense of the leaders. On haircuts, I would like


to thank both of them are talking about the haircuts. I am looking


forward to tomorrow's papers and the theme that will run through the


week. Let's not finish on the hair. Thank you very much for being our


guests. That is it for today. Thank the panel for Jonny May. Andrew Neil


will be back next weekend. And I will be back on BBC Two on Tuesday.


That is at midday with more daily politics. In the meantime, have a


very lovely bank holiday. From all of us here, bye-bye.


As voters prepare to go to the polls to choose who represents them


the SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon joins me for the Andrew Neil Interviews.


Jo Coburn presents the latest political news, interviews and debate. Professor of politics John Curtice, minister for security Ben Wallace, shadow justice minister Richard Burgon, author and commentator Douglas Murray, and director of Inspire (counter-extremism and women's rights organisation Sara Khan are among the guests. Journalists Steve Richards, Tim Marshall and Julia Hartley-Brewer make up the political panel. (see regional variations for details).

Download Subtitles