:00:10. > :00:19.Tonight on This Week, we put politics under surveillance.
:00:20. > :00:21.The Government takes action and suspends flights from Sharm
:00:22. > :00:24.el-Sheikh in Egypt, after "intelligence sources"
:00:25. > :00:29.suggests a terrorist bomb brought down the Russian passenger plane
:00:30. > :00:40.Journalist and broadcaster, Jane Moore, is spying for This Week.
:00:41. > :00:43.The Prime Minister doesn't just ground airlines on a whim. The
:00:44. > :00:46.spooks must really have spooked him. New powers to snoop
:00:47. > :00:49.into our private lives - but do they Keeping an eye on those watching us,
:00:50. > :01:04.human rights campaigner Sweeping new powers to access,
:01:05. > :01:06.monitor and hack our private information. Have the innocent
:01:07. > :01:10.really nothing to fear? And Margaret Thatcher may not have
:01:11. > :01:12.kept any state secrets in her famous handbag, but should
:01:13. > :01:16.the Iron Lady's bags and dresses be Star of stage and screen, Maureen
:01:17. > :01:33.Lipman, gets into character. Let me make one thing absolutely
:01:34. > :01:40.clear. This programme is not for turning off.
:01:41. > :01:43.Unscrew the Blue Nun Royale - and get ready for a bit of
:01:44. > :01:59.Welcome to This Week, the over-ripe avocado on your BBC toast.
:02:00. > :02:04.If the British government is right and the Russian passenger jet was
:02:05. > :02:11.brought down over the Sinai desert by a terrorist attack, then it makes
:02:12. > :02:16.it the worst Islamist attack since 9/ 11, 14 years ago, which is such a
:02:17. > :02:19.depressing thought that we couldn't think of anything funny with which
:02:20. > :02:21.to begin this programme. Let's go straight to moments of the week with
:02:22. > :02:31.Alan Johnson and a couple to low. We are going to talk about the
:02:32. > :02:35.Investigatory Powers Bill, but my moment of the week was the statement
:02:36. > :02:41.in the Commons yesterday. I can't think of a serious issue that has
:02:42. > :02:44.been treated so facetiously over the last few years, Snoopers' Charter
:02:45. > :02:49.and all this. I thought Theresa May was excellent in the way she dealt
:02:50. > :02:52.with it, and I was also watching Andy Burnham. It was his first
:02:53. > :02:57.outing as Shadow Home Secretary, and the fact that he said that this is
:02:58. > :03:01.neither mass surveillance nor a Snoopers' Charter pleased me
:03:02. > :03:04.considerably, because I thought that was exactly the right tone about a
:03:05. > :03:08.serious issue, even more serious in the light of what you have just said
:03:09. > :03:13.. We are going to have a good discussion if that is your view.
:03:14. > :03:16.Michael, your moment? Something completely different, which might
:03:17. > :03:20.otherwise have been missed. Nasa has been taking photographs of
:03:21. > :03:24.Antarctica and has been analysing the results. It turns out that
:03:25. > :03:28.although it may be that some glaciers have been melting during
:03:29. > :03:37.the recent years, it seems that the increase in ice in Antarctica easily
:03:38. > :03:43.offset the reduction of glaciers. Between 1992 and 2003, the net
:03:44. > :03:50.increase each year in Antarctica's ice was 112 billion tonnes of ice
:03:51. > :03:57.per year. And between 2003 and 2008, the rate of increase slowed a bit to
:03:58. > :04:01.a mere 83 billion tonnes of increase per year. I found this buried in the
:04:02. > :04:06.pages of the Daily Telegraph. Had these increases actually been
:04:07. > :04:10.decreases in ice, it would have led every news broadcast on the BBC for
:04:11. > :04:14.days. But because this does not support the global warming theory,
:04:15. > :04:19.you have to hunt around in the inner pages of newspapers to find it. And
:04:20. > :04:22.you have done it. We will get more on that in the run-up to the Paris
:04:23. > :04:24.conference at the beginning of December on global warming.
:04:25. > :04:26.Now, yesterday the Home Secretary announced plans to give
:04:27. > :04:28.the police and security services greater powers to monitor all
:04:29. > :04:31.our digital lives - in the name of keeping us safe from harm.
:04:32. > :04:34.Theresa May says the innocent have nothing to hide
:04:35. > :04:37.Indeed, if you were to snoop down the back
:04:38. > :04:40.of the This Week sofa, you'd find nothing more incriminating than one
:04:41. > :04:42.of Diane's old lipsticks, and she's only a danger to herself.
:04:43. > :04:44.But human rights campaigner and director of Liberty,
:04:45. > :04:47.Shami Chakrabarti, thinks we should all be concerned about the creeping
:04:48. > :05:22.And soon, I'll have something much more concerning than a few glass
:05:23. > :05:25.eyes to worry about after the Home Secretary's breathtaking attack
:05:26. > :05:39.Our every move is already tracked by CCTV cameras,
:05:40. > :05:41.but if the draft Investigatory Powers Bill becomes law,
:05:42. > :05:44.we won't be safe from the prying eyes of Government and the police,
:05:45. > :05:59."I keep myself to myself, I'm an honest citizen", I hear you cry.
:06:00. > :06:02.But surely, this level of Government intrusion simply isn't acceptable
:06:03. > :06:14.Companies would be forced to keep a record of every website you visit
:06:15. > :06:23.They say it's the same as an itemised phone bill.
:06:24. > :06:25.Would you feel comfortable with a stranger standing
:06:26. > :06:27.behind you while you looked online for medical advice or signed
:06:28. > :06:38.This is a chilling invasion of personal privacy, all in the name
:06:39. > :06:47.But no amount of fear of terrorist or cyber attack can
:06:48. > :06:49.justify turning us all into suspects, and that's what this Bill
:06:50. > :06:58.In fact, this legislation will leave us at risk of being watched online
:06:59. > :07:13.by malevolent forces, not just benign ones.
:07:14. > :07:16.We should all be scared of measures that leave us more
:07:17. > :07:22.permanently vulnerable to hacking from fraudsters and terrorists.
:07:23. > :07:25.And can Government really be trusted to keep hold of all
:07:26. > :07:31.We may be a long way from the trevails of Winston Smith
:07:32. > :07:34.but we are too far down the slippery slope that I, for one,
:07:35. > :07:43.So the "ayes" might end up having us in the House of Commons,
:07:44. > :07:44.but I'm standing against this dangerous intrusion
:07:45. > :07:58.And from the museum of the College of Optometrists to our own
:07:59. > :08:06.collection of dusty old artefacts, Shami Chakrabarti joins us now.
:08:07. > :08:14.Welcome back. Alan, I take it from the remarks you have made that you
:08:15. > :08:20.do not agree with Shami that this is a "chilly intrusion into our
:08:21. > :08:24.rivers"? No, I don't. The government has the power and the agencies and
:08:25. > :08:34.the police have the power to track telephone calls. In 1969, they
:08:35. > :08:40.steamed open 250,000 letters. There was a whole room in Post Office
:08:41. > :08:44.headquarters where MI5 did that. They have always had these powers.
:08:45. > :08:50.The issue is that now there is new technology. The powers do not relate
:08:51. > :08:54.to those. We are stuck in the past. When I was Home Secretary, we had
:08:55. > :09:01.won the 2010 general election. Our priority was to plug these gaps.
:09:02. > :09:05.Theresa May, partly because of the work of Shami and others, there was
:09:06. > :09:09.a draft bill in 2012 under the Coalition Government. It didn't go
:09:10. > :09:18.any further. She commissioned three independent reports. All of those
:09:19. > :09:23.said that the powers the agencies have at the moment are correct. But
:09:24. > :09:28.they fall short. But they made a number of other points, including
:09:29. > :09:36.the important point of judicial oversight. Which is judges that
:09:37. > :09:44.agree to the warrants. It is a draft bill, and it is therefore
:09:45. > :09:47.pre-legislative scrutiny. I am no cheerleader for Theresa May, but I
:09:48. > :09:52.thought she bought these things together in a measured way. I saw
:09:53. > :09:56.Liberty's 8-point plan, and I think Theresa May has tried. Shami will
:09:57. > :10:00.say she has not addressed them, but she has tried and she has certainly
:10:01. > :10:05.addressed the concerns of the independent reviewer of terrorism
:10:06. > :10:10.legislation. What is your view, Michael? I thought Shami's film
:10:11. > :10:14.failed to address what needs to be done to tackle terrorism. They were
:10:15. > :10:17.strong on why we might need to fear this, but what about the counter
:10:18. > :10:21.fear of what will happen if we don't have sufficient powers to find out
:10:22. > :10:25.what would-be terrorists are going to do? I agree with Shami less than
:10:26. > :10:31.I used to. I think the situation has deteriorated. I think Edward
:10:32. > :10:34.Snowden's activities have either pushed us further in this direction
:10:35. > :10:39.because they have compromised methodologies so that terrorists
:10:40. > :10:45.know more about what we can do, or at the very least, they have given
:10:46. > :10:50.people the excuse to claim that. I am not saying this is without risk.
:10:51. > :10:53.Many of these powers fall to the police, and unfortunately, we know
:10:54. > :10:57.that some policemen have sold secrets to newspapers for money
:10:58. > :11:00.regarding celebrities and so on. I can see that that sort of thing is
:11:01. > :11:05.possible. I will come onto the powers of the police in a minute.
:11:06. > :11:10.That is an area lots of people are worried about. Shami, why are they
:11:11. > :11:13.wrong? For a start, if it is accepted, and there is a growing
:11:14. > :11:20.consensus that there should be a greater role for judges in deciding
:11:21. > :11:25.whether it is warranted to intrude on somebody's Prevacid, I'm afraid
:11:26. > :11:31.there has been a huge PR exercise in advance of the publication of this
:11:32. > :11:34.bill. Having looked at the draft legislative and not just the
:11:35. > :11:38.newspaper reports that preceded it and the spin, there is no judicial
:11:39. > :11:44.warrant free in this bill. There is a very limited judicial review of
:11:45. > :11:50.warrants that are still signed by politicians and not judges. A lot of
:11:51. > :11:56.the understandable response, perhaps from Alan and others, that Theresa
:11:57. > :12:00.May has moved in this direction, that has been written about. I don't
:12:01. > :12:06.think it has delivered in the detail of this legislation, and that really
:12:07. > :12:10.concerns me. It is all very well to say Edward Snowden is a villain and
:12:11. > :12:14.he has, most national-security, but we wouldn't even be having this
:12:15. > :12:22.debate about the need for new powers and where the balance should lie,
:12:23. > :12:25.but for his revelations. You and I have had these discussions for
:12:26. > :12:27.years. But he revealed, notwithstanding the debates we have
:12:28. > :12:31.been having for years and notwithstanding legislation that
:12:32. > :12:37.fell under the last Labour government because it didn't have
:12:38. > :12:41.popular support, a lot of blanket surveillance, bulk surveillance. The
:12:42. > :12:44.word bulk appears in the draft legislation itself. Mr Byrne may say
:12:45. > :12:50.there is no mass surveillance, but the word bulk surveillance is used.
:12:51. > :12:55.That is because you don't know who is going to commit these crimes. If
:12:56. > :13:00.you don't ask the telecom companies to keep all of this information, you
:13:01. > :13:04.have to have the haystack to look for the needle. And the security
:13:05. > :13:08.services could not operate on the basis of only keeping the data of
:13:09. > :13:17.bad people or people likely to commit crimes. It is meta data. You
:13:18. > :13:21.need a warrant to look at. Shami, why do you think there's judicial
:13:22. > :13:24.oversight? I was surprised that Theresa May had gone as far as she
:13:25. > :13:29.did, because there was an argument about it being elected politicians
:13:30. > :13:32.who are accountable who should be signing this. She said the Secretary
:13:33. > :13:41.of State should sign it, and then a judge should sign it before the
:13:42. > :13:46.warrant comes in. The answer to that is clause 92 of the bill. I don't
:13:47. > :13:51.know if you have read it. I have. There has been all this spin about
:13:52. > :13:57.double locks. The reality is that the politician makes the judgment,
:13:58. > :14:04.and a judge is allowed to review the judgment and can only intervene on
:14:05. > :14:09.very limited grounds. In other words, if the politician is bonkers
:14:10. > :14:12.or has been completely improper in the way he has looked at the
:14:13. > :14:16.decision. A proper judicial warrant, as they have in the United
:14:17. > :14:20.States and all over the free world, allows a judge to actually make the
:14:21. > :14:29.decision about whether there is sufficient suspicion or evidence to
:14:30. > :14:34.warrant this intrusion. There is a judicial review of every warrant
:14:35. > :14:38.before they become effective. But the warrant cannot be used until the
:14:39. > :14:43.judge has approved it? But he can't make a different decision, he can
:14:44. > :14:46.only interfere with the politician's decision on very
:14:47. > :14:50.limited grounds. You are not understanding my point. Is there
:14:51. > :14:56.sufficient suspicion? This is a draft bill, and Mrs May in a sense
:14:57. > :15:01.is in negotiating position. She didn't particularly want judicial
:15:02. > :15:03.review anyway. That is something she will be under pressure to tighten. I
:15:04. > :15:13.hope so. Most people probably wouldn't agree
:15:14. > :15:16.with Shami, they would think the Security Services should have access
:15:17. > :15:20.to the data and be able to get to see browsing history that was
:15:21. > :15:24.required. Why should the police get to see anybody's web browser history
:15:25. > :15:28.simply on the say-so of a middle ranking officer?
:15:29. > :15:33.Well, police are crucial in this. This is not just about terrorism.
:15:34. > :15:38.This is about organised crime. Yes. It's about paedophilia. If you
:15:39. > :15:42.listen to the experts who plot and track Child Exploitation. Shouldn't
:15:43. > :15:48.you need a warrant? If they have suspicion... They need a warrant to
:15:49. > :15:51.search your home. Under this, only a middle ranking police officer could
:15:52. > :15:55.do this. Think of the circumstances that you could see there, the police
:15:56. > :15:59.have arrested somebody and they think he's guilty or she's guilty,
:16:00. > :16:04.but they can't quite get them to confess. So, the middle rankers say,
:16:05. > :16:09.let's have a lack at your browsing history. They may find something
:16:10. > :16:13.totally unrelated to the case but it could be highly embarrassing. It's a
:16:14. > :16:16.fair point, Andrew. The police need to have access to the data, maybe
:16:17. > :16:20.there ought to be a higher authority. Judges should sign
:16:21. > :16:24.warrants but one final question - hacking. What hasn't been talked
:16:25. > :16:29.about enough yet, the new power in this Bill will allow hacking of
:16:30. > :16:35.entire networks. You mean the Security Services going on to
:16:36. > :16:39.people's phones? Devices, networks. Would you need a warrant for that?
:16:40. > :16:42.The same warrant as I described, a politician's warrant that a judge
:16:43. > :16:48.can only interfere with on very limited grounds. And here is my
:16:49. > :16:52.concern on that... I don't think it's a knockout argument to say it's
:16:53. > :16:58.a politician's warrant. You took it seriously, I did, we take it
:16:59. > :17:03.seriously when we sign the warrants. David Anderson and his predecessor
:17:04. > :17:07.pointed out that it was something that hasn't gone wrong. There's in
:17:08. > :17:11.cases of politicians not taking it seriously. But the danger with
:17:12. > :17:16.hacking which is graver than just listening, is that when the
:17:17. > :17:21.authorities effectively damage the security of a network, granted for
:17:22. > :17:25.laudable reasons because they want to listen, their investigation is
:17:26. > :17:31.over, that network is potentially permanently undermined. You've
:17:32. > :17:36.interfew feared with the network and then subsequently all sorts of other
:17:37. > :17:41.people -- interfered... We learnted from Mrs May yesterday that they
:17:42. > :17:45.have been doing that already. How has the network been damaged? What
:17:46. > :17:48.makes hacking different from intercepting is you are actually
:17:49. > :17:54.interfering with the infrastructure to a point where you leave that
:17:55. > :17:57.network vulnerable to hacking by other people subsequently and you
:17:58. > :18:03.don't even know. The malevolent forces you were talking about? Yes.
:18:04. > :18:07.The first point is that the Security Services have to be able to chase
:18:08. > :18:15.these communications into this dark area. If Shami's point is, this
:18:16. > :18:19.leaves it open to malevolent forces, of course we need to close it, but
:18:20. > :18:22.Shami, you accept there are areas where terrorists and others are
:18:23. > :18:25.moving because they believe that Security Forces can't follow them?
:18:26. > :18:28.So people should be told when they have been hacked so that they can
:18:29. > :18:34.fix their security afterwards surely. Can I just offer a really
:18:35. > :18:36.basic political point. As we have seen this week over Sharm El-Sheikh
:18:37. > :18:41.when politicians believe that people may be killed by terrorists, they
:18:42. > :18:45.are going to take immense steps to prevent that from occurring because
:18:46. > :18:50.the political price is so huge. There is a built-in asymmetry, I
:18:51. > :18:53.understand that, but that's politics because people are charged with
:18:54. > :18:56.security and safety. We have run out of time, you are going to be
:18:57. > :18:59.business write in the weeks and months with the draft bill.
:19:00. > :19:01.Now, it's late, internet browsing history late.
:19:02. > :19:03.But don't let the Home Secretary ruin all your late-night fun -
:19:04. > :19:06.just google This Week instead, because waiting in the wings,
:19:07. > :19:11.star of stage and screen, Maureen Lipman is here to talk about the
:19:12. > :19:16.And for those who GCHQ consider political subversives,
:19:17. > :19:19.remember, you can exchange suspicious messages about tonight's
:19:20. > :19:21.show on the Twitter, The Fleecebook,
:19:22. > :19:24.and Gordon Brown's World Wide Web Sphere.
:19:25. > :19:27.Now, David Cameron said today it was increasingly likely a "terrorist
:19:28. > :19:31.bomb" caused the Russian passenger jet to crash in Egypt on Saturday,
:19:32. > :19:36.And last night the Government took the dramatic
:19:37. > :19:39.step of cancelling all UK flights to and from Sharm el-Sheikh,
:19:40. > :19:43.leaving thousands of Brits stranded and provoking the wrath
:19:44. > :19:57.You can certainly think of a better time for a planned visit to Downing
:19:58. > :20:02.But with the importance of secret intelligence being debated
:20:03. > :20:05.in Parliament this week, we sent Jane Moore undercover,
:20:06. > :20:16.and underground, and this is her roundup of the political week.
:20:17. > :20:22.Welcome, James. It's been a long time. It's Jane actually. And
:20:23. > :20:37.finally, here we are. . Spies, intelligence and deadly
:20:38. > :20:42.weapons. Not just the new Bond film, it's been a dramatic week in
:20:43. > :20:47.Westminster too. The week got off to a tragic start
:20:48. > :20:54.when a Russian jet crashed in Egypt, killing all on board.
:20:55. > :20:57.Based on intelligence briefings, David Cameron says it's increasingly
:20:58. > :21:01.likely that a bomb may have caused the crash. So, the Prime Minister's
:21:02. > :21:05.suspended all flights to and from Sharm El-Sheikh.
:21:06. > :21:09.Thousands of Brits have been left stranded. If that Russian airliner
:21:10. > :21:13.was brought down by a terrorist bomb, that does have very real
:21:14. > :21:17.implications and it penals it's absolutely essential that we see
:21:18. > :21:22.that improvement of security at Sharm El-Sheikh airport. All of this
:21:23. > :21:25.comes as the controversial Egyptian President is visiting the UK. It's
:21:26. > :21:30.hard to think of a more awkward time for him to be here and he didn't
:21:31. > :21:34.exactly get a warm reception outside Downing Street.
:21:35. > :21:38.Islamic state affiliates claim they were behind the crash and David
:21:39. > :21:42.Cameron still wants permission from Parliament to bomb IS targets in
:21:43. > :21:46.Syria. But the Government was dealt a blow this week when the Foreign
:21:47. > :21:52.Affairs Committee urged not to press ahead with a vote on UK air strikes.
:21:53. > :21:56.We take the fight to Isis, wherever we can, British pilots are doing
:21:57. > :22:00.that in the skies above Iraq. If we were to do that in the skies above
:22:01. > :22:03.Syria, we'd need a vote in the House of Commons, but we are not going to
:22:04. > :22:06.go to the House of Commons unless we'd be clear that we'd win that
:22:07. > :22:11.vote and there would be a consensus for that action. There is a
:22:12. > :22:15.consensus in wanting support for the victims of this war. I don't think
:22:16. > :22:24.there's a consensus around taking further military action.
:22:25. > :22:30.You've got a secret. Something you can't tell anyone. Don't worry,
:22:31. > :22:35.James, we've all got secrets we'd rather forget.
:22:36. > :22:42.But it's going to be harder to actually keep secrets from the state
:22:43. > :22:46.under potential Bond and Theresa May's extended new powers which are
:22:47. > :22:50.being proposed. This new legislation will underpin
:22:51. > :22:53.the work of law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies
:22:54. > :23:00.for years to come. It's their licence to operate.
:23:01. > :23:05.Meanwhile, it's licence to confuse when it comes the Labour's position
:23:06. > :23:10.on Trident. Scottish Labour voted overwhelmingly to scrap the nuclear
:23:11. > :23:13.missile system. But the UK party policy remains to support it, even
:23:14. > :23:17.though leader Jeremy Corbyn is dead against.
:23:18. > :23:21.The policy seems to be, live and let die.
:23:22. > :23:28.You are a kite dancing in a hurricane, Mr Bond.
:23:29. > :23:33.Former 00 agent Neil Kinnock came out of the shadows to warn that
:23:34. > :23:37.British voters will not back a party in favour of unilateral disarmament.
:23:38. > :23:46.You could say the writing's on the wall.
:23:47. > :23:53.Junior doctors were shaken and stirred this week. So much so that
:23:54. > :23:56.Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt wrote to them in a bid to prevent
:23:57. > :24:05.industrial action over pay and conditions.
:24:06. > :24:09.Thank you. We know from the coalition years just how quickly the
:24:10. > :24:16.NHS can become a toxic problem for the Government. They certainly don't
:24:17. > :24:20.want a repeat prescription. We have actually been wanting to
:24:21. > :24:24.negotiate with the BMA since June but they have refused to sit around
:24:25. > :24:32.the table with us. Instead, they have proceeded to ballot for
:24:33. > :24:36.industrial action. All this speculation about this
:24:37. > :24:43.possibly being Daniel Craig's last outing as Bond has set me thinking -
:24:44. > :24:47.I think the world is ready for a female 007.
:24:48. > :24:52.The name's Bond, Jane Bond! And from the vaults under Waterloo
:24:53. > :24:55.to our own little vaults here in the heart of Westminster,
:24:56. > :25:05.M for Miranda joins us. It will be interesting as a former
:25:06. > :25:09.Home Secretary to get your take on this. For the British Government,
:25:10. > :25:13.for the Prime Minister unilaterally to decide to stop the flights, the
:25:14. > :25:18.intelligence must have been pretty strong? I would have thought so. I
:25:19. > :25:22.would have thought so. I mean, you know, they have to bring anywhere
:25:23. > :25:28.between 12,000 and 20,000 Brits home, so they have to go through the
:25:29. > :25:31.very difficult logistics of getting planes out there to bring them back.
:25:32. > :25:35.You don't take a decision like that lightly. Indeed, even at the height
:25:36. > :25:40.of the problems in Egypt back in 2011, it didn't affect any of the
:25:41. > :25:50.tourist trade. I think they also must have had a mind on the tourism
:25:51. > :25:53.impact on Egypt which will be profound. I would have thought they
:25:54. > :25:57.had some very clear intelligence. Looking at some of those photographs
:25:58. > :26:00.of the wreckage, it looks like shrapnel and a bomb, but they
:26:01. > :26:04.wouldn't have just done it sitting around COBRA looking at photographs.
:26:05. > :26:09.They would have had intelligence. Do you agree, Michael? Certainly, I
:26:10. > :26:13.agree, because it's dealt a blow to our relations with Egypt. It's a
:26:14. > :26:19.dramatic action to take. It's been unilateral. It's exposed us to
:26:20. > :26:22.questions of ridicule, so it must be very strong evidence and I read in
:26:23. > :26:27.newspapers that the US is also of the view that it was a bomb.
:26:28. > :26:32.Obviously, it's a further leap of logic to say that OK, it was a bomb
:26:33. > :26:36.and therefore we must doubt the security at Sharm El-Sheikh. I
:26:37. > :26:40.suppose we would have been rather angry if after Lockerbie other
:26:41. > :26:44.countries said none of their planes could fly to London, so, you know,
:26:45. > :26:48.diplomatically, it's a very, very powerful thing indeed. If a
:26:49. > :26:52.Government believes that it might lose British lives because it
:26:53. > :26:56.neglected to take action, you just can't take that risk. Some
:26:57. > :26:58.commentators were saying it was terribly embarrassing because the
:26:59. > :27:03.President of Egypt was on the plane on the way here while this decision
:27:04. > :27:06.was taken, but actually, I think that's quite juvenile, there is no
:27:07. > :27:09.better time for the British Prime Minister and the Egyptian President
:27:10. > :27:16.to talk than now when these things are going on. It's also brought into
:27:17. > :27:21.the public limelight that there is a major Islamist insurgency going on
:27:22. > :27:25.in the Sinai desert, a really major one with total close links with the
:27:26. > :27:32.Islamists in Syria and Iraq. We should be talking now? Absolutely.
:27:33. > :27:36.Actually, the context of this jet coming down puts those
:27:37. > :27:41.conversations, which argue that the UK should cut off relations from
:27:42. > :27:45.Egypt or sort of put Sisi in the deep freeze because he should be an
:27:46. > :27:50.unwelcome character in London. Because his human rights record is
:27:51. > :27:53.appalling? Yes, and Egypt is an important, significant country. The
:27:54. > :27:56.border with Libya, it's very important to be talking to Egypt
:27:57. > :28:02.right now for the reasons that are all too obvious with this plane
:28:03. > :28:05.coming down. Jeremy Corbyn said that the Sisi visit "threatens our
:28:06. > :28:13.national security". That can't be right, can it? No. I didn't know
:28:14. > :28:16.he'd said that. No, I wouldn't have thought so. There were
:28:17. > :28:23.demonstrations in Downing Street for and against. Which is fine and there
:28:24. > :28:31.should be? It's democracy, yes. But as a country like Britain, France,
:28:32. > :28:34.Germany, the US, bad as Mr Sisi's human rights record is, you have to
:28:35. > :28:38.deal with Egypt, it's the most important country in the Arab world?
:28:39. > :28:45.Of course you do and if we turned our back on Egypt because we felt
:28:46. > :28:48.there was something wrong with Sisi's eventual action, there are
:28:49. > :28:53.issues about the Muslim Brotherhood, that would be a catastrophic mistake
:28:54. > :28:58.for British foreign policy. Well, we are picking up on a catastrophic
:28:59. > :29:04.error of the past. We connived in the opposing of Mubarak, we opposed
:29:05. > :29:08.the Muslim Brotherhood, so we acquiesced in the relationship of
:29:09. > :29:13.the Muslim Brotherhood with Sisi, so our interventions in the area are
:29:14. > :29:16.generally counterproductive and certainly against our own interests
:29:17. > :29:22.so at least at the moment were dealing with Sisi.
:29:23. > :29:25.What Sisi has been able to do, there was effectively a military coup
:29:26. > :29:32.against the Muslim Brotherhood. He has put a lot of people in jail, we
:29:33. > :29:36.were speaking to Tim Marshall on the Daily Politics today, a former
:29:37. > :29:40.distinguished correspondent for Sky News, he was saying it's back to
:29:41. > :29:45.Mubarak and Nasser, it's a restrictive regime once more, but of
:29:46. > :29:51.course this insurgency in the Sinai gives him a good excuse to go and be
:29:52. > :29:55.as tough as he wants? Yes, it does, but as with the conversations we
:29:56. > :29:59.were having with the Chinese premier's visit, there is a big
:30:00. > :30:03.question that used to be called ethnic foreign policy, does that
:30:04. > :30:07.mean you shouldn't engauge with any regime with the question of human
:30:08. > :30:11.rights. Actually, you know, there are
:30:12. > :30:15.question marks about the UK's role in the world, have we just gone off
:30:16. > :30:19.intervention for ever, or do we still have a role to play
:30:20. > :30:25.diplomatically, and if we have any role to play, we have to engage.
:30:26. > :30:29.Sisi represents an unpleasant regime that's successful at suppressing
:30:30. > :30:32.terrorism. The Middle East was covered in such regimes and we have
:30:33. > :30:38.connived in deposing quite a number of them. Alan, do awe agree with me
:30:39. > :30:42.that the reason that we haven't had a vote on Syrian intervention in the
:30:43. > :30:46.Commons is because Mr Cameron, or let me put it this way, we would
:30:47. > :30:48.have had one if he thought he could secure a majority and he hasn't
:30:49. > :30:59.because he's not sure? I am puzzled by this. The front page
:31:00. > :31:05.of the Times said we did not have enough Labour MPs. I am a Labour MP,
:31:06. > :31:09.no one spoke to me about this. But then Crispin Blunt, the Conservative
:31:10. > :31:13.chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, that was said to be the
:31:14. > :31:19.reason, because of their report. They were hostile to extending the
:31:20. > :31:25.bombing to Syria. So it seemed to me like a bit of a spin operation to
:31:26. > :31:30.suggest that it was Labour MPs. Actually, Joe Cox, the new MP for
:31:31. > :31:33.Batley, did a very good joint article with Andrew Mitchell a
:31:34. > :31:37.couple of weeks ago, and the debate was going on within the Labour
:31:38. > :31:45.Party. Hilary Benn has said we are not ruling it out. So I think he got
:31:46. > :31:51.his fingers burnt back in August. Which everybody tells me still jars
:31:52. > :31:55.with him. It was a pretty amateur hour operation. Now he can't afford
:31:56. > :32:04.to lose a second time. That could be dangerous for his job prospects. And
:32:05. > :32:09.humiliating. The Tory whips can tell him how many Tory rebels there would
:32:10. > :32:12.be. They cannot say how many Labour people will counteract the Tory
:32:13. > :32:18.rebels. It is a difficult place to be in. It is a very difficult place
:32:19. > :32:23.to be in, but also, there is the question of both the mood of the
:32:24. > :32:29.country, intervention is extremely out of fashion here now, and also,
:32:30. > :32:34.frankly, every time we discuss this subject, the situation on the ground
:32:35. > :32:40.in Syria changes. The Russian intervention was a surprise to
:32:41. > :32:46.everyone. What would the motion be? Michael? The select committee report
:32:47. > :32:51.is important, because it makes it much easier for Conservative rebels
:32:52. > :32:58.to rubble and much harder for Labour's -- Labour rebels to rubble.
:32:59. > :33:03.What is the significance of Labour's position on Trident? The Labour
:33:04. > :33:13.opposition is decided at the National party forum. We were the
:33:14. > :33:17.government when the British nuclear weapon was introduced by the Attlee
:33:18. > :33:21.government. We were in power when we began this process of renewing
:33:22. > :33:26.Trident in 2007. It was an overwhelming vote of them as well as
:33:27. > :33:31.two years ago, when we had the next stage. The policy of the Labour
:33:32. > :33:35.Party is clear. You say it is clear, except that the Scottish Labour
:33:36. > :33:39.Party is against Trident, but the leader of the Labour Party in
:33:40. > :33:42.Scotland is in favour of it. And if I can call it the English Labour
:33:43. > :33:52.Party, they are in favour of Trident, but your leader is against
:33:53. > :33:57.it. You made that very clear(!). Well, we have conferences in
:33:58. > :34:01.Scotland and Wales, and Scottish Labour in particular want a separate
:34:02. > :34:05.identity, so they had to debate, whereas we didn't have it at
:34:06. > :34:08.National conference. But they know that the decision in Scotland does
:34:09. > :34:12.not override the National conference, which has decided in
:34:13. > :34:16.favour of Trident. But it is not clear that Labour will go into the
:34:17. > :34:19.next election backing Trident. That's right, and like almost
:34:20. > :34:23.everything that happens in politics at the moment, it is another
:34:24. > :34:27.advantage to the SNP. The Labour Party voted with the SNP in Holyrood
:34:28. > :34:34.on this, and it allows the SNP to say that Labour are all over the
:34:35. > :34:37.place. I am not sure the SNP want unilateral nuclear disarmament or
:34:38. > :34:41.whether they just don't want nuclear weapons in Scotland. They have
:34:42. > :34:45.signed up to Nato. They would be protected by French nuclear weapons.
:34:46. > :34:48.But the SNP doesn't have the union problem that you have. Unite
:34:49. > :34:52.abstained, otherwise we would have won the vote. We will have to
:34:53. > :34:54.abstain from talking any more because we have run out of time.
:34:55. > :34:57.Now, those who doubt the need for increased surveillance were
:34:58. > :34:59.given pause for thought, after the Prime Minister was caught
:35:00. > :35:01.insulting our armed forces on the internet this week.
:35:02. > :35:04.Fortunately for the PM, the Poppy Police were monitoring all
:35:05. > :35:06.of Dave's online activity and when they spotted his official Facebook
:35:07. > :35:09.photograph lacked a certain something, they took swift and
:35:10. > :35:14.immediate action and a poppy was duly photo-shopped,
:35:15. > :35:18.by Downing Street, onto the Prime Minister's unpatriotic lapel.
:35:19. > :35:23.Poppy crisis averted, poppy ridicule ensued.
:35:24. > :35:26.And that's why we've decided to ask why appearance matters so much
:35:27. > :35:35.and put the politics of style over substance in this week's Spotlight.
:35:36. > :35:45.Was Margaret Thatcher out of vogue at the V this week?
:35:46. > :35:48.The museum reportedly passed up the chance to exhibit her wardrobe.
:35:49. > :36:01.That's a silk, in the navy section, that's in the black section...
:36:02. > :36:04.But with her personal effects due to be auctioned off by her family,
:36:05. > :36:07.does the campaign to save Mrs T's clothes and accessories for the
:36:08. > :36:09.nation suggest politicians can have unlikely legacies, as fashion icons?
:36:10. > :36:11.Dressing to impress, or couldn't care less?
:36:12. > :36:15.When it comes to being on trend, Jeremy Corbyn's radical chic's
:36:16. > :36:26.No, no, she didn't make the shirt, that came from the Co-op.
:36:27. > :36:29.So does Jezza need to pull his socks up, or does his appearance
:36:30. > :36:33.really matter as long as he wears his heart on his sleeve?
:36:34. > :36:36.We certainly remember politicians for their wardrobe malfunctions,
:36:37. > :36:42.and Michael Foot learned the hard way, critics claim a tad unfairly,
:36:43. > :36:46.that he wore a donkey jacket to the Cenotaph in 1981, perhaps the most
:36:47. > :36:47.infamous example of the opposition leader's new clothes,
:36:48. > :36:55.There's still a little bit sticking up there.
:36:56. > :37:02.So do clothes maketh the politician, or have we got too hot under
:37:03. > :37:16.the collar about the importance of style over substance in politics?
:37:17. > :37:24.Maureen Lipman, welcome back. Should the V and other museums take up an
:37:25. > :37:28.offer to display Britain's first female Prime Minister's clothes? I
:37:29. > :37:33.think they have been a bit short-sighted on this. I never was a
:37:34. > :37:38.huge fan of the lady, but on this occasion, they have blown it. They
:37:39. > :37:48.have shown themselves to be rather snobbish. I think she wasn't cool.
:37:49. > :37:55.And yet she was a style icon. It happened to be the style of middle
:37:56. > :37:58.England. But if you are going to talk about something having to be
:37:59. > :38:04.aesthetically pleasing, there is nothing wrong with a Yager suit.
:38:05. > :38:09.They last forever. And quite a lot of what they call high-fashion
:38:10. > :38:14.doesn't even have a lining. It wouldn't pass my Jewish
:38:15. > :38:20.grandmother. So you think there was an aesthetic and a historic reason
:38:21. > :38:25.for a museum to take it? Absolutely. When she first came along, Maggie
:38:26. > :38:29.Thatcher, she had a little blowsy dress and frizzy hair, and she knew
:38:30. > :38:36.that in a man's world, she really had to get her act together. And she
:38:37. > :38:49.found a carapace which was just as much a shield as Queen Elizabeth's
:38:50. > :38:52.ruff. I am sure she didn't have a mother who guided her sartorially,
:38:53. > :38:59.but I will bet you any money that her dad frequently said, the clothes
:39:00. > :39:05.maketh the man. There is an interest in her being our first and so far
:39:06. > :39:12.only female Prime Minister. The clothes of male politicians are
:39:13. > :39:16.quite dull. There would be a fabulous exhibition of John Major's
:39:17. > :39:21.suits! We know it is ridiculous to judge people by their clothes, but
:39:22. > :39:24.actually, she got that decision out of the way. What is really
:39:25. > :39:28.interesting is that they are dismissive of her as a fashion
:39:29. > :39:34.icon, but if you go on any high street, if you go to any of these
:39:35. > :39:42.high street shops, you will see giving fabrics are pussycat bows,
:39:43. > :39:48.which are supposed to be ironic, and handbags. Ruddy handbags
:39:49. > :39:56.everywhere. She started that. Before that, it was just a bid put your
:39:57. > :39:59.Valium. But the point neither of you has made is that she used clothes as
:40:00. > :40:03.an instrument of power. She expressed power through her
:40:04. > :40:07.clothing. That is why the V judgment is doubtful. It is not
:40:08. > :40:11.about the quality of the clothes, it is a historic moment in which a
:40:12. > :40:17.woman becomes Prime Minister and uses the clothing to advance her
:40:18. > :40:21.political power. And her clothing changed as she herself felt more
:40:22. > :40:27.powerful. As Maureen says, you see the pictures of her as Leader of the
:40:28. > :40:34.Opposition in the 70s. Sort of girly. Then you see the padded
:40:35. > :40:40.shoulders and Jager and so on. Other jackets are available, I should say
:40:41. > :40:46.on the BBC. The clothes almost began to reflect her own sense of power
:40:47. > :40:53.and importance. And Dynasty was on, and people wore those. I would never
:40:54. > :41:01.contradict Maureen. You have convinced me. And it was a conscious
:41:02. > :41:12.attempt. That is what it is interesting for the V It has
:41:13. > :41:17.historic value. The outfit she wore in the tank, with the swirling veil
:41:18. > :41:21.around her head. The outfit she wore in Moscow in 1987, when she was
:41:22. > :41:26.mobbed by what was then people in the Soviet Union, a month and a half
:41:27. > :41:30.before the general election in this country, and she wore that great big
:41:31. > :41:36.coat with the Ferrari lapels and the flat, all absolutely land. Iconic
:41:37. > :41:41.images that were reflected back to Britain and said, this is the woman
:41:42. > :41:45.we are going to vote for. I am sure they didn't like her at the V
:41:46. > :41:48.They want McQueen and Bowie, because then they get a cool audience in.
:41:49. > :41:53.They will not be queueing around the block to see Maggie's clothes. I
:41:54. > :42:02.don't know about that. I think it is a bit of Oxford University, Mark
:42:03. > :42:05.two. It is like a Greek tragedy. Would you agree that clothes must
:42:06. > :42:08.have been an important part of getting the character right? Style
:42:09. > :42:12.and substance are actually not two separate things, I would suggest.
:42:13. > :42:18.They reflect each other. I dislike her less now than I did, but one of
:42:19. > :42:21.the reasons I disliked her was because she was such a bad actress
:42:22. > :42:31.and you could see the cogs going around, the sort of acting I don't
:42:32. > :42:35.like. But now, I had my own suits and my own wig, and my earring just
:42:36. > :42:48.fell off! Style icon! That's your lot for tonight,
:42:49. > :42:50.folks. But we leave you tonight with
:42:51. > :42:52.today's deja vu press conference from the Governor of the Bank
:42:53. > :42:54.of England, who was hired over two years ago,
:42:55. > :43:03.at considerable public expense in order, it would now seem,
:43:04. > :43:06.to miss his inflation targets and keep interest rates exactly
:43:07. > :43:08.where he found them No offence, Mark, but that
:43:09. > :43:14.doesn't sound too difficult. Nighty night - don't let
:43:15. > :43:27.the impatient crowd bite. So, remember, remember, the 5th of
:43:28. > :43:31.November. What, if anything, is memorable about today's inflation
:43:32. > :43:35.report? Certainly, the headlines are the minute. Inflation remains close
:43:36. > :43:38.to zero. I have written another open letter to the Chancellor explaining
:43:39. > :43:43.why and what we intend to do about it. The MPC has voted against by a
:43:44. > :43:48.majority of eight to want to maintain the at 0.5% and by 90 zero
:43:49. > :43:54.2 entertain the purchase assets. And once again, as it has since February
:43:55. > :44:00.last year, we have reaffirmed our expectations that when the bank rate
:44:01. > :44:24.rises occur, they can expect to be limited and gradual.