25/05/2017 This Week

Tonight on this week, this time they killed 22 and injured many more.

They targeted children. Now there'll be troops on the streets and the

terror threat's raised to critical for the first time in nearly a

decade. Is that the answer? Counter-Terrorism experts say it's

time world leaders and NATO step up to the mark. NATO needs to evolve to

fight terror on a global scale, even if that means having troops on the

ground once again in Afghanistan. Campaigning for the general election

was put on hold, but not before a manifesto U-turn unlike any we have

seen. Or was it... Jo Coburn looks back at a turbulent week. Some may

have thought this election was a done deal but nothing in politics is

ever that straightforward. As the parties resume campaigning, there's

still all to play for. Tonight, This Week like Manchester, like all of

us, we are getting on with business as usual. Are you feeling strong and

stable? Jan Raven puts it in the Spotlight. Forget political jar Don

gone, the most powerful words are those that come from the heart. We

won't take defeat and we don't want your pity because this is the place

where we stand strong together with a smile on our face, Mancunians

forever... I won't repeat a version

of the remarks I made on this programme in the wake of the Paris

and Westminster terrorist attacks, though I know some

of you were hoping I would. They apply with equal force

to what happened on Monday night, even more so since it involved

the deliberate But perhaps the time

for rhetoric is over and we need to concentrate more on what we're

going to do about it. As atrocity follows

atrocity, we've fallen Our hearts go out to those killed

and maimed, the pointless, We admire the stoicism and resolve

of those towns and cities who've We're rightly proud of our brave

and professional emergency services. We aver the terrorists

will not divide us. Because that's what they want

and they will not have it. We know Muslims are not our enemy

and that they have as much to fear from the Islamists within our midst

as the rest of us. But, despite horror upon horror,

we have yet to have a proper national conversation

on what the right long-term response should be to root out this tiny

but deadly cancer that afflicts us. Not just the security

or military responses, important as they are,

but the grassroots, community, local responses that would stop this

evil from flourishing The election campaign

begins again tomorrow. Is it too much to ask that,

in the two weeks till polling day, those who would govern us do not

return to the banalities that have characterised some of this election

so far and begin instead a mature debate on what is, literally,

a matter of life and death? Well, I think I agree with every

word that you've just said and, at the end of the clip at the beginning

of the programme, we saw Tony Walsh, the member for manslaughter poet

talking about the wit and the grit of Manchester and asked Manchester

to choose love and, although you are quite right that it's a cliche that

people have shown stoicism and solidarity, nonetheless it's

striking. I mean, normal life is going on. In these circumstances,

people say life must go on, ordinary life must go on. I say more than

that, life has to be celebrated. When confronted with incredible

depravity and profanity, you have to celebrate what humanity has achieved

because humanity at itself best, it's science, art, kindness, it's

philanthropy, all the things that make our society. It's not just that

life must go on, it's that life must be celebrated because, otherwise you

have to counterbalance added to the depravity. Alan? One thing struck me

which should have struck me before about this week's events. That was,

when I was Home Secretary, one of the most important security

relationships we had was with Libya because that was on the route from

north Africa to Europe. It should have struck me earlier, but suddenly

from being a help to our security, we suddenly find a Libyan

radicalised Islamist creating the problem. I was in Parliament, I

voted for intervention in Libya, but goodness, you know, when you look at

what that - I know we'll talk about it in a minute - but what that

particular action's created in that failed state, you do wonder whether

every step we take is coordinated in the fight against terror.

It's interesting you raise the Libyan connection because it's

clearly a factor. Police named the suicide bomber

as 22-year-old Salman Ramadan Abedi. His parents, opponents

of the Gadaffi regime, Abedi was born here and went

to school in Manchester, His background was not deprived

and for most of his life it He played football, supported

Manchester United and liked cricket. Latterly, he was known,

to some extent, to the security services on a long list of "subjects

of interest" whose threat level They explained today that at any one

time the intelligence services are involved in 500 operations

covering over 3,000 people. So an Abedi slipping through the net

is perhaps inevitable. We do not yet know what radicalised

him or what role his family, Libya, Syria or Islamic State played

in it, if any. We do know, now, that he was capable

of unspeakable evil. Here's counter terrorism

expert, Sajjan Gohel The terrorist attack on Manchester

is one of the most disturbing the European continent has

had to endure. But its depravity tells us something

about the sorry state of Isis. As it loses its grip

in the Middle East, it Isis partly recruits

its Western-born terrorists through its virtual network,

a cancer that metastasises Attacks coordinated remotely

are harder to track, but this doesn't mean

that the British authorities need greater surveillance powers

to monitor individuals, Their grassroots engagement and

intelligence gathering is peerless. What they really need is more money

for front line policing. But there's only so much that can be

done at a national level. Terrorism, after all,

is a global threat. It's time for Nato to

step up to the mark. US President Donald Trump who met

with Nato leaders in Brussels today, wants the organisation to evolve

from a Cold War era defence system to a proactive counter-terrorism

agency fit for the 21st-century. Regardless of the damaging leaks

from America, Nato members must This will allow them to conduct

forensic intelligence and counterinsurgency

operations more effectively. For example, better access

to information from Spain and Italy on jihadists in Libya could help

thwart potential future threats Nato needs to put boots

on the ground to halt terrorist activity before it

reaches these shores. While this wouldn't be

appropriate in Libya, where the Manchester attacker

visited, it is essential in Afghanistan, which is once again

turning into a hotbed for radical extremists deeply

hostile to the West. However, just like British

counterterrorism efforts, And Nato members need to start

paying their fair share into the organisation's budget

to prevent terrorism being born in hostile environments and directly

impacting upon its citizens. If Nato members do not pay up

the cash, then its citizens will pay Sajjan, who is International

Security Director at the Asia-Pacific Foundation

joins me now. Should NATO reinvent itself to give

itself a much enhanced Counter-Terrorism capability? NATO

should focus on Counter-Terrorism. Whether that involves reinventing

itself I don't know. I think that's easier said but I don't entirely

know what it means. If I was still Defence Secretary, I would need an

awful lot of convincing that we should go back into Afghanistan.

It's not clear to me - I pick up on a point that Alan made - it's not

clear that it's done more to suppress terrorism than it's done to

arouse disgruntlement. Alan? Enhanced counterintelligence,

counterterrorist capability for NATO? Well, I think with the five Is

we have got a good Counter-Terrorism network that involves NATO countries

as well. I'm not quite sure how you could improve on that. You could

improve on some of the actions of America this week in terms of their

press but how you could cooperate more in terms of sharing

intelligence. I would need to be convinced, just as Michael would,

about putting troops back into Afghanistan, I would need convincing

that there would be a problem waiting to be resolved. Certainly

there is a problem in police numbers. Front line policing, PCSOs,

you know, people who were not due to go to court with criminals just to

know their patch and patrol their patch are one of the greatest

sources we had of information in terms of Prevent. The numbers have

diminished and that must be something that needs to be put

right. I want to come on to Afghanistan and police numbers in a

moment. Let's stick with NATO. It's a collection of disparate states,

including Turkey. It wasn't formed to fight terrorism, it was formed to

deal with the Soviet threat. Could it ever really unite behind the

common Counter-Terrorism strategy? It's important because of the fact

that all the NATO countries, they together can actually form a

collective body of intelligence. There are, as Alan mentioned,

networks and institutions that pull together intelligence, but there is

a gap missing when it comes to military intelligence. There is no

entity bringing the different groups together from a military

perspective. It was tried in Afghanistan in the aftermath of

9/11, proved to be very successful but it wasn't sustained because

unfortunately, the Iraq war took precedence then. Are we going to

share intelligence with Turkey? Enit comes to dealing with foreign

terrorist fighters operating in conflict areas where there are

hostile threat, it's important to share information. Every country as

a piece of the puzzle. If you put it together, you form a wider picture

as to what that wider network is. If you keep the intelligence facts as

preserved secrets, you're undermining your own ability to

thwart terrorism. Even if we had the intelligence and I have doubts that

NATO is going to share it in the way you think amongst its own members,

plus British intelligence does not have a high regard for Spanish or

Italian intelligence, I know that first hand. But you talk about

putting boots on the ground. Getting a NATO agreement on that is nigh on

impossible? Well, the US commander currently in Afghanistan has called

for more troops, not necessarily to fight frontline but to help in terms

of the training of the Afghan forces, to provide support. The

thing is this, Afghanistan's never been properly dealt with. We have

been there for 16 years. Yes, but after 9/11 for two years, the

Taliban were on the verge of being decimated, taking a number of hits.

Then in 2003, the Iraq war distracted the entire situation,

resources were taken away, the focus went off, the Taliban reconstituted

itself and it was able to then carry out more attacks. Do you reelly

think there is an appetite in the West to pour more men into

Afghanistan after being there for 16 years? Many people, as Michael

alluded to, concluding that it's precisely by doing this sort of

thing that we end up radicalising a small chunk of our youth? There's

just no democratic will to do that? I respectfully disagree with both of

you in the sense that you can not compare Afghanistan to Iraq or to

Libya. Iraq in particular was a war of choice. We ignored Afghanistan to

our peril in the 90s which allowed Al-Qaeda to grow, to develop, to

plot and plan attacks and we ignored the attack on the US embassy in 98,

on the USS Crow in 99 and then 9/11 happened. What's happening in

Afghanistan, you don't just have a virulent Afghanistan insurgency, you

have the Isis afilliate growing which is matching the Taliban for

attacks and then, on top of that, you have the Hakani network involved

in all kinds of terrorist related activity. If we ignore this problem,

it will once again become accessible and you will have the potential blow

back to the UK. You have grabbed my attention, I must say. What you say

about the late 90s is absolutely right.

President Clinton's response to the attack on the American Embassy is in

Africa was highly inadequate. He was distracted by other things, and then

9/11 came along. So if you are telling us there is a growth of a

situation which is an allergist to that, I would want to look at that

carefully. -- a situation which is analogous to that. Let's be clear,

we did not pull out of Afghanistan because the job was done, but

because it was politically unpopular. Casualties were mounting.

If we are going to have this conversation, you grabbed my

attention as well. I am still not convinced it is the right thing to

do, but we have discounted all of that because it would be politically

difficult. We certainly did not pull out because the job was done, but

partly was because we were not convinced we were doing the job. In

the end, it will not been Nato that will go in. The Italians, Germans,

the Greeks, the Turks, the Spanish, they are not going to put troops

into Afghanistan. That is true. But we have heard about the intelligence

position. It is clear there is intelligence to be had in Denmark,

Italy, Greece, all over the place. Win President Obama increased the

number of troops to 100,000 in 2010, progress was made against the

Taliban for two years, and then they were withdrawn over a very short

period of time. Then you create a security vacuum. It is important to

add that Iran and Russia are now showing interest with the Taliban.

That is another dynamic that did not exist previously and could be a

major security challenge. Some people watching this will say, have

we learned nothing? Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, every time we have

tried to do something in these places, it just gets worse. With

respect, you are again lumping Afghanistan with Iraq and Libya. It

is a separate issue. The Afghan people want the Western coalition

there. They would not be wanted in Iraq or Libya. That is completely

understandable. We cannot get involved in Libya or Iraq. Nato

could not get involved in Afghanistan either. In Afghanistan,

the situation is different. The people are in fear of the Taliban.

They are taking districts in the south and east. Sang Kim, which

British soldiers died protecting, has now fallen to the Taliban. In

retrospect, was it wise to cut police numbers and resources at a

time of heightened terrorist threat? It may not have been, but I suspect

quite a small number of police are involved in anything to do with

terrorism. 3000. I take the point that eyes and ears in the local

community can be useful, but much more useful, I would have thought,

than a community police officer, is a member of the community who has

information, who becomes a double agent, who is working for us. That

is what really produces results. We spend billions on intelligence and

security but only tens of millions trying to stop extremism from

spreading in some of our communities. Is that an imbalance we

need to address? 1% on Prevent. The debate about Prevent is totally

false, because of course if you are going to have a strategy to protect

and pursue, you have to have one strand of it designed not to see

these lads, these youngsters radicalised in the first place. So

the argument has to be how best to do it, how much money to spend on

it, not whether to do it or not. Khalid Mahmood, the first Muslim MP,

said the other week that the voices against this in the Muslim community

are small groups who have no alternative and our generally

hostile, have their own agenda. Prevent has to continue and I am

sure there will be more money put into it. What is your view on this?

Prevent is an important component. Part of the problem often is that

people don't understand what it does at community level. If the

assumption is that communities defeat terrorism, we need to improve

and increase on front line community policing, to engage with the public,

to earn their trust, to preserve the relationships that exist. The

British police services are some of the finest in the world. The amount

of work they have done in foiling plots, but also interacting with

communities, is not compatible with other countries. We do not have the

gaps that exist in France or Belgium. Look at the case of what

took place in the Paris attacks, when you have these individuals

operating, travelling across different countries carrying out

attacks. That individual that dumped his rucksack at the Stade de France,

disappeared for six months, hiding in the capital of Belgium, and the

Belgian police had no knowledge. That would never happen here. Often,

we do not value and appreciate our British police services, the men and

women. And in the community, the police have to come from that

community, too, to some extent, don't they? You had neighbourhood

policing teams, a Sergeant, four constables and four or five police

community support officers. The whole point of them was to know the

community. They came from the community, which quite often the

police in a neighbourhood policing team do not. Their job was to be the

eyes and ears. It seems, because we have this big structure of

intelligence, and people focus on MI5, much of this information came

from the cheapest form, if you like, the police community support

officers on the street, picking up information in the community about

someone. The information, incidentally, generally came from

the Muslim community. So it is invaluable. If you compare this

country to other countries, I think Brussels was a case in point, we do

this very well. And many other countries are keen to learn how we

do it. Are you optimistic we will get this right? I believe that

everything is being done that can be under the resources provided to foil

and disrupt plots. We have to keep in mind that there are some people

who could be prevented from being radicalised if they are got to

early. Others are so far gone ideological you that there is

nothing you can do other than to arrest and prosecute them. This

individual behind the Manchester attack, he had three objectives. The

first was to kill women and children. The second was to create

disruption. And the third was to create social tension. This is the

tactic and hallmark of Isis. We should not forget that before they

kill those innocent people in Manchester, Isis have been murdering

Muslims, especially women and children, in Iraq and Syria, which

does not get much attention. They are a death cult and they kill

everybody. But I believe that with the police that we have, the job

that they are doing, we are the safest country in the world. They

have disrupted far more than anyone else. It shows you that they do

their job effectively, quietly, and once in awhile it would not go amiss

if we showed them our appreciation. You have done precisely that. Thank

you for being with us. Jan Raven is waiting in the wings to

put language in the spotlight. Now, to the general

election, remember that? Or perhaps you'd rather forget

the mudslinging and the endless loop Well, tough because it's back,

suspended for three days in the wake of the Manchester terrorist attack,

it is due to resume in earnest tomorrow with all

the parties back on the road. All the parties, that is,

except Ukip which decided Here's Jo Coburn with her round up

of the political week. After the terror attack

in Manchester, all parties suspended election campaigning,

in a show of unity Politics on pause,

theatrics off stage. The political week

started so differently. This election hasn't exactly

been a crowd-puller. But a twist in the plot suddenly

made things more interesting. Tory manifesto proposals to make

some elderly people pay more for their social care slash

the party's lead in the polls. Cue consternation in Downing Street

and a hastily re-written script Today you announced a cap,

that sounds pretty half-baked. Your manifesto rejects a cap,

it gives a reason why you don't want a cap,

now you are going to have a cap. You need to be honest,

I would suggest, and tell the British people you have

changed your mind. Jeremy Corbyn wants to sneak

into Number Ten by playing on the fears of older and vulnerable

people and I've clarified what we will be putting in the green

paper which I set out So Jeremy Corbyn is now

rewriting your manifesto? Well, that's what it sounds like,

you have reacted to him? Andrew, we've not

rewritten the manifesto. Labour have seized on the social

care cap U-turn as undermining the Prime Minister's strong

and stable leadership. Leader, Jeremy Corbyn

hit the campaign trail We have been in the north

and in Scarborough. John Prescott laid into what he

called the PM's firm and trust. She says please, I want to negotiate

for you and firm and trust. Labour slightly rewrote

their on script this week, pledging to scrap tuition fees this

September, even sooner than We are determined to make sure

that those in this country that go to university and we all benefit

from the skills they develop in university, don't end up saddled

with massive debts for the future. Jeremy Corbyn's left-wing manifesto

lifted the party somewhat, but he got into difficulty this week

with questions about the IRA. Can you condemn

unequivocally the IRA? Look, bombing is wrong,

of course all bombing But can you condemn the IRA

without equating it to... No, I think what you have to say

is all bombing has to be condemned and you have to bring

about a peace process. The Lib Dems have put a second

referendum on Brexit After all, it was supposed to be

the Brexit election. But there doesn't seem to be as much

public appetite for referendum part two as they first thought

and the party's If you are bothered about our

country shrinking to become meaner, NATS NATSier and poorer,

then you need to do Give than Jeremy Corbyn's Labour

basically held Theresa May's hand as we jumped off the extreme Brexit

cliff edge earlier this year, the Liberal Democrats are the one

party offering you hope. The Greens are also calling

for a second referendum on Brexit. Their manifesto promised

to scrap Trident and called The party also shares some policies

with Labour, but are keen I feel so let down by the fact that

Labour has not been a rigorous We are very clear that we want

as close a relationship to the EU as possible,

we want to be part of the single market and stand

up for free movement. On the environment and climate

change, they don't go North of the border and the first

Scottish leader's TV debate. The Tories want to capitalise

on what they see as wavering support Their leader, Ruth Davidson,

clashed with the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon over

the focus on Indi ref two. This has been through

everybody's door. It's a four-page Tory leaflet and it

mentions an independence Ruth Davidson is using independence

as a smoke screen in this campaign because she knows the Tory record

and Tory policies are toxic. This is the only thing

you have ever wanted The country said no,

the country said no The Manchester attack put rows

about party leaflets on hold. The terror threat level's

been raised to critical. The army's been deployed to give

backup to the police We'll take every measure available

to us and provide every additional resource we can to the police

and Security Services as they work And while we mourn the victims

of last night's appalling The spirit of Manchester

and the spirit of Britain is far mightier than the sick plots

of depraved terrorists. That is why the terrorists

will never win and we will prevail. Ukip resumed election

campaigning today. The first party to do

so since the terror attack. At the manifesto launch,

the tone was uncompromising, party leader Paul Nuttall said

they were the only ones who would take what he called

the necessary measures The problem will not be solved

if politicians are too cowardly to confront or even identify

where the problem lies. Moreover, without the political

will to take difficult decisions, challenge communities and most

importantly, secure our borders, These are issues that the other

political parties would rather brush under the carpet and the Westminster

chatterati would rather ignore. A dramatic manifesto U-turn

and then politics suspended Campaigning is resuming

but against a backdrop of terror. Jo treading the boards

of the Arcola Theatre in Hackney, Thanks to them and their set

designer Anthony Lamble. Suzanne Evans who wrote Ukip's

manifesto has joined us. Welcome back to the programme. The

U-turn on social care, has that been the defining moment of the campaign

so far, Michael? Well, to be a defining moment, you would have to

remember it on polling day and I'm not entirely sure that would be the

case. We were into the high drama when the terrorist incident occurred

and so her interrogation, her embarrassment over this was

interrupted and what came next was that she appeared of course as the

leader of the nation, talking about the security of the nation

announcing what the new security measures would be. I don't

understand what her compromise is, I don't know whether it's clear to

you, it's not to me, but as I pointed out on the programme last

week, what she apoored to be proposing last week was the most

radical transfer of responsibility from the state to individuals --

what she appeared. I applauded it because philosophically I thought it

was the right thing to do. Last week people were fixated thinking she was

a Stalinist Tory. It was an extraordinary transfer of

responsibility of two people and therefore, you know, vast numbers of

the middle classes not being able to pass on the inheritance which they

were counting upon. By the way, this is what it's about. It's not about

social care, it's about inheritance. It's not about old people, it's

about the enrichment of younger people. Because their parents have

got the money? Because their parents have got the money and somehow we

have gotten ourselves into the state of mind that we think that the state

is there to guarantee the inheritance of well-off middle class

50 and 60-year-olds. I must agree, I had a sneaking admiration for her

because I wrote an article for Saga magazine - it was the Musical

Express once - now it's Saga. They'll put down a recipe to solve

it, not kick it into the long grass, so we thought. She ignored Dilnot

completely in the sense he said ?100,000 should be the new baseline.

But then she ignored his argument that there should be a limit on

cost. Now, this was an argument for ignoring that. There was a good

argument for saying, look, there's a lot of wealth wrapped up in houses

here and it should be shared out. There wasn't a good argument for

doing that and then three days later going back to Dilnot, then being

absolutely, you know, talk about straight faced when she's saying to

you this was... I mean Jeremy Hunt, the minister responsible, it's a

Department of Health issue, don't forget, saying why there shouldn't

be a cap. He was saying we have done it explicitly in the manifesto.

Incredibly cack-hand. Ukip which is in a tough campaign, has the row

over social care helped? I totally disagree with what Michael and Alan

are saying. You are right in a sense that it's about inheritance. I'm a

mum, I'm not wealthy, my daughter is in a job where she's not paid very

well, she loves her job. I want to leave her something. I've paid a lot

of tax. If I get dementia, that is the only way in which I can be cared

for basically, and to be looked after in a home, that is the only

way, and I'm expected to pay for that. If I had some other terminal

condition, the NHS would pay. Well, the NHS would pay for the

operational side. Ukip turns out to be a Socialist Party. I'm quite

socialist as you know, Michael. I'm criticised by my party for being too

social. I'm glad you have agreed that it's about the protection of

the inheritance of the middle class. The extension of the welfare

state... The reason I think there was outcry about it was rightly,

there are so many young people who, the only chance of them getting on

the housing ladder, is their parents. For Cabinet Ministers to

say ?100,000 is quite enough, I bet they wouldn't be very happy. Yes, to

turn that around. They have some complicated deal maybe... Let's say

the cap on spending is ?35,000, for adult social care. The person who is

a multi-millionaire will pay ?35,000 and the person who is just about

managing to coin a phrase will pay ?35,000. What is socialist and fair

about that? The multi-millionaire who's also paid, one hopes, unless

they have managed to evade it somehow, have paid lots of tax and

they have paid for it. This idea that just because you are wealthy

means you cannot therefore fall back on the state is... But why should...

The state is there to protect the wealthy. I mean this is really

weird. The wealthy have paid their way, Michael. They also deserve to

be subsidised by the state. We are protecting the triple lock on

pensions, the winter fuel allowance for everybody because we think that

whether you have contributed or not is irrelevant. You may well have the

right pop list policy... It's the right policy. Your position is

intellectually indefensible. I absolutely disagree. You would

because you are on a pop list policy. Why should taxpayers fare

less better? Why should taxpayers pay... Hold on, why should they pay

for your social care if you are sitting on multi-million pound

assets? At the moment we have a system where people do have to sell

their houses to pay for care, but what Theresa May did and what this

particular... They can defer it? . They can defer it. But she was

turning around a manifesto pledge. I wasn't asking about that. Let me ask

the question again - why should ordinary taxpayers, a lot less

wealthier than you, pay for your social care if you are sitting on

multi-million pound assets that could pay for that social care?

Excuse me, you are still making it too easy - if they are not paying

for the social care, they are paying for their inheritance. People who

earn more than ?10,000, they're being asked to pay taxes sothat

people who're aged 50 and 60 can inherit all they expected to inherit

from their parent who is have ?2 million and ?3 million - defend

that! Already paying a huge amount on inheritance tax. No you're not.

You are, it's already far too high. We'd like to abolish inheritance tax

as well. Don't avoid the issue, why should people on ?11,000 of income

pay to protect the inheritance of people who have millions? Because

they too eventually will have to rely on the same need and care. It's

the job of the state. We pay taxes, it's our job to look after people.

2% in the polls. Last time I looked we were 4%. Well, things can only

get better. How is the campaign going? It's really gotten started

today with the manifesto. Why did you take so long to get the

manifesto out? We planned to have it yesterday. Exactly, why did you take

so long? Were you a slow writer? Paul's diary has to be considered as

well. That came into it. I would have liked to have got it out early.

He's a busy fellow. What would success look like in this election

for you? I would like to see our vote sharehold up. There would be a

couple of seats where we could get a Member of Parliament. Which ones?

Tim Acre is standing in Thurrock. Long shot? He's very hard-working,

Tim, and he's got a very high and good reputation there. He's as well

known, if not better than the local MP. Paul Nuttall in Boston? Yes,

again, we came a close second in 2015, so I've not been up to Boston

yet to campaign. Got slaughtered in Bootle. Mr Corbyn said he only ever

supported the peace process, not the IRA, what do you say to that? OK,

he's been saying that for a long time.

Our splendid fellow! Anything else you care to add, Mr

Johnson? The peace process was because the IRA had recognised that

the bullet wasn't going to get them. And partly, by the way, going back

to the intelligence point, partly because they were so riddled with

Britishant agents that they could not go on.

All right. Campaign back in full swing tomorrow and you will be

looking forward to it. Absolutely. Don't be over-Crombie enthusiasm.

Suzanne Evans thank you very much. Thank you.

Now, it's not what you say, it's the way that you say it.

Unless you work for the American intelligence services,

in which case we'd rather you didn't say anything at all or we'll have

No general election can boast a Socratic dialogue but the election

of 2017 has been a notable linguistic wasteland,

dominated by repetition without hesitation or deviation.

So, in a week where many of us struggled to find the right words,

it was only fitting that we put language in this week's Spotlight.

This is the place in our hearts, in our homes, because this

is the place that's a part of our bones because Manchester

gives us such strength from the fact that this is THE place.

And in a week of unimaginable horror, some people think even

Donald Trump managed to get his language right.

I won't call them monsters because they would like that term,

they would think that's a great name.

Back here on the campaign trail, Ukip's Paul Nuttall was unapologetic

I was criticised by certain sections of the media for calling radical

Islam a cancer in our society following the Westminster attack.

What about those catchphrases politicians like to use -

Can they be thrown back in your face when things don't

Doesn't this show that you're really weak and wobbly,

Jan Raven spends her life impersonating other people.

I have always been strong and stable, strong and stable

But when leave won, I strongly and stably changed my mind

So she should know a thing or two about words.

Welcome back. Thank you very much. What do you think of the language in

this election campaign, has it given you new material? Yes. As you

rightly say, the rhetoric seems to have gone out of the window and been

totally replaced by repetition. It's almost like they've taken a leaf out

of Trump's book, you know, "it's going to be great, it's twoing to be

great", "strong and stable" and "I like to get out and about", it's

like she says it that much people may start to believe it. She's

backtracked on Brexit and calling the election. I love the idea she

says, I like to get out and about and see ordinary working people

being shoved aside by my security staff. Hermetically sealed area. And

being told not to look me directly in the eye because I am like a Grgon

me due Sa in reverse, if people look me in the eye, I go rigid. She seems

to be someone that belongs in the Westminster bubble and she's trying

to portray herself as a person getting out and about -- Gorgn

Medusa. The only thing you can say about strong and stable is the ill

litration. I love what she said to you which was that Jeremy Corbyn

sneaking into Ten Downing Street and sort of portraying Jeremy Corbyn as

a sort of bogey man with a bag of swag, you know, with a mask. As if

he could get in without the people actually voting. Exactly, yes. What

will get him into Downing Street will be people voting but she was

saying he could sneak in. With swag. Yes. Exactly. I think she kind of

doesn't... She seems to have this tension the whole time in everything

she says. There's this tension in the way she holds her face and in

the way her mouth is, she wants to smile but the rest of her face won't

let her. This tension seems to come from embarrassment about what she's

got to say. Funnily enough, the only time when I

saw she didn't have quite that tension in her face and mouth was

when she was making the speech after Manchester, when it was actually a

very heartfelt speech, and very well constructed. Whether she wrote it or

not. It was totally different, and not just these catchphrases. And she

actually came across much better for it. The tension could be due to

tension. She may be very nervous. Let's come back to the language of

the campaign, which has been pretty dire, has it not? Well, each party

is setting out to win. I think I made this point before, but an

election campaign is not for your entertainment. I know you want it to

be for the entertainment of journalists. If it is not for my

entertainment, what is the point? The point is to win. She thinks this

will get through to people, and on the whole it has been quite

effective. Have you seen what has been happening in the polls? Let me

tell you why. It is because Labour candidates are saying, Jeremy Corbyn

will not win. You have no reason to fear that whatsoever. You should

vote for Labour candidates so that the Conservative majority will not

be too great. Supposing that really produced a position where Jeremy

Corbyn one, then he would have snuck in. But the language being used by

Labour candidates is just as manipulative as the Tory language.

When was the general election where there were flights of rhetoric that

you remember? I can remember going back to Wilson, who had some great

lines. What were they? He was responding to hecklers. This is

where Wilson was at his element. Don't throw him out, he's just about

to learn something. Was that a Yorkshire accent? You could have

fooled me. I hear you do a good impression of Diane. Well, Diane

Abbott, Andrew, talking about language, basically, Diane will just

do any words that she can remember at the time, and you will be lucky

if there are any of them. Would you like my calculator, Diane? Don't.

Stop it. We will know who to come to if she can't make it.

That's your lot for tonight, folks, but not for us.

We're celebrating the start of campaigning - again -

It's the Ukip manifesto sun-bed launch party and it's not

for the feint hearted.....Michael and Alan are following UKIP's advice

and going in their underpants to make sure they get their full fix

Nighty night, don't let the Donald's weird and wonderful world tour bite.

# It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it

# It ain't what you do it's the way that you do it

# It ain't what you do, it's the time that you do it

# It ain't what you do, it's the place that you do it