how do we bring him to that seat? ..and apology. i regret how it has ended up. the speaker, accused of caving in to intimidation outside the commons, to change what happens within. there was no saying sorry from mp lee anderson. formerly public chums with the prime minister, now booted out of the tories for offensive comments about the london mayor, sadiq khan. but the chaos in a democracy presents an uncomfortable clash with the dangers in the middle east wholesale destruction in gaza, and hostages still being held. while two long years of war in ukraine show no sign of coming to an end. so we have one big question this morning — how do our politicians keep a lid on tensions at home

while handling conflicts abroad? the prime minister's right—hand man oliver dowden is here to answer that question. from salford, labour's lisa nandyjoins us too. he's been caught in the headlines for the wrong reasons of late — in charge during the post office scandal. but how does ed davey, the lib dem leader, want to change the script in this year of a general election? and, a week on from the death of alexei navalvny — we ask the estonian prime minister what's it like to be one of putin's most wanted. good morning. with you and me for the next 60 minutes — halima begum, the boss of the charity action aid, andy burnham, the labour

mayor of greater manchester, now author, and therese coffey, who was deputy prime minister herself in liz truss cabinet. she is now a conservative backbench mp. a warm welcome to all three. and welcome to you, too. so let's first of all catch up with what's making the news. keir starmer accuses rishi sunak of "harbouring extremists in his party" in this morning's observer, after lee anderson was booted out of the tory party. he wouldn't say sorry for saying the london mayor was controlled by islamists. the mirror has that story too. the sunday times and the sunday telegraph say some female mps now have bodyguards to keep them safe. the telegraph warns of a radicalising moment. and the sunday express cheers the government's spending money from the cancelled part of hs2 on upgrading other transport links in the north of england. heard that before?

andy burnham, to ask you first about that, that headline, more money, cash for the north? i that, that headline, more money, cash for the north?— cash for the north? i did wake up this morning _ cash for the north? i did wake up this morning thinking _ cash for the north? i did wake up this morning thinking exactly - cash for the north? i did wake up| this morning thinking exactly what you said, have we seen this somewhere before? yes, is the answer, exactly ten years ago, it was 2014 when george osborne came to manchester and said there would be a northern powerhouse, hs2 would be at the heart of it. they have renamed it this morning, engine of the north i think it is now but honestly, will anybody in the north of england look at this and not think, they are just taking us for mugs, really. they think they can keep promising this stuff. it is not going to work. the money that was saved from cancelling hsz, money that was saved from cancelling hs2, some of it, they proudly said they spent on potholes in london just before christmas. they have tried it once too often. as i might say later in terms of the book i have written, you know, we need the

country to basically prioritise the north in a different way. if we are going to do it, we can't keep promising it. people in the north deserve it and it's got to be done properly and the fake and false promises have got to end. we will ick u- promises have got to end. we will pick up on — promises have got to end. we will pick up on some — promises have got to end. we will pick up on some of— promises have got to end. we will pick up on some of that _ promises have got to end. we will pick up on some of that later- promises have got to end. we will pick up on some of that later in i promises have got to end. we will| pick up on some of that later in the problem but therese coffey, i want to talk about what lee anderson said, a conservative mp till late last night from ashfield, he made some very derogatory comment, do you believe he should have been booted out of their party for what he said? quite clearly, the prime minister and the — quite clearly, the prime minister and the chief whip asked him to apologise and he has not done that so far~ _ apologise and he has not done that so far~ i_ apologise and he has not done that so far. i hope you will reconsider. but i _ so far. i hope you will reconsider. but i believe that as a consequence, our leadership took swift action. you could — our leadership took swift action. you could contrast that to what happened in rochdale. however, what matters _ happened in rochdale. however, what matters is _ happened in rochdale. however, what matters is that thinking back, the conservative party did do a review on islamophobia. it is important is that we _ on islamophobia. it is important is that we are — on islamophobia. it is important is that we are conscious that these remarks — that we are conscious that these remarks can encourage such division. i remarks can encourage such division. i don't _ remarks can encourage such division. i don't believe that lee is in any

way racist _ i don't believe that lee is in any way racist. however, i think he is very— way racist. however, i think he is very worried _ way racist. however, i think he is very worried about a lot of the activity — very worried about a lot of the activity that is under way right now and how— activity that is under way right now and how previous attempts to challenge it have not been successful and we need to make sure in any— successful and we need to make sure in any form _ successful and we need to make sure in any form that we counter extremism.— in any form that we counter extremism. ~ . ,, ., ., ., extremism. we will talk about that a lot this money _ extremism. we will talk about that a lot this money but _ extremism. we will talk about that a lot this money but halima _ extremism. we will talk about that a lot this money but halima begum, i lot this money but halima begum, before you worked where you are now, you worked at the runnymede trust which looked a lot out racism and how people felt about different things. can you explain to the viewers this morning what the remarks really represented? lee anderson said, "i don't believe islamist have control of the country but i believe they have got control of khan." calling someone an islamist, what does that represent to you? if islamist, what does that represent to ou? , ., ., , to you? if my former colleagues were here on the — to you? if my former colleagues were here on the panel _ to you? if my former colleagues were here on the panel today, _ to you? if my former colleagues were here on the panel today, they - to you? if my former colleagues were here on the panel today, they would l here on the panel today, they would almost certainly say that it is islamophobic if not racist because not only is he casting a judgment on all muslims as though they are terrorists, but he is also making a personal attack on the mayor of london. if, as sadiq khan said last

night, if it is ok to say it about the mayor of london, what does it say about islamophobia and racism on buses and on the streets? taste say about islamophobia and racism on buses and on the streets?— buses and on the streets? we will ut buses and on the streets? we will put that to — buses and on the streets? we will put that to oliver _ buses and on the streets? we will put that to oliver dowden, - put that to oliver dowden, the deputy prime minister in a moment. chaos in the commons. an mp booted out of the conservatives. concerns about mps' safety. accusations of abuse, anti—semitism, and islamophobia filled the air. it is not easy for politicians always to find the balance between the right to protest and under the pressure. let's speak to the deputy prime minister oliver dowden, rishi sunak�*s right—hand man. thank you forjoining us. we have just been discussing lee anderson's remarks for which he was suspended when he wouldn't say sorry. let's see what he said. i don't actually believe that the islamists have got control of our country but what i do believe

is they have got control of khan and they have got control of london and they have got control of starmer, as well. we just heard halima wejust heard halima begum explaining very clearly why many people felt this was islamophobic, anti—muslim and possibly racist, too, do you agree? that anti-muslim and possibly racist, too, do you agree?— anti-muslim and possibly racist, too, do you agree? that is why the prime minister _ too, do you agree? that is why the prime minister took _ too, do you agree? that is why the prime minister took action, - too, do you agree? that is why the prime minister took action, he - too, do you agree? that is why the | prime minister took action, he gave lee anderson the opportunity to apologise. he did not take that opportunity. words matter. he did not choose his words correctly. having failed to apologise, the prime and instead took action and removed the whip which i think was the appropriate course of action. but do you agree that the remarks were islamophobic and anti—muslim? i don't believe that lee anderson said those remarks intending to the islamophobic. i listen to the comments of your previous contributor and the way in which she was concerned they would be interpreted, and for exactly that reason, the prime minister asked, andindeed reason, the prime minister asked, and indeed the chief whip asked for that apology and one was not

forthcoming and action has been taken. i think that is the appropriate step to take. i think what lee anderson was more broadly expressing in his interview, as others have done, is a deep concern which, by the way, i also share, about the way in which politics is being conducted and what has happened over the past week. i never thought in my lifetime as a politician that i would see a situation where what was happening in the house of commons was influenced by the threat of violence. that has caused huge anger and frustration. it is deeply un—british and it is right that we should call it out. we un-british and it is right that we should call it out.— un-british and it is right that we should call it out. we will come to that in a few _ should call it out. we will come to that in a few minutes _ should call it out. we will come to that in a few minutes but - should call it out. we will come to that in a few minutes but as - should call it out. we will come to that in a few minutes but as you i that in a few minutes but as you said, words matter. i think our viewers this morning will want to know, if you believe, is one of the most senior politicians in the country, that those words were islamophobic and anti—muslim? do you believe that? i am not asking you about lee anderson's intent. i am asking you what you believe. i about lee anderson's intent. i am asking you what you believe. i think the two of them _ asking you what you believe. i think

the two of them kind _ asking you what you believe. i think the two of them kind of— asking you what you believe. i think the two of them kind of go - asking you what you believe. i think| the two of them kind of go together, laura. i don't believe that lee anderson was intending to be islamophobic. but nonetheless, i understand the concern, particularly when it is in relation to the mayor of london, how those words have caused offence... but of london, how those words have caused offence. . ._ caused offence... but you are talkin: caused offence... but you are talking about... _ caused offence... but you are talking about... and - caused offence... but you are talking about... and because | caused offence... but you are l talking about... and because of that, that _ talking about... and because of that, that is _ talking about... and because of that, that is why _ talking about... and because of that, that is why he _ talking about... and because of that, that is why he was - talking about... and because of that, that is why he was given l talking about... and because of. that, that is why he was given the chance to apologise and when he failed to do so, action was taken in that respect. but failed to do so, action was taken in that respect-— that respect. but the question i'm askin: ou that respect. but the question i'm asking you and — that respect. but the question i'm asking you and i— that respect. but the question i'm asking you and i think _ that respect. but the question i'm asking you and i think our - that respect. but the question i'm asking you and i think our viewers j asking you and i think our viewers will be able to hear very clearly that you don't want to give your view, is it your view that saying, "i believe they have got control of khan and they have got control of london", is that islamophobia? i think the chance that... the fact that it could be taken in that way is the reason why those comments led to the chief whip asking for an

apology on behalf of the prime minister. i share those concerns about how they could be taken in that way and that is why it is right that way and that is why it is right that he should be asked to give an apology and when he failed to, though whip was removed. i apology and when he failed to, though whip was removed. i think our viewers will hear _ though whip was removed. i think our viewers will hear very _ though whip was removed. i think our viewers will hear very clearly - though whip was removed. i think our viewers will hear very clearly you - viewers will hear very clearly you are declining to give your own view on what those words mean. h0. are declining to give your own view on what those words mean. no, no... i think i on what those words mean. no, no... i think i have — on what those words mean. no, no... i think i have been _ on what those words mean. no, no... i think i have been clear— on what those words mean. no, no... i think i have been clear that - on what those words mean. no, no... i think i have been clear that they - i think i have been clear that they could be taken that way, right? because they could be taken that way, he was given the chance to apologise and he failed to do so. if apologise and he failed to do so. if he had apologised, would he have kept his job?— he had apologised, would he have kept his job? yes, he was asked to a ”oloise kept his job? yes, he was asked to apologise and _ kept his job? yes, he was asked to apologise and he _ kept his job? yes, he was asked to apologise and he failed _ kept his job? yes, he was asked to apologise and he failed to - kept his job? yes, he was asked to apologise and he failed to do - kept his job? yes, he was asked to apologise and he failed to do so i kept his job? yes, he was asked to l apologise and he failed to do so and thatis apologise and he failed to do so and that is what happened. of course it is right that we debate these individual words but the more fundamental thing for me is, what is going on right now in our country. i have constituents of mine who are jewish, who are afraid to walk the streets, to show the symbols of their religion. we see those marches, where we witness, week after week of anti—semitic process

and people taking part in those notches and not calling them out. and now we have seen in our own parliament, debates being influenced because of that threat of violence. i think all of us need to take a step back and say this is notjust about policing, it is about our attitudes to what we accept. i think this kind of coarsening, where we accept threats of violence as being routine against elected politicians, whatever colour, is deeply dangerous for our politics. we need to call it out. a , for our politics. we need to call it out. , ..,, for our politics. we need to call it out. , , . out. many politicians with you and i'm sure out. many politicians with you and i'm sure many _ out. many politicians with you and i'm sure many viewers _ out. many politicians with you and i'm sure many viewers would - out. many politicians with you and| i'm sure many viewers would agree with you but as you said at the beginning, words matter. people respond to things that politicians say. and what lee anderson said was striking lee similar to what suella braverman, the former home secretary, wrote in the telegraph. she said, "the truth is, the islamist, the extremists and anti—semites are in charge now." you said clearly what lee anderson said

could be taken as being offensive. that is very similar. do you think what she said could be taken as being offensive, to?— what she said could be taken as being offensive, to? well, i would sa in being offensive, to? well, i would say in respect _ being offensive, to? well, i would say in respect of _ being offensive, to? well, i would say in respect of what _ being offensive, to? well, i would say in respect of what suella - say in respect of what suella braverman said, that i disagree but i think that is in a different category that i disagree with the comment, i believe for the reasons i set out, the underlying sentiment, and my deep concern about these threats and intimidation is, which are often coming from islamic extremists and we should not be shy of calling that out and i have done so as an mp. but i don't believe that what suella has said crosses the line in the way that lee anderson's com instead. but the line in the way that lee anderson's com instead. but she said that the islamists _ anderson's com instead. but she said that the islamists are _ anderson's com instead. but she said that the islamists are in _ anderson's com instead. but she said that the islamists are in charge. - that the islamists are in charge. you have said you don't believe that is true. lee anderson said the islamists are in control of sadiq khan. why is it different? there is a slitht khan. why is it different? there is a slight danger — khan. why is it different? there is a slight danger of _ khan. why is it different? there is a slight danger of getting - khan. why is it different? there is a slight danger of getting into - khan. why is it different? there is a slight danger of getting into the | a slight danger of getting into the semantics of there. but

a slight danger of getting into the semantics of there.— semantics of there. but words matter, semantics of there. but words matter. you — semantics of there. but words matter, you have _ semantics of there. but words matter, you have said - semantics of there. but words matter, you have said that. semantics of there. but words - matter, you have said that yourself. please allow me to finish my point. this is about attaching specifically to one person, the mayor of london and i think what suella was saying was making a broader statement, one which i don't agree with the specifics of what she said but i very much agree with the concerns that she is raising about threats coming often from islamic extremists, which are being used to intimidate jewish extremists, which are being used to intimidatejewish people in this country and are being used to intimidate a debate in our own parliament. i think worries about language should not stop democratically elected politicians doing their duty of calling this out and seeing what a seminal moment it is for our country this week, where, you know, we have had lots of lines crossed in the past but this for me is a totally different level. and is a totally different level. and ou have is a totally different level. and you have made _ is a totally different level. and you have made that _ is a totally different level. and you have made that point. but how politicians respond to it does matter and some of your colleagues

do believe that suella braverman crossed a line. side of rc, one of your own peers, said she is prepared to divide, to ratchet up eight, and set our country alight for political posturing. —— ratchet up eight. this is shocking and dangerous. weill. is shocking and dangerous. well, i don't agree _ is shocking and dangerous. well, i don't agree with _ is shocking and dangerous. well, i don't agree with sayeeda - is shocking and dangerous. well, i don't agree with sayeeda warsi . is shocking and dangerous. well, i don't agree with sayeeda warsi on j don't agree with sayeeda warsi on that, i have made clear my views with relation to suella which is that i don't with the specific words she chose to use but it is a legitimate matter of political debate. �* �* ., . ~' legitimate matter of political debate. �* �* ., ., ,, ., debate. but we're not talking about insubstantial _ debate. but we're not talking about insubstantial people, _ debate. but we're not talking about insubstantial people, suella - insubstantial people, suella braverman until very recently was very senior in your party and liz truss was the prime minister. she was filled with one of donald trump is my only tenants, steve allen, this week. steve bannon was talking about tommy robinson, the founder of the english defence league, who has a string of convictions. he called him a hero and she was standing alongside and did not challenge it. let's show it to the viewers. i don't understand this. the grooming situation, tommy robinson, all these heroes

fought it, the rape situation. and in that community, you are going to have a special election and you may have a radical jihadist party send somebody to the commons after all that problem? that is correct. do you think, as sajid javid said, former colleague of yours, that liz truss should have known better? she also talked about the deep state undermining her, which many other reviewers would say is a conspiracy theory. reviewers would say is a conspiracy theo . ,, , ., ., reviewers would say is a conspiracy theo .,, , ., ., theory. she should have called it out. what theory. she should have called it out- what i _ theory. she should have called it out. what i say _ theory. she should have called it out. what i say is _ theory. she should have called it out. what i say is that _ theory. she should have called it out. what i say is that when - theory. she should have called it out. what i say is that when the | out. what i say is that when the cameras are on you and you have got a big debate going on, you sometimes don't catch every single word that someone says. that is far less to explain why she did not call it out at the time —— that is more liz truss to explain. i know this sounds like a slightly trite point, but when you've body is on you, a debate going on, sometimes you not catch everything. going on, sometimes you not catch

eve hint. ., , going on, sometimes you not catch everything-— everything. your extremism chief, robin simcox. _ everything. your extremism chief, robin simcox, sat _ everything. your extremism chief, robin simcox, sat in _ everything. your extremism chief, robin simcox, sat in the _ everything. your extremism chief, robin simcox, sat in the chair- everything. your extremism chief, robin simcox, sat in the chair iastj robin simcox, sat in the chair last week and we had a serious discussion about all of this. he told us about the rising anti—semitism and also the rising anti—semitism and also the rise in islamophobia as being a very serious issue. when the prime minister put a statement out last night condemning extremism, calling out anti—semitism, that statement did not mention islamophobia. why not? ~ ~ , ., , not? well, the prime minister has been robust _ not? well, the prime minister has been robust in _ not? well, the prime minister has been robust in showing _ not? well, the prime minister has been robust in showing that - not? well, the prime minister has been robust in showing that there| not? well, the prime minister has i been robust in showing that there is zero tolerance for islamophobia. the point the prime minister was making in his statement is the point i've been trying to make during this interview, as well, which is when we see the real pressure happening right now, if you look at those marches week after week, people are going on those marches and they are carrying placards which have anti—semitic tropes on them. our own parliament has had projected onto it an anti—semitic trope. the debate

that was going on in parliament this week, and by the speaker's own account, the reason why he chose to alter established precedent to have that vote was because of fears about safety. those are all coming from a perspective that i see going through threats to jews perspective that i see going through threats tojews on the perspective that i see going through threats to jews on the streets perspective that i see going through threats tojews on the streets of our country, the threats of those marches, no threats in the house of commons. that is what the prime minister was addressing in that statement. of course, the prime minister has addressed islamophobia, you talked about extremism, calling out extremism across the board. the comments he was making were about this kind of train of events that we have seen in our country over the past weeks. i think all decent people in this country, the vast majority, whether they are conservative or other parties, need to stand up and called us out. we cannot be any situation where we allow freedom of expression, the hard fought freedoms of our

parliament and our democracy to be put at risk by people that masquerade as having legitimate protests, but actually are using violence and intimidation. it is a fact that members of parliament were worried about voting on the motion, not discharging the duty to the people that elected them and their duty to their conscience because of external violence. that is something thatis external violence. that is something that is right for the prime minister of our nation to address, that is what he did in those words. that is where the focus was. it what he did in those words. that is where the focus was.— where the focus was. it has been a very grizzly — where the focus was. it has been a very grizzly week _ where the focus was. it has been a very grizzly week in _ where the focus was. it has been a very grizzly week in westminster l where the focus was. it has been a i very grizzly week in westminster and we have talked a lot about the threats and safety to mp5. oliver dowden, thank you very much for joining us this morning. we heard some of your verdicts on parliament this week. keep your messages coming. we do read all of your e—mails. email us at kuenssberg@bbc.co.uk. you can use the hashtag bbclaurak on x and also now on instagram. please do let us know what you think.

let's talk to our panel. listening to oliver dowden there, answering questions about what is going on in the conservative party this week, what did you make of that? the tory party to many of our reviewers and many people watching what has been happening, they might conclude they have got a problem. i happening, they might conclude they have got a problem.— have got a problem. i think oliver answered your— have got a problem. i think oliver answered your questions - have got a problem. i think oliver answered your questions well. . have got a problem. i think oliver| answered your questions well. we have got a particular issue which we had already discussed about lee anderson, as oliver said that was targeted at sadiq khan. again, in response to a tv interview. more broadly, i think we have got to be united, whether it is a cross—party political forum that we have to be tackling anti—semitism, to be tackling anti—semitism, to be tackling extremism, and i'm sure that all the main political parties will be wanting that to be the real focus, so that people in our country are not frightened to leave their front door. because they arejewish. so it is just a case of getting beyond some of the difficulties

which mps face a lot of the time. i've been a conservative mp 14 years, i can tell you there has been plenty of abuse, plenty of political attack ads by the labour party and others, designed to make my life uncomfortable. not trying to encourage violence, i don't want to say that, but that is where, to some extent, there has been a change in aspects of social media, clips, always trying to polarise what is happening, and sometimes what can be a lot more sophisticated debate. it a lot more sophisticated debate. it is unquestionable that the atmosphere of politicians has become much more brutal, but there is also a question about what some conservative mps have been doing to feel that. your own friend liz truss, former prime minister, we saw her there standing alongside somebody saying that tommy robinson was a hero, talking about conspiracy theories of the deep state. do you agree with her? it is theories of the deep state. do you agree with her?— agree with her? it is the first time i have agree with her? it is the first time i have seen _ agree with her? it is the first time i have seen that _ agree with her? it is the first time i have seen that clip. _ agree with her? it is the first time i have seen that clip. i _ agree with her? it is the first time i have seen that clip. i think - agree with her? it is the first time i have seen that clip. i think liz i i have seen that clip. i think liz truss has been in the us stock she has been talking about the deep

state a lot, that is not an accident. what do you think she is doing? feeling a conspiracy theory? i am not aware how it becomes a conspiracy theory. i think liz truss has been expressing a view that aspects of institutions, a lot of decisions have been often been taken away from ministers, that has been a combination of practice or parliament into law what gets given to external bodies to decide. that is part liz truss to speak about, you can invite her on and ask. coming back to the main issue, what happened this week in parliament, frankly, labourwere happened this week in parliament, frankly, labour were in a whole politically, they had their own opposition days, they could have put forward their own motion at that time, but sadly the speaker gave them a ladder out of that hole. his justification at the beginning of the debate was not about safety. by the debate was not about safety. by the way, he knew that in order to get the snp to have a vote with his device, going against the advice of

the clerk of the house that conservative mps would have been required to vote down the labour motion... mite we will talk to lisa nandy about what exactly happened that night. i am telling you what happened, i was there. you believe there was a — happened, i was there. you believe there was a plot _ happened, i was there. you believe there was a plot afoot? _ happened, i was there. you believe there was a plot afoot? i _ happened, i was there. you believe there was a plot afoot? i believe i there was a plot afoot? i believe keir starmer _ there was a plot afoot? i believe keir starmer and _ there was a plot afoot? i believe keir starmer and the _ there was a plot afoot? i believe keir starmer and the chief - there was a plot afoot? i believe keir starmer and the chief whip | there was a plot afoot? i believe i keir starmer and the chief whip put a lot of pressure on the speaker. you can tell that by the stalling tactics that went on in order to get lindsey to go against the advice of his clerks. taste lindsey to go against the advice of his clerks. ~ ., lindsey to go against the advice of his clerks. ~ _, ., ., ., his clerks. we will come to that a bit later in _ his clerks. we will come to that a bit later in the _ his clerks. we will come to that a bit later in the programme. i bit later in the programme. listening to how oliver dowden responded to that, what did you make of it, are you concerned about what does appear to be an uptick in hot political language?— political language? absolutely. it wasn't 'ust political language? absolutely. it wasn't just about _ political language? absolutely. it wasn'tjust about -- _ political language? absolutely. it wasn'tjust about -- a _ political language? absolutely. it wasn'tjust about -- a bad i political language? absolutely. it. wasn'tjust about -- a bad interview wasn'tjust about —— a bad interview that liz_ wasn'tjust about —— a bad interview that liz truss — wasn'tjust about —— a bad interview that liz truss day. if you actually listen _ that liz truss day. if you actually listen to — that liz truss day. if you actually listen to another interview, she was in a conference in america, a right-wing _

in a conference in america, a right—wing conference, and she actually— right—wing conference, and she actually talked about conspiracy theories — actually talked about conspiracy theories and the fact that if she had a _ theories and the fact that if she had a chance, she would take a bigger— had a chance, she would take a bigger bazooka to her opposition. this includes the office for budget responsibility, the conservatives that disagreed with her, and also the lahour— that disagreed with her, and also the labour party. why that disagreed with her, and also the labour party.— the labour party. why does that matter beyond _ the labour party. why does that matter beyond normal— the labour party. why does that matter beyond normal political. matter beyond normal political discourse?— matter beyond normal political discourse? �* , , discourse? because she is speaking those words — discourse? because she is speaking those words in _ discourse? because she is speaking those words in the _ discourse? because she is speaking those words in the context - discourse? because she is speaking those words in the context of- those words in the context of america. _ those words in the context of america, and a former prime minister. _ america, and a former prime minister, in a country where there is a significant gun culture. we are talking _ is a significant gun culture. we are talking about lee anderson, those words _ talking about lee anderson, those words are — talking about lee anderson, those words are potentially risk of incitement to violence. i think all of that— incitement to violence. i think all of that has— incitement to violence. i think all of that has to stop. when our politician _ of that has to stop. when our politician speak on that world stage. — politician speak on that world stage, nationally or elsewhere, just means— stage, nationally or elsewhere, just means that — stage, nationally or elsewhere, just means that the public as being much more _ means that the public as being much more volatile. i think we need to behave _ more volatile. i think we need to behave much more responsibly. labour has had problems _ behave much more responsibly. labour has had problems with _ behave much more responsibly. labour has had problems with anti-semitism, | has had problems with anti—semitism, a by—election coming up this week. when the anti—extremism tsar told us, this has got worse, do you think

thatis us, this has got worse, do you think that is right? it us, this has got worse, do you think that is right?— that is right? it certainly got worse in terms _ that is right? it certainly got worse in terms of _ that is right? it certainly got worse in terms of it - that is right? it certainly got worse in terms of it being i that is right? it certainly got worse in terms of it being a | that is right? it certainly got i worse in terms of it being a bigger issue _ worse in terms of it being a bigger issue for— worse in terms of it being a bigger issue for both _ worse in terms of it being a bigger issue. for both parties. _ worse in terms of it being a bigger issue. for both parties. but- worse in terms of it being a bigger issue. for both parties. but i- worse in terms of it being a biggerj issue. for both parties. but i think you basically— issue. for both parties. but i think you basically laid _ issue. for both parties. but i think you basically laid bare _ issue. for both parties. but i think you basically laid bare the - you basically laid bare the conservative _ you basically laid bare the conservative party's i you basically laid bare the i conservative party's problem you basically laid bare the - conservative party's problem this morning — conservative party's problem this morning rightly, _ conservative party's problem this morning. rightly, they— conservative party's problem this morning. rightly, they take i conservative party's problem this morning. rightly, they take a i conservative party's problem thisl morning. rightly, they take a very tough _ morning. rightly, they take a very tough line — morning. rightly, they take a very tough line on— morning. rightly, they take a very tough line on anti—semitism, i morning. rightly, they take a very tough line on anti—semitism, as l tough line on anti—semitism, as labour— tough line on anti—semitism, as labour has _ tough line on anti—semitism, as labour has been _ tough line on anti—semitism, as labour has been doing, - tough line on anti—semitism, as labour has been doing, but- tough line on anti—semitism, as labour has been doing, but you | tough line on anti—semitism, as i labour has been doing, but you see ambivalence — labour has been doing, but you see ambivalence when _ labour has been doing, but you see ambivalence when it _ labour has been doing, but you see ambivalence when it comes - labour has been doing, but you see ambivalence when it comes to i ambivalence when it comes to islamophobia _ ambivalence when it comes to islamophobia. and _ ambivalence when it comes to islamophobia. and the - ambivalence when it comes toi islamophobia. and the attempt ambivalence when it comes to i islamophobia. and the attempt to explain _ islamophobia. and the attempt to explain it— islamophobia. and the attempt to explain it away— islamophobia. and the attempt to explain it away a _ islamophobia. and the attempt to explain it away a little _ islamophobia. and the attempt to explain it away a little bit, - islamophobia. and the attempt to explain it away a little bit, that i explain it away a little bit, that is what — explain it away a little bit, that is what i — explain it away a little bit, that is what i picked _ explain it away a little bit, that is what i picked up _ explain it away a little bit, that is what i picked up from - explain it away a little bit, that is what i picked up from the i is what i picked up from the interview _ is what i picked up from the interview. i— is what i picked up from the interview. i was _ is what i picked up from the interview. i was listening i is what i picked up from the i interview. i was listening very carefully _ interview. i was listening very carefully to _ interview. i was listening very carefully to it. _ interview. i was listening very carefully to it. to _ interview. i was listening very carefully to it. to me, - interview. i was listening very carefully to it. to me, there i interview. i was listening very i carefully to it. to me, there was no justification— carefully to it. to me, there was no justification for— carefully to it. to me, there was no justification for saying _ carefully to it. to me, there was no justification for saying suella - justification for saying suella braverman's _ justification for saying suella braverman's comments i justification for saying suella braverman's comments are i justification for saying suella - braverman's comments are different. if braverman's comments are different. if the _ braverman's comments are different. if the the, _ braverman's comments are different. if the the, they— braverman's comments are different. if the the, they have _ braverman's comments are different. if the the, they have got _ braverman's comments are different. if the the, they have got control, i if the the, they have got control, if that— if the the, they have got control, if that was— if the the, they have got control, if that was related _ if the the, they have got control, if that was related to _ if the the, they have got control, if that was related to jewish i if that was related to jewish people. _ if that was related to jewish people. that _ if that was related to jewish people, that would - if that was related to jewish i people, that would straightaway if that was related to jewish - people, that would straightaway be called _ people, that would straightaway be called out _ people, that would straightaway be called out as— people, that would straightaway be called out as anti—semitism. - people, that would straightaway be called out as anti—semitism. there| called out as anti—semitism. there is a double — called out as anti—semitism. there is a double standard, _ called out as anti—semitism. there is a double standard, they- called out as anti—semitism. there is a double standard, they do i called out as anti—semitism. there is a double standard, they do not i is a double standard, they do not call it— is a double standard, they do not call it out— is a double standard, they do not call it out in— is a double standard, they do not call it out in the _ is a double standard, they do not call it out in the same _ is a double standard, they do not call it out in the same way. i- is a double standard, they do noti call it out in the same way. i think this is— call it out in the same way. i think this is the — call it out in the same way. i think this is the problem. _ call it out in the same way. i think this is the problem. you - call it out in the same way. i think this is the problem. you talk- call it out in the same way. i think| this is the problem. you talk about an uptick— this is the problem. you talk about an uptick in — this is the problem. you talk about an uptick in hateful— this is the problem. you talk about an uptick in hateful comments i this is the problem. you talk abouti an uptick in hateful comments from politicians, — an uptick in hateful comments from politicians, i— an uptick in hateful comments from politicians, i think _ an uptick in hateful comments from politicians, i think what _ an uptick in hateful comments from politicians, i think what is _ an uptick in hateful comments from politicians, i think what is going i politicians, i think what is going on here — politicians, i think what is going on here is— politicians, i think what is going on here is that _ politicians, i think what is going on here is that there _ politicians, i think what is going on here is that there are - politicians, i think what is going on here is that there are people politicians, i think what is going. on here is that there are people in the conservative _ on here is that there are people in the conservative party— on here is that there are people in the conservative party who - on here is that there are people in

the conservative party who are - the conservative party who are itching — the conservative party who are itching for— the conservative party who are itching for that _ the conservative party who are itching for that existential - the conservative party who are . itching for that existential debate about _ itching for that existential debate about its — itching for that existential debate about its future. _ itching for that existential debate about its future. they— itching for that existential debate about its future. they can't - itching for that existential debate about its future. they can't wait i itching for that existential debate i about its future. they can't wait to -et about its future. they can't wait to get into _ about its future. they can't wait to get into it — about its future. they can't wait to get into it that _ about its future. they can't wait to get into it. that is _ about its future. they can't wait to get into it. that is white _ about its future. they can't wait to get into it. that is white liz- about its future. they can't wait to get into it. that is white liz trussi get into it. that is white liz truss was out _ get into it. that is white liz truss was out of — get into it. that is white liz truss was out of that _ get into it. that is white liz truss was out of that appalling - get into it. that is white liz truss. was out of that appalling gathering that she _ was out of that appalling gathering that she was — was out of that appalling gathering that she was at _ was out of that appalling gathering that she was at last _ was out of that appalling gathering that she was at last week. - was out of that appalling gathering that she was at last week. —— - was out of that appalling gathering that she was at last week. —— that| that she was at last week. —— that is why— that she was at last week. —— that is why full— that she was at last week. —— that is why full stop _ that she was at last week. —— that is why full stop they— that she was at last week. —— that is why full stop they are _ that she was at last week. —— that| is why full stop they are ratcheting things— is why full stop they are ratcheting things up. — is why full stop they are ratcheting things up. they— is why full stop they are ratcheting things up. theyare— is why full stop they are ratcheting things up, they are making - is why full stop they are ratcheting things up, they are making highlyi things up, they are making highly provocative — things up, they are making highly provocative and _ things up, they are making highly provocative and dangerous - provocative and dangerous statements _ provocative and dangerous statements. the _ provocative and dangerous statements. the probleml provocative and dangerousl statements. the problem is provocative and dangerous - statements. the problem is they are still the _ statements. the problem is they are still the government. _ statements. the problem is they are still the government. you've - statements. the problem is they are still the government. you've got- statements. the problem is they are still the government. you've got a l still the government. you've got a former— still the government. you've got a former prime _ still the government. you've got a former prime minister— still the government. you've got a former prime minister making - former prime minister making dangerous— former prime minister making dangerous statements, - former prime minister making . dangerous statements, extreme statements — dangerous statements, extreme statements coming _ dangerous statements, extreme statements coming from - dangerous statements, extreme statements coming from a - dangerous statements, extreme. statements coming from a former deputy— statements coming from a former deputy chairman _ statements coming from a former deputy chairman of _ statements coming from a former deputy chairman of the _ statements coming from a former deputy chairman of the party. - statements coming from a former deputy chairman of the party. i. deputy chairman of the party. i would — deputy chairman of the party. i would say, _ deputy chairman of the party. i would say. out _ deputy chairman of the party. i would say, put us _ deputy chairman of the party. i would say, put us out - deputy chairman of the party. i would say, put us out of - deputy chairman of the party. i would say, put us out of our i deputy chairman of the party. i- would say, put us out of our misery, call a _ would say, put us out of our misery, call a generat— would say, put us out of our misery, call a general election. _ would say, put us out of our misery, call a general election. you - would say, put us out of our misery, call a general election. you cannot. call a general election. you cannot have _ call a general election. you cannot have a _ call a general election. you cannot have a government, _ call a general election. you cannot have a government, figures - call a general election. you cannot. have a government, figures behaving in this— have a government, figures behaving in this way, _ have a government, figures behaving in this way, the — have a government, figures behaving in this way, the impact _ have a government, figures behaving in this way, the impact that - have a government, figures behaving in this way, the impact that can - in this way, the impact that can have _ in this way, the impact that can have i— in this way, the impact that can have. . , ., ,,. in this way, the impact that can have. . , ., , ., have. i want therese to respond to that. and have. i want therese to respond to that and he _ have. i want therese to respond to that. and he just _ have. i want therese to respond to that. and he just said _ have. i want therese to respond to that. and he just said this - have. i want therese to respond to that. and he just said this is - have. i want therese to respond to that. and he just said this is part i that. and hejust said this is part of shadow—boxing or the future of the conservative party. i do of shadow-boxing or the future of the conservative party.— the conservative party. i do not think that _ the conservative party. i do not think that is _ the conservative party. i do not think that is the _ the conservative party. i do not think that is the case. - the conservative party. i do not think that is the case. i - the conservative party. i do not think that is the case. i think i think that is the case. i think there is a genuine concern with security in the country. there is a challenge, of course, the situation in israel and gaza. that is providing this ongoing challenge, and of course people want to see

peace as quickly as possible and sustainable peace in that regard. i don't know quite the point where andy was going in shadow—boxing. yes, people have got concerns. we saw a colleague resigned from government over his concern of how we were tackling illegal immigration, where we doing that far enough? that is part of political debate. . . enough? that is part of political debate. , . . . , enough? that is part of political debate. . . . . , ., debate. there is a hierarchy of racism in _ debate. there is a hierarchy of racism in the _ debate. there is a hierarchy of racism in the conservative - debate. there is a hierarchy of. racism in the conservative party, debate. there is a hierarchy of- racism in the conservative party, is that what— racism in the conservative party, is that what you're _ racism in the conservative party, is that what you're saying? _ racism in the conservative party, is that what you're saying? i- racism in the conservative party, is that what you're saying? i do - racism in the conservative party, is that what you're saying?— that what you're saying? i do not believe that _ that what you're saying? i do not believe that is _ that what you're saying? i do not believe that is the _ that what you're saying? i do not believe that is the case. - that what you're saying? i do not believe that is the case. what. that what you're saying? i do not believe that is the case. what i l that what you're saying? i do not l believe that is the case. what i am clear about, as i mentioned earlier, the party did have a review about islamophobia, has taken steps in that regard, and i think swift action by the prime minister and chief whip in regard to lee anderson's comments. everybody watchinu , anderson's comments. everybody watching. we _ anderson's comments. everybody watching, we know _ anderson's comments. everybody watching, we know from - anderson's comments. everybody watching, we know from your- watching, we know from your comments, most people think this week in parliament was chaotic, ugly, it felt dangerous to many people. andy, you have written a book with steve rotherham, your

fellow mayor in liverpool, one of the things you see in your book head north is let's get rid of the whipping system, the system where mps are forced to vote along party lines. really be an answer to this kind of thing? i lines. really be an answer to this kind of thing?— kind of thing? i think it would. steve and _ kind of thing? i think it would. steve and l — kind of thing? i think it would. steve and i decided _ kind of thing? i think it would. steve and i decided to - kind of thing? i think it would. steve and i decided to leave . steve and i decided to leave westminster— steve and i decided to leave westminster because, - steve and i decided to leave westminster because, in . steve and i decided to leave | westminster because, in our steve and i decided to leave - westminster because, in our view, it simply— westminster because, in our view, it simply does — westminster because, in our view, it simply does not _ westminster because, in our view, it simply does not work, _ westminster because, in our view, it simply does not work, it _ westminster because, in our view, it simply does not work, it has - westminster because, in our view, it simply does not work, it has not- simply does not work, it has not worked — simply does not work, it has not worked for— simply does not work, it has not worked for the _ simply does not work, it has not worked for the north _ simply does not work, it has not worked for the north of- simply does not work, it has not| worked for the north of england. simply does not work, it has not- worked for the north of england. and i do worked for the north of england. and i do not _ worked for the north of england. and i do not think— worked for the north of england. and i do not think it — worked for the north of england. and i do not think it works _ worked for the north of england. and i do not think it works for— worked for the north of england. and i do not think it works for people - i do not think it works for people anvwhere~ — i do not think it works for people anywhere i_ i do not think it works for people anywhere. i think— i do not think it works for people anywhere. i think there - i do not think it works for people anywhere. i think there is- i do not think it works for people anywhere. i think there is a - i do not think it works for people anywhere. i think there is a reali anywhere. i think there is a real frustration — anywhere. i think there is a real frustration with— anywhere. i think there is a real frustration with politics - anywhere. i think there is a real frustration with politics not - frustration with politics not delivering _ frustration with politics not delivering for _ frustration with politics not delivering for people. - frustration with politics not delivering for people. if- frustration with politics not| delivering for people. if you frustration with politics not - delivering for people. if you go directly— delivering for people. if you go directly to— delivering for people. if you go directly to parliament - delivering for people. if you go directly to parliament and - delivering for people. if you go directly to parliament and its l directly to parliament and its rules, — directly to parliament and its rules, firstly, _ directly to parliament and its rules, firstly, there - directly to parliament and its rules, firstly, there is - directly to parliament and its rules, firstly, there is the - directly to parliament and its - rules, firstly, there is the arcane rules~ _ rules, firstly, there is the arcane rules~ why— rules, firstly, there is the arcane rules. why can't _ rules, firstly, there is the arcane rules. why can't you _ rules, firstly, there is the arcane rules. why can't you have - rules, firstly, there is the arcane rules. why can't you have two i rules. why can't you have two amendments _ rules. why can't you have two amendments to— rules. why can't you have two amendments to an _ rules. why can't you have two amendments to an opposition rules. why can't you have two i amendments to an opposition day? rules. why can't you have two - amendments to an opposition day? any complex— amendments to an opposition day? any complex world — amendments to an opposition day? any complex world now— amendments to an opposition day? any complex world now where _ amendments to an opposition day? any complex world now where people - amendments to an opposition day? any complex world now where people get i complex world now where people get engaged _ complex world now where people get engaged on _ complex world now where people get engaged on social— complex world now where people get engaged on social media, _ complex world now where people get engaged on social media, why- complex world now where people get engaged on social media, why why i complex world now where people get engaged on social media, why why is| engaged on social media, why why is parliament— engaged on social media, why why is parliament bound _ engaged on social media, why why is parliament bound by— engaged on social media, why why is parliament bound by these _ engaged on social media, why why is parliament bound by these old - engaged on social media, why why is parliament bound by these old rulesi parliament bound by these old rules that do— parliament bound by these old rules that do not— parliament bound by these old rules that do not then _ parliament bound by these old rules that do not then give _ parliament bound by these old rules that do not then give representation to some _ that do not then give representation to some of— that do not then give representation to some of the — that do not then give representation to some of the feeling _ that do not then give representation to some of the feeling in _ that do not then give representation to some of the feeling in the - to some of the feeling in the country? _ to some of the feeling in the country? on— to some of the feeling in the country? on the _ to some of the feeling in the i country? on the whip system, if to some of the feeling in the - country? on the whip system, if you think— country? on the whip system, if you think about — country? on the whip system, if you think about this _ country? on the whip system, if you think about this for— country? on the whip system, if you think about this for a _ country? on the whip system, if you think about this for a minute, - think about this for a minute, laura, — think about this fora minute, laura, i— think about this for a minute, laura, ifeel— think about this for a minute, laura, i feel quite _ think about this for a minute, laura, i feel quite strongly. think about this for a minute, i laura, i feel quite strongly about this, it _ laura, i feel quite strongly about this, it doesn't work _ laura, i feel quite strongly about this, it doesn't work i don't - this, it doesn't work i don't think for anybody— this, it doesn't work i don't think for anybody because, _ this, it doesn't work i don't think for anybody because, for- this, it doesn't work i don't think for anybody because, for the i this, it doesn't work i don't think. for anybody because, for the public, ithink— for anybody because, for the public, i think the _ for anybody because, for the public, i think the public— for anybody because, for the public, i think the public want _ for anybody because, for the public, i think the public want people - for anybody because, for the public, i think the public want people with l i think the public want people with some _ i think the public want people with some independence _ i think the public want people with some independence of— i think the public want people with some independence of thought i i think the public want people with.

some independence of thought who i think the public want people with i some independence of thought who are able to— some independence of thought who are able to look— some independence of thought who are able to look at — some independence of thought who are able to look at a — some independence of thought who are able to look at a situation, _ some independence of thought who are able to look at a situation, you're - able to look at a situation, you're able to look at a situation, you're a debate, — able to look at a situation, you're a debate, and _ able to look at a situation, you're a debate, and apply— able to look at a situation, you're a debate, and apply some - a debate, and apply some independence _ a debate, and apply some independence of- a debate, and apply some independence of thought. | a debate, and apply some . independence of thought. [5 a debate, and apply some independence of thought. is the reality that _ independence of thought. is the reality that basically _ independence of thought. is the | reality that basically government would never get anything done. how would never get anything done. how would you ever make decisions? mp5 would you ever make decisions? mps will say that. — would you ever make decisions? mps will say that, but _ would you ever make decisions? mps will say that, but i do not believe it is true — will say that, but i do not believe it is true~ 19— will say that, but i do not believe it is true. 19 times _ will say that, but i do not believe it is true. 19 times out _ will say that, but i do not believe it is true. 19 times out of- will say that, but i do not believe it is true. 19 times out of 20, i will say that, but i do not believel it is true. 19 times out of 20, mps will back— it is true. 19 times out of 20, mps will back what _ it is true. 19 times out of 20, mps will back what their _ it is true. 19 times out of 20, mps will back what their party - it is true. 19 times out of 20, mps will back what their party is - will back what their party is saving. _ will back what their party is saying. but _ will back what their party is saying, but that _ will back what their party is saying, but that one - will back what their party is saying, but that one time l will back what their party is l saying, but that one time out will back what their party is i saying, but that one time out of will back what their party is - saying, but that one time out of 20 might— saying, but that one time out of 20 mightiust — saying, but that one time out of 20 mightiust be — saying, but that one time out of 20 mightiust be an— saying, but that one time out of 20 mightjust be an important- saying, but that one time out of 20. mightjust be an important moment. in mightjust be an important moment. in the _ mightjust be an important moment. in the 2000s — mightjust be an important moment. in the 2000s over— mightjust be an important moment. in the 2000s over iraq, _ mightjust be an important moment. in the 2000s over iraq, i _ mightjust be an important moment. in the 2000s over iraq, i do - mightjust be an important moment. in the 2000s over iraq, i do not i in the 2000s over iraq, i do not think— in the 2000s over iraq, i do not think it — in the 2000s over iraq, i do not think it is — in the 2000s over iraq, i do not think it is right— in the 2000s over iraq, i do not think it is right to _ in the 2000s over iraq, i do not think it is right to have - in the 2000s over iraq, i do not think it is right to have a - in the 2000s over iraq, i do not think it is right to have a whip. think it is right to have a whip svstem — think it is right to have a whip system on _ think it is right to have a whip system on a _ think it is right to have a whip system on a boat _ think it is right to have a whip system on a boat like - think it is right to have a whip system on a boat like that. i think it is right to have a whip. system on a boat like that. what think it is right to have a whip- system on a boat like that. what are the actually — system on a boat like that. what are the actually deciding _ system on a boat like that. what are the actually deciding on _ system on a boat like that. what are the actually deciding on here? - system on a boat like that. what are the actually deciding on here? is- system on a boat like that. what are the actually deciding on here? is it l the actually deciding on here? is it politics. _ the actually deciding on here? is it politics. other— the actually deciding on here? is it politics, other issues _ the actually deciding on here? is it politics, other issues behind - the actually deciding on here? is it politics, other issues behind the i politics, other issues behind the scenes? — politics, other issues behind the scenes? decide _ politics, other issues behind the scenes? decide an— politics, other issues behind the scenes? decide an issue - politics, other issues behind the scenes? decide an issue like i politics, other issues behind the l scenes? decide an issue like that politics, other issues behind the i scenes? decide an issue like that on its merits— scenes? decide an issue like that on its merits and — scenes? decide an issue like that on its merits and its _ scenes? decide an issue like that on its merits and its merits _ scenes? decide an issue like that on its merits and its merits alone. i its merits and its merits alone. net, _ its merits and its merits alone. net, i— its merits and its merits alone. net, i know— its merits and its merits alone. net, i know you _ its merits and its merits alone. net, i know you worked - its merits and its merits alone. net, i know you worked in i its merits and its merits alone. - net, i know you worked in government as well, is it realistic? would you like a world without flips? i’m as well, is it realistic? would you like a world without flips? i'm not a politician. _ like a world without flips? i'm not a politician, but _ like a world without flips? i'm not a politician, but a _ like a world without flips? i'm not a politician, but a vote _ like a world without flips? i'm not a politician, but a vote on - like a world without flips? i'm not a politician, but a vote on a i a politician, but a vote on a ceasefire. _ a politician, but a vote on a ceasefire, that was an occasion where — ceasefire, that was an occasion where i— ceasefire, that was an occasion where i think if mps were allowed to vote without the whip system hanging

over them, _ vote without the whip system hanging over them, we would have better result _ over them, we would have better result. instead, we had the mother of all— result. instead, we had the mother of all parliaments, laid bare for the world — of all parliaments, laid bare for the world to see, playing party politics — the world to see, playing party politics rather than think about the hostages _ politics rather than think about the hostages and hostages and gaza and also the _ hostages and hostages and gaza and also the gazans trapped in rafah. therese, — also the gazans trapped in rafah. therese, is— also the gazans trapped in rafah. therese, is it realistic to have westminster without the blips? it 3 interesting how you talk about skulduggery. when people vote in a general election, they tend to vote for a party not the person. so you want to make sure that you have a consistency. but in effect, every vote can be a free vote, and the whip as there as a guidance. of course, they want you to support the readership. but there are consequences. let readership. but there are consequences. readership. but there are conse . uences. . . readership. but there are conseuuences. , , . consequences. let therese finish a oint. consequences. let therese finish a point- many _ consequences. let therese finish a point. many labour _ consequences. let therese finish a point. many labour mps _ consequences. let therese finish a point. many labour mps did - consequences. let therese finish a point. many labour mps did not i consequences. let therese finish a l point. many labour mps did not want to vote, point. many labour mps did not want to vote. wanted _ point. many labour mps did not want to vote, wanted to _ point. many labour mps did not want to vote, wanted to vote _ point. many labour mps did not want to vote, wanted to vote for _ point. many labour mps did not want to vote, wanted to vote for the i point. many labour mps did not want to vote, wanted to vote for the snp i to vote, wanted to vote for the snp motion because they disagree with the approach that their party has taken, that is when you skulduggery happened. the consequences because

understandably the leadership did not want... the understandably the leadership did not want... ,, understandably the leadership did not want. . ._ we i understandably the leadership did not want. . ._ we will i understandably the leadership did | not want. . ._ we will talk not want... the snp. .. we will talk to lisa nandv _ not want... the snp. .. we will talk to lisa nandy about _ not want... the snp. .. we will talk to lisa nandy about this _ not want... the snp. .. we will talk to lisa nandy about this any - not want... the snp. .. we will talk. to lisa nandy about this any minute. it would raise the status of mps if mps could — it would raise the status of mps if mps could be _ it would raise the status of mps if mps could be seen— it would raise the status of mps if mps could be seen to _ it would raise the status of mps if mps could be seen to be - it would raise the status of mps if mps could be seen to be acting i it would raise the status of mps if i mps could be seen to be acting more independentlv — mps could be seen to be acting more independently. some _ mps could be seen to be acting more independently. some of— mps could be seen to be acting more independently. some of the - frustration from the public... mps who want to _ frustration from the public... mps who want to act _ frustration from the public... who want to act independently, frustration from the public...- who want to act independently, it is not always good for their careers but it might be better for their conscience. all three of you, thank you very much for now. . this weekend is the anniversary no one wanted. it's been two years since russia invaded ukraine. many thousands have died. and there is no end in sight. for russia's other neighbours, it is painfully clear what is at stake. in estonia, where uk troops often train alongside nato allies, the risk feels very real. the country's increased the amount it spends on defence. i've been speaking to estonia's prime minister kaja kallas about why she belives putin must be stopped. we have to really focus our efforts in stopping this war and helping ukraine to fight back,

because russia will not continue if they lose in ukraine. they will continue if they win in ukraine. that is why it is very important for all of us that we do the utmost to help them right now. because what are the lessons from the 19305 and 19005? i mean, one thing, a very certain lesson that we learn from the 19405 was that when war really expands to europe, it goes very fast in europe. so no country is left untouched by this. and that is why we are all... we all have skin in the game, here. do you feel politicians on capitol hill in washington are listening? with the possibility of another trump presidency, do you fear a kind of american isolationism coming back? well, when i talk to the republicans or democrats in congress and the senate, the majority of them support helping ukraine. the question is right now whether,

you know, it gets to go to a vote. i think that history rhymes and therefore, we have to learn from history and not repeat the same mistakes that we did in the 19305 and 19405. do you really feel, then, we are potentially risking that kind of conflict, another world war, if leaders in the us and other countries don't take firm action against putin? well, it is, as one aggressor has initiated a war against its neighbour, and it is very clear about its aims. if you listen to even the interviews that putin has given now, he has not changed his goals. his aim is to conquer ukraine and then go further. that could mean, then, if he is able to do that in ukraine, then that could mean also attacking nato because he can do that. and that is also, i mean,

a question for all of us because why the aggressors are taking up wars is because they think that they can win. i mean, because they think that the other party is weak enough for them to attack and win. therefore, we have to do everything to also increase our own defence, to spend more on defence, so that, you know, russia won't think about attacking nato. because defence is no way a provocation. weakness is a provocation for the aggressor. what did you think, then, when you heard donald trump say that nato countries that had not been paying up, russia could go in and do what they want? well, it is of course very disturbing but it is no surprise. i mean, trump has been saying that also before, maybe not in so harsh words, but still. so this is of course a signal

to all of us in europe to do more for our own defence. i mean, estonia has been spending over 2% of our gdp on defence over ten years. and now we have increased that to 3.2% of gdp. but it is true that not all nato countries are doing this. you mentioned estonia is already spending over 2% of gdp on defence. how important is it to you that other countries do the same? it is very, very important. when the war started, i mean, conventional war in europe, in ukraine, then i thought that, ok, now everybody understands that we have to spend more on defence. but to my surprise, it hasn't been. i mean, yes, there are more countries who do so but not all of them do. should everybody spend over 3%, follow your example? well, i think yes, because in 1988, all the nato countries spent more

than 2% of gdp on defence. some even over 6%. and why? because the threat was real. there was the cold war going on. now there is a hot war going on in europe and still, some countries think that it does not really concern them and it does not really continue so that it could affect them. but then again, again, the lessons from the 19305 and 19405 is that when there is war in europe, it is going to spread very, very fast if we are not strong enough. and prime minister, you have recently been put on vladimir putin's most wanted list. we are speaking a week since the death of alexei navalny. what is it like for you to be named as the target? well, i got a lot of messages of congratulations. that is the great honour, that is the biggest award that one can get for standing up

to your principles. butjokes aside, this shows that putin's playbook has not changed. this is meant to make me afraid. and the only response is that you shouldn't be afraid. and you are not afraid? no. now, in case you hadn't noticed, it is an election year — as if you could forget. and the lib dems are hopeful they can make something of a comeback. but their leader's been struggling not so much with the party strategy lately, but with questions about his own role in the post office scandal. i'm pleased to say ed davey is back with us this morning. always good to have you here. we must start with the post office because this has been a huge discovery for people about how bad things were and how long it was going on. you were post office ministerfor a while. you were

going on. you were post office minister for a while. you were given the opportunity to apologise on lots of occasions. from a human point of view, why did it take you so long to say sorry? do you regret not getting on with it? i say sorry? do you regret not getting on with it? , ., , , say sorry? do you regret not getting onwithit? ,.,,._ , ., say sorry? do you regret not getting onwith it? , , , ., ., on with it? i probably should have said sorry early — on with it? i probably should have said sorry early on _ on with it? i probably should have said sorry early on but _ on with it? i probably should have said sorry early on but it - on with it? i probably should have said sorry early on but it is - on with it? i probably should have said sorry early on but it is a i on with it? i probably should have said sorry early on but it is a huge scandal and our hearts go out to those hundreds of sub—postmasters and their families who were treated appallingly and the key thing now is to make sure that those exoneration happen quickly, that they get compensation quickly and that they get to the truce with the inquiry. i have two sub—postmasters in my constituency, one who was in prison for16 constituency, one who was in prison for 16 months and one, it has really affected his health. i am going to fight for those and join others in making sure the government gives the sub—postmasters the fair deal they deserve. but sub-postmasters the fair deal they deserve. �* ., , deserve. but there are still questions _ deserve. but there are still questions for _ deserve. but there are still questions for people i deserve. but there are still questions for people who l deserve. but there are still. questions for people who are deserve. but there are still- questions for people who are caught up questions for people who are caught up in it about why action was not taken so long ago. alan bates, the sub—postmaster turned campaigner, wrote to you in 2010 and has shed one of the letters. you wrote back to him saying, "whilst i do

appreciate your concerns, i don't believe having a meeting would serve any useful purpose." do you regret saying that now?— saying that now? yes, i was in office 11 days _ saying that now? yes, i was in office 11 days and _ saying that now? yes, i was in office 11 days and was - saying that now? yes, i was in office 11 days and was advised | saying that now? yes, i was in l office 11 days and was advised by officials that because the government did not run the post office, it would be inappropriate for me to meet him so i wrote the letter. he then wrote back and i said to officials that i wanted to meet him to listen to his concerns. i believe i was the first post office minister on record to have met him and when i met him, i was really disturbed by his issues, particularly around the horizon it system, there was a real issue about whether there were bugs in it, whether there were bugs in it, whether there were bugs in it, whether there was remote access into a sub—postmaster�*s system in their post office. i took the concerns to my officials and to the post office. i was given a categorical assurance that for example, there was no remote access. 50 that for example, there was no remote access.— that for example, there was no remote access. , . ., ., remote access. so they could not get into the system? _ remote access. so they could not get into the system? yes. _

remote access. so they could not get into the system? yes. it _ remote access. so they could not get into the system? yes. it turns - remote access. so they could not get into the system? yes. it turns out. into the system? yes. it turns out subsequently _ into the system? yes. it turns out subsequently that _ into the system? yes. it turns out subsequently that the _ into the system? yes. it turns out subsequently that the post - into the system? yes. it turns out subsequently that the post office | subsequently that the post office new there was remote access, they had had a report from ernst & young, the financial auditors, and they were lying to me, as indeed i am sure they lied to previous ministers, two other ministers and to courts and judges. that conspiracy of lies is what i think means we need a systemic change. i was listening to andy burnham earlier about the contaminated blood scandal, and i agree with what he has said on this. we need some profound changes. but has said on this. we need some profound changes.— has said on this. we need some profound changes. but there are still questions _ profound changes. but there are still questions about _ profound changes. but there are still questions about why - profound changes. but there are still questions about why you - profound changes. but there are| still questions about why you did not act more quickly. one of the sub—postmasters, lee castleton, who has been on the programme before, had this question for you and he wants you to answer it specifically. when you were the post office minister, your actions may have caused the victims to have to seek justice in the courts. in the interests of honesty and openness, who told you not to engage with jfsa and alan bates?

so you said officials told you not to respond and have that meeting with alan bates but lee really wants to know, who was telling you, don't take action?— take action? first of all, as that letter showed, _ take action? first of all, as that letter showed, it _ take action? first of all, as that letter showed, it was _ take action? first of all, as that letter showed, it was the - take action? first of all, as that i letter showed, it was the officials telling me not to meetjf s a, which was the organisation representing people likely. then when alan wrote to me again, i was extremely concerned so i did meet them and i think i was the first post office minister to engage with them stop at your defence has been, as you heard it today, —— as we heard it today. that the post office lied and lied again. but given its minister, it was your role to supervise them and people kept raising this issue, individuals, campaign groups, mps, questions asked in parliament, didn't you ever stop to think, could something bigger be going on here? maybe i should question the post office version of events a bit more? i was never asked a question in parliament, actually, it was not raised that much with me. alan bates did and that is why i met him. there were a few written questions and a few letters. but it was not actually

until the bbc, to be fed to them, have a panorama programme, where they found that insider infojet2 who blew the whistle about the remote access, which was the point is mr bates was racing and if you look at the itv drama, that is the key issue. —— the point that mr bates was raising. panorama was aired in august 2015, and i don't know what ministers at the time knew about that. it was the key whistle—blower and his evidence that led to the high court victory for alan bates which started to change things. it alan bates which started to change thins. , ., . ., alan bates which started to change thinus. , c, c c, , c, alan bates which started to change thins. , ., . ., , ., ., things. it is an election year and ou are things. it is an election year and you are heping _ things. it is an election year and you are hoping to _ things. it is an election year and you are hoping to make - things. it is an election year and you are hoping to make some i things. it is an election year and l you are hoping to make some big gains, largely at the expense of the conservatives but in november, some senior members of your own party, including some former mps, said you needed to be more bold and present a more comprehensive offer. you can't just be not the tories. what do you say to that? i just be not the tories. what do you say to that?— say to that? i disagree, i think some peeple _ say to that? i disagree, i think some people would _ say to that? i disagree, i think some people would like - say to that? i disagree, i think some people would like to - say to that? i disagree, i think some people would like to be| say to that? i disagree, i think| some people would like to be a say to that? i disagree, i think- some people would like to be a think tank but i want us to win elections and defeat conservative mps and remove this awful government. when i

became leader, it was after a very disappointing result for us in the 2019 elections. i tell the party and i may have told you when your programme that i wanted a party to change in a whole new way. most important is to listen to people, to get back to the community knowledge exact liberals and liberal democrats have done so well over the decades. we have been doing that and when you knock on the doors we have been knocking on, people talk about the health service and cost of living so as leader, i have ensured we have focused laser—like on the issues that voters talk about. for example, today we are talking about cancer. i have experience of cancer in my own family, i lost my parents to cancer before i left school so it is an issue of personal concern to me but if you talk to voters, it is a massive consent to millions of them. we have come up with a programme to deal with that, to make britain one of the best countries in the world for cancer treatment. if of the best countries in the world for cancer treatment.— for cancer treatment. if you are ke inc for cancer treatment. if you are keying into _ for cancer treatment. if you are keying into peoples _ for cancer treatment. if you are keying into peoples concerns, l for cancer treatment. if you are i keying into peoples concerns, why aren't you seeing more results? you had big by—election success a while ago but in the two recent ones, you

lost your deposit which means you barely registered. are you embarrassed by that? is something else going on under the radar that i'm not picking up? hour else going on under the radar that i'm not picking up?— else going on under the radar that i'm not picking up? now you are onto something. — i'm not picking up? now you are onto something. it — i'm not picking up? now you are onto something. it is _ i'm not picking up? now you are onto something, it is under _ i'm not picking up? now you are onto something, it is under the _ i'm not picking up? now you are onto something, it is under the radar, - something, it is under the radar, what we are seeing in this parliament is huge success for the liberal democrats, actually, four by—election results, the last one last summer, we had staggering successes in true blue areas. it was notjust parliamentary by—elections, not just parliamentary by—elections, it notjust parliamentary by—elections, it was in local elections. we have had some of the best local elections everin had some of the best local elections ever in the last to muck around and since may, if you look at council by—election results, which party across the country has had by far the best set of results in those across the country, it is the liberal democrats. we go into the next election with quite a sense of excitement. we think we can do really well. there are loads of areas where if you want to get rid of the conservatives and the conservative mp, you have got to vote for the lib dems. i have talked about the blue wool where we have a massive success against the conservatives but in the south—west of england as well, we have come

back. we go into this election year actually more confident than we have been for many a long year. that actually more confident than we have been for many a long year.— been for many a long year. that is a re been for many a long year. that is a pretty positive _ been for many a long year. that is a pretty positive way _ been for many a long year. that is a pretty positive way of _ been for many a long year. that is a pretty positive way of seeing - been for many a long year. that is a pretty positive way of seeing a - pretty positive way of seeing a situation where you are sometimes neck and neck in the polls with reform uk but you say something is happening in the grass roots and on the run. are you confident of being the run. are you confident of being the third biggest party at the next election? , the third biggest party at the next election? yes. you are? the third biggest party at the next election?- you are?— the third biggest party at the next i election?- you are?- there election? yes. you are? yes. there ou no, election? yes. you are? yes. there you go. you — election? yes. you are? yes. there you go. you have — election? yes. you are? yes. there you go. you have put— election? yes. you are? yes. there you go, you have put it _ election? yes. you are? yes. there you go, you have put it on - election? yes. you are? yes. there you go, you have put it on the - you go, you have put it on the record. great to have you as ever. ed davey, liberal democrat leader, thank you forjoining us. like the lib dems, it's labour of course who really have the tories in their sights. but there were claims of skulduggery and underhand dealing at the top of the party this week. in all the chaos in the commons, keir starmer was accused of pressuring the speaker to do labour a political favour to avoid an embarassing rebellion. lindsay hoyle, the speaker, says he made the decision to allow a vote on labour�*s plan to protect mps safety. but what else was going on? many of you have told us you were embarassed by what looked like total mayhem.

jayne moss said, "i'd like a vote of no confidence in the whole blooming lot of them." christopher dunkley said: and colin alcock said, "parliament has lost its way in the last few years, lacks common sense, and has lost the trust of very many of the people that vote." let's try to get to the bottom of it with labour's lisa nandy who is with us from salford. thank you for being with us on the programme. before the debate on wednesday, you said you hoped that the house would be able to speak with one voice in the debate would go away from the party politics. are you embarrassed at what happened instead? £31 you embarrassed at what happened instead? . ., , ., instead? of course. i sat through the entirety _ instead? of course. i sat through the entirety of— instead? of course. i sat through the entirety of that _ instead? of course. i sat through the entirety of that debate, - instead? of course. i sat through the entirety of that debate, with | the entirety of that debate, with the entirety of that debate, with the snp storming out, the tories strongly out, then strumming back in, storming out again. it was a

very angry debate that focused more on what was happening in the house of commons than what was about to unfold in rafah. we have an impending ground invasion in rafah, the consequences of that would be utterly catastrophic. it was the moment where we could have come together to speak with one voice and send a very clear message. in the end, i am glad that because we put forward a motion that all parties, we thought, could support, i am glad that there was a motion that was passed, calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. but i do not think anyone could look at those scenes on wednesday and think that cover the political system in the uk and glory. i did not.— and glory. i did not. oliver dowden had told us — and glory. i did not. oliver dowden had told us this _ and glory. i did not. oliver dowden had told us this morning _ and glory. i did not. oliver dowden had told us this morning that - and glory. i did not. oliver dowden had told us this morning that a - and glory. i did not. oliver dowden had told us this morning that a line had told us this morning that a line had been crossed this week and there has—been, reporting by the bbc and others, that labour suggested that speaker could be shoved out of his job after the next election if he did not allow a vote on labour's plan. this is a really important issue about the independence of the

speaker. keir starmer has denied that he individually did that. can you guarantee to a reviewers this morning that no one from the labour party was involved any conversation or passing a message to the speaker suggesting that hisjob might or passing a message to the speaker suggesting that his job might be or passing a message to the speaker suggesting that hisjob might be on the line and he did what labour wanted? . . the line and he did what labour wanted? , , ., the line and he did what labour wanted? . , ., wanted? yes, i believe that i can. i have had numerous— wanted? yes, i believe that i can. i have had numerous conversations, | wanted? yes, i believe that i can. i. have had numerous conversations, as you can imagine, with my colleagues, with keir starmer, with our chief whip, with david lammy, shadow foreign secretary, over the last few weeks and months, since the 7th of october unfolded. frankly, the idea that you would threaten the speaker of the house of commons is for the birds. i have served under three different speakers over 1a years, i can tell you that is not how it works. the speaker is in charge, is the guardian of our processes and procedures, and makes the decisions. the idea that any political leader orany the idea that any political leader or any politician of any party could

threaten the house of commons speaker and get away with it is just absolute and utter nonsense. the truth of what unfolded on wednesday was that while the international community was very focused on what was happening in gaza and so are we, the conservatives appear to have discovered at the 11th hour that they did not have the votes to prevent the labour motion from going through, and they came and pulled their amendment, which triggered the collapse of the whole debate. you’re collapse of the whole debate. you're makin: a collapse of the whole debate. you're making a political— collapse of the whole debate. you're making a political point. _ collapse of the whole debate. you're making a political point. that - making a political point. that motion went _ making a political point. that motion went through - making a political point. trust motion went through and we spoke with one voice.— motion went through and we spoke with one voice. rather than making a olitical with one voice. rather than making a political point. _ with one voice. rather than making a political point. i _ with one voice. rather than making a political point, ijust _ with one voice. rather than making a political point, i just wanted - with one voice. rather than making a political point, i just wanted to - political point, ijust wanted to highlight to viewers that you have just given as a specific assurance on the record that no one in the labour party said or communicated a message to lindsay hoyle that his job might be on the line if he did not allow labour to have a vote on its amendment. its plant in the house of commons. i its amendment. its plant in the house of commons.— house of commons. i certainly didn't, house of commons. i certainly didn't. the _ house of commons. i certainly didn't, the chief— house of commons. i certainly didn't, the chief whip - house of commons. i certainly didn't, the chief whip didn't, l house of commons. i certainly i didn't, the chief whip didn't, the

leader of the labour party didn't, no members of staff were involved, would ever be involved in doing something like that. frankly, if anybody had done something like that from any political party, i think they would have had very short thrift from the speaker. you heard it in the words that the leader of the house penny mordaunt used on wednesday at business questions, he is our speaker and he is trusted by mps across the house to uphold what is the right thing to do for members of parliament of all parties and for the country. that is why you have seen so many tory mps and others rallying to his defence this week. the truth is, as andy burnham was just saying on your programme, a lot of the processes and procedures in the house were outdated. what the speaker was seeking to do was to put the widest range of options before the widest range of options before the house and ensure that the house could come to one view. that is why we deliberately crafted our amendment to make sure that most mps from most parties could come together and support it. our eyes are on what is happening in rafah and gaza, the impending catastrophe

thatis and gaza, the impending catastrophe that is happening there. it is important you house of commons is able to stand up for what is right, which in the end is what we did on wednesday. flan which in the end is what we did on wednesday-— which in the end is what we did on wednesda . ., , ., ., ., ., wednesday. can you give a guarantee that sir lindsay _ wednesday. can you give a guarantee that sir lindsay hoyle _ wednesday. can you give a guarantee that sir lindsay hoyle will _ wednesday. can you give a guarantee that sir lindsay hoyle will be - that sir lindsay hoyle will be reappointed as common speaker after the election if labour wins? £31 the election if labour wins? of course i can't because it is not in the gift of a political party. we have a system, rightly, where the speaker is elected by members of parliament from across the house of commons, from every political party. that is an essential part of the speaker's independence. for what it is worth, i think that he did the right thing on wednesday in seeking to ensure that we had the widest range of voices. i think his conduct afterwards and coming to the house and expressing his deep regret and sorrow, that had not been able to happen, that was the right thing to do. we now need to take a long hard look at the processes we have in parliament to make sure we do not have a repeat of this. the most

important thing, as i say, is that the impending ground invasion in rafah, the house of commons was able to come together around a motion that we deliberately crafted to enable us to speak with one voice and say this cannot and must not go ahead. ., ., ., ahead. you mentioned that the procedures _ ahead. you mentioned that the procedures in _ ahead. you mentioned that the procedures in parliament - ahead. you mentioned that the j procedures in parliament might ahead. you mentioned that the i procedures in parliament might be out of date, and we have just been talking to andy burnham about his view that the piping system, where mps have to vote along party lines, should be phased out. it has had its day. would you look at that? i think the objection _ day. would you look at that? i think the objection that _ day. would you look at that? i think the objection that you _ day. would you look at that? i think the objection that you raised - day. would you look at that? i think the objection that you raised is - day. would you look at that? i think the objection that you raised is an i the objection that you raised is an important one. i very sympathetic to what andy has got to say, as someone who has fallen foul of the whip many times during my years in parliament and has at times had to step off and on to the backbenches in to speak freely about issues that matter to me, including standing up to anti—semitism within my own party. i have felt at times very constrained. but political parties need to be able to express a clear view, we

need to be clear with the electorate about what it is that we stand for. it is at the forefront of my mind right now having been out in the region in the middle east many times over recent months that when you speak for your party on issues relating to foreign policy, for example, foreign leaders need to know that you speak with the full authority of your party. there is very much a case for a more grown—up political debate where we are able to express differences, but the procedures that failed us last week where the standing order procedures that were built for a time when you only had two main political parties. what you have got now is many smaller parties, as well, within parliament. they are not likely to form the next government, but they do have a view that represents the views out in the country. i think it is important that we find ways to enable that for a full range of views to be expressed. i tackle it is very soon to be the rochdale by—election were labour abandoned its candidate when he was recorded expressing unpleasant and

anti—semitic views. if expressing unpleasant and anti-semitic views.- expressing unpleasant and anti-semitic views. if you were a viewer and _ anti-semitic views. if you were a viewer and rip — anti-semitic views. if you were a viewer and rip rochdale - anti-semitic views. if you were a viewer and rip rochdale today, i anti-semitic views. if you were a | viewer and rip rochdale today, he would you as a labour senior figure advised them to vote for? i would you as a labour senior figure advised them to vote for?- advised them to vote for? i would not advise — advised them to vote for? i would not advise them _ advised them to vote for? i would not advise them to _ advised them to vote for? i would not advise them to vote _ advised them to vote for? i would not advise them to vote for - advised them to vote for? i would not advise them to vote for any i advised them to vote for? i would not advise them to vote for any of the candidates. i'm afraid we are in the candidates. i'm afraid we are in the extraordinary and unprecedented position of having to withdraw our candidate in the by—election so there is no labour candidate to vote for. what i would say is that having watched the extraordinary scenes, notjust in rochdale when i was there, there was hate and division being stalked by particular candidates, which people in rochdale do not need or want. watching what has unfolded in the conservative party, the absolute poison that has been allowed to seep into their political debate, depay minister thatis political debate, depay minister that is seemingly unwilling to acknowledge the term islamophobia, let alone stand up to senior politicians and his party dragging our politics into to be sure, i would say to people in rochdale, if you are going out to vote, please consider voting for anybody who you believe will help to bring an end to

this heat and division at a time when it is spilling onto our streets. we need political leaders prepared to stand up to it, not stoke it. .. , prepared to stand up to it, not stoke it. ., , i, ~ prepared to stand up to it, not stoke it. ., , ., ~ , stoke it. lisa nandy, thank you very much forjoining _ stoke it. lisa nandy, thank you very much forjoining us _ down the line from salford. it has been a bruising week for politics, a lot of ugly torque, high feelings. the three of you, i wonder, therese, you're still an mp, andy, you were an mp, halima, you wanted to stand as an mp some years ago. andy, now you have got a big job elsewhere, would you still want to be an mp? if you reran andy burnham, the life story, would you still go to westminster? i story, would you still go to westminster?— story, would you still go to westminster? ., , i westminster? i have been much ha ier in westminster? i have been much happier in the — westminster? i have been much happier in the last _ westminster? i have been much happier in the last seven - westminster? i have been much happier in the last seven years, | happier in the last seven years, liberated, energised by what we are doing in greater manchester. it is a sad situation in rochdale, we are about to bring any major transport reform in rochdale, really good things going on, it seems like westminster politics is working against us at not with us. that is why i make making this argument with

the mayor of liverpool and the book, we think politics in britain needs to be rewired, it is not functioning properly. some of the answer is what we are doing, were in greater manchester my approach has always been place first, not party first. that is what matters to people. when you start with place, that is a unifying thing, for everybody who lives there, whoever they vote for. i understand that people who have voted for you do not always vote labour. when you start with place as the big focus, people can get ben —— get behind that type of politics will stop starting with a divisive starting point, ithink will stop starting with a divisive starting point, i think that is a big reason why it is not working. would i go back? i am standing for a third term. 50 would i go back? i am standing for a third term. ., would i go back? i am standing for a third term. , ., ., ., would i go back? i am standing for a third term. y., ., ., . third term. so you will not go back? i am not ruling _ third term. so you will not go back? i am not ruling it _ third term. so you will not go back? i am not ruling it out _ third term. so you will not go back? i am not ruling it out one _ third term. so you will not go back? i am not ruling it out one day, - third term. so you will not go back? i am not ruling it out one day, but i i am not ruling it out one day, but i am not ruling it out one day, but i am not ruling it out one day, but i am standing for a third term. the country needs to be rewired, basically, i would try to do some of

that if i went back. therese, you're now on the — that if i went back. therese, you're now on the backbenches, - that if i went back. therese, you're now on the backbenches, you - that if i went back. therese, you're now on the backbenches, you have| now on the backbenches, you have talked about how tough it was being in the cabinet, how ill it major at some point. are you still glad that you are an mp, is it better on the backbenches? maybe you would be better being mayor in suffolk or somewhere. i better being mayor in suffolk or somewhere-— better being mayor in suffolk or somewhere. ., ., ., , somewhere. i have often said to be built, if somewhere. i have often said to be built. if you're _ somewhere. i have often said to be built, if you're only _ somewhere. i have often said to be built, if you're only interested - somewhere. i have often said to be built, if you're only interested in i built, if you're only interested in the place — built, if you're only interested in the place where you are, the best thing _ the place where you are, the best thing is _ the place where you are, the best thing is to— the place where you are, the best thing is to run a council, b eimear, ccan— thing is to run a council, b eimear, ccan make— thing is to run a council, b eimear, c can make the local change. going into parliament, despite legislation primarily. _ into parliament, despite legislation primarily, the national impact of what _ primarily, the national impact of what you — primarily, the national impact of what you can do. that is why people vote, _ what you can do. that is why people vote. also _ what you can do. that is why people vote, also the international stage. how can_ vote, also the international stage. how can i— vote, also the international stage. how can i put it? a few years ago, i worked _ how can i put it? a few years ago, i worked exceptionally hard, i was somewhat rundown, infection got a greater— somewhat rundown, infection got a greater hold. i think it is still a reminder— greater hold. i think it is still a reminder that we greater hold. i think it is still a reminderthat we are greater hold. i think it is still a reminder that we are all human beings— reminder that we are all human beings and you have to choose and prioritise — beings and you have to choose and prioritise. on the wider thing, i am welcoming — prioritise. on the wider thing, i am welcoming more people who want to become _ welcoming more people who want to become members of parliament. it is a great _ become members of parliament. it is a great place to be, but it is a serious — a great place to be, but it is a serious place to be, not only for

your— serious place to be, not only for your own — serious place to be, not only for your own constituency you are trying to improve _ your own constituency you are trying to improve but the country as a whole — to improve but the country as a whole. .. .. to improve but the country as a whole. ., ., , ., to improve but the country as a whole. ., ., i. , ,., to improve but the country as a whole. .. .. . ., whole. halima, you believed you do not aet whole. halima, you believed you do not net to whole. halima, you believed you do not get to become _ whole. halima, you believed you do not get to become an _ whole. halima, you believed you do not get to become an mp _ whole. halima, you believed you do not get to become an mp look- whole. halima, you believed you do not get to become an mp look at i whole. halima, you believed you do i not get to become an mp look at what has happened? i not get to become an mp look at what has happened?— has happened? i had been working overseas for _ has happened? i had been working overseas for about _ has happened? i had been working overseas for about 15 _ has happened? i had been working overseas for about 15 years, i has happened? i had been working overseas for about 15 years, so i has happened? i had been working i overseas for about 15 years, so when i came _ overseas for about 15 years, so when i came back— overseas for about 15 years, so when i came back to— overseas for about 15 years, so when i came back to london, _ overseas for about 15 years, so when i came back to london, i— overseas for about 15 years, so when i came back to london, i also- i came back to london, i also thought— i came back to london, i also thought about _ i came back to london, i also thought about standing - i came back to london, i also thought about standing for i i came back to london, i also| thought about standing for an i came back to london, i also- thought about standing for an mp in the place _ thought about standing for an mp in the place that— thought about standing for an mp in the place that i_ thought about standing for an mp in the place that i grew— thought about standing for an mp in the place that i grew up. _ thought about standing for an mp in the place that i grew up. it- thought about standing for an mp in the place that i grew up. it was- the place that i grew up. it was very— the place that i grew up. it was very much— the place that i grew up. it was very much about _ the place that i grew up. it was very much about place - the place that i grew up. it was very much about place not i the place that i grew up. it was- very much about place not politics. what _ very much about place not politics. what i _ very much about place not politics. what i would — very much about place not politics. what i would say _ very much about place not politics. what i would say now— very much about place not politics. what i would say now is _ very much about place not politics. what i would say now is that - very much about place not politics. what i would say now is that i i very much about place not politics. | what i would say now is that i think it isiust _ what i would say now is that i think it isiust a _ what i would say now is that i think it isiust a myth _ what i would say now is that i think it is just a myth that _ what i would say now is that i think it is just a myth that only _ what i would say now is that i think it is just a myth that only mps i what i would say now is that i think it is just a myth that only mps havej it is just a myth that only mps have a difficult _ it is just a myth that only mps have a difficult time. _ it is just a myth that only mps have a difficult time. where _ it is just a myth that only mps have a difficult time. where i— it is just a myth that only mps have a difficult time. where i am - it is just a myth that only mps have a difficult time. where i am sitting| a difficult time. where i am sitting now, _ a difficult time. where i am sitting now. looking — a difficult time. where i am sitting now. looking at _ a difficult time. where i am sitting now, looking at the _ a difficult time. where i am sitting now, looking at the work - a difficult time. where i am sitting now, looking at the work we - a difficult time. where i am sitting now, looking at the work we have| now, looking at the work we have been _ now, looking at the work we have been doing — now, looking at the work we have been doing not— now, looking at the work we have been doing notjust _ now, looking at the work we have been doing notjust since - now, looking at the work we have been doing notjust since october seven. _ been doing notjust since october seven. but— been doing notjust since october seven, but also _ been doing notjust since october seven, but also since _ been doing notjust since october seven, but also since the - been doing notjust since 0ctober| seven, but also since the morocco earthquake. — seven, but also since the morocco earthquake, there _ seven, but also since the morocco earthquake, there is _ seven, but also since the morocco earthquake, there is not - seven, but also since the morocco earthquake, there is not a - seven, but also since the morocco earthquake, there is not a day- seven, but also since the morocco i earthquake, there is not a day where i earthquake, there is not a day where | -et earthquake, there is not a day where i get any— earthquake, there is not a day where i get any rest — earthquake, there is not a day where i get any rest my— earthquake, there is not a day where i get any rest. my plate _ earthquake, there is not a day where i get any rest. my plate is— earthquake, there is not a day where i get any rest. my plate is full. - i get any rest. my plate is full. what _ i get any rest. my plate is full. what i — i get any rest. my plate is full. what i would _ i get any rest. my plate is full. what i would say _ i get any rest. my plate is full. what i would say is _ i get any rest. my plate is full. what i would say is that - i get any rest. my plate is full. | what i would say is that politics feels _ what i would say is that politics feels very— what i would say is that politics feels very much _ what i would say is that politics feels very much gridlocked i what i would say is that politics feels very much gridlocked at i what i would say is that politics i feels very much gridlocked at the moment — feels very much gridlocked at the moment. where _ feels very much gridlocked at the moment. where public— feels very much gridlocked at the moment. where public debate i feels very much gridlocked at the. moment. where public debate and sentiment — moment. where public debate and sentiment is all— moment. where public debate and sentiment is all around _ sentiment is all around confrontation - sentiment is all around confrontation and i sentiment is all around i confrontation and polarity, it sentiment is all around - confrontation and polarity, it is really— confrontation and polarity, it is really hard _ confrontation and polarity, it is really hard i_ confrontation and polarity, it is really hard. ido— confrontation and polarity, it is really hard. i do want- confrontation and polarity, it is really hard. i do want to - confrontation and polarity, it is really hard. i do want to come i confrontation and polarity, it is- really hard. i do want to come back to say— really hard. i do want to come back to say that — really hard. i do want to come back to say that as — really hard. i do want to come back to say that as a _ really hard. i do want to come back to say that as a muslim _ really hard. i do want to come back to say that as a muslim woman, i l to say that as a muslim woman, i stood _ to say that as a muslim woman, i stood as— to say that as a muslim woman, i stood as a — to say that as a muslim woman, i stood as a muslim _ to say that as a muslim woman, i stood as a muslim woman - to say that as a muslim woman, i stood as a muslim woman in i to say that as a muslim woman, i stood as a muslim woman in east london. — stood as a muslim woman in east london. the _ stood as a muslim woman in east london, the conservative - stood as a muslim woman in east london, the conservative party. stood as a muslim woman in east i london, the conservative party and labour— london, the conservative party and labour party— london, the conservative party and labour party needs _ london, the conservative party and labour party needs to _ london, the conservative party and labour party needs to be _ london, the conservative party and labour party needs to be a - london, the conservative party and labour party needs to be a place i labour party needs to be a place that is— labour party needs to be a place that is safe — labour party needs to be a place that is safe or— labour party needs to be a place that is safe orjewish _ labour party needs to be a place that is safe orjewish friends i labour party needs to be a place that is safe orjewish friends and muslim — that is safe orjewish friends and muslim friends. _ that is safe orjewish friends and

muslim friends. it _ that is safe orjewish friends and muslim friends. it does - that is safe orjewish friends and muslim friends. it does not- that is safe orjewish friends and muslim friends. it does not feell muslim friends. it does not feel like that — muslim friends. it does not feel like that hie _ muslim friends. it does not feel like that. ~ . muslim friends. it does not feel like that. ~ , ., like that. we must leave it there. thank you — like that. we must leave it there. thank you for— like that. we must leave it there. thank you for bringing _ like that. we must leave it there. thank you for bringing your- thank you for bringing your interesting thoughts and conversation to our debate this morning. a huge thanks to you for watching. in a week when we have seen our politics descend into farce, and rhetoric get ramped up, calls for calm so often seem to fall on deaf ears. our politicians are grappling with significant and sensitive issues. but perhaps a shadow fight for the future shape of the tory party is also under way. yet there is so much that matters way beyond that in this election year. i'll be with paddy o'connell in a while for sunday's newscast. you'll be able to find on bbc sounds. you can watch anything again on iplayer. do send us your questions for the chancellor, jeremy hunt, who willjoin us next week ahead the budget. and i'll see you back here next sunday, same time, same place. well, that is why the prime minister took action. he gave lee anderson an opportunity to apologise, he didn't take that opportunity.

live from london. this is bbc news donald trump secures a fourth major victory

in a republican presidential primary, but his rival, nikki haley, says she won't back out. the conservatives suspend mp lee anderson after he refused to apologise for saying london's mayor is controlled by islamists. ido i do not believe lee anderson said those _ i do not believe lee anderson said those remarks intending to be islamophobic. american and british warplanes have carried out a further round of strikes on houthi missile sites in yemen. and oppenheimer was the big winner at the screen actors guild awards. it netted the top prize of best cast, as well as best actor for cillian murphy. hello. donald trump has easily defeated nikki haley in the south carolina republican presidential primary — her home state. it's his fourth consecutive win in states where voters

choose who they want to be the republican nominee.