senior conservatives in the uk are into an argument over islamophobia — after the now—suspended mp, lee anderson, said "islamists" had "got control" of the mayor of london. the deputy prime minister refuses to say whether the comments are islamophobic. president zelensky reveals 31,000 ukrainian soldiers — and tens of thousands of civilians — have been killed in the two years of war with russia. it's the first time in months that official casualty figures have been released. donald trump is one step closer to the republican presidential nomination, easily beating his only rival nikki haley in south carolina primary by a 20—point margin. despite losing in her home state haley has vowed to fight on in the contest. 0ppenheimer is the big winner at the screen actors guild awards. it takes the top prize of best cast, as well as best actor for cillian murphy. barbara streisand won the lifetime achievement award.

now on bbc news...newscast. newscast. newscast from the bbc. hello. it is paddy involved in the studio. we are graced with the journalist of the moment. who are you? nick what, how is that? nick watt, the political editor of newsnight he was been making some news if you are viewing this week. since we last spoke yesterday we have just broke the news that lee anderson the tory mp has been booted out of the party for making what a lot of people believe were racist and unpleasant islamophobic comments and there has been a statement from anderson himself and also overnight a statement from the prime minister to condemning a streaming comic extremism and anti—semitism but not condemning a phobia. remind ourselves what lee anderson actually said before we get into the furore

around it. i said before we get into the furore around it. ., �* ., , said before we get into the furore around it. ., , , around it. i don't actually believe that the islamists _ around it. i don't actually believe that the islamists have _ around it. i don't actually believe that the islamists have got - around it. i don't actually believe l that the islamists have got control of the _ that the islamists have got control of the country but what i do believe is they— of the country but what i do believe is they have got control of caen and they have _ is they have got control of caen and they have got control of london and they have got control of london and they have _ they have got control of london and they have got control of london and they have got control of stammer as well. they have got control of stammer as welt -- _ they have got control of stammer as welt -- they— they have got control of stammer as well. —— they have got control of khah _ well. -- they have got control of khan. ., g , . well. -- they have got control of khan. ., _. khan. formerjustice secretary and trained lawyer— khan. formerjustice secretary and trained lawyer lord _ khan. formerjustice secretary and trained lawyer lord brooklyn - khan. formerjustice secretary and trained lawyer lord brooklyn said l trained lawyer lord brooklyn said those comments were racist. he said that plainly? — those comments were racist. he said that plainly? he _ those comments were racist. he said that plainly? he did. _ those comments were racist. he said that plainly? he did. i _ those comments were racist. he said that plainly? he did. i will— those comments were racist. he said that plainly? he did. i will bring - that plainly? he did. i will bring ou that. that plainly? he did. i will bring you that- you — that plainly? he did. i will bring you that. you had _ that plainly? he did. i will bring you that. you had oliver- that plainly? he did. i will bring | you that. you had oliver dowden you that. you had 0liver dowden attempting to answer the same question but failing. the attempting to answer the same question but failing.— attempting to answer the same question but failing. the fact they could be taken _ question but failing. the fact they could be taken in _ question but failing. the fact they could be taken in that _ question but failing. the fact they could be taken in that way - question but failing. the fact they could be taken in that way is - question but failing. the fact they could be taken in that way is the l could be taken in that way is the reason _ could be taken in that way is the reason why— could be taken in that way is the reason why those _ could be taken in that way is the reason why those comments - could be taken in that way is the reason why those comments ledj could be taken in that way is the . reason why those comments led to could be taken in that way is the - reason why those comments led to the chief whip _ reason why those comments led to the chief whip asking — reason why those comments led to the chief whip asking for _ reason why those comments led to the chief whip asking for an _ reason why those comments led to the chief whip asking for an apology - chief whip asking for an apology from _ chief whip asking for an apology from the — chief whip asking for an apology from the prime _ chief whip asking for an apology from the prime minister. - chief whip asking for an apology from the prime minister. i- chief whip asking for an apology from the prime minister. i share those _ from the prime minister. i share those concerns— from the prime minister. i share those concerns about _ from the prime minister. i share those concerns about how- from the prime minister. i share those concerns about how they i from the prime minister. i share - those concerns about how they could be taken _ those concerns about how they could be taken in _ those concerns about how they could be taken in that— those concerns about how they could be taken in that way— those concerns about how they could be taken in that way and _ those concerns about how they could be taken in that way and that's - those concerns about how they could be taken in that way and that's why. be taken in that way and that's why it was— be taken in that way and that's why it was right — be taken in that way and that's why it was right he _ be taken in that way and that's why it was right he should _ be taken in that way and that's why it was right he should be _ be taken in that way and that's why it was right he should be asked - be taken in that way and that's why it was right he should be asked for| it was right he should be asked for an apology— it was right he should be asked for an apology and _ it was right he should be asked for an apology and when _ it was right he should be asked for an apology and when he _ it was right he should be asked for an apology and when he failed - it was right he should be asked for an apology and when he failed to i an apology and when he failed to -ive an apology and when he failed to give that— an apology and when he failed to give that apology _ an apology and when he failed to give that apology the _ an apology and when he failed to give that apology the whip - an apology and when he failed to give that apology the whip was . give that apology the whip was removed _ give that apology the whip was removed l— give that apology the whip was removed. ~' ., give that apology the whip was removed. ~ ., , removed. i think our viewers will hear very clearly _

removed. i think our viewers will hear very clearly that _ removed. i think our viewers will hear very clearly that you - removed. i think our viewers will hear very clearly that you are - hear very clearly that you are declining to give your own view on what those words mean, having said that words matter. i what those words mean, having said that words matter.— that words matter. i think i've been... that words matter. i think i've been--- l've — that words matter. i think i've been... i've been _ that words matter. i think i've been... i've been clear- that words matter. i think i've been... i've been clear that i that words matter. i think i've i been... i've been clear that they can be _ been... i've been clear that they can be taken— been... i've been clear that they can be taken that _ been... i've been clear that they can be taken that way, - been... i've been clear that they can be taken that way, right? i can be taken that way, right? because _ can be taken that way, right? because they _ can be taken that way, right? because they can _ can be taken that way, right? because they can be - can be taken that way, right? because they can be taken i can be taken that way, right? i because they can be taken that can be taken that way, right? - because they can be taken that way, he was _ because they can be taken that way, he was given— because they can be taken that way, he was given the _ because they can be taken that way, he was given the chance _ because they can be taken that way, he was given the chance to - because they can be taken that way, | he was given the chance to apologise and he _ he was given the chance to apologise and he failed — he was given the chance to apologise and he failed to— he was given the chance to apologise and he failed to do— he was given the chance to apologise and he failed to do so— he was given the chance to apologise and he failed to do so and _ he was given the chance to apologise and he failed to do so and the - he was given the chance to apologise and he failed to do so and the whip. and he failed to do so and the whip was removed _ and he failed to do so and the whip was removed. if— and he failed to do so and the whip was removed-— and he failed to do so and the whip was removed. ., ., , ., was removed. if he apologised, would he have kept — was removed. if he apologised, would he have kept his _ was removed. if he apologised, would he have kept his job? _ was removed. if he apologised, would he have kept his job? yes. _ was removed. if he apologised, would he have kept his job? yes. he - was removed. if he apologised, would he have kept his job? yes. he was. he have kept his “ob? yes. he was asked for an — he have kept his job? yes. he was asked for an apology, _ he have kept his job? yes. he was asked for an apology, he - he have kept his job? yes. he was asked for an apology, he failed - he have kept his job? yes. he was asked for an apology, he failed to | asked for an apology, he failed to do so _ asked for an apology, he failed to do so and — asked for an apology, he failed to do so and that _ asked for an apology, he failed to do so and that is— asked for an apology, he failed to do so and that is what _ asked for an apology, he failed to do so and that is what did - asked for an apology, he failed to do so and that is what did him - asked for an apology, he failed to do so and that is what did him in. | do so and that is what did him in. it is do so and that is what did him in. it is fair— do so and that is what did him in. it is fairto— do so and that is what did him in. it is fair to tell _ do so and that is what did him in. it is fair to tell people _ do so and that is what did him in. it is fair to tell people who - do so and that is what did him in. it is fair to tell people who want i it is fair to tell people who want her this morning that that was also after several attempts to get 0liver dowden to clarify what is nb was in those comments. nick, without is then passing what the comments really meant it is very clear that a lot of people think they were islamophobic and racist. from a political point of view, what is going on here?— political point of view, what is going on here? political point of view, what is auoin on here? . ., , ., ., going on here? what is going on here is oliver dowden _ going on here? what is going on here is oliver dowden obviously _ going on here? what is going on here is oliver dowden obviously wanted i going on here? what is going on here is oliver dowden obviously wanted to | is 0liver dowden obviously wanted to make it clear to you that he stands by the decision to take the conservative whip off lee anderson but it appears to be for the very limited reason that he was asked to apologise and effectively the track there and he didn't. 0bviously,

apologise and effectively the track there and he didn't. obviously, you questioned 0liver dowden at some length and specifically on the question, do you believe, how would you characterise these remarks, would you personally like to distance ourselves from these remarks had 0liver dowden says these remarks had 0liver dowden says these remarks can and indeed have caused offence. have they caused offence to you 0liver dowden? 0bviously, he didn't go down that road and he was talking about how in general lee anderson was raising an important point and this is in the context of the speaker preparing to change the rules because there were fears for the safety of labour mps. and so... and it was interesting, he was also asked about a separate peace in the sunday telegraph by suella braverman when she talked about how they and they in the context of islamist is a basically taken over the labour party, talks about how they were taking of the country and declined to say how they were seen as remarks clearly over the line.— clearly over the line. before caettin clearly over the line. before getting to — clearly over the line. before getting to this, _ clearly over the line. before getting to this, it _ clearly over the line. before

getting to this, it is - clearly over the line. before getting to this, it is were i clearly over the line. before - getting to this, it is were saying it is a bizarre phenomenon and we are seeing of late we have conservative politicians pointing other people saying other people whether they are somehow in charge when actually they have been the government and in charge of the establishment and politics of this country for ia years. however, paddy, dowden's remarks were a complete contrast to what robert buckland said he.— complete contrast to what robert buckland said he. yes, i think what we're saying _ buckland said he. yes, i think what we're saying to _ buckland said he. yes, i think what we're saying to newscast _ buckland said he. yes, i think what we're saying to newscast is - buckland said he. yes, i think what we're saying to newscast is that - we're saying to newscast is that sunday is a sliding doors moment in broadcasting. here is sir robert buckland. his broadcasting. here is sir robert buckland. , ., buckland. his comment about the ma or of buckland. his comment about the mayor of london _ buckland. his comment about the mayor of london being _ buckland. his comment about the mayor of london being controlled| buckland. his comment about the i mayor of london being controlled by islarnists _ mayor of london being controlled by islamists is, i'm afraid, racist. it crosses— islamists is, i'm afraid, racist. it crosses a— islamists is, i'm afraid, racist. it crosses a line. it is republican —— it was— crosses a line. it is republican —— it was repugnant. it actually detracted from a legitimate debate about— detracted from a legitimate debate about elements of extremism whether anti—semitism or extreme islamic or far right _ anti—semitism or extreme islamic or far right extremism that aided by the mechanism of social media seem to be _ the mechanism of social media seem to be increasingly proliferating public — to be increasingly proliferating

public life here in the uk. what is tric , i public life here in the uk. what is tricky. i think. — public life here in the uk. what is tricky, i think, for— public life here in the uk. what is tricky, i think, for the _ public life here in the uk. what is tricky, i think, for the katmai - tricky, i think, for the katmai conservative save as well, notjust about these individual max and the obvious disagreement inside the conservative party over how these kind of a mac should be interpreted is that there is in some people's views a track record here. see have problems and the mp by vanessa university has been on the social media this morning after programme saying 0liver dowden was mealy—mouthed, is evasive, the prime are put out a statement and didn't talk about islamophobia as well. —— baroness sayeeda warsi was saying this morning don't i doubt we need to have a proper discussion safely about what is going on here but it does

seem that time and again the conservatives keep tripping up on this particular issue?— this particular issue? there is a very strong _ this particular issue? there is a very strong feeling _ this particular issue? there is a very strong feeling across - this particular issue? there is a very strong feeling across the l very strong feeling across the conservative party that there is a problem with fundamentalism in this country. there is a problem with seeing those pro—palestinian matches that take place on saturday in london where the vast majority of people are just there, motivated by feeling passionately that what is happening in gaza is terribly wrong. but you do see anti—semitic tropes. you do see anti—semitic language. and the criticism is that the police are not doing enough about that there is a very strong feeling in there is a very strong feeling in the conservative party and indeed in the conservative party and indeed in the labour party that there is a serious issue here. what has happened here is that lee anderson and suella braverman are using language which to put it politely, is outside the political mainstream. ten or 15 years ago, you couldn't imagine anybody in any of the mainstream parties using the source of language and what you have with oliver dowden is somebody saying, 0liver dowden is somebody saying, making clear, well, i wouldn't use that language but not coming as an absolute condemning it and he is not condemning it because he believes there is a wider issue. but also not wholly condemning it because they are yah clearly worried about somebody like lee anderson. they worried about the following that he has. they have made him up to be sort of the poster valley of the red

wall mps and they are worried about putting too far —— poster boy. what putting too far -- poster boy. what suella braverman _ putting too far -- poster boy. what suella braverman said _ putting too far -- poster boy. what suella braverman said is _ putting too far —— poster boy. what suella braverman said is the truth is that— suella braverman said is the truth is that the — suella braverman said is the truth is that the islamists, the extremists and the anti—semites of in charge _ extremists and the anti—semites of in charge now. so i said i thought the prime — in charge now. so i said i thought the prime minister was in charge because — the prime minister was in charge because clearly there is an issue that if— because clearly there is an issue that if this — because clearly there is an issue that if this controlling his mps to your point— that if this controlling his mps to your point about they want lee anderson— your point about they want lee anderson to be lee anderson but they've _ anderson to be lee anderson but they've got to know when to stop him being _ they've got to know when to stop him being lee _ they've got to know when to stop him being lee anderson. if they can't turn off— being lee anderson. if they can't turn off li2— being lee anderson. if they can't turn off liz truss, they can turn off suella — turn off liz truss, they can turn off suella braverman and they can't turn off _ off suella braverman and they can't turn off lee anderson than the question— turn off lee anderson than the question of who is in charge also applies— question of who is in charge also applies to — question of who is in charge also applies to the whips. to question of who is in charge also applies to the whips.— applies to the whips. to the backbenches, _ applies to the whips. to the backbenches, doesn't - applies to the whips. to the backbenches, doesn't it? i applies to the whips. to the | backbenches, doesn't it? to applies to the whips. to the - backbenches, doesn't it? to the backbenches, doesn't it? to the backbenchers of the conservative party. �* ,, , , . , party. lover asked oliver dowden about that appearance _ party. lover asked oliver dowden about that appearance by - party. lover asked oliver dowden about that appearance by l|ve - party. lover asked oliver dowden i about that appearance by live just a about that appearance by livejust a conference where steve bannon talks about how tommy robinson was a hero and liz truss didn't pull out. well, it is quite difficult when you were on a stage in recent days, here's what he said. well, steve bannon is going to say that sort of thing.

that is what he is going to say. i thought andy burnham may didn't really interesting point to lover when you mentioned that suella braverman article where they have taken control of this and they have taken control of this and they have taken control of that. andy burnham says can you imagine if somebody had written that aboutjewish people? that would likely have been condemned by everybody as anti—semitism and get suella braverman says that about islamists and oliver dowden doesn't call it out. weight and oliver dowden doesn't call it out- weigh— and oliver dowden doesn't call it out,wei..h ., , ., out. weight back to my theme about slidin: out. weight back to my theme about sliding doors. _ out. weight back to my theme about sliding doors, let's _ out. weight back to my theme about sliding doors, let's listen _ out. weight back to my theme about sliding doors, let's listen to - out. weight back to my theme about sliding doors, let's listen to both - sliding doors, let's listen to both together — sliding doors, let's listen to both together. 0liver dowden on laura kuenssberg and... together. oliver dowden on laura kuenssberg and... suella braverman on... but kuenssberg and... suella braverman on--- ltut l — kuenssberg and... suella braverman on... but i would _ kuenssberg and... suella braverman on... but i would say— kuenssberg and... suella braverman on... but i would say in _ on... but i would say in respect of what sabella _ on... but i would say in respect of what sabella said _ on... but i would say in respect of what sabella said is _ on... but i would say in respect of what sabella said is i _ what sabella said is i disagree with what sabella said is i disagree with what she _ what sabella said is i disagree with what she said but i think that's is in a different category. | what she said but i think that's is in a different category. i disagree with the comments. _ in a different category. i disagree with the comments. by _ in a different category. i disagree with the comments. by the - in a different category. i disagree with the comments. by the way, | in a different category. i disagree | with the comments. by the way, i believe _ with the comments. by the way, i believe in — with the comments. by the way, i believe in the _ with the comments. by the way, i believe in the reasons _ with the comments. by the way, i believe in the reasons i— with the comments. by the way, i believe in the reasons i set- with the comments. by the way, i believe in the reasons i set out. i believe in the reasons i set out. the underlying _ believe in the reasons i set out. the underlying sentiment - believe in the reasons i set out. the underlying sentiment of- believe in the reasons i set out. the underlying sentiment of myj believe in the reasons i set out. - the underlying sentiment of my deep concern _ the underlying sentiment of my deep concern about — the underlying sentiment of my deep concern about these _ the underlying sentiment of my deep concern about these threats - the underlying sentiment of my deep concern about these threats in - the underlying sentiment of my deep concern about these threats in these | concern about these threats in these intimidation — concern about these threats in these intimidation is — concern about these threats in these intimidation is which _ concern about these threats in these intimidation is which are _ concern about these threats in these intimidation is which are often - intimidation is which are often coming — intimidation is which are often coming from _ intimidation is which are often coming from islamic- intimidation is which are often. coming from islamic extremists intimidation is which are often - coming from islamic extremists and we shouldn't—

coming from islamic extremists and we shouldn't be _ coming from islamic extremists and we shouldn't be shy— coming from islamic extremists and we shouldn't be shy of— coming from islamic extremists and we shouldn't be shy of calling - coming from islamic extremists and we shouldn't be shy of calling this i we shouldn't be shy of calling this house _ we shouldn't be shy of calling this house and — we shouldn't be shy of calling this house and i— we shouldn't be shy of calling this house and i have _ we shouldn't be shy of calling this house and i have done _ we shouldn't be shy of calling this house and i have done so - we shouldn't be shy of calling this house and i have done so as- we shouldn't be shy of calling this house and i have done so as a - we shouldn't be shy of calling this - house and i have done so as a member of parliament _ house and i have done so as a member of parliament set _ house and i have done so as a member of parliament set of— house and i have done so as a member of parliament set of calling _ house and i have done so as a member of parliament set of calling that - of parliament set of calling that out. of parliament set of calling that out but — of parliament set of calling that out but i— of parliament set of calling that out. but i don't— of parliament set of calling that out. but i don't believe - of parliament set of calling that out. but i don't believe that - of parliament set of calling that i out. but i don't believe that what suella _ out. but i don't believe that what suella braverman _ out. but i don't believe that what suella braverman has said - out. but i don't believe that whatl suella braverman has said crosses the line _ suella braverman has said crosses the line in— suella braverman has said crosses the line in the _ suella braverman has said crosses the line in the way— suella braverman has said crosses the line in the way lee _ suella braverman has said crosses the line in the way lee anderson. the line in the way lee anderson has _ the line in the way lee anderson has. �* , ., �* , the line in the way lee anderson has. , ., �* , , has. but why not? because she said the lslamists _ has. but why not? because she said the islamists and _ has. but why not? because she said the islamists and in _ has. but why not? because she said the islamists and in charge. - has. but why not? because she said the islamists and in charge. you - the islamists and in charge. you said you don't believe that is true. lee anderson said the islamists and in control of sadiq khan. br; lee anderson said the islamists and in control of sadiq khan.— in control of sadiq khan. by the different? _ in control of sadiq khan. by the different? the _ in control of sadiq khan. by the different? the thing _ in control of sadiq khan. by the different? the thing is, - in control of sadiq khan. by the different? the thing is, there i in control of sadiq khan. by the different? the thing is, there is in control of sadiq khan. by the i different? the thing is, there is a sliuht different? the thing is, there is a slight danger _ different? the thing is, there is a slight danger of _ different? the thing is, there is a slight danger of getting _ different? the thing is, there is a slight danger of getting into - slight danger of getting into semantics... _ slight danger of getting into semantics... but— slight danger of getting into semantics. . ._ slight danger of getting into semantics... �* ., , ., ., semantics... but words matter. you said it yourself. _ semantics... but words matter. you said it yourself. please _ semantics... but words matter. you said it yourself. please let _ semantics... but words matter. you said it yourself. please let me - semantics... but words matter. you said it yourself. please let me to - said it yourself. please let me to finish my point. _ said it yourself. please let me to finish my point. this _ said it yourself. please let me to finish my point. this is _ said it yourself. please let me to finish my point. this is about - finish my point. this is about attaching _ finish my point. this is about attaching specifically- finish my point. this is about attaching specifically to - finish my point. this is about attaching specifically to one i attaching specifically to one person. _ attaching specifically to one person. the _ attaching specifically to one person, the mayor- attaching specifically to one person, the mayor of- attaching specifically to one i person, the mayor of london. attaching specifically to one . person, the mayor of london. i attaching specifically to one - person, the mayor of london. i think what suella — person, the mayor of london. i think what suella was _ person, the mayor of london. i think what suella was saying _ person, the mayor of london. i think what suella was saying was - person, the mayor of london. i think what suella was saying was making i person, the mayor of london. i thinkj what suella was saying was making a broader— what suella was saying was making a broader statement, _ what suella was saying was making a broader statement, one _ what suella was saying was making a broader statement, one which - what suella was saying was making a broader statement, one which i- what suella was saying was making aj broader statement, one which i don't agree _ broader statement, one which i don't agree with _ broader statement, one which i don't agree with the — broader statement, one which i don't agree with the specifics _ broader statement, one which i don't agree with the specifics of— broader statement, one which i don't agree with the specifics of what - broader statement, one which i don't agree with the specifics of what she i agree with the specifics of what she said but— agree with the specifics of what she said but i_ agree with the specifics of what she said but i do— agree with the specifics of what she said but i do very— agree with the specifics of what she said but i do very much _ agree with the specifics of what she said but i do very much agree - agree with the specifics of what she said but i do very much agree with. said but i do very much agree with the concerns— said but i do very much agree with the concerns that _ said but i do very much agree with the concerns that she _ said but i do very much agree with the concerns that she is _ said but i do very much agree with the concerns that she is raising . the concerns that she is raising about— the concerns that she is raising about threats _ the concerns that she is raising about threats coming - the concerns that she is raising about threats coming often - the concerns that she is raising. about threats coming often from islamic— about threats coming often from islamic extremists. _ about threats coming often from islamic extremists.— islamic extremists. while she is le . itimate islamic extremists. while she is legitimate to — islamic extremists. while she is legitimate to talk _ islamic extremists. while she is legitimate to talk about - islamic extremists. while she is legitimate to talk about ugly - legitimate to talk about ugly elements of extremism in this

country. — elements of extremism in this country. it— elements of extremism in this country, it is wrong to conflate whole — country, it is wrong to conflate whole groups of people, whether based _ whole groups of people, whether based on — whole groups of people, whether based on faith or ethnicity, with extremists. you know, to create is limousine — extremists. you know, to create is limousine and islam and muslim people _ limousine and islam and muslim people is— limousine and islam and muslim people isjust wrong. —— to conflate islamism _ people isjust wrong. —— to conflate islamism and islam and muslim people isjust_ islamism and islam and muslim people isjust wrong. it islamism and islam and muslim people is just wrong. it doesn't islamism and islam and muslim people isjust wrong. it doesn't belong to the traditions of my party. we can talk frankly about issues like rochdale and bother them and follow the evidence with respect to ethnicity and prosecute people regardless of where they are from what _ regardless of where they are from what cultural background might be because _ what cultural background might be because abuse because abuse is abuse but to— because abuse because abuse is abuse but to go— because abuse because abuse is abuse but to go beyond that and start to conflate _ but to go beyond that and start to conflate issues is dangerous. if it is being _ conflate issues is dangerous. if it is being done deliberately than it is being done deliberately than it is absolutely unacceptable. this is mess , is absolutely unacceptable. this is messy. isn't _ is absolutely unacceptable. this is messy, isn't it? _ is absolutely unacceptable. this is messy, isn't it? i— is absolutely unacceptable. this is messy, isn't it? ithink— is absolutely unacceptable. this is messy, isn't it? i think this - is absolutely unacceptable. this is messy, isn't it? i think this is - messy, isn't it? i think this is very messy and i think that today's tensions and obvious disagreements inside the conservative party on this are going to carry on being a story full of at least the next couple of days, i think. yes

story full of at least the next couple of days, i think. yes and, i mean, it couple of days, i think. yes and, i mean. it gets _ couple of days, i think. yes and, i mean, it gets to _ couple of days, i think. yes and, i mean, it gets to a _ couple of days, i think. yes and, i mean, it gets to a fundamental. couple of days, i think. yes and, i i mean, it gets to a fundamental point that i think you were making one of your guests was making, perhaps andy burnham, that many people in the conservative party believe they have lost the next election. in the debate at the moment is what happens after the election. we'll remember what happened in 1997 when the conservatives lost and in 2010 when labour lost. both parties, in 1997 we lost because we weren't conservative enough. in 2010, labour lost because they went labour enough. the assumption will be that the debate will be we lost because we weren't conservative enough so liz truss, suella braverman, robert jen rick they want to be right at the front of that debate saying well, i was conservative enough, and the serious candidate, look at me. and i told you so, and i told you so at the time, i was trying to say these things but i was getting shut down with a terrible wet suit didn't let me say was a really think. i think we know this for my newscast post on newscast on sunday shows

there are lots of people in genuine concern that actually things have been allowed to fester, in a way. we had become to extremism tsar on the programme last week and he was very calmly expressing a concern that some communities have been allowed to live parallel lives and that has allowed some views to fester which many people might find difficult in a modern united kingdom. yes. obviously. _ a modern united kingdom. yes. obviously. l'm _ a modern united kingdom. yes. obviously, i'm not— a modern united kingdom. yes. obviously, i'm not exposing any of 0bviously, i'm not exposing any of that. newscast, she will know the bbc, we don't have these and we must it is the case that you know of some people who watch our programmes and some people in political parties that some kind of behaviours have been allowed to proliferate in ways that ought not to have been. yes. that ought not to have been. yes, this is the — that ought not to have been. yes, this is the front _ that ought not to have been. yes, this is the front page _ that ought not to have been. yes, this is the front page of— that ought not to have been. yes, this is the front page of the sunday telegraph— this is the front page of the sunday telegraph today which says that this is a generational radicalisation moment _ is a generational radicalisation moment. that the war in the middle east is _ moment. that the war in the middle east is a _ moment. that the war in the middle east is a flex point on british society— east is a flex point on british society and it is stressing multiculturalism and we know it is

stressing — multiculturalism and we know it is stressing the constitution, the unwritten constitutional rules of the house of commons. because this particular— the house of commons. because this particular row in the conservative party— particular row in the conservative party batley in the conservative party— party batley in the conservative party but — party batley in the conservative party but lee anderson follows the explosive _ party but lee anderson follows the explosive events in the commons of which _ explosive events in the commons of which nick— explosive events in the commons of which nick what was a witness plus, i will which nick what was a witness plus, iwill argue — which nick what was a witness plus, i will argue. so we will hear in our next _ i will argue. so we will hear in our next section — i will argue. so we will hear in our next section with nick the truth about— next section with nick the truth about went on with that tweet. newscast from the bbc. ok, so we were talking yesterday about the fiasco on wednesday night and speaking for the labour party she said explicitly in terms given a specific guarantee that no labour mp, no labourstaff, it specific guarantee that no labour mp, no labour staff, it was interesting that checkley went that far, had anything to do with any threats that might be made to lindsay hoyle that led him to choose to allow a vote on labour's plan that avoided embarrassing them with a rebellion, allowed keir starmer to

win the politics of the day over the snp. but, nick, that is not what you reported, so he was turning up your pages in the notebook always lisa nandy telling a different story? i nandy telling a different story? i know lisa nandy very well. it is a bit difficult to work for the guardian newspaperfor 18 bit difficult to work for the guardian newspaper for 18 years and not know lots of people in the labour party very well. lisa nandy, i know her very well. work for the guardian for that long, you get to know lots of people in the labour party and they know to big things about lisa nandy. 0ne, she is a woman of enormous integrity. secondly, she is incredibly clever. and because lisa nandy is incredibly clever you have to look at every single word she says very carefully. see your first question to her committee said can you guarantee that no—one in the labour party was involved in a conversation about the speaker's future job prospects? involved in a conversation about the speaker's futurejob prospects? lisa nandy said yes, i believe i can. she said i have had numerous conversations with each keir starmer come up with the chief whip, with

david lammy, the shadow foreign secretary in the idea of this sort of thing would be done is for than birds. but only after the second question. birds. but only after the second cuestion. ., ., ., ~ birds. but only after the second cuestion. ., ., ., ,, ., question. rather than making a olitical question. rather than making a political point — question. rather than making a political point i _ question. rather than making a political point i just _ question. rather than making a political point i just wanted - question. rather than making a political point i just wanted to i political point ijust wanted to highlight to viewers that you have just been given as a specific assurance on the record that no—one in the labour party said or communicated a message to lindsay hoyle that hisjob 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 plan in the house of commons? weill. plan in the house of commons? well, look, i plan in the house of commons? well, look. i certainly _ plan in the house of commons? well, look, i certainly didn't. _ plan in the house of commons? well, look, i certainly didn't. the _ plan in the house of commons? well, look, i certainly didn't. the chief whip _ look, i certainly didn't. the chief whip didn't _ look, i certainly didn't. the chief whip didn't. the _ look, i certainly didn't. the chief whip didn't. the leader- look, i certainly didn't. the chief whip didn't. the leader of- look, i certainly didn't. the chief whip didn't. the leader of the i whip didn't. the leader of the labour— whip didn't. the leader of the labour party— whip didn't. the leader of the labour party didn't. _ whip didn't. the leader of the labour party didn't. no - whip didn't. the leader of the . labour party didn't. no members whip didn't. the leader of the - labour party didn't. no members of staff were _ labour party didn't. no members of staff were involved. _ labour party didn't. no members of staff were involved. would - labour party didn't. no members of staff were involved. would ever- labour party didn't. no members of staff were involved. would ever bel staff were involved. would ever be involved _ staff were involved. would ever be involved in — staff were involved. would ever be involved in using _ staff were involved. would ever be involved in using something - staff were involved. would ever be involved in using something like i involved in using something like that _ involved in using something like that and. — involved in using something like that. and, frankly, _ involved in using something like that. and, frankly, if— involved in using something like that. and, frankly, if anybody. involved in using something like i that. and, frankly, if anybody had done _ that. and, frankly, if anybody had done something _ that. and, frankly, if anybody had done something like _ that. and, frankly, if anybody had done something like that - that. and, frankly, if anybody had done something like that from - that. and, frankly, if anybody hadl done something like that from any political— done something like that from any political party _ done something like that from any political party i _ done something like that from any political party i think— done something like that from any political party i think they - done something like that from any political party i think they would i political party i think they would have _ political party i think they would have had — political party i think they would have had very— political party i think they would have had very short _ political party i think they would have had very short thrift - political party i think they would have had very short thrift from i political party i think they would i have had very short thrift from the speaker _ have had very short thrift from the speaker so— have had very short thrift from the seaker. ,., have had very short thrift from the seaker. ., , .,, have had very short thrift from the seaker. ., , ., have had very short thrift from the seaker. ., , _ speaker. so lisa nandy was asked by law about this _ speaker. so lisa nandy was asked by law about this and, _ speaker. so lisa nandy was asked by law about this and, as _ speaker. so lisa nandy was asked by law about this and, as i _ speaker. so lisa nandy was asked by law about this and, as i said, - speaker. so lisa nandy was asked by law about this and, as i said, lisa - law about this and, as i said, lisa nandy, very serious politician, very clever, taken very seriously. can you guarantee nobody on labour was

involved in conversations about the speakers job? involved in conversations about the speakersjob? firstanswerwas involved in conversations about the speakers job? first answer was yes i believe a cannon talked about the numerous conversations she had had with keir starmer, the chief whip and david lammy. the second question, as you heard, he then said can you commit lisa nandy give a specific assurance that no—one in labour communicated a message to the speaker? and at this point a second answer is slightly different. she says, well, i certainly didn't, the chief whip didn't, keir starmer didn't and no member of staff would have been involved. they were given short shrift. so you, obviously, we have a story like i did, if no lover, you don't need meals sources. well, also, crucially, you don't say who your sources weren't. what i can say is my reporting is entirely consistent with that second answer from lisa nandy. the crucial point about this was reporting over a period of about a8—72 hours. talking to numerous people. and the point

about the that he has come a sort of, formal meetings. he would meet the chief whips of the various parties. he'd meet somebody like david lammy perhaps. we know that he met keir starmer. but he also had lots and lots and lots of other meetings. some formal, some informal. ., . , , informal. some of the class present, some of the — informal. some of the class present, some of the class _ informal. some of the class present, some of the class not _ informal. some of the class present, some of the class not present. - informal. some of the class present, some of the class not present. the i some of the class not present. the oint some of the class not present. the point about — some of the class not present. tie point about lindsay hoyle is a not so much has an open door policy, he has and anyone can talk to me at any moment of the day policy. he is incredibly open. is happy to talk to the prime minister as he is to talk to the cleaner or his palette and lots and lots and lots of people talk to him. == lots and lots and lots of people talk to him-— lots and lots and lots of people talk to him. ., , ., ., talk to him. -- or his parrot. can i ask ou talk to him. -- or his parrot. can i ask you to — talk to him. -- or his parrot. can i ask you to explain _ talk to him. -- or his parrot. can i ask you to explain how _ talk to him. -- or his parrot. can i ask you to explain how both - talk to him. -- or his parrot. can i ask you to explain how both of- talk to him. -- or his parrot. can i i ask you to explain how both of those things can be true without revealing your sources are saying what you were told. how it is possible that a seniorfigure in the british establishment can receive communications if we also have a senior politician saying on the record there weren't communications,

nobody did it, no members of staff would have tried, keir starmer didn't, laid david lammy didn't, the chief would didn't. what are we talking about here? smoke signals? pigeon with a message? something written in the sky above the thames saying allow our amendment or you are toast, salinity? what kind of thing might be talking about inasmuch as you can tell us and i know it is important to protect your sources. ~ ., ., , ., sources. what i reported was that senior labour— sources. what i reported was that senior labour sources _ sources. what i reported was that senior labour sources had - sources. what i reported was that senior labour sources had passed| sources. what i reported was that i senior labour sources had passed on these messages. i didn't say who they were because you don't name your sources. they were because you don't name yoursources. lisa they were because you don't name your sources. lisa nandy has given quite a specific cast list and the cast list is is the leader of the labour party. cast list is is the leader of the labour party-— cast list is is the leader of the labour party.- the i cast list is is the leader of the i labour party.- the chief labour party. not him. the chief whi -. labour party. not him. the chief whip- not _ labour party. not him. the chief whip. not him. _ labour party. not him. the chief whip. not him. shadow- labour party. not him. the chief whip. not him. shadow foreign | whip. not him. shadow foreign secretary. _ whip. not him. shadow foreign secretary, labour _ whip. not him. shadow foreign secretary, labour of _ whip. not him. shadow foreign secretary, labour of the - whip. not him. shadow foreign secretary, labour of the labourj secretary, labour of the labour party star. secretary, labour of the labour party star-— secretary, labour of the labour pa star. ., g party star. not then. my reporting is consistent _ party star. not then. my reporting is consistent with _ party star. not then. my reporting is consistent with that _ party star. not then. my reporting is consistent with that so - party star. not then. my reporting is consistent with that so i - party star. not then. my reporting is consistent with that so i will. is consistent with that so i will not get into who i did or didn't quote but i was talking to lots and lots of people. the point i was making to nick robinson on the today

programme the other day as i am a journalist who, as at westminster later than anyone else and you have conversations. 0n the point about these conversations is that these aren't necessarily briefings. these aren't necessarily briefings. these are sort of chats. these are people often bearing their soul. these are people telling you what they think saying what you think of this? you are having very open and very honest conversations and, obviously, you have got to absolutely protect the identity of these people and in those circumstances, because it's not like a briefing, it's not like even a background briefing, it's chats. �* even a background briefing, it's chats. . , ., even a background briefing, it's chats. �* , even a background briefing, it's chats. . , , even a background briefing, it's chats. . ,, , , chats. and you pick this stuff up. and you're _ chats. and you pick this stuff up. and you're putting _ chats. and you pick this stuff up. and you're putting together - chats. and you pick this stuff up. and you're putting together a - chats. and you pick this stuff up. i and you're putting together a jigsaw for the audience. you're making this miss being rests atomic —— you are making me miss being westminster now. ., .., making me miss being westminster now. ., ., , , now. you can only report it it is more than _ now. you can only report it it is more than one _ now. you can only report it it is more than one person - now. you can only report it it is more than one person and i now. you can only report it it is more than one person and they now. you can only report it it is i more than one person and they are incredibly serious people because there is a massive responsibility on somebody like me to be accurate but to offer a judgment and credibility. and that was what i was doing. i can

and that was what i was doing. i can assume question _ and that was what i was doing. i can assume question and _ and that was what i was doing. i can assume question and you may not feel you can answer this. when you have these conversations around this, it was an element of bragging rights? because labour beat the snp in the politics on wednesday. it was a horrible scene but labour beat the snp at the political game that they had been trying to play. so was it yoursense had been trying to play. so was it your sense that people are telling your sense that people are telling you to allow you to put together this jigsaw by saying, yeah, we brought one over on them. we managed to get lindsay on line. this brought one over on them. we managed to get lindsay on line.— to get lindsay on line. this is another thing _ to get lindsay on line. this is another thing that _ to get lindsay on line. this is another thing that has - to get lindsay on line. this is another thing that has been i another thing that has been misunderstood about my reporting. because i obviously tweeted this after lindsay hoyle had made his decision and about two or three o'clock on the wednesday afternoon, people assumed i had been given a briefing it was the labour party backing off it went. you can't get into too much detail of when and where you spoke to people because then you could dojigsaw identification but what i will saying is that this was reporting

that took place over a a8—hour to 72 hour period. do that took place over a 48-hour to 72 hour period-— hour period. do you both, there is more treacherous _ hour period. do you both, there is more treacherous waters - hour period. do you both, there is more treacherous waters for i hour period. do you both, there is more treacherous waters for the i more treacherous waters for the speaker— more treacherous waters for the speaker because if the snp were to meaningful vote this week on a gaza ceasefire _ meaningful vote this week on a gaza ceasefire -- — meaningful vote this week on a gaza ceasefire —— want a meaningful vote. that takes— ceasefire —— want a meaningful vote. that takes me back as a journalist. that takes me back as a journalist. that phrase — that takes me back as a journalist. that phrase is the burr coat over which _ that phrase is the burr coat over which got — that phrase is the burr coat over which got him into hot water which theresa _ which got him into hot water which theresa may and apparently they are less amendable and meaningful vote. he is not— less amendable and meaningful vote. he is not out of the chopping waters if he calls— he is not out of the chopping waters if he calls a — he is not out of the chopping waters if he calls a meaningful vote or if he doesn't — if he calls a meaningful vote or if he doesn't. —— he is not out of the choppy— he doesn't. —— he is not out of the choppy waters, sir lindsay hoyle. this week— choppy waters, sir lindsay hoyle. this week looked dreadful and we know from my inbox is that people were sort of appalled by a lot of what they saw. but the reason new cast we are talking about all of this watch sounds like very arcane detail is that what happened in parliament this week and how it descended into an ugly, ugly pantomime is extremely important. it talks to the independence of the

referee, the speaker of the house of commons. it talks to what politicians were willing to do on a debate of that nature which is about life and limb and horror in the middle east. and it is, of course, i feel very uncomfortable sort of mixed match between our politicians behaviour this week and the sort of reality what is happening on the ground in gaza. but you newscasters, please forgive us, because it is extremely important because the independence of the house of commons chair who the referees really matters in our political parties are grappling with these really had emotive issues around what is going on in the middle east and extremism and islamophobia and anti—semitism, it is really important. it is and islamophobia and anti-semitism, it is really important.— it is really important. it is an unedifying — it is really important. it is an unedifying spectacle - it is really important. it is an unedifying spectacle that i it is really important. it is an| unedifying spectacle that you it is really important. it is an i unedifying spectacle that you have this horrible, horrible conflict in the middle east and parliament seems to be tying themselves up in knots about ancient procedures. but it is worth explaining the fundamental point of what the speaker was trying to do. he was worried that had he done nothing, they would only have

been two options to vote for. the snp motion which was unacceptable to many people in the labour party because it did not condemn the hamas attack at the 7th of october and a cue accused is we have been guilty of collective punishments which labour believes is accusing them of breaching international law. in those labour mps couldn't vote the government won because it only talks about humanitarian pauses. and he believed it was important to give labour mps the chance to vote for humanitarian, immediate humanitarian ceasefire, to vote for that in a way they felt comfortable to avoid the spectacle of last november when they had to vote for the snp to be able to vote for an immediate ceasefire. that look difficult. he admits it is a mistake but he was trying to give the three main parties a chance for something they felt comfortable they can vote for on an incredibly divisive issue. i can vote for on an incredibly divisive issue.— can vote for on an incredibly divisive issue. ,, ., , ., �* divisive issue. i think what you've done, divisive issue. i think what you've done. the — divisive issue. i think what you've done. the two — divisive issue. i think what you've done, the two of _ divisive issue. i think what you've done, the two of you, _ divisive issue. i think what you've done, the two of you, it's - divisive issue. i think what you've done, the two of you, it's lifted i done, the two of you, it's lifted the lid — done, the two of you, it's lifted the lid on — done, the two of you, it's lifted the lid on what _ done, the two of you, it's lifted the lid on what it— done, the two of you, it's lifted the lid on what it is— done, the two of you, it's lifted the lid on what it is like - done, the two of you, it's lifted the lid on what it is like puttingj the lid on what it is like putting in westminster. _

the lid on what it is like putting in westminster. find _ the lid on what it is like putting in westminster. . , , ~ in westminster. and newscasters like it when we reveal _ in westminster. and newscasters like it when we reveal what _ in westminster. and newscasters like it when we reveal what we're - in westminster. and newscasters like it when we reveal what we're doing. i it when we reveal what we're doing. i it when we reveal what we're doing. i would _ it when we reveal what we're doing. i would just— it when we reveal what we're doing. i would just like to in this by saying — i would just like to in this by saying on— i would just like to in this by saying on sundaymacneice cast we were wrong. we did not in any way predict _ were wrong. we did not in any way predict a _ were wrong. we did not in any way predict a cataclysm. no, were wrong. we did not in any way predict a cataclysm._ were wrong. we did not in any way predict a cataclysm. no, we didn't. we thought — predict a cataclysm. no, we didn't. we thought it _ predict a cataclysm. no, we didn't. we thought it would _ predict a cataclysm. no, we didn't. we thought it would be _ predict a cataclysm. no, we didn't. we thought it would be all - predict a cataclysm. no, we didn't. we thought it would be all right! i we thought it would be all right! newscasters like it when we are not in any _ newscasters like it when we are not in any way _ newscasters like it when we are not in any way predict a cataclysm. no, we didn't — in any way predict a cataclysm. no, we didn't. we thought it would be all right! — we didn't. we thought it would be all right! newscasters like it when we look _ all right! newscasters like it when we look to — all right! newscasters like it when we look to our mistakes, i do is the end and _ we look to our mistakes, i do is the end and it's — we look to our mistakes, i do is the end and it's a — we look to our mistakes, i do is the end and it's a shame and it is kenny going _ end and it's a shame and it is kenny going to _ end and it's a shame and it is kenny going to mention a little skewed pet i was going to mention a little skewed pet i was sent— going to mention a little skewed pet i was sent yesterday a lot of text messages — i was sent yesterday a lot of text messages sent among conservatives warning _ messages sent among conservatives warning them not to give lee anderson— warning them not to give lee anderson a job in 2018 but that is a whole _ anderson a job in 2018 but that is a whole other story we didn't have time _ whole other story we didn't have time for — whole other story we didn't have time for. we didn't have time even for robert — time for. we didn't have time even for robert buckland's final a whole other— for robert buckland's final a whole other story we didn't have time for. we didn't— other story we didn't have time for. we didn't have time even for robert buckland's _ we didn't have time even for robert buckland's final act to goodness me. we should _ buckland's final act to goodness me. we should not leave it there, really. newscasters, think living with us. always good to speak to you. miss cass political editor, thank you for sending a four henry.

excellent have you with us and will be here tomorrow. lovely. enjoy the rest of the weekend. goodbye. goodbye. rest of the weekend. goodbye. goodb e. , rest of the weekend. goodbye. goodbye._ newscast. rest of the weekend. goodbye. i goodbye._ newscast from rest of the weekend. goodbye. - goodbye._ newscast from the goodbye. goodbye. newscast from the bbc. hello, there. much of the country enjoying a fine and dry part two of the weekend, with quite a bit of sunshine around after that cold, frosty and in places foggy start. so, much of the country will remain dry with sunny spells. however, low pressure to the south of the uk will continue to bring wet and windy weather to south wales, south—west england, increasingly so across the south and south—east of england through this evening and overnight. we'll see some showers driving into central northern scotland, a few across north sea coasts of england, as well, wintry in nature. but further north, where we have the clearer skies, a ridge of high pressure toppling in. it's going to be cold and frosty, less cold in the south and east

because of the cloud, the wind and rain from this feature which will eventually pull out into the near continent for monday, taking the rain with it, but it will remain quite windy across england and wales. we remain in the colder air mass with this ridge of high pressure which will bring much of the country a lot of dry and sunny weather throughout the day on monday before it turns wet and windy in the far north—west later on. so, quite a windy day to come across southern and eastern areas, the rain eventually clears from sussex and from kent. a few showers across north sea coasts, otherwise mostly dry with some sunshine thanks to that ridge of high pressure. winds lighter in the north compared to the south and east, that will really take the edge off the temperatures, very windy for the northern isles later on ahead of this weather front. so temperatures on the face of it 6—9, it will feel colder than that in the south—east when you factor in that strong north—easterly breeze. as we head through monday night, clearer skies for england and wales with the breeze tending to die down. it turns wetter, windier and cloudier for scotland and northern ireland, so here less cold than it will be across england and wales, where we will have again a frost, perhaps even a few mist and fog patches around to start the day.

tuesday, we see this weather front pushing southwards and eastwards across the country, it will be weakening as it pushes into that ridge of high pressure. some heavy rain likely across scotland and northern ireland for a time, maybe some snow on the hills, that weather front weakens as it pushes into england and wales, so a rather cloudy afternoon here. brighter for scotland and northern ireland into the afternoon, but there will be some blustery showers and these will have a wintry element to them, temperatures range from 7—10. looks like it remains unsettled for the rest of february, could turn a bit milder midweek but then it turns colder as we head into the first few days of march.

live from london, this is bbc news. a party under pressure. conservatives criticised after suspending an mp over claims of racism. but the deputy prime minister

declines to say whether his comments were islamophobic. president zelensky reveals 31,000 ukrainian troops have been killed in the two years of war with russia. translation: we cannot lose. what will mean if ukraine loses? it means there will be no us. donald trump's only rival in the race for the republican presidential candidacy vows to fight on, even after he beats her in her home state. and oppenheimer is the big winner at the screen actors guild awards. it nets the top prize, as well as best actor for cillian murphy. hello and welcome. i'm nicky schiller. here in the uk, the conservative party is finding itself under increasing pressure after an mp made comments described as "islamophobic,

anti—muslim and racist". lee anderson was suspended from the party after saying london's