the boeing 737 airliner came down with 189 people on board. the bbc has obtained a technical log showing the plane had instrument problems the day before the disaster. president trump is to travel to pennsylvania later on tuesday in the wake of a mass shooting at a synagogue in which 11 people were killed. and this story is popular on bbc.com: tributes are continuing to pour in as leicester city mourns the loss of the club's owner and others on board a helicopter when it crashed outside king power stadium. that's all. stay with bbc world news. now on bbc news, stephen sackur speaks to labour mp david lammy on hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur.

injust five months‘ time, britain will be out of the european union. but on what basis? under whose leadership? and could it yet not happen? brexit uncertainty is coursing through the veins of british politics, leaving little room for anything else. the governing conservative party is deeply divided. so is the labour opposition. my guest, david lammy, is a prominent labour advocate of another referendum on any final brexit deal. but how would that help britain move beyond its brexit breakdown? david lammy, welcome to hardtalk. thank you. you have been in the house of commons for, what, about 18 years? can you ever remember a time when the atmosphere was more poisonous, and politicians‘ ability to develop a policy on the main issue of the day was more lacking? no, in short. i mean, this is an extraordinary period in the uk's history. there seems to be little common ground, frankly, between the senior politicians of the day. the country is hopelessly divided, and it is not entirely clear

what the way through is, or indeed what the short, medium or long—term future of britain is to be. so the next few months will be tumultuous. i'm quite sure about that. there will be a lot of coming and going i think in the political fabric, and we will end up in a place that either sees us exit the european union or i think potentially with a second referendum, and a people's vote, to determine the way forward. you talk about the depth of the divisions and there's no question about the divisions in the ruling conservative party, and it is not ourjob today to go through those, what we need to do is analyse what the labour party is doing. and at a time when surely the onus, the obligation, on the opposition is to be clear in its brexit strategy, clarity is the last thing that the labour party has come outwith. i think that's probably fair enough.

i mean, the truth is that we had a referendum and it left the labour party divided. people in seats like my own, in london, voting overwhelmingly to remain. and people in seats particularly in the industrial north voting to leave. and, in that sense, the labour party reflected the mood of the country. now, it's always been my view that people voted for a whole raft of reasons. britain has been slow particularly to get wealth from london and the south—east to the seaside towns, to rural parts of the country, and to the north. and, therefore, in a sense, while a lot was sold that the referendum, sorry, that brexit would be the answer to those problems, it's clear now that the promises that were made cannot be delivered, and therefore people

are changing their mind. labour members are changing their mind. and that is why, at the labour party conference, after lot of pressure from right across the country, it was decided that absolutely we should have a people's vote in the event that we get no deal. i want to get to what you call this people's vote, a second referendum. of course, there has been a people's vote. there was a referendum, and your side lost it. but before we get to the argument about whether we should have another one, just a thought about the labour party's current position. we've discussed about whether it's clear not. one thing is clear that the leadership says if and when theresa may, over the next few weeks, does finally after torturous negotiation get a deal with the eu 27, we will measure it by six tests. now, on the face of it, that might seem like a reasonable position, but if one delves into those tests it becomes clear they have been set up in a way that it is absolutely impossible

for any deal that theresa may could conceivably do with the eu 27, impossible for her to meet the conditions in those six tests. so labour, without having the guts, frankly, to say it out loud, is saying, any deal she does, we will reject. do you think that's responsible? well, stephen, i don't recognise what you're saying. labour have said they wanted jobs first brexit. now, my god, if an opposition said we don't wantjobs first brexit, i think they would be barking. forgive me, one of those six tests, sorry for the interruption, this is the key one, jobs first, it's apple pie, no—one can quibble with that, one of the six tests is, does the deal that she might do, does any deal she will do deliver the exact same benefits as we currently have as members of the single market and the customs union? that is clearly impossible to meet. if you got a deal that was exactly

the same as the single market and the customs union, there would be no point in this entire procedure, the eu would be giving britain everything, allowing it to leave the club and still enjoy the benefits of the club. stephen, the european union represents £274 billion worth of trade to the united kingdom. it's 44% of our trading. it is our fundamental eu partner. of course the opposition party wants us to have frictionless trade and wants us to remain within the single market, and would absolutely negotiate on those terms if we were in the driving seat. of course! because to do anything other than that is to wreck the british economy, and that is what we are now seeing. we are seeing that those who said that we could have everything and eat it, that europe needed us more than we needed them, that is turning out not to be the case... exactly, but you're still using that debate yourselves.

david davis and others in the conservative party came out with this formulation that we will leave but we will have all of the benefits we had before. it clearly couldn't be delivered and yet you're still insisting it must be delivered. it's alice in wonderland. well, there was a scenario under which, if we had gone for the norway model, the eea model, where you are a rule taker but you are very proximate to the single market, more or less we would have got that. and on the government's own assessment on what happens in the british economy, if we had gone for that, i think the gdp would be hit down by about i.5%. so, on that basis, it's absolutely right that the opposition says, remain in the customs union. we need to be in the single market or proximate and close to the single market, and that is the basis on which we would have negotiated. absolutely right. you are comfortable with the labour party having a position which means it will reject out of hand any deal that theresa may brings?

let me be clear, i voted against article 50. can you just ask answer the question? i will vote against the deal on any basis, because i think this is madness. i have been absolutely clear on that. and it is my assessment on the basis of what we are seeing now that the tearing up of the chequers plan that labour will vote against the deal. right. so, you've been clear about that. there's no doubt labour will vote against any deal the pm brings back. you're going to split your own party, it's clear, because there are some, may i say, more realistic mps, i will name a couple, gareth snell, caroline flint, who have said in recent days, the labour party's position is very dangerous. to quote gareth snell, "i think the labour party has to be very careful that we are not unwittingly becoming the midwife to a no—deal brexit," that's what he sees in the position you have just laid out. theresa may would like to caricature this vote as a vote on any deal she can get or no deal. that is not actually

what pa rliament‘s about. parliament is about delivering for the people. and, therefore, if we don't like the deal that she comes back with — and let me just say, i see no prospect of theresa may getting this deal through... that's by the by, but we are talking about the labour party... it's not by the by, it's fundamental! we're talking about the labour party's position and the labour party's responsibility. our responsibility is to oppose and to stand up for working people. you are going to make a no—deal brexit much more likely, that's the truth. absolutely not! because what we have said is that we would seek an amendment asking for a people's vote. so why does it make it more likely? it doesn't make it more likely at all. your good friend and colleague chuka umunna said just yesterday that this notion of a second referendum, what you call a people's vote, does not have majority support or anything like it in the house of commons. it can't and won't happen. we are in a situation today where, at some point in the next few weeks,

we will get a deal. in some senses, stephen, and i say this with all honesty, this is all shadowboxing. when you have a deal or no deal, that is the moment when all of this will coalesce, and actually the options for what you do with that deal become important. now, i have said to you it's generally the view in westminster that theresa may can't get a deal through parliament. once that has happened you're into the prospect of amendments to the bill she has to put forward. that is where a people's vote is one of the options, or indeed there may be further amendments on what she should be going back to europe to negotiate. just a thought. i don't want to spend the entire interview on brexit. butjust a thought on the notion that another referendum could sort out britain's brexit mess. i'm not going to quote you all the brexiteers who think it's preposterous and an absolute breaking of the trust with the british people, but because of the vote in the first referendum. absolutely not.

i'm going to quote you one of the most respected observers, lord hennessy, peter hennessy, he says this, "if people were asked to think again and come up with a different ‘right answer this time,‘ it is both immensely patronising and it would convince those in the country who think the system is rigged against them that indeed it is rigged against them by some kind of metropolitan elite." those are the words of peter hennessy. i don‘t accept that, and let me explain why. the first thing to say is that we had a referendum in which the people gave the british prime minister an instruction to go off and negotiate. it is entirely acceptable, once you have that negotiation come to an end and you have a deal, to ask the british people if they like the deal. you cannot undermine democracy with more democracy! that seems to me to suggest that you should have a general election

on day one and live with the same party for ever. every single democratic country in the world goes back to the electorate. this wasn‘t a party political question, this was a simple question — do you want to be in or out of the european union? and 52% of the british people, given that choice, said, "out." it‘s quite plain and simple and that‘s democracy. it was an advisory referendum in which the instruction was to the government to go and negotiate, that was the basis. there was no message about going to negotiate. scotland didn‘t vote for it, northern ireland didn‘t vote for it. it was in or out, and the people... london didn‘t go with it, and substantial tracts of the country... we also know, stephen, i might say, that there was serious fraud in the vote leave campaign, there were lies that were told, and there is real concern that there was outside interference, all of which is being investigated by the metropolitan police. what would the question say in this second referendum of yours? do you like the deal that we have got, or would you like to remain in the european union?

that is what we need to put to the people. and let me just say, when the governor of the bank of england has said that if we get no deal, and there is a real prospect of no deal, that house prices will fall by 35%, and the recession in britain will be deeper than 2008. as night follows day, of course we should ask the people whether they want this! yeah, the problem with your binary choice is that it leaves out all of those people, and there will be millions of them, who may not like the deal, but want to leave the european union anyway. look, then that... they are not to be represented in this vote, aren‘t they? that is absolutely not, because we live in a democracy, and clearly there will be some in the country that like the deal and want to vote for the deal, but you should seek the consent of the people to a deal that will make the country poorer on any basis — any basis. i think it‘s all right and legitimate to ask the people, do they like the deal. if they like the deal, then we go forward. if they don‘t, then we remained within the european union.

let me change tack a little bit and consider your political life, what you care about, judging from your record over the last 18 years, which i would say are issues of what you see as grave inequality in this country, race issues as well, that is, of racial inequality and discrimination. today, a report came out from the equality and human rights commission, saying britain is at risk of becoming a two—speed society with a string of alarming backward steps in recent years. i would put it to you that the fixation that you and others have with sort of changing the course of brexit is diverting so much attention, political time, and resource from actually the issues that your career as a whole would suggest you care about most. on the contrary, stephen. parliament has now spent two years with only brexit dominating. if we are to exit the european union, the legislation in parliament to deal

with the consequences of that will go on for another decade. and you‘re quite right. we need to fix education. we need to resource the nhs. we‘ve got a huge housing crisis here in london, and in much of the country. fundamental issues that we‘ve got to be getting on and dealing with. i‘m afraid, actually, what we should be doing is getting to the end of this relentless debate on our relationship with europe, and dealing with the profound problems, and i think the best way forward on that is actually a people‘s vote. let‘s talk about the profound problems, as you see them. do you see britain‘s problems, primarily — and in particular your constituents, and the people you work with day by day — do you see that their most profound problems are a result of issues of class or race discrimination? well, the two go hand—in—hand, obviously. i don‘t like to distinguish between one and the other. the truth is that there are profound inequalities in britain.

in an age in which the technological revolution means that there has been a massive loss ofjobs in the middle of the economy, britain has struggled to devolve wealth out of london and the south—east. and on top of that, in an era in which it has all been about immigration, yes, i‘m afraid our own figures demonstrate that we‘ve had a 40% rise in hate crime, and there are real, entrenched inequalities for black, asian and minority ethnic people in our country. all of the figures — less employment, doing less well in education, doing less well in housing, and we‘ve got a huge problem in our prison system, that david cameron asked me to look into, because of the amount of black and ethnic minorities in our prisons. those are profound problems. but sitting alongside those are problems of economy and wealth that of course affect white working—class populations in britain as well.

let me ask you a personal question. it seems to me politicians all have their own distinctive styles. yours is a very personal style, and it involves the injection of a great deal of passion, and at times a great deal of anger, into politics. i am thinking of your response to the tragic fire at grenfell, the tower block where more than 70 people lost their lives. i‘m thinking also about your reaction to the so—called windrush generation, who were forced to leave this country, having made their lives here for many, many years. you get angry in public. do you think that serves your issues well? well, i don‘t describe what i do as angry. it may be passionate, but i‘ve got to say, 72 people lost their lives in a fire that could have been prevented, and absolutely we have to have politicians that will speak truth to power, when you look at the faces of those who died. and when you challenge me on windrush, britain stopped deporting its own nationals

to australia in 1868. how can it be right, when we had a generation of people that arrived here from the caribbean, that gave this country so much, that you strip them of their rights, you deport them, you detain them, you deny them access to pensions, to healthcare, and that‘s not something that should animate and make people furious that this has happened in britain‘s name? of course. and let me just say, these are the descendants of enslaved people that was done by this country. it is horrendous, and of course it has animated me, because these included my parents and our generation. but it‘s part of a rhetoric, and it‘s a rhetoric around immigration, it‘s a rhetoric around difference. it‘s not consistent with a civilised democracy, and we should call it what it is.

you do not get to say that you‘re going to have trade deals with the world, and then treat the world‘s population that arrives here because of your colonial past in such an atrocious way. do you believe, looking at politics today, that there is institutional racism in for example the home office, which of course was the department responsible for the windrush decisions? do you believe, when you look at policing in london today, that there is institutional racism? racism and discrimination exists in britain, of course it does. i do believe that windrush is an example of systemic discrimination against low—hanging fruit, which was british nationals, who ultimately were subjects because of empire, treated as they were because of the colour of their skin. that is my sincere belief, yes — systemic prejudice and discrimination of those people. how do you best use the leverage you have?

i am very mindful of your personal story. as you just said, you were brought up by a mother who came from guyana, made a life in north london, lived in poverty, yourfather left home. you managed to get a great education, went to one of london‘s best universities, then to harvard university as well. you now, having been a barrister, are a politician. you have succeeded in britain, despite everything that we‘ve just discussed. so how do you leverage what power and influence you have mustered to help others? every day of my life — that is why it‘s so important to me to speak authentically and with power about these subjects. but let me just say... but going back to where i began, the report from the equality and human rights commission today saying that britain is seeing an alarming string of backward steps, that it is at risk of becoming a two—speed and two—tier society. that 18 years of yours in politics

doesn‘t seem to have yielded very much. we‘re in a paradox. britain at its best is a country where someone like me can advance and do well. it is a country, relative in europe, which feels that it can be fair, and that you can get a fair crack of the whip. but yes, there are forces in this country that want to take this country back. there are forces that believe the empire was good, and why we should reject the european union and recreate a new imperialism. it doesn‘t seem to understand britain‘s history. and britain‘s history is notjust a history of winning the war, and hitler, and of king henry and the henrys. it‘s a history also of colonialism and empire. there is good and there is bad in that story, and actually, modern britain, face up to that. be robust and honest about that. say we‘ve learnt from that, and actually, the opportunity to be a multicultural country, at ease with its history

and itself, is impressive. we saw that at best in 2012, when we won the olympics and did this amazing ceremony and put on an amazing show for the world. that‘s britain at its best. but the summer before, the 2011 riots, was perhaps britain at its worst. so there‘s a paradox in this, and absolutely i want to bend that arc of history towards justice, and towards the better place of ourselves in this country. well, moving words, but let me ask you a final and difficult personal question. you are a prominent black politician in the united kingdom. you, under tony blair and gordon brown, were given ministerial posts. currently you have no position in the shadow cabinet of the labour party, and when you were asked about this recently, you said something that perhaps smacked of personal anger. you said, of why you are not in the shadow cabinet, go and ask the white men who run my party. go and ask them, don‘t

come to me and ask me. ask them why they chose who they have chosen. is there still an undercurrent of discrimination even inside your own party? of course the labour party is not immune to issues of discrimination and prejudice, but that was not what i was indicating. the truth is, i am one of britain‘s most prominent politicians, and i do it from the backbenches. that‘s why you‘ve invited me on to this show. i‘m hugely privileged and fortunate to have gone to harvard, to have had ministerial roles. i am able to do what i do on behalf of the people i represent, and others in this country, from the backbenches. but, in the end, i don‘t run the labour party. jeremy corbyn runs the labour party. and so, if you want to ask why david lammy isn‘t in the shadow position, then the question is best directed at him, not at me.

but am i comfortable with where i am? am i able to effect change from where i am? do i find colleagues from other parties, like david cameron, asking me to do a review of our prison system? yes, i do. so i personally am very fortunate, and i believe i‘m able to stand up for the people i believe in. david lammy, we have to end there, but thank you very much for being on hardtalk. thank you. well, it looks like we are going to hold onto the cold weather for a little while yet.

for some of us, tuesday‘s going to start pretty frosty, particularly across western parts of the uk. if you live closer to the north sea, it probably won‘t be quite so cold, but i think chilly enough. so this is what it looks like very early on tuesday morning. you can see where the frost is, actually from south—western england, from plymouth, through wales, all the way towards western scotland and northern ireland. here, temperatures will be below freezing. they are already well below freezing in some areas. but closer to the north sea, there, east anglia, lincolnshire, temperatures should be above freezing. and we‘re just getting away with the weather because look at all of the wind and rain in the north sea. it‘s just skirting with norfolk, suffolk, possibly kent. much of the country through the day on tuesday actually not too bad. there will be quite a lot of cloud around, i think, across eastern areas. but the further west and the south—west you are on tuesday, the better the weather will be. so, cornwall, devon, somerset, western wales should have a fine

day on tuesday. let‘s have a look at wednesday now, and we‘re kind of in between weather systems. lots of weather fronts spinning around here. you can see one weather front of western areas of the uk, so there could be some spots of rain early in the day on wednesday. so this is halloween, approaching the middle of the day here. notice the southerly winds here across some central and southern areas. that means that temperatures are expected to pick up a little bit. so not quite so cold. we could even get to around 13 degrees in london. but in the north on wednesday, still pretty chilly, temperatures into single figures. but, once again, there will be a little bit of rain around across some western areas on wednesday. not an awful lot, but some of us will catch it. now, let‘s have a look at thursday‘s weather forecast. and actually some big contrasts across europe, some bad weather still affecting the mediterranean and the alps. we would‘ve seen a lot of snow in the alps by the time we get to thursday.

look at these southerly winds pushing warm air all the way into scandinavia. so there‘ll be huge contrasts across europe on thursday. some particularly mild weather across central and eastern parts of europe. but here you can see the winds coming off the atlantic from the north—west. so slightly colder weather here in the uk. so the temperatures, after a brief rise i think in london, probably levelling back down to around 11 degrees. maybe some rain around on thursday. but i think on the whole it stays quite unsettled and on the chilly side. that‘s it. bye— bye. i‘m sharanjit leyl in singapore. the headlines: as indonesian investigators search through the wreckage of flightjt610, the bbc obtains a technical log showing the jet had instrument problems the day before it crashed with 189 people on board. search and rescue teams say they will work through the night to recover the debris as well as search for survivors. relatives wait for news

of their loved ones — although its feared all those on board have died. i‘m babita sharma in london. also in the programme. sri lanka‘s unfolding political crisis — as the president sacks his cabinet and suspends parliament. and how football diplomacy has helped with the thaw in relations between north and south korea.