all the leading contenders for the american democratic party's presidential nomination are debating together for the first time. there were impassioned exchanges about healthca re, with former vice presidentjoe biden defending his version of president obama's healthcare plan against more radical and costly proposals put forward by his main rivals. britain's prime minister has denied lying to queen elizabeth about his reasons for suspending parliament. boris johnson was speaking after scotland's highest civil court ruled that the shutdown was unlawful because it was intended to hinder parliamentary debate. that verdict will be reviewed by the uk supreme court next week. doctors in syria have told the bbc that hospitals in rebel—held areas of idlib province are being deliberately targeted with air strikes by syrian government and russian forces. united nations investigators have said required precautions were ignored and war crimes may have been committed.

now on bbc news, stephen sackur speaks to independent mp heidi allen on hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur. brexit is stress—testing britain's political and constitutional conventions to the very limit. with prime minister borisjohnson apparently intent on ignoring the will of parliament and exiting the eu at the end of october, the eye of the brexit storm is fast approaching. my guest is mp heidi allen, who quit the conservative party in early 2019 and co—founded a new pro—remain centrist party, but that bid to break the political mould failed. what does her experience tell us about the clarity and coherence of brexit‘s opponents?

heidi allen, welcome to hardtalk. thank you. you quit the conservative party seven months ago. you clearly wanted to change the dynamic of the brexit debate in the united kingdom. seven months on, are you ready to say you failed? to be honest, i mean, brexit was the catalyst that drew us together, those of us thatjumped at the same time from both labour and conservative, but i think we all had slightly different reasons as well. for me, it was just i couldn't tolerate any more being associated with the conservative brand.

i had deep concerns about the welfare state and the way the government were rolling out of the new benefits system. so for me it was more about the way the party changed and what i could represent, but you're right, brexit was part of it. it seemed to be, because you, in essence, said then, which is what quite a lot of tories have said since, which is you feared party was beginning to look like the brexit party. absolutely. pushed all the way to the right. it looks like we were trendsetters in hindsight. i go back to that point about what changed as a result of what you did, because what we have now is a prime minister in place since you left the party, borisjohnson, who is committed come what may to brexit on october the 31st, and said he would rather die in a ditch than ask the eu for a deadline extension. so, if anything, the trends we saw seven months ago are even more so today? absolutely, which shows that those of us who made the decision at the time were absolutely right. i suppose what you could say has changed is more colleagues now in the conservative party have recognised the same. they've been unable to stick by the brand, and they too voted against the government knowing full well that that would mean they'd have the whip removed. so there's a more powerful base now that i think can potentially

influence what happens next. yes. now, talk to me about how you see the conservative party today. obviously no longer your party. you still have many friends in it. i dare say some of those friends were among the 21 that were fired. were you hoping that they would make common cause with you — declare themselves to be independent mps in the way that you have? because that's not what they've actually done. at the time, i didn't expect any of the to jump. did i over time recognise we would end most likely with borisjohnson and most likely looking at no—deal? did i think there would be a significant number who say, "i can't support this any more?" yes. a few of them have different views. some will stand down and won't stand in a general election again, a good number. others are talking about standing as an independent conservative. well, you can't have independent conservative on the ballot paper, and i've been talking to them about that. but it seems to me they will either have to choose to join another party, stand as an independent and definitely risk their seats. this is career—limiting for all of us. it's interesting to me you've been talking to them. give us a sense of the conversations you've been having an who with,

in fact. over the summer i've been building an organisation called unite to remain during the european elections. it's one of the reasons the change uk party failed. it became clear those in this country, those worried about brexit, particularly a no—deal brexit, were eagerfor remain parties and remain mps to work together, putting the country first rather than parties. there wasn't time in the european elections because it came upon us so quickly. but we do have time to plan for a general election, a bit more time than we did for the euros. so i've been working with the remain parties in england and wales, principally the lib dems, the greens, plaid cymru and the independents to come up with that pact, so when the general election comes, in as many seats as possible, like in brecon in the by—election we saw recently, there will be one remain candidate standing. i've been talking to those tory mps thinking, you know, perhaps they would have to resign the whip, what with their plans be and seeing if somehow we could offer them some assistance in that. you talk of a general election, but isn't the truth you could have had a general election in mid—october, because boris johnson

clearly wanted a snap election. he could only get it with the support of opposition mps, including yourself. you denied it to him, and it seems you denied it to him because you look at the opinion polls, and you see that the conservative party has a substantial, healthy lead in the polls right now. that is the conservative party, led by boris johnson, which is determined to get a do—or—die brexit. and what anybody who knows dominic cummings will tell you, he is a data man. he will say to borisjohnson, "right, the polling, the focus groups i'm doing, push the button now. i can tell you you can win a general election now." what the opposition parties did, principally labour, it was jeremy corbyn who came round to the idea, they realised if we had allowed borisjohnson to have his general election, he would've controlled the timetable of it, which means he still would have been able to influence us leaving with no—deal. we are not prepared to do that. we're going to push him to the wire and resist the call for a general election until he goes to the eu council on the 17th of october. well, i'm tempted to say, how cynical of you? because in the end, britain is politically deadlocked.

there is no way the politicians at westminster can sort out this brexit mess, it seems. there's no majority for anything. borisjohnson, the executive, wants to take britain out of october the 31st. surely you should have acceded to his request to let the people decide in the form of a general election in mid—october before that october the 31st deadline? but he was game—playing, because he could've chosen a date after october the 31st. but he wanted to give the people a chance to voice their opinion before. but do you know, because i certainly don't, we don't know what date he would've chosen. he's not obliged to give us the election date before or after october the 31st. nobody knew. what parliament needs to do, and there's growing appetite for this now, and i suspect we would achieve it if we tried again. you're right, we are in deadlock, therefore it has to go back to the british people. it needs that confirmatory vote, a second referendum, call it what you will. i think that's the only thing that can break the deadlock. we'll go back to your view on a the second referendum

in a minute, but let's focus, because it's important if we're trying to understand what is happening to british politics today. it is important to dig into the reasons why your decision to create a new movement that changed its name from the independent group to then change uk. why did it fail, and fail in a rather humiliating way, within a couple of months of its creation? i think there's a number of reasons. i don't think brexit is necessarily at the heart of it. i think what we recognised when we got into... the opinions really changed. when we first launched, we were riding high in the polls and were the best thing since sliced bread. the local elections came and none of us factored in, to be absolutely truthful, and the polls shifted measurably. we weren't standing in the locals. the lib dems did incredibly well and then they were riding high suddenly, and it was clear we won't the exciting new ids on the block anymore and in the european elections, people were saying, "we've got to vote for who was more likely to win," and that was the lib dems.

i wonder if in retrospect you would acknowledge that the way british politics worked, you were hopelessly naive to think you could create a new remain centrist party with momentum, because you said this, you said on your departure from the tories, you said, "party tribalism is anathema to me and shouldn't we be working on the big issues in the country's best interest? shouldn't we be searching for the right answers blind to any colour..." but i still feel exactly the same way. that is naive, that's not how british politics works. i don't care. that's the best way, and we need to be pushing and pushing for that. its not the best way if you crash and burn within three months. how ironic that the reason half of us left was because that's how we felt — that our young party, young as it was, wasn't prepared to put the country first when we weren't the favourite kids in town. half of us said, "you know what, we need to be offering to our supporters. tactically, though, go for the greens or lib dems. it's not about us."

and half the group unfortunately still felt that way. that's interesting. you were only 11 at the beginning and half of you, as you put it, refused to think, sort of, strategically and long—term. so you would say people like anna soubry, a fellow tory who quit, like you did, joined the independent group and then called your leadership of the group bizarre because you basically said, "you know what, if the lib dems have a chance of winning a particular seat then back the lib dems." anna soubry saw that as a completely bizarre way to found a new party. but we're never going to break the system if we behave in tribal ways. that's the great irony, isn't it? the way the brexit thing will be fixed, finally movement in the house of commons, is parties are learning to work together. this is bigger than any single party, and we have have to put that to one side. a number of colleagues of yours, i'm thinking, for example, of chuka umunna and luciana berger, both influential labour mps who joined the independent group, they've now continued their politicaljourney byjoining the liberal democrats. there's a lot of talk that you too

are going tojoin the liberal democrats. are you? if i had a pound for everybody who'd asked me that, i would be very wealthy indeed. i'm not going to give you a pound, i want a straight answer. the answer is the unite to remain initiative, as i said already, is me helping to broker a deal between the remain parties. to do that effectively, to make a difference and we don't split the remain vote in as many seats as possible, that has to be brokered by an independent. that's why i've stayed as an independent, and that puts me at risk in my career if a general election comes soon, but i'm not prepared to consider jumping into any other party until that piece of work is done, because that is the big prize — returning a significant number of remain mps to the house of commons that can shift our country's direction. that to me is more important than my own careerm, so i'm determined to stay as an independent to do that piece of work. well, there's several interesting things there. are you going to run in your current constituency, which, of course, you won as a conservative candidate, telling the people of

south cambridgeshire you are committed to brexit. you haven't had a by—election so you don't have a mandate for your new position as an independent mp, but are you going to back to your constituents and asked for their support again? well, in terms of my constituents... my constituency voted overwhelmingly to remain. the reason i didn't have a by—election, you know, it is truth people vote for the person not the party, but regardless of that... well, says who? that is constitutionally accepted. it is the person, within our law, you are voting for, not the party. that may be a technical response, but the people of south cambridgeshire, many will think, "well, i voted for a tory and now i have an mp who doesn't define herself as a tory as she did before, but says she's something else. i need the chance to re—elect her or not." you're right, it is the views of my constituents which are the most important, and i've had over 6,500 e—mails now from constituents, conversations in the street and supermarkets and pubs saying i did the right thing and at the last count 6,500 e—mails from people telling me i'm unhappy.

my seat is not a right—wing conservative seat. it's full of science, technology and academics, and they recognise what i've done is in the interests of the country, and it seems to me, on evidence, my constituents are very happy. this idea of unite to remain and building a strategic, very clever alliance of all the pro—remain forces to maximise the number of successful victories you can get in the next election, that might require you to stand down in favour of the lib dems? absolutely it might. my seat in south cambridgeshire, a remain seat in a conservative—lib dem target, if you like. that is one of the jigsaw pieces in the unite to remain jigsaw, and every seat requires analysis and polling to see who is most likely to win there. and you're absolutely right, that could be the conclusion. isn't the problem for the remain side of this three years... well, it's longer than three years, this protracted argument in britain, leave or remain, isn't the fundamental problem that the leave side has a very clear, understandable position —

that is britain must leave the european union. 17.4 million people, 52% of the vote in the referendum, voted for that, a clear majority, and therefore britain must leave. the remain message is much, much more complicated. i don't think that's true at all, that the leave message, that's the great worry with all of this — did people vote for no—deal? did they vote to lose trade ties? they voted to leave. it was a simple question before them — "do you want to stay in the european union or do you want to leave it?" and they voted to leave. and it was put to them , "there'll be a deal. it would be the easiest deal in the history of all dealmaking. the common market and it'll be going back to the old days." with respect, none of that was on the ballot paper. it was binary. now, you can argue whether binaries are a good thing, but it was leave or remain, and the majority

voted to leave. and a foolish one you would say in hindsight. you can say that, but the point is, david cameron put that to the people and he said this is a once—in—a—lifetime chance to settle the argument. you, the people, will settle it, and a clear majority voted to leave and the fundamental problem for remain, whether you be an independent, a lib dem or a labour remainer, the fundamental problem is that you cannot match the simplicity and clarity of the remain message. well, again, i disagree with that. i think it is very easy, as in all these things, milk and ambrosia, a vision of how wonderful the future can be is always going to be easier to sell than the status quo. but the fact is, people did not vote to leave with no deal, people did not vote overnight for no transition period, for no regulation and medicines or movement of people or tariffs on goods. nobody voted to make themselves poorer. my responsibility as a member of parliament, my first responsibility it is to the economic wellbeing of my constituents,

the security of this country. no—deal would be catastrophic, yellowhammer has confirmed that to us. well, we'll get to yellowhammer, that is the report which makes predictions... the government's own report. ..about what might happen to the economy after a no—deal brexit, we'll get to that. but let us just stick to this notion. you've just said, "my first priority is the economic interests in my constituents." surely your first priority ought to be the health of british democracy. i have to say, if we allow no—deal, if we allow borisjohnson his no no—deal, which is his preference, you know, the reason amber rudd finally resigned and resigned the whip also, notjust her role, was because she said she could see very little effort going into getting a deal at all and the prime minister and the government and cabinet were spending all their time looking at no deal. we've seen how damaging no—deal will be to the economy. you haven't addressed my question, you've come back to your position that no deal is very dangerous but listen to michael gove and others who say quite clearly, i'm going to quote gove,

but many others, borisjohnson, have said it, "if we fail to deliver on the clear verdict backed by 17.4 million people who voted to leave the eu, it would be a fatal blow to faith in democracy." you argue for a new politics which isn't about tribalism or party but about real, reasoned debate. is there no part of you that can see what michael gove is saying? but new politics has to be honest. new politics has to tell the public what the risks are, and that is the entire reason why there are many of us, and i suspect a majority in the house of commons now, believe that a second referendum is the way out of this, to be honest with people. but heidi allen, you have made that point and i respect... if i may finish. ..please just say to me... do you do you not recognise there is some truth in what michael gove says about failing to deliver on the referendum result, leading to a catastrophic lack of faith in the british public in the democratic system? democracy does not live on one day only. democracy is not owned by the people that voted on one day only. democracy is alive and

well every single day. we've had more general elections since we had the referendum... yes, and obviously overwhelmingly the votes went to parties who were committed to delivering brexit. but polling is shifting, polling is showing, not everywhere in the uk but in a significant number of constituencies, people are changing their mind and they want a say on this. because i believe democracy does not exist on one date, it is owned by every person who can vote, i believe there is no greater opportunity to show we embrace democracy than by checking with people and saying, this is your country, yourfuture, are you happy with this? i just want to continue with the idea of trust. a very influential professor of politics, matthew goodwin, he's studied a lot, he's surveyed a lot, and these are his conclusions. he says, "brexit has widened the trust gulf, because for the first time in our national history, a majority of people outside parliament formally asked for something that a majority of people inside parliament did not want to give them". do you understand that? i do but the reality is, there were lies. there was no description

of what the future would look like. michael gove, if you want to quote him, he and pretty much every other cabinet minister now in position has said no deal would be catastrophic at some point. they would never allow parliament to be prorogued. these mps will turn on their word. so you're delegitimising all of those who still back leave because you're just saying they‘ re liars? no, i said they were lied to. you're saying those in senior levels, the leaders of the government today, michael gove, borisjohnson, that they are liars. they will pivot on a point and that every single one of them has been quoted, particularly in the leadership race which as you know we just had for the conservative party, every single one of them — matt hancock, jeremy hunt — all said proroguing, no deal, terrible, and suddenly it's acceptable. it's why amber rudd resigned and this morning on radio 4, said she was urging her cabinet colleagues to do the right thing said she was urging her cabinet colleagues to do the right thing and look in the mirror she has. it's just that when you talk about lies and one has to be honest,

when we talk about lies you have to assume that the people telling those things that you regard as lies are liars, you seem to be part of the corrosive, toxic atmosphere in british politics. i want to be honest! i want people to be honest and that's why, for example, this week we voted to request the yellowhammer documents to be released, because we think it's important that the british public have their eyes wide open and they‘ re content. if we have a second referendum and they say, "you know what, we understand the risks now, we know what might happen to food prices, to food shortages, to medicine shortages, but we're ok with that," then absolutely fine. but my worry is that the majority of people in this country are not content with that. polling suggests they're not content with that, therefore, the biggest exercise of democracy has to be to check with them if they're content to proceed on this basis. i just want to stick with the trust thing because it seems to be that you personally have experienced the changing nature, worrying changing nature, of british politics in recent times. there is, according to the head of the metropolitan police,

a rising threat level aimed at our politicians, and i know that you personally have, since your flip from the tories to your new independent stance, you have been subject to real and significant threats, haven't you? yes, to be fair that happened before i left the conservative party, yes, to be fair that happened before i left the conservative party, that isn't something that's escalated as a consequence of that. as mps, yes, we do face that. i think perhaps, i'm not sure analytically to be absolutely honest, but i think it's women mps that tend to be targeted. but yes, i've had death threats, people sent to jail throughout my parliamentary career, notjust since i left the conservatives. but ijust wonder, again, if people are making death threats against you and i believe you've had to modify the way that you live you life to a certain extent, on police advice, because of the atmosphere that's been created, isn't it incumbent upon, notjust you, but everybody in politics to be extraordinarily careful about language? and when you talk about people

telling lies and recently you tweeted that the tory party behaves as if it's pantomime season. "i am now ashamed to say i was ever a member. they're disgraceful". when you indulge in that type of politicking, aren't you making the problem worse, not better? absolutely not and if you think i should cower in my home because one person decides that they're going to post my address on social media, i am here to stand up for my constituents and to ensure their well being and to make the right decisions and ensure government is scrutinised accordingly. i'm not for a second suggesting you should, you should gag yourself... but maybe dial down some of the inflammatory rhetoric. it's not inflammatory to be embarrassed... this was on leaving on monday night when we'ere trying to have a debate about stopping no—deal, and if you had been in the chamber, the laughing and jeering from the conservative benchers was unacceptable. i appreciate there's always a lively atmosphere in the chamber if there's a particularly lively debate, but i've never experienced anything as bad as that. and given the severity of what we're facing for our country, that is unacceptable behaviour! that is not inflammatory language, i'm not telling people to rise up

and take arms... before we end then, let's talk about how britain emerges from what we've decided is an extraordinary and difficult situation. you clearly believe the only way out, ultimately, is a second referendum. i do. but should no deal be an option for the british people? because the polls suggest a significant portion of the country believes no—deal, for all of the economic pain it may cause, is still the right and proper cause. yeah, there are two schools of thought on that and i must admit, i'm not settled yet on the answer. the electoral commission would have a view on this as well. but either it would be whatever the latest deal is, if borisjohnson manages to tweak theresa may's in some way, whatever format that might be, and the labour party have come out and said that as well, whatever that deal is, versus remain. or yes, you're right, there is an argument for a third preference vote that would have no deal on the ballot paper as well. yeah, because otherwise how would you ever heal some of the wounds in this country? we need to settle this, yes, we need to settle this.

because there are millions of people who've looked at theresa may's deal, they do not like it, they call it brexit in name only and they say we want that, they call it, clean break. clean break. and you're suggesting that is‘s possible that might not even be an option. well, it wouldn'tjust be up to me. it would be the house of commons and the electoral commission also would have a view around ensuring fairness and that you weren't splitting opinions, splitting the vote. bit i do understand why people would have a sympathy to that view. the other thing parliamentarians have to take into account, that no deal would put us in fringe of international law because we wouldn't be able to uphold the good friday agreement. so i know a lot of mps have an issue with no deal going on the ballot paperjust on that basis alone because we wouldn't be able to ensure the no hard border in ireland. so that is a real consideration. but at the end of the day, no—deal would make our constituents poorer. this is not an overnight thing, this will take decades for us to recover our economy. and that is something serious that parliamentarians have to take into account when they're deciding, should we get to that point where a second referendum is approved by the house of commons.

but i don't believe there is a single member of this country that would thank any politician for them losing theirjob being less well off. and that, to me and many others is what no—deal would do. so for you now, nevermind new politics, the fight goes on. a second referendum could deal with this almost overnight. we need to get on and deliver that. heidi allen, we have to end there but i thank you very much for being on hardtalk. thank you. thank you very much. hello there. over the last couple of days, the remnants of two different ex—tropical weather systems have been in charge of our weather.

first we had the leftovers of what was hurricane dorian passing to the north of the uk. we saw outbreaks of rain and brisk winds and during thursday, it was ex—tropical storm gabriel that moved through. not much left of it. just a stripe of cloud moving southwards on a frontal system and as that cold front moves away from the south on friday, and high pressure builds in behind, we will be left with a lot of fine weather, good spells of sunshine, but a significantly fresher feel. humid air that has been associated with that ex—tropical storm being pushed out into the near continent. we start off with quite a lot of cloud in the southern counties of england and the channel islands and a bit of rain but that will clear quite quickly and then a lot of sunshine and dry for the majority. it will be windy in scotland but further south, the winds light. however, in the fresher air, temperatures will be a little bit lower. top temperatures of 20—21 degrees for plymouth, for cardiff, for london. more like 17 for aberdeen. through friday night, temperatures will dip away.

particularly down towards the south, where winds will remain light. further north, more in the way of a breeze and more cloud in across northern ireland and scotland, and some rain pushing back in towards the far north—west. the overnight lows seeing one or two spots down towards the south could get down to around 3 or 4 degrees. high pressure still in charge for most of us as we go into saturday morning, but notice frontal systems trying to squash in towards the north—west, bringing some outbreaks of rain and also some pretty strong winds. now, much of the rain on saturday is likely to be confined to the northern and western parts of scotland. a bit more cloud into northern ireland and the far north of england. further south, once again, a lot of sunshine. those temperatures creeping up in southern parts — 22 or 23 degrees. always cooler and fresher across the north where it will be windy, particularly windy on saturday night through the far north of scotland.

then into sunday, it looks like this frontal system will try to push a bit further south but uncertainty as to how far it will get. maybe some patchy rain into northern england and north wales, for example. to the north of the front, something fresher and to the south on sunday, we could get up to 25 degrees. but looks like all of us getting into fresher air for the start of the new working week. however, with high pressure in charge, it will be largely dry.

this is the briefing, i'm samantha simmonds. our top story: clashes over healthcare, unity on gun control. democrat presidential hopefuls set out their policies. hell yes, we're going to take ar 15, your ak—47. this week's second round of brexit talks. can a solution be found for the northern ireland question? the world's first malaria vaccination campaign gets underway in kenya. is it the beginning of the end for the disease? the multitrillion—dollar cost of climate change. finance chiefs look for ways to decarbonise europe's economy,