newscast. newscast from the bbc. hello, it's paddy in the studio. and it's laura in the studio. and henry is having a week off, so we are graced with the journalist of the moment. hello. who are you? nick watt, how is that? nick watt, the political editor of newsnight, he has 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 too condemning extremism and anti—semitism but not condemning islamophobia. remind ourselves what lee anderson actually said before we get into the furore around it. i don't actually believe that the islamists have got control of the country but what i do believe is they have got control of khan and they have got control of london, and they have got control of starmer as well. formerjustice secretary and lawyer lord buckland said those comments were racist. he said that plainly? he did, i will bring you that. you had 0liver dowden attempting to answer the same question but failing. l the fact they could be taken in that l way is the reason why those comments led to the chief whip asking for an apology from - the prime minister. i share those concerns about how ithey could be taken in that wayl and that's why it was right - he should be asked for an apology. and when he failed to give that| apology the whip was removed. i think our viewers will hear very clearly that you are declining to give your own view on what those words mean, having said that words matter. i think i've been... i've been clear that they can be taken that way, right? - because they can be taken that way, he was given the chance _ to apologise and he failed to do so and the whip was removed. i if he apologised, would he have kept hisjob? yes. he was asked for an apology, he failed to do so and - that is what did him in. 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 his own view was in those comments. nick, without us 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? what is going on here is 0liver dowden obviously wanted to make 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 retract, 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 yourself from these remarks, and oliver dowden says these remarks can and indeed have caused offence. have they caused offence to you, 0liver dowden? obviously, 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 islamists — have 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. 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 14 years. however, paddy, dowden�*s remarks were a complete contrast to what robert buckland said. yes, i think what we're saying to newscast is that sunday is a sliding doors moment in broadcasting. here is sir robert buckland. his comment about the mayor of london being controlled by islamists is, i'm afraid, racist. it crosses a line. it was repugnant. it actually detracted from a legitimate debate about elements of extremism whether anti—semitism or extreme pro—islamism or far—right extremism that aided by the mechanism of social media seem to be increasingly proliferating in public life here in the uk. what is tricky, i think, for the conservative here as well, not just about these individual max and the obvious disagreement inside the conservative party over how these remarks should be interpreted is that there is in some people's views a track record here. so have problems with the mp who has been on the social media this morning after programme saying 0liver dowden was mealy—mouthed, evasive, the prime are put out a statement and didn't talk about islamophobia as well. 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? there is a 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 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. 10—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, 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 suella braverman said is the truth is that the islamists, the extremists and the anti—semites of in charge now. so i said i thought the prime minister was in charge because clearly there is an issue that if this controlling his mps to your point about they want lee anderson to be lee anderson but they've got to know when to stop him being lee anderson. if they can't turn off liz truss, they can turn off suella braverman and they can't turn off lee anderson than the question of who is in charge also applies to the whips. to the backbenches of the conservative party. laura asked 0liver dowden about that appearance by steve bannon when tommy _ appearance by steve bannon when tommy robinson was described as a hero and _ tommy robinson was described as a hero and liz— tommy robinson was described as a hero and liz truss didn't pull out. 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 laura when you mentioned that suella braverman article where they have taken control of this and they have taken control of that. andy burnham says can you imagine if somebody had written that about jewish 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. back to my theme about sliding doors, let's listen to both together. 0liver dowden on laura kuenssberg and... dodd and sir robert buckland on radio forth. what i would say in respect of what suella said is i disagree with what she said but i think that's is in a different category. i disagree with the comments. by the way, i believe i in the reasons i set out. the underlying sentiment of my deep | concern about these threats in these | i intimidation is which are often. coming from islamic extremists, and we shouldn't be shy of calling this out and i have done - so as a member of parliament. but i don't believe that- what suella braverman has said crosses the line in the way lee anderson has. - but why not? because she said 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. why's it different? the thing is, there is a slight- danger of getting into semantics... but words matter, you said it yourself. please let me to finish my point. this is about attaching - specifically to one person, the mayor of london. i think what suella was saying - was making a broader statement, one which i don't agree _ with the specifics of what she said but i do very much agree with. the concerns that she is raising about threats coming often from islamic extremists. . while she is legitimate to talk about ugly elements of extremism in this country, it is wrong to conflate whole groups of people, whether based on faith or ethnicity, with extremists. you know, to conflate islamism and islam and muslim people isjust wrong. it doesn't accord 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 cultural background might be, because abuse because abuse is abuse but to go beyond that and start to conflate issues is dangerous. if it is being done deliberately than it is absolutely unacceptable. 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 for at least the next couple of days, i think. yes and, 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. and at the debate at the moment is what happens after the election. we all 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, robertjenrick want to be right at the front of that debate saying well, i was conservative enough, i'm 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 wets who 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 the counter—extremism tsar on the programme last week 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. 0bviously, i'm not exposing any of that. newscasters will know at 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, this is the front page of the sunday telegraph today which says that this is a generational radicalisation moment. that the war in the middle east is a flex point on british society, and it is stressing multiculturalism and we know it is stressing the constitution, the unwritten constitutional rules of the house of commons. because this particular row in the conservative party batley in the conservative party but lee anderson follows the explosive events in the commons of which nick watt was a witness plus, i will argue. so we will hear in our 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 lisa nandy, speaking for the labour party, she said explicitly in terms given a specific guarantee that no labour mp, no labourstaff, it was interesting that she 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, or was lisa nandy telling a different story? i know lisa nandy very well. it is a bit difficult to work for the guardian newspaper for 18 years and not know lots of people in the labour party very well. this is your career you talking about — 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 i know two 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. so yourfirst question to her committee, can you guarantee that no—one in the labour party was involved in a conversation about the speaker's future job 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, and the idea of this sort of thing would be done is for than birds. but only after the second question. rather than making a political point, ijust wanted to highlight to viewers that you have just given us a specific assurance on the record that no—one in the labour party said or communicated a message to lindsay hoyle that his job might be on the line if he did not allow labour to have a vote on its amendment, its plan in the house of commons? well, look, i certainly didn't. the chief whip didn't. the leader of the . labour party didn't. no members of staff were involved. they would never be involved in using something like that. l and, frankly, if anybody had done something like that from any - political party, i think- they would have had very short thrift from the speaker. so lisa nandy was asked by laura 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? first answer was, "yes i believe i can" and talked about the numerous conversations she had had with keir starmer, the chief whip and david lammy. the second question, as you heard, you then said, can you, 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, you don't name your 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 answerfrom lisa nandy. the crucial point about this — was reporting over a period of about 48—72 hours. talking to numerous people. and the point about the speaker is 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. some of the class present, some of the class not present. the point about lindsay hoyle is it's not so much has an open door policy, he has an anyone can talk to me at any moment of the day policy. he is incredibly open. he's happy to talk to the prime minister as he is to talk to the cleaner. 0r his parrot. and he has lots and lots and lots of people talk to him. can 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 senior figure 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're toast"? what kind of thing might be talking about inasmuch as you can tell us — and i know it is important to protect your sources. what i reported was that senior labour sources had passed on these messages. i didn't say who 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. not him. the chief whip. not him. shadow foreign secretary, labour of the labour party star. not them. my reporting 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 is i am a journalist who is at westminster later than anyone else, and you have conversations. 0n the point about these conversations is that 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. and you pick this stuff up. and you're putting together a jigsaw for the audience. and you're making me miss being westminster now. you can only report it it is 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. can i ask 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 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 is another thing that has been misunderstood about my reporting. because i obviously tweeted this after lindsay hoyle had made his decision and about 2—3pm on the wednesday afternoon, people assumed i had been given a briefing it was the labour party bragging, and off it went. you can't get into too much detail of when and where you spoke to people because then you could do jigsaw identification, but what i was saying is that this was reporting that took place over a 48—hour to 72—hour period. to you both, there is more treacherous waters for the speaker because if the snp want to meaningful vote this week on a gaza ceasefire — that takes me back as a journalist — that phrase is the burr coat era which got him into hot water which theresa may and apparently they are less amendable and meaningful vote. he is not out of the chopping waters if he calls a meaningful vote or if he doesn't. 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 newscast is talking about all of this what 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, ifeel 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. —— uncomfortable sort of mismatch. but you newscasters, please forgive us, because it is extremely important because the independence of the house of commons chair who really matters, and our political parties are grappling with these really hard, emotive issues around what is going on in the middle east — extremism and islamophobia and anti—semitism — it is really important. it is an 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. and 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 think what you've done, the two of you, it's lifted the lid on what it is like reporting on westminster. and newscasters like it when we reveal what we're doing. i would just like to end this by saying on sunday's newscast, we we re wrong. we did not in any way predict a cataclysm... no, we didn't, we thought it would be all right! newscasters like it when we are not in any way predict a cataclysm. newscasters like it when we look to our mistakes. i was sent yesterday a lot of text messages sent among conservatives warning them not to give lee anderson a job in 2018 but that is a whole other story we didn't have time for. we didn't have time even for robert buckland's final remark we should leave it there, really. newscasters, don't leave us! always good to speak to you. nick, thank you for standing in for henry. excellent have you with us and will be here tomorrow. enjoy the rest of the weekend. goodbye. newscast from the bbc. hello there. sunday was a fine day for much of the country. some good sunny spells around after that very cold start. it was a chilly afternoon, but at least there was the sunshine to compensate. southern parts of the uk continued to stay wet and windy as that area of low pressure to the south of the uk continues to push towards france. so it stays at wet and windy here through the night for central, southern and southeastern parts of england. further north, a few showers will drift southwards into central northern scotland, a few along some north sea coast of england. these will be wintry, certainly over any higher ground. but a chilly night to come, northern and western areas, some frost around, once again. less cold in the southeast because of the wind and the rain. now, as we head into monday, we've got a ridge of high pressure toppling overfrom the north, that'll spread southwards. that area of low pressure will continue to pull away to the near continent, taking the wind and rain with it. but we'll be in a colder air mass once again on monday, so another chilly day to come, turns windier later in the day across the north and the west of scotland. so we start off rather windy, grey across the far south east. the rain eventually clearing away from sussex and kent, but it does stay quite cold and windy across large parts of england and wales. a few showers running into the north and the east. otherwise, it's a fine, sunny day thanks to that ridge of high pressure, lighter winds in the north, brisk in the south. and that really will take the edge off the temperatures. 0n the thermometer, we're looking at around 6—9 celsius, but it'll feel more like 2—3 celsius across the southeast when you factor in the cold northeasterly wind. through monday night, it looks like it turns drier under that ridge of high pressure. many of the showers die off. so, it's going to be a cold one, i think, for england and wales where we have the clear skies, light winds, because the weather front will be pushing into scotland, northern ireland with increasing winds. so not quite as cold here as what we'll have further south. and with light winds, there could be some mist and fog to start tuesday. this weather front will be moving southwards and eastwards on tuesday, but as it bumps into the...moves into the area of high pressure, it will weaken quite rapidly. so some pretty heavy rain for scotland, northern ireland at first, some snow on the hills, then it weakens as it pushes across england and wales, bringing a lot of cloud here. skies will brighten up for scotland, northern ireland into the afternoon, but there will be some blustery showers, wintry on the hills. temperature wise, we're looking around 7—10 celsius. around the middle part of the week and to end february, it looks like it's going to turn a little bit milder. it stays very unsettled. and then as we head into the first part of march, it looks like the temperatures cool down again. welcome to newsday, reporting live from singapore, i'm steve lai. the headlines... israel's prime minister vows to go ahead with an offensive in southern gaza — we report on the aid situation on the ground. conservatives are criticised after suspending an mp in the uk — over claims of racism — but the deputy pm won't say whether the comments were islamophobic. president zelensky reveals 31,000 ukrainian troops have been killed in the two—years of war with russia. and thousands rally in support of former brazilian president, jair bolsonaro — he's hit back at claims he plotted a coup to stay in power. live from our studio in singapore — this is bbc news. it's newsday. welcome to bbc news.