Original subtitles

Tonight, the Labour Minister called a rape genocide apologist by Elon

Musk tells us his posts have put her in danger. Being in the spotlight

like this and the intimation of what Elon Musk, the disinformation as I

believe the Prime Minister referred to it as is put out about me, it is

endangering. And we will hear the inside view from Trump world. In

less than two weeks, Donald Trump will be resident again. Is he

already turning the post-war settlement on its head? -- President

again.

Good evening.

Welcome to Newsnight, live each weeknight from Broadcasting House,

with interviews and insight.

Your panellists this evening -

political scientist Professor Ben Ansell and host of

Radio 4's Rethink programme.

Welcome to you.

Welcome to you.

And former Conservative Culture

Secretary Nadine Dorries.

Hello to you.

Hello to you.

And Nick is here.

Tonight, Donald Trump's said this...

We need Greenland for national security purposes. People don't even

really know if Denmark has any legal right to it, but if they do, they

should give it up because we need it for national security. That is for

the free world, I am talking about protecting the free world.

We'll unpick that with a Trump insider shortly.

Since Elon Musk became interested in Britain's rape

grooming gangs scandal, he's criticised politicians

across Britain's political spectrum to his 211 million X followers.

And he singled out Labour's Jess Phillips,

calling her a "rape genocide apologist" because of her opposition

to a fresh national public inquiry.

Tonight, she's spoken to Newsnight.

I asked her first why she had rejected the calls to hold

a national, Home Office-led review into grooming in Oldham and,

instead, told the council there to hold its own,

like that in Telford.

Now, I've worked in this field for years.

I have met with...

I have supported, for a number of years,

girls who are still being groomed.

Girls who I've sat for nine hours at a police station while they're

giving their evidence, only to be told, no further action.

I've travelled across the country in the middle of the night -

something that I very much doubt that Kemi Badenoch or

Chris Philp have done - to get a young woman,

literally, while she was bleeding from a battering from her groomers

to take her to a place of safety.

Everything, every decision I make comes from that

experience and their voices.

And what I saw happen in Telford is the exact opposite of what I have

seen happen because of the National IICSA inquiry for the last two

years since it came out.

I saw change happen.

So from the previous reviews into what happened

in Telford and other towns, you saw actual progress?

I saw actual progress.

I saw council officers change the way that they deal with things.

I saw victims brought in to that council as independent advisers

to get the recommendations done.

Can I ask you to address the suggestion by some that

you turned the Home Office National Review into what happened in Oldham

down because it will be very unpopular with some Labour voters?

Your majority at the general election - I can see that

you're smiling at that - was reduced to 693.

Nick Timothy, Conservative MP, former Chief of Staff

to Theresa May, wrote this:

"There are allegations about the conduct of senior Labour

councillors in Oldham."

Is that what it's about?

What an absolute load of rubbish.

It is absolutely....

And when somebody like Nick Timothy, who worked in the Home Office

for decades and did nothing about this, suddenly, he's there.

Why didn't he, if he thought that this was so important?

They are simply playing politics.

I have absolutely no interest.

The idea that I am trying to protect anyone belies the hours I've

sat in police stations trying to get people taken down,

belies the amount of time I've sat next to victims in a courtroom,

because they'll only give their evidence

because I'm sat next to them. I...

It is a disgraceful thing to say, by people who have done nothing.

You have spent your working life, as you've pointed out,

trying to help women and girls who've survived violence

and sexual abuse.

You're in touch with victims every day.

What are they saying to you about the issue of these mass

rape gangs being back at the top of the political agenda

and the way it's got there?

Whenever it's in the news - because it comes around periodically

- I send out messages to all of the young...

Most of them aren't girls any more.

Many of them are young women, who I have worked with over

the years, to just check they're OK.

Because it's pretty grim for them

that their trauma gets used as a political football by people

who would never hang around with them in real life, um,

and don't care about them at all.

So I always check in with them.

But in this instance, uh, there was a group of the victims got

in touch with me to make sure that I was OK.

And, you know, it felt like a sort of cathartic moment.

Um, that these women were able to be the person to try and help.

It is horrendous for them.

I can't get out of my head the image of some of the things that I have

seen that these young women...

I've met women who've been branded.

Just explain what that means.

Like a grooming gang will literally mark you with a knife,

so that your ownership is clear.

I have met girls trafficked around the country, literally put

in warehouses above some shop or another, in a place they don't

know, and raped repeatedly.

The idea that some kneejerk, based on...

..you know, a rich man a thousand miles away is the way to serve these

children and change things in the future.

It appears that this intervention from Elon Musk has put this

at the top of the political agenda in this country.

We saw Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, announce

new and accelerated measures in the Commons last night.

Has he not helped accelerate things?

Look, my mother taught me, never waste a crisis,

and I absolutely don't intend to waste this one.

And I will make everybody's sudden interest in this

make some actual outcomes in this area.

But has he prompted that?

To be perfectly honest,

the things that Yvette Cooper was announcing yesterday

are all things that we were working incredibly hard on ensuring that

just the announcement of them gets made.

The idea that we were going to have a victims

panel, you can't imagine

that I would ever set up a group about child sexual

abuse and not have a victims panel.

It's not my modus operandi.

I'm not the last lot.

Uh, so all of these things are things that would be happening.

All this current furore has done is made it so that everybody

is talking about it.

And so we're out there talking about the actions

we were always going to take.

Elon Musk described you on X as a "rape genocide apologist".

What did you think when you saw that?

I'm no stranger to people who don't know what they're talking about

trying to silence women like me.

Since he started posting about you, are you having to go

about your daily life differently at all?

Yes, my daily life is currently different.

I won't go into the details of that but, yes, it is, uh...

Being in the spotlight like this and the suggestion of what Elon Musk

is, the disinformation, as I believe the Prime Minister

referred to it as, has put out about me is endangering.

You have received hundreds of threats in the past.

Rape threats, death threats.

You've had to install a panic alarm in your constituency

office at one point.

Is this different, though?

The level of attention is seemingly far, far greater.

It takes up a huge amount of bandwidth, and I cannot let it

take up that bandwidth in my life.

Whether that's fear of my safety, whether that's just the volume

of communication that comes with it.

You know, people, I mean, it's people being nice as much

as it is people being awful.

It is a lot.

And I have a job to do to get the recommendations

of the previous...

and to ensure that we are...

You know, the way I will react

to this is, I will be getting all of the council leaders together

to ask them to look at exactly what Telford did,

because that's what I know worked, and look at how we can actually

make an actual change, rather than just wave a flag

and hope that it will make it better.

I just want to be absolutely clear,

are you saying that as a result of some of Musk's tweets,

the threat to you has gone up, and things are in place

to protect your safety?

Yes.

How does that make you feel?

Resigned to the lot in life that you get as a woman who fights

violence against women and girls.

Um, I've learnt...

I've learnt that it's ups and downs, um, in my life,

but what it makes me know is that I have to just keep on going.

Is it worth it?

It's worth it to me only if we make an actual change.

That's what's worth it to me.

And if I had to go through all of this and I hadn't changed the way

local areas deal with grooming gangs in two years' time, it

wouldn't have been worth it.

But I'm fairly certain that won't happen.

Jess Phillips, thank you very much for talking to us tonight.

-- talking to Newsnight.

Nadine Dorries, you were a government minister and here is one

who appears to be having to have extra security since Elon Musk

tweets. Do you have sympathy with her? No-one can condone any

behaviour, words or otherwise which put an MP puzzlement life in danger.

I have been there in Westminster and I have lived through the death of a

good friend, David Amess and Jo Cox. -- an MP's life. I have been subject

to many death threats myself and I had a stalker for nine years which

ended up as a court case. But I'm afraid it is part of modern life as

a politician that this is what happens. Do you have sympathy or

not? Of course I have sympathy, but I would also question some of the

premise around the context in terms of how these threats are happening.

There was an announcement just recently that £31 million had been

put aside for a number of MPs who actually needed day-to-day

protection because they were under what was considered living a serious

death threat. They were not coming from Elon Musk. They were coming

from who knows? But I'm afraid part and parcel of politics today and

being an MP today and the fact we now have social media and widespread

use of social media, it has made being a politician very different is

a choice of career for many women. Like the leader of the Conservatives

who you are not a massive fan of it seems, you also want to see a full

national inquiry, another one. When did you first realise you wanted

that? Just on the issue of I am not a massive fan, I did back Robert

Jenrick for the leadership and I do support Kemi Badenoch as leader

because I want the Conservative Party to succeed in what is an

increasingly unstable political environment. I want what is the

longest standing and most successful political party to do well. So I

want Kemi Badenoch to do well. When did you first realise you wanted to

see a full national inquiry? So as you know last time I was on your

programme, I was a victim of child sex abuse myself in the church of

England. I was a very... I was very aware and set in a number of

community meetings with child sex abuse because of my own story that I

had not revealed at the time and I had attended meetings with the

Labour MP John Mann. I was very supportive of that inquiry taking

place. A degree when it began to falter and to make sure that it

continued and it didn't enter. -- particularly when. When did you

realise? Probably when the core first came for one. From Elon Musk?

-- the call. They assumed because I was Secretary of State when the Jay

Report first came out and I believed the recommendations were being

carried out and I believe there were 500 arrests as a result. But what I

was not aware of was that at the time, because the information was

concealed, I was not aware that the problem was as widespread as it was.

I believed it was in Rotherham and Telford and other towns. I wasn't

aware the inquiry had not included Oldham. I wasn't aware of the

inquiry had excluded a huge number of witnesses who wanted to make

statements, including people like Maggie Oliver, the police turned

detective and whistle-blower. She gave a lot of evidence to the

Greater Manchester review commissioned by Andy Burnham. She

also has a huge amount of experience and knowledge on what has taken

place and she should have been the first person to be on the evidence

list for a national inquiry and she wasn't.

Tomorrow the Conservatives will force a vote in parliament. Kai also

said the inquiry was further reaching than grooming gangs and I

think a national inquiry and what happened in terms of the grooming

gangs and the people who knew about it such as the police. But you were

in government for that I was culture Secretary and this came nowhere near

my desk. But you are sat around the Cabinet table enough. I can assure

you it was never discussed when I was in the Cabinet. I'm asking you

why because a number of print servers where a government and are

calling for it now. I can't answer but I think a good person to ask the

question to be Suella Braverman and Priti Patel uber Home Secretary at

time. There is no record of you speaking in the chamber specifically

about Oldham, Telford or Rotherham or calling for a national inquiry. I

did support and I did attend can you do not have to stand up in chamber

and speak about something to support something, I attended those meetings

at a time it was launched. Tomorrow Conservatives will force a vote in

parliament on holding another fresh national inquiry into the child rape

gang scandal despite the concerns of setting up that seven year long to

£1 million independent inquiry on child sexual abuse. The then Home

Secretary Theresa May set it up and set the terms of reference and then

there are several government did not implement any of the 20

recommendations so as not calling for another one the very definition

of political opportunism? The sad thing about the sentence is as

health minister and Culture Secretary I dealt with a number of

reports and quite frequently find that these inquiries will take place

and none of the recommendations are implemented. So the same people who

did not implement the recommendations are calling for

another one and I ask you is that not the definition of political

opportunism. I think it is a definition of what we need to do to

fix how government deals with inquiries. I think part of the

problem is that dealing with the recommendations which are usually

made by people outside Westminster that the people who actually put in

place those recommendations are civil servants or others. So it is

their fault? So what your team with the someone outside of the normal

processes and maybe not able to be delivered by government or the civil

service and I think it is these processes that take place within

government and how government and the civil service function which

makes delivering some of the recommendations almost impossible.

It did not deliver any of the 20. Next, the Labour line about not

holding a new national inquiry, is that going to hold? They are

determined to stick to that, we spoke last night about how Yvette

Cooper the Home Secretary was talking about how we had the

independent inquiry into child sexual is conducted by Professor

Alexis Jay and it had 20 recommendations and there were not

implemented in Home Secretary is pushing ahead with three of those

and then this morning we heard from first Alexis J who said that the

time has passed for the inquiry and spoke of how victims and survivors

want action. And if you have inquiries then you're going to be

delaying that action. But there are signs tonight that this row between

Labour and the Conservatives on the issue is escalating so the Prime

Minister has given his first interview of the year to the Daily

Mirror and accuse the Conservatives of putting the desire for retweet

about grooming gangs before keeping kids safe. And that there is as you

say ahead of this vote that the Conservatives are forcing tomorrow

to hold a full national quarry. What they're going to do is take what is

called a recent amendment to the government children, well-being and

schools bill. A bit of a row tonight, Labour are saying that this

bill is designed to keep the most at risk children in our country safe

from harm and the Labour spokesperson as saying the

Conservative MPs have a choice to back the measures to protect

children or play politics with the safety of vulnerable children. The

servicing they helped Labour MPs. To listen to their constituents and

vote to do the right thing. There is a lot of political gameplay in the

as we know. The same as the WASPI women would think of how Labour

defunded them the entire time they were in opposition and then drop

them the minute they got into government. There is this position

where you could accuse the Conservative Party of opportunism at

the moment but they are in opposition and the job is to hold

the government to account and regardless of what they did in the

past 14 years regardless of what they've done, the opportunity now is

to help this government to account and that is what they're doing. Oh

saying they're playing again? No, I'm saying I think they now have the

ability to challenge and call for the National quarry whereas it may

have been more difficult in government just six months ago they

were literally in government. For 14 years. And also for the past five

years we had to deal with Covid and a war in Ukraine and many other

issues for them not to say that any of these are more important. Then,

we've seen the power of Elon Musk, look at out Labour have reacted to

his tweets and how Reform UK have reacted and that could go service

have reacted to. Other parties in UK going to be dancing to the tune of

Elon Musk all year? They are acting as if politicians have no agency,

that they have to respond to tweets that the richest man in the world is

sending out at high speed overnight and a kind of rapid fight machine

gun. I do not think that British politicians and leaders of all of

the largest economies in the world can act like marionettes waiting for

the string to twitch. Elon Musk is not the first wealthy person who

wants to control the media. There are analogies about never getting in

a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel for the problem is Elon

Musk does not even need ink, he can spin out these tweets faster than

politicians can react for that they need to stop reacting so quickly.

Two weeks out from becoming US President for the second time,

and Donald Trump has already riled his nation's allies

with comments about the US taking control of foreign territories.

In a moment we'll speak to Trump insider Gordon Sondland,

who was US ambassador to the EU when Mr Trump was President

first time round.

First, Nick, what's Donald Trump said tonight?

Well tonight there are questions about Donald Trump and its

commitment to the post-war rules -based order which is essentially

you respect the sovereignty of sovereign states. In three countries

in his sights firstly Canada, let's make that the 51st state of the

other states he said. Of C do that by economic means which will be

tariffs for but in terms of Greenland, Danish sovereignty there,

the future president would not rule out using military or economic

coercion to take control. This is what he had to say press conference.

I can't assure you.

You're talking about Panama and Greenland.

No, I can't assure you on either of those two.

But I can say this, we need them for economic security.

The Panama Canal was built for our military.

I'm not going to commit to that, no.

It might be that you have to do something.

Look, the Panama Canal is vital to our country.

It's been operated by China.

China!

So what is this about? In the case of Panama it is about Chinese

influence and in the case of Greenland it is about energy

resources and shipping. That has been 37% increase in Arctic shipping

over the past decade because of climate change and in November China

and Russia said that they were going to cooperate on that. On Canada it

is about a trade imbalance and Donald Trump is saying we are paying

for your security and you cannot do that and as a foreign country you

have got to be come one of us. Let's talk to Gordon Sondland, if you

lived in Greenland... We have lost him, apparently. Then, what is

Donald Trump sent tonight and does see minutes because the last time we

talk to someone he said do not take everything that he says literally.

Should we be worried? Impossible to know with Donald Trump, we've gone

through this thing years before and he's not even yet empowered so we do

not know what is going to do. I suspect he likes playing the madman

in politics and that is a tradition in US politics was top the idea

being that people will give you what you want if you act like you're

going to do something crazy. Some of these things are more or less crazy,

more crazy than others and the US has had a lot of control of a

polymer over the years. George Bush Senior invaded Panama in 1980 army

so they have got previous. But Greenland is part of Danish

sovereignty for the Denmark is a Nato ally. While Donald Trump said

it's not clear who has sovereignty over Greenland. So the world's most

powerful country not ruling out military coercion was the phrase he

used, neck? The question was military or economic coercion. You

talked about the geographical significance of Greenland but why is

that important to the US National Security now? Next brought up a key

point which is that climate change has made the Northwest passage

around the north of Canada which means going between Greenland and

Canada, viable. And that means that Russia or traineeships could go

wrong there. There is actually a national security interest and there

is also US base there. In going on. So the US does have military bases

up there. So if you're playing risk, being a grand strategist and just

ignoring the fact that Denmark, sorry Greenland does not belong to

the US than it seems reasonable but the problem is of course that the US

has no sovereign control of agreement. In fact Harry Truman

tried to buy Greenland from Denmark back in the late 1940s just before

the founding of Nato. But right now I think of Trump were to invade

Greenland there be a violation of Article five of Nato which would

mean I guess that we in the UK would have to defend Greenland from the

US. We'll never been in a situation and do not know what happens ever

Nato member tries to take the of another. The Danish Prime Minister

has been said today that Greenland is not for sale. But she is saying

she wants to cooperate with the US on that Arctic shipping. And what

they're saying essentially is we have a shared interest here. This

raises a big question about Donald Trump and how he will be different

during the first and second term. Well we can ask Gordon Sondland

because we sorted out the technical issues. We do appreciate your

patience. So how different is President Trump going to be when it

is the second term bearing in mind what he said tonight? What he really

said tonight translating Trump speak is that he views both Greenland and

the Panama Canal as vital national interest to the United States. Does

that mean that he is going to use military force to take those places?

I do not believe that is what he meant at all. But he did not rule it

out. He could have been clear. Let me finish my point, my point is

this. What he did not rule out is if adverse actors, China, Russia or

others interfere and try to block those places then not ruling out

military action. I believe that any other attempt to form some kind of

venture with the Gunen people or with Denmark or with Panama would be

done in a negotiated and economic way and he clearly ruled out any

kind of coercion with respect to Canada other than economic leverage.

So I know everyone gets very hot under the collar when he says I'm

not going to rule out military action but I can tell you if the

Russians or Chinese try to establish a presence on Greenland or block our

ability to get to our assets on Greenland then that is when he would

not rule out military force. OK. You have been and continue to be having

a huge supporter of Ukraine in the fight against Russia. When it

launched its full-scale invasion. This is different, is that what you

are saying from Russia invading Ukraine to get what it once? I do

not see the parallel. We are not Russia, we do not invade other

countries to get what we want. We protect our interests, that is very

different. That is what President Putin said, with respect. With

respect to whom? With respect to the argument around the world. He said

Ukraine used to belong to us and we want it back. It does not belong to

them. That is a spurious argument. A lot of real estate in the world

belonged to other countries and other sovereigns 100 years ago, you

know 500 years ago, but when those matters are settled and the matter

of Ukraine was settled, he decided to take it back. In violation of

international law. And he knows that. So Trump would not potentially

be in violation of international law? That is correct. He wouldn't be

customer I do not believe that it would be. OK. The last time I spoke

to you you said do not take things that Donald Trump says literally for

that is that what you're telling us tonight? Exactly. What is saying is

the press asked him a question that really put him in a corner. Would

you rule out under any circumstances military action in Panama or in

Greenland? How can any leader of the United States rule something like

that out? What are the circumstances, he was doing what

before you can answer that question. What can we expect them from the

second term? I think with respect to Greenland I think the dialogue has

already begun with Denmark and with the local government in Greenland.

With respect to Panama, I think the agenda of the Trump administration

has been laid down with the Panamanian government and with

respect to all

respect to all the Chinese activity occurring in and around the Panama

Canal. And you can expect President Trump to move quickly and pushes

issues hard and not revert to diplomatic speak when he is

essentially shined on by these countries saying yes, Mr President,

we understand your concern and we will get back to you and take it on

advisement. He's not going to play game any more. One last question,

you may know that Elon Musk has been tweeting a lot about the UK. Is

Donald Trump fine with that? If Donald Trump were not fine with that

trust me, he would publicly and vociferously muzzle Elon Musk so he

clearly is fine with what Elon Musk is saying. Could that affect

diplomatic relations between the US and UK? Not a bit. Right, thank you

very much and thank you again for your patience. Thank you, enjoyed

being with you. Some quick reaction to that? Well anyway Trump is just

saying out loud what American foreign policy experts and

bureaucrats have always thought which is they have a sphere of

influence in the Western Hemisphere going all the way back to the Monroe

doctrine and Donald Trump is just saying that yes, if foreign

adversaries come into anywhere near as and think about the Cuban Missile

crisis, we will react. I think in the case of Canada is a bit more

strange in some ways because there is no obvious attack by the Chinese

or Russians in Canada. And it feels a bit more like some would call it

negotiation others extortion. And it is not clear exactly what he wants

from the Canadians from this. Very briefly when I asked Gordon Sondland

will it affect US and UK relation you shook your head to say no way.

Proponents of free speech, people have the right to offend in their

free speech and that is is fine. I think what he's doing is a good

thing because he has pushed the government was responding to the

calls for a national inquiry into grooming gangs so I think that he's

doing some good at the moment. He is a great disrupter science

technology, and now disrupting British politics and I think it is

for the good. Thank you very much. That is