of conflict abroad, so our main question this morning — are politicians making divisions worse at home? as dignitaries gather at the cenotaph, the defence secretary grant shapps joins us. but as a new war rages in the middle east, we'll hear from israel's president, isaac herzog. with the home secretary's job in the balance, the woman who wants herjob for labour, yvette cooper, joins us too. and what are you watching on tv, what are you seeing on your phone? we'll hear for the first time from lord grade, the boss of ofcom, who sets the rules. and we'll pay a special visit to the cenotaph on this poignant day before the clocks ring out at 11. i'm at the cenotaph on remembrance sunday, almost 10,000 people are getting ready to take part in the march passed later here this morning and i'll be talking to some of them. morning, morning, on this special day. with me at the desk, former cabinet minister nadine dorries, whose book about the ousting of borisjohnson was published this week. baroness shami chakrabarti from labour, big legal brain and human rights activist. and lord kim darroch, former british ambassador to washington. before we do anything else, i want to show you live pictures of what is happening on whitehall, ahead of the bbc�*s coverage of the solemn moment of national remembrance. sophie raworth and david dimbleby will be following after our extended programme until 10.15. but it's taking place in a fraught political environment. let's look at the front pages. most of them splash on yesterday's marches. the sunday times has "hate intolerance and arrests as thugs hijack armistice day". the sunday telegraph say "sunak: far right thugs and hamas sympathisers disrespect our heroes". the mail on sunday has "gove jostled and abused by pro—palestinian mob". and the sunday mirror says "sack her now", with a picture of the home secretary. the home secretary raised eyebrows this week having suggested the police had gone soft on some kinds of protest. nadine dorries, you were in government for a long time, we all saw what happened yesterday, we've all seen what happened this week with this very tense debate about the police. how difficult do you think it's been for the government to handle it? what did you think when you saw the protests? it wouldn't have been difficult if there had been some kind of cohesive leadership showing within government. i think the fact that we had the whole story about suella �*s article not being given approval, i find that almost impossible to believe having served as a secretary of state myself but then you had a prime minister trying to add a number of horses at any one time and to please everybody and you can't do that when you are a prime minister and a leader, you have to show distinctive leadership, and i'm afraid rishi sunakfailed in that and i think a lot of the problems don't lie at suella braverman�*s door, they lie at the prime minister's door because they are the person in charge. fix, minister's door because they are the person in charge-— person in charge. a lot of your colleagues _ person in charge. a lot of your colleagues have _ person in charge. a lot of your colleagues have pointed - person in charge. a lot of your colleagues have pointed the i person in charge. a lot of your - colleagues have pointed the finger at suella braverman, is that fair? it is but like nadine, i think the prime _ it is but like nadine, i think the prime minister has to take some responsibility because even his language are saying just in advance of this_ language are saying just in advance of this weekend, i will hold the commission accountable. the met police boss- _ commission accountable. the met police boss. that's _ commission accountable. the met police boss. that's almost - commission accountable. the met police boss. that's almost an - police boss. that's almost an invitation _ police boss. that's almost an invitation to _ police boss. that's almost an invitation to people _ police boss. that's almost an invitation to people to - police boss. that's almost an invitation to people to come l police boss. that's almost an i invitation to people to come and misbehave, knowing that they might see off— misbehave, knowing that they might see off the met commissioner if they do that _ see off the met commissioner if they do that i_ see off the met commissioner if they do that. i think it was an interference with operational independence. the home secretary as the pantomime villain and she is bad, _ the pantomime villain and she is bad, but — the pantomime villain and she is bad, but i — the pantomime villain and she is bad, but i don't think the prime minisler— bad, but i don't think the prime minister hide behind her much longer, — minister hide behind her much longer, actually. find minister hide behind her much longer, actually.— minister hide behind her much longer, actually. and some think mark rowley _ longer, actually. and some think mark rowley did _ longer, actually. and some think mark rowley did a _ longer, actually. and some think mark rowley did a good - longer, actually. and some think mark rowley did a good job - mark rowley did a good job yesterday, there was no major damage to property, nobody was harmed in any significant way and i think it was ok, he managed, but michael gove in that, i've got to raise it, what was michael gove doing in the middle of victoria station on a day when every other sensible politician, wanting to make the police job harder, was he drunk? what was he doing there in the middle of victoria? to coin a phrase, but why was he there? whatjudgment made him walk through victoria station? kim. walk through victoria station? kim, is a former— walk through victoria station? kim, is a former diplomat, _ walk through victoria station? kim, is a former diplomat, you _ walk through victoria station? kim, is a former diplomat, you are not somebody who is going to play politics with all of this, perhaps you feel like doing so this morning, but looking from the outside there's been a furious political debate in this country about protest and the right to protest. how do you think it's been handled?— it's been handled? when i was national security _ it's been handled? when i was national security advisor - it's been handled? when i was national security advisor in - national security advisor in washington _ national security advisor in washington i _ national security advisor in washington i used - national security advisor in washington i used to- national security advisor in washington i used to talk. national security advisor in i washington i used to talk to national security advisor in - washington i used to talk to the head _ washington i used to talk to the head of— washington i used to talk to the head of the _ washington i used to talk to the head of the met _ washington i used to talk to the head of the met police - washington i used to talk to the head of the met police quite - washington i used to talk to the . head of the met police quite often and if— head of the met police quite often and if i _ head of the met police quite often and if i had — head of the met police quite often and if i had been— head of the met police quite often and if i had been talking _ head of the met police quite often and if i had been talking to - head of the met police quite often and if i had been talking to him i and if i had been talking to him last week— and if i had been talking to him last week i _ and if i had been talking to him last week i would _ and if i had been talking to him last week i would have - and if i had been talking to him last week i would have said - and if i had been talking to him last week i would have said if. and if i had been talking to him last week i would have said if i | last week i would have said if i were _ last week i would have said if i were in— last week i would have said if i were in your— last week i would have said if i were in your shoes _ last week i would have said if i were in your shoes i— last week i would have said if i were in your shoes i would - last week i would have said if i were in your shoes i would ask last week i would have said if i. were in your shoes i would ask for last week i would have said if i - were in your shoes i would ask for a postponement— were in your shoes i would ask for a postponementiust _ were in your shoes i would ask for a postponementjust because - were in your shoes i would ask for a postponement just because there . were in your shoes i would ask for a i postponementjust because there has been so _ postponementjust because there has been so much — postponementjust because there has been so much political— postponementjust because there has been so much political controversy. been so much political controversy about _ been so much political controversy about this — been so much political controversy about this that _ been so much political controversy about this that it's _ been so much political controversy about this that it's bound - been so much political controversy about this that it's bound to - been so much political controversy about this that it's bound to bring i about this that it's bound to bring the wrong — about this that it's bound to bring the wrong sort _ about this that it's bound to bring the wrong sort of _ about this that it's bound to bring the wrong sort of people, - about this that it's bound to bring the wrong sort of people, the - about this that it's bound to bring - the wrong sort of people, the tommy robihsohs_ the wrong sort of people, the tommy robinsons of— the wrong sort of people, the tommy robinsons of this _ the wrong sort of people, the tommy robinsons of this world _ the wrong sort of people, the tommy robinsons of this world out _ the wrong sort of people, the tommy robinsons of this world out and - robinsons of this world out and there's— robinsons of this world out and there's going _ robinsons of this world out and there's going to _ robinsons of this world out and there's going to be _ robinsons of this world out and there's going to be a _ robinsons of this world out and there's going to be a level- robinsons of this world out and there's going to be a level of. there's going to be a level of trouble — there's going to be a level of trouble and _ there's going to be a level of trouble and it _ there's going to be a level of trouble and it may _ there's going to be a level of trouble and it may get - there's going to be a level of trouble and it may get out i there's going to be a level of trouble and it may get out of controi _ trouble and it may get out of controi if— trouble and it may get out of controi if i— trouble and it may get out of control. if i had _ trouble and it may get out of control. if i had advised - trouble and it may get out of control. if i had advised that| trouble and it may get out ofi control. if i had advised that i would — control. if i had advised that i would have _ control. if i had advised that i would have been— control. if i had advised that i would have been wrong - control. if i had advised that i i would have been wrong because control. if i had advised that i - would have been wrong because i agree _ would have been wrong because i agree with — would have been wrong because i agree with nadine, _ would have been wrong because i agree with nadine, he _ would have been wrong because i agree with nadine, he just - would have been wrong because i agree with nadine, he just abouti agree with nadine, he just about made _ agree with nadine, he just about made the — agree with nadine, he just about made the right— agree with nadine, he just about made the rightjudgment- agree with nadine, he just about made the rightjudgment here i agree with nadine, he just about. made the rightjudgment here and agree with nadine, he just about- made the rightjudgment here and the police _ made the rightjudgment here and the police did _ made the rightjudgment here and the police did a _ made the rightjudgment here and the police did a pretty— made the rightjudgment here and the police did a pretty good _ made the rightjudgment here and the police did a pretty good job _ made the rightjudgment here and the police did a pretty good job in- police did a pretty good job in managing _ police did a pretty good job in managing it. _ police did a pretty good job in managing it. it— police did a pretty good job in managing it, it could - police did a pretty good job in managing it, it could still- police did a pretty good job ini managing it, it could still have gone _ managing it, it could still have gone wrong _ managing it, it could still have gone wrong with _ managing it, it could still have gone wrong with those - managing it, it could still have i gone wrong with those potential clashes — gone wrong with those potential clashes between _ gone wrong with those potential clashes between marchers- gone wrong with those potential clashes between marchers and i clashes between marchers and right-wingers, _ clashes between marchers and right—wingers, but _ clashes between marchers and right—wingers, but in - clashes between marchers and right—wingers, but in the - clashes between marchers and right—wingers, but in the end i clashes between marchers andl right—wingers, but in the end it happened — right—wingers, but in the end it happened and _ right—wingers, but in the end it happened and i'm _ right—wingers, but in the end it happened and i'm glad - right—wingers, but in the end it happened and i'm glad it- right—wingers, but in the end it happened and i'm glad it did i right—wingers, but in the end it - happened and i'm glad it did because freedom _ happened and i'm glad it did because freedom of— happened and i'm glad it did because freedom of speech _ happened and i'm glad it did because freedom of speech principle - happened and i'm glad it did because freedom of speech principle was - freedom of speech principle was respected — freedom of speech principle was respected and _ freedom of speech principle was respected and in _ freedom of speech principle was respected and in that _ freedom of speech principle was respected and in that sense - freedom of speech principle was respected and in that sense i. freedom of speech principle was . respected and in that sense i think it was— respected and in that sense i think it was successful. _ respected and in that sense i think it was successful. i— respected and in that sense i think it was successful. i don't _ respected and in that sense i think it was successful. i don't agree - it was successful. i don't agree with what was _ it was successful. i don't agree with what was said, _ it was successful. i don't agree with what was said, i _ it was successful. i don't agree with what was said, i don't - with what was said, i don't recognise _ with what was said, i don't recognise the _ with what was said, i don't recognise the description i with what was said, i don'tl recognise the description of with what was said, i don't - recognise the description of the police _ recognise the description of the police as— recognise the description of the police as biased. _ recognise the description of the police as biased. infe— recognise the description of the police as biased.— recognise the description of the police as biased. we talk to grant sha -s police as biased. we talk to grant shapps after— police as biased. we talk to grant shapps after the _ police as biased. we talk to grant shapps after the prime _ police as biased. we talk to grant shapps after the prime minister. police as biased. we talk to grant i shapps after the prime minister had condemned the thuggery during yesterday's protests and the anti—semitism on display during some of the march. this is what grant shapps had to say about what went wrong. shapps had to say about what went wronu. �* . ., , shapps had to say about what went wron. a ._ ., wrong. actually i was at the cenotaph — wrong. actually i was at the cenotaph yesterday - wrong. actually i was at the cenotaph yesterday laying l wrong. actually i was at the cenotaph yesterday laying a wrong. actually i was at the - cenotaph yesterday laying a wreath and to see and hear actually specifically people disrupting proceedings is obviously distressing, we are all there to come together to remember the brave men and women. as it happens the edl had already said they were going there so i'm not sure that what is connected to the other at all. the fact of the matter is there are people who i'm afraid don't really want to respect remembrance weekend and it doesn't matter whether they are the far right, edl, or i'm afraid some of the protesters on the other side. afraid some of the protesters on the otherside. it's afraid some of the protesters on the other side. it's not a respectful thing to do during remembrance weekend when we should all be there to remember the brave men and women who have laid down their lives for this country. find who have laid down their lives for this country-— this country. and and no one seeing the images — this country. and and no one seeing the images of _ this country. and and no one seeing the images of what _ this country. and and no one seeing the images of what happened, - this country. and and no one seeing | the images of what happened, thugs intent on causing trouble, the police were clear they've been involved in football hooliganism before looking for a fight, however there's been widespread consent before this weekend that the kind of sentiment that suella braverman your colleague was using would stir up precisely this kind of thing. what is very interesting i think to a lot of people this morning as the police themselves on the record have implied that this was the case. i'd like to show everyone what the met police said late last night, they said there were unique circumstances with the backdrop of conflict in the middle east but look at this, following a week of intense debate about protest and policing, these are all combined to increase community tensions. now, if we do a bit of translate on that, it's the police implying very clearly that the home secretary's sterling up of this debate made things worse. 50. this debate made things worse. so, look, this debate made things worse. so, look. there — this debate made things worse. so, look, there was lots this debate made things worse. sr,3, look, there was lots of this debate made things worse. sr3, look, there was lots of debate in the week beforehand, quite rightly, we live in a drip aquatic society about whether on remembrance weekend when you have both armistice day on the saturday and then of course today itself, where once again people will be back at the cenotaph, whether this was the weekend to go out and protest and whether that's going to protest for one cause or just turning up as thugs. now that i think was particularly coming for this weekend, that's a perfectly proper debate to have in a democratic society. there is no reason not to have those discussions. i think it would have been better if people concentrated on the remembrance part of this. it's quite unsurprising there would be a debate about, you know, hundreds and thousands of people coming out for other means. but you sa it coming out for other means. but you say it would — coming out for other means. but you say it would have _ coming out for other means. but you say it would have been _ coming out for other means. but you say it would have been better- coming out for other means. but you say it would have been better to - say it would have been better to focus on remembrance. would it have been better then if suella braverman had not, as she did in the pages of the times newspaper, without full sanction from number ten, suggested that the police don't always play