Image source, Kapoor Studio

Vandals have spray-painted a controversial sculpture by Sir  Anish Kapoor  in the garden of the Palace of Versailles.   The huge red metal work called "Dirty Corner" resembles a gaping cavern. It has been dubbed ``vagina of the queen'' by critics, and was sprayed with yellow paint by unknown vandals.

Kapoor is arriving in Versailles today to inspect the work, and decide what to do next.  In a written statement for Newsnight Kapoor said:  "The vicious voice of the few has commanded too much of the debate and has even drawn in good thinking people. It has now resulted in an act of vandalism to the work. I am left with a question about how I should react. Should the paint that has been thrown all over the sculpture be removed? Or should the paint remain and be part of the work? Does the political violence of the vandalism make Dirty Corner “dirtier”? 

Does this dirty political act reflect the dirty politics of exclusion, marginalisation, elitism, racism, Islamophobia etc. The question I ask of myself is: can I the artist transform this crass act of political vandalism and violence into a public creative aesthetic act? Would this not then be the best revenge?"

You can watch a recent Newsnight interview with Sir Anish Kapoor below. He was speaking about his work with our Culture Correspondent, Stephen Smith.

You will soon be able to read Sir Anish Kapoor's statement about the attack on his sculpture in full on his website, external:

The EU is set to launch a naval mission on Monday against gangs smuggling migrants from Libya but it will be limited to intelligence-gathering for now because of a lack of UN authority or Libyan consent. 

 The operation is part of an increased European response to a wave of thousands of people from Africa and the Middle East making the dangerous crossing from Libya to Europe. Many have drowned in the Mediterranean, including around 800 killed in a shipwreck in April. 

British and European warships are once again conducting search and rescue missions in the southern Mediterranean. The operation known as Mare Nostrum was stopped last year and during that time one boat stepped in to fill the void - a retired fishing trawler specially converted to a search and rescue ship. It is run by a privately-funded organisation called MOAS - Migrant Offshore Aid Station, Newsnight reporter Gabriel Gatehouse got exclusive access to one of the biggest rescue operations in recent years. You can view his powerful film below.

Image source, AP

So the Prime Minister has nailed his colours firmly to the mast in one of the most contentious debates of recent years in counter-terrorism circles. Are extremists who stand against British democratic values of plurality, democracy and tolerance - but who outwardly reject violence - part of the problem or part of the solution to the terrorist threat? And the answer is…they’re very much part of the problem.

In a speech at a security conference in Europe today, the Prime Minister says: “we must do more to confront ISIL’s poisonous Islamist extremist ideology if we are to protect our countries from one of the biggest threats our world has faced”.

David Cameron says the recent cases of the young Briton who became a suicide bomber for the so-called Islamic State and the three mothers from Bradford who seem to have taken their children to live under IS in Syria “highlight how our young people can slide from one form of extremism to another, from non-violent to violent.”

He goes on to state the cause is “ideological”. And there are plenty of people who’ll agree with that. Make no mistake. These people believe fervently that they are carrying out God’s will. Their views on Islam – and humanity – may be rejected by the vast majority, but for them they are doing the right thing by supporting the Caliphate. 

The Prime Minister goes on to say something more controversial: “…if you’re a troubled boy who is angry at the world or a girl looking for an identity, for something to believe in and there’s something that is quietly condoned online or perhaps even in parts of your local community then it’s less of a leap to go from a British teenager to an ISIL fighter or an ISIL wife than it would be for someone who hasn’t been exposed to these things”.

So, effectively, he is saying that the non-violent “mood music” of political and social extremism in some fundamentalist, conservative Muslim circles has set the scene for some young people to choose Islamic State over Britain.

In other words, have people living in  the UK who urge people not to vote, have prescriptive ideas about women and who believe homosexuals will burn in hell, for example, played a role in radicalizing a new generation?

A few years ago, I made a Panorama film called “Muslim First, British Second”. If your first allegiance is to a radical, minority project to create the perfect Caliphate overseas, as they believe is foretold in the Qu’ran, then how does that square with contributing to life in the UK? If you oppose British values because you think they’re “un-Islamic” does that help drive some people into the arms of Islamic State?

It’s what Michael Gove referred to recently as "draining the swamp" to tackle the extremist threat here in the UK. I was once told by a former chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) that the decision to allow Islamic fundamentalists free rein here in the late 1990s was a “failure of imagination”. And then before Syria (which “changed everything” as one of my sources says) non-violent extremists were sometimes even courted by government in the hope that they would be reduce the terror threat here.

It seems the government now believes this was a second, great failure of imagination. The pendulum has now swung completely the other way and the government is signaling a tougher, more muscular approach to asserting core democratic values and the responsibilities which come with a British passport.

Duncan Weldon
Economics correspondent

Image source, Reuters

Over the next four days the situation in Greece will move quickly.

Its been widely reported that yesterday a senior official at the ECB questioned whether the Greek banks would be able to open to Monday.

Banks have long been Greece's Achilles' Heel, the weakest part of the economy.  Over the last few months increased uncertainty about Greece's future in the Euro and fears over the imposition of capital controls have led to a slow burning "jog" on the banks.

Around 200 to 300 million Euros a day have been withdrawn since late last year.  In recent days the pace has picked up - a reported  three billion euros have been withdrawn in the last four days.

With reports that the central bank is doubtful about their ability to open on Monday, the pace could pick up further today and this weekend.

The ECB has been keeping the banks alive by replacing the lost deposit with emergency funding known as ELA (emergency liquidity assistance).

Each Wednesday the ECB for weeks the ECB has slowly increased the amount of ELA available to the Greek banks by a billion or two euros, keeping the banks alive if not exactly healthy.

Faced with a big increased in outflows since Wednesday - an emergency call is being held today to extend ELA again (possibly by quite a lot) to keep the banks open.

That might be enough. Or it might not - many serious bank analysts now expect an enforced bank holiday to buy time in the days ahead.

But whatever happens now, the Greek government find themselves in an awful position ahead of Monday's talks. Without massive support from one of their creditors, their banking system will collapse.

The choice on Monday now lies clearly before Syriza - acknowledge that power reality and compromise hugely to stay in the Euro and keep that support or take the other road - default, capital controls, probable bank nationalisation and Euro exit.

Two weeks ago in Athens I said that there where two variables to watch now: Greek bank deposits and Greek public opinion. The first is moving and the second could follow.

We've had five months of missed deadlines. This is now the endgame.

Duncan Weldon
Economics correspondent

Another "crucial" summit, another "final deadline" and still no deal in Greece. As was widely predicted today's meeting of Eurozone finance ministers ended without agreement.

The creditors say that the current Greek proposals don't go far enough and they are unwilling to extent Greece's current financing programme. Without new financing, Greece will be unable to make payments to its lenders due at the end of the month.

A Eurozone heads of government has been called for Monday evening and the institutions formerly known as the Troika want new Greek proposals before then.

With the clock ticking towards a Greek default and possible Euro-exit, there are plenty of grounds for pessimism. For starters, the creditors seem to have reached new levels of frustration with the Greek side: IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said that progress would only come when "adults where in the room" (who on earth could this be a dig at?), whilst eurogroup President Jeroen Dijsselbloem called for the Greek government to be "honest" with its own people. Trust between the two sides seems thin on the ground.

That said there are some reasons for optimism to - the differences between the two sides are not as wide as they once were and it is unlikely that a summit would have been called for Monday if both sides thought a deal was impossible.

Back on the 16th of February a stormy Eurogroup meeting (which had been billed as a "last chance for a deal" - aren't they always?) fell apart without agreement. An agreement was reached four days later at a hastily arranged meeting following new Greek proposals.

What seems to have prompted the Greek change of heart back in February was worries about the health of its banking system.

Once again money is leaving the Greek banks at a rapid pace - a reported €3bn Euros this week alone. 

The outflow of deposits represents the biggest risk that this crisis could spiral out of control into a full-on renewed Greek financial collapse and the likely imposition of capital controls. But it might also be that outflow of deposits which forces the concessions needed for a deal. 

Ed Brown
Newsnight producer

The UK anti doping agency is refusing to confirm whether Mo Farah missed two tests in the run up to London 2012. But they do publish statistics on the number of tests they conduct on their website. 

I've collated the ones on the number of tests conducted and the number of "whereabouts failures" - basically, athletes missing tests.

First, the number of tests conducted in each quarter (so we can get some perspective):

Now, here's the number of "whereabouts failures" in each quarter - ie missed tests:

Notice something about the numbers? Yep, they are very, very low. In some cases, single figures.

Just to visualise it, here's a chart of the number of tests and the number of whereabouts failures in Q2 2012:

Unfortunately I can't find any more in depth statistics (if UKADA are reading, please do send!), but this very cursory analysis suggests that if Mo Farah did miss two tests, it would have been a very unusual event.

Ed Brown
Newsnight producer

The EU referendum bill rumbles on through Parliament today. Labour abstentions meant it emerged unscathed from a 27 strong eurosceptic rebellion on the purdah period before the election. But, talking to Conservative MPs, it really does feel like the rebellious can has merely been kicked down the legislative road.

"We have been promised very concrete steps in the report stage [on purdah]" said one backbench MP who chose not to rebel with the 27 but was sympathetic to their cause. "Specific boundaries and parameters" still need to be laid out on the purdah period. Eurosceptic MPs "accepted the government assurances" last time but if they don't get more there are "quite a few" more that are willing to rebel. And remember that in the last Parliament showed us that around 100 MPs have it in them to rebel on Europe.

Ultimately, if Labour choose not to actively vote against the Government, there's not a lot those Eurosceptic rebels can achieve in practice. But at the very least, it's further confirmation that without significant movement on purdah, the Government will be starting the Parliament with a lot of ill will from its minuscule majority.

Lewis Goodall
Newsnight producer

Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, has been meeting with the EU Parliament President Martin Schulz. Schulz is going to be the toughest egg for No.10 crack, he is apparently dead-set against any substantial British-led EU reform.

Diplomats employ a famously delicate use of language. Productive usually means something went well, spirited or firm usually means a slanging match. The Foreign Secretary has gone for another slippery term, "interesting". We can infer from that that it wasn't exactly a meeting of minds.

Image source, FCO

Lewis Goodall
Newsnight producer

Looks like Liz Kendall has wasted no time in making the most of her most effective broadside against Andy Burnham in last night's Newsnight Labour leadership debate.

Image source, Liz for Leader

Lewis Goodall
Newsnight producer

The general election, figuratively and literally is just so last month. This month is the real deal. The results of the select committee chairmanship elections have been announced.

These mean very, very little to the world outside Westminster but within political Hogwarts they're a pretty big deal. These committees are charged with detailed scrutiny of government departments and legislation, set their own terms and inquiries and are increasingly a source of endless trouble for governments civil service and companies. 

So this Westminster version of electing prefects is more important than it might seem. Although these elected parliamentarians seemed quite reluctant to put themselves up for another election, no ballot was necessary for twelve committees, where there was just one candidate for each chair. That's despite the fact it's worth your while; the chairs are paid an extra £14,876 on top of their salaries along with extra staff. 

 Here are the details:

Treasury: Andrew Tyrie (C)

Home Affairs: Keith Vaz (L)

Foreign Affairs: Crispin Blunt (C)

Health: Sarah Wollaston (C)

Work and Pensions: Frank Field (L)

Culture, Media and Sport: Jesse Norman (C)

Education: Neil Carmichael (C)

Business: Iain Wright (L)

International Development: Stephen Twigg (L)

Defence: Julian Lewis (C)

Energy: Angus McNeil (SNP)

Scotland: Pete Wishart (SNP)

Transport: Louise Ellmann (L)

Welsh: David TC Davies (C)

Public Accounts: Meg Hillier (L)

Justice: Bob Neill (C)

Local Govt: Clive Betts (L)

No enormous surprises. Gisela Stuart had been widely tipped for the prestigious public affairs committee  but although she came out ahead in the first round, ended up behind Meg Hillier when all the other candidates had been eliminated. Foreign affairs was a close run thing, with Nadhim Zahawi only a handful of votes behind Crispin Blunt. For Frank Field, it's back to the future, he chaired the equivalent committee for a decade until 1997 when he became a minister in the first Blair government. Jesse Norman will oversee BBC charter renewal, unlike the Secretary of State, John Whittingdale, he is not a noted critic of the BBC aside from the organisation's lack of presence in the Midlands, where he is an MP. The Lib Dems, shorn of 90% of their MPs, get nothing. 

Duncan Weldon
Economics correspondent

It's good to know that relations haven't become too frayed. 

Image source, Hugo Philpott

It’s that time of the year again, when I find myself in a room full of the most awe inspiring group of women imaginable at the Fortune Most Powerful Women event. I am feeling hugely humble (but also, when it comes to the moment the microphone is handed round and we all have to stand up and introduce ourselves, pretty humiliated).

“Hi my name is Ana Botin, I’m the CEO of Santander” … “Good morning I’m Carolyn McCall – CEO of Easy Jet” …. “Hello my name is Alison Saunders, I’m the Director of Public Prosecutions” … “Hi there I am Iris Knobloch, President of Warner Bros. Entertainment, France” “I’m Roz Savage, I rowed solo across the Atlantic“ etc...

Not enviable following that.  "Um I’m Hannah MacInnes – Planning Editor at BBC’s Newsnight and if I can get any of you to agree to come on the programme it would make my day."

I have tried to make it my mission over the years to do something about the frustrating predominance of all male discussions. The recent coverage of a Tumblr blog featuring numerous photos of manels as they are now known has however, confirmed my feeling that, though we may have got off to a good start, we're not doing well. Nowhere near as well as we should be. 

We invited The Guardian’s Zoe Williams, Isabel Hardman of The Spectator and Dame Esther Rantzen onto the programme to ask why we were faced with this problem.  It’s unnerving at first said Esther but “once you’re in the waters lovely”

So why is it that it is a struggle to get women – or at least a wider selection of women - onto the programme?

All too often, after speaking to a brilliant woman over the phone, the conversation goes the same way. So, I ask, please will you come on and say that tonight? A pause and then: “I am so sorry I can’t tonight, and I am not sure I’m quite right if honest, but I do have a colleague who would be perfect for this”, okay, I know what’s coming, what’s their name? And without fail a Robert, David, John, Ian … in short a man is proffered as a better alternative.  I don’t want Robert or James – I want you!

However if this one room at The Rosewood Hotel is anything to go by, there is no excuse for it - there are countless phenomenal, confident, articulate, inspiring women out there who would swim brilliantly – to use Esther's analogy - it is up to us producers to make much more effort to find them, to let them know the water is there and we would love them to dive in.

Laura Kuenssberg
Newsnight Chief Correspondent

What to do about the crumbling Houses of Parliament? Last year Newsnight revealed , external not just the extent of the damage to the building, but that the restoration bill could be more than three billion pounds.

The official report into the potential cost is out today, but the conversation about how to preserve this beautiful, important, yet unpopular institution is just getting going. And Building work is not expected to start until 2020!

Chris Cook
Newsnight Policy Editor

The most striking element of the Newsnight Labour leadership debate came in the candidates' answers to our own Laura Kuenssberg, who ended the quizzing with a simple question: would you be willling to resign before the next general election if it looks like Labour are not going to win with you as leader?

The answers, in order, ran:

• Liz Kendall: Yes. because more than anything, I want Labour to win so we can change the country... There are some MPs who are talking about having a new process whereby if colleagues think you're not doing well enough, you can go. I have to go through that as a local Labour MP. We should have that for the Labour leadership, too..." 
• Jeremy Corbyn: "I think there should be an opportunity to elect or not elect the Labour leader every one or two years..." 
• Andy Burnham: "Of course, there should. Yes is the answer to your question... The party already has that rule, . The debate maybe is: 'do you make that easier.' The party comes first, always."
• Yvette Cooper: "The party already has rules to do that kind of thing... [After the leadership election] our focus has to be holding the Tories to account." Pressed by Laura about a rule change, she stuck to her guns: "It's up to the Labour party to choose and not for us."

Quite striking. Kendall and Corbyn were both game for a formal process. Burnham suggested the current process perhaps just needed a tweak, to which he seemed open. Cooper, however, was unconvinced of the need for a change and seemed unwilling to commit to helping would-be usurpers.

This is not an academic question. A decent portion of Labour's parliamentary party has been plotting to topple whoever leader with only a few breaks since 2005. But after one sort-of successful coup (which led to the staged departure of Tony Blair), there were only ever limp lunges at Gordon Brown or Ed Miliband. 

In truth, Labour's last clean coup was against George Lansbury in 1935. The circumstances were odd: his pacifism was ill-suited to mid-1930s Europe. And the man who wielded the knife was one of Labour's toughest ever operators - Ernie Bevin, then the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union. 

Image source, PA

Lewis Goodall
Newsnight producer

We've heard a lot from the Labour party about how there needs to be a full and frank debate about why the party lost. That every voice must be heard. That's why Jeremy Corbyn got on the ballot.

If that is what the party wants and needs tonight was something of a lost opportunity. Because it wasn't really a debate, it was almost like a series of one on one interviews with the audience. 

The four candidates almost totally refused to discuss the issues with each other or mark out explicit dividing lines between them despite the best efforts of Laura and the studio audience. Instead they chose to do so only implicitly, Liz Kendall talking about not willing to fight for a world "which no longer exists" (presumably a rebuke to Corbyn) or Yvette subtly alluding to Kendall's lack of experience.

Only once or twice did any interaction occur at all, Kendall saying that "I disagree with Jeremy" on benefits and Yvette and Kendall calling Burnham out on his "the party must come first" line. 

That's not to say we didn't learn anything. The dividing lines are more assured, each candidate fitting slightly more snugly in the camp we already thought they were in. We now know Burnham and Kendall would support a review into their leadership if they were behind the Tories and Yvette wouldn't. And yet and yet and yet...if the Labour party really wants that full debate, to really fill in the blanks, then in hustings to come, they might try by getting their candidates to have more of a conversation, not only with the public, but also with each other.

Lewis Goodall
Newsnight producer

I mean obviously Newsnight's Labour leadership hustings are fun enough on their own. But in case you need something to help ease the hour by (aside from a bottle of chianti) then here's your handy Labour leadership hustings bingo slip:

The winner to receive 100 free copies of this, external. 

Ed Brown
Newsnight producer

Andy Burnham is seen in many circles as being the front runner for the Labour leadership running into this race. It is a simple fact that he achieved the most nominations amongst the Parliamentary party. And his background as the shadow health secretary, railing against the Coalition and Conservative reforms to the NHS has stood him in good stead with the activists that vote in this election.

Rather like Yvette Cooper, he's made an effort to reach out to all parts of the party - he has been careful to emphasise the importance of the party understanding people's concerns on immigration, and uses the language of aspiration, but backs the 50p tax rate - issues that appeal to different wings of his party.

But Burnham's easy left-of-centre populism can come with its own problems.

One of the Burnham interviews I remember most strongly (admittedly partly because I happened to be the producer) was with Kirsty Wark on Newsnight before the election. Burnham had railed against the privatisation of the NHS at Labour conference after Labour conference, each time sending his audience into greater paroxysms of delight. 

So Kirsty showed him a chart - illustrating how outsourcing in the NHS had increased over the last few years. She asked him a very simple question: under Labour, would outsourcing go up? Or would it go down? It's fair to say he struggled to respond clearly - not what you'd expect after all those soaring speeches. Perhaps Burnham was more willing to let in private provision than he'd made out.

Now, perhaps it's unfair of me to bring this up. It was months ago after all, under a different leader. 

But let me whizz you forward to the recent GMB Labour Leadership hustings. Burnham said when questioned on the benefits cap: “In principle, it’s not right that people on benefits get more than they are likely to earn in a lifetime.” It's fair to say this did not go down particularly well there. 

Andy Burnham is the front runner for a reason. He's more experienced than Kendall, more credible than Corbyn, and more popular with his Parliamentary colleagues than Cooper. 

But the challenge for him tonight in Nuneaton is not to have one of those moments – like the NHS with Kirsty or benefits at the GMB hustings. The problem with being front runner is that you have rather a lot of votes to lose.

Ian Katz
Newsnight Editor

All the residents of Nuneaton I have met so far today have been perfectly friendly but Charlotte Higgins, author of the excellent BBC history, The New New Noise, reminded me this evening that relations between the BBC and the Midlands town have not always been so cordial.

Back in 1957 Slim Hewitt, a reporter for the Tonight programme, a precursor to Newsnight, visited the town and filed a report which left the BBC about as popular here as The Sun on Merseyside. I can't find a record of exactly what Hewitt said about The town but in a 2013 report in the Nuneaton News (following the profoundly unfair shortlisting of Nuneaton on a list of 100 "crap towns") one resident, Colin Bishop is quoted saying:

 “It is a national occupation, ‘knocking Nuneaton’ has been since the BBC Tonight programme came to town in 1957... Slim Hewitt the reporter was very sarcastic about Nuneaton and referred to George Eliot as a man."

Higgins records that: "The files of [Tonight] programme correspondence show how controversial Tonight could be – there was an almost endless stream of letters from the town clerk of Nuneaton, for example, in autumn 1957, taking exception to a film on the town that had been, according to a memo written by a senior BBC executive, deliberately 'sardonically humorous and unfair'."

The Newsnight team will strenuously avoid saying anything sardonically humorous or unfair about Nuneaton, or referring to George Eliot as a man, tonight. But if you know any more about how Slim Hewitt so enraged the burghers of the town that gave us not just George Eliot but Mary Whitehouse and Larry Grayson too, please let me know - it might help us to avoid the same fate.