Many are calling this the biggest crisis that Europe has faced since the Second War War - how will Europe respond? 

Will it unravel or come closer together? 

TONIGHT's programme is dedicated to the crisis - with Emily Maitlis presenting from Budapest, and Mark Urban in Berlin. 22.30 on BBC Two.  

Image source, Getty Images

Image source, AP

The UK should take in 25,000 refugees over the next six months, former Labour Home Secretary David Blunkett has said.

In an interview with BBC Newsnight, Mr Blunkett said the US and other developed nations should share responsibility for responding to "a global crisis".

But he said the UK needs to take "very large numbers" of refugees if it is "to be taken seriously" as a nation.

Those from Syria and women and children should have priority, Mr Blunkett said.

The former minister's intervention came as the government faced increasing pressure to commit to taking more people fleeing conflict, following the publication around the world of images of a young Syrian boy who drowned and was found on a beach in Turkey.

Mr Blunkett said: "This time we must be seen not to wash our hands and not to pretend that, good though it is, investment we are making in the camps in the region is an alternative to overcoming the sheer, blinding misery of women and children who have nowhere else to go, who are destitute".

"I understand entirely people do not want the borders opened and do not want a situation where anything goes," he added.

"How could I not understand that, having been home secretary at a time when we had to take quite drastic measures? But this is on a different scale."

Mr Blunkett was home secretary from 2001-2004, during which time he took a hard line stance and significantly reduced the number of asylum seekers accepted into the UK.

"With united agreement from the developed world and a united front from Europe, we won't have the pictures we have seen this week, we won't have the handwringing," he said.

Mr Blunkett said the photos of three-year-old Aylan Kurdi lying dead on a Turkish beach have "brought this home to people in a way that all the words that we could ever use could never do."

Speaking earlier on Thursday Prime Minister David Cameron said that "as a father" he felt "deeply moved" by the images, and said the UK would meet its "moral responsibilities" but he did not give any commitment on numbers.

Mr Blunkett's suggestion is a significant increase on the figure of 10,000 whichLabour leadership contender Yvette Cooper called for on Tuesday.

The interview with David Blunkett will air on the programme tonight at 22.30 on BBC Two.

Tonight Emily Maitlis speaks to actress Emma Thompson about arctic drilling, climate change and the refugee crisis in Europe. 

Thompson's own son was adopted as a refugee from Rwanda. 

That's 22.30 on BBC Two and afterwards on YouTube , external

Duncan Weldon
Economics correspondent

Image source, Getty Images

This weekend many of the world's top central bankers met in the picturesque setting of Jackson Hole in Wyoming to debate "inflation dynamics and monetary policy".

Bank of England Governor Mark Carney was in attendance and his speech "Inflation in a globalised world", external is well worth taking the time to read.

Mr Carney's talk opened with a provocative question: "In this era of hyper-globalisation are central banks still masters of their domestic monetary destinies? Or have they become slaves to global factors?"

Or, as a cynic might put it, does what the Bank of England decides to do with interest rates really matter? Or is the pace of inflation determined more by events overseas?

Unsurprisingly, Mr Carney offered a forthright defence of the importance of the Bank of England.

Keep reading on Duncan's blog

Marc Williams
Newsnight Producer

A good chunk of my time over the past week has been filming and editing the Labour Leadership focus groups film that went out on Friday (which you can watch above). 

It was clear, not least from looking at Twitter, that there were some Jeremy Corbyn supporters who were less than happy with what was said by the contributors. It's worth making a few observations having watched both sessions in their entirety and edited over three hours down to 14 minutes.

• Ben Page and his team at Ipsos MORI did a great job in conducting the groups for us. Ben in particular very skillfully guided the contributors through a wide number of areas in a very fair way.
• Nobody would claim that you can make sweeping judgements about how the entire country feels about Jeremy Corbyn based upon those two groups. That was not, thankfully, the purpose of the exercise. The purpose was to have an in depth discussion with former Labour voters in swing constituencies about what they thought about the Labour Party, the candidates on offer and the chances that any of them could bring them back to Labour. As the name suggests, "qualitative research" like this focuses on the quality and depth of people's views rather than trying to scientifically measure how prevalent they are.
• The members of both groups were not "True Blue" Tories (all had previously voted for Labour and some voted for UKIP and the Lib Dems in 2015) and did not come with any discernible covert agenda. In fact, they were probably pretty typical of the wider electorate in that they were not familiar with the names of the leadership contenders, let alone the minutiae of the leadership contest.
• It's true that some of them expressed positive views of Tony Blair, but this is hardly surprising when many of them had voted Labour when he was leader and, in some cases, stopped voting for Labour when he stood down. While it is undoubtedly true that Tony Blair's role in taking the country to war in 2003 alienated him from many voters, it should be pointed out that Labour did win the 2005 general election in the immediate aftermath of the war, post-"dodgy dossier" et al.  
• There was no question of the panels being led towards a negative view of Jeremy Corbyn. Indeed, two of the most negative comments included in the film (Mr Corbyn being the "archetypal baddie" and him having "policies straight out of the sixties and is a bit of a hippy as well") came when Ben asked what people knew about the candidates, before they saw anything of Mr Corbyn.
• Nor did we cherry-pick the negative comments at the expense of more positive remarks. If the point of the exercise had been to "rubbish" Mr Corbyn, there was more material that could have been included. For example, when the discussion came around to what Mr Corbyn stood for and the question of re-nationalisation came up, both groups reacted negatively: in some cases because, although they supported the policy, they were dubious about how much it would cost; in others because these were not deemed "bread and butter issues" and didn't affect them greatly. 
• It is hard to see how the two clips that we played the groups of Mr Corbyn in action could be construed as leading them in one direction. The first was taken from what was by all accounts a barnstorming performance at a rally in Ealing, where Corbyn denounced "austerity" and the damage that it was causing. The second, from a Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis, focused on the question of the Iraq war and Tony Blair's role in it. This is not an issue that Mr Corbyn has shied away from during the campaign: he told the Guardian , externalthat one of his first acts as Labour leader would be to apologise to the British public for the war.
• A key comment in the Croydon group was from a woman who said: "I agree with most of what he said, I must admit, but I don’t think as a country we can afford his principles." This chimed with what other contributors said: namely, that they did not necessarily dissent from his diagnosis of the country's problems, but either doubted his ability to afford his solutions or thought that the wider electorate would not think him credible. Several said that he seemed to be very principled, but was more like a "social worker" than a leader and would turn Labour into a "pressure group". 

Aside from the Corbyn question, there were some other interesting points that arose which didn't make the final cut for reasons of time:

• Both groups, but particularly Nuneaton, were very exercised by immigration. We left in one reference to the fact that none of the candidates were talking about the issue, but it ran through the discussion like the lettering on a stick of Brighton Rock. In fairness, the leadership contenders have been talking about immigration on the stump, but, with the public's trust in politicians on the issue so low, coming up with a vote-winning policy will be a significant challenge for whoever ends up as leader.
• Likewise, Labour's management of the economy came under sustained criticism, with several contributors saying that they wouldn't trust Labour again until they apologised for the "Great Recession". This is in the context of most people in the Labour Party (and certainly Team Corbyn) not believing that Labour were responsible.
• Both groups were pretty scathing of Ed Miliband's performance as Labour leader. Some of the comments closely resembled Conservative attacks on him during the campaign: namely that he was "weak" and that you "couldn't imagine him standing up to Vladimir Putin".
• As mentioned, there was praise for Tony Blair, but other politicians were also held up as positive examples. Nigel Farage, Barack Obama, Boris Johnson and Nicola Sturgeon were all namechecked as leaders that some admired. Interestingly, the Croydon group also expressed disappointment that Chuka Umunna dropped out of the leadership contest.
• A recurring theme was "safety". Some of the groups expressed concern that they didn't believe that voting Labour was "safe". One woman in Nuneaton put it even more strongly: she said that she felt "safer" under a Tory government.
• None of the people were really tuned into politics at this time. The prevailing view was that an election had just happened and they would dip back into politics in a few years' time to see how Labour were doing. One contributor made a good point that, with David Cameron unlikely to fight the next election, they would have to look at the competing options come 2020 before making a definitive decision. This is a mixed blessing for Labour. It means that these swing voters, and surely others like them, are open to going back to Labour if the party can present themselves as a compelling alternative to the Tories by 2020. On the other hand, any apparent progress that the party makes under its new leader in the next few years could be illusory, in that voters simply will not be sufficiently engaged for us to say that it means that Labour are set fair to win in 2020. 

Image source, Getty Images

Former Labour voters prefer leadership contender Yvette Cooper to frontrunner Jeremy Corbyn, a Newsnight/Ipsos Mori focus group suggests.

In-depth discussion groups were held with voters aged 30-50 in the swing constituencies of Nuneaton and Croydon on 20 August and 26 August.

All had previously voted Labour, but gone with a different party in 2015.

Although small, focus groups often provide very accurate information due to their qualitative nature.

The focus group results are in stark contrast to polls, which have suggested that Mr Corbyn is the clear frontrunner in the race for the Labour leadership.

Keep reading here

Duncan Weldon
Economics correspondent

Image source, Getty Images

After a volatile week for global markets, investors' eyes are turning to this weekend's meeting of top central bankers at Jackson Hole in Wyoming. The Federal Reserve's annual symposium is always closely followed - but this one is seen as especially important.

One of the three main questions facing the global economy that I posed this week, was: "When will the Federal Reserve begin to raise interest rates?" This week should provide some more clues.

The worry is that the economic recovery in the US (and the UK) has been driven by ultra-low interest rates which have encouraged companies and households to borrow and helped support asset prices - leave that support in place too long and the Fed risks over-stimulating the economy and will, eventually, need to raise rates by more than it would otherwise to prevent overheating, financial instability and higher inflation.

But withdraw the support too soon (as interest rate doves argue the European and Swedish central banks did) and the Fed will end up having to provide more support later and could snuff out the recovery.

Keep reading on Duncan's blog

Yes, it really happened... environmentalist George Monbiot butchered a squirrel and ate it on air - together with presenter James O'Brien. The squirrel was accompanied by a fine Chianti. 

"I want people to be aware of the realities of food production," said Monbiot who had earlier written about why he ate a roadkill squirrel, external. 

You can watch the squirrel segment above. 

Image source, PA

The government has just announced 45 new members of the House of Lords - taking the total to 826 members. Critics say the Upper House is now ridiculously bloated - second in size only to China's National People's Congress. But what would the alternative be? We DEBATE tonight at 22.30 

Remember ‪#‎CecilTheLion‬, external? What can we learn from the way this story exploded? 

Was it an example of social media democracy in action? Or evidence of social media distorting our sense of perspective? 

Watch our debate with Brian May, Rosamund Urwin and Rosamund Urwin.

Chris Cook
Newsnight Policy Editor

Image source, PA

As central government, local authorities and charities pick up the pieces of Kids Company, the charity which collapsed insolvent in early August, new details are emerging of the discussions that preceded the Cabinet Office paying a controversial £3m grant to the charity in late July - just days before it closed its doors.

BBC Newsnight and BuzzFeed News have learned of a document, emailed to civil servants in the name of Alan Yentob, chair of the charity's trustees, on 2 June. It warned that a sudden closure of the charity would mean a "high risk of arson attacks on government buildings".

The document also warned of a high risk of "looting" and "rioting", and cautioned that the "communities" served by Kids Company could "descend into savagery". The document was written in language that civil servants across government described as "absurd", "hysterical" and "extraordinary".

The document was the first part of the case made by Kids Company, which sought to help young people up to the age of 24, for the £3m grant. It was part of a proposal that the financially troubled charity should be restructured into a much smaller "child wellbeing hub", which could survive on a smaller income.

Keep reading on Chris Cook's blog

Duncan Weldon
Economics correspondent

Image source, AFP

It's been a rough August for investors. As has now been repeated ad nauseam, trillions of dollars have been wiped off global stock markets.

And that's left many questioning the underlying health of the global economy and wondering what comes next.

At heart, anyone grappling with this issue is really asking themselves three inter-related questions: how sharp is China's slowdown? What happens next to commodities? And when will the US Federal Reserve raise interest rates?

The direction of China's stock market is very much a third order issue - despite all the attention over the last week.

It matters little to investors outside China, as foreign ownership is still very limited - except perhaps as a gauge of sentiment.

It matters only a little more to Chinese investors - who are still a tiny subset of the Chinese people.

Its wild gyrations certainly don't tell us much about the underlying health of the Chinese economy.

So on to the first real question - how sharply has China slowed? 

Keep reading on Duncan's blog

Image source, Newsnight

Labour is desperate to make sure they uncover as many non bona fide Labour supporters as possible. So far approximately 3,000 voters have been struck off. 

But how are they doing it? If you’re an entrist who supports another party and you’ve signed up to vote this is how you’ll be caught.

·         Unusual name. This sounds odd but one of the main ways local Labour branches are checking you out is simply by "Googling" you. The odder your name the easier you are to find. One branch claimed they found Tory peer Benjamin Mancroft because “his name was unusual”. Equally, if you’re called Tom Smith, it’s pretty difficult to separate you out.

·         Email address linked to social media. Yup, local branches are going through your social media. To have signed up to vote you must have supplied your email address. People who have used the same email address on say, their Linked In profile, are likely to rumbled.  

·         More than one social media profile. Some branches are trying to "triangulate" using as much open source data as possible. If you have open Twitter, Facebook, Google Plus accounts etc... branches will be more confident in reporting you to Labour HQ.

·         Labour door knockers. Do you remember ever talking to a Labour party campaigner during the General Election? Or getting a phone call from Labour's phone bank? If you responded saying you’d vote anything other than Labour, the party could be onto you. Some local branches are looking at their own internal campaign returns – a system called "Contact Creator". They won’t report you for saying you’d vote for another party per se, but it will put a red flag by your name.

·         Views that don’t chime with the "values and aims of the Labour party". Actually although this is a reason for being disbarred, you’re extremely unlikely to be struck off for having fruity opinions on Facebook. Labour is terrified of legal challenge and the general nature of Labour’s own definition – set out in clause 4 – makes it hard to remove your vote on these grounds. A list of reasons given to me by Labour HQ for excluding registered voters include: not being on the electoral register, already being a member, having stood for another party and being a known member/campaigner of other party. Nothing in there about having contrary opinions. 

And that’s about it. To register as a voter you had to provide so little information that if you have a generic name, you have closed social media profiles (or even better no online social media presence), the email you used is personal and you haven’t spoken to Labour canvassers it is very hard to prove you’re not a Labour supporter.

The chances of weeding all of the entrists out, as Harriet Harman has suggested, is extraordinarily low. 

Duncan Weldon
Economics correspondent

Image source, Getty Images

Chinese shares fell by almost 9% overnight, alongside another broad sell-off across Asia. Global stock markets suffered their worst week in years last week and, so far, Monday has provided no respite.

The immediate catalyst for China's fall was the lack of a government policy response over the weekend. Investors - both Chinese and foreign - have come to believe that the Chinese government will support prices in the market, and so far they have been right.

Previous sharp sell-offs have been met with a strong response by essentially banning large institutions from selling to interest rate cuts.

The lack of a response could be taken as either a bad sign (that China is running out of policy tools to respond, potentially damaging the credibility of a government that has staked a lot of on its rising market) or as a good one (that the government's commitments to market reform are real and are going to stop trying to manipulate their market).

Although either way, it's not good news for those who have bought Chinese equities which they thought were underpinned by a "Politburo Put".

Keep reading on Duncan's blog

Ed Brown
Newsnight producer

It's three weeks until we'll find out who's going to become the leader of the Labour party - and I thought it might be worth starting to reflect on the electoral challenge they'll face. Here's a diagram I made (all the squares are to scale):

The biggest square, the black one, represents everyone that voted in the last election.

So far, the leadership candidates have had to appeal to the tiny little orange square - the Labour MPs - to get nominated.

Since the nomination, they've been appealing to the next biggest square - people that can vote in the Labour leadership. 

But that's when, numerically, it starts getting really tough.

They have to reach out to and hold onto that much much larger, bright red square - the people that voted Labour in 2015.

And then, beyond that, they have to pick up new voters. That's why I've included a dotted line to show what they'd have to do to get as many votes as the Conservatives last time around - which we can use as a very rough approximation of what scraping a majority might look like.

That's why all the candidates are having to walk a strategic tight rope. 

If you think that Labour leadership voters have different views from those bigger groups of people Labour needs, then there is a trade off between appealing to that electorate, and the broader ones they need to win the general election in 2020. 

The strategic calculation for a candidate might be something like this. What is the minimal number of pronouncements that Labour leadership voters will like but the general electorate won't that I can get away with, and still win the Labour leadership election.

Now Jeremy Corbyn seems to take the view that this number is pretty high - in fact, he'd probably entirely reject the premise that it's impossible to appeal to the wider electorate with very left wing policies, so there's no trade off.

Liz Kendall appears to think this number is much lower - she has suggested that for Labour to appeal to the general electorate, it needs to take positions that might be seen as less left wing - or at least less comfortable for a left wing party to take.

Burnham and Cooper seem to sit somewhere between the two.

Who is right? There's no telling - but I think we'll start to get a pretty good idea once the polls settle down after the leader is elected on 12 September.

** A few sharp eyed psephologists on Twitter have noticed that I have defined "the electorate" as being all the people that voted in 2015 - rather than the total number of people eligible to vote. There's an implicit assumption here that turnout will remain closer to 60-70% than 100% at the next election. Of course, if you think 2020 will herald a sudden spike in turnout, you could redraw the a much bigger "electorate" square - and those Labour squares would look a lot smaller.