07/10/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Jeremy Corbyn shuffles his Shadow Cabinet, sacking his chief

whip and promoting Diane Abbott to Shadow Home Secretary.

Ukip say leadership candidate Steven Woolfe has "reached out

the hand of friendship" to his fellow MEP Mike Hookem,

after their altercation yesterday left Mr Woolfe in hospital.

We'll assess the implications for the party.

The EU Commission considers a new plan to bring the citizens

of Europe together - free Interrail passes for 18-year-olds.

And after Liam Fox says he won't be sharing Chevening House

with Boris Johnson and David Davis, we've got the Daily Politics guide

to the Government's top official residences.

This house goes with the job and when I say it goes

with the job, I mean it goes with the job!

All that in the next hour and with us for the first half

of the programme today, the Daily Mail's political editor

Let's kick off with the latest on Jeremy Corbyn's Shadow

Last night the Labour leader started to fill in the gaps

in his Shadow Cabinet, following his victory over

leadership challenger Owen Smith two weeks ago.

Labour's Deputy Leader Tom Watson said recently that the party

needed to "put the band back together" after a summer

So who has Jeremy Corbyn appointed as his

The Chief Whip Rosie Winterton, popular with many Labour MPs,

has been sacked, due to artistic differences.

She makes way for a comeback by Nick Brown, who served

as Chief Whip under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Andy Burnham is going solo and running to become mayor

So he is replaced as Shadow Home Secretary by Diane Abbott,

Baroness Shami Chakrabarti, who only joined the party

earlier this year, is appointed Shadow

Clive Lewis was involved in a row with the party

leadership over Trident policy at the Labour conference.

He has been moved from his defence post

The new Shadow Defence Secretary is Nia Griffith.

She is one of four Labour MPs who have resigned this year

Other returning band members are Sarah Champion,

Jonathan Reynolds and Keir Starmer, the new Shadow Brexit Secretary.

But will the changes get Labour MPs all singing

One senior party figure has already called the reshuffle "cack

Well, we are joined now by Jo Stevens in Cardiff. Welcome to your

pointment to the Shadow Cabinet. Keir Starmer wrote in July it is

simply untenable to suggest that Labour can offer effective

opposition without a change of leader. What's changed? Well, we

have had a leadership election. Jeremy has won and won convincingly

and I think Keir Starmer probably feels like I do which is that we

have got to get on with forming a credible, and functional opposition

to the Tory Government because the public needs it. So I'm delighted

that he has accepted his position in the Shadow Cabinet. I was delighted

to accept mine and I'm ready to get on with the hard work. So you're

going to swallow any of the reservations you had about Jeremy

Corbyn? Well, there has been a leadership election... There was one

before, of course, and he was elected then but you said it became

obvious that Labour were able to fulfil the obligations of being an

opposition? We have to abide by the decision and there is a

responsibility on us all, members and elected representatives to make

sure that we fulfil the official opposition role and that's what the

public want us to do and we've got to get on with it. There are huge

challenges facing the country. We saw last week at Tory Party

conference a xenophobic rhetoric coming from Theresa May and from

Amber Rudd and we have got to challenge that because that's not

what people want to hear. You said three months that Owen Smith was a

better bet than Jeremy Corbyn to win the next general election. Do you

still think he would have been a better bet to win the general

election? I really wanted Owen to win the leadership election. I have

long thought that he was a potential future leader of the Labour Party

and I'm disappointed that he didn't win, but as I did last year when

Jeremy stood for election, I didn't wack Jeremy then and he won and I

decided, you know, the best thing party loyalty is you stick behind

whoever is the leader, the elected leader of the party. We're a

collective, the Labour Party is a collective and we have a leader,

we've got to get on with the job. Do you think he can win the next

general election? I hope he can. It is all our jobs from members, right

up to elected representatives to make sure that we give the best

possible opportunity to that happening. One of Mr Corbyn's

allies, Shami Chakrabarti has been appointed to the Shadow Cabinet only

five months after she joined the party to deliver a report on

anti-semitism, today the Jewish board of deputies says this makes

her report look like a job application and accused her of

selling out the Jewish community. What's your response? We have a

problem with anti-semitism within the Labour Party in the way there is

a problem with anti-semitism across the UK and we need to deal with it

properly, thoroughly and appropriately. Shami Chakrabarti has

a huge amount of experience that she will bring to the House of Lords and

to the Shadow Cabinet. Shetion an excellent person to be a member of

the House of Lords and the Shadow Cabinet as Shadow Attorney-General.

Timing wise, you know, maybe I can see why people will criticise, but

give her a chance. Did you think it was a whitewash her report? I don't

think it was a whitewash, no, but I think things could have been handled

better and I know that Jeremy said during his leadership campaign that

he made mistakes and the sign of a strong, good leader is someone who

licence and persuades and influences others, but someone who makes

compromises and I think there need to be some compromises. I hope

yesterday as appointments where Jeremy appointed people who were

Owen Smith supporters shows an element of compromise and I hope to

see more. Do you think there was compromise when he sacked Rosie

Winterton as Chief Whip? I'm sad about Rosie going. I thought she did

a brilliant job in very, very challenging circumstances... So why

did he sack her? Well, I haven't talked to Jeremy about that and I

don't know and I saw Rosie's statement yesterday. I wish her the

very best and I wish Nick Brown the best in his role and I'm sure he

will do as good a job as Rosie did. Jeremy Corbyn talked a lot about

olive branches during the Labour Party Conference. And Rosie wenthed

winner tonne was seen as the glue between the Parliamentary party and

the leadership and the members and he sacked her. Does that seem

conciliatory to you? Well, I'm looking at the whole picture. You

can focus on one individual, but I want to see... She was an important

individual as Chief Whip? Of course, but I want to look at the whole

picture. If you look at the appointments made yesterday, I

supported Owen Smith, and Keir Starmer supported Owen Smith, sir ra

Champion either remained neutral or supported Oult. He held out an olive

branch. There is more to do. It is a good start. Let's see what the

frontbench and the Shadow Cabinet look like when it is concluded. What

did Clive Lewis do? It seemed because he backed Trident, his

decent was punished with a move out of defence? Well, I don't think it

is a demotion or a punishment. The job that Clive has taken on, which

I'm sure he will do very well, is a really critical job. We're talking

about the term of Brexit. All the issues around protection of

employment rights and health and safety at work will come under

Clive's role in that department. And so, you know, I think for Clive, it

is a great move. I think he'll do a really good job and I think Nia will

do a good job as Shadow defence secretary. What do you make of this

reshuffle, carrying it out now in the way he has? Well, pity poor Nick

Brown. He was the Chief Whip during the years of the Blair-Brown... And

he was a Brownite? He was a heavyweight figure there. But I

suspect that what he had to implement during the worst years of

the Blair-Brown what we called the tibgibies, the feeling is they have

to provide some kind of opposition. There is no prospect of removing

Jeremy Corbyn any time in the near future so the best they can do is

get on with the job. Well, Jo Stevens is right, and he held out an

olive branch to those who have criticised him because he has got

Nia Griffiths and he put her in defence and taken on Sarah Champion

and Keir Starmer, will that be enough? Please. These are not

towering figures in the Labour movement. They are new MPs and they

are not the figures who have been the greatest decenters against

Corbynism. It doesn't exactly show a great breadth across the party

there. Thank you. The former Labour Prime Minister

Tony Blair has given an interview to Esquire magazine where he's

hinted at a possible career move, so our question for today is,

what is he thinking of doing? Is it a) Going on Strictly Come

Dancing, b) Becoming

Secretary General of the UN, or d) Returning to frontline

British politics? Later in the programme Isabel

will give us the correct answer. Ukip's Steven Woolfe will be kept

in hospital for another two days, following what Nigel Farage called

"an altercation" with fellow Ukip MEP Mike Hookem

at the European Parliament. The party released these pictures

of Mr Woolfe being visited by Mr Farage and say the extra stay

is just a precaution. An inquiry has been launched

into the incident with Mr Hookem apparently denying a physical

fight took place. Details are sketchy,

but the BBC has been told it's believed Mr Woolfe

banged his head against a window Following a vote two hours later

"he collapsed" and the emergancy Earlier this morning Ukip MEP

Nathan Gill spoke to the media I have just been to see my good

friend Steven Woolfe, He told me that his family are fully

aware of his situation and where he is and his health,

and he can't wait to He's sick of croissants

and is looking forward to a good full English breakfast,

so as you can tell, Steven has this morning reached out

the hand of friendship to Mr Hookem, to Mike, and has realised that

things did go too far in the MEP meeting, so he's made moves

forward for keeping us The party will be holding a full

and thorough investigation I myself was not in the room

at the moment that it happened. I walked into the room

as it was happening. So I cannot comment fully,

and I do not wish to at this stage. We can speak now to Raheem Kassam,

a former advisor to Nigel Farage and one of Steven Woolfe's rivals

to the be the next Ukip leader. Welcome to the programme. Ukip lost

a leader after only 18 day ins Diane James, the party's MEPs cannot meet

without some fight breaking out and your biggest donor Aaron Banks says

the party is at breaking point. Is he right? Yeah, I think the party

has some serious crisis going on inside. I don't think it is anything

that it can't recover from and I also would point out that this isn't

unique to Ukip. I maornings you have seen Labour MPs and Tory MPs having

brawls in Parliament before, it is not a good look, but it is nothing

the party can't move on from. The party chairman said Ukip would hold

on an investigation into what happened, into the altercation

between Steven Woolfe and Mike Hookem. Should they both be

suspended from the party in your mind? I don't know. We don't know

enough about what happened at the moment to make those sort of calls

and I think anybody who is trying to assign blame either way or... Well,

that's what I mean. Suspend both of them? Yeah, but why? You don't know

what happened yet. Let's see what the investigation turns out. The

point is this, Ukip is searching for a leader, there is serial things

that the party could be doing and should be doing now to make the

country a better place and needs to stop this internal fighting and

actually get and literal fighting and get on with doing its job and

that's to be an opposition party. Goodness knows, Labour is not going

to do it. How much reputational damage has been done to the party?

You could accuse both of them of bringing the party into disderoute?

It is against the party's rules and it is a phrase banded around a lot

especially by people who want to get others kicked off leadership ballots

for instance and there is all sorts of talk going on in the background

in Ukip and my phone is ringing off the hook of people saying, "They are

trying to kick Stephen off." It is unfair, you do have to look at

having a full investigation into this. I think, you know, this is a

human problem. It is an emotional problem that occurred yesterday and

you know I think, we're very quick in politics to forget the people are

human beings and quick to forget we all make errors so I want to hear

what actually happened, and then I'll comment about what I think

should be done. It has been reported that one of the things that caused

the tension to spill out, was that Steven Woolfe's comments that he

held discussions about possibly defecting to the Conservatives. Can

someone credibly stand to be Ukip leader soon after considering

leaving the party? That is a really interesting

question, and one I have wrestled with inside my head since I heard

this. And the answer? I like Steven a lot,

he's a good personal friend of mine. I think you may have made a judgment

error in talking to the Conservative Party. I think a lot of people in

the party have been thinking about these things as well. Some members

have been joining the Conservative Party over recent weeks. Can he

credibly stand? I think you can, to be honest. I think he is good enough

of heart to know when he has made a mistake and move on for it. I would

like to see Steven be in the race. How long have you been a member of

Ukip? Consecutively or in total? Consecutively, up until now? I

joined at the last leadership election, about two months ago.

Before that I was a member for about 18 months and then had a lap cement

ship of 6-8 months. Will that make it difficult for you to stand?

According to the rule book you need to be a consecutive member of the

two years? There are two party rule books floating around the Internet,

once is 28 days and one says two years. The NEC try to put a

five-year rule in last time. The point is this, this is an important

election for Ukip and I thing it should be an open contest. I think

anyone who has good ideas for the party should be able to stand. This

is a existential moment. If the NAC start their chicanery will again or

they're doing is bringing focus back on themselves, as to why the party

needs drastic reform. You say it is chicanery and complained a little

earlier in the interview about using excuses to kick people out of the

party or suspend them. You said in an interview if you were elected

Neil Hamilton would be the second person out of the door. So you want

to do the same, who is the first? The first would be Douglas Carswell.

So you want to kick people out of the party? There is no doubt, I'm

not going to hide the fact, everybody knows I am someone who

thinks that there are certain people in the party you are setting out to

do the party harm intentionally, I believe that. But after yesterday's

incident I also spoke to Ian Dalla LBC and said, this makes me pause

and makes me think. It makes me think that maybe we need a moment to

come together, we need a moment to sit around a table and try to hammer

out our grievances and differences. If at that point we all still

realise we can't get along, then somebody needs to stand up and say,

either you go or we go or something has to happen here to solve this

problem, but I do think from the outset, I will extend the hand of

friendship, let's all sit down and try to hammer these problems out.

What no more threats of kicking people out of the party up. What is

your view on how likely it is the party can come together? Do you

think it was to be around in a couple of years' time? I'm not

convinced, to tell you the truth, which I think is a great pity. I

think there is absolutely a space for a political party or movement

that holds the government's feet to the fire. We have seen what a mess

Labour is in, here's hoping they manage to form a credible and robust

opposition, but it isn't now. So many people voted for the UK

Independence party at the last election, so there is not a space

for it to do more. But I thing the current setup, the people and the

individuals, all the baggage, the history, the problems with money and

discipline, it feels as if the show is over. What you think about Raheem

Kassam, in terms of being a potential leader? He's been around

Ukip for a long time. I'm not interested in a layperson as to how

many months he has or hasn't been a member. Has to be rules? Rules are

causing lots of grief at the moment, if you can or can't punch each

other. Presumably there is normally a consensus around no punching? You

would assume so. He has been around Ukip a long time and I am sure he

should be involved in any leadership contest. My feeling is, I'm not sure

why anyone would want to lead this party at the moment. Why do you want

to lead it at the moment, bearing in mind how difficult it is and you

yourself have said you might not be able to come together? I think

Isabel is completely correct. I think there is no opposition in this

country at the moment and then need to be some serious political

opposition in this country. We can't have a 1-party state. We can't have

a Theresa May trying to be Ukip for two and a half years to siphon off

all the Ukip members and turn it on its head when it has an election

coming up and she has to fight Jeremy Corbyn... Her leadership has

convinced them to defect and join the Conservative Party. On your

leadership... They will come back under my leadership. Many have

linked you to Nigel Farage's comments during the referendum about

HIV and AIDS. You said you describe the commenters shock and awe, is

that true? I did. Do you still stand by those comments, and he should

have raised in that debate? I don't know what you mean by still stand by

them. Nigel Farage got up onstage and unbeknown to us make this

statement. The statement was one of complete fact and one that was

intelligent to bring up in a discussion about the National Health

Service, especially when we consider the National Health Service is

turning into an international health is this, however, I totally agree

with some people and commentators out there who said it could have

been done in a different way. It could have been done in a more

tactful way. This was a statement, and I won't get into naming names.

It was about judgment? Hold on, as much as people tried to goad me into

this, I won't name names. Other people in the party briefed Nigel on

that issue, not me, that's why said it was shocking and awful. It was a

flippant turn of phrase used with some journalists in the room

afterwards, so I didn't appreciate the fact they reported it. That's

what they do. Thank you for joining us, Raheem Kassam.

Now, cast you mind back a few months if you can,

A report published today by the pressure group

Transparency International, suggests that over half of the money

donations to the leave and remain campaigns were made

Fought primarily by the two big official referendum groups -

Vote Leave and Britain Stronger In Europe -

almost ?30 million was spent in the run-up to the vote.

Transparency International says that the dominance of rich donors

is undermining our trust in politics, and are lobbying

for a new cap on individual donations.

Joining us now in the studio is the organisation's UK

Policy Director, and former Liberal Democrat MP

Welcome back to Daily Politics. What does it say, your new report? It

shows an astonishingly large amount of the money spent on the referendum

campaign came from a very small number of exceptionally wealthy

people. The report also reveals findings of the global corruption

barometer survey that showed a representative sample of people in

the UK, three quarters of them, thought wealthy individuals had

undue influence because of their position in society. Does actually

affect trust in politics in any major way? People will say there

have been big donations to parties over history, does this change that?

A quarter of people in that survey said they believed most or all MPs

were involved in corruption. Whether that is accurate or not, it shows

there is a great degree of distrust. After the referendum, so many

political leaders were wondering why they weren't connecting with the

people. Do you think it is about donations? It's not factual truth to

say most MPs in this country are corrupt, it's a perception problem,

isn't it? Why would donations from a few rich individuals be, in your

mind, the one thing that makes people lose trust in politics? I'm

sure it's not just one thing. What we're trying to show with this

report is how incredibly vulnerable the British political system is, to

small numbers of people with a particular vested interest in having

a disproportionate degree of influence. Hasn't that been borne

out by many commentators saying that is what the referendum was about.

Not being told what to do by expat. The rich and for having too much

say? You know what I think is remarkable about the way the

referendum was funded? The enormous number of very small donors that

there were. Interesting case in point is Peter Hargreaves, a very

wealthy man, who donated a lot of money out of his own pocket to the

Brexit campaign. He spent that money on a leafleting campaign to millions

of households, offsetting somewhat the money the government spent, ?9

million of it, of taxpayers money, and his leafleting campaign prompted

thousands of people to give a few pounds of what they could afford.

And by the way, when Peter Hargreaves achieved what he wanted,

which was Brexit, the share price in his

company nosedived. That tells you everything about the motivations,

the good motivations. You are saying small donations work? It is better

to have or try to get more people, a bit like Donald Trump has, attracted

a lot of small donations? What is important is people are engaged in

politics. That they feel they have a stake in it and they can put a

little bit into it. Fine, ?3 donation, 30 poun ds donation, I

think that of the information revealed by. The point of the

information revealed need to fight their political campaigns don't come

from those people, it comes from a very small number of wealthy

individuals. I don't believe from my experience in Parliament that those

politicians want to spend time courting wealthy donors any more

than we want them to focus their efforts on it. Are you suggesting

state funding? As you know, it's not a report is most of the resources

that political parties need to fight their political campaigns don't come

from those people, it comes from a very small number of wealthy

individuals. I don't believe from my experience in Parliament that those

politicians want to spend time courting wealthy donors any more

than we want them to focus their efforts on it. Are you suggesting

state funding? As you know, it's not a popular we are recommending a cap

on donations of ?10,000 a year, which originated from a we are

recommending a cap on donations of ?10,000 a year, which originated

from donor funds for the campaign report. And looking at tightening

the rules around company donations. The third largest donor of funds for

the any accounts. We know very little about exactly where the money

came from for that operation, because it isn't registered as a

participant in the referendum and only appears a company called better

for the country limited, set up barely a year ago and as a result

haven't filed any accounts. We know very little about exactly where the

money came from for that operation, because it isn't registered as a

participant in the referendum and only appears on of the grassroots.

Would that starve the main political parties and smaller ones, like the

Liberal Democrats of vital funding? If you don't have state funding and

you are going to cap the donations. The Lib Dems themselves, the party

you are part of, had big donors, with big donations? Your party

wouldn't have survived without forms of the grassroots. Would that starve

the main political parties and smaller ones, like the Liberal

Democrats of vital funding? If you don't have state funding and you are

going to cap the donations. The Lib Dems themselves, the party you are

part of, had big donors, with big donations? Your party wouldn't have

survived people think all or most MPs are corrupt. But that is untrue,

is it? Absolute nonsense. I think we need to get away from the idea that

donating to politics is some kind of grubby? I think it would have caused

problems for a number of political parties, and it's a good problem for

them to have, so they do do the outreach Isabel was talking about.

So people feel they have ownership over how the democratic process

works. The survey says it has evidence on 28% of people think all

or most MPs are corrupt. But that isn't true, is it? Absolute

nonsense. I think we need to get away from the idea that donating to

politics is some kind of. Does net by you influence? Very little, I

would say. Go back 20 years, even ten or 15 years to the whole issue

that Tony Blair had with cash for peerages. Things are really tight in

this country. We have an incredibly robust media. You lot away with

anything and rightly so. Compared to some of countries we do hold the is

spent on a referendum from a company that doesn't declare where that

money has come from I don't think things are tight. And there is a

major problem with trust in British politics. Politicians, no matter

what their platform or what party they offer are not going to be? When

?2 million is spent on referendum from a company that doesn't declare

where that money has come from I don't think things are tight. And

there is a major problem with trust in British politics. Politicians, no

matter what their platform or what party they often are not

The position of Prime Minister comes with many powers of patronage -

like making appointments to public bodies, and dishing out gongs

PMs also get to hand out the keys to a handful of so-called "grace

and favour" buildings, including the grand country house

It's traditionally the official residence of the Foreign Secretary,

but Theresa May has granted access to Chevening not

just to Boris Johnson, but also the Brexit Secretary

David Davis, and the International Trade Secretary Liam Fox.

However, this week Dr Fox told a fringe meeting at the Conservative

conference that he won't be staying at Chevening, saying

to command the attention of the electorate when deploying arguments

if they don't overcome this trust issues. Duncan Hames, thank you

Here's Ellie with our Daily Politics low-down on the top official

In no particular order, bat at number five it's Chequers'

thousand acre 16th century Buckinghamshire gaffe

Last year the Prime Minister's office paid just over

Well, think of all those light bulbs!

But it also boasts a nice local, The Plough, perfect

for entertaining your mates, like the President of China.

They even offer free childcare, or so thought David Cameron,

who once left his daughter there by mistake.

At four at Bute House in Edinburgh's desirable Charlotte Square.

It's the official residence of the Scottish First Minister.

A nice pad for lunch with girlfriends, it's also got

great steps, crucial for all those staged photos.

At three, it's Hillsborough Castle, home to the Secretary of State

for Northern Ireland, when they're there, but they do

occasionally have to slum it with a lodger...

It's also the official residence of Her Majesty The Queen

In a number two, it's Dorneywood, another Buckinghamshire pad.

21 rooms, 215 acres and there for any Minister of the Crown

the Prime Minister of the day sees fit.

Usually that tends to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer,

but in the late 90s when Gordon Brown decided he didn't

need it, it was used by John Prescott, the then Deputy PM

And a number one, it's Chevening in Kent, built in the early 17th

century and set in 3,500 acres, it's usually been where foreign

secretaries get to rattle around in slippers or host big dinners

This house goes with the job and when I say it goes with the job,

This time round Theresa May wants these three to share it.

Reportedly Liam Fox says he prefers Dorset.

But come on boys, there's plenty of space for even those egos,

Political historian Seth Thevoz is here.

Is Liam Fox making a terrible mistake, missing out on Chevening?

Well, look, successive ministers always had their own decisions about

whether or not to use these places. The reality is that every minister

is incredibly busy. They have got a department to run and work as an MP

and they have a Kones quid to mind at the weekend. The idea that they

have got time to pop off and spend time in the country houses is

lieutenant crews. You're probably right. I hadn't realised how grand

Chevening is, become the property of the British Government? None are

owned by the British Government. They are owned by various trusts. In

the case of Dorneywood, it is the National Trust, its gardens are open

to the public and it is a rather complicated legal arrangement, but

they haven't had them for long. It is less than a century ago that

Chequers, the first of the trio came into the country's hands. That was

because David Lloyd George who was Prime Minister at the time was the

first Prime Minister to not come from a land of gentry background and

not have his own private country house and it was an embarrassment.

To make up for this, this was gifted to the nation by Arthur Lee who

became Lord Lee. I had wonder why, why? Yes. You could see it would be

useful from that point of view, if you are a Foreign Secretary and now

we've got three seconds of state perhaps needing to host dinner

parties, they will be able to use it? You've got to remember, it is

not as if this is something which would never be needed. The

alternative costs of hiring out hotels and conferencing banqueting

facilities could go into the millions. Chequers has a running

cost of ?700,000 a year, if there were never used, it would be a

waste, but if they are making frequent use of it, it is a net

savings to the Government. There you go, they are cost effective. Have

you ever been? I'm waiting for my invitation. Cold come. Cold come. It

will come. In a way, there is nothing wrong with our great

ministers being able to host particularly foreign guests in

lovely places. Do you think Liam Fox is doing this for appearances or he

can't bear the thought of having a roe da with Boris Johnson and David

Davis is that tiresome? You're probably right. They're incredibly

busy, Liam Fox travels a lot and so does Boris Johnson. Just thinks he

can do without it and if it saves money, great. Nick Clegg said he

couldn't stand the place when he was Deputy Prime Minister. Does that

surprise you when he said that? He went on to say he only used it once

or twice a month which strikes me as a high usage actually! I hope you

get to enjoy them at some stage, thank you for coming in.

It's time now to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was what career move is Tony Blair thinking of doing?

A) Going on Strictly Come Dancing, b) Becoming Secretary General

of the UN, c) Top Gear Presenter, or d) Returning to frontline

Where's I'm A Celebrity? Well, you can have a chat with his PR people?

None of them pay enough for Mr Blair. I can't see it. You don't.

Which one was it just to clarify? Well, in reality he wants to

apparently potentially come back to British politics. You don't think it

will happen? I can see why he wants to find a bigger purpose now he made

so much money, but the problem is, there is too much baggage there.

Thank you very much for being our guest of the day.

Coming up in a moment it's our regular look at what's been

For now, it's time to say goodbye to Isabel Oakeshott.

So for the next half an hour we're going to be focussing on the EU.

We'll be discussing Brexit, climate change and

First though here's our guide to the latest from Europe -

Theresa May kicked off the week with that announcement...

We will invoke Article 50 no later than the end of March next year.

So even the most mathematically challenged of us can deduce that

Britain could leave the EU by summer 2019.

Over in Strasbourg, the European Parliament's chief

Brexit negotiator warned that the EU should not compromise in Brexit

talks on its four founding principles.

Freedom of movement, capital, goods and services.

The new EU border force was launched on Thursday, aiming at stopping

the dozens of migrants who attempt to reach Balkan member states over

Hungary rejected the EU's quota for migrant resettlement

in a referendum, that is the people who voted.

Half the voting population failed to make it to the ballot boxes.

And in the vote attended by the UN Secretary General,

MEPs backed the world's first global agreement

on curbing carbon emissions, which was then ratified by other

It's set to come into force in a month's time.

And with us for the next 30 minutes, I've been joined

by the Ukip MEP Jonathan Arnott, and the Green MEP Molly Scott Cato.

Let's take a look at one of those stories in more detail,

the ratification of the Paris climate change agreement.

You were in favour, why? Well, obviously we are all agreed now that

chi mat change is the greatest threat facing humanity and it is

significant that the world's countries have come to go and agreed

the treaty and it has come into force quickly because people are

focussed on this. There are two issues, moving rapidly towards

renewables like they are doing in Germany and the other thing is

focussing on the aspect of land that can be used for carbon capture. I

think now we're leaving the Common Agricultural Policy, we can make

sure that when we give subsidies to farmers we do that in return for

them dealing with climate change through the way they farm. Why did

he vote against it? Two reasons, first of all I believe that the

decisions should be taken at Westminster by our Parliament in

Westminster and not through the European Union. We should decide for

ourselves which international agreements we should sign up to.

Secondly, my concerns is we're going, often we are putting the cart

before the horse in response to low-carbon emissions. My view is

that, particularly when you were to point where you've got pensioners

who have to struggle to choose between heating and eating in the

winter, when energy bills are going up and up and up, what you have to

do is, you have to get the technology right and make sure you

have the right renewables with the technology right and make them

affordable. That's a research and development question. We need to

make sure we're doing that. Will it work then? If you take on what

Jonathan Arnott is saying. Will it work in practise? Well, we already

see governments committing to this and there is a lot of political

direction now and political travel, but I think also businesses are

coming on board and one of my key concerns as we make the transition

to a renewable economy, we don't want to see the benefits accruing to

banks and large companies. We can allow fention funds to invest in the

infrastructure and the money will come back to them. It is a lot of

support, 73 nations ratified, they are counting for 57% of the world's

greenhouse gas emissions. So in a sense there is a consensus of sorts

behind an agreement like this, which in the future should make energy

costs as renewable energy is getting cheaper better for everyone? I think

there are certain issues there as well where what we're looking at the

moment is China building up to another 400 coal fired power

stations and China increasing its emissions far, beyond anything that

the entire UK output is. So there are certainly global questions and

the global questions have to be answered by getting the technology

right. All right. On Thursday, the Ukip MEP Steven Woolfe was

hospitalised after what was described as an altercation with a

fellow Ukip MEP, Mike Hookem at European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Early reports suggested Steven Woolfe was unconscious

and in a serious condition, but by the afternoon he was awake

and tweeted that he was feeling "brighter, happier

The incident came just a day after Steven Woolfe declared

that he would stand for the leadership of Ukip,

following Diane James' announcement that she was standing down

The other MEP involved in the altercation, Mike Hookem has been

talking to the BBCment he says he didn't throw a punch at his

colleague and nor did he injure Steven Woolfe There was no punches

thrown and no digs, there was nothing. People would term hands

bags at dawn. A bit of a scuffle. The other door he came through

opened up. I was not holding hillment I didn't push him. He fell

back into that room on to an MEP that was stood inside the room.

Well, that was Mike Hookem giving his account of what happened. Were

you there? No, I wasn't there. I arrived at the meeting 15 minutes

late because it was called at short notice and I had get to there from

my hotel room. I have only been able to piece together what happened from

speaking to a number of my colleagues. What have they said to

you? My impression there was a little bit of animosity at the start

of the meeting. That there was discussion about Steven Woolfe

having had discussions about defecting to another party which

Mike Hookem took umbrage at. We were then and I'm then told and I must

stress I'm recounting what other people said to me, but they are

saying to me that then Steven Woolfe took off his jacket and basically

said to Mike Hookem let's sort this outside or words to that effect.

Steven Woolfe's position as he says it as that he was wanting to discuss

it in private, that he wasn't suggesting a physical fight with

Mike Hookem who is pretty much of pensionable age. So but for whatever

reason, Mike Hookem, having heard that, I think if anyone says let's

deal with this outside, I think people start to get the impression

that some form of physical altercation. Maybe in Ukip meetings,

but not necessarily elsewhere? I have been in Ukip for 15 years and I

have never come across one like that one and I'm glad that I arrived at

that meeting late, but then what happened when they went outside, as

I understand it, they had gone outside the room and therefore,

there weren't witness to say that. So in terms of... Were punches

thrown? Who threw the first punch and who acted aggressively? That is

something that you're not going to get anybody to comment on. So

they're being investigated by the party and now the European

Parliament is investigating. Do you think they have both brought the

party into disrepute? I'm struggling about knowing exactly what happened

because obviously other people are involved. Let me put, other people

were the ones who were the witnesses to it and I wasn't. But let me put

it this way, this really portrays Ukip in an appalling light. The way

I look at this is our hard-working members, the people who go out and

put leaflets through doors and the people who have worked hard for this

party, year in and year out, they expect better of their MEPs than

what has been seen over the last 24 hours. Frankly they have a right to

expect better and I think it is absolutely disgusting that this

incident happened. Our members and activists have a right to expect

better and frankly the general public have a right to expect far

better too. Should they be suspended? That's a matter for the

party hierarchy to determine, but I mean, that is for them to decide,

not me. Right. What about, who would you support in a leadership contest?

I haven't decided yet partly because I don't know whether someone like

Paul Nuttall would be prepared to throw his hat in the ring. It is

clear from what we have seen from this situation that obviously, it

must surely be obvious to anybody having seen this, that Steven Woolfe

and of course, Mike Hookem, but I don't think Mike would put his hat

into the ring, surely, they can't now consider either of them could

stand in a leadership contest, surely to goodness. The European

Parliament now is investigating, the president put out a press release

saying words to that effect. What sanctions do they have? I've worked

alongside Steven Woolfe because he is an my committee and I speak on

finance and he speaks on finance and I found him to be a decent person to

work with, but the important point with this story is that Ukip are

bringing our country into disrepute. It is appalling when you see

somebody collapsed on the bridge in the European Parliament and I think

they have been doing this for sometime behaving with disrespect

and rudeness and now it has broken out beyond the chamber. Martin

Schulz says he will investigate this. I don't know whether he will

involve the police, but he will start inside the Parliament, if it

is obvious there has been an assault, that's a police matter. A

Conservative is going to be leading that investigation. We will be

waiting for the results of Ukip's inquiry and the one being run by the

European Parliament. In her speech to the Conservative

conference, Theresa May made it clear she will ensure Britain's

new arrangement with the EU will end the free movement of people and end

the European Court of Justice having So what does that mean

for our Brexit negotiations, when they start following

the triggering of Article 50 at some point before the end

of March next year? Our correspondent Kevin Connolly has

been testing the mood at the European Parliament

in Strasbourg. A busy day at the European

Parliament, and a busy week in British politics,

because we know a bit Not a deadline, of course,

but a sort of rough timetable. The Europeans here so there will be

no negotiating until Britain sets out its stall, but might there be

a bit of manoeuvring A question for the

Parliament's President. Talks are permanently

happening, that's normal. People speak to each other,

but to discuss with each other But it's going to become more

concrete through those talks, which aren't negotiations,

before you start negotiating? With me, nobody is concretely

speaking about it. Brexit is a big talking point here,

and given the scale and complexity of the talking to come,

there are those who agree that it The sooner we come up with the final

agreement, the better. Everybody would have something

to lose, if it was too much Our laws will not be made

in Brussels, but in Westminster. The judges interpreting those laws

will sit not in Luxembourg... Much will depend now, of course,

on Theresa May and how she handles So how are Europe's parliamentarians

judging what they are hearing? I think it's good that there is a

decision to trigger the Article 50. I think the better thing is that

on the UK side there is no agreement on how to negotiate it,

or what to negotiate. So tough talks coming up

for the UK, you think? Yes, I think it will be tough,

although not punishing. So Strasbourg is waiting to hear

more, much more, from London. And don't forget, all

this really matters. Europe's parliamentarians

have a vote on any proposed Brexit deal, and if they don't like it,

well, they could veto it. Molly Scott Cato, do you accept we

won't be a full member of the single market following Brexit? It seems

clear to May has ruled out free movement of labour and ruled out the

European Court of Justice having jurisdiction over British law. That

pretty much settled for? When we listened to her speech we heard, it

sounds like we're going towards hard Brexit and that is how her speech

was received in Strasbourg on the European end of the negotiation. I

think we should be aware of the great risks that poses to our

economy. A lot of jobs in this country, people working for

multinational corporations and they are here they are part of the single

market and can sell to other countries also part of the single

market. Why would the remaining 27 member states want to punish the UK?

We import more from the EU than we export. What would be the point of

putting punishing tariffs on our goods? We are at risk of seeing this

from a British perspective and Tory perspective, about trade and

economy. Isn't that important? In terms of France and Germany in the

aftermath of the Second World War was about political freedom on the

four freedoms underpin that. One of those is freedom of movement, and if

we don't accept that, we won't be able to trade freely in the single

market. We could have access to the single market and could still get

away without having to have the freedom of movement rules. That's a

British view. The French Prime Minister... We just heard that.

Francois Hollande last nights in Britain will suffer the consequences

if they go for what is being termed as they had Brexit, withdrawing, no

membership of the single market and not signing up to any freedom of

movement. Hollande won't be in place by the time any meaning filled

deal... You don't think his successor will feel the same? What's

happening here is the European Union is setting out their negotiating

position. What we need to do is set out our negotiating position and

then you have an negotiation. The danger we have at the moment, it

seems to me in British politics that far too many people are hearing a

negotiating position coming from the European Union and saying that

negotiating position is where we will end up. It's a little bit if I

when to buy a car and there was a list price on that car, I will

negotiate that price down. I would simply say, the person in the

salesroom is telling me this car is this price, there's no possible way

of any movement from that. And actually, when you look at the

Lisbon Treaty, article eight of the Lisbon Treaty makes it very, very

clear, that negotiations will be conducted in a spirit of

neighbourliness and cooperation. That might not be the reality. We

have heard European leader after European leader say is -- thing if

there could be a domino effect. They are going to be talking to. Is that

all it is? In the end, won't they just strike a deal that is

beneficial for both sides? I think the problem is seeing this as an

economic deal-making system. To them is a political structure, a

political union they value strongly without those four freedoms, it

won't hold together. Their priority is keeping the union together and we

are secondary to that, and economic negotiations are secondary to that.

Are using the Germans aren't interested in a good economic deal,

a good trade deal with the UK outside of the EU? It's not a

significant of them as is to ask on its 12% of our economy and only 4%

of our economy tied up in his stride. There is three times as much

importance for them, for us, in terms of getting it right. Except we

just heard from the one -- from one of the MEPs it would be tough talks

but not punishing. When you look ahead to invoking Article 50, when

the talks really begin and we see exactly whose cards are on the

table, will it not be a case that MEPs in Europe will look at it

practically and pragmatically and not emotionally? I think in some

ways they have to. What would be the point of MEPs if we were to come up

with a deal that works the UK, that works for the other EU countries, if

we're to come up with a deal that actually recognises the UK's

strengths come and frankly that's one thing I want to see Theresa May

doing, playing the strong hand we have in many areas. If we came up

with a deal that works for everyone, in whose interests would it possibly

be for the European Parliament to veto such a deal? Would you think

should happen to EU nationals who are here? Should there be a clear

statement from the government to save their position and their future

is here are 100% guaranteed, as David Davis said but Liam Fox

wouldn't? Yes, I think there should be. People who are living and

working in the UK legally, we can't say to them, you've got to go back

to the country that you've come from. Just like the Spanish

government would never say to British citizens living in Spain.

They might if there is a negotiation. I think the point is,

if we say that's not an issue on the table, then they wouldn't. And

frankly, I think the Spanish government would recognise that

Brits going out to retire and live abroad in Spain are taking a lot of

money on bringing that money into Spain.

With many EU countries facing eurosceptic movements of their own,

MEPs this week have been discussing a scheme which its backers say

could increase positive feelings towards the European Union.

The idea is to give every young person across the EU

a free inter-rail pass for their eighteenth birthday.

The European Commission says it will now consider the proposal.

This is a wonderful, enchanting idea.

The idea of a free Interrail pass for 18-year-olds,

investing in young people, investing in training

for European citizenship, enabling people to travel around

Europe promoting better understanding and knowledge

As we've heard in the past, Europe's all about emotion and one

way of feeling emotion is by travelling around

the Continent and that's the fundamental idea underpinning

this debate and I must say I'm very grateful to the head of the EBP

Group for having brought together an idea voiced by many

people during the State of the Union speech.

Thank you and I love trains and I love transport

and I want to continue to make it really easy for young people

to travel by train across Europe and across the EU and outside the EU

If you spend 361 euros for each 18-year-old in the EU on this

hair-brained irrelevance, it will cost 1.9 billion a year.

And even by the standards of the EU, this is madness.

TRANSLATION: Europe looks like a leaf in the autumn.

It is fatigued by its numerous crisis.

It is only young people that can transform this European oldsom

One of the people behind the campaign for free inter-rail

passes for eighteen year olds is Vincent-Immanuel Herr,

Welcome to the programme. Why did you launch the campaign? Hello,

thanks for having me, it's wonderful to be here. We launch the programme

as a result of a inter-rail trip we took ourselves this me and my

colleague travelled to 14 European countries. We found out how is

important is to experience Europe first hand. Before this trip we were

already Europeans in theory, but the trip turned us into Europeans out of

experience. It wasn't just textbooks but personal experience. We made

friendships, saw the beauty of diversity and made us appreciate

Europe much more. I think a lot of European people don't have that

opportunity and we really need to give them that opportunity, so all

Europeans know what Europe is about. It sounds wonderful but is it worth

the money? I think it is absolutely worth the money. 2 billion euros

sounds a lot at first, but this is a single-digit percentage of the

budget. A very small amount of the EU budget. If you think about the

long-term, the systemic effects of this move to strengthen European

identity, to foster cross cultural exchange and dialogue between youth

and of future generations, I think it is an invaluable programme that

will fastly further European integration. Who will it really

benefit, do you think, Vincent? You still have to have quite a lot of

money as an 18-year-old to fund the accommodation and the time away,

even with this sort of money behind it. I think this is a very good

point. We have thought about it a lot, talks with MEPs and think tanks

about this problem that you are mentioning here. I think the main

idea is you kind of level the playing field, that you make the

entry into mobility easier for youths across the board, and I think

it be worthwhile to build a couch surfing network around this idea,

the kind of see into Rela 's help others. Something like air BMB. Yes.

I went into railing and at the time it was expensive. Did you go? Yes.

Do you think it is a good idea? A great idea. It is good to see young

people being positive about Europe, we know young people voted to remain

and they see themselves as Europeans. I hope we could

participate in this even after we leave the EU. One of your colleagues

called this bribery and a rotten apple, that sounds harsh? I think

the point is MEPs have been very clear, they say they want to spend

taxpayers money, money that people have worked hard to earn, and being

taxed on, to provide this so that people can feel more European. And

frankly, I think travel is a great thing, I think it's great for young

people to travel, but I don't see, personally, that that is around the

boundaries of the European Union. My brother had a great time going out

to Malawi and working as an aid worker for six months. Let me just

get Vincent to respond. Very briefly, we any have a few seconds.

I think in a way this is taking the benefits of Rasmussen and applying

them to use. It is one of the most successful programmes that has

brought youth together and this would bring all youth together. I

think it would really benefit all of us so much, and move this continent

forward, including young Brits... It will include young Brits? At least

for now, yes. That is it for now from all of us, Cabaye. -- goodbye.