10/10/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Theresa May embarks on a diplomatic offensive in European capitals

to make the case for a fair deal for Britain outside the EU.

But should Parliament be consulted before negotiations begin?

Sparks fly in the second presidential debate

between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Did the scandal-hit Republican candidate do enough

Ukip's Steven Woolfe leaves hospital following that dust-up

Despite the incident, he's still the favourite to become leader.

And should parts of the countryside be turned back into wilderness?

Environmentalist George Monbiot has climbed on to his soapbox.

What I perceive when I see places like this is a barren wasteland.

All that in the next hour and with us for the whole

of the programme today is the Conservative

MP Oliver Dowden, and Dawn Butler, who has been promoted

to Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet in the brand new role

of Shadow Minister for Diverse Communities.

First today, the Prime Minister is shortly to arrive in Copenhagen

for talks with her Danish counterpart over Britain's exit

After that, she'll head to the Hague to meet the Dutch Prime Minister.

Meanwhile here, David Davis, the Secretary of State for Leaving

the EU will make a statement to the Commons later this

afternoon on the Government's approach to Brexit.

This comes after the former Labour leader Ed Miliband has said

Parliament should have a say on the shape of any Brexit deal.

Here is what he had to say earlier today.

If they begin the negotiations without consulting Parliament,

then after two years, or less than two years, they'll just

come to Parliament and say, "Well, it's yes or no".

I mean, I assume they'll try and get the final

We need to be knowing now what the Government is going to be

negotiating for and I believe they need to get the consent

of MPs because there's no other mandate here.

The Conservative manifesto said that the Conservative Party

was determined to stay in the single market.

Now, it sounded from what Theresa May and some

of her ministers were saying that we were going to

leave the single market, contrary to the manifesto.

So there's no mandate for a hard Brexit, a huge separation

from the single market, I don't believe, and that's why

I think Parliament's got to be consulted.

That was Ed Miliband. Is he right to say leaving the single market would

break a commitment on your Tory manifesto? I looked at the wedding

of the manifesto before I came on the programme and I don't think he

is correct on that. The clear manifesto commitment was to hold

that in our referendum. I remember there was scepticism on the doorstep

about whether we would deliver on it but we did deliver on it. The

manifesto says, we will safeguard British interests in the single

market. That was setting out the negotiating asks as part of the then

Prime Minister's renegotiation strategy but the clear commitment

was on the referendum. All this sort of talk is still going back and

trying to ask the question all over again. I was a reluctant remain but

I accept what the British people said and I think we should deliver

on it. Was actually says more clearly, "We are clear what we want

for Europe, we say yes to the single market". There was no way of

equivocating about that. You said yes to the single market. If we get

into technicalities of that, that is the paragraph that sets out what the

primates in -- premise to's negotiation asks were. Are you

saying that is not a clear commitment? That is not what you

meant, saying we will safeguard British interests in the single

market, we are clear about saying yes to the single market. I didn't

personally write the manifesto. You are in the party that did. I stand

by that manifesto. You stood on a manifesto. And that paragraph was

asking what the asks were for that renegotiation. What the Prime

Minister set out to get he didn't get fully at negotiation and the

British people chose to leave Europe. The battle now as to what

that Brexit looks like. Did the British people vote referendum for

the UK to come out of the single market? For me, during that

referendum campaign, there were two very big themes. People wanted to

have control of migration and they wanted control of their own laws.

The problem with the single market is that it has four fundamental

principles, freedom of movement, goods, services, capital and labour

and if you look back to why we got into this whole referendum on the

first place, one of the big issues was that we wanted to be able to

control migration, including from Europe, and it is quite difficult to

do that within the single market. So do you agree, then, that the two are

mutually exclusive. If Theresa May says we are no longer under the

jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and we want to control

borders, she wants the UK out of the single market? The strategy the

Prime Minister has set out, as I understand it, is to try and get a

deal suitable for Britain. We're not going to be constrained by existing

constructs. What do you say to the idea that the referendum has given

some sort of mandate to the government to decide how Brexit

negotiations are going to take shape? I think talking about the

negotiations on the asks is very important to what people voted for.

Yes, the question was a very simple in or out but what are the terms of

the out? What are the terms of the exit strategy? Should there be a

vote? Does Labour want to see a vote in parliament on the Government's

initial negotiating position? Labour would like to see a vote on the

terms so people, for instance, thought they were voting for an

extra ?350 million in the NHS. That was very clearly set out as one of

the negotiating terms in the campaign. What you say that you want

to have a vote and that is what Kier Starmer, the shadow Brexit

secretary, said yesterday but Diane Abbott, the Shadow Home Secretary,

said, "We have to be careful not to look as if we are not listening to

the result," and she wouldn't actually say that there should be a

vote so is she right or is Kier Starmer? No, because we are not

requesting or asking for people to rerun the election. What are you

asking for? We are not saying yes or no again. People have said we want

to leave the EU so we've accepted that people want to leave the EU.

What are the terms of that exit? Is it a hard Brexit? Are you saying

that we leave and we're out of the single market? Should there be a

vote on that? Yes, the bubbly to know what they are voting for. So

Diane Abbott, who wouldn't sign up to, was not speaking for the Labour

Party, Kier Starmer is? They are essentially saying the same thing.

What Diana saying is that we don't want to rerun the referendum, to ask

people again, do you want to leave? Are you happy with your Prime

Minister's negotiation is? When should that be? Before it is agreed

in the EE you that this is the terms on which we will leave. Straight

after article 50 of the vote -- is invoked? We're not saying that

step-by-step Theresa May has to come back and say, this is what I've

negotiated but an big things like single market, which is going to

affect a lot of businesses, the public need to know what that means.

There is growing pressure now for there to be a vote on whether the UK

remains part of the single market and whether that should be part of

the negotiations. I'm slightly confused as to Labour's stands

because Ed Miliband seem to suggest that the vote would take place

before invoking article 50, so it was a sort of negotiating mandate it

a very different question if it is on the outcome of the negotiation

process. I don't think there was confusion in terms of, what is it

that is going to happen when we leave the EU? People need to know,

what will it look like? What does it mean? Is this on the Government's

negotiating stance or on the outcome? As I understood, it was on

the negotiating stance. In that case, I have two problems with it.

The first is the negotiating is clearly an executive power, an

exercise of royal prerogative, and the reason for that is that the

Prime Minister of the day, or whoever is undertaking the

negotiation, needs to have the flexibility. That's why it's

exercised as a royal brother to power. I have a wider political

problem with it which is that I remember during the election

campaign, we had very clear battle stood up on one side was pledged

economic argument and on the other was the very compelling argument

about controlling migration and controlling our laws... Do you

accept many people didn't think that would mean coming out of the single

market? Rupert Morgan, the Tory MP, has said that leaving the single

market would break the commitment the Tories have made and that the

negotiating stance should be something that is voted on by MPs. I

think everyone is assuming we are going to get out of the single

market it there was a negotiating process to go on. I hope the Prime

Minister can get the very best deal possible. Let's not try and prejudge

the exact nature that. If we are going to leave the single market, is

it right that people understand that before the negotiations continue? As

I said, it doesn't make sense to start binding the Government's hands

before the negotiating process. Before we leave this, you were David

Cameron's deputy chief of staff and are now a backbencher under Theresa

May. It is a very different government now, obviously, post the

referendum. Are you as comfortable with the government you had now as

you were under David Cameron? I am completely comfortable. I thought

the Primus's speech in the hall was a fantastic speech. There are two

phases. What we had under David Cameron as our Prime Minister was

somebody who got control of the economy, fixed Britain's broken

finances, adopted a more inclusive stands for the Conservative Party.

So why has Theresa May dumped everybody from that era? I think

most of the government are the same as were under David Cameron but what

Theresa May recognised in her speech was, first of all, we need to

embrace Brexit and the consequences of that but, also, we need to

embrace people that feel they've been left behind over the past two

decades and for a Conservative government that believes in

capitalism, as I do, it is very important that we must constantly

review our mission. Of course, 48% didn't vote in favour of leaving the

EU. That's how elections work. Indeed.

According to newspaper reports, officials in the Foreign Office

think they've found someone whom they've labelled their secret

weapon to help them with Brexit negotiations, so our question

At the end of the show, Dawn and Oliver will give us

The Government says it will not force UK firms to list or name any

Last week, a Conservative briefing suggested firms would have to be

"clear about the proportion of their workforce

Labour says the Government is "in disarray" over the policy.

The government says critics have misunderstood the plans.

On Tuesday the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, told the Conservative

Party Conference that the Government would be "examining

whether we should tighten the test companies have to take before

She added, "The test should ensure people coming here are filling gaps

in the labour market, not taking jobs British

She was referring to the Resident Labour Market Test,

which businesses have to undertake when they want to recruit non-EU

workers, to demonstrate they are filling genuine gaps

This requires a company to advertise the role

in the UK for 28 days and demonstrate no qualified

In a briefing after the speech, the Government said it would consult

to "set out the impact on the local labour force of their foreign

recruitment and be clear about the proportion of their workforce

The next day, The Times newspaper led with the following headline:

The sub-heading read, "Plan to shame companies that turn

In an interview on the Today programme, Ms Rudd said she wanted

to "flush out" firms that were abusing the current rules.

who campaigned for Britain to remain in the EU,

said, "Those of us who find the denigration of non-British

workers appalling have a duty to speak out."

Michael Fallon, insisted, "We will not be asking companies to list

or publish or name or identify in any way the number of foreign

He said, "We're going to consult with business

on how we can do more to encourage companies,

to look first at the British labour market."

Has there been a U-turn on this? There most certainly hasn't done if

you look at the quotes, Amber Rudd never actually said there was going

to be some sort of naming or shaming or public register. But she did say

they would have to list to the numbers of none British workers. I

think it is sensible in terms of managing immigration policy.

Remember, we need to get immigration under control, to actually have a

sense of how many foreign workers a company employs. I don't think this

is terribly radical. They do it in the United States... I didn't ask

whether it was radical. What I'm saying is, has there been a U-turn?

Is the Government now going to require foreign workers to list how

many none British people they have working for them? Goal but there is

a consultation on going and I think that will be one of the proposals

the consultation. So it is still there? What is being argued is that

somehow the Home Secretary made the case that companies would be

published and named unchanged. It is about managing migration. Let's take

it one stage at a time. You said there is a consultation going on,

whether companies will be required to publish the numbers none British

workers they have. Not publish. Published suggest that it is put out

into the public domain. That is the U-turn, because that was the

implication. Can you show me where the Home Secretary said there would

be published register? I am baffled by this. I can't see where the Home

Secretary publicly said there would be a published register.

Well they've had to deny its. It's hard to U-turn when it was not

policy in the first place. So you can categorically say a list will

not be made public. I don't think there was ever a proposal for its.

But they will be required to come up with the data? It's one of the ideas

under consideration as part of the consultation. What do you think?

This has been clarified by Michael Farren and reiterated why Oliver

Dowd and that these comments were misinterpreted? I think the whole

premise of having a list worries me, whether it is published or secret.

Identifying the government should have a secret list of foreign

workers. -- I do not think the government should have a secret

list. The tone of the debate around migration and immigration is

worrying me, and the road this government is going down is deeply

disturbing. Having a list per se is the wrong way to tackle it. Did you

feel the same when Ed Miliband suggested this very idea in 2011?

Yes, I do not believe there should be a list, secret or published. Did

you make your voice public at the time when Ed Miliband floated this

exact idea of telling job centres which firms had more than 25% of

foreign staff? Ed Miliband did not make a public statement. He made a

speech. He did not make a speech at a party conference calling for

companies to publish a list of foreign workers and talked about

jobs that are just people can take instead. What did Gordon Brown say?

He said British jobs for British workers. And what happened when he

said that? The whole thing you up and he retracted that. So he was

wrong but you were a minister, did you say he was wrong at the time? I

did and he apologised at the time. I have not seen any retraction, all I

have seen is the government say, let's not nit-pick, let's look at

the details. The details are what are important, you are in

government, it is important what you say and the message you give out to

the public. We have been through this discussion, it was not ever the

intention that it would be published. Secondly I cannot

understand your outrage over this. As Jo was saying, this is something

Ed Miliband proposed in 2011, and for Labour to jump on the bandwagon

and call it outrageous does not ring true. And the labour policy on

immigration is slightly confused. Kir Starmer was saying you should

reduce numbers, what is the actual policy? What Labour is talking about

is putting systems in place to make sure people are properly paid, wages

are not undercut, and by companies doing that it will naturally bring

down immigration of people that are coming in and working. We are

looking at structures and systems. What Labour is definitely not saying

is going down the road of having a secret list of foreign workers. But

should the numbers actually come down? That's the question. Does

Labour believe that the number of migrants or the number of people

migrating to the UK, should they come down? We've quite clearly said

you cannot put a number on immigration because that is an

arbitrary number and it has never worked. Keir

Starmer has said that the numbers should come down. If people are

properly paid, naturally that will bring numbers down. So what are we

are doing to make sure people are getting paid the right amount. Is

the next level of migration to high? I don't think that we should look at

it in those terms. Keir Starmer says that number should come down. It is

how we work towards a fair immigration policy in the UK. I

understand that. Not how we denigrate people who are coming and

working. Is Keir Starmer denigrating when he says he would like the net

migration figure two come down? Said that is what Keir Starmer has said

but then you have to look at what he is putting in place and that is the

difference in terms of what the Labour Party is saying and what the

Tory party is saying. Do you think this was handled well by Amber Rudd

and the Home Office? The briefing by the Home Office said the government

would consult on whether to require businesses to be clear about the

proportion of their workforce which is international. Not as transparent

as it could have been. It did lead to calls in the press condiment the

government for what seemed to be, some even saying xenophobic remarks,

was it handled well? I think the Home Office handled it perfectly

well. What is actually going on is there is a group of people looking

for any excuse to revisit the Brexit decision. Which group are you

talking about? The media are constantly looking for splits and

divisions where there are none. The policy has been clear all along. A

lot of the people that have seized on this are trying to go back to the

original Brexit argument itself. I think that argument has been settled

by the British people. Part of that is certainly controlling migration,

something the Prime Minister is committed to doing. Steve Hilton

said the plan was divisive, Republic and insanely bureaucratic. Is it

right to put more bureaucracy from a Tory government on businesses? I

read his argument, he made some good points, but I do not agree. Why did

he write it? He is perfectly capable of speaking for himself will stop

lots of people have got carried away with something that is not a radical

policy, it is something they do in the United States, something Ed

Miliband proposed previously. This is about trying to control migration

which was a central issue, and the Prime Minister is determined to

deliver on its. Let's talk about business reaction, these are the

people that would be involved in making lists or making clear how

many non-British people they employ. The head of the CBI, not a

hysterical person, has warned that the Prime Minister risks closing the

door on an open economy, and not just talking about the issue we've

been discussing, she is talking more broadly about the whole tone of the

conference being anti-business and not welcoming, you accept that? I

really do not recognise this. I sat through the Prime Minister's speech

and that's not what I took from it, and not what I took from what the

Chancellor said. Conservative Party has always been and will continue to

be committed to an open economy, low taxes, deregulation. And as we even

the European Union it is more important than ever that we face out

to the world. That is not to deny that there were two very clear

messages from the referendum campaign. Number one was, people

wanted to control migration. Number two, people wanted control of their

own laws. When you say people, you are talking about 52%, you make it

sound like a vast majority. And what Carolyn Fairbairn is saying and

warning the Prime Minister is that if you take the issue of immigration

to fire then you will harm the economy. First of all you say it was

52 versus 48, actually I think if you look at what that number means,

more people voted for Brexit than voted for any political party in a

generation. That's not what I'm saying. It was not a vast majority.

Sane people is not quite the same as saying 80%, is it? I never said it

was the vast majority of people. I was clear during the referendum

campaign, these arguments were well aired. And for me this was where the

balance life. It was between the economic argument and the very

strong arguments for controlling migration and our own laws. On

balance people decided for the latter rather than the former. For

Now for some politics on the other side of the pond.

It was billed as the showdown that could decide the US election,

as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump went head to head in a candidates'

After a disastrous weekend for the Trump campaign,

which saw the Republican candidate having to defend comments he'd made

about groping women, the pressure was on Clinton to bury

In the end, with Mr Trump deciding attack was the best form of defence,

it was not so much sparks flying, as fireworks exploding.

First of all, let's take a look at some of the highlights

Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican nominee

for president, Donald J Trump, and the Democratic nominee

You described kissing women without their consent,

You brag that you have sexually assaulted women.

I don't think you understood what was said.

I apologised to my family, I apologised to the American people.

He has said that the video doesn't represent who he is,

but I think it's clear to anyone who heard it that it represents

If you look at Bill Clinton, far worse.

There's never been anybody in the history of politics

in this nation that's been so abusive to women.

And I'll tell you what - I didn't think I'd say this

but I'm going to say it, and I hate to say it,

to instruct my Attorney General to get a special prosecutor

to look into your situation because there has never been so many

There has never been anything like it and we're

When I speak, I go out and speak, the people of this

It's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump

is not in charge of the law in our country.

I pay tax and I pay federal tax, too.

A lot of it is depreciation, which is a wonderful charge.

Hey, if she had a problem, for 30 years she's been

Why didn't she do something about it?

Why didn't she do something about it?

She doesn't do anything about anything other than talk.

With her, it's all talk and no action.

Would either of you name one positive thing that

His children are incredibly able and devoted and I think that says

She does fight hard and she doesn't quit and she doesn't give up

and I consider that to be a very good trait.

I'm joined now by Jan Halper-Hayes, the chair of Republican Overseas,

and the playwright and critic Bonnie Greer,

welcome to both of you. Jan, to be clear, if it over for double charm

following the revolution revelations of those audio tapes? No. If he had

not handled himself as well as he handled himself last night it would

have been over. But a lot of people are saying he really is back in the

game. Plus, 96% of his supporters are still with him. Only 4%

defected. Are you still with him after this? I will continue to

defend him because we need a Republican in the White House. For

tax reform, for the Supreme Court. It's vital. And what was your

reaction to the tapes about him bragging about groping women? You

know, asking me is a little unfair because I wrote a bestseller and

interviewed over 4000 men and followed 43 men's lives. Men like

Donald Trump have been my clients. Alpha males behave that way so it

was not shocking to me. But should he be president? You know, it was 11

years ago. And I know there is an enormous amount of anti-bias, an

enormous amount of criticism, but is he the same and what has he learned

from this? He's still in the game says Jan. Of course he is. Because

he's an alpha male. It's interesting listening to Jan, I have Republicans

in my family. And people don't deal with the fact that there is a strong

African American conservatism that is very quiet, but it's there, OK?

It's epitomised by people like on Rice,: Powell. They are gone from

here. What is interesting listening to Jan, I totally respect her, it is

interesting, many Republicans like her are putting their hands up.

There are people saying we have two vote for this man because we do need

a Republican. We are in a cycle, we need a Republican in the White

House. But they don't want to present for him and the reason is

because he is not a Republican. He has taken over the Republican party

and that's the part that scary for a lot of people. He did a lot of dog

whistling last night which is how he is advised. He did a lot of low

information global waffling which talked to his supporters. And these

are not necessarily the Republican Party. Did you read that we have the

most unfavourable dislike candidates across the board. No question. You

would agree with that with Hillary Clinton? Her unfavourable statistics

are below his, but they are up there and they have been dug up for the

last three years. One of the reasons that exists is because we are in a

political environment now, not the kind I grew up in, where we are in a

media driven, social media driven age, where people can actually

intervene in a process that took a lot more thinking and new ones.

Hillary Clinton was up there last night giving policies, you can like

them or not, but she was doing policies. He was doing sound bites

and talking to his base. And the media was egging this craziness on.

And what do you say, Jan? It seemed too many people that the debate

plumbed new lows in terms of political discourse, do you agree?

I think the whole debate season through the primaries and now does.

But this debate particularly, between the two of them, talking

about sexual allegations on both sides, the personal ill servants --

insults, the prowling round the studio, they wouldn't shake hands.

Donald put his hand out and, actually, the life polls noticed

that. She didn't want to shake hands with him. But I think there are some

really important things to look at. Seven out of ten voters think the

country is going in the wrong direction. Three think it is OK to

write. What we need to understand and really what voters are

deliberating, do we want someone status quo, conscious, security,

values the institutions, do we want someone more like JFK or Ronald

Reagan, here and now, takes action, doesn't spend a lot of time... I'm

hearing you! Where is that comparison with JFK? I'm old enough

to remember JFK, Reagan. The Republican party hasn't promised

fast from their top candidate Watergate, OK? Could I explain why I

said it? I haven't taken the presidential assessment used with 41

presidents. He's losing white suburban women, he's losing women

like Jan. She knows it's true and what is out there, people are

talking about a silent 12. I put money on a silent Hillary. I think

there are people on the right sitting at the back, like Barbara

Bush, George HW Bush, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, who say, my

country is first. You are quoted as saying that Donald Trump is

psychologically balanced. When you say that people don't want Hillary

Clinton as a continuation of the status quo and that she is a deeply

unpopular candidate, is it worth voting for someone who is

psychologically imbalanced, in your view? Lets be accurate about the

quote. I raised the issue that since the convention, and so it was on

August three, that there was an element of him that was concerning

me in his behaviour that looked like psychologically imbalanced. And, you

know, I have a very, very consciously been watching things,

been in touch with the campaign people, the RNC, and, for me,

changing his leadership, he's making progress. Where is he changing his

leadership? If you are talking about bragging of sexual assault and

locker room... How was he changing it? Taking that as sexual assault,

as one who has counselled sexual assault victims, he even said last

night it was more bragging and he hadn't done it. But I think... Why I

am not so worried on either side of it is we've got Congress and we just

might spend two years in gridlock. OK. That is one of the things put

forward by Republicans, that there would be gridlocked. Why didn't

Hillary Clinton, to coin a phrase, kill off his presidency nomination?

She's not mud wrestling. She came out there with her policies. 85% of

the people... Young kids were watching this in our country. We

have civics and they go back to school and talk about the debates.

Wasn't it an opportunity missed? She didn't have to be a mud sling at.

She had everything in front of her and she still didn't manage it. She

would have had to go in there on her husband and deal with what he was

putting out. He was putting out garbage. Garbage in, garbage out.

She made a decision. She won the debate in terms of the Poults. Some

of them were very close. Women were sitting around, I promise you, and

what Jan said was very good and very true. Women are sitting around

thinking this one, who was prowling behind her like an orange column, is

not somebody I want to be the president of the United States. I

think we've got that loud and clear! He's not out of the game yet, is he?

It doesn't seem so, which is quite shocking to me because I would've

thought he would be out of the game. I think that we've just had all the

around Jimmy Savile and, you know, a man who was... People are not

surprised now because he was so gross on the outside, people

couldn't believe he was so gross on the inside. And I just think Trump

has told us what he's like. He doesn't respect women in any way.

Avid supporter still support in. He's still got the support and

you're going to give a man like that the keys to the White House, make

him one of the most powerful men in the country? Somebody who doesn't

respect women? He has said it is about having power and is about

powerful people over the powerless and you're going to give somebody

who already abuses power more power? I just don't understand it. What

depresses me the most during this election year is that it has become

personalities as opposed to policies.

It is always personalities to some extent. He does talk about some

policies. He talked a bit about Isis and supporting Bashar Al-Assad

because he says, at least they are fighting Isis. What do you take away

from this presidential campaign and last night's debate? It's

interesting that you are talking about Ronald Reagan. I remember as a

child growing up watching Ronald Reagan, we be living up to him

admiring him as a leader of the free world. My real concern about the

trump candidacy is not the specific comments, it is just the whole tone

of the man. I have a seven-year-old daughter and I can't see her looking

up to Donald Trump as being the leader of the free world, not just

in terms of his dreadful comments but also in terms of his wider

stance, playing footsie with the likes of Putin, being equivocal on

the stands in Syria. I don't think he's got what it takes to lead the

free world and that's where my problem lies. With your

seven-year-old be upset about booting? She will in time! She's

quite sophisticated. Thank you very much.

Now, let's take a look at what else is happening in the Week Ahead.

Jeremy Corbyn will this evening take part in the regular Monday night

meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

It's his first since being re-elected as leader last month.

And with many MPs unhappy about last week's reshuffle, it

The former Chancellor George Osborne is back in the spotlight tomorrow -

he's appearing before the Business Committee to talk

Lord Heseltine and Vince Cable will also be there.

On Wednesday, Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn

will take part in the first PMQs since the party conference season.

On Thursday, the High Court will hear a challenge

to the Government's plans to begin the process of leaving the EU

Meanwhile, MPs like Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg are calling

on the Government to give Parliament a say on issues like whether the UK

And by Friday, we should hear the results of a European Parliament

investigation into what happened in the so-called "altercation"

We're joined now by Stephen Bush from the New Statesman

Jeremy Corbyn addressing the PR people are the first time since

being re-elected, I think. Is unity going to break out any time soon? It

doesn't look likely. The reshuffle has not gone down well in some

quarters so we are going to see a continuation of what he had the last

year, disunity and infighting. What about Shadow Cabinet elections? Are

they going to happen? Is there going to be a discussion about that, Lucy

Fisher, and also the fact that both sides now, some of the people who

quit before are back in the Shadow Cabinet? Is there a chance Jeremy

Corbyn will be able to get on with policy? Well, Jeremy Corbyn's team

are saying there will be a conversation further down the line

about Shadow Cabinet elections but it's clear that that's not on the

table for this particular reshuffle. I think it is difficult to see how

there will be unity around policy-making, not least when there

is a group of more moderate MPs talking about a shadow Shadow

Cabinet. They are planning to meet and caucus on their own terms. In

the meantime, some people, about ten or so MPs overnight, have returned

to Jeremy Corbyn's front team but another knock to claims he is

incompetent. He welcomed back a so-called rebel who never left! What

about the leader of the MPs saying he wasn't consulted on the reshuffle

and Rosie Winterton, he was seen very much as the glue in the Labour

Party, the Parliamentary party, being sacked as Chief Whip? How has

that gone down with her supporters? It has gone down pretty badly. Two

of the whips have resigned, ostensibly to spend more time in

their marginal seat with a young family, but it is a protest at what

has happened in reality to it or bad is going to be a running sore. The

problem with sacking the Chief Whip is that they keep acting like a

Chief Whip but not for you on the backbenches and my instinct is that

that will be the case in this case. What about a vote on the initial

Brexit negotiating stance? Do you think it is likely to happen? I

think it is certainly interesting to see that pro-EU MPs have finally got

their Mojo back because it has been more to do with businesses, the CBI

chief Carolyn Fairbairn saying today that businesses are concerned that

Brexit means the UK is going to be seen as closed to business. It is

interesting that people are now calling for the vote. A caucus is

happening on Thursday about whether MPs should have a vote on triggering

article 50. I think the bigger question is, Theresa May is setting

out just how much parliament is going to be consulted over the

terms, whether we are going to go for a soft Brexit, where we perhaps

stay inside or have access to the single market, or else have a hard

Brexit and leave the single market. Along those lines, the industrial

strategy committee is going to be speaking to George Osborne, Michael

Heseltine and Vince Cable. Sounds like a trio of Remainers who will be

putting forward their views. How dangerous is this for Theresa May?

Very dangerous. She has a majority of only 17, although the thing that

was reported is that she's doing a great job of wooing the DUP so that

is another eight votes. She is more stable than she was at the start of

conference season but it could be tricky for her. Let's look at Priti

Patel, the international developer and secretary. She's forced to

confirm that she will stick to the spending commitment of 0.7% of GDP

on international aid, after hinting that she might come in under budget

deliberately to prove she was in wasting taxpayers' money. How long

do you think that will last? We'll see. Last week, Stephen and I and

many other journalists were in Birmingham for the Conservative

conference, hobnobbing with lots of ministers. Several three different

newspapers appeared saying that Priti Patel was going to underspend

her budget, which is enshrined in law, this 0.7% of gross national

income that she is mandated to on international aid. She rode back

very harshly from those signals yesterday, setting out a statement

that she is absolutely committed to that target. Number Ten wade in and

said that that target is a manifesto commitment and will be in place

until 2020 so it seems there is a lot less wiggle room than there was.

We are also going to be seeing the results of the inquiry into the

altercation between two MEPs in Ukip. What do you think is going to

happen in the leadership contest? I think if Stephen Woolfe is

exonerated, as it were, and isn't kicked out for bringing Ukip into

disrepute, I think you start to the heavy favourite. He has the backing

of the Nigel Farage tendency who have a lot of weight in Ukip. It is

Stephen Woolfe or who knows? Thank you very much, both of you. Have a

good week. Let's stick with Ukip,

because their MEP Steven Woolfe has been discharged from hospital

following the much publicised dust up with one of his

colleagues last week. Mr Woolfe claims that his fellow MEP

Mike Hookem "came at him" in a scuffle outside a meeting

in the European Parliament Mr Hookem has denied

punching Mr Woolfe and even posted a photograph of his

hands on Twitter. Well, the party is holding

an internal inquiry which should It all comes as the party

is on the search for a new leader following the shock resignation

of Diane James last week. I think she was in the post for

about 18 days. Let's take a look at

the runners and riders. Despite last week's incident

Steven Woolfe, who's 49, He's been an MEP since

2014 and is the party's He confirmed his candidacy before

he ended up in hospital, William Hill put his

odds at 8 to 11 to win. The next candidate is

Raheem Kassam, 30 years old. He is the editor at Breitbart

News and is a former He has also officially

declared and his odds Next up is Bill Etheridge,

who is 46 years of age. He's been an MEP since 2014

and is also a Ukip councillor He confirmed his candidacy

on the Sunday Politics yesterday, but at the moment, his odds

are long, at 50 to 1. And finally, will Suzanne Evans

throw her hat into the ring? She's the party's

former Deputy Chairman She was suspended from

the party but has now been readmitted and says

she is "carefully considering" William Hill have her odds

at 3 to 1. Joining me now to discuss

this is Liz Jones - on the previous leadership election

and she also sits on Ukip's We don't have your odds, it seems.

Are you standing? I will decide by the end of this week. What will

convince you? I want to see how the turbulence passes. I want to see how

things fall in place. Do you just want to know whether Stephen Wolf

will be allowed to stand in the leadership contest? If I have to

play a significant role in that I will have to do it excuse myself

from the leadership challenge, so it all depends what happens really with

the report on Friday, how the investigations plan out, and what

level of involvement we will have in that process. Who are you most is

used about in the longest? I have not seen their policies yet. But you

know them. I do know them, however things change. I do not know what

the policies of Raheem Kassam or Suzanne Evans will be. Frankly I

question whether all of those people would be able to stand in any event.

Why? There are strict rules about standing as a leadership candidate.

Number one you have to pay a ?5,000 deposit and if you do not recover

more than 5% of the vote you will lose ?5,000. So that will preclude

some standing? It may possibly, it is a financial risk. Format or is

considering standing, what about him? I do not know if he is ending

as yet. We have been in conversation with him. If he stands I should

imagine he would probably be firm favourite. I spoke to Jonathan

Arnott on Friday about the altercation between the two MEPs. He

thinks neither should be... I don't think Mike Hookem will be but he

thinks these should be allowed to stand. I say to that, until we know

exactly what happened, we do not know if it was a physical

altercation, it may have been a verbal altercation, we do not know,

but we have witness statements, I cannot possibly comment. Of course

if this were an employment situation, both would be suspended

pending the resolution of an investigation. Is that what should

happen? You are on the NEC. Do you agree the party has been brought

into disrepute? The party has had a large amount of unfortunate

publicity. I would not necessarily say it's been brought into disrepute

because on the 7th of October last week in Hartlepool we won a local

election seat, we got 49%. We are now the opposition I think in

Hartlepool. It's having no impact on our membership and support base. It

might be a bit too soon but do you instinctively think it has brought

the party into disrepute, having two of your elected representatives,

either, we don't know for sure, but certainly involved in some sort of

confrontation? I would say it was a disappointment. I was very

disappointed when Diane stood down and this behaviour is disappointing

but I would not say it brings the party into disrepute. Let us not

forget that there are six Labour MPs that had criminal convictions for

expenses fraud. Four Labour life peers were involved in selling

interference with legislation. I'm asking whether it has brought into

disrepute, not how it compares to other parties, I do not deny other

parties have had problems. I would say by comparison, no. This is a

minor little tittle tattle incident. Your MEP in London has said that

regardless of the cuff for confrontation, he says the fact that

Stephen Woolfe was in talk with the Conservatives about defecting to

their party, it is enough of a bar from him standing, do you agree?

Until we have the facts we need to be 100% sure that it has happened

and that it is not tittle tattle. Quite if proven that he had talks,

and certainly was discussing the idea of defecting, he did say he

considered it himself, would that be enough to bar him, or should it? It

could be enough to suspend him so that he would be able to contest the

leadership candidacy. It may not be enough to necessarily bar him from

the party. We do not know until we have all the facts. From standing

for leadership? If it can be proven 100% that it was the case and not

just tittle tattle or idle rumour, potentially it could bar him from

standing. He got his papers in 17 minutes late for the first

leadership election, do you think that was a bit harsh by the NEC to

say he could not stand? Not at all, because it shows that the rules

apply to everyone, senior member or junior member, the rules apply to

all. Who does Labour fear most in terms of the next leader of Ukip,

bearing in mind the games they made in northern Labour heartlands? I

don't think it is a matter of fear in who leads Ukip. I think we have

to tackle Ukip at its source, and tackle the rhetoric that comes out

of Ukip head office, and tackle their policies, and tackle them

rather than who we fear as the leader. You don't particularly fear

Stephen Woolfe. In the referendum and in the election in 2015, many

Labour voters gave their vote to Ukip. Many voters have been

dissatisfied with politics as a whole and some may have voted Ukip.

We have to ensure that we win their vote bank, and that's the most

important thing. And as I say, just tackling the underlying threat of

parties such as Ukip. Do you now regret, in terms of the reasons for

calling the referendum in the first place, as you know, the accusation

was it was fears of Ukip, fears of the right of your party, now looking

at the way Ukip is at the moment, two leadership contests, Diane Jane

standing down, do you think you overreacted? I think it was right to

hold the referendum, there was a clear demand in the country. During

the 2015 election campaign people were saying they had not had their

say 40 years, they wanted their say, but they did not believe a

Conservative government would deliver on it. I think it was the

right thing to do. I know you said you were a reluctant remainder,

because you lost that vote? If the British people don't support your

position you cannot say it was invalid to hold it in the first

place. I did not say it was invalid, I said you lost your argument. Of

course, I accept the will of the British people. Thank you.

Should we let the British countryside grow wild?

Should we bring back wild animals such as beavers and lynxes?

There's a growing campaign for the "rewilding" of' rural areas,

away from intensive farming and land management.

Here's environmental campaigner George Monbiot, who first thought

Some people find scenes like this beautiful.

But what I perceive when I see places like this

Hardly any birds, hardly any insects, hardly any flowers,

But I believe that if we get the policy right, this could be

You get a small hint of what could happen right

What's taken place is that the sheep have been fenced out,

and what we see as a result is that the trees are coming back,

the flowers are coming back, the insects are coming back,

When you consider the only reason the sheep are here

is because we are paying for them through farm subsidies,

you can see how easy it should be to change this system.

Maybe we can start bringing back some of our missing

species, the beavers, the boar, the lynx.

Let's use the money to allow nature to come back,

to allow people to have much richer places to explore,

and to allow some wonderful oases to develop in our wet deserts.

Where were you? Cambrian Mountains, right in the middle of Wales.

Beautiful. Topographically, yes. Ecological EIB. Let's talk about

that. You want to get rid of land management in the countryside? I'd

certainly like to relax it significantly. I no means

universally but in certain places where the productivity of the land

is really, really low, as it is in most of the uplands, we are still

continuing to graze them down to the nub in order to scrape a few lamb

chops out of the land. I think the land could be much better used when

it is rewilded, and we allow nature to come back and we stop floods

downstream and all sorts of things. Who would benefit from rewilding?

There's quite a lot of evidence to suggest it can be more lucrative

than farming in terms of generating implement and income because

associated with it is a lot of eco-tourism and a lot of potential

for rebuilding economies where the traditional economic activity just

aren't working any more. You want to get rid of subsidies, basically, to

farmers, you do not think it is economic to productive? I do not

want to get rid of the subsidies but I want to redeploy them

significantly. At the moment we are spending ?3 billion per year, same

as the NHS deficit, in basically keeping the land ruined in places

where we are not producing any significant amount of food. Isn't it

better to spend at least some of that money on ecological

restoration. Why should there be subsidies for farming in this

country, Oliver? I have hiked in that area of Wales and I think it is

quite beautiful as it stands at the moment. Clearly sheep farmers play

an important role in conserving the land. I'm not actually opposed to.

George disagrees that it is conserving the land. I am not

opposed to rewilding in principle, and as agricultural necessarily

intensifies with a growing global population, we have to accept that

land will become less bio diverse, and we should look at areas for

rewilding. But it has to be done with the consent of the farmers. My

question was about subsidies. Should farmers be given the level of

subsidies they currently are? Yes, and I think the government has

committed to it until 2020. We cannot pull away people's way of

life without their consent. It may be that if over time you can work in

partnership with the farmers there may be a way to use that subsidy in

a way that encourages rewilding. It is being considered in Scotland. You

were a rewildingremainer, and subsidies will reduce if we are

known on the part of the EU, do you welcome that? It has opened up part

of the countryside, although there are threats as well, we might rip up

the birds directive and Habitat directive. But we can ask the

questions about what we are doing in the countryside and why, and we have

not done that being part of the European Union. You are the MP for

Brent Central, not many links, there -- lynx. You haven't seen the beast

of Brent, have you? You describe yourself as a champion for the

environment, would you like to see rewilding? Not in Brent. But I think

it's an interesting concept. I thought about it from the fact of

the bees. And there's a little bit of rewilding going on in terms of

trying to bring back the population of the bees and all of that. I think

on a larger scale you really do have to work in conjunction with the

farmers and their livelihood, I think that's the most important

thing. I don't know how it would work in reality or if it is kind of

just a dream. Have you got any parliamentary support for this? Yes,

actually, quite surprisingly quite a lot. In fact there is now an enquiry

by the environmental audit committee into the future of the countryside,

including rewilding. It's in their terms of reference. And are they

going to talk to you? I've sent them a written submission. You can come

back and tell us if you do give evidence.

There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was, according to newspaper reports,

who is the government hoping will be their secret weapon

Shamefully I have no idea. It's the Duchess of Cambridge. Yes! Well

done. The one o'clock news is starting

over on BBC One now. I'll be here at noon tomorrow

with all the big political stories