22/11/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Donald Trump says Nigel Farage would make a great British Ambassador

to the US, just a week after the UKIP leader met

Downing Street says there is no vacancy.

After the former UKIP leader Diane James announces

she's leaving the party, we'll ask one current candidate

for the leadership how he plans to stop the infighting.

Rail passengers face more disruption as the RMT union stages another

Union leaders are calling on the government to intervene.

The Shadow Transport Secretary joins us live.

And should it be illegal for people to wear military medals

We'll ask the Armed Forces Minister whether the government now backs one

And with us for the whole of the programme today

the Conservative MP and former Rail Minister Claire Perry.

So, Donald Trump has caused a bit of a kerfuffle

He tweeted last night: Many people would like to see Nigel Farage

represent Great Britain as their Ambassador

This morning Downing Street issued a response, saying

We have an excellent ambassador to the US."

Fairly pointed. In the last half hour that message was repeated by

the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson in the House of commons. As the

House knows full well we have a first rate ambassador in Washington

doing a very good job of relating both to the present administration

and the administration to be, and there is no vacancy for that

position. Clare, why not? This is the US President elect. He has

requested it, it would be a direct line to Donald Trump. Many people,

including me, think Nigel Farage should have no role in this. Donald

Trump will say all sorts of interesting things and come up with

his philosophies and we can write this one off as just another

utterance. We have a great ambassador and there is no vacancy.

The Ambassador's team work hard with both camps to make sure we have good

relationships going for it and we have got conversations about state

visits with Donald Trump and Theresa May going over there. We should

focus on the serious questions that these relationships need to deliver,

not the sort of bloke -ish politics that Nigel Farage indulges in. Even

though politics has changed. Donald Trump's election has set a different

tone and style and it would be the first time a US president elect had

requested an individual anti-was the first politician to visit him. As

somebody said, we are in a post-truth world and just like the

negotiations we need to have about coming out of the EU, which need to

be done carefully and need to focus on the facts, and we will deal with

some of that tomorrow, but Donald Trump will have to deal with some

realities. He has rolled back on Obamacare, there will not be a wall.

All those things he shouted on about during the campaign will be very

difficult. As you said, we need to see what he will do in practice and

Donald Trump has released a video in which he sets out his plans for his

first day in the White House. I will ask my transition team

to develop a list of executive actions we can take on day one

to restore our laws On trade I am going to issue

a notification of intent to withdraw It is a potential

disaster for our country. Instead we will negotiate fair,

bilateral trade deals that bring jobs and industry back

on American shores. As you say, no mention of Obamacare,

although that was not the full statement, and no mention of

building that wall. It will be a big one. What is your response? My

response is we have got to respect their decision. I do not think he is

fit for office in Word, thought or deed, but I am not in America and we

have to make sure that whatever happens we get the right thing for

Britain out of this relationship. I will not be Foreign Secretary any

time soon with comments like that. He will roll back on many things he

said, things that were disingenuous and which were said purely for

political mileage and which did not have a hope of being delivered. When

we talk about post-truth politics, it is sad

because Donald Trump can get up and lined with impunity about promises

he cannot possibly hope to deliver. Do you think Theresa May will be

able to build strong links with him? We have a great ambassador and a

great team and they are building those links with understanding. For

as it is about security and making sure that whatever happens with Nato

and whether bilateral trade deal that it can work for us. The reality

is dawning for Mr Trump about what the job entails.

The question for today is, what object in the Government Chief

Whip's office is said to strike fear into the hearts

(D) A signed photograph of Ann Widdecombe.

What a good advert for the job of Chief Whip.

And a little later Claire, we hope, will give us the correct answer.

Tomorrow the Chancellor Philip Hammond will present

his Autumn Statement in the House of Commons.

It's not quite a full-blown Budget, but it will contain plenty

The government says it will help families who are "just

So what could Mr Hammond be cooking up?

Philip Hammond said at the weekend that his first Autumn Statement

will be about making the economy "match-fit" for the opportunities

It's thought that Mr Hammond will loosen the purse strings

a little, but he's said there will be no "fiscal splurge".

He does have a bit more leeway though after the government

abandoned the plan to eliminate the deficit by the end

So, the Chancellor is expected to announce a boost for the nation's

roads and railways, with an infrastructure stimulus

package that could be as much as ?5 billion pounds.

And we'll hear more from the Chancellor about a ?3 billion

fund to help small house builders create 25,000 new homes by 2020.

We'll see an extra ?2 billion going towards research

and development - that was confirmed by the Prime Minister yesterday.

It's also being reported that the Chancellor

That would be a measure aimed at helping families

And Mr Hammond could also raise the tax-free personal

It's currently ?11,000 but the Conservative manifesto

promised to make it ?12,500 by the end of the parliament.

We are joined by Labour's petered out, the shadow Treasury Minister.

First of all, Claire Perry, back in 2010, the driving mission of the new

coalition government was to eliminate the deficit. This morning

we learned the government has already borrowed nearly ?50 billion

since April. On the key issue, as it was George Osborne's mantra to

eliminate the deficit, he failed. We have to look at where we came in in

2010. We had a deficit as a percent of national income that was

approaching Greek levels and it was right to say this coalition

government as it was would establish a level of fiscal credibility for

the country that when the bad times hit again, because they always do,

we are better prepared. But the thing about the financial shock of

2008 was that we had nothing in the coppers to deal with the crisis. It

was absolutely right to set out that fiscal credibility and to try and

deliver it. We are going back in history here, but still

conservatives like to blame Labour, if not for the crash because Labour

did not cause it, but for the fact there were not enough reserves to

deal with the recession. What do you say to that? The bottom line is the

Tories pushed on the issue of Labour's record and labour could

have done more at the town, no doubt about that, but the idea that...

Sunken to some conservatives do say that. But they have not sorted at

the government's finances and they have miserably failed in most of

their attempts to put infrastructure spending into the economy. Let's

stick to the issue of the deficit because as you have conceded that

was the central mantra and George Osborne wanted to do it and he

wanted to repair the roof even though the sun was not shining by

2010. But that failed and you did not eliminate the deficit and you

still have not eliminated it because the surplus has been abandoned. We

had the financial crisis, we had the Brexit conversation, we had in

Britain, because we had a plan, because we were able to establish a

reputation for financial credibility, we were able to grow

and the deficit was down by two thirds. It will not be eliminated by

2020. Now we have a completely different issue and what is

fascinating about this statement tomorrow is it is the first time

that the Chancellor is going to be talking on Brexit turf. I hope he

will be straight with us about the difficulties we face. How difficult

will they be? We will face difficult times over the next few years and

that is why I was remain campaigner. But we have to have a Chancellor who

acknowledges the fact of what the world will apply and says what the

government can do around infrastructure spending to improve

that and also recognise that while there may be many challenges posed

Brexit, there are opportunities for Britain as well. Do you accept now

that if, in your view, we have got challenging times ahead, the fact

that your government and the Coalition Government failed to

eliminate the deficit has left us in a more difficult situation. We got

the deficit down by two thirds by the time of the last election. We

were on the way and we restored the situation for fiscal confidence in

this country. I have great respect for Peter, but the worst thing we

can do is go down the policy of the magic money tree and crash the

economy over again by borrowing. In a way that is the question that will

be put to Labour. Having said it was not your fault that the global

recession happened in 2008, you are now putting forward eye watering

sums of money, ?5 billion of infrastructure spending, which will

lead to politicians like Clare saying, you are spending money that

is not there. Labour has a strong, clear, fiscal credibility rule which

means we will have a balanced budget over a rolling five-year period. We

will invest capital in infrastructure, and in skills,

roads, rail, it has been costed out and it is there. When you say it is

there, how will you pay for the ?500 billion? What the government is

doing is there is an element of borrowing, but we can borrow at low

interest rates historically. We have got a capacity to do that. At the

end of the day we are not going to spend any more than we can cope

with. But that is a matter of judgment. When you say it is there

because of low interest rates, they have been there for quite some time,

so is it justifiable to increase borrowing at that rate? Let's deal

with investment. When you invest in something, you want to get a rate of

return so there is growth in economy, so that pays for the

borrowing. At the end of the day Labour is identifying is to get us

out of the situation we are in, you have to have investment. All the

capital spending was pretty well cut during the coalition and now Labour

is reversing that. The capital spending was pulled in because

George Osborne said the country could not afford it and it is easier

to cut capital spending than it is to make cuts to day-to-day spending.

I hate to disagree, but as a rail minister we are investing ?38

billion in railways over the next five years. That is now. That was

promised in 2012, it is the biggest amount of money since Victorian

times. Tomorrow we will hear more good news about spending on fibre

broadband. Would you like to spend the sort of amount that Labour is

proposing? I agree, cross-party agree on increased infrastructure

spending. But we had 13 years of a Labour government, and I am sorry to

harp back... That was a long time ago, there has to be some

responsibility from the Coalition Government and the Conservatives. We

have to cut the deficit. Let's put the deficit to one side, yes, it has

been cut, but how much is the nation's debt? George Osborne made

big promises about reducing it as a proportion of GDP. And it is going

down. In every year if we run a deficit, we add to the stock of the

debt and that is why these things are linked. Interest rates have

started to train upwards now, so the era of really cheap borrowing is

potentially coming to an end. The point is this, how can we want to go

into troubled times with the economy with our fiscal credibility shot to

pieces? This is why we have attracted inward investment because

we have now an economic competence that was missing for so many years.

The economy continued to grow in the three months after the Brexit Ark

Futura, despite warnings from people like Claire Perry and on the Labour

side, the employment rate is at a record high, consumer confidence is

strong from the last set of retell figures, so it's not the chaos

Labour politicians are talking about. It's June 23 when the vote

took place, less than six months away from the referendum now, I

don't thing anybody expected that on the 24th of June we would fall off

the cliff. A lot of the rhetoric would was that they would be an

immediate economic downturn and we would feel the after-shocks

immediately. Pound is down 15%, that is go to feed into inflation. It's

going to feed into rising prices, and feed into taking money out of

people's pockets. You have to admit those warnings have become a

realistic, apart from the pound, people will argue with that was good

or bad... We have the fastest growing economy in the G7, the

economy was in a really strong position and therefore can survive

this Brexit shock, if we continue to behave responsibly. The Tories have

done nothing about predictable, we're still one of the most

inefficient in the OECD group. Why do you think this is? Because of

this issue about lack of investment. Because we have high levels of

employment? The matter people now in zero hours contracts, who are in the

system, is quite significant -- the amount of people. The amount of

people who are also in small hours work is quite considerable as well.

So those figures, yes, everyone welcomes and implement going down...

That could be the argument for lower productivity, compared to a country

like France. 30% lower. Jeremy Corbyn spoke to the CBI, the annual

conference yesterday and talked about his industrial strategy and

was giving his views on business and the economy. I think we can show a

quote from his speech. He said: what is that about? I think it's

about a different approach in terms of the economy. What does that

actually mean? The economy, it's a different approach to investment in

the economy, different industries, a whole new technological age, as he

says, another industrial revolution. I think we will hear good news

tomorrow, because what we all agree in is ramping up the investment in

infrastructure, and also we lead the world in a lot of this area, in

terms of how to transform our industries, by investment in smart

technologies, I think we will continue to hear about the

government investing and I'm sure Peter will agree with this, in

industry, in research and science and R A final word. We are

getting less put back then the government took out over the past

six years in research and develop and so we aren't even catching up.

Thank you very much. We can expect a slight whiff

of sulphur in Strasbourg today as the Brexit Secretary meets

the European Parliament's chief David Davies is reported to have

quoted the bible in reference to the Liberal MEP, saying

"get thee behind me, In response Mr Verhofstadt tweeted

yesterday that he was looking forward to "a hell

of a conversation". Our correspondent Damian Gammaticas

is in Strasbourg. So they are great friends,

obviously! Well, when they actually met, an hour or two ago, they

addressed that point straightaway, there was a lot of backslapping and

chuckling going on. David Davies immediately said, look, I wasn't

talking about you, I was addressing that point to the questioner in that

committee in Parliament, I was saying, don't tempt me down a route

where might say something I might regret. The two of them laughed and

chuckled and went into the talks. When they came out, David Davies

said they had had a good session and Mr Verhofstadt is an Anglophile, he

likes driving British sports car, and had had a good chat. Mr

Verhofstadt was more pointed. He said he made very clear several

things, they would be no compromise on freedom of movement, and delayed

that out, and also said that the timetable, interestingly, for Brexit

talks, is very tight, 14 to 15 months is all they will have to

complete things wants Article 50 is triggered, because he says things

have to be done by the next European parliamentary elections, beginning

of 2019, otherwise it would be farcical for the UK to be voting

MEPs. When they had discussions, and some of the lines coming out of

press conferences over the single market, whether they be Davies is

coming retained membership, is there some confusion about what was asked

for and what Guy Verhofstadt and another EU politician actually

thought he was asking for? I think I can clear this up, because I was in

there, in that press conference. There was confusion, Manfred Webber,

who David Davies also met, he is the leader of the best grouping in the

Parliament, a German MEP, he said he was deeply frustrated because he

heard nothing new at all from David Davies, he said, we don't know what

the British government position is, we need clarity, and he went on to

say, I've heard they want to be in the single market. There was some

confusion as to whether he heard that from David Davies, but I asked

him to clarify in the press conference, and he made clear then

that he hadn't heard, and he was clear as well that there will be no

compromise, again, on those four Freedoms that the EU side sees as

absolutely crucial. He then went on to have some very critical word

about Boris Johnson, saying that in the referendum campaign he had

stoked fears about migration from Turkey, now as Foreign Secretary he

has been to Turkey, promising them support in their EU membership.

Manfred Webber called that unbelievable, and arrogant

provocation from the Foreign Secretary. But he was clearly hadn't

heard from David Davies about wanting to be part of the single

market. He said the British government has no idea what it wants

at the moment. Note that you will be following all the subsequent

meetings, let's hope lots is not more lost in translation!

Let's talk about UKIP now - and yesterday's announcement

from Diane James that she'd decided to leave the party.

You'll remember that Diane was UKIP leader for just eighteen days

earlier this autumn, before she stood down -

blaming a lack of support from the party's executive.

Ms James released a statement yesterday,

One of the three candidates to be UKIP's next leader -

So, Suzanne Evans, who is also standing, says Diana James should

stand down as an MEP, do you agree? I would first is that on a personal

level, I have a lot of sympathy for Diana James, because I can see what

she has come up against, I am up against similar things. Essentially,

there is a clique... Expressed similar to Europe,... A clique

within Ukip that simply doesn't want reform, people want to hold on to

their jobs, people who have worked very hard, ingratiating themselves,

who don't want to link was that control. Who are they? The easiest

way is to look at the Twitter feed, the people who are attacking me, the

people who attacked Nathan, Diane... Are they the ruling executive? They

are apparatchiks plus certain MEPs. But should she stand down as an MEP?

In spite of my simply, she was elected on the basis of representing

Ukip so unfortunately her position is untenable -- my sympathy. I

believe that I stand a chance of persuading her to come back if I am

leader. What about looking at some of the other personalities in the

party, you mentioned Steven Woolfe, the ex-leadership candidate, Nathan

Gill now sits as an independent in the Welsh assembly because

apparently he couldn't stand the Ukip infighting. It does look like

the beginning of the end for Ukip. Or alternatively, it looks like a

kind of crisis which is sometimes necessary in order for people to

identify the need for radical change, which is what I'm proposing.

What would you do to sort out the party? Firstly, the problems we have

at the moment is because people in positions of power and influence are

all pulling in different directions, just link to determine which

direction they want the party to go, that's what you have disunity at the

moment. I would bring unity by shifting decision-making powers from

the leadership, to the membership, so the whole party is pointing in

the same direction and everyone understands it is their sole

responsibility to elicit the role of the membership and drive for that.

Do you think you would have to sack people before that happens? I think

a lot of people would rebel against my leadership, because these people,

who have worked themselves into positions of power, would want to

relinquish that quickly. If they don't cooperate with the will of the

membership, there is no room for them in the party stop what is your

message for other MEPs who might be thinking of leaving? They need to

think carefully about whether they truly believe in the concept of

democracy or simply want to gain their commitment to democracy to

attain a position of power from which they might explode their

opportunity to determine the future position of the party on the basis

of their own agenda? Currently, there are four Ukip MEPs who are now

former Ukip MEPs because they sit as independents, if we take Steven

Woolfe, he was alleged to have had talks with the Tories, would you

like to see them join the Tories? No. In a row, Ukip has succeeded,

the campaign mission of this party was to have a referendum and have

written about to leave the EU, that has been done, I think terminal

spasms of a political party which is only going to get uglier. I Nigel

Farage, rather than sipping cocktails with Donald Trump, should

be working with the party for whom they did so much to try and sort it

out, if he believes in it. It's a terrible shame for those who have

voted for Ukip but in a row they have succeeded in their core

mission, apart from that, I have seen nothing they had ever

contributed to the national debate and perhaps Jonathan should think

about joining another party! Thank you very much for that but all you

have seen is phase one nearing its completion. Phase two is going to

get more exciting, that is the revolution in British politics. You

are going to see a direct democracy movement, if I am elected leader,

which will haemorrhage support from parties like yours and labour. We're

not talking about a referendum, we're talking about internal, direct

democracy within a political party in Britain, about giving the

ordinary members about. We elect our leaders in a fairly orderly way and

we... Are you frightened of this sort of thing? Direct democracy? It

always seems to translate into lots and lots of abuse on social media,

as he has said, I'm pretty happy that my party has a pretty into

consistent democratic process for electing leaders and it was my party

that gave the British people the biggest democratic exercise we have

ever had, with the referendum. You were forced to buy Ukip and your

party is blocking the process. Parliamentary democracy has produced

at the moment, you have a clear majority to no longer be under the

power of anti-democratic, unelected representation abroad, and you have

your party, trying to block it. Look, I am not sure what he...

Perhaps he has been having the cocktails to! Because my party is

absolutely unified, unlike the Labour Party, behind the Prime

Minister on delivering Brexit... Not in how it should be delivered. In a

way that does not impoverish this country for the sake of some

ideology that should be chucked into the annals of history. We need a

smart Brexit that works for the country.

You say you want to unleash a direct democracy revolution and you have

conceded there is a lot of abuse going on towards you and Diane

James. And bullying. And bullying, people are standing down because of

a lack of support for the party and alleged bullying. Even Suzanne Evans

has said she was bullied. This sounds like an impossible task to

deal with, even if you became leader. How would you do it? The

fact is not to get too personal here. My whole life I have been

committed to challenges where people have told me it was impossible. I

relish the opportunity of going up against some of these bullies. What

about the investigation on the financial front? Allegations that

they accepted unlawful donations during the Brexit referendum. What

have you got to say about the enquiry? I am not privy to what went

on, but on the basis of what I have learnt about certain people, these

things can be resolved at a later stage once we have been elected and

we can look properly at what has gone on in the past. On the basis of

what I have come to understand about the morality of some of the people

opposing me, it would not surprise me if certain abuses had happened.

You would not be surprised if there was financial impropriety. But is

the party broke? I am not privy to the financial details. The official

position is we are not, but I do not know what the answer is. You do not

know what you might be taking on. What do you think about Donald Trump

asking Nigel Farage to be Ambassador to Washington? We need to say thank

you to that, but we would prefer Nigel Farage to be the US ambassador

to the European Union. That would be a better role.

They call them Walter Mitty is, people who took the public by

wearing war medals that they have not earned. On Wednesday a Private

members Bill championed by the Tory MP Gareth Johnson will get its

second reading in the Commons. He wants to make it a crime punishable

with a prison sentence of up to three months. He has got some

But weighed down by 14 medals, rather than his own conscience,

Those 180 decibels silenced after someone found

out those medals on his chest had been awarded to someone else.

It is exactly the sort of thing Gareth Johnson

I think people need to have confidence that

when they see people wearing medals, that they have been

legitimately awarded, and I think the law as it

stands at the moment, because it doesn't ban people

wearing medals that they haven't earned, doesn't achieve that,

but what we need to ensure is it doesn't undermine the wonderful

custom we have got in this country of family members wearing medals

from loved ones who have fallen in previous wars, that's something

Just down the road in Greenhithe, the Royal British Legion, no less,

were duped by a member who pretended he had been in the Paris.

Totally embarrassed as far as the branch is concerned.

Because we respect and stand for the RBL, is what it is.

And he just brought shame on this branch.

But it turns out there are plenty of Walter Mitty

People who dupe others into thinking they have a life a bit more

So much so, there's even an online group who make it their business

And they are so secretive, they won't go on camera

The only way I can do an interview is on Facebook.

They say they're currently investigating around 70 cases.

Having outed over 300 and the last few years.

These Walter Mittys do it, they say, to con out of money

The group welcomes the proposed change in the law.

James Glancy was a captain in the Royal Marines and was awarded

one of the highest bravery medals for service in Afghanistan,

He now runs a risk management company and is

He is sceptical about change in the law.

I think it's going too far to suggest someone

I think it's really important to look at what's going

on with someone that is actually pretending that they

There may well be a serious mental health problem and actually

that person just has low self-esteem, they are not a threat

to the public and they actually need professional help.

His bill has the backing of senior ministers, including

the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon.

It goes before the Commons on Friday.

And we've been joined in the studio by the chairman

And the Armed Forces Minister Mike Penning.

An offence should be created, but that is not existing legislation.

There is existing legislation for fraud, but what the legislation will

bring forward, and the whole government will back this on Friday.

What about the MOD? The legislation was already on the statute book for

medals of valour. These are people who have been awarded Valerie

medals, the military Cross like that, and then wear them

inappropriately, and that is an insult to those who so bravely were

awarded them on behalf of the Queen. Fraud we can deal with, that these

are Valerie medals. We are bringing it back to the same criteria. Many

people will understand the hurt brought on by Walter Mitty type

people wearing them. But is it going too far by wanting to imprison

people for falsely wearing these medals? Is that not a bit too

severe? That would be the maximum sentence and that is the identical

centres that was there in 2006. Does it make it right? Yes, but the hurt,

the deceit. I am no hero, I served in the Armed Forces, but these are

different people we are talking about. These people have gone beyond

the call of duty and got a gallantry medal and somebody is impersonating

them. In the past the Ministry of Defence said it did not want to

discourage relatives wearing medals earned by a deceased relative of

theirs. It would be difficult to distinguish between what you might

call fantasists and relatives. As you know, I have British Army

members in my constituency and I was at a remembrance parade in Tidworth

in my garrison town. We are not talking about proud widows or sons

were in bed parents' or partners' medals, we are talking about people

who deliberately go out and impersonate people. I am surprised

it was ever removed from the statute book. Is it a big issue that there

are so many people doing it? It is a big issue. Loved ones have always

been entitled to wear medals. I wore my grandfather's. But it does not

matter to me whether it is one person, or a 1000 people. We will

take it into consideration if there is a mental health illness. In most

cases this is Walter Mitty territory, people claiming to have

gained gallantry medals, wearing them on parade which is an insult to

those who have served their country and been awarded those medals. We do

not know how wide it is and how big an issue it is. But we heard from a

former Royal Marine in the film effectively saying there are more

important things to be worrying about in terms of defence. It is

underfunded. Some people are likely to suffer from mental health issues,

but the issue of funding is more important than this? Of course, and

making sure the Armed Forces have the right kit and we have the right

numbers is imported. But you must not underestimate how difficult this

is for families of loved ones who have done the job and gone beyond

the call of duty and were issued medals. We are not stopping widows

or families, but we are stopping people impersonating heroes. If you

kill so strongly, why doesn't the government introduced legislation

itself? A Private member has brought that forward as a backbencher and we

should encourage that. Absolutely. What happens if it does not get

through? We will look at that again and it will have the full backing of

the government. I will sit on the committee to make sure the view is

there. I want to encourage backbenchers to engage in

legislation because that is what we are here for, to represent our

communities. It is still quite precarious going through the Private

members Bill system. Will the government bring forward

legislation? We will look at that an government time, but there is time

for this and that it is why it will be here on Friday and the government

encourages backbenchers to bring forward things that really matter to

Thousands of passengers on Southern railways faced fresh misery this

morning as another 48 hour strike hit the network.

Since April a series of stoppages has paralysed Southern rail services

across London and the home counties, with operator Govia Thameslink

and the RMT union locked in a disagreement about the role

In a sign that there is little hope of an end to the disruption,

the RMT says it's planning further strikes next month.

We can talk now to our Transport Correspondent,

Richard Westcott, who has been following the dispute.

Briefly, tell us the background to today's strike. Basically it comes

down to a sticking point these two sides have been Rowan about since

April and they have not resolved it. They are nowhere near resolving it

now. It is about the role of that second person on the train, the

conductor, also known as the guard. The parent company want to change

the role of that person so they do not have a safety critical job,

effectively it is not the person who is closing and opening the doors and

making sure everyone is clear of the doors. They want the driver to take

over that role. Sutherland says it frees up that second person on the

train to go up and down and make sure everybody is OK and to check

fares and make sure people are paying their fares. But critically

it also means they say that in an emergency if a conductor rings in

thick or there was a problem, the train can still go with just the

driver on board. They say a lot of their delays, and apart from the

strikes, they have the worst delay record in the country anyway, it is

down to the fact that the train cannot move unless there is this

safety critical second person on board at the moment and they say it

is causing all kinds of problems. A train might be in a station and the

conductor is not there and the train stays on the platform and the driver

cannot get onto their next job. It is all about the role of the second

person on board. The RMT are calling for the government to intervene. Is

that likely? Who knows what is going on beehive the scenes? The

government will always say it is down to a private company and a

union. But this is a different franchise. It is an management

franchise and GTR take a feed from the government and run the franchise

because it is difficult to run. It is the government that takes the

money from the fares. Why is that significant? It means when you get

disruption and strikes, it is the government that takes the financial

hit. The government has a long-term goal of making more trains driver

only operated on future franchises. Effectively behind the scenes the

accusation is the government is pulling the strings. They are saying

it is a battle they have to win so that in future franchises they have

this which is potentially more flexible and cheaper to run.

Meanwhile, the union have put their own line in the sand about driver

only operated trains as well. This is a test-bed for what goes on on

the railways all across the country the future.

We've been joined by the shadow transport secretary Andy McDonald.

Claire Perry, you have had a role in some of these in your previous job.

Picking up on Richard's point, is the government pulling the strings

behind the scenes? Have you got a clear agenda because when it comes

to future franchises the government wants to make sure they will be

driver only trains and they will not be a need for a conductor? There is

no untoward agenda. What has been clear for many years is that

technology on the railway is evolving and more than 40% of trains

run with the driver basically controlling the doors and with all

the safety critical cameras. The decision was made that new trains

would be bought for this franchise and those are the trains were the

driver operates the doors. One of the things I have found difficult

about this dispute, and Richard is right, this is a tough franchise

because there has been a tonne of investment were going on. One of the

reasons I resigned was because of this. People say it happened long

before you, but it happened on my watch. You said at the time your

resignation would not help the situation, so why did you resign? I

felt I should take some level of accountability because I had been

trying to sort it out and we still left people with delays and strikes.

The union has conceded that the second person on the train can be

used as a conductor. They do not have to operate the train. To

continue to strike like this and disrupt working people getting to

and from work is malicious in the extreme. The problem and he has got

is his party have taken enormous donations from the RMT and continues

to do so and it is difficult for the Labour Party to speak out for

customers. They have been speaking with the union voice.

Are you speaking with the union was because you are financially linked

to them and therefore cannot be independent? I am speaking on behalf

of passengers and focusing upon their safety. These are safety

critical roles we are talking about, and to compromise on safety on our

Railways is an abrogation of responsibility. These are hugely

important issues, people feel vulnerable, we had a derailment at

Watford not many weeks ago, it was safely to the back row safety

critically trained guide to evacuated those trains, and to

dismiss this, in this be brought in Parliament, to compromise on safety

is an outrage. But the second person on the train, as you know, has been

guaranteed a job for the duration of this franchise. They have been

guaranteed that they will still be the safety critical person, they

just weren't pressed the button to shut the doors. This has been a

sticking point. I have done a series of interviews about this issue and

just to be clear, you still want to see conductors, or guards, on

trains, who will operate the doors. I have also been on trains where the

doors have big problems, and this is with a guard there as well as a

driver. You want to see them remain, even though the technology is there

for them to be operated automatically. Despatching a train

from a platform is the most critical stage of a journey, clear

understands it, to put the onus of responsibility on a driver who has

to look at 12 screens the size of mobile phones, we have already seen

the safety board say that the driver only operation in the circumstances

makes an accident more likely to happen and be more severe. Why would

we ignore...? Every tube train, by the way, runs with the technology...

But they are different. The problem is we have been having this debate

for many months. Millions of people are trying to get to work on a very

tough franchise. And it's just beyond belief that the unions won't

come forward with a proposal. They have done that. They have accepted a

new role for the second staff member and they still want to strike over

Christmas, that is... What would Labour do, how would you resolve

this? If I was Secretary of State, I would be intervened, bringing the

RMT and the franchise holder round the table immediately. But what you

be suggesting? There is a proposal on the table whether a moratorium,

that the safety critical operations that this new role of on-board

supervisor, and then a further period of negotiation for the new

protocols. It was a gift by the RMT and they have deliberately turned

that down because you and I both know, Claire, there are people

working in your former Department who are determined to have a dustup.

Let clear answer that. We know who that is, Claire. It's Peter

Wilkinson. He said at the Aslef conference that he stood shoulder to

shoulder on this, here is the problem, we have brought trains,

ordered under the Labour government, brand-new trains, which provide 40%

more seats for these people who are being squeezed every day. Those

trains are engineered, so the driver opens the doors. So what Andy is

suggesting is that somehow those trains are retrofitted so the guard

opens them or we pay for somebody to be indifferent captive press the

doors, it's just madness. This is disrupting millions... What do you

think is happening to the franchise system as a whole, is a broken? Yes.

What should replace it? I know that Andy is a fan of nationalisation,

but to me it is not an issue over who owns the railways, it is an

issue that we have a fragmented system where the trains and track

and rolling stock and operator are not put together. And I'm afraid,

this is part of the reason I stepped down, that it is is time for a new

unified solution. The other thing we agree on is whether it is British

rail or privatised, the customer has always come last on the trains. In

my time in the department, the amount of time I spent trying to

make sure that we run the trains on time, we didn't have a fake measure,

that customers matter. Should Network Rail be disbanded? It is not

an art at about the unions, this issue... Stop demonising the

unions... I think the many of the unions who might have had five or

six franchise operators in the last 20 years, I can understand why they

feel no loyalty to the company they are working for. On that basis, is

renationalisation relief the answer? Because it is popular with some

sections of the voting public and in the Labour Party. But you have

colleagues who are not convinced. It is Labour Party policy that we bring

the railways back on the public ownership. Principally because there

are so much money leaking out of the system and we have an appalling

service, look at what we have on Sofyen, who run the most appalling

service. British rail was more efficient in the years ahead of

privatisation them since. If we had a fraction of the investment that

has gone into the railways since privatisation, it would be a gold

standard. We have to look at the future not the past. There are

successful cases of the state bidding for franchises, we had the

east that railway line, that was deemed a success, would you not

support that sort of role for the state? I think it's August almost a

false argument. We have a national railway asset, the issue is who

actually runs the trains and the track. Whether it is a public sector

operator, and the last thing I feel Andy Woodward is my former civil

servants running a franchise, which was what was happening, we know the

private sector could deliver... The private sector, are you saying no

private sector involvement at all in the railways? I'm saying bring the

franchise is back in public ownership, let's have the success

stories we had an East Coast, let's replicate that around the country,

focus on passengers and the taxpayer getting the best value for money.

The question was what object in the Government Chief Whip's

office is said to strike fear into the hearts

or d) a signed photograph of Ann Widdecombe?

So, Claire, what's the correct answer?

Well, it's actually see-macro. They signed photograph of and would come

in a bonnet is probably a scary prospect! I'm sure she speaks highly

of you! Yes, the Government's Chief Whip

Gavin Williamson has revealed that he keeps a one-year-old pet

tarantula on the desk in his office. The spider is named Cronus

after a Greek god who toppled his father by castrating him

with a sickle. Mr Williamson told the Telegraph

he's had Cronus since he was a spider-ling,

so he has a "very paternal He said, "It's very much the same

sort of love and care that I give He also said that Cronus

is "a perfect example of an incredibly clean,

ruthless killer". Sadly Gavin Williamson wasn't

available to join us today. Instead we're joined

by the playwright James Graham who has researched the dark arts

of the parliamentary whipping And we've also been joined by George

the tarantula and his professional This is a first for me. Please keep

Georgina in the confines of her box! First of all, James, you have

interviewed living works, you have done a play about the mid-1970s

government, what do you make of the current Chief Whip having a

tarantula... You don't need to bring any closer! And don't put her on the

desk! If you can concentrate... That's my first tarantula ever! I

spent my playwriting life imitating the different tactics whips have

used, in the 1970s, when the play is set, it was the famous age of safes

with secret in the, with the Prime Minister... Birthday as the code,

this was the age of bringing... And they will surely dying. All the

tactics, just to survive. The symbolism of a tarantula makes sense

to me. Don't you think it's taking it a little bit too far? It feels

like the sort of James Bond villains or something, here I am, stroking my

tarantula, if you don't vote the way I want you to! They make great pets,

think it's a great thing to have. In a small area, they do very well,

they live a long time, they are poisonous, like every spider, she

has a really big set of gangs, you have to have respect for them but

they make great pets. She obviously likes you, which is a relief. Have

you seen his tarantula? We no longer have these wonderful tours of

patronage and bullying, when I was there, the whip's office was a third

e-mail which change things. Did anyone have scary creatures? If it

is now growing our pet to work time, I will bring my rescue cats, my

office is full of mice so why not. I find the name rather interesting and

symbolic as a sort of match a statement. I know and Milton, the

DBD Chief Whip, will keep Cronus and the chief on the straight and

narrow. I think it's interesting because the people I have spoken to,

the whips in the last 510 years, there has been an attempt to lose

that mythology around the dark arts and make it more of a human resource

office, where you manage your members, but really... That's what

we say! The symbolism is interesting, I'm sure it is a bit

mischievous and knowing and playful, but of course Kevin Williamson is

called the baby faced assassin he's young and sweet looking. In his

defence, he did have Cronus long before he became Chief Whip. He was

made Chief Whip in the summer, I think this predates his assent. What

you think about a creature like a tarantula being used as perhaps

political pressure on MPs? Is better than a goldfish! I think spiders I

just don't, people hate spiders, if people take interest, why not? Do

you think it will persuade people to change their minds? I think it might

do, think they are gorgeous creatures, they need respect, he can

sit and look despite all day long. Would it change your mind if he

thought out Cronus and said... I can vote the way I would like to know

I'm on the backbenches. It does show that MPs have an interesting side to

them. I think Richard have a House of Commons, like we sometimes do in

the church... Maybe a bit library! I heard about that when I was in

Calcutta, a packed library possibly could take them home for the

weekend. Any other whips who have had animals in their offices? I

asked around and couldn't find any. There was a stuffed Aral. Obviously

many members have cats. And people bring their dogs in. What about

snakes? I knew you were going to say that. I considered vaguely see she's

cute. When they shed their skin, you have an exact replica and you can

put it on the shelf. Perhaps Georgina would like to go back into

her box, thank you for bringing her in.