06/09/2016 Daily Politics

weather for eastern parts of England.

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics and Westminster,

where many are asking if the Labour MP, Keith Vaz,

He's under growing pressure to consider his position as head

of a Commons' committee after a Sunday newspaper claimed

he paid for the services of two male prostitutes.

He's expected to be urged by colleagues to stand down today.

Brexit means leaving the EU, according to the new Brexit

He gave a confident first statement to MPs, but what if anything

For most of its history the Green Party refused

We'll be talking to the power couple taking part in the first job share

And Paddy Ashdown's the latest politician to get into hot

water after comparing his opponents with the Nazis.

Just why has it become such a common feature in political debate?

And I'm joined today by the Green Party MP, Caroline Lucas.

She's just been elected joint leader of her party in the first ever

British political job share, alongside her co-leader

And as they're sharing the job, we'll be letting them

too, so he'll be along for the second half

Let's start by talking about a protest that's been causing

Protestors from a group called Black Lives Matter chained

themselves together on the the runway early this

morning, forcing flights in and out of the airport,

which is used by many business travellers, to be

Black Lives Matter, which was originally formed

in the US in response to police shootings of black people,

was launched in the UK earlier this year and has previously

blocked traffic to Heathrow and Birmingham airports.

The group claimed today's protest was to highlight what they said

was the "UK's environmental impact on the lives of black people".

The Metropolitan Police said that all nine of the protestors have

Caroline Lucas, in their sort of information about the group, they

say, "We believe the time is now for a Black Lives Matter movement in the

UK to shut down a nationwide crisis of racism and to fight for all black

lives? Do you think there is a nationwide crisis of racism in the

UK? I do. I think the figures would enforce that. The point they have

taken today is top point out that environmental effects affect people

the most. Air pollution are more likely to be affecting people of

colour, black people more am in the case of City Airport w he know that

the surrounding area, Newham is disproportion abilitily populated by

people of colour, it is a poorer area and they are 28% more likely to

be exposed to air pollution. There is links between environmental

problems and people of colour and Poff Tyne it is one that has to be

made. Is there evidence to show that? I live under the flight path

of Heathrow, for example, and there is a pretty mixed community all

along through Hounslow and into London. Are there figures to

substantiated what you say that black and ethnic minority

communities suffer more from air pollution? I think because they tend

to be living in more urban areas. So there are no figures and everyone

suffers from air pollution. Everybody certainly does and it is a

good way of making the point. But I think there is a particular issue,

for example, around City Airport where, as I say, black people in

that area are 28% more likely to be suffering from air pollution and

mother likely to be living in poverty and more likely to be unable

to move away, run away from areas of high pollution. But there will be

other people using the airport and by blocking the airport is that the

most effective way to highlight racism? No it is not the first way

to do it and it is not the only method Black Lives Matter are doing.

There have been the usual issues, writing letters to parliamentarians,

lobbying. But there is a report today about the air pollution and we

have had one, about the links to neurological diseases and when it

comes to climate change we know this country is behind in taking the

comences rate action we need to see which will be disrupting people

lives more than the disruption of this airport has. If we look at the

pictures we have of the protest. This is the picture we can see, we

are not see all nine of them. They are all white which is interesting

when you say this is a were test to highlight racism and Black Lives

Matter. I have looked a the their website and on that there is far

more people from Black and ethnic minority backgrounds talking. I

wasn't part of the demonstration. It is interesting, there are not more

black people there that we can see, that was the runway where the

picture was taken. Is air pollution the biggest problem facing that

community? Air pollution in London is at critical levels. Sure but, is

it specific, is it really about racism? Well, I feel awkward as a

white person here, judging whether or not black people believe that air

pollution is a racist issue, I can understand why they say, that I

don't think Black Lives Matter is only working on the environment.

They work on a range of eye us but to the extent they are raising an

issue I think needs to be higher on the political agenda, in other

words, the links between environmentalp problems and exposure

of black people, I think it is a legitimate thing to do.

And today we want to know which celebrities are backing

Jeremy Corbyn in his bid to be re-elected as Labour leader

At the end of the show Caroline's co-leader will give us the Green

The Home Affairs Select Committee will meet this afternoon to discuss

the future of its Chairman, Keith Vaz, after the Sunday Mirror

published claims he had paid for the services

At the weekend, the newspaper printed pictures it said showed

Mr Vaz with the men in a flat he owns in north London.

It also claimed that money was paid into an account used by one

of the prostitutes by a man linked to a charity set up by the MP.

The newspaper also said there was a discussion about using

the party drug, poppers - a substance which Keith Vaz helped

persuade the Government not to criminalise as part of its ban

Mr Vaz released a statement on Sunday afternoon criticising

the paper for paying the individuals involved and saying he had referred

The conservative MP for North West Leicestershire,

Andrew Bridgen, said Mr Vaz should consider his position as an MP

and that there "should be a full police investigation

and a Parliamentary standards inquiry" into the allegations.

Keith Vaz was carrying on with business as usual

in the Commons yesterday, where he was putting

The Home Affairs Select Committee is expected to urge Mr Vaz to stand

They will give him 24 hours "to reflect on his position"

before he faces a possible no confidence vote.

Well, to talk about this further, we're joined now from Leicester

by Conservative councillor, Ross Grant.

Welcome to the daily mrivenlingts you have heard there that Keith Vaz

is going to be urged to stand down from the committee. - Daily

Politics. That may well happen. Will that be enough in your mind? .

Unfortunately I don't think so, Jo. I think that, you know, there is an

important principle here about lawmakers not being law breakers and

I think there is enough in these allegations and where they seem to

be going, that this could go a lot further. I think Keith should really

be immediately resigning from that committee but should actually be

considering his position as an MP and probably, if he thought it

through, to actually stand down as an MP. Right. But as you have said,

these are allegations. Nothing has been proven as such and no laws have

yet been broken. These are allegations that have been made in a

paper and Keith Vaz is going to consider what he will do. Isn't this

essentially a private matter? Well, I don't think so. I mean I'm

surprised if, as part of a business transaction, paying for somebody

else to have illegal drugs, isn't illegal. That is something I think

that the police should actually be looking at. I think there is a

number of things here which could well be, you know, on the illegal

side. But as you say "they could well be" but as it stands at the

moment these will be no doubt looked at. But as it stands at the moment,

it is a private matter, something that Keith Vaz has done in his

private life T may be wrong morally in people's minds and in your mind

but you think as a result of that, he should not only stand downing

from the Home Affairs Select Committee but he should also stand

down as an MP? Well, I do. But I think that, you know, is it a

private matter when you have actually got a law maker who's

influenced our laws and is acting on approximate behalf of his

constituency in all of this, but isn't transparent about it. --

acting on behalf of his constituency. And I think you are

talking that there probably will be police investigations into some of

this and the details that we know shift daily. Keith needs to consider

where does he think this could eventually end up and it actually

would he be doing the public and Parliament a service by actually -

and his family - by standing down now. Well bear with us, Ross Grant.

What do you say on that point that Ross has made, that is important, he

is a law maker here and he has been at the head of a committee has

looked into the issues of prostitution and has looked into the

issue of whether poppers, the party drug should be criminalised. He on

that issue he should stand aside. There is no evidence he is a law

breaker. 'S law maker. There is a conflict of interest. It would be a

greater problem if there had been hypocrisy. That would be far greater

reason to stand down. If on the one hand he was advocating something

publicly and privately was taking a different course of action. Should

he stand down from the Home Affairs committee, there might be something

on standing aside on the inquiry into prostitution, not least the

controversy surrounding him is a massive distraction. If it were me I

would want to do that but we have to ask ourselves to what extent is this

whole issue in the public interest. I haven't been persuaded, until I

can be shown that there is ill legality and gross hypocrisy that it

is not public interest. Even though Keith Vaz and his lawyers have put

out a statement to say that they think it is about a sting, and you

do, you agree with him totally on that. I don't see yet it is in the

public interest because no I will legality has been shown to be the

case and no gross hypocrisy. - no ill legality. What do you say about

this, it was entrapment. Deliberately set up to entrap Keith

Vaz and his private life and things he does in his life life that people

may not like but it is a matter for him. It might have been set up to do

that but it is going into things that Keith does which are of public

interest. I'm really surprised that Caroline Lucas doesn't think it is

hypocrisy when Keith has stood up in Parliament and made speeches where

he has implied that he has no nobbling or no kind of knowledge

about how poppers work and he is -- no knowledging about how poppers

work and he is surprised another MP talked about that. And what is

coming out is that's well aware of poppers and he has not been

transparent with Parliament or the public about that. And that is

hypocrisy. So there is a public interest in, I think, how this story

has come about. Except, he has been an MP for 27 years, not without

controversy, it is true, but his constituents have clearly felt he

has done a good job, because they keep reelecting him. Should one

mistake, if that's what we can agree to call t actually end his political

career? -- to call it I'm sure if you ask Caroline she would tell you

she would think Keith has been re-elected many times because of our

parmentdry voting system and certainly Keith does well --

parliamentary voting system. Keith does well but is no different to

other MPs that are re-elected in various seats. I don't think it is

just down to Keith's popularity. But, on this one, his constituents

weren't aware of the position he was going to hold on these things or

perhaps the details about it. And, you know, I think he needs to

reconsider. OK, thank you. Now, yesterday the Secretary

of State for Exiting that's one David Davis,

took to the Commons for the first time to tell MPs

about the Government's He said it was something

he was determined to deliver as soon as possible,

but many Remain supporting MPs accused him of giving

next to no detail. Our instructions from the British

people are clear - Britain There'll be no attempt to stay

in the EU by the back door. No attempt to delay,

frustrate or thwart the will No attempt to engineer a second

referendum because some people didn't

like the first answer. Now, naturally, people

will want to know what Brexit Simply, it means leaving

the European Union. The spin before today's statement

with so much promise. We heard we were going to hear

what the Government's But what we've heard, instead,

hasn't been a strategy, hasn't It's just been more

empty platitudes. Can I ask him, when he gets

to the Despatch Box, to confirm to us that in leaving

the European Union, the number one thing

that is absolutely not negotiable, is that this United Kingdom

will take control of its control of its borders and the laws relevant

to that and that's not No-one expects him to have worked

out all of the answers yet but we do expect him to be able to set out

the outline of some kind of plan. And today we have

heard nothing on that. Ah, yes, a most exotic delicacy

in the House, Mr Michael Gove. We have seen a record increase

in service industries growth. A record increase in

manufacturing industry growth. A 3.3% increase in motor car sales

and we have also seen - we have also seen the Speaker

of the US Congress, the Prime Minister of Australia

and the Prime Minister of New Zealand, all pressing

for free trade deal was this country, while the deputy

Chancellor of Germany has acknowledged that the EU-US trade

deal is dead in the water. We're joined now by Peter Lilley,

who spoke in yesterday's Commons debate, and of course Caroline Lucas

is still with us. Welcome. He didn't say anything at

all, we're number wise after that debate. At the beginning of the

process you cannot outline how it will develop. This call for some

plan is a bit like people saying to George Washington, what is your plan

for independence? He would have replied, to be independent. What is

the constitution going to be? We will have a constitutional

conference. What would Gandhi's answer have been? The plan to Brexit

is that we take control of our laws, money and borders. But nobody knows

how. We do, by an act of Parliament. But nobody knows exactly how it is

going to happen, even David Davis himself said he is going to have

some sort of nationwide consultation. And what? He will

consult industry, business and environmental sectors, and so on,

and what their priorities will be in there are elements that require

negotiation. I was disappointed slightly that he didn't make a

distinction between issues which are matters for decision by the British

government and issues which are a matter for negotiation between

ourselves and the EU 27. Which issues are up for negotiation in

your mind with the EU member states? Once we've left, or in preparation

to leave, we want to discuss what the trading relationship will be

between Britain and the EU subsequently. He hasn't got a plan

for that yet. There are only two conceivable options. One, we trade

on the basis of the three trading partners. The alternative is that we

continue without tariffs. If they want to go to WTO tariffs, that is

fine by us, but it'll be bad for them. But we knew that. We've known

that for several months. No work has been done, has it, in terms of

developing either of those two scenarios? They are both simple. Why

haven't they decided which one they are going for? It is not for us, it

is what the US decides. And no presentation has been made yet? The

process hasn't started yet. It feels as if no work has been done over the

summer. It feels we are no further forward in the minds of many of your

colleagues as to where we are going to go with this exiting from the EU.

And people are impatient. And business will feel uncertainty will

grow. It is not at the moment, clearly the figures are there and

there's been some sort of economic bounce, but uncertainty will grow to

stop that was my worry. We don't want this process to go on longer

than necessary. -- will grow. There is a two year period. Why not one

year, three years, whatever, no explanation. As a danger we

automatically think it has to take two years. My ask is that we had an

assurance that we would go for the minimum with appropriate

preparation. Do you agree, that it should be quicker, sooner rather

than later? Should we be invoking article 50 as soon as possible? I

don't. And we haven't been given any serious indication the government

knows where it is going with Brexit. I believe Parliament really was

quite shocked that after two hours, genuinely people were no more wise

after that two our presentation than they were before it. You would have

thought that in less time David Davis and his colleagues would have

come up with some kind of set of options. I don't think Peter is

quite right. It is the case that you can have WTO or nothing. You have

the possibility of a Norway type arrangement where you can still have

access to the single market. He ruled that out. That was a progress.

Theresa May says that won't happen because there won't be freedom of

movement. No points-based system, we have clarity on that, and that is

what Theresa May said. She wanted a numerical total, as well. You may

have points within that to decide within that total number who you are

going to take. But she didn't want to have the Australian points-based

system alone to control freedom of movement. We know that some things

are going to happen now. And some things have been ruled out in terms

of Brexit. So there has been some progress. I don't know that there

really has. She says she wants to consult with the country. We know

when people were voting Brexit they were not necessarily saying which

are the options we wanted, what Brexit would look like. That is why

we need some time. Not to do it as fast as Peter would like. So you

have more time for consultation, more time to bring the country back

together in some ways. This has been one of the most divisive elements

that has happened in our country for decades. It seems to me that we

should be using that time to see how much of a compromise we can get that

will meet the different desires of the people who voted Remain, the

people who voted to leave, to see how much of a deal going forward we

could have. Which, for example, means we would keep the environment

protection we need, which would keep workers' rights and human rights.

People will want to see a lot of free movement, as well. And the

element of Freedom of movement and keeping some of the protections

Caroline Lucas is talking about, that is what will happen over time.

There will be a compromise. I agree with Caroline, that we should try to

adopt all existing EU laws and regulations into British law. That

is what countries do when they become independent. When India

became independent it adopted Imperial more to its own law.

Likewise when Slovak Republic separated, they retained their

existing laws. An awful lot of it is quite sensible. But it will take

time. It cannot be done quickly. It can be done very quickly. How Wenger

has not been much work done beforehand because they couldn't be?

-- how when there has. They have drafted in people from other

departments in the civil service. They are playing catch up. Now you

are acknowledging there was a lot of work to do. They've probably been

doing it in the summer. The most interesting question was actually

the answer am sorry -- the answer, sorry, that we do do what other

countries have done when going independent. He said there may be

some difficulties and the civil service are working on it. I would

like to know what those difficulties are. I understand that senior expert

in constitutional law have disgusted with cabinet officials and they

thought it was perfectly possible. If there are bits which will be more

complicated, let's know about it in due course, but that is the sort of

lines we will be working on. We will adopt the existing... He did say...

Thousands of lines... There were in India. You adopt what you've already

got. But it is the adoption which is difficult, it is deciding which

one... You do not dump any on day one. Not on day one, but you said,

then you have to decide... Their subsequently you do. But how long

would that take... We had a review under Margaret Thatcher in the 80s.

-- but subsequently you do. That is a different matter. That will be

done as a sovereign independent parliament making its own decision.

I see. Villa the misunderstanding which has been perpetrated by the

BBC, is that you cannot go through it until you've gone to every bit of

legislation. You don't do that. You adopt the process and change it when

you need to. Then the ask something different. You said a rerun of the

referendum would be an affront to democracy. So why are you calling

for a second referendum on the terms of the deal? What I said would be an

affront to democracy would be to do what the petition yesterday said,

which would be to rerun, the 23rd of June, the same referendum but higher

rules, have a -- but different roles, higher threshold, for

example. That would be undemocratic. But what would be democratic would

be to show people what things would look like after Brexit. Give people

back control over what Brexit would look like. So after 18 months, or

whatever this new package is going to look like I think that should

come back to the country for people to have a say. Is that what you

want. I'm not trying to rerun the 23rd of June. But you are calling

for a second referendum. On the substance. And if that didn't pass

we would have a different kind of Brexit, a different relationship

with the EU, a closer one. Would that be fair? Allen it would be

unnecessary -- it would be deeply insulting to the electorate and it

would be unnecessary. Why would it be unnecessary and insulting? We

told them what it would be. You can do it in different ways. Once you

have control you can use it in a different way as an independent

country. The shape of a Brexit deal could be different under different

interpretations. The taking back control is... How are the

environment or section is going to be? What about workers' rights?

There will not be any. Can you tell me what the British government would

do next year if we stay in. You would have a referendum every year

because you don't know what the future holds. We will come back to

this issue time and time again. Thank you very.

Now the leadership of the Green Party -

and I've got 50% of it here in the studio -

has got a plan to try to reverse a situation which saw it win just

one Commons' seat for more than 1 million votes

It's been urging other parties on the left of politics to join

a so-called "progressive alliance", including electoral pacts in some

areas, to help defeat Conservative candidates.

Let's have a listen to Caroline's other half,

politically speaking, Jonathan Bartley.

A progressive alliance can mean different things

in different constituencies, but it will not be top-down.

And our message to others who share a belief in a progressive,

modern Britain is this, old tribal loyalties are dying.

Voters can no longer be taken for granted.

The era of two party politics is over.

And we're joined now by the Labour MP, Peter Kyle,

a neighbouring MP to Caroline Lucas in Brighton and Hove.

Welcome to the programme. Caroline Lucas, how would an electoral pact

work? I think it would be up to local people in local constituencies

to make that decision. We are talking about a one off arrangement

in a number of marginal seats whereby at the minute you might have

Peter and myself fighting it out and a Tory comes through the middle. In

Brighton and Hove this thing happens again and again. What we want to try

to do is to get enough MPs who would have electoral reform as a number

one issue in their manifesto. So the next election you could admit of

this archaic system -- you could get rid of this archaic system. For

marginal seats what is not to like? Every time I hear and speak to

Caroline about this I can see the logic and the understanding of why

this is an issue which a lot of people care about. But when I go

away and think of it through the eyes of the electorate I cannot see

how it would work through their eyes. I think what we are as a of

establishment Labour Party, Green party, and other party officials,

stitching up the election. I think from their side, through their eyes,

they wouldn't understand why they are doing it. But otherwise you like

it? What I like is the idea that parties come together and work when

it is in our public and common interest between our two parties.

Like we did during the European referendum. What I don't like is an

electoral stitch up. I agree a stitch up, something that looks like

it is top-down imposed wouldn't work and wouldn't be right. But in

Brighton and Hove there is a Compass Group, another group called Sussex

Progressives, who are local people coming together and saying, hang on,

politicians, could you work it out in such a way that you don't have

politicians who share more in common than they have apart, fighting it

out between them, having observed its coming through again. Could you

not be wiser. Would you stand out from your seat in order to allow the

Labour candidate to win? If it was part of an overall deal I would do

what is best in the Green party's interest. It has to be the case that

ultimately one would have to be prepared to consider that. But the

bottom one has to be that there is a fair outcomes are the Greens would

get more seats than the one they have at the minute. Two issues I

have. First, the voters, and even our own supporters, don't and they

shouldn't do what we tell them to do. If you think there are 3000

Green votes in Hove, I have a majority of 1236, so it would be

great for me to have those, but when you look at my voting record their

Ross and red lines that your voters wouldn't cross. Example, my vote on

Trident. -- there are redlines. I think a lot of them would feel

disenfranchised. That is what worries me about this idea. Except

there are disagreements within Labour on Trident, of course, as we

know. There are disagreements within parties. If it meant Labour would

win more seats surely from a mercenary point of view that would

be better. Brighton is a great example. In the

last election, there were locals elections on the samedy as

parliamentary. The Greens were running the council. The number one

reason for voting intention, according to a BBC poll and own door

stepping was - who is going to get rid of the Green Party? We thought

of xaps, they were in third place and for the local council elections

that we would be more compo at the time than the Greens locally. If we

had said - don't vote for the Greens but vote for us locally but on the

same day we were in a pact... You are trying to find all sorts of

obstacles. He doesn't want to do it. I think voters would see it as an

establishment stitch-up. I have already said that this is actually a

demand coming up from the grassroots. Particularly in a place

like Brighton and Hove. I have also said the big thing, the red line

would be... Proporgssal representation. We want a system

where there are fairer votes. It is not a system. Would you say yes to

proportional representation. No. Therein lies the deal in tatters.

But let's go further. Fortunately he doesn't speak for the whole of the

Labour Party I speak for a party which has 230 MPs. Not a party that

has more leaders than MPs. That's the difficulty of the alliance. That

was a bit of a punch there. He is usually very courteous. The reality

is surely to give people a voice. If you have an electoral system that

means in so many seats there are safe seats, and it is not why people

are voting because they can't get rid of them We need reform. I don't

think PR answers all of the questions we need. Particularly with

the strength of the political culture we have, with the

establishment between constituency and MP. There is no reason to lose

that. I need to ask Caroline something else. You were the one of

them who said he doesn't speak for the whole of the #4r5i7. I'm not the

leader. Jeremy Corbyn does. What conversations have you had about

Jeremy Corbyn's office about this Before the summer, Natalie Bennett

and myself wrote to Jeremy Corbyn to Leanne Woods and Tim far yob. We had

had various responses back, more or less warm but saying there needs to

be more debate from within the different parties. From Jeremy's

office we had a message saying they are interested and what happened in

the middle was a big leadership election and we have not heard back

but we know there are plenty of people within Labour who are

interested in this idea because they recognise our electoral system right

now is consigning us, a grossive politicians, to silence. This

includes Jeremy Corbyn. You think he is warm to the idea? He has no told

me he is warm to the idea but the people around him suggest he is.

Would they like to meet once the leadership contest... Depending, of

course on the result. They have told me they would like to meet but what

I am saying is that surely Labour is not - you must see that you are not

going to win the next general election, whoever your next leader

is. Look at Scotland and constituency boundary changes. You

owe it to people who vote Labour to try to win. History tells us... Look

at the pollsment That's the difference between the two of using.

Agreement is not going so well so far. Thank you for your time.

Now job-sharing is becoming more common in some British industries.

For instance, Andrew and I share presenting duties -

although I always insist that he does the weekends.

But will it work at the top of a political party?

It's been a long climb out of the political

wilderness for the Green party and old habits die hard.

Ah, the good old days when tree sit ins and beards were in vogue

as the Green party's popularity rose in the late 80s.

Over 2 million people voted Green in the 1989 European elections

after this Crayola inspired campaign broadcast.

Is this the picture you want for your children?

Fuelling calls for the party to have a leader.

Past moves to streamline the party have led invariably to the call

Each year the motion reappears, rejected roundly by the members

who sees no need for a single pop up face to fill the TV screens

Almost 20 years later Caroline Lucas was elected as their first

traditional party leader, and her breakthrough moment

came when she entered the Commons shortly after that.

Thank you so much for putting the politics of hope

# We shall not, we shall not be moved #.

Three years later she joined anti-fracking protesters and was

Her successor as leader, Natalie Bennett, is credited

with overseeing a rise in party membership.

If not quite remembering what her policies were.

How can you hope to raise 45 billion?

People are very welcome to have a look at the Green party

website and see how the figures are worked out.

You would make it legal for people living here to be

a member of Al-Qaeda, or Isis, or the IRA, you would make

it legal to be a member of a terrorist organisation?

She complained of brain fade in interviews.

We stand here more united with two leaders than other

Co-leader Jonathan Bartley was once a researcher

for the Conservative Party before coming to prominence publicly

challenging David Cameron about his policies on inclusive

education with his disabled son by his side.

You are not representing the needs of children.

Most recently he was the Green party's spokesman

Be careful, no, be very careful, you say...

So, what pitfalls could Britain's first political party

I asked the Guardian's part-time political editor.

No one can get a slip of paper between you.

If somebody comes talking to me, trying to lobby me, well,

Heather knows exactly what they've been saying

You're not just leader of the Green Party Monday to Friday,

nine to five, you are leader of the Green Party all the time.

You know, the world of news doesn't stop, the world

In theory, one person can't be there 24 hours a day,

seven days a week, so, actually, I think it's

going to become much more sensible to have job shares

Green Party members overwhelmingly back this job share

Now the two leaders could well determine whether this first

And we're joined now by the other half of the new Green Party

leadership, Jonathan Bartley, so congratulations to you both.

Thank you very much. Why a job share? Well, I approached Caroline

about it because of my personal circumstances. I have a passion for

politics, a long-standing interest in it but my son is disabled, I have

responsibilities for him to look after him and care for him but I

think that brings something important to politics. We need

people with experience, like those, so they can be authentic in their

politics but a lot of people are, you know, cut out of the system

because they don't have the time to do it because they have those

responsibilities, they have caring responsibilities or they are

disabled themselves. It is a way of demonstrating a new way of politics.

We would like to see this idea spread. How will it work on

ady-to-day basis? How will you divide all the responsibilities

Well, it is working very well already. We have had a long hustings

campaign, 12 or is he around the country, we have done a lot of

interviews like this and talked people we. Divide up

responsibilities, play to our strengths, Caroline will be in her

constituency a lot. The serious things, about a political point f

you look at Westminster in in particular, anyone casting their

eyes across the benches can't say it represent Britain. If we want a

Parliament that is more representative, a job share is

practical. More black people, job sharing responsibilities, more

people with caring responsibilities. I think we need a greater diversity.

Many people can't give 24-7 necessarily and therefore, anything

we can do to make Parliament more representative and ensure MPs have

one foot firmly placed back in their constituency I think will lead to

better politics. It is Tuesday today, we are doing a store story on

Mack 1. We are doing it with Caroline because she was first up,

who would I call? The press office. They would decide. Would they call

you? I can't believe you are asking this question. These are the

practical issues. You know that job sharing is a common thing across the

country and thank goodness politics are catching up Not in politics. It

is the same issue. How would it work. Who is going to run, or lead

on a particular story on your programme. You know as well as I do,

it is not rocket science to work that out. What is great about this

is when one is doing something we would have had to turn the interview

down because we would be elsewhere. Another one is available. The media

are getting two for the price of one. A supermarket deal. But You say

why am I asking about practical details. Noernt. If you are working

on a big story on fracking or a big campaign and you can't make it and

that's your strength, does it get hand over to Jonathan, do you have

to tell each other - I can't do these days this week, can you cover

for me? The reason I was saying, why are you asking me those those

questions, of course they are the conversation that is would happen

just as they would in any other organisation where job sharing is

common. The leader of a party has been a one-person role where you are

asking for an opinion and you are asking for... Maybe in Westminster

it is the case but around the world it clearly isn't. CEOs. The 20 CEOs

of Fortune 500 companies are sharing. In Germany and Sweden, and

Green Parties around the world have done this. Maybe it is because we

have a different vision of leadership. What is the difference

between the two of you? I would simply say in the Green Party,

leadership is more of a collegiate cooperative thing, it is not a

topdown, we had a view in the night we will do X and impose it and

therefore you need to know what is on in the brain of that person, it

is much more delib radiotive and discussed with our Green Party exec

taven maybe that's a delifrn kind of leadership which is more attractive.

What did you have a disagreement on a key policy area? The great thing

about the green Party is all our policies are decided democratically

by our members. We go out and... - what do you do when you have a fight

with Andrew. We fight it out and. But you have tried this and it was

abandoned, you didn't like T The problem with principal speakers, we

got it down to two in the end, but there were eight, ten. We spent most

interviews trying to explain what it was. Using the language of leaders

and co-leaders, at least we think it means something more to you, the

public and so forth and we can get on and talk about our policies,

rather than our structures. All right, thank you very much. We can

agree on all of that. Caroline we say goodbye to you, but Jonathan you

are staying. Scotland's First Minister,

Nicola Sturgeon, is outlining her legislative priorities for the next

five years today with education, healthcare and new welfare powers

said to be high on the SNP's agenda. She'll be making a statement

at Holyrood a little later, but let's get more from BBC

Scotland's Political Brian. Tell us more. What can we

expect? Well, first of all, much to the relief of viewsers there is only

one of me. I will bring you up-to-date with what the First

Minister is going for. I think encation and the economy, perhaps

joint number one. Indeed Nicola Sturegon was out this morning Ned

enborough opening a new school, a new high school, a new building for

that, stressing that on the one hand it is educational aproe. , opened it

is jobs to grow the economy. I think there will be an announcement of a

welfare system for Scotland. Not detail of the benefits but new

welfare powers this week have been transferred to Holyrood and they

need a Social Security system up and running to go with as well as a tax

system. The new tax powers are there. In terms of other things,

health reforms, perhaps trying to bring health and social care more

together. In that field of education, the big controversy could

be an attempt to channel money directly to schools, directedly to

headteachers and involving parents. And perhaps, to some extent cutting

out the local authority. It is likely to be very contentious.

Right, and despite how much effort will be put into the other areas,

particularly into education and health as you have outlined, won't

the focus still be on the talk of a second independence referendum? I

think the second independence referendum will be mentioned in the

First Minister's statement. I think she will confirm that there is early

planning under way. Planning for the necessary legislation to set out

that referendum, but it will be a reference, a passing reference. I

think, you know, that she is, is perhaps slightly sensitive about the

idea, the attack that comes from Opposition parties who say - Nicola

Sturegon, you are ignoring the day job, you are obsess being

independence. Now she has dismissed that accusation. She puts it to one

side but she knows if it is repeated endlessly, and it is being repeated

endlessly -- understandably from the point of view of her opponents, if

it is going repeated, it forms seeds in the voters' minds so #20ed she's

going to counter that about saying it is about the nuts and bolts of

deliver ri, the hard task of delivering the SNP manifesto, about

the economy, education, health, welfare.

While we were talking Keith Vaz has announced his regular igs nation

from the Home Affairs committee. He says it is in the best interest of

the Home Affairs Select Committee Thwaites important work can be

conducted without any distractions whatsoever. "I'm enonlinely sorry

recent he events make this possible while I'm Chair." Breaking news just

appeared in front of me. -- I'm very sorry.

Now yesterday the British Medical Association called off the junior

doctors' strike that was due to take place in England next week.

The BMA said it was not backing down in the dispute over

a new contract for junior doctors, but said it wanted to give the NHS

sufficient time to prepare for industrial action.

A series of further all-out five day stoppages are still planned

for later in the year, with the first due

Let's have a listen to the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt,

This afternoon's news of them delaying the first strike is,

But we mustn't let it obscure the fact that the remaining planned

industrial action is unprecedented in length and severity.

Some of whom will have already had operations cancelled.

Many NHS organisations, including NHS England,

NHS providers, the NHS Confederation, and NHS improvement

have expressed concern about the potential impact

Indeed, this morning the General medical Council published its advice

Whilst recognising a doctor's legal right to take industrial action,

they urged all doctors in training to pause and consider

We're joined now by the Conservative MP, David Morris, who spoke

You are pleased I presume, the strike next week has been called

off. I'm very pleased. And they shouldn't be any more striking. The

contract has been agreed. I just didn't understand what the BMA Pope

to get by this. Public support for the doctors strike is waning. --

hoped. It has dropped nine points and a plentiful probably continue in

that way, won't it? I don't know. But I know that my dad was a doctor.

I just spent a month in hospital with my son. Doctors do not go into

the industry to cause trouble, they go into it to help people and save

lives. I think we need to take these concerns seriously. The fact that

they would go so far as to strike, we need to listen to them. But they

are putting patients' lives at some risk. You say you have a doctor in

the family, and you are going to hospital with your disabled son,

then you are relying on those doctors being there. I'm relying on

a good service for years to come. We have less investment as a proportion

of GDP at the moment in the last six years. We've had an entire history

of the NHS as a proportion of the GDP. That is concerning and that

will cause hurt in the long run. I have heard Doctor after doctor say

how difficult this is for them and I believe them. I believe it is very

difficult for them. Has Jeremy Hunt handled this well? He has handled it

the best he possibly can do. What does that mean? It is politically

motivated. There has been a shake-up at the top of the BMA. They have a

deputy chairman, who I know and my local papers follow him. Are you

accusing junior doctors of being politically motivated? I'm accusing

the BMA of it. They have to have the support of junior doctors. Please

don't talk over each other. The junior doctors have made these

decisions. You are wrong. There has been no ballot on this. 4% of

doctors actually want this strike to go ahead. 4%. There has been no

ballot. There should be. There has been a shake-up at the top of the

BMA. Who is it who are going on strike? 4% of junior doctors? The

BMA are instructing their members to go on strike. 8% of junior doctors

rejected the deal that was agreed by the BMA. Junior doctors are still

not happy. Their claims, and I am paraphrasing, are back in order to

put and satisfy a manifesto commitment to make a seven-day

service they change the junior doctors' contract in order to make

that happen with no more money will stop they do get paid more money at

the weekends. -- more money. I mean resources in general. The resources

is not the reason why they are striking. They are striking because

they have agreed a contract... A contract has been imposed. It was

agreed, there has been a shake-up at the top, it is politically motivated

and that is why it is happening. Are you saying that no doctor is

politically motivated? I'm sure you would get the same percentage in the

medical industry. It has been used as... Somebody is going to have to

stand up for the patients. The best people placed to see what is going

on with the doctors are -- with the patient is the doctors. When you

navigate your way through the mire of problems and disputes through

this with the government and junior doctors, it has come on many

occasions, come down to this narrow demand of increasing Saturday pay.

Making it the same as overtime pay at times. Junior doctors are worried

they will have to work these additional hours. That will put

patient safety at risk. Doctors hours are coming down, down from 92

to 70 hours. That is in the contract. When was the last time you

spent a considerable amount of time in hospital? I see doctors working

hour after hour. They look haggard, tired, they are coming in, doing

emergency operations, they are struggling. Why are you not

investing in them? We are. There is less than any time of proportional

GDP. There isn't. Yes there is. There are 4000 more doctors being

trained than in the last parliament. It is about keeping pace with

demand. Demand, and the fact that many people are living longer means

it isn't keeping pace with expectations of the voting public.

That is what the doctors say needs to be addressed in the long term.

That is what Jeremy Hunt is doing. He's placed to put money into the

NHS over the course of this Parliament. Simon says there isn't

enough. They have to find the money. You agree that have to find the

money? I agree that after going through a turmoil of recession and a

period of economic austerity we are at a position now where we have got

politically motivated nonsense, quite frankly, from the BMA being

peddled forward that I actually think it's probably transgressing

the various acts we put in Parliament about lobbying and the

effects of it. Because we have different people on the board of the

BMA wearing different hats. We have a chairman of the Unite as the

deputy of the BMA that has the history of peddling nonsense. Not

just in my local paper, but nationally. You have got to find the

money, you said. You have had your say, let me finish. We are at this

position where the junior doctors and the BMA have agreed the contract

and now they are going back on it. That cannot happen. The junior

doctors said they didn't accept the contract in the first place but the

BMA did. May I add, at the last election there was an overwhelming

mandate to sort this problem out and that is what Jeremy Hunt is doing.

Do you think a deal will be done? I hope it is a deal that satisfies the

doctors. We needed that the doctors in control. It was about giving back

control to the country, giving back control to the people who need to

work long hours and squeezing every bit of the NHS they can. We need a

decent NHS with doctors who can do the job properly. That is what we

need to secure. Thanks very much. Now, you may not have

heard of Godwin's Law, but it's an idea that was coined

by an American in the early days of the internet and it says that

if an online discussion goes on long enough, it will always end

with someone comparing someone But these days this doesn't seem

to be confined to the internet, but is becoming a regular feature

in political debate. Yesterday after Theresa May appeared

to rule out the idea of introducing an Australian-style points system,

the former Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown sent a tweet

which read 'the Tory Brexit brownshirts are stirring' -

the brownshirts being a name used to describe the paramilitary

wing of the Nazi Party. During the referendum campaign

Boris Johnson, not exactly a stranger to controversy,

said that the EU had the same aim as Hitler in trying to create

a political superstate. His colleague Michael Gove said

'we have to be careful about historical comparisons',

before roundly ignoring his own advice and comparing economic

experts supporting Remain And the former London mayor

Ken Livingstone was at the centre of a media scrum and was suspended

from the Labour Party after arguing We are joined by a journalist who is

nodding away. What Boris Johnson correct to compare the European

Union's aims to that of Nazi Germany during the referendum campaign? I

can see why people are tempted to make Nazi references. It is the only

bit of history people know these days. So it is lazy, isn't it? When

I was at school it was all about the Middle Ages, but now all you get

taught is about the rise of the Nazis. Paddy Ashdown comparing the

70 when five people -- comparing the 17.5 million people who voted to

leave, I don't think that works. There are occasions, I think, when

the Nazi analogy is used, particularly by the left, to slack

off people they don't like. Anybody mildly to the right they call Nazis.

There is an interesting comparison to make. We encourage our children

to study history to learn the lessons of the past. I do hear

people coming to me, and I'm careful about saying it, because it is

inflammatory, but I think there are parallels with the age of insecurity

that we are experiencing at the moment. People feel unsure. The far

right has in 70 in times like this. We saw it in the 1930s, we've seen

the referendum today, and we have seen a rise in hate crime which is

alarming. In many communities. In the end many people will justify how

they have used their Nazi analogy, but isn't it just crass and lazy?

No, I didn't agree with Jonathan on the detail, but on the broad issue

of whether we should use Nazi analogies... I think, actually, the

interesting thing about Nazi Germany is that it happened in a country

which invented Beethoven and Schubert. Civilised people. Get over

a period of five years they were effectively taken hostage by this

party which was a joke. Do you worry history may be repeating itself? I

do in terms of the left's war on free speech, the liberal left

wall... You have used the term about Green party, or some of the Green

party being eco-Nazis. Yes. How can that be when the Nazis were about

dehumanising people, destroying the Jews... The Hitler era is rich in

green analogies. Get the's Germany was the paradigms of green

analogies. Himmler wanted to feed the S S and organic food only until

somebody explained to him that it cannot be produced and such a scale.

Goering wanted to put people who abused animals into concentration

camps. I'm not sure whether to laugh or to say that is incredibly

offensive. The truth hurts. I'm passionate about opposing fascism in

this country. I'm probably one of the strongest opponents of Ukip. I

would label Ukip in that fascist bracket. I don't think it is helpful

to descend into the name-calling. Let's look at what people are

standing for, the values, the policies of Ukip and the way they

want to cut down on immigration. Let's look at the effect that has

had on the divisions in our local communities. It is something we need

to speak about and talk rationally about. Was Paddy Ashdown right to

call Tory Brexiteers brownshirts? It wasn't helpful to the debate, but I

see what he was trying to say. Was Michael Gove right to say that those

economic experts supporting Remain when Nazi propagandists -- were. He

was talking about the paper Hitler commissioned, the authors against

Einstein, a specific analogy. Thank you.

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

Caroline was asked the question but I'm sure as they think as one

on all things Jonathan will know the answer.

The question was which celebrity is Jeremy Corybn appearing

I know Billy Bragg supports him and UB40, I think it might be UB40.

# Red red Wine # Goes to my head #.

You are right. I didn't have a chance to say thank you for all of

your history information today. The One O'Clock News is starting

over on BBC One now. I'll be back at 11:30 tomorrow

with Andrew for live coverage in a brand-new BBC Two quiz show,

Debatable, where a team of celebrities put

their debating skills to the test to try to win their contestants

pots of cash. Will they help, or will they hinder?

That's Debatable. The stars are out for

a glittering night of awards,