10/10/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 10/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


Theresa May embarks on a diplomatic offensive in European capitals


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


But should Parliament be consulted before negotiations begin?


Sparks fly in the second presidential debate


between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.


Did the scandal-hit Republican candidate do enough


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


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


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


Environmentalist George Monbiot has climbed on to his soapbox.


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


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


of the programme today is the Conservative


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


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


of Shadow Minister for Diverse Communities.


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


for talks with her Danish counterpart over Britain's exit


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


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


the EU will make a statement to the Commons later this


afternoon on the Government's approach to Brexit.


This comes after the former Labour leader Ed Miliband has said


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


Here is what he had to say earlier today.


If they begin the negotiations without consulting Parliament,


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


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


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


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


negotiating for and I believe they need to get the consent


of MPs because there's no other mandate here.


The Conservative manifesto said that the Conservative Party


was determined to stay in the single market.


Now, it sounded from what Theresa May and some


of her ministers were saying that we were going to


leave the single market, contrary to the manifesto.


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


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


I think Parliament's got to be consulted.


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


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


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


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


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


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


manifesto says, we will safeguard British interests in the single


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


Prime Minister's renegotiation strategy but the clear commitment


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


meant, saying we will safeguard British interests in the single


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


some sort of mandate to the government to decide how Brexit


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Prime Minister of the day, or whoever is undertaking the


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


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


problem with it which is that I remember during the election


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


economic argument and on the other was the very compelling argument


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


decades and for a Conservative government that believes in


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


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


EU. That's how elections work. Indeed.


According to newspaper reports, officials in the Foreign Office


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


weapon to help them with Brexit negotiations, so our question


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


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


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


"clear about the proportion of their workforce


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


The government says critics have misunderstood the plans.


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


Party Conference that the Government would be "examining


whether we should tighten the test companies have to take before


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


in the labour market, not taking jobs British


She was referring to the Resident Labour Market Test,


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


workers, to demonstrate they are filling genuine gaps


This requires a company to advertise the role


in the UK for 28 days and demonstrate no qualified


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


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


recruitment and be clear about the proportion of their workforce


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


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


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


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


who campaigned for Britain to remain in the EU,


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


workers appalling have a duty to speak out."


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


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


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


on how we can do more to encourage companies,


to look first at the British labour market."


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


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


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


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


think it is sensible in terms of managing immigration policy.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


somehow the Home Secretary made the case that companies would be


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


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


whether companies will be required to publish the numbers none British


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


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


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


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


Secretary publicly said there would be a published register.


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


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


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


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


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


This has been clarified by Michael Farren and reiterated why Oliver


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


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


Identifying the government should have a secret list of foreign


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


companies to publish a list of foreign workers and talked about


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


intention that it would be published. Secondly I cannot


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


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


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


immigration is slightly confused. Kir Starmer was saying you should


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


you cannot put a number on immigration because that is an


arbitrary number and it has never worked. Keir


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


proportion of their workforce which is international. Not as transparent


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


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


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


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


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


talking about? The media are constantly looking for splits and


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


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


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


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


something the Prime Minister is committed to doing. Steve Hilton


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


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


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


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


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


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


Miliband proposed previously. This is about trying to control migration


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


messages from the referendum campaign. Number one was, people


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


strong arguments for controlling migration and our own laws. On


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


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


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


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


After a disastrous weekend for the Trump campaign,


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


about groping women, the pressure was on Clinton to bury


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


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


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


Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican nominee


for president, Donald J Trump, and the Democratic nominee


You described kissing women without their consent,


You brag that you have sexually assaulted women.


I don't think you understood what was said.


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


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


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


If you look at Bill Clinton, far worse.


There's never been anybody in the history of politics


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


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


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


to instruct my Attorney General to get a special prosecutor


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


There has never been anything like it and we're


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


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


is not in charge of the law in our country.


I pay tax and I pay federal tax, too.


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


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


Why didn't she do something about it?


Why didn't she do something about it?


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


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


Would either of you name one positive thing that


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


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


and I consider that to be a very good trait.


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


and the playwright and critic Bonnie Greer,


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


information global waffling which talked to his supporters. And these


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


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


would agree with that with Hillary Clinton? Her unfavourable statistics


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


unpopular candidate, is it worth voting for someone who is


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


personalities as opposed to policies.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


quite sophisticated. Thank you very much.


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


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


meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party.


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


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


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


he's appearing before the Business Committee to talk


Lord Heseltine and Vince Cable will also be there.


On Wednesday, Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn


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


On Thursday, the High Court will hear a challenge


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


Meanwhile, MPs like Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg are calling


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


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


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


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


Jeremy Corbyn addressing the PR people are the first time since


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


are saying there will be a conversation further down the line


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


chief Carolyn Fairbairn saying today that businesses are concerned that


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


many other journalists were in Birmingham for the Conservative


conference, hobnobbing with lots of ministers. Several three different


newspapers appeared saying that Priti Patel was going to underspend


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


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


very harshly from those signals yesterday, setting out a statement


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


good week. Let's stick with Ukip,


because their MEP Steven Woolfe has been discharged from hospital


following the much publicised dust up with one of his


colleagues last week. Mr Woolfe claims that his fellow MEP


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


in the European Parliament Mr Hookem has denied


punching Mr Woolfe and even posted a photograph of his


hands on Twitter. Well, the party is holding


an internal inquiry which should It all comes as the party


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


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


about 18 days. Let's take a look at


the runners and riders. Despite last week's incident


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


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


he ended up in hospital, William Hill put his


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


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


News and is a former He has also officially


declared and his odds Next up is Bill Etheridge,


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


and is also a Ukip councillor He confirmed his candidacy


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


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


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


former Deputy Chairman She was suspended from


the party but has now been readmitted and says


she is "carefully considering" William Hill have her odds


at 3 to 1. Joining me now to discuss


this is Liz Jones - on the previous leadership election


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


if this were an employment situation, both would be suspended


pending the resolution of an investigation. Is that what should


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


disappointed when Diane stood down and this behaviour is disappointing


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


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


expenses fraud. Four Labour life peers were involved in selling


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


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


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


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


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


Stephen Woolfe was in talk with the Conservatives about defecting to


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Should we let the British countryside grow wild?


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


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


away from intensive farming and land management.


Here's environmental campaigner George Monbiot, who first thought


Some people find scenes like this beautiful.


But what I perceive when I see places like this


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


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


You get a small hint of what could happen right


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


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


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


When you consider the only reason the sheep are here


is because we are paying for them through farm subsidies,


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


Maybe we can start bringing back some of our missing


species, the beavers, the boar, the lynx.


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


to allow people to have much richer places to explore,


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


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


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


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


certainly like to relax it significantly. I no means


universally but in certain places where the productivity of the land


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


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


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


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


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


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


than farming in terms of generating implement and income because


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


for rebuilding economies where the traditional economic activity just


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


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


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


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


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


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


better to spend at least some of that money on ecological


restoration. Why should there be subsidies for farming in this


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


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


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


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


opposed to rewilding in principle, and as agricultural necessarily


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


were a rewildingremainer, and subsidies will reduce if we are


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


back and tell us if you do give evidence.


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


The question was, according to newspaper reports,


who is the government hoping will be their secret weapon


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


done. The one o'clock news is starting


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


with all the big political stories


Download Subtitles