Jo Coburn is joined by Labour MP Dawn Butler and Conservative MP Oliver Dowden to discuss the continuing row of whether companies should name their foreign employees.
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
Jo Coburn is joined by Labour MP Dawn Butler and Conservative MP Oliver Dowden to discuss the continuing row of whether companies should name their foreign employees. They also look at highlights of the previous night's presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton with Jan Halper-Hayes of Republicans Overseas and Democrat-supporter Bonnie Greer.
Former Ukip leadership contender Liz Jones discusses who their next leader should be, and Stephen Bush from the New Statesman and Lucy Fisher from the Times take a look at the political week ahead.