:01:00. > :00:59.Welcome to the Daily Politics. on BBC Two.
:01:00. > :00:59.The Conservatives secure a commanding win in the Sleaford
:01:00. > :00:59.by-election while Labour slump to fourth place.
:01:00. > :01:22.We'll hear from the Labour MP who says his party is heading
:01:23. > :01:23.the crowd-funded campaign which wants to shake
:01:24. > :01:40.I thought they were quite shaken up already.
:01:41. > :01:44.And with us for the whole of the programme today,
:01:45. > :01:46.the Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee and Toby Young, associate
:01:47. > :01:55.So, another by-election last night, just one week after the Lib Dems won
:01:56. > :01:57.Richmond Park with a huge swing from the Conservatives.
:01:58. > :01:59.Unlike a week ago, though, last night's result
:02:00. > :02:02.The Conservatives held on to Sleaford and North Hykeham
:02:03. > :02:12.Their candidate, Caroline Johnson, received just over 17,500 votes.
:02:13. > :02:22.Second place went to Ukip with just under 4,500 a majority
:02:23. > :02:29.But the big news of the night was that Labour were pushed
:02:30. > :02:31.from second into fourth place, behind the Liberal Democrats,
:02:32. > :02:37.Here's the Conservative victor, Caroline Jonson, speaking
:02:38. > :02:46.I look forward to strengthening the Government's majority in parliament,
:02:47. > :02:50.so that Theresa May, our Prime Minister, can get
:02:51. > :02:52.on with the job of triggering Article 50, leaving
:02:53. > :02:54.the European Union, and building a country and
:02:55. > :03:07.That's the new Conservative MP for Sleaford.
:03:08. > :03:09.We did ask the Labour Party for an interview, but no
:03:10. > :03:12.We've been joined by the Labour backbencher, David Winnick.
:03:13. > :03:24.Welcome to the programme. This was a election, a safe Tory seat, you
:03:25. > :03:30.expected to lose it, Labour slipped from second to fourth, but is it
:03:31. > :03:32.really that disappointing? Yes, it is humiliating, it is a set like
:03:33. > :03:41.Richmond last week which we have never won, that includes 1997. But
:03:42. > :03:46.we were second in the general election, and to be beaten into
:03:47. > :03:51.fourth place by the Liberal Democrats was humiliating. What do
:03:52. > :03:56.you mean when you talk about a bunker mentality at the highest
:03:57. > :04:02.levels of the Labour Party? What I mean is there are those who don't
:04:03. > :04:07.seem to grasp that if you have rallies of the faithful loyalists,
:04:08. > :04:15.activists on the rest of it, that is fine, but you can lose touch with
:04:16. > :04:17.the real world, and my fear is that we are not in touch of ordinary
:04:18. > :04:23.people anywhere to the extent that is necessary that could make a real
:04:24. > :04:29.impact in the country. In what ways are you not in touch? We are not in
:04:30. > :04:34.touch because day in and day out, you can take this as a commercial if
:04:35. > :04:38.you like, everyday, Labour MPs put the case for what is happening in
:04:39. > :04:41.the country, how many people, millions, suffering as a result of
:04:42. > :04:46.the cuts, Labour councillors up and down the country doing their duty,
:04:47. > :04:50.and the reason why they were elected in the first place. But we are not
:04:51. > :04:57.perceived by so many people as acting in their interests. And that
:04:58. > :05:03.produces... A sense that you are not in touch with ordinary voters? Yes.
:05:04. > :05:08.Polly, the results are not great for Labour, pretty good for the Tories.
:05:09. > :05:12.It is OK free Ukip, I would suggest. It is pretty good for the Lib Dems,
:05:13. > :05:16.very bad for Labour, I think that would be fair to say. And as we came
:05:17. > :05:20.on air, YouGov announced its latest poll which I think we'll be in the
:05:21. > :05:27.Times tomorrow, and it has the Tories now at 42%, pretty - them,
:05:28. > :05:35.but more interestingly, Labour down to 25. Ukip 12, Lib Dems 11,
:05:36. > :05:40.statistically even stevens. But Labour at 25, it highlights what
:05:41. > :05:45.David Winick is saying about the by-election result. At least they
:05:46. > :05:48.didn't lose their deposit in the by-election, which they did in the
:05:49. > :05:53.last one, which was an extra humiliation. I think it really is
:05:54. > :05:56.time for Labour Party members to look at the facts in the face, not
:05:57. > :06:01.what they wish they were but what they are, and however much people
:06:02. > :06:06.might admire Jeremy Corbyn for allsorts of admirable qualities,
:06:07. > :06:09.just realised that you have a fairly short window as a leader to
:06:10. > :06:13.establish a reputation, and when people decide it is not you, you
:06:14. > :06:17.don't look like leadership material, they don't change their mind. I
:06:18. > :06:21.think the Government is going to be in real trouble within the next two
:06:22. > :06:26.years, I think the negotiations will go badly and all sorts of people
:06:27. > :06:33.will face up to what it really means, the sacrifices. Getting
:06:34. > :06:36.sovereignty back will mean such heavy sacrifices, mostly for the
:06:37. > :06:40.same people who are experiencing the cuts at the moment, and Labour will
:06:41. > :06:52.not dare to say, we said this all along. Not a great result for you.
:06:53. > :07:00.Sharer of the vote fell by 2%, and it is share that matters when
:07:01. > :07:04.turnout is low. I would guess the Government, given they were more
:07:05. > :07:11.frightened of Ukip then Labour, they will be quite happy with this
:07:12. > :07:15.result? I think it does show that in constituencies where conservatives
:07:16. > :07:18.are likely to win, Ukip probably won't do terribly well, because a
:07:19. > :07:22.lot of the people who would vote Ukip if they thought the alternative
:07:23. > :07:27.was between Labour and Ukip would happily plump for a Conservative
:07:28. > :07:30.candidate and not risk dividing the opposition vote. The difficulty
:07:31. > :07:35.Labour faces is in constituencies in its northern heartlands where labour
:07:36. > :07:42.is first but in constituencies that voted to leave with a Remain MP, Ed
:07:43. > :07:48.Miliband, Tristram Hunt and others, that is going to be the issue. All
:07:49. > :07:54.of the issues are seen through the prism of exit. It usually ends up
:07:55. > :08:01.some way coming back to Brexit. If you are a real Brexiteer and you are
:08:02. > :08:06.happy leaving the EU, you might vote Tory or Ukip. If you are angry with
:08:07. > :08:13.what is happening, and reluctant for it to happen, you might even want to
:08:14. > :08:17.stop it, you vote Lib Dem. Where does Labour fitting? It is a fair
:08:18. > :08:22.question, and we have to make our position clear. I was very much in
:08:23. > :08:28.favour of remain, not quite as fanatical as Polly, we disagreed
:08:29. > :08:35.over 30 years ago because she didn't do much service for the Labour Party
:08:36. > :08:43.then, but we won't talk about that. Toby was only in shorts then, let's
:08:44. > :08:46.not go back there. I think we have to honour the majority decision, and
:08:47. > :08:52.a feeling in the country among many people who voted leave, who takes
:08:53. > :08:58.the view that we are ambiguous or not willing to accept a majority
:08:59. > :09:01.decision. I disagree with that majority decision, and I am very
:09:02. > :09:05.much pleased that the vote in the House of Commons this week, we made
:09:06. > :09:11.it clear that we stand by what the Prime Minister said, that article 50
:09:12. > :09:17.will be implemented no later than the 31st of March. In many parts of
:09:18. > :09:19.the country, people who didn't normally vote in general elections
:09:20. > :09:25.let alone local elections certainly voted in the referendum, and if
:09:26. > :09:30.there is this cynical view that no one is taking any notice, we have
:09:31. > :09:40.been proved right, voting is a waste of time, we have to demonstrate...
:09:41. > :09:47.Let me just ask you this. What... Jeremy Corbyn won in 2015. He was
:09:48. > :09:54.challenged and one again. He is the leader. If you think this is a bad
:09:55. > :10:00.situation, how do you get out of it? Jeremy Hunt been re-elected. I never
:10:01. > :10:07.voted for him. But how do you get out of it? I remain broadly on the
:10:08. > :10:11.left, but he has been re-elected. We know that. How do you get out of it?
:10:12. > :10:19.He is going to lead us into the general election, and that was the
:10:20. > :10:23.decision of the party membership. I would say from that, you don't get
:10:24. > :10:28.out of it. That was the implication of that answer. I think it is quite
:10:29. > :10:32.clear that if you really mean that, if the Labour Party really means
:10:33. > :10:38.that, that Corbyn is still going to be leader in 2020, we are looking at
:10:39. > :10:42.catastrophe. We are looking at a serious wipe-out, which is terrible.
:10:43. > :10:45.The only way to get rid of Corbyn is if Labour loses a general election,
:10:46. > :10:48.and even that isn't guaranteed, and that is why Corbyn are supporting
:10:49. > :10:53.the article 50 Amendment, because they don't want to trigger a general
:10:54. > :10:57.election. It could be a long time until the general election unless
:10:58. > :11:01.the Prime Minister looks differently at the by-election last night.
:11:02. > :11:09.The question for today is who has been watching a basketball game
:11:10. > :11:13.Was it a) Time Person of the Year 2007, Vladimir Putin?
:11:14. > :11:16.b) Time Person of the Year 2016, Donald Trump?
:11:17. > :11:22.c) Time Person of the Year 2000 and 2004, George W Bush?
:11:23. > :11:29.At the end of the show, Toby and Polly will give
:11:30. > :11:38.I have utmost confidence in them! It has often been misplaced, of course!
:11:39. > :11:41.The Foreign Secretary is visiting Bahrain today only 24 hours
:11:42. > :11:43.after Downing Street said his views did not represent Government policy.
:11:44. > :11:46.The rebuke from Number 10 came after Boris Johnson said
:11:47. > :11:48.the UK's ally, Saudi Arabia, was "playing proxy wars"
:11:49. > :11:57.Boris Johnson made his first major speech as Foreign Secretary last
:11:58. > :12:01.week, but his first five months in the post haven't
:12:02. > :12:11.The Italian Economics Minister accused him of being "a bit
:12:12. > :12:13.insulting" last month after Mr Johnson reportedly told him
:12:14. > :12:16.that Italy would sell less prosecco if the UK wasn't given access
:12:17. > :12:19.The Foreign Secretary has also had to endure jokes
:12:20. > :12:28.When we came to Birmingham this week, some big questions
:12:29. > :12:36.Are we ready for the effort it will take to see it through?
:12:37. > :12:45.Can Boris Johnson stay on message for a full four days?
:12:46. > :13:09.Chancellor Philip Hammond joined in, teasing Mr Johnson
:13:10. > :13:12.about his failed campaign for the Tory leadership campaign
:13:13. > :13:22.Tory MP Jake Berry said recently that the Foreign Secretary had been
:13:23. > :13:24.the victim of "sniping from the comfort of Whitehall",
:13:25. > :13:31.Foreign Office mandarins have also reportedly asked ministers to stop
:13:32. > :13:33.calling Mr Johnson "Boris" and instead refer to him
:13:34. > :13:43.But Boris was slapped down by Number 10 yesterday after he accused
:13:44. > :13:48.Saudi Arabia of engaging in "puppeteering and playing proxy
:13:49. > :13:55.The Prime Minister's spokesman said in response,
:13:56. > :13:59."The Foreign Secretary's views are not the Government's position".
:14:00. > :14:02.Well, joining us now to discuss this further is someone who knows
:14:03. > :14:04.what it's like to be a Conservative Foreign Secretary -
:14:05. > :14:15.Welcome back to the programme. Is it sustainable for the Prime Minister
:14:16. > :14:22.to have a Foreign Secretary whose remarks regularly do not reflect
:14:23. > :14:25.Government policy? All ministers occasionally go off message, so
:14:26. > :14:30.these things are not unknown, and we mustn't get too excited. However, if
:14:31. > :14:35.it comes a serial activity, it becomes more controversial. And
:14:36. > :14:39.there are signs it is becoming a serial activity. We have had the
:14:40. > :14:45.customs union, he was slapped down for that. We have had him in this,
:14:46. > :14:52.several other areas where he has kind of gone off piste. Boris is a
:14:53. > :14:56.one-off character, he has got remarkable intelligence and ability,
:14:57. > :15:01.he has moderate views and is not a wild extremist. But he has made his
:15:02. > :15:07.reputation as a celebrity, and you cannot compare that with being a
:15:08. > :15:09.Foreign Secretary. Harold Macmillan was briefly Foreign Secretary, and
:15:10. > :15:11.he said that Foreign Minister is are either dull or dangerous. Boris
:15:12. > :15:23.Johnson is not dull. I watched him and his remarks on
:15:24. > :15:28.Saudi Arabia. He was not speaking as Foreign Secretary. He was speaking
:15:29. > :15:34.as a pundit. I could have made that remark but I am a journalist. He
:15:35. > :15:38.cannot speak as a pundit and be Foreign Secretary. That is right.
:15:39. > :15:43.The issue on this occasion is not whether what he said was reasonable
:15:44. > :15:49.or unreasonable, whether it was accurate or not accurate, it was not
:15:50. > :15:58.UK foreign policy. If Boris does not like current foreign policy in the
:15:59. > :16:02.Middle East, the Foreign Secretary has more power, influence, than
:16:03. > :16:05.anyone else in the United Kingdom to change foreign policy. Occasionally,
:16:06. > :16:08.when I had disagreements with John Major, which was very rare, I would
:16:09. > :16:22.have a private conversation with him. Occasionally I might have him
:16:23. > :16:27.agreeing with me and more of -- and usually I would agree with him. If
:16:28. > :16:33.people want to know what Britain's policy is, listen to what the Warren
:16:34. > :16:36.Secretary is saying is if he has his own reservations, he must keep them
:16:37. > :16:44.to himself. -- the Foreign Secretary. Because of Britain having
:16:45. > :16:48.a global foreign policy, and being a permanent member of the Security
:16:49. > :16:52.Council, that means the words of the Foreign Secretary, whoever it is
:16:53. > :17:02.common to carry more weight. There is a double problem. The first, the
:17:03. > :17:07.timing could not have been worse. Having lunch order sooner with the
:17:08. > :17:13.king of Saudi Arabia at the time, did not help. I think Boris Johnson
:17:14. > :17:17.can still get out of this drama if he can realise and permanently
:17:18. > :17:22.remind himself that when he speaks in public on any occasion he had to
:17:23. > :17:28.confine himself to foreign policy. If he does not like it, he is the
:17:29. > :17:33.person best place to try to change it. Boris Johnson can be his own
:17:34. > :17:41.worst enemy. We all know that. Even his Cabinet colleagues have ramped
:17:42. > :17:44.it up by making fun of saw examples of that. It adds to the narrative
:17:45. > :17:49.that perhaps, which is what the Labour Party line has been, this man
:17:50. > :17:58.is not fit to be Foreign Secretary. Is there a conspiracy to amplify his
:17:59. > :18:04.mistakes? I don't think so. I think he will survive. He will soldier on
:18:05. > :18:09.for quite a time stop what he said about Saudi Arabia fits the
:18:10. > :18:14.definition of a political gaffes, given by the American political
:18:15. > :18:17.commentator saying when a politician speaks the truth, especially if it
:18:18. > :18:22.is a truth they are not meant to say, one of the difficulties that
:18:23. > :18:26.Boris faces is one faced by all journalists, especially if they have
:18:27. > :18:30.earned bread-and-butter as columnists. As colonists you are
:18:31. > :18:35.paid to say something provocative and interesting each week. As a
:18:36. > :18:42.front-line senior politician you are expected to say something pretty
:18:43. > :18:54.dull. As a career politician, that comes as second nature. For him, he
:18:55. > :19:00.finds it very difficult to rein himself in a not say anything that
:19:01. > :19:04.is likely to be picked up. You could take the view this is quite
:19:05. > :19:10.refreshing custom he is saying something that many people think
:19:11. > :19:15.about Saudi Arabia. Counter to that is that these are uncertain times
:19:16. > :19:20.for Britain's position in the world. The rest of the world is looking at
:19:21. > :19:24.us to see what is the shape of our foreign policy in a Brexit
:19:25. > :19:28.environment. This sort of thing does not help. I would be delighted if we
:19:29. > :19:33.broke our relationship with the Saudis are no longer sell them ?3
:19:34. > :19:36.billion worth of weapons with which they are absolutely destroying
:19:37. > :19:41.civilians of the Yemen. I would be delighted if we spoke up against
:19:42. > :19:45.them. In particular, their particular extreme religious cult,
:19:46. > :19:48.which they have deliberately spread around the world, and is so
:19:49. > :19:55.dangerous, that will not happen. We're now going to be sending out
:19:56. > :20:01.Boris and Liam Fox on their knees, begging everyone around the world to
:20:02. > :20:06.make a trade deal to make up for the trade we have with Europe. We are
:20:07. > :20:10.going to be in no position to be making moral gestures. We have to
:20:11. > :20:16.stop those imperial fantasies. We are going to be in a very bad state.
:20:17. > :20:20.I do not see Boris as being the person who will make new friends for
:20:21. > :20:27.us all who will make a principled stand either. The Foreign Secretary
:20:28. > :20:32.ship was very much a second chance for Boris Johnson. He had been
:20:33. > :20:38.involved in this incredible car crash with Michael Gove, which they
:20:39. > :20:41.both seem to have had mutual assured destruction of their political
:20:42. > :20:45.careers. Out of the blue, the Prime Minister gives him a second chance.
:20:46. > :20:51.Are you surprised he has not grasped this with both hands and changed his
:20:52. > :20:57.ways? I think he has grasped this with both hands. He is a bright guy.
:20:58. > :21:06.He has known perfectly well that he has two curb his journalistic
:21:07. > :21:11.instincts. When you are 52, he is 52 now. He has spent his whole life is
:21:12. > :21:17.not having to behave in a restrictive way of that kind. He has
:21:18. > :21:22.created his reputation by his enthusiastic commentaries on various
:21:23. > :21:27.matters and he finds it incredibly difficult to resist saying something
:21:28. > :21:30.that he believes is stimulating and interesting, not realising, at that
:21:31. > :21:35.precise moment, the damage it is doing. And it has done damage. One
:21:36. > :21:41.factor is it would be very difficult for Theresa May to sack him. He
:21:42. > :21:46.would effectively of the opposition. But it would be a comment on her
:21:47. > :21:51.judgment to do it so soon. Knowing that, you has a bit more licence to
:21:52. > :21:58.say these things. You cannot be a sociopath in a job like that. You
:21:59. > :22:06.cannot be someone with no self-control. It is like when Donald
:22:07. > :22:12.Trump tried to excuse himself for the inappropriate remarks about
:22:13. > :22:21.women by saying he was younger then. He was only 54!
:22:22. > :22:23.This morning, peers have been debating -
:22:24. > :22:25.at times a little rancorously - a proposal that could reduce
:22:26. > :22:28.the size of the House of Lords by cutting the number
:22:29. > :22:32.A Private Member's Bill introduced by Labour's Lord Grocott
:22:33. > :22:35.suggests abolishing the by-elections that are used to fill
:22:36. > :22:43.vacancies when a hereditary peer dies or resigns.
:22:44. > :22:50.It is one of the anomalies of the House of Lords that the only people
:22:51. > :22:52.who are in some way elected are the hereditary peers.
:22:53. > :22:55.However, peers opposed to the idea could talk it out of time,
:22:56. > :23:01.and have tabled nine pages of amendments for the one-page bill.
:23:02. > :23:04.Yes, they do take themselves seriously.
:23:05. > :23:06.While Tony Blair's government cleared out most of the hereditary
:23:07. > :23:09.peers in 1999, they agreed that 92 would be allowed to remain
:23:10. > :23:17.When one of these 92 peers dies, or resigns, a by-election
:23:18. > :23:20.is held to replace them, and usually only hereditary peers
:23:21. > :23:30.of the same party are allowed to vote for the replacement.
:23:31. > :23:35.You see what I mean by restricted constituency.
:23:36. > :23:37.Lord Grocott's bill proposes abolishing by-elections and not
:23:38. > :23:39.filling any vacancies that arise, although the status of current
:23:40. > :23:45.With hereditary peers currently counting for one in every 11 peers,
:23:46. > :23:50.that could mean the upper chamber becomes smaller over time.
:23:51. > :23:53.However, this wouldn't necessarily follow, as the PM and the political
:23:54. > :24:01.parties can always recommend the creation of more peerages.
:24:02. > :24:04.The Conservative peers, who tabled most of the amendments, are busy
:24:05. > :24:08.But we can hear what one of them had to say a little earlier.
:24:09. > :24:10.Removing the hereditaries, which is the inevitable result
:24:11. > :24:15.of removing succession to hereditaries leaves a
:24:16. > :24:20.That is not, I believe, what the public wants.
:24:21. > :24:23.The latest opinion poll I could find shows that 60% of the
:24:24. > :24:34.Those figures replicate earlier opinion polls.
:24:35. > :24:37.My Lords, an appointed House is not what the House of Commons
:24:38. > :24:43.Let us remove all of us hereditaries but only on the condition that
:24:44. > :24:55.I believe keeping hereditaries will help us to achieve
:24:56. > :24:59.a Democratic, elected House, sooner rather than later.
:25:00. > :25:02.And we can talk now to the Labour peer Dianne Hayter, who has stepped
:25:03. > :25:14.I thought Earl Caithness made a rather attractive proposition. Get
:25:15. > :25:19.rid of all the hereditary peers and the appointed peers. Job done. It
:25:20. > :25:23.would be good if we could get rid of many of us in the House of Lords. We
:25:24. > :25:27.had a good debate on Monday where we think we are too big and ought to be
:25:28. > :25:33.reduced in size. There is a demand for that. What is interesting about
:25:34. > :25:44.the debate today, it is all men. You only inherit as a man. Wanting to
:25:45. > :25:47.keep a whole group of men, 92 men. Not just that they should be there
:25:48. > :25:49.but when they go, when they die, a sickly, their sons or grandson 's
:25:50. > :25:56.should inherit. They want to keep a block of people who were appointed
:25:57. > :25:59.originally, it was their fathers, their grandfathers, their
:26:00. > :26:03.great-grandfathers, or in one case, a great-great-grandfather who was
:26:04. > :26:07.appointed to this House, and they want that to continue down to their
:26:08. > :26:14.sons and grandsons. This modest measure is simply to say, look, the
:26:15. > :26:19.hereditary day has gone when the pleasant lot do, one by one, or each
:26:20. > :26:24.year, a few dive. We should stop those by-elections and stopped the
:26:25. > :26:29.next election of sons or grandson 's coming here. More seriously we need
:26:30. > :26:34.a reduction in the size of our chamber we can do the serious work
:26:35. > :26:39.will stop we have been talking about Brexit and foreign affairs. We have
:26:40. > :26:45.a serious job to do. We need to make our size smaller so we can do that
:26:46. > :26:50.job better. What size should it be? Smaller than the House of Commons.
:26:51. > :26:54.We need enough to have the expertise was one of the things we have in the
:26:55. > :26:58.House of Lords, we do not just have people who come from a political
:26:59. > :27:03.background. They come from civil service, science and doctors,
:27:04. > :27:08.industry and trade unions. There is a wide range of experience we want
:27:09. > :27:13.to hold onto. None of the people watching this programme have chosen
:27:14. > :27:16.these people. No but what is interesting is that people who have
:27:17. > :27:20.come here have made a career and often been chosen by others. They
:27:21. > :27:26.may have become the head of the civil service or the head of a big
:27:27. > :27:31.charity. They will have been chosen, albeit by a different electorate but
:27:32. > :27:36.people who know their particular profession well. The US Senate, the
:27:37. > :27:43.most powerful legislative body in the world, has 100 members. Wider
:27:44. > :27:51.you need 500? We're a part-time House. Many of us are part-time. We
:27:52. > :27:55.continue. You think of people who continue as doctors and lawyers.
:27:56. > :27:59.Actually a number of our members are part-time and they come in with that
:28:00. > :28:04.expertise that is not the case of the Senate. I am not saying there is
:28:05. > :28:08.a specific number. We need to look up what is the function of this
:28:09. > :28:13.House and have the appropriate number to do the job we need to do
:28:14. > :28:18.as the second chamber. It is not the same as America. The Senate was set
:28:19. > :28:27.up in a different way. Not always successful, for a different reason.
:28:28. > :28:31.We need something that is appropriate for the United Kingdom
:28:32. > :28:36.will stop the United Kingdom in this century. And we need to create
:28:37. > :28:41.something that really works for now. If you got your way, you would get
:28:42. > :28:50.rid of the ones who were elected by a ridiculously small constituency...
:28:51. > :28:54.What would stop a future government replacing these numbers by more
:28:55. > :28:59.appointed peers? Prime Minister 's love to do that. They say they will
:29:00. > :29:03.not in opposition but when they are in Ten Downing Street, they cannot
:29:04. > :29:06.stop themselves. That view is very strongly held. The last Prime
:29:07. > :29:12.Minister appointed more than any other. There were 240 the last Prime
:29:13. > :29:16.Minister appointed. That is very strongly felt that there has to be
:29:17. > :29:20.some sort of cap or restriction. Otherwise it would be very hard to
:29:21. > :29:29.get rid of a whole lot of peers, as we should do. Why not just get rid
:29:30. > :29:36.of the 92 now? Why not say, it is 2016, a hereditary principle should
:29:37. > :29:41.play no part, just get rid of them? There is an argument for that. This
:29:42. > :29:46.bill in front of us today was more modest. It was saying sons and
:29:47. > :29:52.grandsons. What is interesting in the question you pose, if we cannot
:29:53. > :29:55.really get that through our House at the moment, we had the hereditaries
:29:56. > :30:00.talking out by putting down wrecking a moment to even get rid of that
:30:01. > :30:09.modest bill. The challenge you are giving me, to which I would be very
:30:10. > :30:11.sympathetic, is how could we get that through this we cannot get
:30:12. > :30:19.through this very modest one? The sons and grandsons of people... You
:30:20. > :30:22.have made that .3 times. As a woman the 58 act two women into
:30:23. > :30:31.Parliament. We will stop on that. I take the point.
:30:32. > :30:40.The Earl of Limerick, how did he come to be elected? He penned a
:30:41. > :30:47.poem. I do have it, sadly. What the constitution kinky view that kind of
:30:48. > :30:55.-- what kind of constitution can give you that kind of approach? I
:30:56. > :31:00.rather sympathise with the Earl of Caithness's point. What is the
:31:01. > :31:06.purpose for this if you don't accompany it with a proposal to make
:31:07. > :31:09.the House of Lords more democratic and introduce elected peers. The
:31:10. > :31:14.problem with that is there is no appetite to reform the House of
:31:15. > :31:18.Lords and make it more democratic, because if it is more democratic,
:31:19. > :31:24.there is less of a case for withholding power, and then you end
:31:25. > :31:29.up with a much more bicameral legislation like America. The
:31:30. > :31:33.problem is perhaps with the approach, that it really is just
:31:34. > :31:38.tinkering at the edges. It is preposterous, the whole thing. Since
:31:39. > :31:42.1911 when Lloyd George started it, they tried to reform the House of
:31:43. > :31:45.Lords. Tony Blair managed at least get rid of most of the hereditary
:31:46. > :31:49.is, but every time they make specious arguments like this where
:31:50. > :31:53.they let the best be the enemy of the good, and instead of making
:31:54. > :31:56.gradual reforms, they say, unless we reform everything we can't reform
:31:57. > :32:01.anything, so nothing changes. Because that goes way back to
:32:02. > :32:05.Michael foot and Enoch Powell, they had a kind of Faustian alliance on
:32:06. > :32:08.that. British politics, it
:32:09. > :32:09.doesn't come cheap. In the last quarter,
:32:10. > :32:19.the Labour Party received more than ?3.7 million,
:32:20. > :32:22.The Conservatives got just under three million,
:32:23. > :32:26.But now a new political movement is harnessing a newish idea
:32:27. > :32:29.and trying out crowd-funding - tiny donations from lots of people.
:32:30. > :32:32.In the popular imagination, this is where the main political
:32:33. > :32:37.For the Tories, it's people like these.
:32:38. > :32:45.People whose hats are flatter, not-so-rich people who pay
:32:46. > :32:55.Pretty much it's always worked the way it has, and, we assume,
:32:56. > :33:03.Our politics is getting more extreme and more divided.
:33:04. > :33:06.But like so much in 2016, could that be about to change?
:33:07. > :33:08.This lot, known as More United, aren't a political party.
:33:09. > :33:14.But they do want to shake up politics.
:33:15. > :33:16.We're going to find a decent, progressive candidate out there.
:33:17. > :33:20.Then we are going to crowd fund to get them elected.
:33:21. > :33:22.I don't care what party they're from.
:33:23. > :33:26.Their plan is to target money at the candidates they
:33:27. > :33:28.want in around ten marginal seats in the next election.
:33:29. > :33:30.From any party, as long as they support certain values.
:33:31. > :33:36.Like being pro-EU and pro-immigration.
:33:37. > :33:39.We must enable these people to win these elections.
:33:40. > :33:41.That involves pamphlets and IT support, all sorts of
:33:42. > :33:45.One lesson I have learned - one lesson looking
:33:46. > :33:47.back through history - to run
:33:48. > :33:49.a successful political campaign, you do need money.
:33:50. > :33:52.We need to channel money to progressive people in
:33:53. > :33:54.Parliament, who are going to try to carry the values we
:33:55. > :34:03.hold dear and think are worth fighting for.
:34:04. > :34:06.They've raised more than ?170,000 of small donations in
:34:07. > :34:11.More United is an incredible political crowdfunding project.
:34:12. > :34:13.We've seen over 4000 people across the UK
:34:14. > :34:15.pledging to support the organisation and their aims and goals.
:34:16. > :34:19.At crowd funder, in total, there's been
:34:20. > :34:21.over ?1 million raised for political crowdfunding projects across the UK
:34:22. > :34:24.and that equates to about 35,000 people backing political movements
:34:25. > :34:28.That's a lot of people here in the UK.
:34:29. > :34:30.So could Britain's political parties take
:34:31. > :34:37.One expert says we shouldn't get carried away just yet.
:34:38. > :34:41.It's not really a model for funding parties more generally.
:34:42. > :34:44.The difficulty for parties is not usually raising money at election
:34:45. > :34:48.Models like crowdfunding will work for elections -
:34:49. > :34:51.or one-off events - but they're unlikely
:34:52. > :34:54.to work as a stable means of funding parties.
:34:55. > :34:57.There's another very British sticking point.
:34:58. > :34:59.Historically, unlike our American friends, us Brits don't like putting
:35:00. > :35:03.our hands in our pockets when it comes to politics.
:35:04. > :35:16.So, the funding revolution may have to wait.
:35:17. > :35:19.Good to see the production team in black there!
:35:20. > :35:24.And we've been joined by Dan Snow who, as we saw in the film, is a key
:35:25. > :35:32.Good to be back. Is this a Remain front organisation? No, because
:35:33. > :35:38.whatever we think, we are leaving the EU. It is much bigger than that.
:35:39. > :35:43.A lot of people are looking at the global situation at the moment, and
:35:44. > :35:47.it is getting a bit nasty. What can you do? You can join a political
:35:48. > :35:53.party, I'm not really a partisan person. It doesn't seem for me like
:35:54. > :36:00.that is the answer. But we want to do something. We see France, the
:36:01. > :36:04.USA, a narrow escape in Austria, and we have all sorts of things coming
:36:05. > :36:10.down the pipeline, so frankly it is not even a Brexit issue, we are just
:36:11. > :36:14.determined to make a stand. It is people giving small amounts of money
:36:15. > :36:19.to try to safeguard the thing we have achieved, this progressive
:36:20. > :36:22.society we have built. What we have done in the 21st-century is build
:36:23. > :36:28.such an incredible society, we have forgotten to sit back and enjoy it.
:36:29. > :36:32.This is a group saying, we are proud of this and we are going to fight
:36:33. > :36:35.for it, and as of the tide of extreme is arises, we will build a
:36:36. > :36:44.barrier. You backed Sarah Olney in Richmond, can you think of a
:36:45. > :36:48.pro-Brexit candidate you would back? Toby, you backed Brexit, but you are
:36:49. > :36:53.worried about the rise of racism, I think we would have a lot in common.
:36:54. > :36:57.We like to bring people together on this programme. We failed with
:36:58. > :37:00.Malcolm Rifkind! Gregg I welcome any initiative to bring people who are
:37:01. > :37:09.not normally involved in politics into politics. As more organisations
:37:10. > :37:14.like this to make interventions into by-elections, in general election, I
:37:15. > :37:18.think Brexit will be the beneficiary, because there are more
:37:19. > :37:20.constituencies where there is a disconnect between the way the
:37:21. > :37:28.constituency voted and the way the MP voted. If you have a candidate
:37:29. > :37:31.who like Toby voted for Brexit for all the best reasons, at a
:37:32. > :37:35.sovereignty and to Moxey and wanting to be more open, ideas I didn't
:37:36. > :37:39.agree with but I totally respect it, if there is a candidate like that
:37:40. > :37:43.running against someone who has extremist views and doesn't share
:37:44. > :37:48.our core philosophies, we would absolutely look at that. But the
:37:49. > :37:53.point is, it is exciting, it is young people, it is crowd sourcing,
:37:54. > :37:57.so we go to our members and we have a list of criteria and seats that we
:37:58. > :38:02.think we can win in, seats have to be winnable. But you won't put up
:38:03. > :38:07.your own candidate? We identify people from the Conservatives, right
:38:08. > :38:12.the way through any party, so it is not narrowly partisan. It is for
:38:13. > :38:19.people who are worried about the language and want to make a stand.
:38:20. > :38:26.Let me come back to the funding. Mr Obama's first campaign in 2008 was
:38:27. > :38:37.funded from lots of small donations, tens of millions of people gave less
:38:38. > :38:42.than $25. Only ?30,000 has come from small donations? I don't think that
:38:43. > :38:49.is true. I don't think it is like BAE Systems writing is hundred
:38:50. > :38:52.thousand pounds. Your press releases you have funding total of hundred
:38:53. > :38:59.and ?71,000, and the funding from small donations on the press release
:39:00. > :39:03.is just under 30,000. That is 5000 people. Tony Watt the press release
:39:04. > :39:11.says, what is a small donation? Where did the other donation come
:39:12. > :39:16.from? This is 4500 people on a crowdfunding website that gave us a
:39:17. > :39:21.small amount. No big corporate donors, nothing. Every single penny
:39:22. > :39:26.has come for the website. If they have chosen to give more than ?500,
:39:27. > :39:33.good for them. Do you know what the average is? No. What do you make of
:39:34. > :39:36.it? I think it is a nice idea. It is good to remind people of the value
:39:37. > :39:40.of essential democracy, because when you get the Daily Mail saying
:39:41. > :39:43.enemies of the people about the High Court, you begin to feel that the
:39:44. > :39:49.whole fabric of everything that we have built up over hundreds of years
:39:50. > :39:53.begins to shake and break, so I am glad that you are real week and in
:39:54. > :39:59.people to the idea of common ground and how democracy works. But on the
:40:00. > :40:02.other hand, we have a really divided political system, and it is naive to
:40:03. > :40:08.say it doesn't matter which party you belong to. On the one side,
:40:09. > :40:12.extreme austerity, on the other side, the Labour Party is not very
:40:13. > :40:17.effectively countering it, but at least they are making the case about
:40:18. > :40:20.the NHS, about social care, and these are important divides, you
:40:21. > :40:24.can't just move it all over. But you can try and make each party the best
:40:25. > :40:28.they can be, see you can intervene asserting elections to try to make
:40:29. > :40:31.sure that good people get into the House of Commons on all sides of
:40:32. > :40:37.Parliament. It is not as exciting as Donald Trump's call but the whole
:40:38. > :40:41.thing is corrupt and everything is a disaster, but we are saying we think
:40:42. > :40:44.things are pretty good, the achievement of building a
:40:45. > :40:48.progressive society which is broadly at peace and crime is low, we need
:40:49. > :40:51.to celebrate this and talk about this, and we live in a world where
:40:52. > :40:55.young people are turning their backs on democracy and think it isn't that
:40:56. > :40:58.important. We are so many generations away from the great
:40:59. > :41:02.struggles of our ancestors that people are taking these things for
:41:03. > :41:07.granted. I don't want to join a political party, I have voted for
:41:08. > :41:10.loads of different people. But lots of people are saying, what are we
:41:11. > :41:13.going to do about this? Some of the things going on in this country and
:41:14. > :41:18.particularly abroad. The system has its flaws, the floors are in our
:41:19. > :41:22.political system, it is hard to intervene, as you know, with first
:41:23. > :41:27.past the post, but it is something. We need to move on, I'm afraid. It
:41:28. > :41:29.is a packed programme today. Come back and tell us how it gets an. I
:41:30. > :41:32.will. Thank you very much. A shop in north London which aims
:41:33. > :41:34.to sell "quintessentially British" The shop opened a couple
:41:35. > :41:44.of weeks ago and since then the owners says dozens of members
:41:45. > :41:47.of the public have gone in and accused him and his
:41:48. > :41:49.staff of being racist. The shop is called Really British,
:41:50. > :41:52.and it's in Muswell It sells British-themed
:41:53. > :41:55.memorabilia and trinkets, and its stated aim is to celebrate
:41:56. > :41:59.British culture. But many people have felt that,
:42:00. > :42:03.in light of the recent EU referendum, the shop's all-British
:42:04. > :42:08.theme is divisive and offensive. After the flurry of complaints,
:42:09. > :42:11.some members of staff even But as well as negative comments,
:42:12. > :42:17.the owner says he's also received hundreds of messages of support
:42:18. > :42:20.from around the world. And joining me now is the owner
:42:21. > :42:34.of Really British, Chris Ostwald. And you have brought a number of
:42:35. > :42:40.your products. You opened the shops a couple of weeks ago? Yes, two
:42:41. > :42:44.weeks ago. And what happened since? The first day was really good, lots
:42:45. > :42:49.of interest, and then gradually we are having people coming in saying
:42:50. > :42:56.it is racist and that the name Really British is offensive. Who is
:42:57. > :43:00.saying that to you? Local English people who have been there for long
:43:01. > :43:04.time, they say, we have been in Muswell Hill for years, this is
:43:05. > :43:08.disgusting, you cannot call a shop British, we should be ashamed of the
:43:09. > :43:16.word Rajesh, this whole Brexit thing is just too sensitive. Do you think
:43:17. > :43:21.that is the main consensus, that the remains/ leave divide has made this
:43:22. > :43:26.thing more likely to happen? It seems that is part of it. Apart from
:43:27. > :43:30.the union Jack itself having maybe been used by some other factions and
:43:31. > :43:36.people saying the union Jack represents this all that. I say it
:43:37. > :43:42.represents Great Britain, and Great Britain is something we should be
:43:43. > :43:44.proud of. It has such a lot of English eccentric products, our
:43:45. > :43:49.English quintessential ways, that is what the shop is meant to be
:43:50. > :43:57.celebrating. The things you sell do not look too offensive at all.
:43:58. > :44:01.Particularly British Picadilly, which is just a funny sounding name
:44:02. > :44:07.to put on a product, it is made in England. How bad has it really been?
:44:08. > :44:12.Last Friday I thought we were going to have to close, I had four people
:44:13. > :44:15.coming and one completely lost it and was throwing products around the
:44:16. > :44:22.shop and saying things were disgusting, you have turned Muswell
:44:23. > :44:25.Hill into a sewer. Did you call the police? I tried to put the point
:44:26. > :44:32.across that it is about products not politics. Are you someone who has
:44:33. > :44:38.had any previous political loyalties at all? Not really, I just think
:44:39. > :44:45.everything is a mixed bag, half of what one party says is right. Are
:44:46. > :44:48.you involved in politics yourself? No, I was asked to join the Lib Dems
:44:49. > :44:53.as a counsellor, but it didn't happen, but that was only because of
:44:54. > :44:58.my work. Are all of these made in Britain? No, and that is not the
:44:59. > :45:02.idea, the idea it is celebrating our Englishness, so products are
:45:03. > :45:07.designed in the UK, and manufacturers have to have the made
:45:08. > :45:10.in China because of the cost. But if it is designed here, and the product
:45:11. > :45:15.is made elsewhere but then sold here, that makes it the dish. Says
:45:16. > :45:21.it is an ordinary souvenir shop like you get in Westminster? It is a
:45:22. > :45:24.pretty good point. When you go around the shops around Buckingham
:45:25. > :45:32.Palace and Westminster, they are all selling this stuff. I use a prized
:45:33. > :45:36.by this? -- are you surprised by this? It is certainly a very
:45:37. > :45:41.gentrified area, liberal and middle-class, I imagine it heavily
:45:42. > :45:44.voted Remain, so I think it is symptomatic of those on the Remain
:45:45. > :45:52.side believing in their own caricature of those on the Leave
:45:53. > :45:55.sides so anyone who claims to be patriotic in their eyes is a bit
:45:56. > :46:01.suspect and must be beneath the surface a little bit racist and
:46:02. > :46:03.xenophobic. I worry a bit about Dan's campaign that he somehow
:46:04. > :46:08.interprets the Brexit victory in slots at alongside the Trump victory
:46:09. > :46:11.and thinks it is part of the rise of extremism and xenophobia, for an
:46:12. > :46:18.identity kit is. Apart from all the appalling physical attacks on
:46:19. > :46:24.foreigners. It is certainly unleashed something. But if you look
:46:25. > :46:33.at the statistics, it is a rise from 42 attacks to 53, it is often
:46:34. > :46:37.exaggerated. That the problem, though. What we have got is English
:46:38. > :46:41.products mixing in with politics, and people are saying we are going
:46:42. > :46:46.to boycott your shop selling English products, we don't think it is
:46:47. > :46:50.right. One man said, I am glad you have opened a shop celebrating
:46:51. > :46:55.Britishness, but you should sell Jamaican things, because Jamaicans
:46:56. > :46:58.are part of Britain. I said anyone who lives in the UK as part of
:46:59. > :47:05.written, but we are celebrating staff.
:47:06. > :47:16.Do you think, if you changed the name? Change the name! That would be
:47:17. > :47:24.a U-turn. This company were really pleased to send these socks out to
:47:25. > :47:32.us. These are Prince Charles's socks. Does he wear socks like that?
:47:33. > :47:39.He must do. If you called it rich dish souvenirs, that would have been
:47:40. > :47:47.all right, wouldn't it? It is the British word that is the problem.
:47:48. > :47:52.People have been coming in and walking out. Almost like a
:47:53. > :47:58.rehearsed, orchestrated walking out. Do you think someone may be behind
:47:59. > :48:07.it? A woman said, we, as a group, are going to boycott your shop. The
:48:08. > :48:12.irony is, if you opened your shop in a more socially and ethnically
:48:13. > :48:18.diverse area, you would probably have a huge success. I have had
:48:19. > :48:26.success but it is among people who are not white, British. It is
:48:27. > :48:30.essentially foreign people. It is for tourists. An American came in
:48:31. > :48:36.and said, my wife sent me out to get a gift to send back to America. She
:48:37. > :48:40.said get something, really British. I walked down the high street in
:48:41. > :48:45.their original shop called really British. He bought a scar. Stay
:48:46. > :48:54.safe. Keep us informed as to it goes. -- a scarf. I see you have
:48:55. > :48:57.Dennis the Menace and the Beano. I chose the Beano one year and the
:48:58. > :49:00.Dandy the next. We will move on! Now, if you're a bookworm looking
:49:01. > :49:03.for a juicy political novel to get you through Christmas,
:49:04. > :49:05.you'll be pleased to hear that a new set of book awards has
:49:06. > :49:08.just been announced. It's the Parliamentary Book
:49:09. > :49:10.of the Year Awards, and Adam Fleming has been leafing through some
:49:11. > :49:14.of the winners. Book shops came up
:49:15. > :49:16.with the short list. Bookish MPs and peers
:49:17. > :49:18.chose the winners. Alan Johnson's third
:49:19. > :49:21.volume of autobiography Alan Johnson writes about a phone
:49:22. > :49:26.call from Tony Blair, as he was about to go
:49:27. > :49:30.into a Thai restaurant. We exchanged a few pleasantries
:49:31. > :49:32.before I began to wind up the conversation so I could rush off
:49:33. > :49:35.into the restaurant. The truth was I'd never remotely
:49:36. > :49:48.considered the possibility. What's more, for a general secretary
:49:49. > :49:51.of an affiliated trade union, hankering after a parliamentary seat
:49:52. > :49:54.would be diagnosed as a case "Oh," said Tony,
:49:55. > :50:00.slightly disconcerted. "Someone told me you were keen
:50:01. > :50:04.to come into Parliament." Best Nonfiction was Margaret Hodge's
:50:05. > :50:07.account of her time as chair Margaret Hodge has been warned
:50:08. > :50:15.to keep her cool while questioning the head of Google in the UK,
:50:16. > :50:17.Matt Britton. However, at the end of a long
:50:18. > :50:20.and frustrating session, When preparing for the session,
:50:21. > :50:23.I'd come across Google's own company motto which read,
:50:24. > :50:27.don't be evil. Observing the arrogant attitude
:50:28. > :50:30.of Matt Britton at our hearing, and angered by the difficulties
:50:31. > :50:33.in his evidence, I concluded the session by saying, "You're
:50:34. > :50:37.a company that says you do no evil but I think you do do evil
:50:38. > :50:41.and that you use smoke and mirrors That became the headlines
:50:42. > :50:49.on the evening news. Melvyn Bragg won the Fiction
:50:50. > :50:51.category with his novel set It was the injustice
:50:52. > :50:57.of the intolerable taxes on the poorest and the anger
:50:58. > :51:01.against the tax-avoiding rich. It was the block on betterment
:51:02. > :51:04.and the loss of faith in authority. It was the erosion of
:51:05. > :51:07.morality and the fear It was an attempt to recover Eden,
:51:08. > :51:14.a leap for freedom, a cry from the depths of the souls
:51:15. > :51:16.of the people, the true John Bew's biography of Attlee
:51:17. > :51:23.was the Best Political Book More than anything he was left
:51:24. > :51:29.with a greater appreciation of how It was not until the Great War that
:51:30. > :51:36.I fully understood the strength of the ties that bind men
:51:37. > :51:39.to the land of their birth. If anything, the experience
:51:40. > :51:41.of the trenches intensified the sense of moral urgency
:51:42. > :51:45.which underlay his determination He wrote, "We live in a state
:51:46. > :51:51.of society where the vast We endeavour to give
:51:52. > :51:56.them a freer life." There was no actual description
:51:57. > :52:00.of the political battle that Attlee was determined to return to as soon
:52:01. > :52:06.as the war was brought to an end. And the winner of Best Political
:52:07. > :52:34.Book by a non-parliamentarian, It is called Citizen Clem. Many
:52:35. > :52:39.people are regarding this as the definitive biography of Clement
:52:40. > :52:45.Attlee. I did not read it in a night. It took longer than that. I
:52:46. > :52:52.thoroughly enjoyed it. What struck me about this understated but
:52:53. > :52:56.fascinating man, we associate him with the National Health Service,
:52:57. > :53:01.the nationalisation of the row ways and other things. What comes across
:53:02. > :53:05.in your book is how much of a real patriot he was. That explains
:53:06. > :53:09.everything about Clement Attlee. One of the things you need to understand
:53:10. > :53:17.about 20th-century Labour Party socialism is how tight it is. One is
:53:18. > :53:22.an ethical commitment to one's fellow man or women in society and
:53:23. > :53:26.another sound is this dialogue -- side if this dialogue to rights and
:53:27. > :53:31.responsibilities. All of these things exist in British society but
:53:32. > :53:37.are missed in British politics. Attlee has had a receptive audience.
:53:38. > :53:44.He went to a top public school, he went to Oxford, he had been a major
:53:45. > :53:50.in the Army. He went to Gallipoli. He went back in again at one stage.
:53:51. > :53:56.He went to work in the east end. The impression I get is that was, maybe
:53:57. > :54:02.not as dramatic as this, but it was a political road to Damascus for
:54:03. > :54:15.him. The word I humour chores into socialism. It is not a nervous night
:54:16. > :54:19.-- an overnight thing. He goes to the heart of imperial metropolis,
:54:20. > :54:24.the East End, and he sees conditions that are disgraceful. It is his
:54:25. > :54:30.patriotically that shuns him along the path to the Labour Party. In the
:54:31. > :54:33.early days, no one saw him as leader of the Labour Party. He became
:54:34. > :54:39.leader in quite unusual circumstances. It was the collapse
:54:40. > :54:45.of labour under MacDonald and the national government. Labour elected
:54:46. > :54:50.a pacifist as a leader, Lansbury. He only survive till 35. That did not
:54:51. > :54:55.quite work at a time when Stalin and the Nazis were on the rise. A
:54:56. > :55:00.grey-haired pacifist who seemed to lead the Labour Party into oblivion
:55:01. > :55:04.and was hopeless for the times. It makes one think of contemporary
:55:05. > :55:09.events. He was a reliable colleague, a committed colleague. He was very
:55:10. > :55:14.hard-working. You do not have political careers that last decades
:55:15. > :55:22.anymore. People flash and blame and we see the embers of that. Your
:55:23. > :55:27.father knew Clement Attlee. Yes, he was the secretary of the Labour
:55:28. > :55:32.Party's research department for the duration of Attlee's first
:55:33. > :55:38.administration. I have a question. The Labour Party has had 20 leaders
:55:39. > :55:42.since 1906. Only three of them have won Parliamentary majorities. Harold
:55:43. > :55:46.Wilson, Tony Blair and Clement Attlee. What did Clement Attlee have
:55:47. > :55:51.in common with the other two which enabled him to win a general
:55:52. > :55:57.election? Simply speaking, a capacity to speak beyond the left.
:55:58. > :56:04.That is not easy. The left in the 20th-century so fractious, difficult
:56:05. > :56:07.and problematic. So many people around at least think they are
:56:08. > :56:16.better fit for the job. He compares a socialist to gardening. Cripps
:56:17. > :56:21.grew to respect at legal to keep bank rolled him initially. There is
:56:22. > :56:25.a genuine sense as to what the nation fell broadly speaking. What
:56:26. > :56:30.advice would you give to Jeremy Corbyn? There he is not singing the
:56:31. > :56:34.national anthem and very unhappy with any patriotic feeling. What
:56:35. > :56:38.could he learn? Attlee could cope with others who did not agree with
:56:39. > :56:47.him and he brought them into his Cabinet. He let Bevan loose and
:56:48. > :56:50.created the NHS. He had been hostile to him throughout the war. He could
:56:51. > :56:57.live with critics. That is one thing. He would be amused and roll
:56:58. > :57:03.his eyes. He was a loyal party man. He would be one of those sticking it
:57:04. > :57:09.out on the backbenches, waiting for his turn. He would be utterly
:57:10. > :57:15.bemused. What Mr Corbyn would not like is the huge efforts he went to
:57:16. > :57:19.to tie America into the defence of Western Europe. He was instrumental
:57:20. > :57:24.with Truman in getting Nato off the ground. Even then, he thought, that
:57:25. > :57:28.is not enough. We may not be able to depend on the Americans so we need
:57:29. > :57:36.to have our own nuclear deterrent. He took us down that road. With
:57:37. > :57:44.Ernie Bevin. Wrapped in a big Union Jack, as Ernie Bevin put it in a
:57:45. > :57:50.liquid lunch. He shunted it through because people like Cripps wanted...
:57:51. > :57:53.You have not read this. I will give it to my partner for Christmas. You
:57:54. > :57:57.can read it over his shoulder. There's just time before we go
:57:58. > :58:00.to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was: Who
:58:01. > :58:02.did David Cameron go Was it a) President Putin,
:58:03. > :58:06.b) president-elect Trump, c) ex-president Bush or d)
:58:07. > :58:19.former Ukip leader Farage? What is the right answer? Putin.
:58:20. > :58:29.Bush is the right answer. They are all equally unlikely. Let's see a
:58:30. > :58:32.picture of this historic moment. They did not understand the rules.
:58:33. > :58:36.It is not cricket, it is just rounders really.
:58:37. > :58:38.The one O'clock News is starting over on BBC One now.
:58:39. > :58:41.I'll be back on Sunday with the Sunday Politics.
:58:42. > :58:50.We are going to be looking at Brexit again. We will have our usual panel.
:58:51. > :58:57.On at 11 o'clock on Sunday morning. It is our penultimate edition of
:58:58. > :59:01.2016. Hope you can join me. By five. -- goodbye.
:59:02. > :59:03.I went up to her at the end of the class -
:59:04. > :59:06.she said, "Where did you copy this essay?"
:59:07. > :59:10.Because she couldn't believe that a little chubby black girl