21/02/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Two thirds of the plans to re-configure NHS services

in England involve cuts to hospital services -

but are they "the best hope of delivering essential reforms"?

Other left wing leaders are available.

Is Jeremy Corbyn no longer the only hope for the Labour left?

A record number of peers sign up to have their say on Brexit -

but guess who was there to cast her beady eye

And have peers been a little too candid to camera

in a BBC documentary about the upper house?

There are, sad to say, many, many peers who contribute absolutely

nothing but claim the full allowance.

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

of the programme today, Jeremy Corbyn ally

the Labour commentator and columnist, Owen Jones.

Two-thirds of the plans to change the way the NHS delivers services

in England involve a cut to hospital services,

The proposals have been made by local NHS bosses as part

of a national programme to transform the health service and save money.

44 local plans have been drawn up across England and include

everything from full closures of hospitals to cutting some

specialist services such as Accident Emergency and stroke care.

Ministers argue patients will receive better

Bringing community services together into "super" hubs

to include GP, council-run care and district nursing.

Getting GPs working together in federations to improve access

And asking hospital specialists to work in community clinics

to bring expert care closer to people's homes.

The think tank the King's Fund says the proposals offer the

"best hope of delivering essential reforms" in the NHS,

as care needs to be moved out of hospital.

But warned this could not be done without extra funding

because there weren't enough services outside of hospitals

and community services were already "feeling the strain"

and couldn't cope with an increase in workload.

Here's the chief executive of the King's Fund, Chris Ham.

Our biggest worry is the plans that proposed to cut back the number of

hospital beds simply aren't credible when our hospitals are so

overcrowded during this winter, it's not going to be feasible to deliver

that ambition. The emphasis must be on the out of hospital services,

district nursing, general practice, social care, and making them much

more effective to help people stay at home when that is the right thing

to do. Joining is now Dixon, the chief

executive of the NHS Federation which represents the commissioners

and providers of those who have drawn of the plans. The analysis you

have seen show services will be scaled back in two thirds of areas,

so you can see why people would think the plans you are putting

forward are a euphemism for cuts? Yes, you could say that but I don't

think that is the case. What you are finding is a set of organisations

that, as Chris Ham has just pointed out, are under enormous pressure, so

there is pressure in terms of trying to make the books balance and that

is a question that needs to be taken back to Government because I think

the system is now in a more typical position than it was when the plans

were first started. -- difficult position. But I don't think we

should confuse that with the need to reform. There is a need for reform

both to provide better services but also to cope with a very large

number of elderly people who are suffering from a number of different

conditions who are now overloading the most critical part of the system

in terms of the hospital services, because there is inadequate services

in the community. So changing that around and joining up those services

is could not an optional extra, it has to be done. And if we carry on

that thread, The King's Fund says these plans are still the best hope

of delivering essential reforms in the NHS. Without those essential

reforms and because they haven't happened in the past, we are in the

position we are in today. This isn't a euphemism for cuts, these are

cuts. Two thirds involving closures or moving services. Does that make

it a worse service? Of course it does. What we see in local

authorities are the devolving of cuts from Government and local

authorities. In social care? Exactly. They introduced the

principle of competition in the very core services, privatisation,

marketisation. We have had the longest squeeze in funding on the

NHS as a proportion of our economy since it was founded. Cuts to social

care at an increasing time of ageing population. So these cuts in

practice will be devolving cuts and as we have heard from the Red Cross,

the consequences of that has been a humanitarian crisis in the NHS and

that is Government policy. Is that what you are going to do, as head of

an SDP plan, devolve those cuts and give them to somebody else to enact

and they are just cuts? Now I think they are the ones making the

decision and we use these letters as if it is something, it is actually

the chief executives of all the organisations that are local, the

local authority, the health trust, the community and bringing in the

GPs, working together in a co-ordinated way for the first time,

so I don't think we should bogey the STPss and I'm not suggesting Owen is

doing that. He is right that the NHS and social care have had a bad

period in terms of funding and we are starting to see the effect of

that. The danger is that that then either slows down or harms the work

the STPs are doing, but we shouldn't say that every time something has

changed in the NHS, it means a cut. It can mean a better provided

service. Isn't that the point, you are always flagging up, and some

extent of the Labour Party, that this hospital is going to close this

service, therefore it is leading to privatisation and cuts across the

service, nothing must change, whereas there are clear examples of

where you do close services and concentrate stroke services, for

example, in a few hospitals, more extras, the outcome is better. The

problem is when reform is a euphemism for privatisation. It

doesn't mean people like myself oppose reform. How'd you get it

through politically if you forever flagged up cuts and closures as bad?

What we see with privatisation is bureaucracy, to manage the different

contracts, you need more managers, which is a waste of public money but

in terms of what we are talking about here, the NHS has been plunged

into an humanitarian crisis as the Red Cross says and when we saw at

the last General Election, the Conservatives promised no more

top-down reorganisations, which they did and it is ironic what they are

doing now, they are arguing against increased competition, which is what

they did a few years ago, with another series of reforms, which is

devolving cuts to these STPs. Do you see it as a humanitarian crisis

within the NHS? I think it is a tragedy where we have a situation

for example where 2 million elderly people are not getting any form of

social care and the consequence of that is the kind of pressures we are

talking about in hospitals. But I think it is the job of my members to

manage the amount of money they are given and try and provide the best

possible services and I think that is what STPs and others are trying

to do. But I do think it will take more time, as The King's Fund

reports suggests, and it is important that before you reduce or

change a service at one level, you have to make sure the appropriate

service is in the Other Place. The STPs, what they are supposed to do

in part is administered a ?20 billion efficiency savings, or 22,

even, which the NHS is expected to administer. In practice, those

savings are a euphemism for cuts which will be detrimental to

services in the NHS. That is an assumption that all ?22 billion is

simply a cut. But they are efficiency savings. Any

organisation, in the private or public sector, does cost efficiency

programmes, it is part of running an organisation. But if that means

moving beds, closing beds, in any of these plans, how can that be a good

thing when you have said yourself the strain on the services and

hospitals and the BMA says the NHS is at breaking point? That is saving

that surely can't afford? The question is that whether in an

individual set of organisations you can build a community services to

start reducing, and we are starting to see that. This would be closing

beds before they build services up. You shouldn't do that, you have to

devise new ways of organising the services, change the way we organise

services in the Trinity in order to be able to do that. In each

individual medical specialty, you can look at the best pathways for

those patients. The reality is that across the country, it is variable,

some countries have it much more efficiently run and we need to move

towards that. At the moment we have what is not a national Health

Service at the moment, and national disease service, dealing with the

symptoms rather than focusing on prevention. If we did more on

prevention, we would save the NHS more money and that is reform we

should talk about but not closing beds, losing staff, losing

hospitals. And that is part of these plans. Prevention is absolutely at

the centre of this and it is not just the primary prevention of doing

more exercise and so on, it is also about how do you manage an elderly

person who has got a series of different conditions in the

community, so they are not going in and out of hospital? Some of them

are going in and out on a regular basis which puts huge pressure on a

hospital, very bad for the elderly people and bad for the NHS's bank

account. If we can do it more effectively, we can do it in the

community. Thank you. There will be some bleary eyes over

the road in the House Peers were up debating past midnight

last night on the bill that will enable Theresa May to trigger

Article 50, which begins the process of the UK's withdrawal

from the European Union. And in almost unprecedented scenes,

the Prime Minister was keeping a beady eye on the unelected Lords,

sitting in on the steps below Here's a taste of

those proceedings. We will not be threatened into not

fulfilling our normal constitutional role. And neither will we be goaded

into acting irresponsibly. If we asked the House of Commons to look

again at an issue, it is not a constitutional outrage but a

constitutional responsibility. We will not have the same trade. We

will not have the equal benefits. To say otherwise, my Lords, is a fraud

on the public. For many others, the approach being adopted by the

Government is little short of disastrous. For those of us, and

there are very many in your lordship's has, for whom Europe has

been a central theme of our entire political lies, the circumstances

are both unthinkable and unconscionable. I voted to remain in

the European Union, but I support this bill because I believe the

referendum was decisive. As soon as it is clear that sadly, Al European

Union partners won't accept our offer, we should move on. There is

nothing to be gained by protracted and doomed negotiations.

Proceedings in the Lords yesterday and you can watch today's debate

live from 2.30 today by pressing the red button.

We're joined now by Conservative Peer and former Chancellor -

who you saw just there - Nigel Lawson.

Welcome to the Daily Politics. Lord Mandelson, as you would have heard,

says he respects the vote in the Commons but hopes the House of Lords

doesn't throw in the tal too early, he just wants the Lords to guarantee

EU nationals' rides and for Parliament to have a final say on

the Brexit deal. Do you believe him? No, I think he is still in the Tony

Blair camp are trying to get the whole thing reversed, but nobody

takes it seriously. They don't? What about some of your colleagues

question what would there be sympathy for that viewpoint amongst

peers? I have come out clearly all along the line that we should give a

unilateral guarantee to those European Union citizens who were

legally resident here at the time of the referendum. But this is not the

place for it. And indeed, I think this is what will happen, the Home

Secretary has already given an undertaking to the Commons that

there will be no question of having them removed without a vote in the

House of Commons and that would not pass the House of Commons, so it's

not going to happen, but the point is that it is not what this bill is

about. This bill is about the mechanics of triggering Article 50.

Do you agree with that? My worry about EU nationals, yesterday, One

Day Without Us, which focused on the contributions by migrants to our

economy, if you look at people who voted remain or leave,

overwhelmingly, they support safeguarding the rights of EU

nationals. We are divided as a nation over the referendum result

but United there and using those people as bargaining chips, who keep

our economy running, I find disturbing. It has left a huge chunk

of our fellow citizens, neighbours, friends, lovers, people who look

after us, people about their future. I think that it was a mistake that I

understand why initially, although I think the Government is elegantly

backing off from this now, but I think the reason why they took a bad

position, why Theresa May took it up initially, is that she was concerned

about the position of British national is resident in the European

Union who are anxious, I think wrongly anxious. My home is in

France and I am not in the slightest bit

But it comes back to the original point. Do you think there are a

large number of peers who think it is a mistake for UK to leave the

European Union who really want to frustrate Brexit? There is no real

risk in your mind as far as that is concerned? What do you think about

the none too subtle threats from the government to abolish the upper

chamber if the peers were to put up too much of a fight. I'm not aware

that that is a position at all. Ministers were quoted that even in

the Cabinet it was said. They were not named. That is pressure rubbish.

-- press rubbish. There is no one who would like to Sydney Opera House

abolished if there was too much -- the upper house abolished? Angela

Smith is the leader of the Labour opposition and she is very good and

I have time for her and she has made it clear that even though she would

like to see one or two members move, and the House of Commons say no

thank you, that will be the end of it. I am worried about this. I'm not

sympathetic to an unelected House of Lords but I wouldn't want to

abolished without replacement. Do you think the threats are real?

Regardless of whether the threat is real or not, the fact it's leaked is

disturbing. This government, when it comes to electoral boundaries and in

terms of party funding its done things that are authoritarian. You

mustn't take this nonsense seriously. It had to come from

somewhere? It was Cabinet ministers who were quoted, but not names. If

you don't have a name you cannot believe it. There is no question the

referendum result has to be respected. But the debate has to be

what sort of deal. During the referendum we were told we were

really gaining parliamentary sovereignty as part of that, there

has to be screwed to the -- scrutiny of that. That's not frustrating the

referendum result, it is frustrating that. -- respecting that. If there

was no threat to the upper house, why did Theresa May, and it's pretty

unprecedented, why did she come in and sit and glare at the peers? She

was not glaring. That is what you think. She was demonstrating that

she takes the House of Lords seriously. Is that what it was? Were

you pleased to see her there? Delighted. What do you say about

your Tory colleague wrote that if the peers applied the brakes to

Brexit they would be doing their job. She's silly. Why? It's Owen. I

often forget my name. As Owen said, the people have spoken, the House of

Commons has accepted this by an overwhelming majority and 41

eccentric peer to complain about it is neither here nor there. One of

the other threats to the unelected Lords may not be to do with Brexit

might be more to do with the way they behave in terms of claiming

their allowances for the day. Let's have a look at the former Lords

speaker who had this to say. There is a core of peers who work

incredibly hard, who do that work and there are, sad to say, many,

many, many peers who contribute absolutely nothing. But they claim

the full allowance. I can remember one occasion when I was leaving the

house quite late and there was a peer, who will be nameless, who

jumped out of the taxi and left the engine running, ran in, presumably

to show he had attended and then ran out again while the taxi was still

running. What do you say to that? Well, you shouldn't do that, but I

think that's the exception. If we look at this debate there was a

packed chamber through yesterday and there has been today and they are

still debating today. About 190 speakers. Indeed, we are the

cheapest chamber in any democracy in the world. There are maybe one or

two people who abuse it. She said there were a lot. She gave the

particular example about the taxi running, but in terms of people

coming in to claim the daily allowance, which is ?300 per day. I

don't know. In my case, because I live overseas, it actually costs me

money because I can't claim a travel allowance from overseas. Has she

been a bit too candid? I think the people deserve to know how money is

spent on their behalf. The House of Lords is partly packed with cronies

political leaders, people who donated large sums to political

parties and lots of people who are not there to do the job they are

meant to. I am very fond of you despite our severe political

differences. That is why we need to abolish it or replace it with an

elected second chamber where people are there to do the job and not do

other jobs, or have a single chamber with boosted checks and balances.

This is an embarrassment to lots of people in the country and it's not

how a democracy should function. Do you think she was too honest? No,

she's entitled to have you. I don't know numbers. But on the whole, the

great majority of peers take the place very seriously. They put in

the hours? They put in the hours and they take part in the committees

which is an excellent part of the House of Lords and the total cost is

amazingly small for a fully functioning democratic chamber.

Thank you very much. Now, our guest of the day,

Owen Jones, comes fresh from organising a protest outside

Parliament last night. Two causes were being

championed by the thousands of protestors in Parliament

Square last night. celebrated the contribution

of migrants in the UK and coincided with a protest against

Donald Trump's Inside Parliament's

Westminster Hall chamber, MPs were holding a debate responding

to rival public petitions "Pimping out the Queen

for the Donald Trump." This apparently is what they meant

by getting our sovereignty back, Mr Walker, I don't think it's

in order to refer to pimping out some however distinguished

journalist. We can refer to all the things

about Donald Trump, as people have, even though

he's democratically elected. Can you roll out the red carpet for

that. He has insulted the LG BT community and branded Mexicans as

rapists and murderers. Let's look at the comments, the charge of

misogyny, what he is reported to have said in a private conversation

is horrible and ridiculous, but which one of us has not made some

ridiculous sexual comment at some time in our past?

We're joined now by the Conservative MP Nigel Evans,

It's slightly different. Just leave it there. Keeping it easy for you

today. I don't know who the third person will be, Nigel. You never

know. You accused MPs of double standards with Donald Trump but

isn't it the case that many who oppose his visits were standing up

to the values they genuinely believe him -- in? Where were they when the

Chinese primaries came. I don't expect everything to be endorsed by

everyone from every country and if it was the rule of a Gulf state that

was important to us. You could oppose those as well? I don't

remember having a Parliamentary debate about Xi Jinping coming or

any middle East leader either. What I accuse of his double standards as

far as that is concerned, and also sneering. Whenever anybody talks

about Donald Trump they incredibly difficult to get to come to terms

with the faculty is President of the United States. You only have to look

at that piece on Newsnight when you had George Clooney and a few others

laughing when they mentioned his name and he would never become

president, and the fact is he is an sneering will not help. It is an

arrogance. He is democratically elected, get over it. So that's how

democracy works question what the other side becomes silent. You

wouldn't have the official position scrutinising. That's not opposing

the position of coming over for a state visit? That's a state visit, a

huge honour like other presidents never received. No president at the

outset has been given a state visit like this, and this is the most

obnoxious menacing president that the US has had in modern times. Are

you condemning the American people when you say that? 63 million voted

for Donald Trump and it is the fact that people like yourself and Tony

Blair and others. I'm often lumped together with Tony Blair. You can't

come to terms with the fact that middle America, the people you felt

dispossessed and felt they were not listen to... Why should he have a

state visit? I was talking the somebody another day it is not to

say thank you for what you've done over the last seven days, and it's

the fact that he received Theresa May as the first world leader and he

put the bust of Winston Churchill straight back into the Oval Office

and said we were now in the front of a trade cube. Barack Obama said we

were at the back. Barack Obama said we were at the back of the trade

cube. What has it actually achieved? They will not change anything. They

are putting pressure on their own government. When people marched

against the Iraqi war, 2 million... The war still happen. Public opinion

at the time were supportive of Iraq and not many people admit it. If you

look at all of the polling, where the vote Conservative, for Labour,

the Lib Dems, the SNP, people are united in revulsion at the misogyny

and racism and threat to world peace. The racism because he's

building a wall to stop migrants? He spoken about Mexican immigrants.

They've got 13 million illegal immigrants in the United States and

they want to control immigration. Go and Google search Hillary Clinton,

fences and walls. That doesn't make it right. You have Hillary Clinton

saying it's OK to stop migrants coming in from Mexico. The way he

has described Mexican immigrants as rapist and criminals is

unacceptable. Members of his own party, the Republican party, when he

attacked a Mexican judge who was not Mexican, they attacked him for being

racist. They're not lefties. They are not like me. Is it about not

normalising some of the things that he says, so whether it's about the

war, a ban on Muslims coming into the country, some of the Commons

he's made about women that people found unacceptable. If you don't

protest or register you normalise it. We are a democracy as well. I

was in America for the inauguration people were demonstrating before the

inauguration. So we are clear about the aims. It's about standing in

solidarity for those affected by his policies. The majority of Americans

did rejecting that the election, but it's also about putting pressure on

our own government because they wanted orientate this country to

become closer to Donald Trump's America. In the referendum we were

told we would take back control, that doesn't mean giving up control

to Donald Trump. And just finally, it's all about joining the dots and

saying we shouldn't blame migrants and foreigners the problems caused

by the people at the top, the bankers. I will try to get some

agreement between me and Owen here. You would agree that the analogy of

Brexit and what happened in America, that the dispossessed, the

deplorable is, those who felt left behind and not listen to voted for

Trump and Brexit, and that there is an arrogance in some people who

cannot get to grips with the fact that there is a movement of ordinary

people out there who have had enough. Do you accept that? I accept

people are angry may have reasons to be angry. Their living standards are

falling and the kids are having a worse life than them. I don't think

it's the answer to blame migrants are problems caused by people at the

top. It wasn't migrants who plunged the economy into disaster, it was

the banks. It's not migrants to avoid tax on an industrial scale,

it's the people at the top. We are trying to balance that debate.

Instead of blaming our neighbours, the Big Blue proper services like

the NHS, let's talk about the people at the top, plutocrats like Donald

Trump. -- the people who prop up our services. John Bercow said he should

not be allowed to address parliament. Do you agree with John

Bercow? No, I don't. I think it should have gone through normal

procedure, and Norman Fowler has said they have had words they will

go back to the normal procedure that there are three people making the

decision, not just one. Owen Jones was one of the first

high-profile Labour figures to champion Jeremy Corbyn as Labour

leader. But he's since fallen

out of love with him, saying just this month

that he would "find it hard There's no vacancy at the moment

of course, but should the Labour leader fall under that metaphorical

bus, who would the candidates be? Well, Alex Donohue of Ladbrokes has

chalked up the runners and riders So the favourite at the moment is

Clyde Lewis at 5-1, but there is one name I want to draw everyone's

attention to, Rebecca Long Bailey, she seems to be the talking horse at

the moment. I'm not going to name any names but the lobby drinks,

Christmas 2017, would be paid for by Ladbrokes if she got the job. John

McDonnell next at 16-1, and Angela Rayner at 18. The two names at the

bottom, Tony Blair and Owen Jones. This time last year, they were both

250 to one. One of them has stay there, and another one is coming.

Once upon a time, you and Tony were on level footing and Turney is --

Tony Blair is surging ahead. I'm stagnating. Come and have five and

you will be down to Bacchus pays 50-1. We are joined by Sam tarry,

who was Jeremy Corbyn's campaign director last year. Does it matter

that the leader of the Labour Party, the leader of Her Majesty's

opposition, is incapable of winning an election? I don't think that is

true, we have two elections coming up and nobody has said the

by-elections will be anything but tough but I think we are on course

to do better than some people have said. What is your prediction for

the by-elections? Copeland will be pretty tight and I think Stoke, we

will win. To be an opposition party, to gradually to decline where you

are 18 points behind the Government in the polls is staggering. Things

are tough and there is no point in saying otherwise. The problems we

are dealing with is long-term historic trends. I knocked on a door

in Stoke last weekend and the former Unite Stuard said they wouldn't vote

for Labour ever again because they didn't back Brexit strongly enough.

In London, people are saying they are falling out of love with Jeremy

Corbyn because you are not backing staying in the EU enough and that

can be transposed right across the country. How do we square circle

that says you have got to win in Brighton, win in Norwich and at the

same time with in Stoke? Is that really the reason it in your mind

for why Labour is doing so badly in the polls? It is a massive factor. I

would vote for Labour till I die, to clarify. You're talking about a

leadership contest which I don't think will happen. What Sam says is

critical. The unique problem for Labour's electoral coalition is it

has one group, despondent Remainers, who think Brexit is the worst thing

ever to happen and they wanted gone and another group, jubilant levers,

who feel they have their country back. How do you square the circle

when Hackney, 80% remain, was Dover in Doncaster, another Labour

heartland, 70% voted to leave -- whilst over in Doncaster. Most

Labour voters voted to remain and most Labour MPs vote constituencies

that voted to leave. Do you think it is anything to do with leadership?

Of course, many must mistakes are made, strategy and vision. Jeremy

Corbyn didn't expect to win, he stood to put policies on the agenda.

He is an extremely principled man, throughout history, he has been on

the right side of everything for me... But you have turned against

him. It is turning against, it is that I want a Labour leadership to

do better, if you look to the polls, you would have to be bonkers to not

want a massive turnaround and that is a Labour leadership that supports

investment is not cuts, tax Justice, public ownership of utilities and

services, an NHS that is not privatised. All of these things, I

want a Labour Government to do and it would be completely ridiculous

per metre city in a TV studio and say everything is fine and that is

on the brink of happening -- for me to sit here. What support Owen

Jones' view about the leadership is Jeremy Colvin's personal ratings,

negative ratings among sleeve and remain voters in every social class

in every region of Britain and every age group. He has even achieve the

impossible by scoring a negative rating amongst Labour voters. Is the

problem Jeremy Corbyn? I think Jeremy is getting attacked every

single day in the media, that makes things done. It is the media's

fault? I don't think that, there have been mistakes, messages could

have been clearer and some of the policies that are popular, and you

are saying polling says the popularity of the policies that

Jeremy has put forward... How'd you answer the fact that he is behind it

every single demographic? It is a difficult situation. What is the

reason? I think the reason is perhaps Jeremy's not been able to

get his message and policy across clearly enough. So you are blaming

the media, it is the media's fault. Is that really going to explain to

Labour MPs... I think it is more complicated, the Labour air at the

rate party has been in a low-level civil war for a time and people

don't like to vote for parties that are divided. Is any other Jeremy

Corbyn's fault? I think Jeremy would admit he has made mistakes. He has

had made some really big calls. Some people have said the Article 50

stuff was wrong, others have said it is right. In the eyes of the voters,

there isn't a right or wrong on that. He made a big call on that.

This is an essential point, the policies themselves supported by a

large majority. Most people want the rich to pay more tax, they want the

railways to be nationalised again, they want investment and not cuts in

the economy. The task of Labour leadership is to have a clear vision

because if you don't define yourself, clearly you are defined by

your opponents and that has been the problem. But the point is no one

could be Jeremy Corbyn. People have tried twice and he has won twice, so

there is nobody. If you look at last time, Owen Smith, and I don't want

to attack him, he is a decent guy, somewhere degree but he is, and his

position was to try and overturn the result of the EU referendum. That

would have been a catastrophic decision for the Labour leadership

to have done. He was a credible alternative and I think if people

genuinely felt, and if you go back to the first leadership contest,

people looked at those candidates and they didn't think the others

would win so they thought, I will vote for someone who is closer to

what I actually believe. Is there anyone there who could be Jeremy

Corbyn? In a leadership contest? We have had to in a very short space of

time and it would be ridiculous to have another leadership contest. But

you have said he is not the right man to lead the party. Again, if you

have a situation where somebody stands against Jeremy Corbyn, we

will end up in that... What is that film? Groundhog day, it will get

tedious. What has to happen is that Jeremy Corbyn and the leadership

have to decide what is the clear vision and strategy and if it

doesn't work, they need to reassess the situation. Can Jeremy Corbyn

turn it around? I absolutely think he can. Some of Labour Party has

been doing in terms of its ground campaign has been a vast improvement

over the last few months. I was out in Stoke over two or three different

weekends, putting 400, 500 people on the ground are those constituencies

is impressive. They are starting to improve the messaging, getting

better people into the back office staff. It is clearly a work in

progress, I don't think anyone would disagree. Actually, Owen Jones isn't

the only former Corbyn is to to become disillusioned. Clive Lewis,

Catherine West, Dawn Butler, all disloyal over Brexit. Is it time for

a novel left winger to replacing? I agree with Alan, the last thing we

need is another leadership election. We plummeted in the polls after two

pretty bloodthirsty leadership elections and another one would put

the nail into the carpet. Except the polls are as low as they were at the

worst time post war for Labour, which was in 1983. All I would say

is this, if Labour loser General Election, it will be a calamity for

this country, a calamity for the Labour Party and for the people who

Labour were set up to represent. So what the Labour leadership have to

do is show they have a clear strategy to turn the polling we have

discussed and that means saying, look, we have a popular package of

policies, how do we communicate them in a way which resonates beyond the

people who are fired up and have joined the Labour Party, probably a

bit annoyed with me and my parents about some of the things I have said

because there is no point in being in politics unless you can achieve

power to change Hull transform the country. So how can we get policies

across in a way that resonate with people who don't see themselves as

left or right wing, everyday people, working with families who are

worried about the future. That is the test.

Since the referendum, there have been a lot of arguments

about whether the vote in favour of Brexit has led to an increase

in crimes against immigrants and minority groups,

Essex police have questioned whether we can really make a link

between that increase and last June's EU referendum.

Last October, the Home Office published provisional figures

which suggested that the number of hate crimes in July 2016 had been

41% higher than a year earlier - identifying a spike post-referendum.

Last week, figures from police forces in England and Wales showed

unprecedented levels of hate crimes in the three months

following the EU referendum - more than 14,000 crimes

were recorded between July and September.

But now Essex Police has told the Basildon, Convey and Southend Echo

that, "There is no evidence to suggest any increase

"has been specifically and directly caused by any one event or issue."

They believe that greater awareness and confidence

in the police response was behind the higher figures.

We're joined now by Tom Slater from the website, Spiked.

Welcome to the programme. The Home Office report last year, although

provisional, was pretty clear about a link. It said there was a sharp

increase in the number of racially or religiously aggravated offences

recorded by the police following the EU referendum. I think there are two

reasons we need to be incredibly sceptical in terms of these results.

It was clear from the off that there was an element of trawling in

relation to how these statistics work. What was the evidence? You had

various official bodies, whether it was the Lord Mayor of London's

website, the true vision website of the police, calling for people to

come forward and the second thing we have to remember is that for

something to recorded as a hate crime, all it has to be is alleged,

on e-mail, by phone, not even by the people involved, so we need to be

sceptical not least because this has been... There had been a Scot

macro-delete spike in the increase the same methodology had been used

before -- they had a spy. So comparing like the like. You use the

incredibly low standard by which these are recorded and the climate

encouraging people to come forward, even if it weren't involved, and the

tendency to use the statistics to defame Brexit, that should make a

sceptical. What is the BBC playing at? Where is the voice representing

migrants Chris Rock yesterday, a load of migrants who contributed to

the economy, where is their seat in the studio? Way ??DELETE it is yours

-- it is your producers or the editor, we are having a debate about

migrants and the abuses they are suffering and they are not here. The

Metropolitan police, the commissioner himself last year said

that the increase in these hate crimes was linked to the aftermath

of the referendum and specifically the toxic rhetoric used by

politicians. To give you some examples, these are lived

experiences, I asked for people to come forward with their experiences.

I got hundreds of people. These people overwhelmingly, and the Met

said this to come who didn't tell the police. You'd think it has been

under recorded. Massively. A former member of the GB rowing team was

told "We voted for you to go home." And Exeter University student whose

dad owns a mini market, a customer came in and said "This places and

let now ours, go back to our country." " people like you should

be out of here." "Brexit, Brexit, Brexit, get out." This is not an

attack on the vast majority of people who voted Leave, decent

people like the people I grew up with in my hometown, they voted to

leave, but the tiny group of violent racists and use of racists in this

country felt they had a mandate for their behaviour because of the

rhetoric of senior politicians. Do you not see there was a license for

it, that is what these figures back-up? People felt they had a

licence to behave in a way they didn't before, that is what these

figures say? I don't doubt for a second that there are horrendous

racist figures out there and that things Owen has been talking about

should be condemned in the strongest terms, but I am talking about how

the statistics could be inflated and the way that becomes exploited. What

really shocks me is the way in which the left in particular have been so

incredibly willing to go along with this. Historically, left-wing

commentators and academics have been very good criticising and being

sceptical of crime panics, especially focused around the

working class, but I see is this uncritical, swallow it to the end

defaming. Is it because it fits a pattern for the left or certain

political groups to say of course it is a reaction to Brexit. It is

because we have a long-standing history are standing against racism

and xenophobia. If the left starts disbelieving the lived experiences

of people in this country, it is not the left anymore, it doesn't exist

as a force. The left exist to rid society of exploitation, oppression

and bigotry and that means listening to people when they are yelled out

in the street, when they have people threatening them because of who they

are, it means listening to them and taking it seriously. Will you accept

that the numbers, the statistics, of a massive -- are massively

underrepresented because most people don't come forward, that is what the

Met says. No one went to the police here. First and foremost, I'm saying

we have to have scepticism in relation to these statistics. This

is not the first time that these things can be exploited to be zones,

football fans, muggers, all of these things suggest we should be

sceptical. Sceptical about people who are coming forward? Sceptical

about the way the statistics are gathered. When you look at the

graph, the spike is quite marked. It is not that there has been a slow,

general increase which might fit with what you are saying. There is a

massive spike and even the national police cheese Council says we note

in national and global events like Brexit have the potential to Trigger

short-term rises in hate crime and we saw this following the

referendum. Are I don't doubt there is a small

minority in this country who are genuinely hateful and bigoted people

who felt emboldened, not least because through the Brexit

referendum voting for Leave was a vote for xenophobia or racism. Let's

be sceptical about this. If we want a tolerant, pluralist society, as we

do, to stir up these divisions amongst the working class is not

positive especially when it is based on questionable data. The division

is caused by people screaming racist abuse at people in the streets. The

people who need to be held account, the vast majority voted Leave are

decent people. Do you believe the spike? The Met police says it

underestimates the figure. The point I would make is this. There has to

be unity in this country. Most people who voted either side port --

a port this abuse. We need to bring people together, but the idea that

the left should stop listening to people who come forward and say they

are facing this abuse and scared about their future, what's the point

of being on the left? Just to say the figures have levelled off since

then. Do you see that as a positive? There might have been a blip but it

has levelled off so there isn't a permanent change of attitude, is the

indication. Most people are coming forward. Racism and xenophobia

existed before the referendum as well as Africa. But people need to

be held account, and media outlets with inflammatory references -- as

well as after. On Thursday people in

the parliamentary constituency The vacancy was created

when the former Labour MP and Jeremy Corbyn critic,

Jamie Reed resigned to take up a job Labour have held the seat

for more than 80 years. But with a majority of just 2,500

over the Conservatives, Jenny Kumah's been there

to meet the candidates. Copeland, a mainly rural

constituency along It has several claims to fame,

like England's highest mountain and England's deepest lake,

both in the scenic Lake District. And Sellafield, the biggest nuclear

site in Europe and a major employer that looms large

on the political map. But could this area soon become

famous for ditching decades of support for Labour and delivering

the first by-election gain by a governing

party since the 1980s? Labour has held this area

for nearly 80 years, but in the last General Election,

the party beat the Conservatives by just 2,500 votes and with Labour

struggling in the polls nationally, the Conservatives are campaigning

hard here and aiming Even the Prime Minister has

hit the campaign trail, showing a real vote of confidence

in the Conservative candidate. Her campaign's focused

on Jeremy Corbyn's past Quite frankly, for Jeremy Corbyn

to change his stance now in a by-election,

when we all know he has campaigned for decades against nuclear,

a leopard doesn't change its spots. But she has faced criticism

for her campaign material, barely mentioning the potential loss

of services like A and maternity I was born at that hospital,

my four daughters were We must keep consultant-led

maternity, so what I have actually been doing is working

with the Minister to identify the problems with recruitment,

because that is the real challenge. But can the Conservatives get loyal

Labour supporters to switch? The Labour candidate's

message is the Tories can't This is the first thing

on people's minds. They are worried about

investment in this community. Yes, they want investment

in schools, in our infrastructure and to make Moorside happen,

but the first thing that they want is to keep their

health service safe. One of her biggest challenges

is convincing the thousands of nuclear workers here

that her party's leader I'm behind the nuclear industry, no

ifs, no buts and it is Labour Party policy to support new nuclear build

to keep the lights on in this country as part

of a low carbon energy mix. Ukip are also challenging Labour's

traditional dominance in this area. There's no jobs or the heavy

manufacturing industry has gone. I think it is time for change,

it is time for Ukip. The Liberal Democrats came third

in the last General Election here. Their candidate doesn't

think her pro-Remain stance Labour has moved to the ideological

left, the Tories have moved People in Cumbria want a pragmatic

politician from a credible party that will focus on their issues

and do an excellent job While all the other party

candidates have been highlighting their pro-nuclear

credentials, the Greens Their candidate is against

the new power station at Moorside. I don't think it's the magic bullet

everyone has been led to believe it is and if the nuclear industry

had been so good that this area, then why are towns like Whitehaven,

why are there so many empty units and why are people so hard

up around here and why So what are the key

issues for voters? You see the rest of the country,

you look at our roads, Before Moorside comes in,

we want to hospital, Jobs and infrastructure and roads,

that is what is key issues for me. If Labour manage to hang onto this

seat, it will be a boost If they don't, questions will be

raised about the future of Labour's And a full list of candidates

standing in the Copeland by-election MPs are warning the Government isn't

doing nearly enough to eliminate Last March, a cross-party committee

called for new measures to be brought in to help parents share

childcare, to support women returning to work after having

children and to address low pay in sectors such as catering,

cleaning and caring. The Conservative MP, Maria Miller,

who chairs the committee, says most of their recommendations

were rejected, and she's urging Well, the Government's

focusing its efforts on the gender pay gap reporting,

which is really for larger companies, 250 people or more,

and I think that's an admirable thing to be doing, but it isn't

really tackling the things we raise our report,

which is making sure that more people have more

access to good quality, flexible working and that shared

parental leave for dads is working Neither of those really have been

addressed and that's why today we are calling for,

really, for people who are affected by this to come together

and to call for further action Joining me now is Laura

Perrins, the co-editor Should the government focus on

abolishing the gender pay gap? Absolutely not. The government

should have no interest in using the state to abolish what is basically a

Marxist idea that all should be paid exactly the same. Is it a Marxist

idea? I don't think it's a Marxist idea. I don't think Maria Miller is

a Marxist. I'm glad we have made you laugh. Eradicating Gatting -- gap in

how men and women are paid is not Marxist. What we are talking about

and what the report talks about is very interesting, that women are

disproportionately concentrated in the lowest paid and insecure jobs.

And after the first child, the pay gap massively increases. That is a

thing with the nature of work. One of the only things I support the

Conservative led government is the sharing of the maternity and

paternity leave, that is a good thing. But because of the lack of

affordable childcare and lack of flexible working, they're often set

hours that make it difficult for people to job late career and a

child, that means that the pay gap increases after a kid -- to juggle

having a career and a child. It is about equality. The equality of

opportunity of pay. The equality of opportunity is exactly what any

government should strive for, but they should not strive for equality

of outcome -- equality. If this says we must show -- close the gender pay

gap because we must be paid the same. It's not being paid the same,

it's about paying as much as male counterparts. Women are paid for the

same hours and things. The gender pay gap only kicks in after the age

of 35 and it's a reflection of female preference is to combine work

and caring responsibility. That should be celebrated and not

stigmatised by the government, especially Conservative government.

It makes no sense than to say no one should be caring for their children.

Is it about female preferences? We know there is a cliff edge where

women go off to have children, and even if they wanted or didn't want

to come back and come back into work and earn the same rate of pay, is a

matter problem that a lot of women choose to stay at home and would

like to stay at home? Lots of people would like to juggle their career

with having children. The problem we have in this country is that if you

were born a woman, you for more likely to end up being paid

significantly less than if you are a man. Is not fair. -- it is not fair.

I'm not saying everybody should get ?30,000 on it be a flat salary. The

gap is a reflection of preferences. We are looking at other countries,

particularly Nordic countries which have more affordable childcare. They

have flexible working. That enables women to juggle, as a preference,

caring for children, which should also be a male responsibility. In

those countries thereon more women in work. Is that the contradiction

about female preferences. In many cases it isn't a preference. If

there's not enough affordable childcare and fathers don't have the

facility to take paid leave that would give women more opportunity,

is that the point, that you are only representing a small number of

people all women who prefer and choose to do what you suggest and

there are many others that can't because there are the sorts of

things available. There are women who combine work and a career and

any gap that exists is mainly due to female preferences. What do you base

that on? The Nordic example always comes on but it's a very stratified

system and women are still, if you compare it across, they are paid

less than men and take up part-time jobs and take on caring roles that

the stake -- state have taken over. What is the gap in the Nordic

countries? I think you'll find it's closer than it is here. But that is

a big state, and that is what you want. You want a big state and the

state meddling in everybody's decisions and meddling in the family

and supplementing everybody's income. As a Conservative, they

believe in a small state. But it's a Conservative government doing it.

They can be delusion about things, and that is one here. I just think

it should be a more equal society in men and women should have a less gap

in their pay. So you want equality of outcome? More state. I don't want

women to end up being paid less than men in this country. That's why it's

a pragmatic approach, we should have childcare that people can afford as

well as flexible working. There is flexible working. We want more

flexible working. You for choice, individual choice, and that's what

arguing for. You're up for state intervention. You are into state

meddling and bullying of families. How are mothers being bullied? If

they have childcare and the state system loaded against caring for

your children. It's about allowing the individual to choose. A woman

who wants to choose, that individual human freedom, where they can choose

to have a career and not be penalised and have a family, but you

are at war with individual choice. I am going to make an equal outcome

here, as you have the same amount of time. That's it for today.

The One O'Clock News is starting over on BBC One now.

I'll be back at 11:30am tomorrow with Andrew for live coverage