21/02/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 21/02/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Download Subtitles