:00:00. > :00:40.Afternoon folks and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:41. > :00:44.The Government suffers its first big defeat over Brexit in Parliament,
:00:45. > :00:52.as Lords back an amendment over the rights of UK-based EU nationals.
:00:53. > :00:55.Ministers say they're determined to overturn
:00:56. > :01:00.With the Budget only a week away, John McDonnell sets
:01:01. > :01:03.out Labour's demands - will the Chancellor be listening?
:01:04. > :01:06.After Nigel Farage accuses Douglas Carswell of trying
:01:07. > :01:09.to sabotage Ukip, what is the future of the party's only MP?
:01:10. > :01:12.And we'll be talking about the French presidential
:01:13. > :01:14.election that could have big implications for Brexit
:01:15. > :01:28.All that in the next hour and with us for the whole
:01:29. > :01:30.of the programme today it's Labour's elections co-ordinator,
:01:31. > :01:34.He was handed the job just a few weeks before the by-elections
:01:35. > :01:38.So we can only assume he's not afraid of a challenge.
:01:39. > :01:47.Last night the Government suffered its first defeat on Brexit,
:01:48. > :01:50.when the House of Lords voted with a 102 majority in favour
:01:51. > :01:53.of an amendment to guarantee the rights of EU nationals living
:01:54. > :02:02.As I say, it is quite a substantial loss. Reflecting the fact that the
:02:03. > :02:06.Government doesn't have a majority in the Lords and led to speculation
:02:07. > :02:08.it could embolden Tory rebels in the Commons when the legislation returns
:02:09. > :02:14.there. The proposed amendment requires
:02:15. > :02:18.the Government to introduce proposals within three months
:02:19. > :02:20.of Article 50, to ensure EU citizens in the UK have the same residence
:02:21. > :02:23.rights after Brexit. It was passed last night
:02:24. > :02:26.in the House of Lords by a majority The Government was quick to say
:02:27. > :02:37.it was "disappointed" in the result, arguing the Bill should simply be
:02:38. > :02:39.about invoking Article 50 and beginning the formal process
:02:40. > :02:44.of withdrawal from the EU. Next Tuesday, the Lords
:02:45. > :02:47.will consider backing other possible amendments to the Bill,
:02:48. > :02:50.including one calling for a "meaningful" vote
:02:51. > :02:54.in Parliament on the final deal. Then the amended Bill will be sent
:02:55. > :02:57.back to the House of Commons, which can remove the changes before
:02:58. > :03:00.sending it back again to the Lords. This could result in "ping
:03:01. > :03:02.pong" between both Houses But Shadow Lords' leader,
:03:03. > :03:10.Baroness Smith, has insisted peers won't block the Brexit Bill
:03:11. > :03:12.and she would not support So the Bill is only likely to be
:03:13. > :03:20.delayed by a week and Wednesday 15th March is provisionally pencilled
:03:21. > :03:24.in as the date for triggering Article 50 and the formal start
:03:25. > :03:27.of the Brexit process - still well before Theresa May's
:03:28. > :03:31.deadline of the end of March. We're joined now by the Conservative
:03:32. > :03:34.peer and of course former chancellor Norman Lamont,
:03:35. > :03:45.and Andrew Gwynne is still with us. Norman Lamont, is the job of the
:03:46. > :03:50.Lords to scrutinise legislation and make amendments where it sees fit.
:03:51. > :03:54.What has it done wrong? Well, this Bill had one purpose, to trigger
:03:55. > :03:59.Article 50. What the Lords is trying to do with a whole series I have a
:04:00. > :04:01.mendments they have put down is to attach conditions to the
:04:02. > :04:04.industriering of Article 50. That doesn't seem to be to be
:04:05. > :04:07.scrutinising and it seems to me it is against the national from because
:04:08. > :04:09.it is taking away from the Government or would take away from
:04:10. > :04:14.the Government the flexibility that they ought to have. Except that one
:04:15. > :04:18.of the consequences of leaving the EU is to raise the issue of the
:04:19. > :04:24.status of EU nationals who are already living and working in this
:04:25. > :04:27.country. And the Lords thinks it's right, therefore, to make an
:04:28. > :04:31.amendment to reassure them that things will be fine, that nothing
:04:32. > :04:35.will change. Since that's Government policy, we are told anyway, why not
:04:36. > :04:43.accept the amendment? Well, this issue of the status of EU nationals
:04:44. > :04:48.here cannot be separated from the situation of British citizens
:04:49. > :04:55.resident in other EU countries. Why? Because we need to get the interests
:04:56. > :05:00.of them safeguarded as well. And the Prime Minister - as I think you were
:05:01. > :05:04.alluding to - has made an attempt already, before negotiations
:05:05. > :05:10.started, to get the issue of EU nagsings a here and of UK nationals
:05:11. > :05:14.-- EU nationals. To whom the British Government has a duty of care, to
:05:15. > :05:18.get them together. We were told it couldn't be done in advance. Because
:05:19. > :05:21.Angela Merkel, in particular, the German Chancellor said, you have to
:05:22. > :05:29.trigger Article 50 first, before we can do that, it is it is part of the
:05:30. > :05:32.negotiations. Are you under any fear that other EU countries are going to
:05:33. > :05:37.begin mass deportation of British citizens in EU countries? There's no
:05:38. > :05:42.question of mass deportations and there is certainly none in this
:05:43. > :05:47.country and it was ridiculous... No. But last night people were referring
:05:48. > :05:54.to the Ugandan Asians and referring to edicts. I'm not going down that
:05:55. > :06:00.road T seems to me it is not relevant here. -- it seems to me. So
:06:01. > :06:03.I ask, why in the end, would we fear, particularly when we have
:06:04. > :06:07.shown goodwill to the EUings in aals we have here, many of whom -- EU
:06:08. > :06:09.nationals. Many of whom, most of whom are essential to our economy
:06:10. > :06:13.that we wouldn't make that gesture and assume that the other EU
:06:14. > :06:17.countries are going to do the same? I don't think you can assume that.
:06:18. > :06:23.What evidence do you have for that? Last night someone made the point in
:06:24. > :06:26.the debate. I can't go into detail because I don't know the detail,
:06:27. > :06:29.that there are certain countries within the EU have not fully
:06:30. > :06:32.recognised what they are meant to under the EU treaties in erms to
:06:33. > :06:37.have the rights of nationals living within their countries. -- in terms.
:06:38. > :06:42.I think it would be quite reckless to do a deal with EU nationals here
:06:43. > :06:48.and not have similar, absolutely adentical assurances. -- identical.
:06:49. > :06:53.So why did so many Tory Lords rebel and not accept the Home Secretary's
:06:54. > :06:58.assurances, a serve Home Secretary? Well, I don't know how many Tories
:06:59. > :07:03.did vote. No doubt you will have looked that up. Enough to make this
:07:04. > :07:07.majority larger for this amendment There were a lot of cross-benchers.
:07:08. > :07:13.Your old colleagues in Cabinet Indeed, a rare appearance. Oh, very
:07:14. > :07:16.well. Andrew Gwynne l Labour back these changes in the Commons?
:07:17. > :07:19.Absolutely. 3 million people woke up today, having a sense of security
:07:20. > :07:25.that they've not had since 23rd June. These are people that have
:07:26. > :07:29.made their life here in the United Kingdom, that are contributing to
:07:30. > :07:34.the British economy, and that contributing to the exchequer. I
:07:35. > :07:38.think that we need to take away all the uncertainty, at the start of
:07:39. > :07:43.this process, as to what is going to happen to those EU citizens. Very
:07:44. > :07:48.well, but we understand from the Labour Leader of the Lords, that if
:07:49. > :07:51.this amendment is defeated, despite the best efforts of Labour MPs, that
:07:52. > :07:56.when it goes back to the Lords, that's the end. Story? Well,
:07:57. > :08:00.obviously Article 50 is going to be triggered.er Article 50 is the start
:08:01. > :08:04.of the process. We would like to get that certainty in right from the
:08:05. > :08:07.very start but, of course there will be other opportunities to secure
:08:08. > :08:10.these assurances for 3 million European Union citizens living in
:08:11. > :08:15.the United Kingdom, through the great repeal bill and through other
:08:16. > :08:19.legislation that will come forward as part of our removal from the EU.
:08:20. > :08:22.But you have just said that it was important, as they woke up this
:08:23. > :08:26.morning, the EU citizens living in this country, that they had some
:08:27. > :08:32.reassurance and how important it was to them. Now you are saying, that
:08:33. > :08:36.after round 1, you'll give in and they'll lose their reassurance.
:08:37. > :08:44.Well, I would hope that we would secure a victory in the House of
:08:45. > :08:49.Commons on this, because actually we don't want to go into a situation of
:08:50. > :08:54.ping pong. We want to move fairly quickly to the substantive arguments
:08:55. > :08:58.and theme comes once Article 50 has been triggered but I want to offer
:08:59. > :09:01.assurances to all EU citizens living and working here in the United
:09:02. > :09:08.Kingdom that they are welcome. They play... Except that the moment the
:09:09. > :09:17.Commons throw this is back to the Lords, Labour peers are going to
:09:18. > :09:20.surrender. ? . . I think because the House of Lords recognises it would
:09:21. > :09:24.be foolish for the unelected chamber to be seen to be holding up the
:09:25. > :09:27.triggering of Article 50. That's in the what the British people want.
:09:28. > :09:30.What is your feeling, Norman Lamont, about Tory rebels in the Commons.
:09:31. > :09:36.Will they be emboldened by what has happened in the Lords? Will the
:09:37. > :09:39.Government be able to take this out of the legislation again and send it
:09:40. > :09:43.back to the Lords? I wouldn't have thought so. If a potential rebel has
:09:44. > :09:47.supported the Government in a previous vote I would have thought
:09:48. > :09:52.it would be very unlikely they would then change their mind just because
:09:53. > :09:55.of the House of Lords. So, in your view, despite this substantial
:09:56. > :10:00.majority and we understand there is another defeat coming up in the
:10:01. > :10:05.Lords over the vote on Brexit, of the deal itself, in your view is the
:10:06. > :10:10.Government still on target for trigger Article 50 on March 15th?
:10:11. > :10:14.Provided that there is not an exercise in ping pong and the
:10:15. > :10:18.amendment that is being put forward next week would, I think, be a more
:10:19. > :10:21.serious amendment to be yard and would have a more disruptive effect
:10:22. > :10:26.on the process. I think both of them are wrong but I think it would be
:10:27. > :10:29.taken very badly if they carried the motion and then that actually became
:10:30. > :10:34.part of a condition for the negotiation. But if you want, as the
:10:35. > :10:40.Government does, Parliament to vote, to begin the exit process from the
:10:41. > :10:43.EU, is it not perfectly reasonable for Parliament to insist, to
:10:44. > :10:48.enshrine in legislation that when that deal, if and when that deal is
:10:49. > :10:53.done, you come back to Parliament for approval on the deal? But the
:10:54. > :10:56.Government have said there will be a parliamentary vote. That
:10:57. > :11:01.parliamentary vote will be on whether to accept any terms that
:11:02. > :11:05.have been agreed or whether to move to membership of the WTO and define
:11:06. > :11:07.the relationship in that way. What people are wanting with the
:11:08. > :11:11.amendment is to have that I had option - which is to say we will
:11:12. > :11:14.effectively remain members of the EU and that would be to GP against the
:11:15. > :11:19.result of the referendum. -- that would be to go against the result.
:11:20. > :11:22.By holding the referendum we have bound ourselves to abide by the
:11:23. > :11:26.conclusion of that referendum. Isn't Labour going along here with
:11:27. > :11:30.something of a Hobson's Choice, because as I understand it at the
:11:31. > :11:38.moment, let's assume the deal is done -- it is not a foregone
:11:39. > :11:42.conclusion but let's assume is deal, it comes before Parliament in early
:11:43. > :11:44.2019 after the two-year process, the Government says all right,
:11:45. > :11:53.Parliament can vote on this, but the choice will be either to accept the
:11:54. > :11:56.deal or leave on probably worse terms of bare-boned World Trade
:11:57. > :12:01.Organisation deals. So even if you are a Remainer you are likely to
:12:02. > :12:06.vote for the deal than go out on WHO. Where is the choice Absolutely.
:12:07. > :12:09.Part of the argument put during the referendum, we wanted the British
:12:10. > :12:14.Parliament to be Sovereign, that sometimes means that the British
:12:15. > :12:17.Parliament might make a decision that the Government don't
:12:18. > :12:21.automatically like. And I would want there to be a meaningful choice at
:12:22. > :12:25.the end of this process. Sure, but in the end you are going to cave in
:12:26. > :12:30.on that as well, aren't you? You are going, to in the end, end up with a
:12:31. > :12:34.Hobson's Choice in the early spring of 2019. Well, let's see what
:12:35. > :12:37.happens in the House of Lords next week and let's see what happens in
:12:38. > :12:42.terms of the Government's thinking beyond that. OK. What are the
:12:43. > :12:46.chances of ping pong? I mean more extensive than the ping back to the
:12:47. > :12:49.Commons and the pong back to the Lords, end of storey. More than
:12:50. > :12:51.that, or not? I think it is unlikely. All right. Thank you for
:12:52. > :12:55.being with us. The question for today is about
:12:56. > :13:00.the Guardian's cryptic crossword. I know you probably
:13:01. > :13:05.think of little else. Some supporters of one party have
:13:06. > :13:08.taken offence because they believe it contained the not-so-subliminal
:13:09. > :13:09.message that their But which party leader did
:13:10. > :13:15.the crossword refer to? At the end of the show, Andrew
:13:16. > :13:27.will give us the correct answer. That's this Andrew, not this Andrew.
:13:28. > :13:32.You are free to put forward a suggestion, too. Very kind, Jo Co.
:13:33. > :13:35.Don't say I never give you anything. You never give me anything.
:13:36. > :13:38.Ukip's MEPs are holding an emergency meeting in Brussels this morning,
:13:39. > :13:40.where they'll be talking about the ongoing row
:13:41. > :13:42.over the party's only MP, Douglas Carswell.
:13:43. > :13:44.He defected from the Conservatives three years ago but this week
:13:45. > :13:48.former leader, Nigel Farage, has accused him of working against Ukip
:13:49. > :13:53.Well, we couldn't get hold of any of the MEPs this morning,
:13:54. > :13:55.probably because they're all in the meeting -
:13:56. > :13:58.but we're joined now from Cardiff by the party's leader in Wales,
:13:59. > :14:16.Welcome to the daily politics. Will they be discussing whether the party
:14:17. > :14:21.is in crisis? I haven't a clue, because I'm not an MEP, but this is
:14:22. > :14:28.a holy confected crisis if it is one. I thought Nigel Farage wanted
:14:29. > :14:33.to get his life back, but we haven't seen much of that. The idea that
:14:34. > :14:37.Douglas Carswell has been working against Ukip since the general
:14:38. > :14:40.election is preposterous. This is a grudge match which Nigel has had
:14:41. > :14:47.against Douglas for a very long time. Douglas is an independently
:14:48. > :14:51.minded chap, and grown-up political parties should be able to deal with
:14:52. > :14:55.personal differences. You say it is a grudge match, but Nigel Farage has
:14:56. > :14:59.made a case against Douglas Carswell with examples of where he says he
:15:00. > :15:03.has been undermined by him. Do you think that just doesn't stack up? He
:15:04. > :15:08.could probably make the same case against me, couldn't see, because we
:15:09. > :15:13.have had differences of opinion with Nigel. The idea that Douglas
:15:14. > :15:17.Carswell doesn't agree with Ukip's policy on immigration is absurd, and
:15:18. > :15:21.disapproved by the reality and the facts. Douglas's only argument with
:15:22. > :15:25.Nigel has been on the tone of the debate. You pays your money and you
:15:26. > :15:31.takes your choice, it is all a matter of taste. And I'm afraid what
:15:32. > :15:36.we are seeing here is a personality clash. Nigel always sought Ukip is a
:15:37. > :15:40.kind of personality cult rather than a political party, and now that he
:15:41. > :15:45.is no longer the leader, it is outrageous that he should seek to
:15:46. > :15:49.destabilise the nascent leadership of his successor, Paul Nuttall, in
:15:50. > :15:52.this way. If you've got differences of this kind, you should keep them
:15:53. > :15:58.within the bounds of the party and not publish them in national
:15:59. > :16:01.newspapers. But according to Nigel Farage, Douglas Carswell has openly
:16:02. > :16:06.admitted he wanted to neutralise both Ukip and Mr Farage in the
:16:07. > :16:09.referendum campaign. If that's the case, is it really acceptable for
:16:10. > :16:18.him to behave like that given he is Ukip's only MP? The reality was that
:16:19. > :16:21.Nigel Farage was never going to, or any organisation he was involved in,
:16:22. > :16:29.would never get the official designation for the No campaign in
:16:30. > :16:33.the referendum, because no leaders of other parties would work with
:16:34. > :16:46.him. But should he have joined the leave Dott campaign rather than
:16:47. > :16:50.going with vote leave? He argued that we needed the broadest base of
:16:51. > :16:55.support across the political spectrum, and that was obvious, and
:16:56. > :17:03.that is what happened, which is why Vote Leave got the designation.
:17:04. > :17:06.Leave.eu and Nigel played a part in getting the referendum result that
:17:07. > :17:14.we got, but I don't believe that we could have had an effective No
:17:15. > :17:17.campaign if leave.eu had got the designation, because so many other
:17:18. > :17:20.people wouldn't work with him, that is the reality. But what about the
:17:21. > :17:27.e-mail trail in terms of the knighthood or the peerage that Nigel
:17:28. > :17:31.Farage is supposedly wanting and had asked for Douglas Carswell to bid on
:17:32. > :17:35.his behalf. Does the e-mail trail not show that he did everything
:17:36. > :17:41.Douglas Carswell to stop that happening? It is not a peerage for
:17:42. > :17:46.Nigel Farage that we want, it is peerage is free Ukip. We got 4
:17:47. > :17:50.million votes in the last election, and only one MP elected. Last night
:17:51. > :17:55.the House of Lords, you had 100 Liberal peers voting against the
:17:56. > :18:03.Government, and against Brexit. But wouldn't he be a good contender? Of
:18:04. > :18:07.course, Nigel would be top of the list, but it must be seen in these
:18:08. > :18:11.personality terms. It is Ukip as a political party that deserves these
:18:12. > :18:19.peerages, and I would say Niger deserves a peerage, I think you
:18:20. > :18:28.should get a Duke at in the role he has played forgetting out -- a site
:18:29. > :18:33.of the EU. But all this about a meaningless bauble like a knighthood
:18:34. > :18:36.is making him look ridiculous. What about the NEC, the ruling executive
:18:37. > :18:41.that will make the decision about Douglas Carswell's future. What you
:18:42. > :18:44.think they will do? Douglas Carswell probably has enemies on the NEC, it
:18:45. > :18:52.isn't just Nigel Farage he disagrees with. The issue is, did Douglas try
:18:53. > :18:58.to stop Ukip getting peerages that it deserves? And the answer to that
:18:59. > :19:01.is unambiguously know, I know him well enough to be able to say that
:19:02. > :19:04.with confidence, so I am not expecting there to be any
:19:05. > :19:09.repercussions for Douglas from the NEC. I don't know what so-called
:19:10. > :19:11.evidence will be put in against him, but we will see.
:19:12. > :19:14.Neil Hamilton, thank you very much. So, the decision over
:19:15. > :19:16.Douglas Carswell's future lies with the party's
:19:17. > :19:18.National Executive Committee and we're now joined by a member
:19:19. > :19:23.of it, Liz Jones. Are there disciplinary proceedings
:19:24. > :19:29.under way for Douglas Carswell? Not that I'm aware of as yet, no. And we
:19:30. > :19:32.have to take a very pragmatic approach with regard to the
:19:33. > :19:38.difficulties between Nigel and Douglas, because in May of this
:19:39. > :19:41.year, there are going to be the local council elections, and our
:19:42. > :19:45.focus must be on presenting unity, good local policies, strong
:19:46. > :19:51.candidates and a solid foundation, so that the public will vote for
:19:52. > :19:54.Ukip again. So who do you blame for this grudge match, to use Neil
:19:55. > :19:59.Hamilton's words, this battle between these two men? I don't blame
:20:00. > :20:05.anyone. Both of them have clearly fallen out. I'm not in the blame
:20:06. > :20:09.game, I'm about pragmatism is trying to achieve electoral success. But
:20:10. > :20:11.the Ukip chairman Paul opened and has had a meeting with Douglas
:20:12. > :20:17.Carswell. Is that because Nigel Farage called them to be expelled
:20:18. > :20:23.from the party? I don't know, but my view is this all came from the 2015
:20:24. > :20:27.spat over short money when Douglas Carswell was elected for the second
:20:28. > :20:32.time as a Ukip MEP, and he was entitled to receive about ?600,000
:20:33. > :20:36.of short money. Then an approach was made by the Ukip management at that
:20:37. > :20:41.time to get that money in order to employ 15 people. Douglas said no,
:20:42. > :20:47.and then Nigel, very cleverly I thought, called his bluff and said,
:20:48. > :20:53.OK, we won't take 1p of the taxpayers' money, and compromise was
:20:54. > :20:57.reached. So from that point onwards there has been difficulty in their
:20:58. > :21:03.relationship. I have just heard that Arron Banks, the Ukip donor, though
:21:04. > :21:06.I'm not sure he has given much money recently, is called to the next
:21:07. > :21:10.meeting. Why? He's being allowed to attend because he wants to make a
:21:11. > :21:14.financial and management pitch to the party as to his future proposals
:21:15. > :21:17.for the party. He says he is going to stand against Douglas Carswell in
:21:18. > :21:22.2020, so that would seem fairly hostile. It is just hot air and
:21:23. > :21:28.drama. I wouldn't give it much weight. But what Douglas needs to
:21:29. > :21:32.do, he needs to be in place, he needs to be focusing on the May
:21:33. > :21:39.local elections, because in Tendring District Council where he is based,
:21:40. > :21:44.we have councillors. Is he bidding to be chairman? I think so, he is
:21:45. > :21:48.going to pitch to as his management strategy and his financial strategy
:21:49. > :21:53.for the future of the party. Is Douglas Carswell still an asset to
:21:54. > :21:58.the party? I am entirely a pragmatist. But is he an asset to
:21:59. > :22:02.the party? He is an asset until we find out what the results of the
:22:03. > :22:07.local elections in May 20 17. In his area, in Tendring, there are over 20
:22:08. > :22:13.Ukip counsellors, I would hope we would improve on those numbers and
:22:14. > :22:18.improve... So it is a test, it is always a test for politicians? Of
:22:19. > :22:23.course. Will he be invited to this meeting, Douglas Carswell? Yes, he
:22:24. > :22:28.will be invited. So they will all be there. I think he should be there.
:22:29. > :22:31.He is our Parliamentary Representative, he is entitled to
:22:32. > :22:37.come along. Was it a sign of betrayal when Douglas Carswell
:22:38. > :22:41.joined Vote Leave, the official campaign to leave the EU, rather
:22:42. > :22:49.than leave.eu? From what I remember, Vote Leave was first launched body,
:22:50. > :22:52.because I remember they set up a huge telephone call centre in
:22:53. > :22:59.Westminster, so they started first, then you had Arron Banks started
:23:00. > :23:09.with in the No, then that became Grass Routes Out. But was it a
:23:10. > :23:15.betrayal of Douglas Carswell to join Vote Leave rather than to. That was
:23:16. > :23:20.his choice. I know that, but was it a betrayal? I just wanted a Brexit
:23:21. > :23:24.vote, which we had, and Douglas Carswell could have joined the moon
:23:25. > :23:28.if that ensure that we got a Brexit vote, I don't really care where he
:23:29. > :23:32.pitched up. If Vote Leave did what they could in their areas, and
:23:33. > :23:35.leave.eu did what they could in their areas, and we achieved Brexit,
:23:36. > :23:39.then that is good enough for me. Just finally, you talked about the
:23:40. > :23:48.May elections, and if you look at Ukip Osman released -- Ukip's recent
:23:49. > :23:54.performances, it is true, if Ukip can only achieve a 2% swing, you
:23:55. > :23:57.won't win any seats in 2020? I can't possibly comment. I can't predict
:23:58. > :24:02.the future. We don't know what's going to happen. Much will depend on
:24:03. > :24:04.our results in May in the local elections. We must leave it there,
:24:05. > :24:10.thank you very much. The Budget is only a week
:24:11. > :24:12.away and this morning Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has
:24:13. > :24:14.been setting out what he wants to hear from the
:24:15. > :24:16.Chancellor Phillip Hammond. Here he is speaking
:24:17. > :24:19.in London a short while ago. It's the NHS, the National Health
:24:20. > :24:22.Service and our social care services that tell us the most about this
:24:23. > :24:24.Government's failures. It's essential that the Government
:24:25. > :24:30.uses this Budget to give the NHS and social care the funding
:24:31. > :24:32.they urgently need. The present Conservative Government
:24:33. > :24:35.has been condemned for its fast The Chief Executive of NHS England
:24:36. > :24:39.has dismissed Government claims that current funding is adequate,
:24:40. > :24:43.let alone more than they asked for. The Public Accounts Committee has
:24:44. > :24:46.rebuked the Government for raiding the NHS
:24:47. > :24:48.capital budget to meet The Health Select Committee has
:24:49. > :24:51.dismissed the Government's claim So, the reality is that
:24:52. > :24:56.the Government has consistently failed to provide the funding
:24:57. > :25:05.that the NHS needs. That was the Shadow
:25:06. > :25:07.Chancellor, John McDonnell. We're joined now by Chris Philp,
:25:08. > :25:09.he's a Conservative member of the Treasury Select Committee
:25:10. > :25:18.and our guest of the day Andrew, let me come to you first.
:25:19. > :25:22.Yesterday Mr Corbyn criticised the Government for presiding over a rise
:25:23. > :25:26.in the national debt to ?2 trillion. Labour is now saying it wants more
:25:27. > :25:32.money for the NHS, for social care, the disability payments, and for
:25:33. > :25:38.unfreezing tax credits for those in work. Where will the money come from
:25:39. > :25:43.without increasing the national debt? There is a question of
:25:44. > :25:52.priorities here. With the changes that we've seen in recent years to
:25:53. > :25:54.Capital Gains Tax, to corporation tax, to the bank levy and to
:25:55. > :25:56.inheritance tax, that is set to cost the Exchequer over the next five
:25:57. > :26:00.years the equivalent of ?70 billion. Where does that figure come from?
:26:01. > :26:06.That comes from the Government's Ono Red Book. I have not seen that. And
:26:07. > :26:13.all the assessments that have been done from the Institute for Fiscal
:26:14. > :26:16.Studies as well. And it is a question of priorities. What we are
:26:17. > :26:21.saying is that NHS and social care, particularly adult social care, is
:26:22. > :26:28.in crisis. I understand the case. What I'm asking you for is... It is
:26:29. > :26:33.whether we give tax giveaways to the very rich... So what would you do?
:26:34. > :26:36.We would reverse those measures that have been introduced on capital
:26:37. > :26:40.gains tax and corporation tax and put some of that money into our
:26:41. > :26:45.health and care services. So corporation tax at the moment is at
:26:46. > :26:50.20%. What would you do with it? What we would do is we would reverse the
:26:51. > :26:55.cuts that were implemented in previous budgets, take it back to
:26:56. > :27:01.the level it was previously. How much? It was 20% when the Government
:27:02. > :27:05.came in, this particular Government came in in coalition, so you would
:27:06. > :27:10.take you 28%? We would take it back to the previous budget. But I come
:27:11. > :27:14.back to the point... What level was that? It is a question of
:27:15. > :27:23.priorities. I know in my own patch that the health and care gap is
:27:24. > :27:26.massive. In Tameside alone, we are looking at ?16 million funding gap
:27:27. > :27:30.this year alone. I understand it is a measure of priorities. What I am
:27:31. > :27:35.trying to get you to explain is where the money would come from. A
:27:36. > :27:41.1% increase in corporation tax doesn't get you very much, so where
:27:42. > :27:46.else would you raise the money? The Government has pushed this on to
:27:47. > :27:53.council tax. 81% council tax increase in my own borough raises
:27:54. > :27:57.?700,000. That is not going to fill... So where are you going to
:27:58. > :28:01.get it from without increasing the national debt? Well, I have said
:28:02. > :28:07.that we would look at the tax cuts that the Government have announced.
:28:08. > :28:12.Over the next five years, those are worth ?70 billion. So tell me which
:28:13. > :28:21.ones you will change to get back a chunk of that 70 billion. We are not
:28:22. > :28:26.in government at the moment... I understand that, but your leader has
:28:27. > :28:31.said there could be an election at any time. We would set that out when
:28:32. > :28:37.we are in government... So you can't tell me? This is a question of
:28:38. > :28:50.priorities, we think you have got the priorities wrong in government.
:28:51. > :28:52.You want more money for social care. You want more money for disability
:28:53. > :28:54.benefit as a result of those, you need more money for that, you want
:28:55. > :28:57.more money for the NHS, and you want to unfreeze a number of tax
:28:58. > :29:01.benefits. So of all that, which is the priority? Social care cuts are
:29:02. > :29:06.NHS cuts, and I believe that the damage which is being done to adult
:29:07. > :29:12.social care is really part of... Is that the priority above the other
:29:13. > :29:16.ones? For me, yes, it is, because I know that social care cuts are
:29:17. > :29:22.absolutely killing my local authority. Is that your view or the
:29:23. > :29:26.opposition's policy? It is the opposition's policy as well. We are
:29:27. > :29:30.very concerned about the impact that the social care cuts are having on
:29:31. > :29:38.the NHS. All right. Chris, from what we know of the Government's tax and
:29:39. > :29:46.benefit plans, and minimum wage plans, and the OBR's redactions for
:29:47. > :29:51.inflation and wage growth, the incomes of the poorest 15% in this
:29:52. > :29:56.country will be lower in 2021 than they were in 2014. How'd you justify
:29:57. > :30:00.that? I don't recognise those figures. Those are speculative
:30:01. > :30:05.projections, they are not real numbers. Hold on. I will tell you.
:30:06. > :30:10.They are from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and the ISS has used
:30:11. > :30:15.Government figures for that, so the poorest 15% will be poorer in four
:30:16. > :30:18.years' time than they were two years ago.
:30:19. > :30:25.They are spent lative. They don't include things like they should,
:30:26. > :30:30.like the extra free childcare. What else don't they include? I have
:30:31. > :30:35.given you one example. They don't include the freeze in fuel duty,
:30:36. > :30:39.saving ?500 a year. Let's look at the real numbers rather than
:30:40. > :30:44.protections. Last year the ONS found the poorest 0% in society had a 6%
:30:45. > :30:48.wage increase, way higher than inflation. Driven by it's huge
:30:49. > :30:52.increase in the minimum wage but I'm proud a Conservative go the put
:30:53. > :31:00.through ina the fact that 493% of the public. The -- 43%, now do not
:31:01. > :31:03.pay a single penny in income tax and the measure of income equality has
:31:04. > :31:09.been going down under this Government. We are extremely proud
:31:10. > :31:12.of. On the figures we have, that is now about to be reversed because you
:31:13. > :31:16.are freezing tax benefits for those in work. Inflation is now rising and
:31:17. > :31:22.this year could easily overtake average earnings. So if you're in
:31:23. > :31:29.the working poor, your wages are will probably not keep pace with
:31:30. > :31:33.inflation and your tax benefits frozen as well that's why these
:31:34. > :31:40.people will be worse off. You are quite right they were doing better
:31:41. > :31:43.until now, now they will be worse off. Why? I don't think that will
:31:44. > :31:45.happen. What are you going to change? We will have another
:31:46. > :31:48.increase in the minimum wage. Next year. We don't know what they are
:31:49. > :31:51.going to be. They are factored in, the Government announced them. For
:31:52. > :31:57.this year, you are talking about 2020. We know the target and the IFS
:31:58. > :32:01.has taken that into account. By the way a lot of people we are talking
:32:02. > :32:05.about are out of the tax system anyway, so a rise in when you start
:32:06. > :32:08.wouldn't affect them. Which is a fantastic achievement the
:32:09. > :32:13.Conservative Government has done by lifting so many people out of income
:32:14. > :32:15.tax. On current levels. You talking about speculative figures about the
:32:16. > :32:25.future I'm talking about real figures. But they are what they are
:32:26. > :32:32.on the original figures. They are pet better off... But on your
:32:33. > :32:36.proex-Jos on your Government's proposals, by 2021, 30% of children
:32:37. > :32:42.will be living in poverty, reversing the fall in child poverty which has
:32:43. > :32:45.taken place in 2008 to 2015. 30%. I thought you were meant to be helping
:32:46. > :32:48.those just about managing, why are you putting more people into
:32:49. > :32:52.poverty? You have acknowledged it has fallen. It is about to change.
:32:53. > :32:55.You talking about speculation in the future and the speculative figures
:32:56. > :32:59.don't include the fuel duty freeze and things like free childcare all
:33:00. > :33:03.of which make a massive difference if you are struggling on low
:33:04. > :33:08.incomes. A lot of the people we are talking about here, they take public
:33:09. > :33:12.transport to work, they are not paying for cars or are helped by
:33:13. > :33:15.that the a all. They are helped by free childcare for three and
:33:16. > :33:19.four-year-olds is being doubled, you cannot argue that doesn't help. It
:33:20. > :33:25.certainly does. One of John McDonnell's, as I understand, ideas
:33:26. > :33:28.is a crackdown on tax avoidance, is to publish the tax returns of
:33:29. > :33:34.everybody who earns more than ?1 million. I understand that, yes. How
:33:35. > :33:39.would that help crackdown on tax avoidance? Well, there are similar
:33:40. > :33:43.schemes that are in operation in Norway, Sweden and Finland. Well in
:33:44. > :33:48.Norway everybody's tax return is published Absolutely. But this is
:33:49. > :33:54.over ?1 million. Why would publishing the tax returns of those
:33:55. > :34:00.who earn more than ?1 million help on tax avoidance? ? I think it is
:34:01. > :34:05.about changing the way we view tax. You know tax isn't necessarilied a
:34:06. > :34:10.about thing, Andrew. I know we would all like to pay a little bit less.
:34:11. > :34:13.It is meant to be a which - you are planning to finance a lot of your
:34:14. > :34:16.programmes by cracking down on tax avoidance and tax evasion, I
:34:17. > :34:20.understand that. This is one of the methods that has been proposed. I'm
:34:21. > :34:27.trying to work out And transparency is good, isn't it? But how will it
:34:28. > :34:32.raise more money? In terms of transparency, if people think that
:34:33. > :34:41.if they are seeking to avoid paying the tax and their cross to society,
:34:42. > :34:46.they might actually think again... Excuse me, if they've made, in
:34:47. > :34:52.return - if they are earning over ?1 million and they have made a return
:34:53. > :34:55.to HRMC and HRMC has accepted it, it means they are neither avoiding or
:34:56. > :34:59.evading tax Then they have nothing to worry about. So how does it help
:35:00. > :35:02.you? I think it helps because there is an issue of tax avoidance and
:35:03. > :35:07.part of that is the lack of transparency and if... But a tax
:35:08. > :35:10.return won't tell you. If they are avoiding tax, it won't be in their
:35:11. > :35:14.tax return. Don't you understand that? I understand what you are
:35:15. > :35:19.saying but if people have confidence in the tax system, then they should
:35:20. > :35:22.have nothing to fear about having their details made public until that
:35:23. > :35:27.way. Even if it doesn't raise a penny? I'm not so sure that it
:35:28. > :35:31.wouldn't. All right. OK. Wet' better leave it there. Thank you. We'd
:35:32. > :35:37.better leave it there. Now, things have been hotting up
:35:38. > :35:39.in the French elections. Yesterday the centre-right
:35:40. > :35:45.candidate, Francois Fillon, revealed This morning, liberal candidate
:35:46. > :35:48.Emmanuel Macron presented his policy Opinion polls suggest Mr Macron
:35:49. > :35:51.is likely to reach the second round of the vote in May,
:35:52. > :35:54.where he's expected to face Polls also suggest Le Pen will lost
:35:55. > :36:08.in that second round, -- could be first in the first round
:36:09. > :36:12.and then may lose in the second round but as we know polls are not
:36:13. > :36:36.always to be counted on. We're joined by Bruno Gollnisch
:36:37. > :36:43.Bruno Gollnisch who is in Brussels. Why did your leader tweet the
:36:44. > :36:52.gruesome pictures of Islamic State Gruesome is the perfect word. She
:36:53. > :37:05.did it because the host tile French journalist also compare Daesh, the
:37:06. > :37:11.Islamic, the Islamic terrorists to Front Nationalal. So anybody can
:37:12. > :37:15.send pictures that they can find on Google and the internet and there
:37:16. > :37:21.are three awful pictures, gruesome, that's true and said - well, this is
:37:22. > :37:31.the behaviour of the these people. If she did that, it's absolutely
:37:32. > :37:42.obvious, a child would understand this, but not some French judges or
:37:43. > :37:45.prosecutors, a child would understhand she did that with the
:37:46. > :37:48.purpose of condemning these atrocities. Is anyone in France
:37:49. > :37:52.still in doubt about how gruesome Islamic State S you mentioned a
:37:53. > :37:56.child. I don't think you would want a child to see these pictures but of
:37:57. > :38:03.course on Twitter you can pretty much see them. Why do this knowing,
:38:04. > :38:07.no sensible person is in any doubt how barbaric Islamic State is. But
:38:08. > :38:14.there is at least one people who was in doubt. It is a very well-known
:38:15. > :38:26.and hostile journalist. Most of your colleagues, by the radio way, in
:38:27. > :38:36.France, are, towards us. In a very unfair comparison tried to compare
:38:37. > :38:40.and associate our party, a perfectly legal, peaceful o to these awful
:38:41. > :38:52.crimes. So that was an answer to him. And that maybe unfair. Others
:38:53. > :38:56.will decide on that but in terms of unfair comparisons, your leader has
:38:57. > :39:04.compared the European Union and globalisation toys Islamic State and
:39:05. > :39:07.Islamic fundamentalism. In the Department of comparisons, that's up
:39:08. > :39:12.there with one of the top ones, for unfair comparisons. No, she said
:39:13. > :39:17.there are two kinds of globalism but we perfectly know that the European
:39:18. > :39:21.Union, and, well, economical globalism doesn't behave the same
:39:22. > :39:29.way as economic state but there are two kinds of -- as I Islamic State.
:39:30. > :39:39.But there are types of globalism. There is a place to defend legally
:39:40. > :39:43.the national identity. Through European identity and European
:39:44. > :39:47.civilisation and so on. She called for the fight against three
:39:48. > :39:51.tyrannies, the three were globalisation, Islamic fundamental
:39:52. > :40:05.and the European Union. She called the European Union a tyranny. Yes,
:40:06. > :40:11.but the fact that we called it these three terms doesn't be mean that we
:40:12. > :40:17.pretend that they behave exactly the same way, it's obvious. Let me ask
:40:18. > :40:23.you this, not on your policy. I hope we will have more time to speak to
:40:24. > :40:28.you as the French elections, as the campaign gathers pace but who would
:40:29. > :40:36.you - in your interest, who would you rather face in the run-off, Mr
:40:37. > :40:43.Fillon or Mr Macron. Who do you think would be the better one to
:40:44. > :40:47.beat? It's a good question but it is up for the French people to decide
:40:48. > :40:51.who will come first among all the candidates. I think the most
:40:52. > :41:03.significant - I don't think the easiest - the most significant will
:41:04. > :41:07.be the second round between Mrs Le Pen and Mr Macron. You think Mr
:41:08. > :41:14.Macron now, you don't think Mr Fillon will make it? Mr Macron is,
:41:15. > :41:21.how do you say, he represents global forces and the interests, opening
:41:22. > :41:28.the borders to all influx of people, of goods, of funds. And Marine Le
:41:29. > :41:30.Pen will defend national independence and national identity.
:41:31. > :41:39.So this will be very significant but, well, if it is Mr Fillon, we
:41:40. > :41:45.will fight peacefully and legally against Mr Fillon and their friends.
:41:46. > :41:53.So-called conservatives but they do not conserve anything. Finally, you
:41:54. > :41:58.will be facing Mr Fillon in the first round of elections, and he is
:41:59. > :42:02.under some trouble for alleged by paying or taking 900,000 euros of
:42:03. > :42:09.state money for a fake job for his wife and other members of his
:42:10. > :42:13.family. The EU's antifraud office is insisting that Marine Le Pen repays
:42:14. > :42:16.300,000 euros of misused money from the European Parliament, is she
:42:17. > :42:24.going to repay that before polling day? No. No she will not repay a
:42:25. > :42:33.single penny and asked for, in my case, for example, they will take
:42:34. > :42:39.the money without any trial, without even giving her, not giving me the
:42:40. > :42:45.result of this so-called inquiry. You know, this office is a branch,
:42:46. > :42:52.in fact of the European Commission and the fact is that they are now
:42:53. > :43:01.trying to make trouble to all people who disagree with what we call
:43:02. > :43:07.Euro-globalism. In your country, for example, Ukip is under scrutiny by
:43:08. > :43:12.these political prosecution. I hear your point. Everybody knows it here.
:43:13. > :43:16.We have run out of time but as I say I hope we get a chance to talk to
:43:17. > :43:20.you more as the presidential campaign gathers pace. But for the
:43:21. > :43:24.moment we need to leave Bruno Gollnisch, a member of the European
:43:25. > :43:30.Parliament from the Front National, thank you for joining us.
:43:31. > :43:33.Leader Jeremy Corbyn's made it clear he's not stepping down
:43:34. > :43:35.after the mixed results of last week's by elections
:43:36. > :43:39.and his internal critics have - by-and-large - fallen silent.
:43:40. > :43:42.Jenny Kumah's been finding out the views of some of the party's MPs
:43:43. > :44:02.But, an historic defeat for Labour to the Conservatives in Copeland.
:44:03. > :44:03.The first by-election gained by a governing party in 35
:44:04. > :44:05.years further boosts Theresa May's leadership.
:44:06. > :44:07.But has left Jeremy Corbyn on the defensive.
:44:08. > :44:10.Mr Corbyn, is defeat in Copeland a disaster for the Labour Party?
:44:11. > :44:15.I've been talking to people there this morning.
:44:16. > :44:19.Following the Copeland defeat, Jeremy Corbyn
:44:20. > :44:22.faced several questions about whether he was the reason
:44:23. > :44:27.But he's determined to stay on, and at the moment, a challenge
:44:28. > :44:33.But his Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, has warned that
:44:34. > :44:39.a soft coup has been launched against the leader.
:44:40. > :44:42.In an article, he accuses elements within Labour and the Murdoch media
:44:43. > :44:43.empire of a coordinated and fully-resourced plot
:44:44. > :44:52.It's understood the article was written in response
:44:53. > :44:59.to Tony Blair's speech against Brexit, but published last
:45:00. > :45:02.For veteran Labour MP Paul Flynn, tackling and moving
:45:03. > :45:08.on from internal divisions is key to the party moving forward.
:45:09. > :45:13.Their election for leader took three days.
:45:14. > :45:16.We took three long, painful months where we knocked
:45:17. > :45:20.For goodness' sake, put a sock into the internal rows,
:45:21. > :45:22.forget about it and concentrate on our real task.
:45:23. > :45:29.Health service, welfare state, exposing the problems with Brexit.
:45:30. > :45:31.Having won two leadership elections, Jeremy Corbyn insists he's
:45:32. > :45:35.Speaking after the by-election result, he promised
:45:36. > :45:44.As the weeks go on, there will be more policy announcements on issues
:45:45. > :45:46.surrounding the funding of local government and health,
:45:47. > :45:48.on issues surrounding industrial development and economic planning,
:45:49. > :45:50.and we've already started a series of regional economic conferences,
:45:51. > :45:57.so there's a sort of Tom up policy-making so that the desperate
:45:58. > :46:00.needs of people all across this country for secure jobs is a good
:46:01. > :46:02.one, and we will continue with that work.
:46:03. > :46:05.Some feel new policies can only make a difference if they show
:46:06. > :46:11.the is listening to a wide range of voters.
:46:12. > :46:14.I'll be looking for policies coming out of the Labour Party
:46:15. > :46:16.in the next couple of weeks, the next months, the coming months,
:46:17. > :46:18.that show that we've been really listening.
:46:19. > :46:21.To show that we thinking differently today than we were six months ago.
:46:22. > :46:27.And that we're doing policy which is innovative,
:46:28. > :46:29.it's upbeat and it's absolutely tackling the priorities the public
:46:30. > :46:35.But with reports that 7000 Labour members have quit the party
:46:36. > :46:42.in protest at Jeremy Corbyn's backing for Article 50,
:46:43. > :46:44.a big challenge ahead will be listening and responding
:46:45. > :46:47.to the different Labour views on Brexit as the country moves
:46:48. > :46:59.Andrew Gwynne is the elections coordinator for Labour. You and
:47:00. > :47:03.others have said that Jeremy Corbyn needs more time to develop policies
:47:04. > :47:08.that will help Labour win an election. How much time? I think it
:47:09. > :47:13.is as much time as that's going to take. The matter of the leadership
:47:14. > :47:19.of the Labour Party was settled last year. We've had two leadership
:47:20. > :47:25.elections in two years. The last thing that the Labour Party now
:47:26. > :47:28.needs is another period of introspection. Yet the leader has
:47:29. > :47:36.said that the -- Angela Smith has said that Jeremy Corbyn has a year
:47:37. > :47:41.to improve the polls. What I think is the issue here, and coming out of
:47:42. > :47:45.the by-elections from last Thursday, is that we have got to have a period
:47:46. > :47:49.of listening to the electorate. I understand that, but should there be
:47:50. > :47:53.a time limit? The electorate have a right to be listened to, as well,
:47:54. > :47:58.part of that process is not just about listening to what people's
:47:59. > :48:01.fears, concerns, hopes and dreams are, but also about feeding that
:48:02. > :48:08.into a policy platform so that we can then build up a set of policies
:48:09. > :48:11.that we can hopefully go to the country with and win the confidence
:48:12. > :48:15.of the electorate. You can understand while either MPs are
:48:16. > :48:18.worried. They've got seats to fight, and they will look at Copeland and
:48:19. > :48:23.take that defeat on board, they will look at the polls, and it is hardly
:48:24. > :48:27.surprising that even Diane Abbott, a close ally of Jeremy Corbyn, and Ken
:48:28. > :48:30.Livingstone, have both said he has got a year. How long are you giving
:48:31. > :48:36.it, all the way to the next election? I have a job to do as
:48:37. > :48:39.Labour's elections coordinator with Ian Lay Wray, we have got to put in
:48:40. > :48:43.place the structures to be able to campaign in constituencies, and part
:48:44. > :48:48.of that is also about getting the policies and listening to people.
:48:49. > :48:52.I've been in this job for two weeks having spent the last two months up
:48:53. > :48:57.in Copeland. I'm very aware of what people are saying on the ground. I
:48:58. > :49:00.know the gap that is there at the moment, and how we bridge that gap
:49:01. > :49:04.is the challenge for the weeks and months ahead. And you haven't got
:49:05. > :49:09.that much support even within the Shadow Cabinet at the moment but
:49:10. > :49:13.that out of time. Keir Starmer has said there is no prospect of Labour
:49:14. > :49:18.winning the 2020 election unless we improve, he says. Is he right? That
:49:19. > :49:25.is stating the bleeding obvious, I'm afraid! We are 15-20 points behind
:49:26. > :49:31.in the poll, depending on which you look at, we lost the Copeland
:49:32. > :49:36.constituency. That means we have to improve. Has Labour hit rock bottom?
:49:37. > :49:40.I hope so! And part of that improvement has got to be going out
:49:41. > :49:43.and listening to the public, understanding what their concerns
:49:44. > :49:48.are, but also their hopes and dreams. It can't just be on the
:49:49. > :49:50.negative. We have to offer a positive reason why a Labour
:49:51. > :49:55.government would make a difference to their lives. And unity is
:49:56. > :49:58.important. John McDonnell wanted to make a lot about the issue of unity,
:49:59. > :50:01.and even the film-maker Ken Loach has written in the guardian, he
:50:02. > :50:07.agrees with John McDonnell that there is a silent mutiny of Labour
:50:08. > :50:11.MPs behind Jeremy Corbyn, which he says is part of the reason why your
:50:12. > :50:15.not being heard. Is that is that is what is going on? I don't believe
:50:16. > :50:19.that, and we saw in Copeland and Stoke, I can speak personally about
:50:20. > :50:23.Copeland, it was a united Parliamentary Labour Party. We had
:50:24. > :50:30.MPs coming from all over the country with the desire to win, and I think
:50:31. > :50:34.that that really embedded into me that the Parliamentary Labour Party
:50:35. > :50:38.now get the fact that if we are going to turn around those opinion
:50:39. > :50:43.polls, we have to pull together and be seen to be working together. So
:50:44. > :50:45.why did Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell write an article just
:50:46. > :50:49.before the Copeland by-election saying that there is a soft coup
:50:50. > :50:53.under way, dark forces at work within the Labour Party? I don't
:50:54. > :50:57.know about that, I have seen no evidence of their being a soft coup.
:50:58. > :51:03.So he's wrong? I just think that my experience of the last two month in
:51:04. > :51:08.Copeland has been a Parliamentary Labour Party that has been more
:51:09. > :51:12.united than it has been for a period of time. So how damaging is it to
:51:13. > :51:16.see an article like that Labour MPs that you say have been working with
:51:17. > :51:20.unity of purpose by the Shadow Chancellor, part of the leadership
:51:21. > :51:23.team who wrote this article before the by-elections, it was published
:51:24. > :51:27.afterwards, but actually quotes from that same article criticising covert
:51:28. > :51:31.operations under way within the Parliamentary Labour Party. They
:51:32. > :51:37.were requited to the Socialist worker after Copeland. Is that
:51:38. > :51:41.helpful? I'm not sure that Labour MPs are getting that fixated on
:51:42. > :51:46.this. Labour MPs are looking to the future. They are looking about how
:51:47. > :51:50.we can start to re-engage and reconnect with our voters to turn
:51:51. > :51:57.around what is a position that we would not seek to be in. We have got
:51:58. > :52:02.important elections coming up in Scotland, Wales, across England, the
:52:03. > :52:09.Metro Mayor elections as well, those are the next challenges that we are
:52:10. > :52:13.united and focused on. You mentioned reconnecting with voters and united
:52:14. > :52:17.within the party. Why didn't Jeremy Corbyn talk with his MPs at the PLP
:52:18. > :52:23.party on Monday evening to explain why Labour lost? That is my job.
:52:24. > :52:25.He's the leader of the party. Absolutely, and he addressed the
:52:26. > :52:31.Parliamentary Labour Party the week before. Now, you know, leaders of
:52:32. > :52:35.parties do not address the PLP every week. It was my job as Labour's
:52:36. > :52:39.election coordinator and as the political lead on the Copeland
:52:40. > :52:43.by-election to report back to the Parliamentary Labour Party. Wouldn't
:52:44. > :52:48.it have helped create an atmosphere of unity and re-connection if he had
:52:49. > :52:51.faced up to his responsibilities, which was the phrase, the buck stops
:52:52. > :52:57.with him, the former Labour leader or deputy leader Harriet Harman
:52:58. > :53:01.used? I think Jeremy has accepted that the Copeland result wasn't
:53:02. > :53:06.great, and that he takes a share of responsibility for that. I take a
:53:07. > :53:12.share of responsibility for that as well, I was the political lead. And
:53:13. > :53:16.the joint elections coordinator. We have to move on. We have to look to
:53:17. > :53:17.the future, and it is about reconnecting. Andrew Whing, let's
:53:18. > :53:27.leave it there. Yes, it was, of course,
:53:28. > :53:36.the 1997 general election, when a Labour landslide ended
:53:37. > :53:38.John Major's Conservative And if you've ever wanted to relive
:53:39. > :53:44.every moment of the campaign, I've got good news,
:53:45. > :53:46.because academics from the University of Nottingham have
:53:47. > :53:48.been doing something called Every day they tweet out newspaper
:53:49. > :53:52.cuttings that appeared Recent examples include
:53:53. > :53:58.the Independent, which said "Wiral aftermath: Labour
:53:59. > :54:03.machine minces hapless Tories" - a reference to a by-election
:54:04. > :54:06.which saw the Tories lose Wirrall "Tories face new sleaze claims",
:54:07. > :54:12.which of course were claims the dogged the Conservatives
:54:13. > :54:16.throughout the campaign. In a reminder that some
:54:17. > :54:18.things haven't changed, the Daily Mirror carried
:54:19. > :54:24.the headline "Leaders poised for TV clash: John Major set to gamble
:54:25. > :54:27.on TV debate with Blair". Also in a headline which could have
:54:28. > :54:30.run this week, the Express has "Tebbit takes on revenge
:54:31. > :54:36.on 'tasteless, tacky' Hezza". There's a reminder that former
:54:37. > :54:39.leaders aren't always helpful to their successors,
:54:40. > :54:41.with this Express front page "Heath Joins Labour (or he might
:54:42. > :54:43.as well, if he keeps Well, we're joined now by the man
:54:44. > :54:51.behind this project. It's Steven Fielding
:54:52. > :55:02.from the University of Nottingham. Why are you doing this? Firstly, my
:55:03. > :55:08.colleague Matthew Bailey is the one doing the tweeting, and he should
:55:09. > :55:12.take all the praise for that. Last year, I was thinking, because I have
:55:13. > :55:16.written about the Labour Party, new Labour, and covered all the
:55:17. > :55:19.elections since 97, and I was thinking, is the Labour Party likely
:55:20. > :55:23.to be commemorating the 20th anniversary of this election? And I
:55:24. > :55:28.got the impression that it wasn't going to, and I thought that it
:55:29. > :55:31.would be quite a good idea to have a live tweet, but also with the
:55:32. > :55:35.people's history Museum, we are putting on an election and going to
:55:36. > :55:39.put that online as well, so we're going to have public lectures from
:55:40. > :55:45.Peter Mandelson, Jacqui Smith and Polly Toynbee. In order for people
:55:46. > :55:47.to have an opportunity to think about the 1987 general election,
:55:48. > :55:53.because it was a remarkable election. It ended one of the most
:55:54. > :55:57.transformative Conservative governments, the one that started in
:55:58. > :56:02.1979, not with a whimper but with a complete bank, and started a new era
:56:03. > :56:07.under Tony Blair and a reformulated Labour Party. And as you say, it was
:56:08. > :56:12.a seismic shift, and there were lots of reasons for it, but what other
:56:13. > :56:14.things are you marking by live tweeting this particular election
:56:15. > :56:19.result that affected other parties at the time? Obviously, the one
:56:20. > :56:23.reason why Labour was able to win was due to all the divisions within
:56:24. > :56:28.the Conservative Party, principally about Europe, so it may be 20 years
:56:29. > :56:33.away, but many of the issues are with us now, obviously with Brexit
:56:34. > :56:37.Britain, and 1987 was the first election that Ukip stood candidates,
:56:38. > :56:41.and one in which Sir Jimmy Goldsmith established his referendum party, in
:56:42. > :56:48.order to make sure that Britain had a referendum if it joined the euro.
:56:49. > :56:54.And so it Europe is actually being in 1997. And this today, and you are
:56:55. > :56:58.running a conference in June to mark this election. Who is speaking at
:56:59. > :57:02.it? We haven't quite confirmed the line-up yet, we are trying to get
:57:03. > :57:06.academics but also practitioners, people who were there at the time.
:57:07. > :57:09.We have Peter Mandelson and Jacqui Smith who will be talking. And what
:57:10. > :57:15.about politicians from the current Shadow Cabinet? 1997 remains
:57:16. > :57:19.probably the most contested elections, given its association
:57:20. > :57:22.with Blair and new Labour, so I'm wondering whether certain members of
:57:23. > :57:26.the Cabinet, Shadow Cabinet, would like to turn up, whether it will be
:57:27. > :57:32.convenient, but it is an open invitation for them. We have
:57:33. > :57:34.reunited lecturer and pupil, I believe, because Stephen Fielding
:57:35. > :57:42.taught Andrew Gwynne. Would you like to speak? I would be more than happy
:57:43. > :57:48.to speak. 1987 was the first general election I voted in, and I have some
:57:49. > :57:51.very happy memories of 1997. They were great times that ushered in a
:57:52. > :57:56.Labour government that truly changed this country. Sometimes we look at
:57:57. > :57:58.the negatives, but the Labour Government did some absolutely
:57:59. > :58:04.brilliant things, and we should always be proud of our legacy. Thank
:58:05. > :58:07.you very much, Stephen Fielding, for joining us.
:58:08. > :58:10.There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
:58:11. > :58:12.The question was about yesterday's Guardian's cryptic crossword.
:58:13. > :58:15.Some supporters of one party have taken offence because they believe
:58:16. > :58:16.it contains the not-so-subliminal message that their leader
:58:17. > :58:20.But which party leader did the crossword refer to?
:58:21. > :58:22.Was it a) Tim Farron b) Nigel Farage c) Jeremy Corbyn
:58:23. > :58:24.So, Andrew, what's the correct answer?
:58:25. > :58:33.I think it's Nicola Sturgeon. It is Nicola Sturgeon. The answer to 12
:58:34. > :58:36.across and 14 across in the cryptic crossword in question are simply
:58:37. > :58:42.positioned next to each other, the guardian told us. They say they are
:58:43. > :58:45.entirely and related. Do you do the cryptic crossword? I don't, no, it
:58:46. > :58:47.is far too hard! I'll be back tonight at 11:45
:58:48. > :58:52.on BBC One with This Week, where I'll be joined by a bunch
:58:53. > :58:56.of Hollywood A-listers. Liz Kendall, James Rubin,
:58:57. > :58:59.Alex Salmond and DJ And I'll be back here tomorrow at 12
:59:00. > :59:10.for more fun and games The thing that's so clear
:59:11. > :59:14.is that it's 100% honest.