02/03/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 02/03/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon folks and welcome to the Daily Politics.


The Government suffers its first big defeat over Brexit in Parliament,


as Lords back an amendment over the rights of UK-based EU nationals.


Ministers say they're determined to overturn


With the Budget only a week away, John McDonnell sets


out Labour's demands - will the Chancellor be listening?


After Nigel Farage accuses Douglas Carswell of trying


to sabotage Ukip, what is the future of the party's only MP?


And we'll be talking about the French presidential


election that could have big implications for Brexit


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


of the programme today it's Labour's elections co-ordinator,


He was handed the job just a few weeks before the by-elections


So we can only assume he's not afraid of a challenge.


Last night the Government suffered its first defeat on Brexit,


when the House of Lords voted with a 102 majority in favour


of an amendment to guarantee the rights of EU nationals living


As I say, it is quite a substantial loss. Reflecting the fact that the


Government doesn't have a majority in the Lords and led to speculation


it could embolden Tory rebels in the Commons when the legislation returns


there. The proposed amendment requires


the Government to introduce proposals within three months


of Article 50, to ensure EU citizens in the UK have the same residence


rights after Brexit. It was passed last night


in the House of Lords by a majority The Government was quick to say


it was "disappointed" in the result, arguing the Bill should simply be


about invoking Article 50 and beginning the formal process


of withdrawal from the EU. Next Tuesday, the Lords


will consider backing other possible amendments to the Bill,


including one calling for a "meaningful" vote


in Parliament on the final deal. Then the amended Bill will be sent


back to the House of Commons, which can remove the changes before


sending it back again to the Lords. This could result in "ping


pong" between both Houses But Shadow Lords' leader,


Baroness Smith, has insisted peers won't block the Brexit Bill


and she would not support So the Bill is only likely to be


delayed by a week and Wednesday 15th March is provisionally pencilled


in as the date for triggering Article 50 and the formal start


of the Brexit process - still well before Theresa May's


deadline of the end of March. We're joined now by the Conservative


peer and of course former chancellor Norman Lamont,


and Andrew Gwynne is still with us. Norman Lamont, is the job of the


Lords to scrutinise legislation and make amendments where it sees fit.


What has it done wrong? Well, this Bill had one purpose, to trigger


Article 50. What the Lords is trying to do with a whole series I have a


mendments they have put down is to attach conditions to the


industriering of Article 50. That doesn't seem to be to be


scrutinising and it seems to me it is against the national from because


it is taking away from the Government or would take away from


the Government the flexibility that they ought to have. Except that one


of the consequences of leaving the EU is to raise the issue of the


status of EU nationals who are already living and working in this


country. And the Lords thinks it's right, therefore, to make an


amendment to reassure them that things will be fine, that nothing


will change. Since that's Government policy, we are told anyway, why not


accept the amendment? Well, this issue of the status of EU nationals


here cannot be separated from the situation of British citizens


resident in other EU countries. Why? Because we need to get the interests


of them safeguarded as well. And the Prime Minister - as I think you were


alluding to - has made an attempt already, before negotiations


started, to get the issue of EU nagsings a here and of UK nationals


-- EU nationals. To whom the British Government has a duty of care, to


get them together. We were told it couldn't be done in advance. Because


Angela Merkel, in particular, the German Chancellor said, you have to


trigger Article 50 first, before we can do that, it is it is part of the


negotiations. Are you under any fear that other EU countries are going to


begin mass deportation of British citizens in EU countries? There's no


question of mass deportations and there is certainly none in this


country and it was ridiculous... No. But last night people were referring


to the Ugandan Asians and referring to edicts. I'm not going down that


road T seems to me it is not relevant here. -- it seems to me. So


I ask, why in the end, would we fear, particularly when we have


shown goodwill to the EUings in aals we have here, many of whom -- EU


nationals. Many of whom, most of whom are essential to our economy


that we wouldn't make that gesture and assume that the other EU


countries are going to do the same? I don't think you can assume that.


What evidence do you have for that? Last night someone made the point in


the debate. I can't go into detail because I don't know the detail,


that there are certain countries within the EU have not fully


recognised what they are meant to under the EU treaties in erms to


have the rights of nationals living within their countries. -- in terms.


I think it would be quite reckless to do a deal with EU nationals here


and not have similar, absolutely adentical assurances. -- identical.


So why did so many Tory Lords rebel and not accept the Home Secretary's


assurances, a serve Home Secretary? Well, I don't know how many Tories


did vote. No doubt you will have looked that up. Enough to make this


majority larger for this amendment There were a lot of cross-benchers.


Your old colleagues in Cabinet Indeed, a rare appearance. Oh, very


well. Andrew Gwynne l Labour back these changes in the Commons?


Absolutely. 3 million people woke up today, having a sense of security


that they've not had since 23rd June. These are people that have


made their life here in the United Kingdom, that are contributing to


the British economy, and that contributing to the exchequer. I


think that we need to take away all the uncertainty, at the start of


this process, as to what is going to happen to those EU citizens. Very


well, but we understand from the Labour Leader of the Lords, that if


this amendment is defeated, despite the best efforts of Labour MPs, that


when it goes back to the Lords, that's the end. Story? Well,


obviously Article 50 is going to be triggered.er Article 50 is the start


of the process. We would like to get that certainty in right from the


very start but, of course there will be other opportunities to secure


these assurances for 3 million European Union citizens living in


the United Kingdom, through the great repeal bill and through other


legislation that will come forward as part of our removal from the EU.


But you have just said that it was important, as they woke up this


morning, the EU citizens living in this country, that they had some


reassurance and how important it was to them. Now you are saying, that


after round 1, you'll give in and they'll lose their reassurance.


Well, I would hope that we would secure a victory in the House of


Commons on this, because actually we don't want to go into a situation of


ping pong. We want to move fairly quickly to the substantive arguments


and theme comes once Article 50 has been triggered but I want to offer


assurances to all EU citizens living and working here in the United


Kingdom that they are welcome. They play... Except that the moment the


Commons throw this is back to the Lords, Labour peers are going to


surrender. ? . . I think because the House of Lords recognises it would


be foolish for the unelected chamber to be seen to be holding up the


triggering of Article 50. That's in the what the British people want.


What is your feeling, Norman Lamont, about Tory rebels in the Commons.


Will they be emboldened by what has happened in the Lords? Will the


Government be able to take this out of the legislation again and send it


back to the Lords? I wouldn't have thought so. If a potential rebel has


supported the Government in a previous vote I would have thought


it would be very unlikely they would then change their mind just because


of the House of Lords. So, in your view, despite this substantial


majority and we understand there is another defeat coming up in the


Lords over the vote on Brexit, of the deal itself, in your view is the


Government still on target for trigger Article 50 on March 15th?


Provided that there is not an exercise in ping pong and the


amendment that is being put forward next week would, I think, be a more


serious amendment to be yard and would have a more disruptive effect


on the process. I think both of them are wrong but I think it would be


taken very badly if they carried the motion and then that actually became


part of a condition for the negotiation. But if you want, as the


Government does, Parliament to vote, to begin the exit process from the


EU, is it not perfectly reasonable for Parliament to insist, to


enshrine in legislation that when that deal, if and when that deal is


done, you come back to Parliament for approval on the deal? But the


Government have said there will be a parliamentary vote. That


parliamentary vote will be on whether to accept any terms that


have been agreed or whether to move to membership of the WTO and define


the relationship in that way. What people are wanting with the


amendment is to have that I had option - which is to say we will


effectively remain members of the EU and that would be to GP against the


result of the referendum. -- that would be to go against the result.


By holding the referendum we have bound ourselves to abide by the


conclusion of that referendum. Isn't Labour going along here with


something of a Hobson's Choice, because as I understand it at the


moment, let's assume the deal is done -- it is not a foregone


conclusion but let's assume is deal, it comes before Parliament in early


2019 after the two-year process, the Government says all right,


Parliament can vote on this, but the choice will be either to accept the


deal or leave on probably worse terms of bare-boned World Trade


Organisation deals. So even if you are a Remainer you are likely to


vote for the deal than go out on WHO. Where is the choice Absolutely.


Part of the argument put during the referendum, we wanted the British


Parliament to be Sovereign, that sometimes means that the British


Parliament might make a decision that the Government don't


automatically like. And I would want there to be a meaningful choice at


the end of this process. Sure, but in the end you are going to cave in


on that as well, aren't you? You are going, to in the end, end up with a


Hobson's Choice in the early spring of 2019. Well, let's see what


happens in the House of Lords next week and let's see what happens in


terms of the Government's thinking beyond that. OK. What are the


chances of ping pong? I mean more extensive than the ping back to the


Commons and the pong back to the Lords, end of storey. More than


that, or not? I think it is unlikely. All right. Thank you for


being with us. The question for today is about


the Guardian's cryptic crossword. I know you probably


think of little else. Some supporters of one party have


taken offence because they believe it contained the not-so-subliminal


message that their But which party leader did


the crossword refer to? At the end of the show, Andrew


will give us the correct answer. That's this Andrew, not this Andrew.


You are free to put forward a suggestion, too. Very kind, Jo Co.


Don't say I never give you anything. You never give me anything.


Ukip's MEPs are holding an emergency meeting in Brussels this morning,


where they'll be talking about the ongoing row


over the party's only MP, Douglas Carswell.


He defected from the Conservatives three years ago but this week


former leader, Nigel Farage, has accused him of working against Ukip


Well, we couldn't get hold of any of the MEPs this morning,


probably because they're all in the meeting -


but we're joined now from Cardiff by the party's leader in Wales,


Welcome to the daily politics. Will they be discussing whether the party


is in crisis? I haven't a clue, because I'm not an MEP, but this is


a holy confected crisis if it is one. I thought Nigel Farage wanted


to get his life back, but we haven't seen much of that. The idea that


Douglas Carswell has been working against Ukip since the general


election is preposterous. This is a grudge match which Nigel has had


against Douglas for a very long time. Douglas is an independently


minded chap, and grown-up political parties should be able to deal with


personal differences. You say it is a grudge match, but Nigel Farage has


made a case against Douglas Carswell with examples of where he says he


has been undermined by him. Do you think that just doesn't stack up? He


could probably make the same case against me, couldn't see, because we


have had differences of opinion with Nigel. The idea that Douglas


Carswell doesn't agree with Ukip's policy on immigration is absurd, and


disapproved by the reality and the facts. Douglas's only argument with


Nigel has been on the tone of the debate. You pays your money and you


takes your choice, it is all a matter of taste. And I'm afraid what


we are seeing here is a personality clash. Nigel always sought Ukip is a


kind of personality cult rather than a political party, and now that he


is no longer the leader, it is outrageous that he should seek to


destabilise the nascent leadership of his successor, Paul Nuttall, in


this way. If you've got differences of this kind, you should keep them


within the bounds of the party and not publish them in national


newspapers. But according to Nigel Farage, Douglas Carswell has openly


admitted he wanted to neutralise both Ukip and Mr Farage in the


referendum campaign. If that's the case, is it really acceptable for


him to behave like that given he is Ukip's only MP? The reality was that


Nigel Farage was never going to, or any organisation he was involved in,


would never get the official designation for the No campaign in


the referendum, because no leaders of other parties would work with


him. But should he have joined the leave Dott campaign rather than


going with vote leave? He argued that we needed the broadest base of


support across the political spectrum, and that was obvious, and


that is what happened, which is why Vote Leave got the designation.


Leave.eu and Nigel played a part in getting the referendum result that


we got, but I don't believe that we could have had an effective No


campaign if leave.eu had got the designation, because so many other


people wouldn't work with him, that is the reality. But what about the


e-mail trail in terms of the knighthood or the peerage that Nigel


Farage is supposedly wanting and had asked for Douglas Carswell to bid on


his behalf. Does the e-mail trail not show that he did everything


Douglas Carswell to stop that happening? It is not a peerage for


Nigel Farage that we want, it is peerage is free Ukip. We got 4


million votes in the last election, and only one MP elected. Last night


the House of Lords, you had 100 Liberal peers voting against the


Government, and against Brexit. But wouldn't he be a good contender? Of


course, Nigel would be top of the list, but it must be seen in these


personality terms. It is Ukip as a political party that deserves these


peerages, and I would say Niger deserves a peerage, I think you


should get a Duke at in the role he has played forgetting out -- a site


of the EU. But all this about a meaningless bauble like a knighthood


is making him look ridiculous. What about the NEC, the ruling executive


that will make the decision about Douglas Carswell's future. What you


think they will do? Douglas Carswell probably has enemies on the NEC, it


isn't just Nigel Farage he disagrees with. The issue is, did Douglas try


to stop Ukip getting peerages that it deserves? And the answer to that


is unambiguously know, I know him well enough to be able to say that


with confidence, so I am not expecting there to be any


repercussions for Douglas from the NEC. I don't know what so-called


evidence will be put in against him, but we will see.


Neil Hamilton, thank you very much. So, the decision over


Douglas Carswell's future lies with the party's


National Executive Committee and we're now joined by a member


of it, Liz Jones. Are there disciplinary proceedings


under way for Douglas Carswell? Not that I'm aware of as yet, no. And we


have to take a very pragmatic approach with regard to the


difficulties between Nigel and Douglas, because in May of this


year, there are going to be the local council elections, and our


focus must be on presenting unity, good local policies, strong


candidates and a solid foundation, so that the public will vote for


Ukip again. So who do you blame for this grudge match, to use Neil


Hamilton's words, this battle between these two men? I don't blame


anyone. Both of them have clearly fallen out. I'm not in the blame


game, I'm about pragmatism is trying to achieve electoral success. But


the Ukip chairman Paul opened and has had a meeting with Douglas


Carswell. Is that because Nigel Farage called them to be expelled


from the party? I don't know, but my view is this all came from the 2015


spat over short money when Douglas Carswell was elected for the second


time as a Ukip MEP, and he was entitled to receive about ?600,000


of short money. Then an approach was made by the Ukip management at that


time to get that money in order to employ 15 people. Douglas said no,


and then Nigel, very cleverly I thought, called his bluff and said,


OK, we won't take 1p of the taxpayers' money, and compromise was


reached. So from that point onwards there has been difficulty in their


relationship. I have just heard that Arron Banks, the Ukip donor, though


I'm not sure he has given much money recently, is called to the next


meeting. Why? He's being allowed to attend because he wants to make a


financial and management pitch to the party as to his future proposals


for the party. He says he is going to stand against Douglas Carswell in


2020, so that would seem fairly hostile. It is just hot air and


drama. I wouldn't give it much weight. But what Douglas needs to


do, he needs to be in place, he needs to be focusing on the May


local elections, because in Tendring District Council where he is based,


we have councillors. Is he bidding to be chairman? I think so, he is


going to pitch to as his management strategy and his financial strategy


for the future of the party. Is Douglas Carswell still an asset to


the party? I am entirely a pragmatist. But is he an asset to


the party? He is an asset until we find out what the results of the


local elections in May 20 17. In his area, in Tendring, there are over 20


Ukip counsellors, I would hope we would improve on those numbers and


improve... So it is a test, it is always a test for politicians? Of


course. Will he be invited to this meeting, Douglas Carswell? Yes, he


will be invited. So they will all be there. I think he should be there.


He is our Parliamentary Representative, he is entitled to


come along. Was it a sign of betrayal when Douglas Carswell


joined Vote Leave, the official campaign to leave the EU, rather


than leave.eu? From what I remember, Vote Leave was first launched body,


because I remember they set up a huge telephone call centre in


Westminster, so they started first, then you had Arron Banks started


with in the No, then that became Grass Routes Out. But was it a


betrayal of Douglas Carswell to join Vote Leave rather than to. That was


his choice. I know that, but was it a betrayal? I just wanted a Brexit


vote, which we had, and Douglas Carswell could have joined the moon


if that ensure that we got a Brexit vote, I don't really care where he


pitched up. If Vote Leave did what they could in their areas, and


leave.eu did what they could in their areas, and we achieved Brexit,


then that is good enough for me. Just finally, you talked about the


May elections, and if you look at Ukip Osman released -- Ukip's recent


performances, it is true, if Ukip can only achieve a 2% swing, you


won't win any seats in 2020? I can't possibly comment. I can't predict


the future. We don't know what's going to happen. Much will depend on


our results in May in the local elections. We must leave it there,


thank you very much. The Budget is only a week


away and this morning Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has


been setting out what he wants to hear from the


Chancellor Phillip Hammond. Here he is speaking


in London a short while ago. It's the NHS, the National Health


Service and our social care services that tell us the most about this


Government's failures. It's essential that the Government


uses this Budget to give the NHS and social care the funding


they urgently need. The present Conservative Government


has been condemned for its fast The Chief Executive of NHS England


has dismissed Government claims that current funding is adequate,


let alone more than they asked for. The Public Accounts Committee has


rebuked the Government for raiding the NHS


capital budget to meet The Health Select Committee has


dismissed the Government's claim So, the reality is that


the Government has consistently failed to provide the funding


that the NHS needs. That was the Shadow


Chancellor, John McDonnell. We're joined now by Chris Philp,


he's a Conservative member of the Treasury Select Committee


and our guest of the day Andrew, let me come to you first.


Yesterday Mr Corbyn criticised the Government for presiding over a rise


in the national debt to ?2 trillion. Labour is now saying it wants more


money for the NHS, for social care, the disability payments, and for


unfreezing tax credits for those in work. Where will the money come from


without increasing the national debt? There is a question of


priorities here. With the changes that we've seen in recent years to


Capital Gains Tax, to corporation tax, to the bank levy and to


inheritance tax, that is set to cost the Exchequer over the next five


years the equivalent of ?70 billion. Where does that figure come from?


That comes from the Government's Ono Red Book. I have not seen that. And


all the assessments that have been done from the Institute for Fiscal


Studies as well. And it is a question of priorities. What we are


saying is that NHS and social care, particularly adult social care, is


in crisis. I understand the case. What I'm asking you for is... It is


whether we give tax giveaways to the very rich... So what would you do?


We would reverse those measures that have been introduced on capital


gains tax and corporation tax and put some of that money into our


health and care services. So corporation tax at the moment is at


20%. What would you do with it? What we would do is we would reverse the


cuts that were implemented in previous budgets, take it back to


the level it was previously. How much? It was 20% when the Government


came in, this particular Government came in in coalition, so you would


take you 28%? We would take it back to the previous budget. But I come


back to the point... What level was that? It is a question of


priorities. I know in my own patch that the health and care gap is


massive. In Tameside alone, we are looking at ?16 million funding gap


this year alone. I understand it is a measure of priorities. What I am


trying to get you to explain is where the money would come from. A


1% increase in corporation tax doesn't get you very much, so where


else would you raise the money? The Government has pushed this on to


council tax. 81% council tax increase in my own borough raises


?700,000. That is not going to fill... So where are you going to


get it from without increasing the national debt? Well, I have said


that we would look at the tax cuts that the Government have announced.


Over the next five years, those are worth ?70 billion. So tell me which


ones you will change to get back a chunk of that 70 billion. We are not


in government at the moment... I understand that, but your leader has


said there could be an election at any time. We would set that out when


we are in government... So you can't tell me? This is a question of


priorities, we think you have got the priorities wrong in government.


You want more money for social care. You want more money for disability


benefit as a result of those, you need more money for that, you want


more money for the NHS, and you want to unfreeze a number of tax


benefits. So of all that, which is the priority? Social care cuts are


NHS cuts, and I believe that the damage which is being done to adult


social care is really part of... Is that the priority above the other


ones? For me, yes, it is, because I know that social care cuts are


absolutely killing my local authority. Is that your view or the


opposition's policy? It is the opposition's policy as well. We are


very concerned about the impact that the social care cuts are having on


the NHS. All right. Chris, from what we know of the Government's tax and


benefit plans, and minimum wage plans, and the OBR's redactions for


inflation and wage growth, the incomes of the poorest 15% in this


country will be lower in 2021 than they were in 2014. How'd you justify


that? I don't recognise those figures. Those are speculative


projections, they are not real numbers. Hold on. I will tell you.


They are from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and the ISS has used


Government figures for that, so the poorest 15% will be poorer in four


years' time than they were two years ago.


They are spent lative. They don't include things like they should,


like the extra free childcare. What else don't they include? I have


given you one example. They don't include the freeze in fuel duty,


saving ?500 a year. Let's look at the real numbers rather than


protections. Last year the ONS found the poorest 0% in society had a 6%


wage increase, way higher than inflation. Driven by it's huge


increase in the minimum wage but I'm proud a Conservative go the put


through ina the fact that 493% of the public. The -- 43%, now do not


pay a single penny in income tax and the measure of income equality has


been going down under this Government. We are extremely proud


of. On the figures we have, that is now about to be reversed because you


are freezing tax benefits for those in work. Inflation is now rising and


this year could easily overtake average earnings. So if you're in


the working poor, your wages are will probably not keep pace with


inflation and your tax benefits frozen as well that's why these


people will be worse off. You are quite right they were doing better


until now, now they will be worse off. Why? I don't think that will


happen. What are you going to change? We will have another


increase in the minimum wage. Next year. We don't know what they are


going to be. They are factored in, the Government announced them. For


this year, you are talking about 2020. We know the target and the IFS


has taken that into account. By the way a lot of people we are talking


about are out of the tax system anyway, so a rise in when you start


wouldn't affect them. Which is a fantastic achievement the


Conservative Government has done by lifting so many people out of income


tax. On current levels. You talking about speculative figures about the


future I'm talking about real figures. But they are what they are


on the original figures. They are pet better off... But on your


proex-Jos on your Government's proposals, by 2021, 30% of children


will be living in poverty, reversing the fall in child poverty which has


taken place in 2008 to 2015. 30%. I thought you were meant to be helping


those just about managing, why are you putting more people into


poverty? You have acknowledged it has fallen. It is about to change.


You talking about speculation in the future and the speculative figures


don't include the fuel duty freeze and things like free childcare all


of which make a massive difference if you are struggling on low


incomes. A lot of the people we are talking about here, they take public


transport to work, they are not paying for cars or are helped by


that the a all. They are helped by free childcare for three and


four-year-olds is being doubled, you cannot argue that doesn't help. It


certainly does. One of John McDonnell's, as I understand, ideas


is a crackdown on tax avoidance, is to publish the tax returns of


everybody who earns more than ?1 million. I understand that, yes. How


would that help crackdown on tax avoidance? Well, there are similar


schemes that are in operation in Norway, Sweden and Finland. Well in


Norway everybody's tax return is published Absolutely. But this is


over ?1 million. Why would publishing the tax returns of those


who earn more than ?1 million help on tax avoidance? ? I think it is


about changing the way we view tax. You know tax isn't necessarilied a


about thing, Andrew. I know we would all like to pay a little bit less.


It is meant to be a which - you are planning to finance a lot of your


programmes by cracking down on tax avoidance and tax evasion, I


understand that. This is one of the methods that has been proposed. I'm


trying to work out And transparency is good, isn't it? But how will it


raise more money? In terms of transparency, if people think that


if they are seeking to avoid paying the tax and their cross to society,


they might actually think again... Excuse me, if they've made, in


return - if they are earning over ?1 million and they have made a return


to HRMC and HRMC has accepted it, it means they are neither avoiding or


evading tax Then they have nothing to worry about. So how does it help


you? I think it helps because there is an issue of tax avoidance and


part of that is the lack of transparency and if... But a tax


return won't tell you. If they are avoiding tax, it won't be in their


tax return. Don't you understand that? I understand what you are


saying but if people have confidence in the tax system, then they should


have nothing to fear about having their details made public until that


way. Even if it doesn't raise a penny? I'm not so sure that it


wouldn't. All right. OK. Wet' better leave it there. Thank you. We'd


better leave it there. Now, things have been hotting up


in the French elections. Yesterday the centre-right


candidate, Francois Fillon, revealed This morning, liberal candidate


Emmanuel Macron presented his policy Opinion polls suggest Mr Macron


is likely to reach the second round of the vote in May,


where he's expected to face Polls also suggest Le Pen will lost


in that second round, -- could be first in the first round


and then may lose in the second round but as we know polls are not


always to be counted on. We're joined by Bruno Gollnisch


Bruno Gollnisch who is in Brussels. Why did your leader tweet the


gruesome pictures of Islamic State Gruesome is the perfect word. She


did it because the host tile French journalist also compare Daesh, the


Islamic, the Islamic terrorists to Front Nationalal. So anybody can


send pictures that they can find on Google and the internet and there


are three awful pictures, gruesome, that's true and said - well, this is


the behaviour of the these people. If she did that, it's absolutely


obvious, a child would understand this, but not some French judges or


prosecutors, a child would understhand she did that with the


purpose of condemning these atrocities. Is anyone in France


still in doubt about how gruesome Islamic State S you mentioned a


child. I don't think you would want a child to see these pictures but of


course on Twitter you can pretty much see them. Why do this knowing,


no sensible person is in any doubt how barbaric Islamic State is. But


there is at least one people who was in doubt. It is a very well-known


and hostile journalist. Most of your colleagues, by the radio way, in


France, are, towards us. In a very unfair comparison tried to compare


and associate our party, a perfectly legal, peaceful o to these awful


crimes. So that was an answer to him. And that maybe unfair. Others


will decide on that but in terms of unfair comparisons, your leader has


compared the European Union and globalisation toys Islamic State and


Islamic fundamentalism. In the Department of comparisons, that's up


there with one of the top ones, for unfair comparisons. No, she said


there are two kinds of globalism but we perfectly know that the European


Union, and, well, economical globalism doesn't behave the same


way as economic state but there are two kinds of -- as I Islamic State.


But there are types of globalism. There is a place to defend legally


the national identity. Through European identity and European


civilisation and so on. She called for the fight against three


tyrannies, the three were globalisation, Islamic fundamental


and the European Union. She called the European Union a tyranny. Yes,


but the fact that we called it these three terms doesn't be mean that we


pretend that they behave exactly the same way, it's obvious. Let me ask


you this, not on your policy. I hope we will have more time to speak to


you as the French elections, as the campaign gathers pace but who would


you - in your interest, who would you rather face in the run-off, Mr


Fillon or Mr Macron. Who do you think would be the better one to


beat? It's a good question but it is up for the French people to decide


who will come first among all the candidates. I think the most


significant - I don't think the easiest - the most significant will


be the second round between Mrs Le Pen and Mr Macron. You think Mr


Macron now, you don't think Mr Fillon will make it? Mr Macron is,


how do you say, he represents global forces and the interests, opening


the borders to all influx of people, of goods, of funds. And Marine Le


Pen will defend national independence and national identity.


So this will be very significant but, well, if it is Mr Fillon, we


will fight peacefully and legally against Mr Fillon and their friends.


So-called conservatives but they do not conserve anything. Finally, you


will be facing Mr Fillon in the first round of elections, and he is


under some trouble for alleged by paying or taking 900,000 euros of


state money for a fake job for his wife and other members of his


family. The EU's antifraud office is insisting that Marine Le Pen repays


300,000 euros of misused money from the European Parliament, is she


going to repay that before polling day? No. No she will not repay a


single penny and asked for, in my case, for example, they will take


the money without any trial, without even giving her, not giving me the


result of this so-called inquiry. You know, this office is a branch,


in fact of the European Commission and the fact is that they are now


trying to make trouble to all people who disagree with what we call


Euro-globalism. In your country, for example, Ukip is under scrutiny by


these political prosecution. I hear your point. Everybody knows it here.


We have run out of time but as I say I hope we get a chance to talk to


you more as the presidential campaign gathers pace. But for the


moment we need to leave Bruno Gollnisch, a member of the European


Parliament from the Front National, thank you for joining us.


Leader Jeremy Corbyn's made it clear he's not stepping down


after the mixed results of last week's by elections


and his internal critics have - by-and-large - fallen silent.


Jenny Kumah's been finding out the views of some of the party's MPs


But, an historic defeat for Labour to the Conservatives in Copeland.


The first by-election gained by a governing party in 35


years further boosts Theresa May's leadership.


But has left Jeremy Corbyn on the defensive.


Mr Corbyn, is defeat in Copeland a disaster for the Labour Party?


I've been talking to people there this morning.


Following the Copeland defeat, Jeremy Corbyn


faced several questions about whether he was the reason


But he's determined to stay on, and at the moment, a challenge


But his Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, has warned that


a soft coup has been launched against the leader.


In an article, he accuses elements within Labour and the Murdoch media


empire of a coordinated and fully-resourced plot


It's understood the article was written in response


to Tony Blair's speech against Brexit, but published last


For veteran Labour MP Paul Flynn, tackling and moving


on from internal divisions is key to the party moving forward.


Their election for leader took three days.


We took three long, painful months where we knocked


For goodness' sake, put a sock into the internal rows,


forget about it and concentrate on our real task.


Health service, welfare state, exposing the problems with Brexit.


Having won two leadership elections, Jeremy Corbyn insists he's


Speaking after the by-election result, he promised


As the weeks go on, there will be more policy announcements on issues


surrounding the funding of local government and health,


on issues surrounding industrial development and economic planning,


and we've already started a series of regional economic conferences,


so there's a sort of Tom up policy-making so that the desperate


needs of people all across this country for secure jobs is a good


one, and we will continue with that work.


Some feel new policies can only make a difference if they show


the is listening to a wide range of voters.


I'll be looking for policies coming out of the Labour Party


in the next couple of weeks, the next months, the coming months,


that show that we've been really listening.


To show that we thinking differently today than we were six months ago.


And that we're doing policy which is innovative,


it's upbeat and it's absolutely tackling the priorities the public


But with reports that 7000 Labour members have quit the party


in protest at Jeremy Corbyn's backing for Article 50,


a big challenge ahead will be listening and responding


to the different Labour views on Brexit as the country moves


Andrew Gwynne is the elections coordinator for Labour. You and


others have said that Jeremy Corbyn needs more time to develop policies


that will help Labour win an election. How much time? I think it


is as much time as that's going to take. The matter of the leadership


of the Labour Party was settled last year. We've had two leadership


elections in two years. The last thing that the Labour Party now


needs is another period of introspection. Yet the leader has


said that the -- Angela Smith has said that Jeremy Corbyn has a year


to improve the polls. What I think is the issue here, and coming out of


the by-elections from last Thursday, is that we have got to have a period


of listening to the electorate. I understand that, but should there be


a time limit? The electorate have a right to be listened to, as well,


part of that process is not just about listening to what people's


fears, concerns, hopes and dreams are, but also about feeding that


into a policy platform so that we can then build up a set of policies


that we can hopefully go to the country with and win the confidence


of the electorate. You can understand while either MPs are


worried. They've got seats to fight, and they will look at Copeland and


take that defeat on board, they will look at the polls, and it is hardly


surprising that even Diane Abbott, a close ally of Jeremy Corbyn, and Ken


Livingstone, have both said he has got a year. How long are you giving


it, all the way to the next election? I have a job to do as


Labour's elections coordinator with Ian Lay Wray, we have got to put in


place the structures to be able to campaign in constituencies, and part


of that is also about getting the policies and listening to people.


I've been in this job for two weeks having spent the last two months up


in Copeland. I'm very aware of what people are saying on the ground. I


know the gap that is there at the moment, and how we bridge that gap


is the challenge for the weeks and months ahead. And you haven't got


that much support even within the Shadow Cabinet at the moment but


that out of time. Keir Starmer has said there is no prospect of Labour


winning the 2020 election unless we improve, he says. Is he right? That


is stating the bleeding obvious, I'm afraid! We are 15-20 points behind


in the poll, depending on which you look at, we lost the Copeland


constituency. That means we have to improve. Has Labour hit rock bottom?


I hope so! And part of that improvement has got to be going out


and listening to the public, understanding what their concerns


are, but also their hopes and dreams. It can't just be on the


negative. We have to offer a positive reason why a Labour


government would make a difference to their lives. And unity is


important. John McDonnell wanted to make a lot about the issue of unity,


and even the film-maker Ken Loach has written in the guardian, he


agrees with John McDonnell that there is a silent mutiny of Labour


MPs behind Jeremy Corbyn, which he says is part of the reason why your


not being heard. Is that is that is what is going on? I don't believe


that, and we saw in Copeland and Stoke, I can speak personally about


Copeland, it was a united Parliamentary Labour Party. We had


MPs coming from all over the country with the desire to win, and I think


that that really embedded into me that the Parliamentary Labour Party


now get the fact that if we are going to turn around those opinion


polls, we have to pull together and be seen to be working together. So


why did Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell write an article just


before the Copeland by-election saying that there is a soft coup


under way, dark forces at work within the Labour Party? I don't


know about that, I have seen no evidence of their being a soft coup.


So he's wrong? I just think that my experience of the last two month in


Copeland has been a Parliamentary Labour Party that has been more


united than it has been for a period of time. So how damaging is it to


see an article like that Labour MPs that you say have been working with


unity of purpose by the Shadow Chancellor, part of the leadership


team who wrote this article before the by-elections, it was published


afterwards, but actually quotes from that same article criticising covert


operations under way within the Parliamentary Labour Party. They


were requited to the Socialist worker after Copeland. Is that


helpful? I'm not sure that Labour MPs are getting that fixated on


this. Labour MPs are looking to the future. They are looking about how


we can start to re-engage and reconnect with our voters to turn


around what is a position that we would not seek to be in. We have got


important elections coming up in Scotland, Wales, across England, the


Metro Mayor elections as well, those are the next challenges that we are


united and focused on. You mentioned reconnecting with voters and united


within the party. Why didn't Jeremy Corbyn talk with his MPs at the PLP


party on Monday evening to explain why Labour lost? That is my job.


He's the leader of the party. Absolutely, and he addressed the


Parliamentary Labour Party the week before. Now, you know, leaders of


parties do not address the PLP every week. It was my job as Labour's


election coordinator and as the political lead on the Copeland


by-election to report back to the Parliamentary Labour Party. Wouldn't


it have helped create an atmosphere of unity and re-connection if he had


faced up to his responsibilities, which was the phrase, the buck stops


with him, the former Labour leader or deputy leader Harriet Harman


used? I think Jeremy has accepted that the Copeland result wasn't


great, and that he takes a share of responsibility for that. I take a


share of responsibility for that as well, I was the political lead. And


the joint elections coordinator. We have to move on. We have to look to


the future, and it is about reconnecting. Andrew Whing, let's


leave it there. Yes, it was, of course,


the 1997 general election, when a Labour landslide ended


John Major's Conservative And if you've ever wanted to relive


every moment of the campaign, I've got good news,


because academics from the University of Nottingham have


been doing something called Every day they tweet out newspaper


cuttings that appeared Recent examples include


the Independent, which said "Wiral aftermath: Labour


machine minces hapless Tories" - a reference to a by-election


which saw the Tories lose Wirrall "Tories face new sleaze claims",


which of course were claims the dogged the Conservatives


throughout the campaign. In a reminder that some


things haven't changed, the Daily Mirror carried


the headline "Leaders poised for TV clash: John Major set to gamble


on TV debate with Blair". Also in a headline which could have


run this week, the Express has "Tebbit takes on revenge


on 'tasteless, tacky' Hezza". There's a reminder that former


leaders aren't always helpful to their successors,


with this Express front page "Heath Joins Labour (or he might


as well, if he keeps Well, we're joined now by the man


behind this project. It's Steven Fielding


from the University of Nottingham. Why are you doing this? Firstly, my


colleague Matthew Bailey is the one doing the tweeting, and he should


take all the praise for that. Last year, I was thinking, because I have


written about the Labour Party, new Labour, and covered all the


elections since 97, and I was thinking, is the Labour Party likely


to be commemorating the 20th anniversary of this election? And I


got the impression that it wasn't going to, and I thought that it


would be quite a good idea to have a live tweet, but also with the


people's history Museum, we are putting on an election and going to


put that online as well, so we're going to have public lectures from


Peter Mandelson, Jacqui Smith and Polly Toynbee. In order for people


to have an opportunity to think about the 1987 general election,


because it was a remarkable election. It ended one of the most


transformative Conservative governments, the one that started in


1979, not with a whimper but with a complete bank, and started a new era


under Tony Blair and a reformulated Labour Party. And as you say, it was


a seismic shift, and there were lots of reasons for it, but what other


things are you marking by live tweeting this particular election


result that affected other parties at the time? Obviously, the one


reason why Labour was able to win was due to all the divisions within


the Conservative Party, principally about Europe, so it may be 20 years


away, but many of the issues are with us now, obviously with Brexit


Britain, and 1987 was the first election that Ukip stood candidates,


and one in which Sir Jimmy Goldsmith established his referendum party, in


order to make sure that Britain had a referendum if it joined the euro.


And so it Europe is actually being in 1997. And this today, and you are


running a conference in June to mark this election. Who is speaking at


it? We haven't quite confirmed the line-up yet, we are trying to get


academics but also practitioners, people who were there at the time.


We have Peter Mandelson and Jacqui Smith who will be talking. And what


about politicians from the current Shadow Cabinet? 1997 remains


probably the most contested elections, given its association


with Blair and new Labour, so I'm wondering whether certain members of


the Cabinet, Shadow Cabinet, would like to turn up, whether it will be


convenient, but it is an open invitation for them. We have


reunited lecturer and pupil, I believe, because Stephen Fielding


taught Andrew Gwynne. Would you like to speak? I would be more than happy


to speak. 1987 was the first general election I voted in, and I have some


very happy memories of 1997. They were great times that ushered in a


Labour government that truly changed this country. Sometimes we look at


the negatives, but the Labour Government did some absolutely


brilliant things, and we should always be proud of our legacy. Thank


you very much, Stephen Fielding, for joining us.


There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.


The question was about yesterday's Guardian's cryptic crossword.


Some supporters of one party have taken offence because they believe


it contains the not-so-subliminal message that their leader


But which party leader did the crossword refer to?


Was it a) Tim Farron b) Nigel Farage c) Jeremy Corbyn


So, Andrew, what's the correct answer?


I think it's Nicola Sturgeon. It is Nicola Sturgeon. The answer to 12


across and 14 across in the cryptic crossword in question are simply


positioned next to each other, the guardian told us. They say they are


entirely and related. Do you do the cryptic crossword? I don't, no, it


is far too hard! I'll be back tonight at 11:45


on BBC One with This Week, where I'll be joined by a bunch


of Hollywood A-listers. Liz Kendall, James Rubin,


Alex Salmond and DJ And I'll be back here tomorrow at 12


for more fun and games The thing that's so clear


is that it's 100% honest.


Download Subtitles