02/03/2017 Daily Politics

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.