14/07/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 14/07/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


She's been Prime Minister for a year, and what a year it's been.


So what does the next 12 months have in store for Theresa May?


And can the Government do all the things it wants to do?


Train drivers on Southern Rail vote for fresh strikes


Meanwhile, the Transport Secretary accuses Labour of colluding


with the unions to bring misery to passengers.


Jeremy Corbyn is as likely to be seen addressing big


rallies, as he is wondering through the corridors of power.


But do street protests really bring about political change?


And, as the French President welcomes his American


counterpart on Bastille Day, we speak to a leading French


politician about the rise of Emmanuel Macron, Brexit


and the future of Anglo-French relations.


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


a double act to rival May and Corbyn, Barnier and Davis,


That's Fraser Nelson, editor of The Spectator,


and Anoosh Chakelian, from The New Statesman -


So, it's the end of the week in which Theresa May celebrated,


if that's the right word, her first twelve months


It hasn't exactly gone to plan, understatement of the year. Nothing


has gone to plan for her for the last four or five months. But she's


still here which is more than people thought on election night. We all


know that she is going to resign, unlike Gordon Brown who we thought


would hang on, everyone knows she will walk the plank at some point


but nobody knows who will succeed her. Until the party makes up its


mind, she will stay. She is like an undead Prime Minister, it's very


strange. When do you think the walking the plank will be? If we


take that view. She's given herself a few years. I think she might be


right. We don't know the exact deadline. Her weakness is keeping


her in place. No Conservative MP wants to destabilise things when


Jeremy Corbyn is at a high, partly because of Theresa May's weakness.


Would it be better to admin that it was a mistake to call an election? I


don't think anybody thinks it was the right decision. She might have


meant that if things went a planet might have been a good decision but


it was obviously the biggest self-inflicted wound in the history


of the Conservative Party. She has probably inflicted more damage on


party then anybody since Tony Blair. What have we learnt about politics


in the last few months? That you shouldn't take anything for granted.


As soon as you start attacking someone, personal attacks like in


the campaign, the public can react differently and it might backfire.


Should there have been more of a mea culpa? She said that she shared a


tear, which for her is a big deal and then she claimed that she


immediately thought of the message that the electorate had sent. There


was no sense of that. It was a staged mea culpa. A lesser Prime


Minister would have quit and walk away as David Cameron did after the


Brexit foe. She is sticking with it because she feels a sense of duty to


the party and she deserves credit for that. Sense of duty is


important. She is the great survivor. Of course, her decision to


stand for the leadership in the first place was quite brave. Nobody


wanted to inherit a Brexit negotiations. But she had felt for a


while that she could become leader. Brexit negotiations, if we go back


to Lancaster house and that speech, is it going to continue to be a


template? I think so. The Lancaster house speech was a very persuasive


template. Only 12 weeks ago, we were looking at the local election


results and everything she did seem to have been vindicated. We have


learned how quickly politics can shift and certainties vanish. What


does it say about support? That it is very soft and flaky on both


sides? And things can change. It's almost as though the Conservatives


prospects have flipped over and reflect what Labour was suffering


before the election. It could flick over again. Is she human now? She is


never going to be a great raconteur with her emotions on her sleeve. The


public see her for what she is, someone who works very hard with a


huge sense of duty but finds it hard to say, come and be my friend. Other


politicians do that. It doesn't matter because she won't be standing


for election again. So, Theresa May's second year


in Downing Street is now underway. If you believe Jeremy Corbyn -


then the government is clapped out and he'll have her job


before Christmas. But allies of the Prime Minister


say that she can carry on for years. So, if you'll excuse the


naval metaphor, let's take a look at what's in the offing


for Theresa May's government A top priority is of course


to sail the ship of state Face-to-face talks between


the Brexit Secretary David Davis and the EU's Chief Negotiator


will resume this Monday. Yesterday, the government


introduced the Repeal Bill, this will overturn the 1972


legislation that took the UK into the Common Market and also


convert EU law into UK law. The opposition parties are keen


to amend and oppose the bill - the Liberal Democrat leader


Tim Farron even said that the passage of the bill


will be "hell" for the government. And there are seven other bills


related to Brexit on the horizon - in particular, the Customs Bill,


the Immigration Bill In the autumn, the Chancellor Philip


Hammond will present his He'll be under pressure to yield


to calls for him to end the 1% cap But the government's


economic strategy got a boost from the independent Office


for Budget Responsibility yesterday. The fiscal watchdog suggested


that ending austerity and increasing spending could pose a "significant


risk" to the public finances. And in the Queen's Speech we got


a sense of the other priorities of the government -


including a consultation on social care, an industrial strategy


to boost growth and a review Joining me now is Conservative MP,


Kwasi Kwarteng, who is Parliamentary Private Secretary


to the Chancellor Philip Hammond. And from Middlesbrough we are joined


by Shadow Transport Secretary Andy McDonald. Hell for the government?


Parliamentary guerrilla warfare. What are you going to do about it?


Tim Farron has his own agenda and he was the leader of a campaign that


didn't do very well. Both the Conservative Party and the Labour


Party are committed to Brexit. I think we can get a decent majority


for repealing the European Community zag across the house. It'll be


difficult but I think we can do that. I think Tim Farron is not


reflecting the mood of the House of Commons. He has 12 MPs, he resigned


because he did so badly and I don't think he's in a position to talk


about guerrilla warfare. I think we will be able to get things through.


The fact that he is promising it, against a backdrop of the Article 50


legislation, knowing that there are a group of Conservative MPs looking


to oppose a bill like a rip your bill at least with amendments to it.


That might make life very difficult and water down the bill. Do you


accept that? We had about nine votes over the Article 50 legislation.


I've never seen anything like it. If you look at the division nose and


saw the Conservative rebels, there were very few of them. The


majorities we secured were much more safe than people anticipated. I


agree that the situation now is more difficult but I'd be such prize to


see the number of rebels that I've read about. I don't think it would


be as many as 15. The party is quite united and determined to see us


through this process. But not without amendments, changes,


frustration in the Bills. You only have to look at the opposition.


Labour have promised to amend it. We've got the Liberal Democrats and


the SNP saying similar things. 15 MPs is not a massive number. The


odds are stacked against you. I don't think it is as high as 15 and


I've given the reasons why. You assume that the opposition is united


but we know that there are Labour MPs who voted for Brexit and people


like Caroline Flint who don't want freedom of movement and are


representing constituencies where the majority voted to leave. I don't


think it's as simple as you suggest. Let's ask Andy McDonald on the


Labour side, welcome to the programme, talking on the repeal


bill specifically, you are asking for a whole range of concessions.


The government probably won't give you everything that you want. In all


likelihood, are you just going to vote against the repeal Bill? I


think we'll be voting for our amendments but I think the principle


of the repeal bill is accepted but it's up on what terms and what comes


afterwards. We've set out very clearly, embracing David Davis's own


words of the exact same benefits and making sure that we are still


parties to important European organisations that have served as


well and it's absolutely imperative that we do not throw the baby out


with the bath water and we don't throw away 40 years of benefits. Are


those red lines? For Labour. If you listen to Keir Starmer, who is


shadowing on the Brexit side for Labour, they want to see the


incorporation of the European Charter of fundamental rights, that


means that you can't vote for the repeal bill as it stands. We will


see. I think we've got to have pragmatic and sensible approach to


this. What does that mean? Theresa May obviously recognises the


weakness of her own position and is trying to reach out to other parties


to help her out. That, for me, signals that there is some sense


that there is going to be some element of compromise. On what,


though? That's too early for me to say. The bill was published


yesterday. But we've heard Keir Starmer on the European Charter of


fundamental rights. Is that a red line for Keir Starmer and Labour? He


will make that clear. I'm not going to step into his shoes and say that


or not. We need pragmatic views on what can be achieved so we don't


leave the European Union and the impact of it making our people much


worse off. We've got to give people the chance to make some progress on


these hugely important areas for hours. To start shouting the odds at


this stage, I'm afraid, that's where the Tories got into difficulties in


the first place by having such an intransigence of view with their


European partners, rather than saying let's negotiate. Let's put


that to Kwasi. We don't know exactly the areas that they are going to try


and change and amend but they are obviously going to try and do it. If


we look at the European Charter of fundamental rights, would you have


way on that? That's way above my pay grade. Let's look at the actual bill


and see what the amendments are. The fact is, to say that the opposition


is completely united is false. We saw Chuka Umunna put down an


amendment and 49 Labour MPs voted in favour of that. A large portion of


the party didn't. Before you move on, I want a savoury clearly that


you've got a very simplified picture of the parliamentary arithmetic and


there are splits on the Labour side and I think the Conservative Party


is more united than you have assumed and I think we'll be able to get


something out of it. Let's talk about the Labour dilemma. It is true


that Caroline Flint is very keen to emphasise to you and other Labour


colleagues that the party must stick with what it promised which is


leaving the single market because you promised to end freedom of


movement and leave PE you in the way that her constituents would like to


see. That is at complete odds with the constituents of Keir Starmer or


Jeremy Kyle Britain or -- or Jeremy Kyle been all Emily Thornberry. How


can you satisfy both? The vote was very close. The discussion has two B


about securing the benefits of the single market is as David Davies


pointed out. If it comes to freedom of movement, we accept that goes if


you leave the single market. What comes in its place? It is the


ability to look at migration and have a policy that serves the


economy in our interests. We can do that very sensibly. It doesn't mean


pulling up the drawbridge. It means having an active immigration policy


where people are welcomed into our country to help as in the areas


where we need their skills and abilities. A very sensible attitude.


I will bring in Andy McDonald. How difficult is this going to be for


both parties to pull off? The problems are similar, all of them


have MPs who represent constituents who would rather stay in for


financial or cultural reasons and they have constituents who voted to


leave. Kwasi talk about Labour being divided. It is divide on Brexit,


but, what it is united in, is make things as difficult as possible for


a very weak Government and the Tories shown underest mate that. Is


the Repeal Bill going to be the place where that opposition is going


to come to the fore, the fight against the Conservatives and in


some people's minds the fight against Brexit. It is an opportunity


for Labour to try to make common cause of Tory rebel, it doesn't


matter if it is about the EU or parking fine, anything, you would


take a chance to inflict a defeat, or think of something nobody thought


of before, the provision of abortion for women in Northern Ireland, you


take something like that and try and get a concession, the repeal bill is


misnamed. It is not the great any more. It is taking regulation and


making it into British law. It's the great regulation bill if you like.


Because there is so much it creates opportunities to embarrass is


Government. Before we move on, what is more important do you and your


Labour colleague, getting rid of this Conservative Government, or


seeing through the Brexit negotiations? Well, both. They are


both important. But... You might use the Brexit negotiation to get rid of


this Government? Well, I mean, Theresa May thought she was going to


have this massive mandate for her to do as she wish, and that is not


going to happen. She knows that, that is why she is in difficulty.


Not bringing anything to the floor of the House of Commons because she


knows she have the Dell's own job to progress anything. We will be acting


in the best interests of country and making sure we get the best possible


bill we can and it addresses the needs of our people. For goodness'


sake, what else should we do? Let us move on to the economy, Philip


Hammond will give his autumn budget, if you are going to listen to some


of the voices inside the Cabinet, and other Tory backbenchers, who are


asking for the 1% public sector pay cap to be lifted, is that something


you can support. Certainly we won't rewrite the budget half way through


the year, there will be a budgetary event as you suggested. We have had


discussion about pay cap. I don't have any idea what will be in the


budget. It was important the Government held the line. Deficit


reduction is important, people understand that, we have done a


long, very well in that, over the last seven year, it has gone from 50


billion to 50 billion. That is important, and the idea that if a


Labour Government came in, we would see further progress on this, is not


correct. It is fanciful. The IFS have said that Labour's plans would


cost ?100 billion more, would add to the deficit. ?100 billion oh the


course of a five year Parliament. That is a lot of money, a lot of


debt. The Office for Budget Responsibility suggested that


fatigue and increased spending could post a significant risk to the


public finance, does that not mow blow a hole your economic argument?


At least we set out with some, in some detail what our spending plans


w and where the money would come from, we heard nothing from the Tory


party, and look, they missed their target, they have done since 2010


and they keep putting them back. I am asking about your economic


argument, because if the Office for Budget Responsibility is saying that


spending to, if you like, mitigate the effects of austerity and


increasing spending are going to pose a significant risk particularly


with some the uncertainties round Brexit, is that a responsible


economic argument for Labour to be putting forward? Well is it really


responsible to have a plan where by our nurses are going, working flat


out, an not having sufficient money to get through the week, where


families are ?1400 a year worse off, as a result of austerity, while


giving the tax breaks to the very very richest in our society. There


is something morally bankrupt about that and there has to be a better


distribution of the wealth of nation. Let me put that to Kwasi.


Morally bankrupt he say, isn't the proof in the pudding the result of


the election, because you are not listening, to the public, when it


comes to things like pay, and cost of living and look at rates of


inflation, hitting 3%, squeeze on people's pay now, you know, it is a


big cut, the average pay is about 1.8% pay rise, 3% inflation, people


can't afford, things in the way they could. You need to change your


policy S Three things to that. If you look at the economic management


we have had since 2010. We have reduced the deficit by two thirds. I


am talking about now. It is is a broader debate. If we don't have a


decent economy, people will suffer far more, than if we have a well run


economy, that is self evident. That is self evident. People are


saying... If we look at the alternative, we have the record


numbers of. Employment, the lowest unemployment rate 40 year, we have


reduced the deficit by two-third and we have over the last seven years on


the compounded annual basis we have grown faster than every other


country in Europe. How do you... I am establishing with you, I


understand that. This is a God record. We accept that there are


difficulties in terms of rising living costs, but, what I would say


is the alternative f you go down a Labour route you will increase the


debt, you will increase you could increase inflation, and you could


increase interest rates and that would be very damaging to people on


lower incomes. Andy McDonald? That is ludicrous, more pain to inflict


on the most vulnerable and worse off in society. I will challenge Kwasi


to come to my constituency and come into some of the territories where


people are really suffering on this Tory regime. They are having the


toughest of times and yet we sit back and think this all in the


garden is Rosie, it isn't. For many millions in the country and for him


to suggest this is a success story, I would hate to see what failure


would look like, this has been a miserable time for thousands and


millions of people, right across this land and it is about time the


Tories woke up to that. There is a huge outpouring and embracing of


Labour's message to say we can order society in a totally different way


and we cannot simply go on pandering to the richest in oat who can afford


to pay a little more. A quick response, we were told you are not


deaf as a government. Frazer will know the richest 1% are paying more


as a proportion of tax. Is that making nurses feel better or


teachers feel better about the cost of living? Something I have accepted


the cost of living is an issue, we have address it with regards to the


personal allowance, we more than doubled that. The wait you pay tax


is higher now, than was ever the case in the past. Thank you both


very much. Briefly, is this where the argument is going to be putting


Brexit to one side slightly, looking at the economic tussle between the


two parties? Yes it will be about fairness. The Tories have a strong


story to tell. Look at whose incomes have gone up, whose have gone done.


It is richest whose incomes have fallen the most. The Conservatives


have been progressive. Those at the bottom have been protected. Is that


how you see? It The argument for austerity has been dropped. She


didn't make it a priority so it is difficult for them to bring it back


to the top of the agenda again. Thank owe both P


Yesterday Jeremy Corbyn met the EU's Brexit negotiator in Brussels


and to get into his good books he gave him an Arsenal shirt.


So our question for today is, what was written on the back?


or d) Seumas, I'm not sure this is a great idea.


At the end of the show Fraser and Anoosh


With we are saying goodbye to Kwasi Kwarteng.


Train drivers on Southern Rail have voted for fresh


strikes over the summer, after rejecting a pay


Govia Thameslink had offered staff a four-year pay deal worth nearly


But the drivers' union Aslef has announced three days of strikes


at the start of August, after its members voted


Meanwhile, the Transport Secretary, Chris Grayling, has announced


a ?13 million fine for the train company for the disruption


And in the Commons yesterday, he also took aim at the Labour Party.


Let's be clear about what's been done today, I have, for months,


said the problems on this railway are not purely down to industrial


But, I'm also very clear, Mr Speaker, and so is Chris Gibb's


report, that the prime responsibility for the trouble


on that network in the last few months has come from trade unions,


fighting the battles of 30 years ago, and still they get support


from the Labour Party, and the reality is it is


the Labour Party and the unions colluding to bring trouble


Well, Andy McDonald is still with us - he was opposite Chris Grayling


And from Tunbridge Wells we're joined by Conservative MP


Huw Merriman, who represents the Bexhill and Battle


We did ask Aslef - the train drivers' union -


if anyone was available for interview, but no one was.


Delighted you are here. We heard Chris Grayling saying Labour was


colluded with the union over this industrial action, do you support


the industrial action? That is not true. And if Chris Grayling has any


evidence of this terrible lie he is trying to perpetuate, let him come


forward with it. He makes it up. It is not true there has been that sort


of discussion with the trade unions at all. Do you support the


industrial action though? Well, I support passengers in their bid to


have a railway that is safe, and secure and accessible. You do


support the industrial action It find it staggering that the Tories


are prepared to compromise on safety when it is clear we need a second


member of crew on that, every train, who is critically trained in safety.


We have seen evidence of it, look at the Watford issue months ago, driver


incapacitated, who led the passengers safely away from that


train? It was the guard. And these people are talking about taking


guards off trains and having them depart stations without that safety


critical person onboard. It is plain. It is a dangerous game. I


want and answer, do you support the industrial actionsome I do support


the industrial action, because it is standing up for passengers, for


safety, for accessibility, these are things that we all should be


standing up for, instead of compromising on it and putting


people at risk. I wish Tories would wake up and realise that is what the


people want, and it isn't beyond the wit to Rossiter a train to make sure


that it is properly staffed, in terms of not only driver, which they


can't do because they didn't recruit enough or assess what was available,


and making sure that second critical person is onboard. Right. It is is a


simple matter. You don't care about passenger safety Hugh merry man? I


do. I commute from East Sussex to Parliament, so of course I care


about my safety and my constituent, this strike is about a rejection of


a pay rise, this is not a strike based on the technology, that is the


overtime ban, so for Andy McDonald to talk about whether it is morally


wrong for people to be given big pay rises versus 1% for nurses and not


condemn a strike with a 23% pay rise has been reject is hypocrisy. It


isn't just about safety it is about pay rise, why should Aslef go on


strike when they have rejected a 24% pay rise taking salaries from


?39,000 to 60,000? Well, you have to get the detail of that, this


franchise... That is a massive pay rise. Hang on, hang on, it


predicated on the basis that people work their overtime, days off, do we


sensibly want to have a railway system that is run where people are


working six and seven days a week? This is crazy. As far, hang on, let


us be clear about what was being offered, because as I understand it,


the pay offer would have taken the base salary, from 39,000 to just


over 60,000, for the existing 35 hour week, four days a week.


Well, you are going to have to have Aslef come on and give you their


details. It is not a seven day week, which is what you said? The basis if


you are running a railway on overtime, how mad is that? You


should have enough people properly employed to do the proper working


week and not rely on people to turn up. Chris Gibbs said so, if you, the


Gibb report says a so. Let us go back to Hugh, because there was


overwhelming support for rejecting that pay rise, so if there was


overwhelming support for it, the grievances must be big. We have to


be clear, this rejection has been on pay, the overtime ban that is in


place is about the technology, so this is purely about pay. And it


can't be right when pay is only going up by 1.8% that a 24% pay rise


can be rejected. I would urge the drivers to think about my


constituents, commuters who are not earning like like this doing more


than 35 hours a week and can't get to work and are losing their jobs


for their commute, or not seeing their families. Families. It is


fair. Andy McDonald needs to think about all worker, that may belong to


a use one that subsidises the Labour Party.


What about the company? Do they not take responsibility for the


appalling service that they have put out on a daily basis? They have just


been penalised by ?13 million, their share under the contract for


cancellations. What's been made clear under the independent report


is the primary cause of the appalling performance has actually


been the unions. The ?13 million is a small proportion of the blame, the


big proportion lies with the unions for going on strike where they can't


justify it. The new technology has been deemed safe. Its on-board on


13% of the network and has for decades. The unions reject that and


have rejected it continuously. I hosted a debate not long ago where


the whole safety argument was challenged. By the unions


continually in the way that Andy Macdonald has stated. Until that is


resolved, those actions are going to continue. I was one of the people


there. At that stage, the unions were demanding that the independent


rail safety regulator gave his opinion. I was keen for that as


well. He did so and he said it has been used for decades and is safe


across the country and safe on Southern rail. As soon as that came


out, it was deemed to be a whitewash. There is always just


another excuse as to why the strike is going on. There's no logic in


this. It leads me to believe that that is collusion between the unions


and labour. Andy Macdonald has rejected that. They are messing


around with my constituents lives and it is incredibly shellfish. The


report did find that union action was the primary cause for the


network failure. The unions have called it a slap on the wrist. Do


you accept that? Who paid him? Who paid Chris Gibb? GTR. He supposed to


be independent. How are you independent if you are doing a


report into an organisation that was paying you? You quoted from the


reporter said it was a thing earlier. There are lots of good


things in the report. Except for the things you don't agree with. I


really do think. Let's have an honest think about this. The ?13.4


million fine, isn't it remarkable that a good deal of that is recycled


into doing what we've been asking all along. More people on trains.


Why don't the government just wake up and make sure there is a guard on


every train and get this strike over. People are talking about the


page offer rejected, this is about safety and security and access


ability. They want the best railway in the world and it is about time we


had sensible conversations about it. It is also about pay. To be clear.


Hugh Merriman, what made the government take so long to act on


this? I've been through the contract with the transport select committee


and it is quite a technical clause. Southern said it was down to the


fault of industrial action. The government has demonstrated that


some of the causes were Southern. I'm critical of both sides. My


problem with the Labour Party position is that it is completely


one-sided. They are showing they are not a government in waiting because


they are sticking up for well-paid individuals rather than passengers


who rely on the trains to get to work and to see their families.


Thank you very much. The Shadow Chancellor,


John McDonnell, recently said a million people take to the streets


to change the Government, and endorsed a so-called


"Day of Rage" in London. Well, as you might have noticed,


the Government is still in place. So do protests and placard-waving


really change anything? We'll discuss that in a moment,


but first, let's have a look at a few of the more memorable


demonstrations from recent years. # Welcome to the future


of your world...# Police in capitals across Europe


have taken no chances, turning out in force to keep


a tight rein on demonstrations against alleged corporate greed


and government cuts. A protest today in the city,


marketed as a day of rage at the Government,


slightly underwhelmed. # My friends, my dear,


my love, my God... Angela Merkel chose liberal


Hamburg, the gateway It's a decision


she may be regretting. # There'll be trouble


when the kidz come out.# We're joined now by Matthew Bolton


from Citizens UK - that's a group that helps community


groups organise to bring He's published a new book


called How to Resist. And Jamie Kelsey-Fry


is a contributing editor at New Internationalist magazine,


and a supporter of various protests including


the anti-capitalist Occupy Matthew, you described the recent


day of rage in tended to shut down London as indulgent and useless.


Why? For two reasons. Firstly, it gives protest a bad name. Firstly


because it is ineffective, there is no power analysis, 300 activists are


not going to bring down the government. By its own stated aims,


it's an effective. It's also opportunistic. We are working around


North Kensington, residents associations, at that time, talking


about the fire at Grenfell Tower, what the people wanted was to know


who died and who survived and have safe accommodation and to have their


voices heard. They felt that cause had been hijacked by external


activists. In that sense, you are not helping the campaign, some of


them that you support because you don't achieve your stated aim to


bring down the government. Many protests happened in the past that I


fear have put people off the cause rather than getting them to support.


But loads of protests have changed the course of history. Mass


mobilisations. You can't cut, purely a outraged about tax avoidance. The


occupier movement globally changed the dialogue about inequality.


That's incredibly valuable. What do you think about changing the


narrative, even if you can't point to specific policies and governments


haven't been brought down but you change the political debate? I'm


absolutely in favour of protest. There's lots of things people are


angry about. I do agree that changing the narrative is important


but hopefully we are making a tangible difference to people's


lives. Think about the living wage campaign, the great benefit is


something specific and tangible to address to each employer. Do you pay


?9 75 in London? Can you create a political consensus around the need


for higher wage? What are they as impactful and as big in terms of


just doing them, seeing them? Just a volume of people? Does it have the


power? I think you need both. Seeing the women's march in January when 21


million people marched worldwide. A fantastic demonstration of


solidarity, raising awareness, what do you do after the March? How do


you turn that motivation into something tangible to get your


employer to put best practice into practice. That is how people can


make a difference. Isn't it to go for something achievable? If you


say, let's get rid of the government, get rid of Donald Trump,


those things don't happen because of a March. But getting votes for women


did happen. Let's change the dialogue about 1% and the 99%. That


did happen. If you're looking at a couple of people with placards,


notoriously, that is ineffective. So what is the point? Because there are


types of protests that do. In 2013, people went down to West Sussex and


we managed to controversial eyes fracking over the period of five


days whereas before people believed David Cameron when he said it is


safe when it is not. Doesn't that underline the argument that it is


better to go for I particular policy objective? They are both important.


What we would like the viewers to come away from this segment with is,


we've got to go out and do something. Globally, there is a


historical total distrust in politics -- distrust. You can't just


about every five years and that is you done, we want people to be


political everyday. There are so many ways of doing that. We are


looking at government after governments that just fail is. How


did you feel about Jamie's move when he sat outside St Paul's Cathedral


during the occupied protests? Was it worthwhile? The occupier movement


was exactly the right motive and moment but I feel it was missing a


certain method. Within the energy created there, it was front-page


news for weeks but because the stated aims of the protest remained


quite broad, an end to inequality, we do want that. But everybody is


responsible for that and no one is responsible. How can we target that


to a specific decision-makers and that is what the book offers a


method for. But putting your money where your mouth is is important.


Rather than just waiting for election. Isn't he and others who go


out on big marches with big stated aims, like Occupy, bringing those to


the attention of politicians? For many people. Occupy is mainly


movement. Absolute rubbish. You weren't there. You may say that


about it isn't true. The 1%, for example. You think that the share of


income going up and up, in fact, income and equality is at a 30 year


low. What is wrong with the middle-class protesting? There is


nothing wrong but if you want a revolution, you want middle-class


guys to go to hamburg, jetsetting around bringing down capitalism,


that is not particularly practical. There are many more practical ways


you can support things. You are out of touch with what was said, mate.


Who were the majority of people involved? There is a play about Cap


NICE occupier, about one homeless guy who woke up on the steps of


Saint Pauls. In the play, he talks about the composite of the people


living there. He said it was like being in prison. There was every


class of this society there. That is what was extraordinary. We couldn't


turn away people who are homeless or had alcohol issues, we had to


embrace them. There is nothing wrong with middle-class activists but the


question is, do we have someone who is directly affected by the issue at


the heart of protest? That was the issue after Grenfell Tower. The


living wage campaign was the voice of children of people earning less


than the living wage. Look at Jeremy Corbyn's fans and momentum. Look at


his rallies. They were accused of being middle class. Look how the


visuals affected his popularity. In a way, it is irrelevant. The


mainstream media underestimated it, we didn't. We were there all the


time. He was speaking about the many and not the few. Where have you


heard that before? The 99% and the 1%. If Jeremy Corbyn became Prime


Minister and didn't enact some parts of his manifesto, for example


getting rid of Jewish and fees. -- tuition fees. Would you go out and


protest? Absolutely. The manifesto is important. But it is important to


have local community to force politics to grow up in the 21st


century and stop representing the one present. One of the risks here


and the reason for writing the book is a million more 80-21 -year-olds


floated in 2017 and they did in 2015. There's a real problem that


cynicism and rage may be the product rather than channelling that


interaction. It's about democracy not being something you just watch


on television. Thank you very much. Now, it's Bastille Day and,


as always in Paris, the President oversees Europe's oldest military


parade along the Champs Elysee. Merriman.


Donald Trump is in Paris for a two day visit. It is hard to believe it


is just over a year since Emmanuel Macron launched his movement. He is


President and his party has a majority on the French National


Assembly. Let us take a look back. # Does it almost feel that


nothing changed at all? # Does it almost feel that


you've been here before # Now how am I going to be


an optimist about this? I'm joined now by Alexandre Holroyd,


he's a member of the French National Assembly


for the Northern Europe region. Congratulations and welcome to the


daily politics, it sin credible a party that didn't really exist a few


years ago, is now in charge of France, with your President Emmanuel


Macron, but that also meanses that expectations are going to be very


high, how are you going to manage them? They are very high, and I


think that the substance is the change, the fact we have done this


incredible thing of building a party from scratch in a year, and of


winning over the presidency and the National Assembly in a year speaks


volume about how much the French want change, so we have a sense of


responsibility. We know we don't have a choice and we are going to


get to work. We got cracking the day after the election, I was in Paris


by 9.00 the day after and we have passed our first law, which is the


liberalisation of the labour market. Yes, you could argue, that there was


a low turn out, relatively low in the Parliamentary election, that


there is disenchantment. You say there is a big mandate for change,


and for Emmanuel Macron that is true. How do you deal with that that


exists because there was a low turn out in the Parliamentary election?


So there was a low turn out in the Parliamentary election, although,


for a lot of other countries including the UK that would be quite


high, what is clear is that there's been a lack of explanation of what


policy makers are doing in past years or decades and one of the


first decisions that Emmanuel Macron took was to go in front of Congress,


which both Houses of Parliament to explain what the vision, the


direction of travel is, that is very important. Have do a better job.


Press December sores have tried to reform France and the labour laws


there and have failed. In part because of the strength of the


union, and also Parliamentary opposition, in the past, how are you


going to deal with that fight that will come? We will deal with that


fight. There were two main big difference, the first is that we


have been elected on a mandate that outlined what we were doing n detail


of the procedure, we won both elections on that programme which


never changed, from the moment we launched the movement to the moment


we got in office. That is different to what we did before. So there is a


difference of procedure, the second thing is we want to talk to the


unions, there has never been... That is a novel thing. Politics talking


to unions. It is in France. We have had over 60 meets between the Prime


Minister and the union, we are negotiating every step with the


union, sop of the unions who have been opposed to past reform, today


are supporting the reforms or at least working with Government to go


in the right direction. Let us talk about Trump, because you have beaten


the UK to it, you have got the American President in town for those


Bastille Day celebration, is Emmanuel Macron embracing Donald


Trump? Natural is not the way I would put it. 100 years ago, if I


remember it was the 6th April 1917, the Americans entered the First


World War and they sent troops which died in battlefield in northern


France. This was 100 years ago and this 14th July, like every 14th July


we have foreign troops which march alongside French troops. This year


it is the American troops in memory of this alliance that was again,


sort of rekindled in the Second World War, it was only natural we


would receive the head of state. We have lots of common naturalties with


the US, working on terrorism, global security, Emmanuel Macron has been


clear on the difference, for instance on the Paris accord and


with this discourse of between long-standing allies and allies that


will remain far after Emmanuel Macron subpoena President and far


after Donald Trump, we have to keep in mind what we have in common


rather than what separates us. We will come on to Brexit in a moment,


what do you think of Emmanuel Macron, and his chances of success?


I think he is coming across as Trumpesque, his mask is slipping as


this liberal darling, at least in the UK, because we have seen him


making France speeches from Versailles, not talking to the


press, saying his thoughts are too complex. Comparing himself to


Jupiter. That will make people's opinions of him change. People in


this country who love centrists, a bit confused by some of the


symbolism he is giving off. Do you think he is coming off as a bit


grand. He has new politicians of course, who have never been in


elected office. It looks and feel different. Does he look and feel


that different when you see him in Versailles. I think he does. The


French need this drama, they need this direction, in a country which


is, really doesn't know where to go, you have somebody who created a


party out of his own momentum. It is an incredible thing to watch, the


creation from nothing, of a party not just won the presidency but went


on to take the Parliament as well. And I think, right now, where


leadership is nowhere, and in Britain we are lacking leadership


too, France has managed to produce someone who has won the confidence


of the country. I would allow him to be big headed. He is sat next to


Trump, thumbs up, and he fetes away with it. He made his comment about


the Paris Agreement, he said Macron, I want to make the planet great


again, mocking a parody of Donald Trump saying he wants to make


America great again. He made that video addressing the American people


about the terrible President, but look at him now, he is Trump's new


best friend. What about Brexit, what does Emmanuel Macron... He doesn't


compare himself to Jupiter, that is the press who cap pairs him to be


Jupiter. Thank you for that point of orrer. Would he object to that


comparison. What he did in front of Parliament is what has been lacking


in France, which is give a direction and sense of where the vision is


going. It's form of the constitution, it is addressing both


Houses of Parliament to show where we are going, that is what the


French want to here, a description of what is going ho happen and the


reasons why we are doing the reforms which is sometimes quite hard. Is he


a fan of Brexit? I don't think he is a fan or a non-fan of Brexit. He is


a pro European, we campaign on a very pro European platform. We


support the Commission's effort to have a common European position an


we will stick by it, which is to support the European Commission in


its effort to negotiate with the UK. It is is a question I am often


asked, what I often answer is Brexit is not as much of an issue in France


as it is here. Accept he wants to push for closer cooperation between


the Euro-zone, he is talking about Democratic Convention, what are


they? So this is the way we developed the national programme,


which is the association of citizens talking, because we think what


Europe needs now is to bring back citizens into the vision of what


Europe should come. We would have to understand what they expect from


Europe, what they desire Europe to be, which is what we have lost track


of, and associated that with professionals, to come up with a


sort of more constitutional vision of what it is rather than sort of,


sort of grass root vision. We have to let you go. Happy Bastille Day.


Time now to find out the answer to our quiz.


The question was, what was written on the back of the Arsenal


shirt Jeremy Corbyn gave Michel Barnier yesterday?


or d) Seumas, I'm not sure this is a great idea.


It has to be Seamus. That is the funniest line. It the funniest but


not the right answer. Barnier? I am afraid it was just plain old


Barnier. Do you think he was pleased to receive the shirt? He gave Jeremy


Corbyn a poster. Who did better? That was a lovely shirt.


So our relationship with Brussels once more dominated the news agenda,


let's take a look at the week in 60 seconds.


Theresa May marked her one year in office by welcoming the Spanish king


and Queen, and she finally admitted that the election had cause her some


grief. Yes, a little tear. Meanwhile Jeremy Corbyn hot-footed it to


Brussels, where he gave an Arsenal shirt to the EU Brexit negotiator


Michel Barnier. Emily Thornberry and Damian Green deputised at Prime


Minister's Questions. The first secretary didn't get the Prime


Minister's memo, you are supposed to be building consensus, men, and if


we... The Brexit secretary, David Davis, unveiled the Government's


Repeal Bill and called on other parties to support it, but Labour,


the SNP and the Liberal Democrats have threatened to veto it. More


bridge building required. Speaking of which Foreign Secretary


Boris Johnson had a message for the EU over divorce payments And I think


go whistle is an entirely appropriate expression.


Well, that was the week in 60 seconds, Barnier has said the clock


is ticking, do you expect much progress next week. It doesn't look


like David Davis and his colleagues are being... Boris Johnson said the


negotiators can go whistle about the divorce bill they have to pay. I


don't know if they will get far unless they agree to pay some of the


bill. It is going to be down to money? I have spoken to a number of


Tory MPs, who are beginning to feel that we could pay, to get the sort


of access and continuing relationship with things like


Europol and so on and so forth I think it is about money. This is a


typical street stall haggle. The EU saying we want this money and Boris


is saying you will not get any. There will be something between the


two. That will continue once we left? No, I think it will be a one


off payment and might be bigger than we would have liked but to get out


the EU is the ultimate objective. It wouldn't be a failure if we end up


paying more than we expected. Do you see that or do you think payments


for certain things will continue, aside from the sort of divorce bill?


That would be the sensible thing to do, like Frazer said, I don't see


any evidence of that happening. Theresa May has gone in for the


hardest exit she possibly can, why would she begin softening it now.


She sees it as a negotiating stance, talking of which, Jeremy Corbyn,


there with Michelle barn yes, Nicola Sturgeon, they are having their own


meetings, do they make a difference? They do, any opportunity the SNP


gets to put a spoke in the wheels it will take, and a Labour


administration, in Wales, SNP in Edinburgh, if they get a thing on


this, it will be one more rod for Theresa May's back. The transition


period, there is debate Liam Fox implying it could be a few months,


others saying two years. This is another example of minister making


it up as they go along, Labour keeps accusing the Cabinet of doing. It


looks like they are doing that, I think that don't have a queue


excited line on this. There is a long hot summer to go ahead.


Thank you for being my guests of the day. Andrew will be back on Sunday


on BBC One at 11 with the Sunday Politics and guests will include the


international Trade Secretary Liam Fox. Bye.


Download Subtitles