17/07/2017 Daily Politics

Hello, and welcome to the Daily Politics.

The Chancellor says he's being briefed against by Cabinet

colleagues unhappy about his approach to Brexit.

How destructive are the leaks to the workings of Government?

The second round of Brexit negotiations are taking

Will they make progress on the divorce settlement

Teachers, parents and pupils descend on Westminster to protest

Will standards suffer as head teachers try

As far as I remember, it went like this.

# There was I, waiting at the church.

Can quoting from songs help politicians stay in tune?

With us today are two plain-speaking MPs

who you would never catch breaking into song.

and the former Conservative Education Minister and newly-elected

chairman of the Education Select Committee, Robert Halfon.

Cabinet Ministers are not supposed to be candid,

certainly not about what goes on around the Cabinet table.

But if you've been reading the front pages in recent days, you'll have

noticed it's not a tight ship as it's meant to be,

with Chancellor Philip Hammond the target of negative briefings.

Last week, Phillip Hammond was accused of sexism after allegedly

telling Cabinet that driving trains had become so easy

In another leaked Cabinet conversation, the Sunday Times

reported yesterday that the Chancellor

described public-sector workers as "overpaid",

after pensions were taken into account.

Philip Hammond, who campaigned for Remain in the EU referendum,

was on The Andrew Marr Show yesterday, and addressed

If you want my opinion, some of the noise is generated

by people who are not happy with the agenda that I have,

over the last few weeks, tried to advance, of ensuring

that we achieve a Brexit which is focused on protecting our economy,

protecting our jobs, and making sure that we can have

continued rising living standards in the future.

International Trade Secretary Liam Fox,

who was a Leave campaigner, told Andrew on the Sunday Politics this.

"I absolutely deplore leaks from the Cabinet."

Urging his colleagues to "stick to their departmental duties".

And Iain Duncan Smith criticised those leaking private Cabinet

conversations and briefing against the Prime Minister

He had some choice words for Conservative colleagues.

"Just for once, shut up, for God's sake, and let everybody else get

For more on this, we're joined by Isabel Hardman of the Spectator,

Sunny morning fare outside Parliament. Welcome to both of you.

Shock, horror, there's a difference of opinion within ministers in the

Cabinet. What's difficult is when that becomes publicly aired. How'd

you stop it? Cabinet ministers did stay quiet for the crucial period of

the government working out how it could exist in its negotiations with

the DUP, but they are now letting it out all over the front pages and

broadcast interviews, and in an pleasant conversations with one

another at Westminster parties. There is an appetite amongst senior

Tory backbenchers for Theresa May to give her Cabinet

ministers a bit of a slap down, to say that this behaviour is

unacceptable, and these open divisions are not helping. It's

partly because Conservative MPs do not want another election, and

anything that destabilises the government further, they do not

want. Theresa May's authority is shot to pieces, as is her

self-confidence, and you need both of those things to be able to give a

Cabinet Minister a dressing down in public. They may be calling for her

to rein in some of the briefing. We've been told she is expected to

remind Cabinet colleagues of the importance of keeping discussions

private when Cabinet meets tomorrow. That may be ignored. Jack Blanchard,

can she reign in this negative briefing? It doesn't feel like it at

the moment. Her spokesman said this morning she's going to talk to the

Cabinet tomorrow, but it might not be effective. The Prime Minister's

authority has completely ebbed away in a few short months. You don't get

the sort of briefings we've seen in the Sunday and Saturday papers come

from very detailed discussions of what was said in the Cabinet, unless

you have a Prime Minister with no authority. Otherwise, ministers

would be too afraid to give these sorts of briefings, cos it could

cost them their jobs. We have seen the chaos we've got in government

this morning. Is this all about Brexit? That is what Philip Hammond

was saying in his defence, that these are Brexiteer Cabinet

ministers who've got it in for him because he different type of Brexit.

Tim Shipman of the Sunday Times who wrote a key piece about this over

the weekend has point out that a lot of his sources were remainers and

Brexiteers alike, so he didn't recognise the dynamic that Hammond

was alleging. Hammond is under a great deal of pressure to relax

austerity, particularly on public sector pay, and there's a lot of

resentment about the hostility the Treasury is showing towards number

ten on this matter. The leadership is a dynamic as well. The confusion

over Brexit is more of a problem. Each Cabinet Minister has their own

position, for instance on how long the transitional period should last.

That's another example of bad discipline, and it's a problem for

Philip Hammond because he is pushing for a less hard Brexit, and that

frustrates some of his colleagues. Has the Chancellor got a tin ear

when it comes to discussions on public sector pay? He is a

Chancellor who says what he thinks. We saw it at the budget a few months

ago when he tried to increase national insurance payments, without

apparently thinking about the political implications and how

damaging it could be for him personally. We've seen it again with

his idea that public sector servants are somehow overpaid. Whether you

think that or not, it's a strong thing to be saying when these people

have had a pay freeze for seven years, and we all know that they are

thousands of pounds worse off than they were when the Tories came to

power. This is not the sort of message his colleagues want to hear

him putting across. The election was a pretty bad result for them, and

part of this was put down to the issue of public sector pay. Theresa

May said there was no magic money tree, and that's the kind of

attitude that people don't want to hear. Robert Halfon, our public

sector workers overpaid? Lower paid public sector workers have

particularly suffered. I do think they need a minimum inflationary pay

rise. Maybe very senior members of the council have been benefiting,

but in my constituency of Harlow, these people have struggled. The

time has come to do something about it. So you think that Philip Hammond

should act and be briefing in the opposite direction, saying it's time

to lift the 1% pay cut? Particularly for lower paid public sector

workers, yes. Many have struggled over the past few years because of

the difficult decisions of the economy economy. Philip Hammond did

not deny he was involved in a conversation, when he said, taking

into account pensions, public sector workers... He may have been talking

about senior public sector workers, who may be on much higher wages than

most people, public or private. We have to show public sector workers

they are valued. I've suggested a couple of ways in which this might

be done. Are the briefings against him fair? Whoever is doing these

briefings, they need to get in a cold bath or a cold shower. Not

together! And literally come out of it and have a warm pint afterwards

with one another. It's not just the Prime Minister who leads us.

Ministers lead us, and we need a strong party, we need to be unified.

All this stuff only helps Jess Phillips and her friends in the

Labour Party. If the Prime Minister has lost authority, because of the

election result and being in a hung parliament, without that strong

leadership, it's going to be very difficult to stop. The Prime

Minister has shown commanding performances in the House of

Commons, particularly at Prime Minister's Questions. We've got a

choice. Either we back the Prime Minister and have a united party, or

we let the Labour Party, who are not that far away, potentially, from

getting into Downing Street. The party has a choice. Is it coming

from a particular part of the Cabinet, the briefing? I don't know.

I'm not in the Cabinet. As has been said by Isabel Hardman, allegedly,

it's from all kinds of people. Philip Hammond thinks it comes from

Brexiteers. I've no idea. We rely on the Prime Minister and the Cabinet

ministers to lead the party and make sure we are unified and strong. Who

is winning the argument over the type of Brexit the government should

be pursuing? I think we should remain, because I think we should

belong to an alliance of democracies. But because of the

public voting the way they did, that Brexit has got to be Brexit, and

that means we get out of the governing under the EU's Court of

Justice and we don't have freedom of movement. That argument is very

prevalent in the Conservative Party, and there would be significant

consequences if we were to only half leave the EU. What would they be? We

could have a rise of a new Ukip. I think you would give a lot of

opportunity to extremist groups like the English Defence League, or what

ever it may be. I think the public would feel that democracy has been

denied, because they voted for it. Even though I voted the other way,

the public voted for it. They voted to leave the European Union, with

all the consequences. We have to leave the EU, get out of the court

of Justice, get out of the freedom of movement, and make sure we do

what the public voted for. What about Philip Hammond's news, about

putting jobs and the economy at the heart of the Brexit negotiations,

rather than immigration? I think all of us want jobs, economy and

immigration to be at the heart of the negotiations of leaving the EU.

You can have agreements with other countries in terms of making sure

jobs are protected. In terms of the Labour Party and the EU, you have

some divisions there. Do you have some sympathy? I have very little

sympathy, ever, for the Tory Cabinet. I think they've made their

bed at the moment, and they are enjoying lying in it. Do you think

Philip Hammond is sexist? Yes. Not because what he said in that

meeting. It wouldn't surprise me that he said that, but he apparently

denies it. I've seen his industrial strategy, and I saw that people like

me don't feature very heavily in it. I've seen who pays the money out

when budget cuts are made, and 86% of them fall on the poorest women. I

have seen their strategies for women, and they are decidedly

wanting. As the Chancellor, he is sexist, and it is a surprise that he

thinks a woman could even drive a train, all beat Doctor Who! The

industrial strategy, the government is putting in ?2.5 million into

apprenticeships by 2020. And many apprentices are women. Women get ?1

less pay as apprentices. That's not the case. Paid to! The service that

I saw suggested that women get paid more, as apprentices.

So - Brexit Secretary David Davis arrived in Brussels this

morning for the second round of Brexit negotiations.

He met with the EU's chief negotiator, Michel Barnier.

Here's what they had to say as they went into those talks.

Our negotiating groups will work on citizens' rights, and a financial

settlement, and also separation issues.

Our co-ordinators will engage in a political dialogue on

We made a good start last month but, as Michel says, we are now getting

And, as you have heard, it is four categories,

really, the issue of citizens' rights, the issue

of finance, the issue of separation, and of course, separately,

Let's talk to our correspondent, Kevin Connolly, who is in Brussels.

No sooner had they started that it seemed David Davies had left, had it

gone badly? It has been emphasised this wasn't a

walk-out or dramatic gesture, it was preplanned he would turn up, exhort

people to get down to business, point out the time is now for

serious work, and leave shortly afterwards for a Cabinet meeting

tomorrow in London. He will be back here on Thursday when he and Michel

Barnier will give some sort of public tone to have the talks have

gone this week. It was always the plan he would come along and exalt

others for that hard work. And would then leave them to it. We

are not sure if in those circumstances it is possible in

terms of protocol four Michel Barnier to stage but there are

plenty of negotiators and the general sense the time is now for

detail and as the European side keeps reminding us the clock started

ticking quite a while back. They have a lot to do, divorce

settlement, status of UK citizens and EU citizens, and the border of

Northern Ireland and the Republic, how much can we hope will

realistically in how productive it will be?

It is an interesting point. The Europeans have said there will be no

talks about the UK's future relationship with the EU unless and

until there is sufficient progress on those three core issues and it

will be the EU who decides when progress is sufficient.

But you don't have to fix those problems before you move onto the

trade relationship, just show there is enough agreement in principle,

and each of them in themselves is enormously problematic. Citizens

rights as an example, the UK feels it has made a fair offer on the

rights of EU citizens who will live in the UK after Brexit. Lots of

people in Brussels say this is about keeping the European Court of

Justice to oversee the rights of those European citizens. If you

leave it to British courts they will administer British laws and a future

British Government might change British law and changed the lives of

those people forever. They need the ECJ. For the UK, the involvement of

the ECJ is a red line. Even if you are talking in principle about

rights you quickly get down to something fundamental. We do not

know whether those officials who are doing the heavy lifting have agreed

a way to avoid that sort of very fundamental issue at this very early

stage. Let us talk about another

contentious point, this transitional arrangement after Britain leaves the

EU, it could potentially last if you years says Philip Hammond. Others

like Liam Fox say they see it as lasting if you months and he wanted

a time limit on it. How do politicians in Brussels view that?

Lots of people in Brussels feel they understand British politics very

well although their confidence might have been shaken by the events of

the last year. Generally it is all followed pretty closely. There is an

awareness in the British Cabinet and Parliament there is a divide between

people who are ideologues and people who are pragmatic.

I would not overestimate the extent to which there is an appetite in

Brussels to get involved in that or see it as part of negotiations.

The big fear here is that ongoing division in British politics will

produce a paralysis and inability to take a decision when push finally

comes to shove as it will before March 20 19.

The debate in Britain is watched in Brussels not in this sense it

presents the EU side with some opportunity but rather with a fear

at some point it might make it very difficult for a British Government

to take clear, decisive steps on issues like the European Court of

Justice for example when the moment comes.

Thank you. And we're joined now

from Worcester by former Labour MP Gisela Stuart who co-chaired

the Vote Leave campaign. Welcome back to the Daily Politics.

On that point, the ongoing division is being played out in British

politics in the Cabinet over the type of Brexit which should be

pursued, some politicians in Brussels are worried it may lead to

paralysis in negotiations, do you agree?

I thought it was a very fair assessment, we tend to forget when

we view this from the British perspective is it is as much in the

EU's interest to reach an agreement as in hours.

They have some problems because it isn't just Brussels and the chief

negotiator, they are also capital cities which have a say in this and

the German elections don't happen until September with political

arguments. Here in the UK, we should be aware

people listen to what is being said. If we go down the road of trying to

rerun the referendum rather than actually implementing it and finding

ways of getting the best deal for both sides, then I think we are

complicating matters and we went to the right thing by our voters.

Is there an attempt to rerun the referendum? Kevin described it as

ideologues and pragmatists. Could that lead to a stake in negotiations

if the splits continue within Cabinet where people cannot make a

decision on important issues like the role of the ECJ?

There is an expectation that Cabinet does make a decision.

You have a deadline by which you have to have agreed the broad

principles and what shape that is, whether it is a clear memorandum of

understanding, the principles of how we leave have to be established.

We are spending too much time on arguing whether it will be six

months or nine. We need to get down to the real

practicalities. As David Davis is negotiating with

Michel Barnier to have these broad outlines and has to come back to

London, Michel Barnier has to go back to the capital cities.

Let us talk about substance, the divorce Bill, will Britain probably

have to pay something in the region of 60 billion euros?, and this

payment would form the basis of the UK's access to the single market?

They cannot go automatically beyond our date of leaving, that will be

part of it. This is jumping the game if we fix on a figure. Let us

establish what our legal obligations of which have to be met.

Do you agree there will have to be not just the money that is paid as

part of legal obligations, some people feel we shouldn't pay at all,

but there should be a payment that would give us the sort of access we

want to the EU single market? Yes, it is a divorce and to help

people understand it the best is to understand what that divorce

settlement might be. What British politicians have to

decide what is the opportunity cost of not paying? Is that hampered

access to the single market? What is it we can afford and what could we

afford not to do? If you listen to Rebecca

Long-Bailey, she said the Labour position was to have our cake and

eat it and maintain the benefits we have within the customs union.

John MacDonald said the party wanted to quit the single market.

Which is it? You had to ask them, they have meetings together when

they come up with these lines. The truth is everyone wants to have

our cake and eat it, I want to be a size ten! We all want the very best

but what none of us including the Cabinet which is why Liam Fox says

we're not paying any money and David Davies says we might, the problem

is, we all want the very best, but no one was to take any of the

downside. The British public made this

decision. There will be some downside and the politicians have to

sell that as an opportunity cost of what the British public might

perceive to be a good thing. Do you accept that, what positions

should be doing is being honest with people?

Politicians should, and our negotiators, should put their

energies into seeing how we can get the best deal.

Let us and raffle this terminology, single market means we continue to

accept the supremacy of the ECJ. And free movement of Labour.

Not according to Tony Blair, he thinks we can get in reform deal,

and so did Barry Gardiner, current Labour politician on the shadow

front bench. Is that a possibility?

Given we tried to reform it 15 years ago, and Tony Blair could not find

anyone who said they agreed with him, David Cameron couldn't get

these reforms. If I read the continental papers today, there is

no appetite certainly in the German press of saying we can negotiate

that. The fundamental principle of the

single market is it contains free movement of Labour.

Do you agree that that is of the table as far as you're concerned in

terms of any single market membership?

The Prime Minister came back with a deal. David Cameron. The public

voted against it, they voted to the VE you. That means leaving the

single market and the ECJ. Let us talk about the repeal, that

is being cited by opposition as the area where they will try and change

the shape of Brexit, what you say? The Prime Minister has said all

European law will be incorporated into British law. I genuinely can't

see what the big problem is and the big upset is.

Then it will be decided which of those laws we don't need.

That is a perfectly fair process. Who decides which once we do and

obeyed. Parliament will.

Answer about these Henry VIII palace where there is a fear the active

will make decisions, amend some of the legislation that has come from

EU law into domestic law here, and they will do that without the say-so

of Parliament. Given the ingenuity of Parliament

and people like Jess in Parliament, I doubt things will be done in the

way you describe. The people who are saying they don't

want the Repeal Bill are those who actually want to subvert the will of

the British people. The agenda is they want to remain in

the EU. Are you trying to subvert the will

of the British people? Absolutely not, I voted to trigger

Article 50 which is what my constituents voted for. When I

Krsticic is worth asked to vote again they decided they did not this

only want your lot willy-nilly making the laws, they wanted a

decent opposition. The reason we have a hung on it is because they

did not like the arrogance of Theresa May calling an election. We

are there to represent our constituents.

Then you have nothing to worry about because there will be proper

scrutiny. Finally, since we mention Tony

Blair, he said he made a mistake about Jeremy Corbyn and believes he

could become Prime Minister on a left-wing ticket in terms of the

economy, did you also make a mistake about him?

I have given up predictions given what I saw in the last election.

You predicted the referendum. I fought on one side. Can I come

back to what you said about the great repeal act, it is astonishing

here is an opportunity for Parliament to shape its own laws

rather than having them shipped by institutions in Brussels and we

should fully embrace that, take the ones which we have got, and we will

have the final say rather than another institution. I would think

Parliament should regard that as immensely empowering.

Thank you, on that positive note. Yesterday, campaigners descended

on Westminster to call In their manifesto,

the Conservatives pledged an extra ?4 billion for the schools

budget in England. But campaigners say

that is still a real-terms cut in funding per pupil of 7%

between 2015 and 2022. The Fair Funding For All Schools

campaign is calling for those And Jo Yurky, who helped organise

that protest, joins us now. The Conservatives pledged an extra

?4 billion for schools in the manifesto, in real terms increase,

is that not enough? No, the Institute for Fiscal Studies

says that represents a funding cut of 7% for the end of this

Parliament. Over ?2 billion has come out of our schools already. Parents

are unhappy on the impact over our children, class sizes increasing,

subjects cut, staff being let go, teaching assistants, support staff

that parents value, they are being let go.

Extracurricular activities being cut, the arts club, science club,

increasingly, parents being asked to make payments by direct debit to

prop up the school budget. This is not acceptable.

We are unhappy about it. What are you asking for, how much would the

budget need to increase to protect that per-pupil funding?

We are asking for the government to listen to the educational

professionals who have been saying that there is a funding problem in

our schools for some time. We are asking for purpose pupil funding to

be protected during this Parliament, and to listen to parents.

Headteachers are trusted by their parents. Why isn't the government

listening to them? Do you also want a reassessment on how the money is

spent? There was a lot of debate about the funding formula that went

to schools. We support the principle of the funding formula, but what we

think is that they have not abided any funds to be able to deliver it,

so it seems obvious that if the amount of money is shrinking, and we

already know that it isn't enough to sustain our schools, that it doesn't

matter how you share it out. There isn't enough money in our system to

support our schools. Thank you very much.

Well, Robert Halfon was a minister in the Department For Education

until last month, and was elected to be the chair of the Education

You have just heard Joe Root Yankee. Why are you not listening to

educational professionals and teachers? In my new role as chair of

the committee, I genuinely want to work with MPs on the committee and

look at the question of resources, and find out exactly how much is

needed. How much is needed for schools, what is going on in terms

of the problems that have just been set out. Having said that, whilst I

will look at resources, it is worth mentioning that there are more good

students, more students in good or outstanding schools, sorry, than

ever before, despite the very difficult situation in the economy.

The core budget was protected. You highlighted the manifesto commitment

of an extra ?4 billion, which is important. So even with the

difficulties the government faced with the economy, they have put

money into schools. My committee will look at the question of

resources. She said that we have to protect per-pupil funding. Of

course, but I would like to find out the sum that is needed, and to speak

to all independent people as part of the committee. Just to be clear, you

want to see per-pupil funding protected as it stands, so reverse

the cuts that are being made between 2015 and 2020, which would result in

something like a 7% cut in per-pupil funding? I want to find out what the

exact figure is. That is the true figure, if you believe the Institute

of fiscal 's to. I'm not saying I don't believe them, but the purpose

of the committee is to look at evidence from teachers and other

groups, find out the resources that schools need, and then, with a

figure that the committee believes schools need, rather than making a

pledge on TV today. In principle, you want to see per-pupil funding

protected, do you? Of course. Because it isn't at a moment. It's a

very difficult economic situation. We have more students in good or

outstanding schools. That's because we have more students overall. The

government did protect core funding of schools. Overall funding in cash

terms has gone up, but because of the increase of students in our

schools... Could that be to do with previous funding levels? That's why

the government announced an extra 4 billion in the manifesto. Let's look

at the evidence from a range of sources. Have you told the schools

where you are going to get your research from? We will talk to

practitioners, to teachers, to other institutes. Parents? Both my sons

have 32 children in their class now for the first time ever since they

started going to school. There are more children in my kids' class at

an outstanding school, because there are more children in each class.

Labour pledged to spend more on funding for education. How would

that be funded? Well, not being a frontbencher, I assume it's from

different choices that are made, different choices about who we give

tax relief to, and smaller tax takes from those at the top is always the

thing that was floated during the election. So you are talking about

different choices being made to the Conservatives in terms of taxes. Are

you also talking about removing the 1% pay cap so that teachers can be

paid more, and increasing the budget for education and schools in England

overall, so that per-pupil funding could be protected as it was? Of

course. Surely that's what everybody would want to see. Everybody wants

to see that, but you are not convinced yet until you say you've

seen all the figures from different sources, although I am still not

quite sure where they would come from. Lift the 1% cap and increase

per-pupil funding? I think it's important the committee looks at all

the evidence. The government has said there will be an extra ?4

billion and the per-pupil funding will be protected. The committee

will look at all these issues and see what resources are needed for

schools. One of the issues you can look at is stopping the expansion of

free schools. Is that something you would support in terms of releasing

more money? Not necessarily, no. From what I understand, free schools

have been successful. Not in my constituency. I don't see why

parents should not be able to set up free schools if they want to.

Because free schools cannot be set up on the whim, the desires of a

group of people, when the need is an important thing. In my area, there

are not enough school places, and no schools are being set up because the

local authority is not allowed to set up new school places. But in

another area, where it was unnecessary, a school was opened,

and that affected the other schools in the area. It has to be done on

need, not desire. We have to have some sort of standard, those who are

in charge of everybody's kids, has to have some sort of standard based

on need. Labour said they were going to scrap university tuition fees in

their manifesto. Jeremy Corbyn also said he wanted to get rid of student

debt. Angela Rayner said that would cost up to ?100 billion. John

McDonnell said yesterday it was an ambition. Has it been kicked into

the long grass? It seems that way. I have definitely got an ambition to

make education free for all, right up to the end of our lives. However,

I did think it was a bit of a push to suggest that people like me, who

paid fees, might get it back. What about student debt? Should that be

dropped by Labour? I don't know how big an issue it is. It's more than

just saying drop it. Drop it may be for those who are already in jobs.

The clear impression was given by Labour at the general election that

they were going to scrap and wipe out student fees. That was the clear

impression given. Do you think people voted on that basis? Of

course. People would have voted because Labour said there were going

to scrap it, and now they are saying they would not necessarily do that.

We need to say to students that they have the choice to go to university,

but they also have a choice of doing an apprenticeship, or even a degree

apprenticeship. You earn while you learn. You earn a minimum wage. How

many people in the Cabinet's children are doing that? And you are

virtually guaranteed to get a job afterwards, because 90% of

apprentices get a job straightaway. Thank you. We will leave it there.

Livestock contribute significantly towards global warming,

generating 14.5% of all manmade greenhouse gas emissions,

Simon Fairlie is editor of The Land Magazine,

and runs a microdairy of Jersey cows in Dorset.

He maintains that one of the best ways of tackling climate change

and feeding the growing world population would be by taxing

Meat is a luxury, and it's time we started taxing it as such.

Firstly, feeding cereals to animals is an inefficient way

As grazing land becomes more scarce, it will soon be difficult to supply

a predicted population of 9 billion people with a diet as rich in meat

as we in the industrialised world currently enjoy.

Also, eating the amount of meat we currently do causes

Livestock contributes significantly towards global warming,

through methane emissions and other greenhouse gases.

What's more, eating a lot of meat isn't a healthy diet anyway.

So how can we reduce meat eating to sustainable levels?

The sensible way would be to tax fossil fuels, or otherwise

reduce their consumption, because we have to do that anyway

Meat production would decline because grazing land would be needed

for timber and biomass production, and artificial fertilisers used

for growing animal feed would become more expensive.

Tragically, there is not much prospect of this

The alternative is to tax meat directly, and the easiest way

of doing this is to apply VAT at 20%.

There is already a mechanism for doing this, and consumers

are used to paying VAT on luxury items such as ice cream.

While VAT would apply to factory farms and supermarkets,

small farms with a turnover of less than ?85,000 could remain exempt,

along with small shops, farmers' markets, food clubs and so on.

This would help to make meat production more sustainable,

and it would keep consumers in touch with the source of their food.

Taxing meat may not be the ideal solution,

And Simon Fairlie joins us now from Exeter.

A gorgeous farm you've got there. Do you think people might feel your

idea for taxing meat, or putting VAT on meat at 20%, would be a bit nanny

state? I don't think it's any more nanny state than taxing anything

else, really. We tax things for different reasons, and there are

reasons for taxing meat. Could you convince people that meat is a

luxury item in that sense? Not me personally, but I think society is

gradually moving in that direction. A bit more than gradually. Quite

quickly. Should people be penalised for being meat eaters? I wouldn't

call attacks are penalised age. It's simply paying the costs of what it

takes to produce something. The environmental costs associated with

meat productions are such, and they are not factored in at the moment,

and they should be, as they are with other goods. Let's get our guests'

reaction. IU persuaded by this idea? It could kill a lot of with one

stone. I wasn't convinced, but I found what was being said very

compelling. I think we need a cultural change where we think that

meat is a luxury, because it is not right at the moment that I can buy

two chickens to feed 20 people for ?8. That just doesn't seem right,

and there is a huge environmental cost to us all keeping eating meat.

Nanny state or otherwise, we have got to wake up to the fact that

cereal fed animals, we will not be able to carry on very much longer.

This is potentially going to be a tax that is regressive and hits the

poor more than it hits the rich, but I do feel that we've got to do

something. We can't just keep kicking the can down the road. What

do you think? The Chancellor might jump on the chance of more tax in

the coffers? As someone on the Atkins diet, I find that quite

interesting. I am wary of introducing new taxes to solve every

problem. It would hit the lowest paid. There are some important

nutrients in meat, and it can be a very healthy form of food. We've got

to stop thinking that every solution can be solved by taxing people. You

solve these things by education, as highlighted in your piece, rather

than taxation. Perhaps we need to do more to educate people about the

things that have just been described, rather than saying more

tax, that would hit the lowest paid the most. Simon, where have you

taken your campaign to, and what is the response to it? I wouldn't say

I'm campaigning on it. I'm simply observing it and talking about it.

The idea is moving forward. In Chatham House, the English think

tank, it's being put forward. The Danish government have been

proposing it. The idea is gradually gaining momentum, and I'm sticking

my oar in, really, and saying that if we are going to tax it, VAT is

probably the best and easiest way to do it. Thank you for joining us.

Now, the Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell said at an event

at the Glastonbury Music Festival that the victims of the Grenfell

Tower fire were "murdered by political decisions".

It's a statement that he's been criticised for,

even by some in the Labour Party, and one he was asked to defend

I was extremely angry with what went on.

Political decisions were made which resulted in the deaths

Murder means a volition to kill another human being,

There is a long history in this country of the concept of social

murder, where decisions are made with no regard to the

And, as a result of that, people have suffered,

that is what has happened here, and I am angry about it.

I believe social murder has occurred in this instance.

The Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, describing

the Grenfell Tower fire as "social murder".

Here to explain is the historian Giles Udy,

Welcome to the Daily Politics. The phrase comes from Engels, what did

he mean? When he was writing come he was

talking about a different Britain, of 1845, life expectancy for a

working-class woman was 41, and his analysis of what was going on in the

country at the time was such that conditions were leading to a shorter

life expectancy, a lowering of health.

The quote, it is fairly long, he does say, to prove society commits

social murder that it has placed the workers under conditions they can

neither retain health nor live long, that is not manslaughter but murder.

Did you agree with him then, Engels? What Engels saw and his analysis,

may be debatable at the time. Undoubtedly conditions were terrible

in the mid-Victorian era. Did they knowingly do it? 170 years

later we live in a very different country, life expectancy for a woman

in Manchester now, born today, would be 81 years old, 83.

It is a very big difference. Was John McDonnell right to use that

term, social murder? The initial statement, is because

there was such an uproar about him saying it was murder. To suggest it

was premeditated. The idea, I wish we were less bothered about John

McDonnell's language and more about the standards in Grenfell Tower.

However, I do think as politicians, especially at the moment when we are

all suffering such horrendous abuse, that politicians should pick their

words carefully. You can be passionate without the

potential to insight. One has to be very careful. There is

a very real issue that happened, we will find out, around Grenfell

Tower, that makes you feel as if this wouldn't have happened had the

people who lived in there been a different group of people. That is

why I think he is saying that. This is one of the most horrific

tragedies in this country for a long time but we still don't know yet

fully the reasons why this tragedy happened and who was responsible.

People do not make the distinction between social murder and murder,

they just hear the word, murder. At the time, it was really the wrong

word to use. It inflames things even further. Politicians have to be very

careful in responsibility about language especially we don't know

fully the reasons and who was responsible for what went on.

Language is very important in politics. Engels used social murder

as a term to describe dreadful living conditions, at that time.

Could it be extended to any modern life equivalent?

At that time when Engels was writing, if you accept his analysis,

you had to accept his prescription, he talked about the result of it

being the bloodiest war between the poor and rich that there had ever

been, he talked about a holy battle which would lead to 1000 years of

freedom. A comment place to John McDonnell's constituents, they will

be pleased because they recognise it. If you refer back to that, we

are trying to bring people together in our nation rather than divide

them on the basis of class and wealth.

Having a historical perspective and context is often used by

politicians, quite often World War II is used as an analogy, anger

makes people say things that are dramatic.

Using what you said, how would you describe inequality in today's's

society, there is great inequality. There is no doubt there is

inequality. My own view is politicians on both sides of the

House are equally committed to its eradication and fairness and

justice. The prescription you bring into that

is a very important one. Should politicians resist using

these sorts of claims, particularly on your side if we are talking in

this context about Grenfell Tower? Does it help the cause of trying to

get to the bottom of it? Not necessarily, we should be

careful about what we say. I have watched people, their expectations

being raised up by politicians, wrongly so. We have to make sure

credibility of the victim is and their voices is what we hear. And

like Brexit or anything, politicians hanging their ideological hat on

other people's expenses should be carefully done.

Should he retract it? -- Experiences. He should have

retracted the murder bit, that is what he has tried to do but I doubt

he will retract it completely. The Grenfell Tower residents

Association reportedly repeatedly warned about dangerous living

conditions, in 2016, they wrote, a serious fire is the most likely

reason those at Kensington Council will be brought to justice.

We need to find out exactly what had happened, why, and who was

responsible. Afterwards, then describe, prescribe

things. To use that term at this stage, I

think it is really an awful term to use.

You shouldn't have done it. On issues like health and safety

legislation where Boris Johnson in 2009 said -- Made a comment, David

Cameron called it an albatross. We need to make sure, as I

understand it, there was legislation in place but it wasn't followed. We

need to be sensitive about that. There is a big difference to that

and describing something as murder. Thanking you for bringing Engels to

the programme. Philosophy on the Daily Politics.

There's nothing like dropping in a few good song lyrics

And that's a tactic many politicans have used over the years.

So, Emma Vardy has some of the best ones for us.

From gangsta rap to Rick Astley anthems, politicians have often

looked to the world of pop to inspire their prose.

take anyone for granted. anything, it is that we cannot

As Croydon's Stormzy put so well in one of his songs,

Labour MP Sarah Jones going all street in her maiden speech.

# You're getting way too big for your boots.

# You're never too big for the boot #.

At this Conservative Party Conference in 1992,

Peter Lilley took on benefit cheats with a song from The Mikado.

I've got a little list of benefit offenders who I'll soon be rooting

Meanwhile, in 1978, the Labour politician James Callaghan decided

that what the TUC Annual Congress needed was a bit of Julie Andrews.

As far as I remember, it went like this.

# Waiting at the church, waiting at the church.

# All at once, he sent me round a note.

# Here's the very note, this is what he wrote.

As far as the Labour Party is concerned, there is a light

Labour's Kerry McCarthy clashed with David Cameron over The Smiths.

I was interested that the Labour Party's favourite Smiths song

is There s I A Light That Never Goes Out.

Because it involves a double suicide.

The lyrics are, "If a double-decker bus crashes into us,

there is no finer way than by your side."

I'm not sure that is wholly reassuring to the front bench.

But really taking the crown is this group of legislators

in Oregon, USA, who teamed up at the House Of Representatives

# I just want to tell you how I'm feeling.

# We're not gonna to run around and desert you.

# Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye.

# Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you #.

Forget Engels, we have Rick Astley. And I want you to finish the rest of

the song! I'm joking. Have you ever used song

lyrics in your speeches? I am a terrible singer.

I do have Rocky songs. During the election campaign. Until

you couldn't stand to hear it any longer.

They still voted me in. What about you?

I quoted Katy Perry, if you stand for nothing, you will fall for

everything. In what context?

All politics. Would you say that encapsulates your political beliefs?

I actually believe in something so I don't fall for everything.

Are there lyrics that encapsulates everything you believe in?

If I think of one song which is on my phone, it is the Bob Dylan song,

the Lonesome death of Hattie Carroll. A grim song about a

chambermaid who is beaten by a rich man, the rich man gets off,...

A barrel of laughs. A beautiful song. The lyrics are incredible.

What about, oh, Jeremy Corbyn... It fits, doesn't it?

We're using for me? I don't think so. What about you, a

song for Theresa May? I will have to think about that one.

You want the Tory Party to be a bit more grassroots.

Yes, we need an anthem to transform our party. We need a benign version

of what you have got. You may remember at the beginning of

the show, we had an argument over the respective pay of male and

female workers. We have looked into it. There is

nothing to support your claim that women apprentices earn more, the

figure Jess Creighton, ?5 85 the men. That is from a young women's

trust report which suggests women apprentices are paid ?2000 a year

less, but not necessarily in the same apprenticeship roles, it is to

do with sectors, men and women tend to go into.

Let me find where I thought I had seen this and I will send it on to

you. Send it into us and we will get you

want to talk about it again. I totally vindicated.

Except for the bit about the same roles.

There is a sectoral problem which was lacking in the industrial

strategy. Save it for the next...

The One O'Clock News is starting over on BBC One now.

I'll be here at noon tomorrow with all the big political stories

You've been weird ever since we came down here. There's something.

Why don't you see what's staring you straight in the face?