30/10/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

Allegations of sexual harassment

continue to swirl around Westminster

and now the Prime Minister has

intervened - calling

for new grievance procedures

to tackle inappropriate behaviour.

To spend or not to spend.

As Chancellor Phllip Hammond comes

under increasing pressure

to increase funding to public

services, we'll look at a new report

arguing that if he does,

he'll no longer be able to balance

the books.

Gordon Brown this morning admitted

he struggled to communicate

with voters during his time

in office, so should our senior

politicians try a spot

of leadership coaching?

And in an age where so many people

are addicted to their mobiles,

we'll speak to one former MP

who thinks it's making us far too

impatient and unrealistic.

I often had to explain the limits

of an MP's ability to otherwise

quite reasonable people,

demanding that I, personally,

immediately sought out Donald Trump.

-- sort out.

All that in the next hour.

And with us for the whole

of the programme today two MPs

who could probably also

tell you a thing or two

about demanding constituents,

Labour's Lucy Powell and Rishi Sunak

from the Conservatives.

Welcome to the show.

First of all, today is the first

working day that the Spanish region

of Catalonia comes under direct rule

from the Spanish Government.

Rallies for Spanish unity were held

in the Catalan capital Barcelona

yesterday and Spain's chief

prosecutor is preparing to file

criminal charges against the Catalan

leader Carles Puigdemont.

New elections are planned

for December which the Spanish

government say Mr Puigdemont

could take part in,

provided he wasn't in jail.

When you look at the situation of

how it has unfolded, in order to

de-escalate tensions, could the EU

have done more?

I think the EU could

have done more. The Spanish

government could have done more and

the Catalan administration could

have done more. It is a failure of

diplomacy and leadership across all

parts. It is not irreversible and

irreconcilable but it is now at a

huge crisis point. I think

absolutely more could be done and

better buys could be given from the

EU as well.

Do you think they were

once scared of intervening in the

constitutional prices in Spain? The

chief prosecutor is preparing

criminal charges against any person

acting in the independence

referendum? Do you think Spanish

leaders should be jailed for that?

Spain has a free press, a free

judiciary and a working political

system. Mistakes have been made the

how things have been handled. At

this point the right thing is to let

the democratic processes in Spain

run. There are fresh elections

coming up and all sides will

participate. Ultimately we all

believe in democracy and the process

working out if the right people

stand for the elections and everyone

votes in numbers. The process can

have a stable outcome.

It is

difficult to in the long term you

make the situation, then it has been

over the last few months. It is

likely to be its head again with

fresh elections coming along.

Willmore devolved power be the

answer? It would be the answer. We

have demands over many decades for

greater devolution to parts of the

UK anti-countries in the UK. We had

to meet those demands. We could not

have just said to the Scots in the

70s, 80s and 90s, we will put you

all in jail for demanding these

things. That is not how... The

people have a right to

self-determination in some regard.

That has to be done within the

confined of the legality of the

country and it is not our country.

If you look at the Scottish Welsh or

Northern Irish examples, talking

about is the first point. Coming to

a compromise about devolving some

powers, more powers, to meet some of

that appetite whilst sustaining

integrity of the nation state. There

is a pathway forward if people are

prepared to grasp the leadership

metal.

Brokers will no doubt remain

on Catalonia while events unfold. --

focus will no doubt remain.

Now it's time for our daily quiz.

The question for today is,

Labour MP Barry Sheerman caused

controversy over the weekend

by saying which group of people

voted Remain in the EU referendum:

Was it...

a) Better educated...

b) Patriotic...

c) Clowns...

or d) Traitors?

At the end of the show,

Lucy and Rishi will give us

the correct answer.

The newspapers are yet again full

of rumours of sexual harassment

taking place in Parliament, and now

the Prime Minister has got involved.

Theresa May has written

to Commons Speaker John Bercow

calling for new procedures

to support parliamentary staff,

saying that the current

regime "lacks teeth."

In the letter, the Prime Minister

said that she wants to see

contractually-binding grievance

procedures and an independent

mediation service.

The former chairman of the committee

on standards in public life,

Sir Alistair Graham,

welcomed SOME of the proposals,

but warned against

"over-complicating" procedures,

adding that he was "less

sure" about mediation.

It comes as the political website

Guido Fawkes and the Times both

claimed to have seen a "spreadsheet"

of redacted names, said to be

circulated by junior aides,

that accuses a number of tory

politicians of

unacceptable behaviour.

Separately, there have been rumours

about a small number of Labour Mps.

The Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said

he was ready to back the PM

and establish "robust

and effective" new rules.

Over the weekend, a Cabinet Office

investigation was ordered

into whether Conservative MP

and international trade minister

Mark Garnier breached ministerial

rules after alledged inappropriate

behaviour towards his

former secretary.

Well, it's been announced

that Andrea Leadsom,

the Leader of the Commons,

will make a statement

later this afternoon.

We can get the latest from our

Polical correspondent Vicki Young.

I understand you have just come back

from the briefing, the Number 10

spokesman, to lobby political

journalists like yourself of what

was said?

His point was the Prime

Minister takes its very seriously

and the Prime Minister would be

sitting beside Andrea Leadsom when

she makes that statement later today

put up some are accusing the Prime

Minister being too reactive rather

than proactive. She has ordered this

Cabinet Office enquiry into mark

Garnier. Some are saying, can't she

decide for herself that she thinks

it was inappropriate behaviour or

not? Should she take action and fire

him from his job? The spokesman

said, he did not want to get into

every discussion there has ever been

over party whips and people in

charge of discipline. The rumour is

they have little black books with

misdemeanours of MPs they can use

against them to try to get them to

follow the party line. The spokesman

said it would not get into those

conversations but did deny one of

the suggestions in newspapers at the

weekend there was a dossier

containing this information that the

Prime Minister had seen. He said

there was no dossier and the Prime

Minister cannot have seen it. He did

say she was deeply concerned about

recent reports on any unwanted

sexual behaviour in any work place

is unacceptable. The Prime Minister

wants to

make sure the reputation of

Parliament is not damaged but made

the point that has to be done on a

cross-party basis.

Is there a

feeling there have been some parts

of the media that have overreacted?

There has not been a big enough

distinction over genuine and serious

claims of sexual harassment or

sexual assault and rape allegations

and what is called a culture of

sexist behaviour within Parliament.

That is always the issue needs

cases. This has happened before were

MPs have got into trouble. Some have

ended up in court and were found not

guilty of certain accusations. There

was always the issue of the strange

relationship, if you like, there is

any way between an office which has

the MP at the head of the office.

They are the line manager, the

employer, a researcher, potentially

of younger members of the community.

The idea that power is put into all

of this and they can be taken

advantage of. If you are a

researcher, something has happened

to you, who do you go to with that

complaint? It is still that we have

been talking about for very many

years when it comes to Westminster.

That has not been resolved is where

the Prime Minister is writing to the

Speaker of the House of Commons to

work out if there is a way of this

being done and maybe having a third

party. Should it be left up to the

parties themselves to deal with it?

The problem is that politics comes

into play it may not be in the best

interests of the party leader to

have a scandal of that nature. After

all these years of this kind of

talk, it is still what they are

wrestling with. How do you do with

it and how can people speak out? As

we have seen with other cases in

Hollywood and the rest of it, once

people feel they can speak out about

it, you might get to the truce.

Have

you experienced sexual harassment in

Westminster or politics? Yell Anot

as an MP. The power inequality is

what is always at the root cause of

abuse, harassment or sexual

violence. --

Not as an MP. That is

all was on a spectrum. As an MP I

feel I chi am more in a position of

power and that is harder for people

to exploit me in that way for the

other young researcher and working

in politics in my 20s, I was subject

to bullying and inappropriate

behaviour and I thought I had

nowhere to go with that at that

time. I knew it would not be my

interests to go anywhere with it.

You don't want to have that mark on

your career. I think that is the

issue here. It is something, a

culture, which exists across many of

the top professions, probably in the

BBC, the media, politics, etc. We

are lawmakers and had to go further

than other institutions in making

sure that kind of behaviour is

eradicated and has somewhere to go.

How big is the problem? Is the storm

around these claims of sexual

harassment reflecting what is going

on in the corridors of power?

Is it

rampant? I don't know if the answer.

The truth is, to not know is part of

the problem. Certainly we saw the

scandal within the Liberal Democrat

Party with women coming forward a

year or so ago. Women who were

trying to become MPs, get on in the

Liberal Democrat Party all came out.

There have been scandals. If I hear

of anything myself, directly, any

direct allegations that I would act

on them and take those forward. I

don't. But I think the power

inequalities, the way in which our

offices are setup and Parliament and

so forth, within the Labour Party

there is a bigger issue at the

moment as well which is connected,

which is about the systematic

bullying and abuse at all levels of

the Labour Party. We are probably

not alone in that.

Have you gone to

the party itself to complain about

this? Has it been dealt with?

We

raise that regularly. We raise it in

the Parliamentary Labour Party and

others. I would like to see the

Labour Party taking a more serious

stance on that as well. It's only a

month ago that a female leading

political correspondent required a

bodyguard coming to our conference.

I don't think enough said about that

at the time. We need to show strong

leadership, even when it means

taking on our own side.

John

Whittingdale, one of your

colleagues, has said something is to

be done but we are talking about a

minority of incidents.

Is he right?

I agree with almost everything that

Lucy has said. There is a problem

and we do need to tackle and figure

out the best way to do it for our

party and the other parties as well.

In terms of how big a problem it is,

I cannot honestly tell you. I have

only been in Parliament for two

years my understanding is the

situation is a lot better now than

it was in the past. As I read these

stories like everybody else, clearly

there is still a problem we need to

fix in making sure that people feel

comfortable they can bring

allegations to light. That will be

part of the process of knowing how

big the problem is that lets take

Mark Garnier who told his secretary

to buy sex toys for him and used a

demeaning phrase when addressing

her.

He says this was taken out of

context and it was not sexual

harassment. Is it acceptable

behaviour?

It is not language I

would use personally thought we

don't want to get into the business

of trial by television. It is right

that is being investigated.

Should

he be suspended while the

investigation is going on?

He has

disputed the facts and be

interpretation from the get go for

that when the facts are known, the

Prime Minister must make a decision

on that.

Presumably you would not

use the language that you do not

think it is acceptable. Is it enough

to have an investigation as to

whether he has breached the

ministerial code?

I do not have

infinite detail of it. They are able

to look at a range of behaviour. The

Prime Minister is trying to lead to

the front on this issue and making

sure she gets to the bottom of that

case and any other cases.

There have

been reports that four Labour MPs

have been accused of harassing

women. I have heard the Shadow

Minister telling the BBC she

reported a Labour colleague who

tried to kiss her when she was a

campaigner. This does cut across all

parties, doesn't it?

Absolutely. I

don't think there is a moral high

ground that applies. I would say

that swift action is necessary by

suspending people will stop I was

one of the first people to fall for

-- call for Jarrod O'Mara to be

suspended. The allegations were so

serious. The primers to should be

doing the same with her own

ministers. It is not an issue for

the Cabinet Office, it is whether

she personally as comfortable having

someone admitting that behaviour

took place. I'm not here to make a

party political point about it,

certainly not. We have to try to

make these things about politics

because it is not convenient for

political leaders or they are in a

weak position or it is one of their

allies or friends. They are not

going to be as strong about it as

they should be.

Miriam Gonzalez,

married to Nick Clegg, said Labour

must have known about Jared O'Mara's

comments because she and Nick Clegg

knew about him. Is it credible for

Labour to say they did not know

about his past?

They should have

done. There has been a failure in

the betting process if they did not.

Used to be chief of staff for Ed

Miliband. We went through many

disciplinary issues were about MPs

or trying to select candidates for

by-elections. In our era, ten, would

not have got through the vetting

process. I don't know what happened

in this case. -- Jared would not

have got through. That is why it is

right he should have been suspended.

It cannot be because someone is your

political ally and you are softer on

that or he is a minister and you

don't want the fuss. You must take a

strong stance. Culture change

requires strong leadership and that

applies to Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa

May. One ever-changing culture is

nebulous. It is difficult.

It is commonly known that the whips

have reports on many MPs that they

have information, that is stored

about MPs, that they can use against

them, rightly or wrongly in the

event of tight votes, difficult

particularly now in a minority

Government, are you awhich of that

sort of information?

No I am not

aware of that. That is the law of

the Whips office and there is this

black book in a safe, it is not

something I have come across but it

is important to distinguish between,

of course will is gossip about who

might be dating who, but what we are

talking about here is more important

than that. I am very confident that

if people are aware of serious

allegations of sexual harassment,

those will and should be brought to

light.

How? At the moment,

Hopefully, we are in this hoed

situation as MPs which people don't

realise we employ our members of

staff ourselves, what we need is a

more form. Institutional process.

What would you like?

Like a big

company, any big company would have

an independent HR department so

there is someone people can go to

who is not their direct report who

as Lucy said there is a power

imbalance there, they need to go

someone else, to raise their

complaint, and then there should be

a formal process to see that threw.

It isn't just enough to call for a

mediation service, you would like a

more robust system set up, in a way

is Theresa May acting with enough

seriousness, to this problem?

I

think she has shown very serious

purpose there. She has written

straightaway. We will have a

statement from the leader of the

House and it is important we work

together. I think she is right to

say we should try and tackle this

problem across Parliament, so we

need to come up jointly round the

table with a solution we think is

robust and make sure Parliament is

what we want it to be, which is a

safe and welcoming place, especially

for young people.

Should she have

taken more direct action herself

about Mark Garnier and Stephen

Crabbe.

Mark is facing a serious

allegation and she is institutions a

process which hasn't been done

before so put in place the process

you are talking about, so I think,

obviously it is the early stages of

a journey we need to go on. I agree

with Lucy, it is about cultural

change at the end of the day. We

have a responsibility to make the,

contribute to changing the culture

this Parliament so it is this...

So

it can't just be left to the

parties?

No, where I would agree is

we need a third party independent

place people should be able to go

to, with anonymity as well, to raise

concerns that might be smaller or

lower level, and decide whether they

want to take them forward. The word

I object to that Theresa May has

used in her proposals is mediation.

I don't think this is a question of

mediation, it is not we have a

dispute with our bossings and that

needs some mediation this is about

sending clear signals about

inappropriate behaviour, behaviour

that may become much more serious in

terms of where it extends to, and so

mediation is the wrong word for

that, but third party independent

anonymous, they are some of the

elements I think can help take this

forward.

forward.

The Chancellor, Philip Hammond,

is between a rock and a hard place

over his upcoming budget according

the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

In a new report out this morning

they point out that whilst

he is under pressure to increase

public spending, to do

so would damage his commitment

to balance the books and get rid

of the deficit.

Mr Hammond is even facing demands

from his own Cabinet

colleagues, have a listen

to the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt

on the Andrew Marr Show yesterday.

This Government is absolutely

committed to making our NHS the

safest, best health care system.

We recognise there is

a lot of work to do.

We've just been talking

about mental health.

There are lots of

other areas as well.

I will be making a very

robust case for the

NHS to get the resources that it

needs, as I'm sure other Cabinet

ministers will for

their departments.

We can speak to Carl Emmerson,

who's from the IFS.

You are saying today that Philip

Hammond is facing a tricky hand, in

next month's budget. What do you

mean?

It looks like the outlook for

growth over the next few years for

productivity, which is the key

driver of growth is going to be

downgraded. In March it was assumed

we would go about 1.6 a year,

unfortunately recent history

suggests that is perhaps too

optimistic, we have only been

managing 0. 4% a year. That is bad

news because lower productive group

means lower wages and that means

people will be paying less in tax so

we expect a lot more red ink in the

budget number, so more borrowing

over the next few years than what he

was planning eight months ago.

Can

you put a figure on that, how much

of a hole is it going to make, this

productive downgrade?

We don't mow

how big of a downgrade they will do.

The OBR is suggesting it is going to

be significant. Where they to

downgrade half way what they assumed

back in March and what the average

we are seen over the last seven

years has been, the deficit in 2021,

2022 would be 20 billion higher, so

on course to be borrowing about 36

billion rather than about 16

billion, so it would make a

significant difference, and then the

challenge for the Chancellor is,

your plans look like you will end up

borrowing more and people are

wanting tax cut, increasing in

benefit spending and people want

more spending on public services,

how do you square that circle? You

have all these competing demands

mapped for extra cash and the public

finances aring worse.

It is looking

difficult but sounds like it is

particularly difficult to balance in

this particular case, do you think

he is going to have to drop his

target of wiping out the deficit by

2025?

He has various option, you

could imagine a situation where a

Chancellor chose now to increase

taxes significantly, that is what

often happens just after general

election, but that choice looks

difficult particularly given that

the Conservatives don't have a

Parliamentary majority so he may not

have that option to hand. It seems

unlikely he want to do more benefit

cuts or more public service cuts on

top of those very plans. It is

unlikely he will say it is an end to

austerity and we are stop cutting at

all. The most likely scenario is

small giveaways targeted at

particular group, that will add to

borrowing and that would bring into

question whether the Government is

serious about eliminating the

deficit and maybe we don't want to

commit to having a balanced budge

fret the mid 2020s on ward. It looks

harder to get there perhaps we

should be honest and they we are not

going to do that, we would rather

have hiring spending or lower taxes.

Would you broadly support dropping

the target of working out the

deficit by 2025? Is that no longer

the first priority for a

Conservative Government?

No I

wouldn't support that, and I think

it is right that the Chancellor is

adopting the balanced approach. It

is right we live within our mean, he

has been flexible in how he has done

that so that star get has been

pushed out, but the record is very

good. Growth in the UK since 2010

has been one of the highest among

all developed country, employment is

at a record high and we have taken

difficult decisions on bringing down

the deficit, it is down by two

thirds, 100 billion less when we

came into Government. That is

extraordinary. At the same time,

there is record amount of investment

going into public services. Health

and education, defence, they are all

receiving record amounts, that is a

tricky job but one we are managing

well.

It looks as if your Government

is go to do the opposite when it

comes to trying to get rid of the

deficit. They have committed to 10

billion for new help to buy loans. 2

billion for new council home, 1.2

for tuition fee, 2 billion for the

national insurance, U-turn and one

billion to the DUP. So they are

splashing money round every where

and it has to be paid for. If you

don't want it to be paid for by

abandoning that target of getting

rid of the deficit you are obviously

in favour of hiring taxes.

No.

How

do you pay nor that?

There is head

room in the numbers. As we heard

from calm Emerson, they still think

he is on target to meet his fiscal

target.

Except the low productivity

could cost up to 20 billion. Is

Let

us see what happens, that is the a

forecast into the future. His target

he will probably still meet because

he put head room in the budget, that

is what sensible planning is about.

As we look forward growth is

absolutely key, we have been lucky

to enjoy relative to other countries

very strong growth. As a result,

that growth will falter, that is the

prediction from the IFS and probably

from the OBR unless something is

done about it. I say to you again,

going forward would you rather

borrow more or see taxes going up We

will see the fruits of that

investment, investment is relatively

high levels, reforms to technical

education, there is a record amount

of new company creation, those are

the things that will raise product

#2i6ty, they have only just started

to happen.

There has been no

evidence up to now.

These things

don't happen overnight. Over the

coming years we will start to see

the fruits of that as we have seen

in primary and secondary.

Would you

back the idea that

There is a few

different issue, it is clearly the

case that the slash and burn

austerity approach of the Government

has not worked by its own measure

because they said originally the

deficit would be eliminated by 2020,

now we are talking about it not even

being elimiteded by 2025. They have

failed markedly to invest in closing

that productive gap and that issue

about productive, which has been

around for years.

So would you back

the idea of abandoning that are tea

get?

We have said we have a fully

costed manifesto commitment, so,

there is about how you cut the cake

as well and decisions you make, but

we have a fully costed manifesto set

of commitments that, we show where

we will raise the taxes from in

terms of corporation tax, making

different decision about inheritance

tax and capital gain tabs, these

huge tax cuts for the richest which

have happened under the

Conservatives and switching that

money into...

Except as you know,

the IFS don't think the sums add up.

They have said clearly and they said

it in the election it was a black

hole of at least nine billion in

your tax and spending plans and that

was specifically on public service,

what do you say? Response?

That is

not anything like as big as a figure

the IFS have said about the

Government's black hole and they are

in Government.

If you are not in

Government it is all right to be

fairly fast and loose with the

figures.

Not at all. We have a fully

costed audited set of manifesto

commitments but I think it is is

really important to understand why

we are in the situation we are now

in. The Government have failed to

invest properly in skills, skills

budgets have been slashed and burned

under this Government, we are seeing

schools budgets being cut.

How much

has, well, go on, you respond?

The

IFS were clear at the time of the

election, they said Labour should

not pretend, those are the words

they use, should not pretend all

this money can be magiced up from a

small minority of rich people. It

means higher fax rises for the vast

majority...

What was the percentage

Labour said, they would tax how many

people at the top?

5%.

The IFS said

they should not pretend they can

raise all this money...

That was

only a small part of it.

We haven't,

it is hard on one hand to criticise

the Government for not getting the

deficit down fast enough, not

cutting enough, at the same time

objecting to every difficult

decision the Government has made, to

try and get us to Li within our

mean, you can't have it both way,

when you look at health and

education spend, they are autorecord

levels.

We are talking about a lot

more people being dealt with and a

growing elderly population.

You with

look at it as a share of GDP, we

spend at least the EU and OECD

average... If not more than that.

Why does Jeremy Hunt feel he needs

more?

He is batting for his

department.

Should there be a focus

on higher spending in public service

snoops what there should be a focus

on is output, what we care about is

how many people we are treating, how

many children are good our

outstanding schools we should be

debating that. You said the

austerity of the Government has

failed, clearly, you said, but why

is Labour only pledging to reverse

£4 billion worst of welfare cuts and

not the full 12 billion.

I would

like to see a greater focus in terms

of how we can help those that are

transitioning on to Universal

Credit, the low paid and just about

managing, I have given others yes, I

for example I think the tax free

childcare scheme that is Government

has brought in which is going to

almost entirely better off people.

That should be going to the just

about managing families to help with

their costs, so I think there is,

there is more that can be done there

and it is about how you slice the

cake, it is about some of the

political decisions you make within

the envelope you have, but there is,

you know, we are getting to the

point, I think after seven years of

austerity, where we need to have a

bigger conversation with the public,

about why austerity in itself is a

failed policies, because you have

not been able to invest in people

properly, so yes we do have more

people in work, but they are in low

paid job, they are not in secure

jobs that is because we haven't been

upskilling people, we haven't been

investing in the regions in other

parts of the country.

There is a cost. Is it really

affordable?

The 48 billion is fully

costed and clearly set out,

independently audited. Even the IFF,

many people say with such low

interest rates we should have spent

the last four years borrowing to

invest for big projects in

transport, and skills, to raise

productivity levels.

Let me finally

put to you, there is a choice, if

you are a six-week wait for

Universal Credit payments. Would you

rather see that time shortened to a

month to stop people becoming

destitute? To do that, reverse the

plans for corporation tax?

The ISS

said about Labour's plans to raise

corporation tax back up, it would

depress economic activity, lower

wages and make sure there are fewer

jobs.

How do help people on

Universal Credit?

At the moment they

can access 50% of the payments they

are Jews on the same day if needs be

more people could beware of that

service. -- Bayard

-- they are due. You must remember

that we spend £90 billion on working

age welfare. That is pretty much the

same as we spend on the NHS and is

twice what is spent on schools. It

is a large bill that is not wrong to

ask how the money is spent and make

sure it is spent carefully.

If today

is anything to go by, it will be

another busy week in politics.

Let's take a look at the week ahead.

Tomorrow, Health Secretary Jeremy

Hunt will be in front

of Parliament's Health

Select Committee.

And the Government will

reveal details of its new

housing benefit policy.

On Wednesday, Theresa May will take

Prime Minister's Questions

in the House of Commons.

On Thursday, it's the turn

of Brexit ministers to answer

questions in Parliament.

And on Friday, Labour Leader

Jeremy Corbyn will appear

on the Channel 4 TV show Gogglebox -

in a special edition to raise money

for cancer research.

We're joined now by Lucy Fisher,

senior political correspondent

at The Times, and the Guardian's

joint political editor,

Heather Stewart.

Welcome to both of you. Lucy Fisher,

first of all, is the media storm

orang claims of sexual harassment

and inappropriate behaviour

proportionate to the number of cases

being discussed?

According to the

dossier, it showed 36 Tory MPs are

so far involved in these claims

which so far are unverified. The

claims also stretch up as high as

the Cabinet. Former Cabinet

ministers and senior MPs. I think it

is very serious indeed. I do not

think there is a suggestion this is

an overblown scandal.

Do think it

could end up with ministers being

sacked?

That is not impossible. Some

people were surprised that yesterday

Mark Garnier, who admitted going on

to buy sex toys with his assistant.

I do not know if we can say that on

lunchtime television. You have said

it now. Using an unfortunate phrase

towards her, he said it was all fun.

I don't think it is a tall clear

that we will not see resignations as

time goes on.

-- at all clear. There

have been criticisms of Theresa May

not taking firm enough action. What

do you think she needs to do to get

to grips with the situation?

Many

thought her letter to John Burke are

calling for new Parliamentary

procedures does not go far enough.

-- Berkow. Questions in the Sunday

papers suggested sleaze briefings

were fed into Number 10. She needs

to become aware of what she knew

about allegations of harassment and

rape behaviour by MPs. A senior

Conservative has tabled a motion

today. Andrea Leadsom will be in

front of MPs talking on the next

steps. Certainly the PM needs to act

fast. Her spokesman would not

confirm she has confidence from her

Cabinet. We could see some sackings

in the offing pretty imminently.

You

wonder with Andrea Leadsom standing

up, Theresa May will be with her in

the House of Commons. The wonder

whether it will encourage victims to

come forward in the way you saw with

the Weinstein case. Let's move on to

the budget, or fiscal and economic

policy. The Government is to drop

plans to cap housing benefit for

people living in social rented

accommodation. Another U-turn.

Is

this becoming a trend? It certainly

seems that way. An interesting fact,

ten announced by the PM last week

during Prime Minister's Questions

came on the back of Labour tabling

an opposition Day debate. Even

though the Prime Minister said we

will not get involved and vote in

the non-binding Labour led debate,

she still felt prompted with the

U-turn. Jeremy Corbyn certainly is

feeling confident with Labour

planning to press on for more

changes in policy of the Universal

Credit certainly in the run-up to

Christmas.

Some of this can be seen

in the light these are the policies

of George Osborne being reversed

here. Actually some of the chickens

are coming home to roost.

Absolutely. George Osborne announced

£12 billion of welfare cuts. He has

since gone. The legacy remains. MPs

are finding constituents coming to

them and telling them dreadful

stories about Universal Credit and

these are the cuts coming through.

On Universal Credit, finally, what

do you think will happen? Do you

think there will be a further

announcement about shortening the

waiting time?

That is the mood

music. There have been text messages

sent to Tory MPs suggesting the

initial delay in first payment for

people moving on to benefit system

of six weeks could be reduced to

four weeks.

Thank you both very

much.

The Government may be facing

defeat in the Lords.

Labour peers, with the support

of Liberal Democrats

and some cross benchers,

are supporting an amendment

to the Data Protection Bill that

would incorporate part of the EU

Charter of Fundamental Rights.

That covers data protection into the

Government's bill.

The Government however

argue that the amendment,

which concerns the right to privacy

and personal data, risks

the unintended consequence

of abolishing exemptions that allow

journalists to protect

their sources.

We can get more on this

from Labour's Lord Stevenson who's

leading the amendment

and the Conservative

MP Matt Warman.

Welcome to both of you. Wilf

Stevenson, you have put down this

amendment calling for article eight

of the EU rights to be inserted into

the bill.

It is an important part of

law. We think this should be

continued and see no reason for it

to be taken out.

What is the

problem? Just be keeping the status

quo. Sima krych it would that the

bill as it stands keeps the status

quo. --

It would be that the bill as

it stands keeps the status quo. It

is about potentially not been

complied with data protection

regulations across the EU which has

huge economic consequences are now

some more serious economic

consequences potentially around

removing the protections that

journalists and other financial

institutions currently enjoy under

data protection regulations. It is

very important we get this right.

Are you against it in principle? If

it is the status quo, surely we were

exposed to both unintended

consequences anyway.

The Government

has all the right measures in place

to make sure we are compliant with

European regulations and that

journalists, for instance, enjoy the

protections they need, the financial

institutions enjoy the protections

they need as well. This is about

making sure that we don't, as I

think a well intentioned amendment

might risk doing it puts us in a

position where we are not comply

getting the best data protection

regulations for the most important

part of our economy over the coming

years.

I can't quite see the

difference between what you have

signed up to nine whether that is

leading up to terrorist financing

and money laundering. Do think there

is a danger that could increase with

your amendment question we do not

want that to happen.

We are trying

to reach out to the Government. This

is day one of seven days in

committee. We are saying to the

Government, let's try to get this

right for the benefit of all

concerned. The risks are really- if

we get this wrong all sorts of

businesses trading with Europe might

not be able to do so. Even worse

European countries might not be able

to trade with us. There is a lot at

stake.

Do you think you will defeat

the Government on this?

If

necessary. We are both very close

together. What we have just heard is

very close to where we want to get

to. You want to get it right.

What

do you think Labour is up to? If you

are working together, as you both

say, is there really a case, as I

understand it, that they are trying

to make Brexit more difficult form

Mr 's? Is that true? -- for

ministers. Al Arights can exist in

all sorts of territory.

-- rights

can exist.

Are you stoking something

that does not exist in trying to

make mischief over Brexit?

This is

an issue where we are genuinely

listening to amendments that have

been proposed. There will be read

tabled an amendment which will

soften the language. This is an

argument over our future

relationship with the European Union

were all sides understand the

importance and understand why we had

to get this right foot if I am

honest will get there because

everyone is on the same side.

Are

you going to allow Labour to go

forward with including this bit of

the Charter and keeping it within

the data protection Bill?

That would

fundamentally shift where the focus

is. What it would do is introduce a

whole new set of language, a whole

new set of unintended consequences

as you said in your introduction.

Just explain the unintended

consequences. How would journalists

no longer be able to protect their

sources or anti-dumping agencies

could not check drugs cheats? How

would it happen with this amendment?

What we had in the original

amendment was a blanket set of

rights to enshrine the right to

princely into people, whatever they

were doing. As you have just heard,

there is the knowledge that went too

far. This amendment seeks to try and

protect people who currently enjoy

legitimate protections without

providing a blanket rule for people

whether they are criminal or not. We

need to get this right. There is

genuine willingness to try to find a

sensible middle ground that

preserves the protections that

people have at the moment but that

also makes sure we have world

leading data protection regulations

and compliant data protection

regulations with our most important

trading partners in Europe.

That

sounds like a big appeal. Maybe the

two of you can work it out and

report back on what happens in

Parliament. Thank you.

It's pretty obvious that mobile

phones have taken over our lives

in the last few years but have

they made us more demanding

of our politicians.

Charlotte Leslie, who used to be

a Conserative MP in Bristol believes

the instant gratification we get

from social media is making us ask

far too much of our MPs.

Here's her soapbox.

In

In

My mobile phone.

It helps me do so much

more, I tell myself.

But have you ever caught

the technology in your pocket

beginning to change you?

When I find myself demanding

instant answers to problems

in my own life right now,

I begin to wonder whether technology

is eating our brains.

I was selected as a candidate

to fight Bristol North West in 2006.

Back then, Twitter was

barely out of its egg.

E-mails were frequent,

but so were letters.

By 2015, everything had changed.

Not only did Twitter

dominate our attention span,

I noticed people changing too.

We've become less tolerant

of waiting and less clear

about the difference

between what we want

and what is actually possible.

I often had to explain

the limits of an MP's ability.

to otherwise quite reasonable

people demanding that I,

personally, immediately,

sort out Donald Trump

or global extremism.

If our technology has turned us

into instant gratification,

virtual reality addicts,

it's going to get much harder

for politicians to satisfy this ever

more demanding public.

If digital really is reprogramming

us, to prefer the instant over

the long-term and feel-good idealism

over gritty pragmatism,

does this fundamentally

favour the political left?

So, is virtual reality

the greatest enemy of the right?

If so, the gradient of technology

that Conservatives will have

to climb if they are to own

the politics of the future may be

much steeper than just

getting good on Instagram.

And Charlotte joins us now.

Is it really fair to say that you

think in your mind social media has

benefitted the left more than the

right?

I'm not sure, but I do ask

myself that, the reason I am

Conservative and not Labour is not

because I think that what Labour

wants is necessarily wrong, it is

because I don't think it works in

reality. And so I asked myself, if

you have two types of people in the

world and you probably need both,

who look at the world as they want

it to be and act on that, and then

other people who tend to look at the

world as it is and act on that,

disease virtual reality fave the

people who would like the world as

they would like it to be, that is

the difference I have with my Labour

friend.

Or is it the Conservatives

haven't been very good at using

social media?

That is a different

debate. Look at the 2015 and

discourse was that Conservatives

were far ahead.

Through Facebook.

What do you say to that in response

to the left?

I think we are seeing a

rise in populism on both sides of

the political spectrum, and I think

we are entering a period in politics

where people want simple answers, to

what are complex questions.

And

immediate response.

Yes, I think

they is a difficult time for

politics, for those of us who think

you have to, do have to make

difficult decisions that things are

a long-term trend, and so I think,

Charlotte has, but I don't think it

is the left right thing, I think

this is about the edges of politics

versus maybe in the middle.

You are

a relatively new MP, how demanding

is it in terms of social media

request, peopleable to contact you

directly on a daily basis.

Unlike

Charlotte and Lucy I represent a

rural constituency so broadband and

me of session Nat is not...

That

helps you, the fact you have patchy

cover. I look forward to the day

when all of my constituencies can

find me on Facebook and have a

signal. As a new MP it has been

prechty much a positive experience

for me because it enables me to

connect with different people as you

try to establish yourself. Do you

use all the social media?

I don't

use twitter.

How do you survive

without using twister?

I am here to

tell the tale. That is probably why

I have had a positive more

experience, most people's

experience, it can be abusive,

Facebook is more engaging with video

content and things like that.

I

think it is about different

dedemocracy, I represent one of the

largest populations in the country,

it is one of the most deprived. One

thing I say is I want you to be more

demanding because the people who

need me the most in my constituency

aren't demanding and the people who

need me the least are most

demanding. I think there is an

imbalance there.

It is important to

be demanding in the right way.

Something politics has done is to

say we can give you everything now,

and so in a sense we can't be

surprised when people say I want

this now and want unreasonable

things and get disappointed and

upset when it isn't given.

Managing

expectation is important but if you

look at someone like Donald Trump

who is a great user as we know of

twitter and hasn't yet been able to

give all of, meet the promises he's

made yet his supporters still like

him, it is as much the sort of

messenger as well as the message and

how it is communicated.

I think it

will be interesting to give Donald

Trump time, because we are a short

way into Trumpism in America, I

think we have a fundamental

mismatch. I notice myself expecting

things more quickly, it isn't me

saying that lot is change, it is me

saying what is this doing to my

expectations and how real and how

realistic is my demand on what is a

tangible physical world.

But it can

get a lot more done as you said and

it does give you a direct line,

Gordon Brown thinks personality

politics is the issue, when it comes

to social media, not necessarily the

message, do you think he is right?

It is no surprise, if you have lots

of different ways for people to

speak to constituents that

personality will matter a lot more.

Have you preprogrammed yourself, the

onset of having a smartphone and the

social media, has it changed you?

Probably changed all, you have to

try and switch it off. Otherwise I

would be a terrible mum as a

terrible politician, which I

probably am both that. Is a

different question, the other trend

I think I would agree w alongside

this sort of simple answers to

complex problems which Donald Trump

epip miced is this trend for

personal back story, personal kind

of story ribs about politicians

which I think is the way everyone is

going.

Do you think it is a good

thing

I don't think it is a

particularly good thing, people will

come a cropper. If you make it all

about your own personal brand, and

then for some reason you don't live

up to that brand, you know, that is,

because we are not all perfect

people, we are not people that have

got a great, it is all about our

back story. We are all ordinary

people.

Some are less ordinary than

others.

Some are a bit posh, posher

than me, but most people are

ordinary people trying to do a good

thing. It should be about what we

are trying to do, not necessarily,

you know, our personality or back

story.

All right. Leave it there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now, what makes a great

political leader?

Is it confidence, or compassion,

or a penchant for handshakes?

Well, according to Liz Truss,

the answer could, in some part, lie

in leadership coaching.

At a speech to the Social Market

Foundation, the Chief Secretary

to the Treasury called

for a departure from the idea

of leadership as an innate quality.

She said that cabinet ministers

should follow the lead of business

chiefs and admit the need for

coaching, and avoid the dichotomy

that someone is "either

Winston Churchill or David Brent."

Today, former Prime Minister Gordon

Brown has given his view on why

he failed to resonate

with the public saying:

"The modern version of 'connecting'

seems to increasingly include

a public display of emotion,

with the latter - authentic or not -

seen as evidence of a sincerity

required for political success"

"in a far more touchy-feely era,

our leaders speak of public issues

in intensely personal ways

and assume they can win votes simply

by telling their electors

that they 'feel their pain'.

For me, being conspicuously

demonstrative is uncomfortable"

Joining us now is leadership

coach from the Alexander

Partnership, Jill Pett.

Welcome to the programme. Hind sight

is a wonderful thing and people can

be more candid when they are no

longer in office. What makes a

successful political leader in your

mind?

I think it is a broad

question, I think that we at the

Alexander partnership chub 2 are

concerned with leaders find their

authentic voice and being authentic

and present in the moment and

understanding really what your

purpose is is critical, and I think

that Liz Truss is right. Think we

have moved away from personality,

politics and I think people are

looking for credibility and real

belief in what they are talking

about.

If it is about authenticity

and you are not naturally someone

who has a lot of empathy or can't

demonstrate emotion and you are

running a country, then doesn't that

hinder your ability to succeed.

Well

I think there are ways in which you

can work round that, what we are

engaged with, is helping people

become the best versions of

themselves. So everyone has

different degree of empathy, I don't

think that is is a prerequisite for

success in politics.

What do you

think is key in terms of being a

successful leader?

I think Liz is

right. There is room for coaching

and improvement. Some things you

can't teach, like temperament and

judgment, authorityty, coaching

probably can't help you with that.

In the nuts and bowls of how you do

your job, we are all people, we have

things we are better and good at and

getting help seems sensible. Some of

the most successful COEs have

leadership coaches.

And lots of it.

I am not good at this or that, I

need to improve how I communicate.

Is that why you have been considered

a potential future leader on testify

Conservative Party. Because you have

recognised what is needed to become

a good leader.

I will be different.

There is no package, everyone wants

to be the best version of

themselves, getting hem seems the

right thing to do. Lewis Hamilton

has won a fourth World Championship,

if you look a his career he talks

about these are the things I have

changed and got better at. Jimmy

Anderson is going off to which Ashes

Series, his game has evolved. People

are trying to improve themselves.

I

don't think there is any doubt, it

is a given, in business, that any

modern progressive CEO would have a

good leadership coach by their side,

with them over a period of time.

That is a given. It is obvious to

say that that needs to transfer into

politics. I mean, you know, the

agenda for minister, and people in

high office is so complex. So, you

need all the help you can get.

So

every Prime Minister should have

one.

Absolutely.

You would say that,

how have we managed up to now?

Well,

good question. Are we managing? I

think it is very much on the rise in

Europe, and the States and I think

anyone in high office would have a

leadersome hip coach, and I think

really we need to set our people up

to succeed, otherwise we are not

going to get our brightest and best

into politics.

Thank you. There is

just time before we go to find out

the answer to our quiz.

The question was - Labour MP

Barry Sheerman caused controversy

over the weekend by saying

which group of people voted Remain

in the EU referendum.

So, Lucy and Rishi,

what's the correct answer?

Hip coach, and I think really we

need to set our people up to

succeed, otherwise we are not going

to get our brightest and best into

politics. Thank you. There is just

time before we go to find out the

answer to our quiz.

Know what he said.

What was it?

The

better educated.

Was that wise?

Probably not.

Probably not.

That's all for today.

Thanks to our guests.

I'll be here at noon tomorrow

with all the big political stories

of the day - do join me then.