20/11/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

The Chancellor says they're

going to "unblock the logjam"

in the Brexit negotiations,

but will the Prime Minister's Brexit

Cabinet agree on what to offer

the EU and will it be accepted?

A million new homes

will be built by 2020 -

that's the promise that will be

in this week's Budget,

but will it be kept?

Jeremy Corbyn went from zero to hero

- Labour MPs who wanted him gone

react to June's shock election

result in a new BBC documentary -

but is he performing well enough now

against a government that's

on the ropes?

And from the frying pan

and into the jungle!

Should Labour's outgoing leader

in Scotland be taking time off

as an MSP to do reality TV?

All that in the next hour

and with us for the whole

of the programme today are two MPs

who have eschewed the lure

of the jungle for the

Daily Politics studio.

But don't worry, because we'll be

putting you through our own

trials and tribulations.

With us, former minister

Nick Boles and Jess Phillips.

She chairs the women's

Parliamentary Labour Party.

First today, Theresa May will

convene a meeting of her new Brexit

"inner Cabinet" in Downing Street

to talk tactics ahead of next

month's crucial summit

of the European Council.

The smaller group includes senior

ministers who supported both Leave

and Remain in the referendum.

They're expected to discuss raising

the divorce bill the UK is willing

to pay to the EU to help

move talks on.

The UK has already promised roughly

£20 billion with suggestions

the Government might be willing

to double that figure.

Yesterday Philip Hammond told

the Andrew Marr Show plans

were afoot to "unblock that logjam".

And said the UK was "on the brink

of making some serious progress

in our negotiations with the EU".

Today's Times reports that

Theresa May is expected to meet

European Council President Donald

Tusk on Friday to discuss the Bill,

but with coalition talks collapsing

in Germany and uncertainty over

Angela Merkel's position

as Chancellor, could there be

ramifications for the negotiations

of the EU's leading player

being politically paralysed?

Well, the EU's chief Brexit

negotiator Michael Barnier has been

speaking today in Brussels.

He had some choice words for those

who think the UK should play

hardball and be prepared

to walk away.

We have a shared history and this

history started long

before the last 44 years.

That is why that no deal

is not our scenario even though

we will be ready for it.

I regret that this no deal option

comes up so often in the UK public

debate and it is though

we want to ignore the current

benefits of European Union

membership can say that no deal

would be a positive result.

We're joined now by our Brussels

reporter, Adam Fleming.

What else did he say, Adam?

So, Jo,

you will notice Michel Barnier was

speaking in English there. This is

the most English I have heard him

use in a speech. Normally he speaks

in French and when there is a barb

he wants to deliver to the UK he

does that in English so we get it!

He had a lot of barbs to deliver and

I have written down the bits where

he took aim at David Davis. I will

work through them. David Davis has

said oh the problem with Northern

Ireland following the rules of the

single market or the customs union

after Brexit means that then

threatens the single market that

effectively exists between Northern

Ireland and the rest of the United

Kingdom. Michel Barnier said people

that said that were talking nonsense

because Northern Ireland already had

separate rules from the rest of the

UK on things like agriculture and

plant health and things. Then he

talked about Brexiteers that make

contradictory statements like saying

we will be freed from the shackle of

Brussels, but then at the same time,

saying but we will have a really,

really close relationship with the

single market anyway. And then he

said, "Oh, people have been talking

about UK financial services still

having access to the single market

and being able to use their

passport." That's the technical

thing that means a financial

services company registered in one

EU country can sell its services in

another. Michel Barnier said that

will disappear with Brexit. UK First

Minister's will not be able to rely

on that passport. Those are things

that David Davis have been saying

and I think Team Barnier wanted to

respond to the Brexit secretary's

speech in Berlin that he gave at the

end of last week.

Is this

interpreted as Michel Barnier

playing hard ball here?

What struck

me about the speech really was that

this is the most I have heard Michel

Barnier talk about the future trade

deal, the future relationship

between the UK and the EU and what

shape it will take. This is much

less of the Michel Barnier playing

hard ball on the Irish border, the

money and the citizens rights, the

stuff that we are used to hearing

him talk about. This was more about

phase two of the Brexit

negotiations. He is starting to get

his head into that phase because it

could start as soon as the next

summit of EU leaders in December.

And so he was making all the big

philosophical points about the UK

has to answer the question, does it

want to stay pretty close to the EU

rules and the EU model that it

participates in now? Or does it want

to diverge from those and have its

own rules and regulations? He made

the point that the more divergence

there is from the EU norms, then

perhaps the harder it will be to get

that trade deal or that future

partnership through all the national

parliaments it would have to go

through in the rest of the EU 27

countries. So there was that big

point. And then, when he did the

stick approach of saying financial

services you have got to worry about

that, he then said, "But, if all the

issues can be solved, and we can

reach agreement, the EU and the UK

then the EU would be prepared to

offer its most sophisticated Free

Trade Agreement approach to the UK."

So basically saying there could be a

very deep and special partnership,

but it will come with very deep and

special conditions.

All right, Adam

Fleming thank you very much in

Brussels.

And we're joined now by the leading

Conservative Eurosceptic, Bill Cash.

Welcome to the Daily Politics. Do

you have faith in the new inner

Cabinet of Theresa May's or do you

think it is a move to try and

convince you and some of your Leave

supporting colleagues to accept a

higher divorce bill?

No, I think it

is reasonable. I think it is a good

idea. Somebody the other day I think

it was Frank Field suggested there

ought to be something along these

lines. To have an inner Cabinet of

that kind is a good idea thanks, of

course, they refer back to the

Cabinet as a whole which is

essential to say the least.

If they

agree a higher divorce bill and what

is being talked about is 40 billion

euros, would you accept that?

We

have to look at the methodology. The

reality is that we are as a

Constitutional Affairs Committee of

the House of Lords said under no

strict legal obligation to pay, but

there are definitely certain aspects

for example between now and the date

when we leave which is 29th March

2019. Quite clearly, obligations

which we will continue until that

point in time.

So, you would be

prepared if the obligations and

liabilities are set out to pay up to

40 billion euros?

What I really

think and I said this already and I

wrote to the Prime Minister about

this. I think that both sides should

set out by mutual consent their

methodology so people can form a

judgment about it. We don't want to

be in a position where we are

completely unreasonable, but I do

think that actually, the European

Union is in a war of attrition until

apparently this morning which sounds

to me as if we are moving in the

right direction at last and I do

think that actually, for example,

ex-EU officials who are British

might be treated perhaps in the same

way as former colonial civil

servants.

Michel Barnier talking on

a philosophical level about the sort

of trade deal if he is also moving

towards phase two, if you like, of

the trade talks, the things that he

is explaining and outlining, they

would be worth paying 40 billion

euros for?

That's not what I'm

saying. We have got to decide on the

amount by a proper methodology and

then you can answer that question,

but not now.

But if it unlock the

negotiation and if you got

everything else that you wanted, it

would be worth paying once you have

gone through the methodology?

Well,

I think if as a result of the

methodology it's clear that there

are legal obligations which both

sides accept and I think that's

where the negotiations need to to be

cleared up.

Your colleague says if

you give 40 to 50 billion euros to

the EU the public in his words, who

voted by a majority to leave will go

bananas and spare. Isn't he right?

Well, he maybe, depending on whether

the methodology is something that

convinces people there is a basis

for it and you ought to remember

perhaps, I don't say you personally,

but people ought to remember that in

the past for example, after the war,

we had an arrangement whereby and it

is called the London death agreement

where we remitted a significant

amount of the German debt and

actually, since we have been in

1972, we've made a net contribution

of well over £100 billion.

But is

this what the public were expecting?

This is what your colleagues said we

wouldn't have to pay and we didn't

have legal obligations?

That's what

the House of Lords constitutional

committee said as well. If there is

a proper methodology which

demonstrates the fact that there is

an obligation of something...

You

will have been proved wrong?

No, I

will have simply have said that's

what the Constitutional Affairs

Committee of the House of Lords said

and there is a case for making some

payment on the proper methodology.

Right, we're hearing reports that

the British Government, Nick Boles,

may co a lease around the 40 billion

euro figure. That's four years of

our net contribution and another

four years of paying into the EU.

That isn't what people were promised

or they thought would happen. It is

not what the Government prepared

them for?

Well, government has been

clear that it would settle the

accounts. The 20 billion that's

already been promised is as it were

a new matter because that is because

we are intending to have this tran

that lasts two years on current

membership terms. What we are now

talking about is the settling of the

accounts and of course, it's the

case that the EU has made various

commitments for the future while we

were a member and it is not

unreasonable to expect us to pay for

our share of those commitments

because they were made in good faith

when we were a member.

So we're

going to double what Theresa May

promised in the Florence speech?

No,

but they are two sums. One is a

payment for two more years within

the EU structures on current terms

and then now, what we are talking

about is, what the settling of the

accounts mean and Bill is right,

that ultimately, it's about the

methodology. If the methodology is

reasonable, then I think everybody

can live with it because it's a

one-off final payment. If it is huge

people will be angry and the

Government does not intend to agree

to anything like that.

How much

would be?

I'm not the guy

negotiating and nor do I have the

detail.

Do you agree that people

will go bananas and Nigel Evans said

we shouldn't be throwing ransom

money at the EU because we haven't

got anything concrete in return?

No,

it is important that there is this

principle that nothing is agreed

until everything is agreed. So we

can say this is the methodology that

we would accept for the calculation

for that amount if we get a

reasonable free trade deal, but

ultimately, we will only actually be

on the hook once that free trade

deal has been offered and agreed by

all of the 27 members of the EU. In

that circumstance, I think the

British people would accept that it

was worth it for the new

relationship. If the new

relationship isn't that great, they

will probably say no.

How much would

be too much for you, Jess Philips?

I

think that the divorce bill is an

amount of money that I wish we

weren't having to pay full stop

because obviously I would have

preferred if we stayed in the

European Union. But the idea that

people are going to take to the

streets and be really, really cross

if we have to settle our accounts to

get a good deal is just simply not

how I experience the world and

experience conversations tefr day

with my constituents every day about

the European Union.

Bill Cash,

Robert says that I cannot believe

the public would accept a huge

amount when we need money for

schools, hospitals and housing and

many other things so I think it will

be difficult if that's going to be

that sum amount of money?

Well, I'm

not entirely sure that Robert is the

sole arbiter of these questions. I

will say that however there is a lot

of pressure on public services and

it is our belief that when we leave

the European Union with a completely

new kind of deal, with the rest of

the world, with our surplus by the

way Jo having just shown our surplus

with the rest of the world went up

£10 billion last year alone and our

deficit with the 27 member states

also went up by about £10 billion so

we are on a reasonably good

trajectory.

When will the British

Government be able to spend that?

Not for another four years.

What is

happening they are in the process of

negotiation which if you were to

include a transitional period takes

you into the four year period

anyway.

In the transition period, of

course, we will be subject to the

European Court of Justice, we will

be paying in every year sums

comparable to those we pay now. We

won't be able to sign free trade

deals. We will be in the EU until

2021?

The question of the extent to

which we will be in the European

Court of Justice is really quite a

critical question and as a matter of

fact I think that although there

have been a lot of contradictions

about that, that's part of the

negotiations and actually at this

moment in time I don't think it is a

given that we will be in the

European Court of Justice as it is

at the moment.

Are you prepared to

give way on the European Court of

Justice as as being under the

jurisdiction of that?

I am very

unhappy about us being under the

European Court of Justice for very

good reasons. The European Court of

Justice, as I said in the House of

Commons the other day, asserts

constitutional supremacy.

But is it

a red line for you on this?

It

certainly is on the basis that they

can't assert constitutional

supremacy over ours and effectively

require a situation in which our act

of Parliament after Brexit would be

strapped down.

How many of your

colleagues agree with you on that?

We will see because we are going to

have a debate on this, but as far as

I'm concerned it is a matter

principle. I think the bill actually

says that the European Court of

Justice will not have effect as a

European court after exit day.

Nick

Boles, would you mind if the UK is

under ECJ jurisdiction only way till

2021?

Know, so long as it is limited

by that time period and I think that

Michael Gove and Boris Johnson have

also made clear that they can live

with that because as I think one of

them said, let's keep our eyes on

the prize. What matters is what is

the agreement that we can reach for

after the conclusion of the

transition. Keeping abutting pretty

much as it is now for two years.

Ultimately, it will pass quickly.

Around two years.

As long as it was

before the next election, I think

that will be acceptable.

Did you

wanted to be longer than three

years?

I think the critical thing is

that the transition needs to be

complete before the next general

election.

So you would be happy to

see it until 2022?

There are still

amendments being posed in the House

of Lords on the European Court which

would be of grave concern.

Let me

talk to you about the tone of the

debate that has gone on recently

because there are people who feel

that it has got out of control and

you are partly responsible, Bill

Cash, because you have accused some

of your colleagues of collaboration

with Labour. Is that the right tone

that should be adopted in this big

constitutional decision between

levers and Remainers?

First of all,

if you actually read my article in

the Times very carefully, I said if

they were.

It is the word

collaboration.

It means working

within a framework and with other

people.

It has negative connotations

which I'm sure you used specifically

for that purpose, but it has got so

bad that your colleagues over the

weekend has had umpteen death

threats and she blames that or says

it is a direct result of the Daily

Telegraph's muting the front page.

Is that feeding a tone of debate

that has now become sinister?

I

deplore anything along these lines,

but I will also say that we have a

debate going on that is incredibly

important and it is essential that

we don't end up in a situation

where, for example, there were to be

votes, and I am not saying there

will be.

But if there were, would

they be collaborators?

If they were

to completely undermine the whole of

the Brexit process and the

referendum, then that would be a

very, as I said in my article, that

would raise serious questions about

what was being done. But it is a

matter of analysis. We haven't got

to that point. As a matter of fact,

we have actually been getting our

ills through at the moment.

Has the

tone been wrong, though?

Dominik

said yesterday that it was important

and I actually had lunch with him

only a couple of days ago. We had a

very amicable discussion about all

of this. As a matter of fact, I

think it is important to stick to

the analysis because it is so

important to actually deliver Brexit

according to what the people decided

in the referendum, but at the same

time it would be quite impossible

for us simply to state whatever

amendments are put down our own

right. We are discussing these very

sensibly and with a very good

atmosphere in the House of Commons

itself, and I think that I deeply

deplored the death threat to

business. I think that is absolutely

appalling. But I do most

emphatically say that having voted

for Article 50 and for the

referendum act itself and also for

the second reading of the repeal

bill, there are natural constraints

in the manner in which people

proceed.

Thank you very much. Thank

you for coming in.

Now it's time for our daily quiz.

The question for today

is what item of clothing,

traditionally worn by a man

will soon be worn by a woman

in the palace of Westminster?

Was it A, a tie?

B, tights?

C, kilt?

Or D, braces?

At the end of the show Jess and Nick

will give us the correct answer.

So, it's the Budget on Wednesday.

I know you're all on tenterhooks,

but don't worry, you don't have

to wait until then for some

of its contents to be revealed.

Yesterday the Chancellor

was on the Andrew Marr Show

in an appearance that's become

as much part of tradition as

the parliamentary occasion itself.

Amidst the post-election clamour

for something to be done on housing,

Philip Hammond promised a million

new homes by 2020.

You might be forgiven for thinking

you have heard these

sort of pledges before.

Our guest of the day, Nick Boles,

has some of his own ideas

about tackling the housing crisis.

Here's his soapbox.

MUSIC PLAYS

The Prime Minister has

made it her personal

mission to build more

homes, more quickly.

Wednesday's Budget

will be a key moment.

The Chancellor has to announce

new measures to deliver more homes,

more homes for sale,

more affordable homes,

more council homes.

Here are some things he should do.

First, he should launch

a new Grenfell housing commission

to build 50,000 affordable homes

across the country and issue

a new Grenfell housing bond to raise

£50 billion to pay for them.

The

That would give us

genuinely affordable homes

in places like this,

Elephant Park in South London.

What better way, what better

memorial, to the people

who lost their lives in the dreadful

Grenfell Tower fire?

Second, he should reform the land

market to cap the profits that

wealthy landowners can make and give

councils the power to buy land

for housing at a reasonable price

so they can spend the money

they save on vital

local infrastructure.

Third, he should tell people

who already own their own home

in an urban or suburban area

that they can stick one

or two stories on the top

without going through a full

planning application,

but they ought to stick

to the local design.

Finally, he should tell the big

house builders to stop

dragging their feet and build out

those sites where they've

got planning permission,

and if they don't build the homes

on time, he should make

them offer the plots

to other builders who will.

It's going to take years to bring

sanity back into our housing market,

so we've got no time to lose.

Let's start now.

And Nick Boles is still here.

with Jess Phillips. Just picking up

in the last few points you made in

that film, should broadly in your

mind developers with planning

permission use it or lose it?

Yes, I

think that is absolutely right and

the question is how you get them to

do that. How do you put that into

effect in a way that also respect

the fact that they have made a big

investment in securing the planning

permission in the first place. It is

a very long accommodated and

expensive process. So my idea is

that they should be forced to sell

on the plots that they are not

building out on schedule to any

other builder who wants to build out

that plot, and that would quickly

reveal whether the excuse that they

often make, which is that some are

no longer viable and the value has

gone down, whether that was real or

in fact actually they were just

trying to eke out the suppliers

slowly as possible to keep prices

up.

Right, but the Government

already pledged in 2015 and 2017

that went million homes would be

built by 2020. You have missed the

target and are still missing it. How

you meet that additional number of

homes?

We have had a good figure.

A

better figure.

Let's recognise that

progress has been made through the

planning reforms and other reforms

that have happened. But I actually

agree with you. I think it is not

enough to will the end without

willing the means. You have got to

take some quite radical action, and

at the moment I haven't heard

anything from either the Chancellor

or anyone else that suggests to me

that we are going to do the things

that I know will be required, the

sort of things I was talking about

in the film. They are really quite

difficult and big steps to take, but

if we don't do things like that then

we will not take that figure.

Are

you confident the Chancellor will do

any of those radical things?

Well, I

am optimistic.

On the basis of?

Well, he made very plain that this

is the Prime Minister's number one

priority and his number one priority

for the budget and he recognises

issues with major house-builders not

building out on time and so I am

optimistic that they understand the

scale of the response required, but

I do think that they need to

understand that they will be judged

not just on the target, not just on

the aspiration, they will be judged

on the specific detail of the plans

that we are going to put into place

to actually make this market work.

Do you think it is in off, Jess

Phillips, to talk about Private

developers building homes? Is what

is needed if the Chancellor is going

to live up to what he said and

Theresa May also to go for a mass

state operation in terms of building

homes?

I think there needs to be

both. I think that unless we talk

about proper social housing, the

single biggest thing that comes into

my casework and through the doors of

my office every week is people who

are inappropriately housed in social

housing or who cannot get into

housing through social housing. In

Birmingham, there are thousands of

people living in an appropriate

temporary accommodation. There has

to be social building by the state.

What do you say to that? Should it

be led by state intervention in

order to do the things you have just

admitted? They have not been done

and if they are not it will not

happen.

I am going to disappoint you

because I completely agree with you.

My proposal for the Grenville

housing commission is to produce

50,000 social or affordable homes.

Homes that are owned by housing

associations, community land trusts,

and indeed councils.

What is

affordable?

There are is a range.

You want people to be getting onto

the housing ladder, but some of

them, quite a lot of them, need to

be good old-fashioned council homes.

At those sorts of rents, social rent

as they are called. We need to have

the full makes out there and it is

not enough to say that any one piece

is going to solve the problem. We

need all of the pieces to together.

But what the percentage are you

talking about? Because when people

talk about affordable housing, no

one knows what they mean and most of

the time it is not affordable.

It is

affordable and the sense that

someone can afford to move into it

but it is not affordable to people

who work in, say, the NHS. And it

should be.

How many?

I am not going

to go into detail but I do think it

is very important that councils

review their role, there are natural

role of commissioning and building

council homes. They will all be

subject in my view ultimately to

write to buy and I think that should

continue, but there needs to be a

steady supply of council homes to

ensure that our constituents who

can't afford something that is now

classified as affordable, that there

is a solution for them.

But you have

said the aid of dexterity is over

and that many governments run at a

deficit of around 2.6%. The risk

ruining the economy by not fixing

the roof while the sun is shining?

I

think it is a very important

problem, this. It has all sorts of

social and economic impacts. If

people can't get housing, they

become very frightened to take

risks. They become very frightened

to move to a new job and to set up a

new business. And so I think, yes,

we absolutely need to fix this

problem.

By adding to the deficit?

But to build homes that are either

with money for sale or generate a

rental income, so it is not like we

are just throwing money away.

Is

this a priority for Labour? Should

it be a priority for Labour in the

way that it is in rhetorical terms

for the Conservatives, because

Labour has a big promise in terms of

spending and renationalisation and a

long list that it wants to put money

into. Should this be the top of the

priority list?

If it were down to

me, it would be the absolute top of

the priority list, and to be fair I

think that for a lot of people in

the Labour Party it is the same.

Housing is the beginning, middle,

and end of the welfare of the people

who live in our country and when it

is precarious, all of the things

that Nick has said about the ability

to take risks and be entrepreneurial

are all true and it is also bad for

the health of our nation. And it is

causing huge problems. So to me, I

don't know whether it has been in

the past, but it seems like the

silver bullet, the panacea to try to

improve things would be to build

more houses and for people like me

and Nick who probably all our

houses, so to recognise that that

wealth is not something that we are

old, it is something that is built

on the backs of other people not

being able to afford a house.

And

would you support loosening planning

in the way that Nick advocates?

He

will get a lot of complaints about

his bad planning from neighbours,

but I do think that people being

able to build extra bits onto their

house and councils being able to

redevelop properties where families

grow and families are naturally

bigger in certain parts of my

constituency, but I am weary that I

don't want people throwing up

monstrosities. I also don't think

that it should be necessarily in

keeping with the area because I

think actually architecturally we

need to develop and trying to always

keeping the same, I think sometimes

mixed with the boring houses.

Should councils be allowed to borrow

to build?

Yes, with limits, but I

have to say it is one of the

treasury orthodoxes that drives me

and I think most MPs completely

round the bend, you know, somehow

the Government is allowed to borrow

almost to do anything, but they

won't allow responsible councils who

want to build council homes that

would solve a local need, that would

reduce the housing benefit bill that

goes straight back to the Treasury

and it's for reasons that I think

are entirely speechless.

Do you

think Philip Hammond is going to be

radical enough in your mind? Is he

radical enough to be the Chancellor

that's needed at the moment?

He has

very tough job and he has to keep a

lot of things in balance and I'm

sure I won't get everything I want,

but I listened to his interview

yesterday and I was encouraged that

he has identified this as his number

one priority. I'm optimistic.

Were

you encouraged by his comments there

are no unemployed people?

The way

the media handled that, of course,

it was clumsy and he should not have

said it. But what he was responding

to was the suggestion that when

there is a new technology that jobs

change and lots of people will be

made unemployed. He was saying when

shorthand typists weren't needed

anymore, there wasn't a sudden rush

of unemployed shorthand typists.

He

said we have created three million

jobs is what he said afterwards. It

sounded as if he had forgotten the

1.4 million unemployed. You say it

was clumsy. What say you?

I think

that, it probably was clumsy, but it

does unfortunately add to a layer

of, people who live where I live who

just think that the Conservatives

don't get their problems. I'm

unemployed, I have got

unemploymented people in my family,

it is sort of like hi we are over

here. Whilst I appreciate what he

was talking about was ought

owemation it does make people feel

their needs are forgotten and they

are not being heard.

Right. Is that

how he comes across, Philip Hammond?

No, I think we all make mistakes. I

have made my fair share and when you

are in a television studio and you

are under pressure you can sometimes

not think about things and think

about the broader implications of

them. We have the highest employment

rate in recorded history in this

country, but we have got further to

go and more people to try and get

help back into work and that's the

priority of this government.

Thank

you both of you.

So all that Budget fun to come

as the Withdrawal Bill continues

to be debated in the Commons

and Theresa May makes a new Brexit

divorce bill offer to the EU.

It's going to be a busy week

for Emily Ashton of Buzzfeed

and Chris Hope of the Telegaph

who are both on College Green.

Welcome to both of you. Emily, first

of all, how tight a spot is the

Chancellor in in terms of the

expectations that have been raised,

they are high. He is going to save

the Conservative Party fortunes and

of course, deal with all the

requests for money?

Yes, he is in a

bit of a tight spot, isn't he with

the Budget this week and Brexit in

general. He is a pro Remain minister

and he is under pressure from the

pro Brexiteers. He needs to find

something that appeals to real

people. You were talking about the

gaffe he made yesterday. The problem

is that he can sometimes come across

as a robot! Alongside the Maybot and

you need somebody that understands

real people. You remember the speech

from Theresa May on the steps of

Downing Street talking about helping

the just about managing. And more of

the housing, the Universal Credit,

the nurses pay, that's what we

really need to hear from him this

Wednesday.

Nick Boles has said he's

optimistic that he will, Philip

Hammond, rise to the challenge. Are

you as optimistic about what he will

do? Will it really be tinkering

around the edges on some of the big

issues or are you expecting

something radical?

I think it will

be tinkering around the edges for

Philip Hammond. This week it will be

less Brexit remainers and more

Hammond and everyone else. It seems

most people can't bear the bloke and

are hoping he might get sacked

before Christmas. He is not really a

human being and he can't do human.

Gordon Brown said that's part of the

problem of modern politics is

emoating and relating. It is the

Maybot and the robot as Chancellor.

It is tricky. There has to be some

idea, we are not sure what it is, we

want to see stamp duty reform, that

probably won't happen and some areas

where he can make tax cuts and it

will be a disappointing Budget.

Let's move on to Brexit because

there is the meeting of the Brexit

inner Cabinet later today. We heard

Michel Barnier the EU's chief

negotiator seeming to talk a little

bit more about life beyond the

divorce bill. Do we think there is

going to be a strong signal that the

40 billion euros is going to be

offered by the UK Government?

Yes,

that's right. We have got the Brexit

War Cabinet, War Cabinet, a

convoluted subcommittee that's

meeting this afternoon. We are

expecting some deal between the ten

Cabinet Ministers on that committee

for a Bill that Britain will pay to

the EU in the region of 40 billion

or 50 billion which is more than

they have said in the past and will

upset a lot of MPs who say that's

not what the public voted for

actually. They don't want to spend

this money to the aye. Isn't that

the point of Brexit? The point is

they want to move on to the next

phase of talks. And that is a way

town lock the next phase. So, this

really is a question of look, do you

want to move on or not? We need to

pay the bill.

How broad is the anger

going to be Chris Hope because Bill

Cash was saying if the methodology

is right and that's what we have to

pay, then we will have to pay it,

but Nigel Evans saying it will be

scandalous?

The difference between

what we have to pay which Bill Cash

and the punishment beating we are

taking from leaving Europe and the

European Union and that's the

problem for a lot of Brexiteers, we

have no idea what we are getting for

the money, we are paying this huge

bill and we have no idea what we are

getting in return. It looks slightly

crazy.

Now, there's compulsory

viewing for any politicos

on BBC Two at 9pm tonight.

Filmmaker David Modell has followed

Labour MPs through the election

campaign when many had expected

Jeremy Corbyn to crash and burn.

Instead he went from zero

to hero, of course.

Here are Labour MPs Lucy Powell,

Ruth Cadbury and Stephen Kinnock,

who only months earlier had been

calling for Mr Corbyn to resign,

taking in June's shock result.

Largest party.

Oh my god.

Oh my god.

That's unbelievable.

A 30 seats gain.

Amazing.

Oh my god.

What they are saying the

Conservatives are the largest party.

Note they don't have an overall

majority at this stage.

314 for the Conservatives.

That's down 17.

We are looking at a hung

parliament then.

A hung parliament.

A hung parliament.

I'm not sure what Stephen's

face is revealing here,

but perhaps he's realising

the Corbyn-free tomorrow

he is thinking about might

never actually come.

Well, they were very revealing those

reactions. Jess Phillips, some of

your colleagues didn't know quite

what to do or say at that point of

the announcement. Did you?

I was

driving at the time and I was with a

colleague of mine and we had been

campaigning all day. I was shocked.

I nearly drove off the road.

Really?

I was really shocked, yeah.

And...

It just wasn't what we were

expecting. I think that I had

thought it was going to be a lot

better than it had been predicted

weeks and weeks out by the time we

were within the sort of last two,

three weeks of the election campaign

because you can just feel it when

you're there. We spoke to 21,000

people in six weeks. So you get a

feeling for it. But you don't know

whether it is the same where you are

as everywhere else, you are in a

bunker during that period really.

How would you interpret Stephen kin

OK there, was he thinking this is a

bad result, Labour under Jeremy

Corbyn winning an extra 30 seats?

I

wouldn't like to try and guess what

was on Stephen's mind at the time! I

think with the documentaries one has

to be careful of editing and over

speaking to try and project on to

people.

Shouldn't they have been

celebrating 30 extra seats for

Labour?

Yeah, absolutely, but it

goes to a studio if people like us

are sat there, they are probably

going no one trusts the exit polls

so it is difficult to know actually

how that's going to stack up in

reality.

But he almost looked

disappointed?

Yeah, I should imagine

if we were watching tonight, more

will be revealed.

Right.

It's a very

good documentary maker.

Well, we

will all be watching it. You

admitted you were wrong after the

election for questioning Jeremy

Corbyn's electability. Is he

unassailable?

I don't think anybody

is unassailable. Out for milk at

moment and there is a new world

order when you get back! I think

that anybody who thinks they are

unassailable should have a word with

themselves, but he is in a stronger

position.

Right, is he, should he be

doing better than he is at the

moment? Theresa May is not having a

good autumn by anyone's standards.

She has lost two Cabinet Ministers

in the last month, Brexit

negotiations are currently in

deadlock, they are flailing over

core policies like Universal Credit

and Labour and the Tories are neck

and neck and occasionally they are a

few points ahead? T-does seem if

electorates only reacted to poor

performances the Labour Party should

be streaming ahead in the polls. So

why aren't they?

I think there is

all sorts of reasons. I think that

people at the moment, everything is

so consumed with Brexit that lots of

people, we don't know what people's

domestic agendas are anymore. The

vision that helps people really,

really understand where you might

want to put your, which we don't

know when there is going to be

another vote, it seems to have been

sucked away by Brexit, bun of the

problems is that both political

parties increased their vote share

in the last election and it is very

difficult for them to find the

natural places to be stealing it

from. So we seem to be in a deadlock

in the poll.

There are plenty of

people who feel that Brexit is not

going well. If that's the image of

people, why isn't Jeremy Corbyn 20

points ahead in the poll?

I have no

idea why. But maybe people are not

convinced. The people who did vote

for him were obviously convinced and

we need to convince natural Tory

voters to vote Labour and that is

much bigger step.

Is there still a problem over the

economy and trust on the economy

because despite everything that is

going on for the Government, a

recent poll showed the Prime

Minister and the Chancellor remain

about eight points ahead of Jeremy

Corbyn and John McDonnell?

I think

that almost certainly is an issue

and being sensible and safe

especially in a time when we don't

know what's going to happen with

Brexit. People want to feel that the

economy is going to be in safe hands

and they have got, they have never

had an opportunity to prove it

because there were always

backbenchers who weren't involved

when the Labour Party was in

government so they have got a long

way to prove that people can trust

them with their money and that's

totally understandable.

The election

result for you, Nick Boles, were you

shocked?

Yes, I had a weird

experience because I was finishing

treatment for cancer so I hadn't

been able to campaign at all in my

constituency and was sort of lying

flat on the sofa watching it unfold

and thinking what on earth have they

done and worried, of course, for my

own seat as it happens, my majority

went up, but I think the important

thing was that that election was

crucially an election about Brexit

and there is a lot of research

that's been done which suggests that

most of the people who switched

their vote, one way or another, were

voting about Brexit. So, there were

a huge number of people who voted

Labour for the first time because

they wanted the softest Brexit

possible. And there were others, of

course, Ukip voters for instance who

voted Conservative for the first

time because they wanted a rather

harder Brexit. I don't think the

next election is going to be about

Brexit. It will be about the future

so I'm not sure whether it will tell

us very much the polling position

today about the next election.

I

mean, we have just discussed Theresa

May is not having an easy time. You

could say it has been a catastrophic

autumn for him and the disappointing

election result. Should she fight

the next election?

As she said she

will carry on being leader as long

as the Parliamentary party want her

to be leader. I think the natural

thing is for her to deliver Brexit

and for then for her and for the

party to have a think about whether

that's a natural time to hand over

to somebody fresher and younger and

newer or whether she is in a sense

so rebuilt her credibility and her

authority that actually she can

fight the next election, but I don't

think anybody should be thinking

about this or giving consideration

to one decision or another until

Brexit is complete. That's her

mission is to deliver Brexit and

it's a pretty big mission and a

difficult one and I think let's

stick with that.

You think if it

were deemed to be a success she

could stay on until the next

election?

It is not impossible.

The documentary is on BBC Two at 9pm

tonight.

Now, the accusations of sexual

harassment at Westminster may be

off the front pages,

but with inquiries on-going

and the establishment of a cross

party body to handle claims

of impropriety, still to be

agreed on, the story

is unlikely to go away.

Here is Theresa May earlier this

month, attempting to get

on the front foot in her handling

of the story.

Sadly over recent days

we have seen a number

of allegations about figures

from across the political parties

and it's important that those

are investigated impartially

and some have rightly been

referred to the police.

I think if this hasn't happened

to you, it's difficult to appreciate

the impact that being a victim

of this sort of behaviour can have.

It simply has a lasting impact

on people and we need to do more

to stop these abuses of power

and I'm pleased that having convened

this meeting of party leaders today.

And joining us now is

Joanna Williams, the author

of Women Versus Feminism:

Why We All Need Liberating

from the Gender Wars.

Jess Phillips who as Chair of the

Women's Parliamentary Labour Party,

has handled some of the complaints

in the party.

Welcome to the studio. Do you think

this has been well handled and

handled in the correct way?

No, I

don't. I think there are a number of

problems with it has been handled so

far, perhaps more significantly the

tragic suicide of the Welsh Labour

MP Carl Sargeant. So I think we have

the trappings of a witchhunt, which

is bad for men but also terrible for

women, this idea that we are going

to lump together everything from

rape accusations, serious sexual

assault allegations to touching of

knees or text messages, all been

conflated together, I think it

trivialises some of the serious

crimes that have had an impact on

women's lies and creates a witchhunt

atmosphere.

What do you have decided

that?

I don't know who is lumping

things together other than those who

want to call it a witchhunt. I don't

think it is a witchhunt, I think

that like any place of work,

Parliament has delivered by the same

roles and people should feel safe

and comfortable and power and

patronage that exists in Parliament

should never ever be able to be used

to exploit whether that is sexual

harassment or people's sexual urges,

because it is to be fundamentally

about the power imbalance that

exists in there and it is by no

means only women. I have dealt with

complaints by men as well.

Do you

accept that?

No, I think it is very

disingenuous to say that we don't

know who is lumping these things

together because we have had

spreadsheets going around

Parliament, compiled through text

messages groups that have then

formed the front page of news

stories that have focused on

everything from touching of knees to

serious accusations of rape, I think

these things are clearly being

lumped together and the argument is

that all of these things are on a

continuum. Well, by that logic every

aspect of human interaction from

saying hello to summon, talking to

someone, to rape and murder are all

on a continuum. But the argument

that women are completely powerless.

Sexual harassment does happen but

the idea that women can't turn

around and ask not for that to

happen or through a cup of coffee

over them walk away. These are women

in Parliament we are talking about.

I think despite the ridiculous and

insulting to women. Right. Why can't

women do that?

They absolutely can

but I suppose the difference is that

I recognise that not all women are

exactly the same and some women may

feel completely able to and all

power to their elbows. I would like

to eat it if somebody touched me.

However, there are lots and lots of

young people and I know because I

work in Parliament, there are lots

of young women and men who are dear

to try and get on in life and feel

that they have two be quiet about

certain things. This isn't just a

problem in Parliament.

I see this

absolutely everywhere. This is a

very patronising idea that some

women are capable of dealing with

sexual harassment but other women

are not.

What about the case if it

is a young woman who's going for a

job in hand houses of parliament and

the person who is interviewing her

sends her sexual text messages. Is

she in a position to tell that man

easily to literally go away?

Actually, today, yes. The fact is

there are young women in the country

who are at risk of sexual harassment

and let's talk about the young girls

in Rochdale, in Oxford, in

Newcastle, and when Sarah chavvy...

I thought we weren't going to lump

them all together.

When these girls

are talked about, they do not make

the front page.

I hear about all of

these cases. I set up services for

child victims of sexual exploitation

all across the Midlands and it is

absolutely phenomenal but you are

now lumping those things in

together, exactly as you have

claimed not to be doing, which I

find to be completely disingenuous.

Anyone who is going to stand there

and say that I don't care about

child sexual excitation but I do

care about knee touching is, I am

afraid to say, lying.

Are all of

these things a matter of importance?

You recently wrote that any woman

who publicly accusing someone of

sexual harassment without details

are evidence is not only believed

about celebrating? Can you give me

examples where they have not had

details or evidence?

Well, these are

not tested in court of law. That is

the point. Anybody can turn round

and say that someone touched my knee

ten years ago and if you have a

serious accusation of rape or sexual

assault, it needs to go to a court

of law. You have somebody who has

tragically committed suicide without

even knowing what the allegations

were against him. How can that be

right in 2017 that somebody is fired

from their job without even knowing

what they stand accused of?

Should

people be told in full what it is

they are accused of. Some people

might say that they know what they

are being accused of even if it

hasn't been publicly explained. But

if we look at the ongoing

investigations, including the

cabinet Minister, Damian Green,

Charlie Elphick also said they don't

know the full nature of their

allegations. Is that the correct way

to deal with that?

Well, I am not an

expert in this and I wonder that it

may be in certain cases where an

alleged event is so serious that it

has been referred to the police. It

may be that the police then say that

no further information can be

supplied to the alleged perpetrator.

But it certainly in the ideal world

as an employer, you would hope that

the accusations were shared in full,

but as I say, it may be that the

police actually prevent that. We

have to respect the police, that

they do need to be able to do their

jobs properly.

Isn't there a

difference between what is known as

locker room talk because of Donald

Trump and sexual banter and serious

sexual harassment and that there is

a risk of minimising what most

people would think is the more

serious accusation from, as you say,

the day to day power play?

I think

the people who are aiming to

minimise both things are the people

who are essentially trying to lump

those two things together. Now, I

don't think that being upset that

young women feel that they cannot

speak up where they are employed-

many of them leave their jobs

because they just don't know what to

do with it. It is, to be honest,

about power. Sexual violence is not

about sexual urges. Sexual

harassment is not about sexual

urges. It is about having power over

somebody and it exists in difficult

power -- different power

relationships. As you is an expert,

if there is going to be a police

investigation, which I don't know.

There isn't an Charlie Elphick's

case. At the party were to speak to

him, they could then be called to

give evidence.

On the subject of

power, we need to remember that

these are adult women that we are

talking about. We're not talking

about children. And where is the

power line when one person loses his

job and another person gets a

Guardian column or the front story?

But if they have been found to be

caught in wrongdoing, shouldn't they

lose their job?

But this is them

losing a job on the basis of an

accusation without having been found

guilty of anything.

Just very

briefly, the people who have been

accused and suspended from Labour,

the investigations have gone quiet.

You have any idea about when we will

hear if they have been resolved?

I

think that the investigation is

trying to be... It is all being

redesigned. Every political party is

redesigning it. It shouldn't be too

long, and they are trying to do it

in a timely manner.

Now, she stood down as Labour's

leader in Scotland for a quieter

life, so what better way to achieve

that than becoming

a reality TV star?

Her party's new leader,

Richard Leonard, is now

considering whether Kezia Dugdale

should be disciplined

for deserting her post

as an MSP at Holyrood to head

for the Australian jungle.

She hasn't yet made an appearance on

I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here!,

but she's not the only

politician on the programme.

Boris' dad, Stanley Johnson,

made his debut on the first

episode last night.

I'm Stanley Johnson. I am an author,

a former politician, an

environmental campaigner. People

probably also recognise me as being

the father of Boris Johnson, the

politician. Wow! Hey, hey, look at

this! Look at this. I think I'm

going to have some champagne. Oh, my

lord. What have we here?

Wow.

Are

you a film star?

No, I am the wife

of an England player.

Is he going to

be out for the Ashes?

Oh, no. He

plays football, not cricket.

Are you

a footballer?

No, I am an actor.

How

wonderful!

I just finished with

Hollyoaks.

I know about Hollyoaks.

It actually comes just when you

watch the Channel 4 News.

And here to give some advice to this

year's political jungle-dwellers

is I'm a celebrity survivor,

Christine Hamilton.

What are your top tips?

Be yourself.

You can't be anything else. Anybody

who has put themselves in there now,

they know what is coming. I was on

the very first one so I literally

had no idea. It was 15 years ago.

Gosh!

Allah, I know. Now they all

know exactly what is coming. -- Ooh,

I know! Now they all know exactly

what is coming.

Now they don't know

who eat other arm. I love Stanley's

excuse for not watching because it

clashes with the news.

I think

Stanley will do very well. I know

him and I think he will... I think

people like him.

What about Kezia

Dugdale?

I do think she should be

there. She has a job, for heaven 's

sake. I think it is wrong. We have

had another MP being in and she was

criticised and she was out pretty

quickly. They don't like

politicians. The one who did best

was Edwina Currie. Kezia said in

2016 that she wanted to ban all

second jobs for members of the

Scottish parliament and she wanted

to have a new kind of politics.

Well, what do you think? Do you

think she should be sanctioned?

I

don't know is the answer to this

question. I genuinely don't. I

didn't know she was going on it

until yesterday.

Nor did Jeremy

Corbyn. Or Richard Leonard.

What I

am really wary of is that there are

foot lines in the Labour Party at

the moment and I hope that this does

not become one of them because it is

nonsense. I wouldn't do it. You

wouldn't do it. For all sorts of

reasons.

Is it because it would be a

conflict of interest?

For all sorts

of reasons.

I think we can show the

tweet.

So isn't it a bit of the critical?

Also, I suppose, because of some of

the fractions in the Labour Party,

the same thing could be said for a

Kezia Dugdale that this is giving an

excuse to people who might want to

take that excuse. But it is

hypocritical. There's no two ways

about that.

That seems to be...

Nobody seems to know what is

happening to the money. First of

all, she said she would give some of

it to a charity. She did have a

pledge on a registered member's

interests that she would donate all

of our money that she raised from

other work to a charity. That is

gone. She is being paid tens and

tens and tens of thousands.

Everybody negotiates. It is vastly

more... I think I can say this. I

was offered £10,000. And I asked

them to make it a bit better. They

made it up to 12 and then they put

everyone else's up as well.

You

tempted?

I frankly would pay not to

have to watch it. Have you ever

watched it? No.

There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was what

item of clothing -

traditionally worn by a man -

will soon be worn by a woman

in the palace of Westminster?

Was it:

A, a tie?

B, tights?

C, waistcoat?

Or D, braces?

So, Jess and Nick, what's

the correct answer?

Tights.

And that is because? Sarah

Clark is going to become the first

Black rod and so she will be wearing

those sites.

I was really pleased.

Good, well, there is a change for

you.

That's all for today.

Thanks to our guests.

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 of the day.

Do join me then.

Bye-bye.