Jo Coburn is joined by Conservative MP Nick Boles and Labour MP Jess Phillips to discuss Wednesday's Budget, the Brexit divorce bill and housing policy.
Browse content similar to 20/11/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
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?
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.
interpreted as Michel Barnier
playing hard ball here?
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
All right, Adam
Fleming thank you very much in
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.
agree a higher divorce bill and what
is being talked about is 40 billion
euros, would you accept that?
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
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
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?
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
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.
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?
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...
will have been proved wrong?
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
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.
going to double what Theresa May
promised in the Florence speech?
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.
I'm not the guy
negotiating and nor do I have the
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?
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?
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.
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?
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
When will the British
Government be able to spend that?
Not for another four years.
happening they are in the process of
negotiation which if you were to
include a transitional period takes
you into the four year period
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
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
But is it
a red line for you on this?
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
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.
Boles, would you mind if the UK is
under ECJ jurisdiction only way till
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.
wanted to be longer than three
I think the critical thing is
that the transition needs to be
complete before the next general
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.
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
It is the word
It means working
within a framework and with other
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?
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
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.
tone been wrong, though?
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
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?
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.
The Prime Minister has
made it her personal
mission to build more
homes, more quickly.
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.
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
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
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?
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
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
We have had a good 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.
you confident the Chancellor will do
any of those radical things?
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
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
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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
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.
would you support loosening planning
in the way that Nick advocates?
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
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.
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?
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.
you encouraged by his comments there
are no unemployed people?
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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?
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
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
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.
Oh my god.
Oh my god.
A 30 seats gain.
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
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?
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.
I was really shocked, yeah.
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?
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
Shouldn't they have been
celebrating 30 extra seats for
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
But he almost looked
Yeah, I should imagine
if we were watching tonight, more
will be revealed.
It's a very
good documentary maker.
will all be watching it. You
admitted you were wrong after the
election for questioning Jeremy
Corbyn's electability. Is he
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
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?
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
result for you, Nick Boles, were you
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.
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
It is not impossible.
The documentary is on BBC Two at 9pm
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?
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
What do you have decided
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.
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
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?
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
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?
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
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.
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?
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?
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.
No, I am an actor.
I just finished with
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,
What are your top tips?
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.
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.
Stanley will do very well. I know
him and I think he will... I think
people like him.
What about Kezia
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?
don't know is the answer to this
question. I genuinely don't. I
didn't know she was going on it
Nor did Jeremy
Corbyn. Or Richard Leonard.
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
Is it because it would be a
conflict of interest?
For all sorts
I think we can show the
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
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.
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?
A, a tie?
Or D, braces?
So, Jess and Nick, what's
the correct answer?
And that is because? Sarah
Clark is going to become the first
Black rod and so she will be wearing
I was really pleased.
Good, well, there is a change for
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.
Jo Coburn is joined by Conservative MP Nick Boles and Labour MP Jess Phillips to discuss Wednesday's Budget, the Brexit divorce bill and housing policy.
There is also an interview with former I'm a Celebrity contestant Christine Hamilton about politicians appearing on the jungle TV show.