0:00:38 > 0:00:43Hello, and welcome to the Daily Politics.
0:00:43 > 0:00:50The Government is warned it could be in contempt of Parliament unless it
0:00:50 > 0:00:52hands over full details of its assessment of the potential
0:00:52 > 0:00:53impact of Brexit on the economy.
0:00:53 > 0:00:54We'll have the latest.
0:00:54 > 0:00:57Is Momentum carrying out a hard-left purge of Labour's centrists?
0:00:57 > 0:00:59Or is the organisation putting some much-needed lead
0:00:59 > 0:01:02in the party pencil?
0:01:02 > 0:01:07We discuss with one of Momentum's most high-profile supporters.
0:01:07 > 0:01:10On his first outing in the Commons, the new Defence Secretary is warned
0:01:10 > 0:01:12by his own MPs that he faces a "substantial rebellion"
0:01:12 > 0:01:15if there are more cuts to the Armed Forces.
0:01:15 > 0:01:18We'll be speaking to the chairman of the Defence Select Committee.
0:01:18 > 0:01:19And.
0:01:19 > 0:01:21Who are the key people behind the scenes?
0:01:21 > 0:01:29We have the latest in our Westminster Village series.
0:01:30 > 0:01:33All that in the next hour.
0:01:33 > 0:01:37And with us for the whole of the programme today
0:01:37 > 0:01:38is the Guardian columnist Owen Jones.
0:01:38 > 0:01:40Welcome to the show.
0:01:40 > 0:01:42Now, this morning, the Bank of England Governor
0:01:42 > 0:01:45Mark Carney has said Britain's biggest banks could cope
0:01:45 > 0:01:50if the country leaves the EU in a "disorderly" way.
0:01:50 > 0:01:54For the first time since the financial crisis,
0:01:54 > 0:02:01all of the UK's biggest lenders have passed the bank's stress tests.
0:02:01 > 0:02:06Here is Mark Carney speaking earlier this morning.
0:02:06 > 0:02:11Despite the severity of the test, for the first time since the Bank
0:02:11 > 0:02:14began stress testing in 2014, no bank needs to strengthen
0:02:14 > 0:02:15its capital position as a result.
0:02:15 > 0:02:17Informed by the stress test and our own risk analysis,
0:02:17 > 0:02:20the FPC also judges that the banking system can continue to support
0:02:20 > 0:02:22the real economy, even in the unlikely event
0:02:22 > 0:02:32of a disorderly Brexit.
0:02:33 > 0:02:37The balance sheets of British banks are strong enough, are you
0:02:37 > 0:02:42reassured? It shows how low the bar has been
0:02:42 > 0:02:47set. We're not talking about imminent financial Armageddon. We
0:02:47 > 0:02:51have seen the weakest growth in Britain of any major G-7 country,
0:02:51 > 0:02:57the longest squeeze in wages since perhaps the 18th century, and a
0:02:57 > 0:03:03prospect of a no deal Brexit which means everything from dairy and meat
0:03:03 > 0:03:08product prices surging, aeroplanes being grounded, the economy grinding
0:03:08 > 0:03:12to a halt. Aren't they the worst case scenarios
0:03:12 > 0:03:15you prepare for? They are not a risk I would like to
0:03:15 > 0:03:21take. It is not as bad as you won't be
0:03:21 > 0:03:23shot in the head but you may be hospitalised.
0:03:23 > 0:03:30What we are talking about because the Tories have bungled Brexit
0:03:30 > 0:03:37negotiations are they are going very badly, we have a chronically weak
0:03:37 > 0:03:43Government, we have the longest squeeze in wages for 200 years. Weak
0:03:43 > 0:03:47economic growth and the prospect of a disastrous no deal Brexit which
0:03:47 > 0:03:52will cause huge hardship. People might say you are doing
0:03:52 > 0:03:57project fear in the way that remain as said ahead of the referendum. In
0:03:57 > 0:04:03terms of warnings, Morgan Stanley says Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime
0:04:03 > 0:04:08Minister would cause more damage to UK business than Brexit.
0:04:08 > 0:04:14I would be more worried if they started lauding Jeremy Corbyn. This
0:04:14 > 0:04:18financial elite plunged the world into economic disaster, they got
0:04:18 > 0:04:26saved by the state, one of the many lavish benefits claimants. They
0:04:26 > 0:04:32caused huge economic ruin which many were forced to pay for. The truth of
0:04:32 > 0:04:38why the Labour Party is doing so well is because of the damage
0:04:38 > 0:04:42inflicted on our economy by the financial sector.
0:04:42 > 0:04:46So why a 20 points ahead if they are doing so well?
0:04:46 > 0:04:51Older people haven't been won over because the Labour Party have a 20
0:04:51 > 0:04:58point lead the people over those under 65. We have to do more for
0:04:58 > 0:05:03those who haven't suffered the great squeeze in wages. Issues like social
0:05:03 > 0:05:08care, pensions. On the economy they are not trusted
0:05:08 > 0:05:12still. They have closed the gap. You said
0:05:12 > 0:05:19you would expect them to be further ahead, even the Shadow Chancellor
0:05:19 > 0:05:26has said there could be a run on the pound and a flight of capital from
0:05:26 > 0:05:31the UK, thinking there is a worst case scenario if Labour come to
0:05:31 > 0:05:37Government. You would see a sharp decline...
0:05:37 > 0:05:40He thinks there would be a further...
0:05:40 > 0:05:43You have to prepare for all eventualities.
0:05:43 > 0:05:50That is what Mark Carney is doing. I said we wouldn't have if a natural
0:05:50 > 0:05:57apocalypse doesn't mean in a deal Brexit wouldn't be ruinous.
0:05:57 > 0:06:01If you look at the Tories's economic record where they said they would
0:06:01 > 0:06:11wipe out the deficit by 2015. 2031. They have added more debt than
0:06:11 > 0:06:15any Labour Government put together. A terrible decline in wages.
0:06:15 > 0:06:22That is why an alternative, saying, let us have a genuine living wage,
0:06:22 > 0:06:27ask those at the top to pay more to invest in our crippled public
0:06:27 > 0:06:33services, bring our utilities back under the ownership of the people,
0:06:33 > 0:06:37that has resonated with millions of people.
0:06:37 > 0:06:50What Usain about... About the record levels -- what do you say to mark --
0:06:50 > 0:06:56what do you say about the record levels of unemployment?
0:06:56 > 0:07:02What we have seen in this country is most people in poverty are in work.
0:07:02 > 0:07:07They get up every day to earn their poverty which is bad for the
0:07:07 > 0:07:11economy, they don't spend, bad for the taxpayer because wages have to
0:07:11 > 0:07:19be topped up. Instead, as we are arguing, you need an interventionist
0:07:19 > 0:07:21policy to support industries like renewable energy and high-tech to
0:07:21 > 0:07:29create skilled, properly paid jobs which are sustainable.
0:07:29 > 0:07:35Should Labour reverse all the cuts by the Government rather than 4
0:07:35 > 0:07:40billion? I would like to see them go further.
0:07:40 > 0:07:44I would like Labour to go further in lots of ways, a more radical
0:07:44 > 0:07:48programme including reversing every single cut.
0:07:48 > 0:07:51Labour has accused the Government of treating Parliament with contempt
0:07:51 > 0:07:54unless it hands over full details of its assessment of the potential
0:07:54 > 0:07:55impact of Brexit on the economy.
0:07:55 > 0:07:58The Government sent over its documents to the Brexit
0:07:58 > 0:08:02Committee last night but with crucial details edited out.
0:08:02 > 0:08:04The Brexit Secretary David Davis said the papers had been redacted
0:08:04 > 0:08:07because there was no guarantee they would be kept secret.
0:08:07 > 0:08:10Well, the Brexit Committee has been meeting this morning to discuss how
0:08:10 > 0:08:12to respond to the Government.
0:08:12 > 0:08:14Norman Smith joins us now from Portcullis House
0:08:14 > 0:08:21where the meeting has been taking place.
0:08:21 > 0:08:26Bring us up to date? The committee has decided to summon David Davis to
0:08:26 > 0:08:34appear before them, I suspect, on Monday, and have written to him
0:08:34 > 0:08:40saying it is not acceptable he has flouted the will of the Commons by
0:08:40 > 0:08:43not handing over all the documentation, challenging his view
0:08:43 > 0:08:49he has been given no assurances how the committee would respond. Jacob
0:08:49 > 0:08:54Rees Mogg tabled an amendment to the letter to include the possibility Mr
0:08:54 > 0:08:58Davies might be in breach of parliamentary Prevc which would open
0:08:58 > 0:09:05him up to being in contempt of Parliament -- privilege.
0:09:05 > 0:09:12What happens next? The select committee today has
0:09:12 > 0:09:18decided to ask David Davis to appear before us. I have written to him to
0:09:18 > 0:09:22say, because the Government in its better to me yesterday said it had
0:09:22 > 0:09:28withheld certain information, I don't think that is consistent with
0:09:28 > 0:09:36the resolution Nijhuis past, and I have said the committee will need to
0:09:36 > 0:09:41consider whether this is potentially a breach of privilege. We are asking
0:09:41 > 0:09:46him to appear as a matter of urgency to ask him about the process by
0:09:46 > 0:09:50which the Government decided to respond to the resolution which led
0:09:50 > 0:09:57to an edited version of the material, and so we can ask him the
0:09:57 > 0:10:01question of the arch lever files of material given, is there anything
0:10:01 > 0:10:06which in your view might undermine the negotiations because the
0:10:06 > 0:10:09committee will take the decision about what to publish.
0:10:09 > 0:10:15The Government is clear the documents you have seen do not
0:10:15 > 0:10:20exist, they are not there. They say the committee has not given him
0:10:20 > 0:10:26assurances over how you will treat this information.
0:10:26 > 0:10:30The second of those suggestions is incorrect. I made it very clear to
0:10:30 > 0:10:33the Secretary of State how the committee would deal with this. The
0:10:33 > 0:10:37members will look at the material released, they can't take copies
0:10:37 > 0:10:43away. I gave assurances how it would be handled. I said we would ask the
0:10:43 > 0:10:46Government are there things in here you think our commercial in
0:10:46 > 0:10:53confidence or very sensitive, and the committee takes its
0:10:53 > 0:10:57responsibilities seriously. Ultimately I made it clear to him,
0:10:57 > 0:11:00Parliament instructed the material be released to us, it is the job of
0:11:00 > 0:11:05the committee to decide what is published having considered what
0:11:05 > 0:11:09ministers think. For the material released, one reason why we are
0:11:09 > 0:11:14calling him is, is there anything you have concerns given you told us
0:11:14 > 0:11:19you have included a lot of stuff you were concerned about.
0:11:19 > 0:11:25What happens if David Davis says, I am sorry, I will not hand over the
0:11:25 > 0:11:29additional documentation I am wary of giving over.
0:11:29 > 0:11:33The committee will have to consider whatever answers he gives, and
0:11:33 > 0:11:41decide how to take it further. I am not prejudging what the
0:11:41 > 0:11:46committee might decide. The question has been raised whether potentially
0:11:46 > 0:11:54this is a breach of privilege. The committee has taken no stance at
0:11:54 > 0:11:57all. Ultimately it will be for the committee to decide what happens
0:11:57 > 0:12:04next. This might look like a tussle over
0:12:04 > 0:12:09paperwork but it is more profound, a tussle over who is going to run the
0:12:09 > 0:12:16Brexit process. Ministers or can Parliament grab hold of it? So much
0:12:16 > 0:12:22of the whole tussle has been about this from the first day.
0:12:22 > 0:12:25I'm joined now by the Conservative MP John Whittingdale who sits
0:12:25 > 0:12:27on the Brexit Committee, and was in the meeting this morning.
0:12:27 > 0:12:34And by the Labour MP Paul Blomfield who is a Shadow Brexit minister.
0:12:34 > 0:12:41Welcome to you. John Whittingdale, David Davis is in breach of
0:12:41 > 0:12:45Parliament. There was a vote, Parliament decided to seek the
0:12:45 > 0:12:49papers in full and he failed to deliver.
0:12:49 > 0:12:53Parliament had also said the Government should not release the
0:12:53 > 0:12:59material which could jeopardise our negotiations, and the important
0:12:59 > 0:13:03thing is we get the best possible deal for this country, it is the
0:13:03 > 0:13:07biggest issue facing us and I would not want the Government to release
0:13:07 > 0:13:10anything which could put that at risk.
0:13:10 > 0:13:14Is he in breach of Parliament by failing to supply the papers in
0:13:14 > 0:13:21full? We will come onto what could be adapted. Has he failed to do what
0:13:21 > 0:13:26was demanded of him? In my view, no, Parliament has said
0:13:26 > 0:13:32we should not release documents... What would you say to Hilary Benn?
0:13:32 > 0:13:39The committee was not unanimous. I support summoning David Davis, he
0:13:39 > 0:13:43needs to answer questions about whether there is information in the
0:13:43 > 0:13:48documents we have been given, which are sensitive and we should not even
0:13:48 > 0:13:53release those. If he has released those, why not
0:13:53 > 0:13:56everything? In his letter, he says he hasn't
0:13:56 > 0:14:01supplied all the information because he has withheld some that could put
0:14:01 > 0:14:06at risk our negotiations. And said even within the documents he has
0:14:06 > 0:14:09given there is some sensitive material he would prefer not to be
0:14:09 > 0:14:15made public. Has the committee overstepped its
0:14:15 > 0:14:18mark? All Hilary Benn has done is said the
0:14:18 > 0:14:23committee may wish to consider. That is not overstepping the mark. It is
0:14:23 > 0:14:29reasonable to say that. The question is whether we conclude there has
0:14:29 > 0:14:33been any breach of privilege, my view is that there has not.
0:14:33 > 0:14:37We are in the middle of one of the most important sets of negotiations,
0:14:37 > 0:14:43why should the Government be forced to give away sensitive information
0:14:43 > 0:14:46that would not be in the national interest and might undermine
0:14:46 > 0:14:53negotiations? I wound up the debate for the
0:14:53 > 0:14:57Liberal Party on the 1st of November and made it clear we do not want to
0:14:57 > 0:15:03seek commercially sensitive information released or the
0:15:03 > 0:15:07negotiations compromised. But we do want to see the 58 impact
0:15:07 > 0:15:11assessments released to the Select Committee.
0:15:11 > 0:15:20If they are not adapted, how can they include the 60 -- sensitive
0:15:20 > 0:15:26information? We want them to be released to the
0:15:26 > 0:15:28committee who can decide what publications can be made more
0:15:28 > 0:15:28widely.
0:15:36 > 0:15:40Es Do you trust the members of Select Committees, bearing the mind
0:15:40 > 0:15:47David Davis' letter was leaked and ended up in a newspaper?I don't
0:15:47 > 0:15:52think it is good if we start from the premise we can't trust Select
0:15:52 > 0:15:58Committees, which work across a range of issues and areas. Our
0:15:58 > 0:16:00accountability begins to break down if Government are marginalising
0:16:00 > 0:16:04Select Committees in this way.Well, obviously a point, John
0:16:04 > 0:16:08Whittingdale. Do you not trust your fellow parliamentarians, either we
0:16:08 > 0:16:12have a system that works and you can deal with sews sensitive
0:16:12 > 0:16:15information, otherwise you are going to see information that we can all
0:16:15 > 0:16:19see in the public domain.? In this case you have a Select Committee of
0:16:19 > 0:16:2320 members, and the information is also beingp given to the Lords'
0:16:23 > 0:16:26Select Committee and being given do the devolved administration. This
0:16:26 > 0:16:29information is going to a lot of people.Do you trust your fellow
0:16:29 > 0:16:32parliamentarians?I have chaired a Select Committee in ten years,
0:16:32 > 0:16:35during that time we had to have leak inquiries because information was
0:16:35 > 0:16:39leaked. I am afraid there are precedents for this happening and on
0:16:39 > 0:16:43a committee of this size, when one has to say that perhaps not every
0:16:43 > 0:16:47member is as committed to obtaining a good deal as I am and my
0:16:47 > 0:16:49colleagues, in those instances, I can see why the Secretary of State
0:16:49 > 0:16:57is reluctant.What do you say to that, Paul, Blomfeld?I think it is
0:16:57 > 0:17:00an important principle here, you alluded to it at the outset. At
0:17:00 > 0:17:04every point during this process Government has tried to marginalise
0:17:04 > 0:17:07Parliament. Parliament is central in what are the most important
0:17:07 > 0:17:10negotiations facing this country. I made it clear, at the end of the
0:17:10 > 0:17:15debate, if the Government didn't wish to release, as the Commons
0:17:15 > 0:17:18wanted the to, those papers, unredacted, they should have voted
0:17:18 > 0:17:21against that motion or amended it. They chose not to and the motion was
0:17:21 > 0:17:24very clear - that the papers should be released in full to the Select
0:17:24 > 0:17:28Committee.You haven't answered the question about the problems of leaks
0:17:28 > 0:17:31and leaks of sensitive information that could damage Britain's position
0:17:31 > 0:17:36in these negotiations. We know that leaks happen all the time. So why
0:17:36 > 0:17:40would we risk it with these negotiations?Well, I have to say
0:17:40 > 0:17:46some of the most damaging leaks that have come out of the negotiations
0:17:46 > 0:17:48are from the Cabinet with Government ministers briefing against each
0:17:48 > 0:17:52other which caused enormous damage to the process and confidence in
0:17:52 > 0:17:55where this Government is taking us. I think we have to work on the
0:17:55 > 0:17:59principle that our Select Committees are to be trusted and to fulfil
0:17:59 > 0:18:01their responsibilities properly. Once Government starts saying we are
0:18:01 > 0:18:04not going to give them this information, because we have to
0:18:04 > 0:18:09worry about it or not going to give them that information, the system of
0:18:09 > 0:18:13parliamentary accountability breaks down.Right but even the EU
0:18:13 > 0:18:16themselves have said they wouldn't give away potentially sensitive
0:18:16 > 0:18:22information. On their fact street they say, "A certain level of
0:18:22 > 0:18:26confidentiality is necessary to protect EU interests and to deep
0:18:26 > 0:18:30chances for a satisfactory outcome high." Are they wrong?No they are
0:18:30 > 0:18:35right. What we have said and we made it clear, I made this point in the
0:18:35 > 0:18:39Commons, when we were concluding the debate, we do not want to seat
0:18:39 > 0:18:43public release of information which is confidential or compromising the
0:18:43 > 0:18:45negotiating position but we want to see that full information made
0:18:45 > 0:18:48available to the Select Committee responsible in the House of Commons.
0:18:48 > 0:18:53Right. I mean, David Davis is making this up as he goes alock, isn't he?
0:18:53 > 0:18:58-- along. There weren't any assessment impact papers in the
0:18:58 > 0:19:03first place and Parliament in the end called his bluff?Well, I
0:19:03 > 0:19:06haven't yet seen the documents we have been given. There are 850
0:19:06 > 0:19:09pages, I only got them last night. We only have one copy. Until I have
0:19:09 > 0:19:12had a chance to look the a therges I don't know quite what they will
0:19:12 > 0:19:19consist of. -- to look at them. We won't know what the material that
0:19:19 > 0:19:24has been withheld is, so we don't know if they are complete or not. It
0:19:24 > 0:19:28is a political game. You are saying its a short-term political game but
0:19:28 > 0:19:31the Brexit secretary, David Davis said to a committee of MPs in
0:19:31 > 0:19:38December last year, "We have carried out o or are the midst of carrying
0:19:38 > 0:19:41out 57 sector analysis which have amplcations that 85% of the economy
0:19:41 > 0:19:46and some of those are still to be concluded." Yet, when course the
0:19:46 > 0:19:50vote was lost, nobody could seem to put their hands on these, in
0:19:50 > 0:19:53detailed papers written about different sectors of the economy
0:19:53 > 0:19:57Well, as I understand it, this is an ongoing process, they are documents
0:19:57 > 0:20:01that are continually having new information added to them, the has
0:20:01 > 0:20:10now said that they will give us the documents at the time the vote was
0:20:10 > 0:20:16carried but they continue to go on evolving.That's the point they
0:20:16 > 0:20:19don't exist in the form you have outlined That case there is (a
0:20:19 > 0:20:22serious question about trusting Government. David Davis told the
0:20:22 > 0:20:25break it Select Committee in December, as youlight, that that
0:20:25 > 0:20:31work was being done, and then he provided in October the Lords'
0:20:31 > 0:20:37committee with a list of 58, he had added one to the 57 in December,
0:20:37 > 0:20:40sectorial impact assessments he said had been undertaken. If they have
0:20:40 > 0:20:43knot been undertaken we are in serious territory.Well, if you
0:20:43 > 0:20:46don't know they existed in the fist place, what are you criticising
0:20:46 > 0:20:51here? You have not actually seen the contents of the documents so far,
0:20:51 > 0:20:55you don't even know if they existed in the fist place so, what is this
0:20:55 > 0:21:00all about?Well, I take the Secretary of State's word at face
0:21:00 > 0:21:05value. He said this work was being undertaken and he reported on the 58
0:21:05 > 0:21:08reviews that had taken place. I'm not doubting that. All we want to do
0:21:08 > 0:21:13is see them.Right, but you haven't seen them and yet you are
0:21:13 > 0:21:16criticising the process, criticising the content of papers that you
0:21:16 > 0:21:22haven't yet seen.Well the Secretary of State said that the Government
0:21:22 > 0:21:25had undertaken 58 sectorial impact assessments. The House of Commons
0:21:25 > 0:21:28voted that they should be released in full to the Brexit Select
0:21:28 > 0:21:31Committee, that's what we are concerned about. Either that work
0:21:31 > 0:21:34hasn't been undertaken, which is very serious for the country if they
0:21:34 > 0:21:38have not taken the economic impact assessments on the negotiations that
0:21:38 > 0:21:41they are deeply involved in, which will affect everybody's jump in
0:21:41 > 0:21:44livelihoods or they have and they are not releasing them in full.
0:21:44 > 0:21:49Either way, this is serious territory.Right. The question is
0:21:49 > 0:21:53one of transparency John Whittingdale and the Tory MP, Jacob
0:21:53 > 0:21:56Rees-Mogg is supporting Labour and Paul Blomfeld in this, because he
0:21:56 > 0:22:00says that they have to be published these papers, in full to the Brexit
0:22:00 > 0:22:04Select Committee. The motion does not allow for redaction and a happy
0:22:04 > 0:22:09chat across the Despatch Box between the shadow spokesman and ministers
0:22:09 > 0:22:13and it doesn't reduce the right of this House to seat papers. He is
0:22:13 > 0:22:17correct -- see the papersI know that is his view. I don't entirely
0:22:17 > 0:22:22agree with him. In this instance, I think there is a bigger issue at
0:22:22 > 0:22:27stake. Getting the right deal for this country is imperative.
0:22:27 > 0:22:31Transparency can be pushed to the sideIf it involves releasing
0:22:31 > 0:22:33information that could potentially undermine the negotiation, yes.
0:22:33 > 0:22:42Right. What is your view, Owen z they exist and is there a question
0:22:42 > 0:22:52of redaction?A question of honesty, David Davis seemed to imply or
0:22:52 > 0:22:55suggest, that they were there in detail. The wider point about
0:22:55 > 0:22:59transparency is this - we were told by the leaders of the Leave campaign
0:22:59 > 0:23:02that this ex-Brit was about restoring parliamentary sovereignty,
0:23:02 > 0:23:06and yet they undermine parliamentary scrutiny of this proriver single
0:23:06 > 0:23:09step of the way. The other point, John Whittingdale talked about a
0:23:09 > 0:23:13good deal. I wouldn't trust this Government to wash my windows never
0:23:13 > 0:23:18mind...How do you get a good deal if you give awane reveal...The
0:23:18 > 0:23:21question is, do we have parliamentary sovereignty, where
0:23:21 > 0:23:24there is proper parliamentary oversight on a cross-party basis or
0:23:24 > 0:23:30do we entrust the future of our country to Liam Fox, Boris Johnson
0:23:30 > 0:23:34and David Davis, where we had a Leave campaign that promised all
0:23:34 > 0:23:37sorts of things, getting a deal would be a walk in the park, the
0:23:37 > 0:23:43boreder in Ireland wouldn't be a problem, it is and we would get £350
0:23:43 > 0:23:47million extra a beak for the NHS. That got lost in the post. Now if we
0:23:47 > 0:23:54don't trust them over and over again, why should we allow them to
0:23:54 > 0:24:00have complete oversight without MPs on the cross of had party basis
0:24:00 > 0:24:06restoring...We have lost John Whittingdale. He had to go back to
0:24:06 > 0:24:09the Houses of Parliament for an urgent question on this subject. We
0:24:09 > 0:24:13will bring that to you, when we get it:
0:24:13 > 0:24:14Now it's time for our daily quiz.
0:24:14 > 0:24:17An SNP MP called Douglas Chapman has managed to secure a Parliamentary
0:24:17 > 0:24:20debate suggesting that the UK should appoint a new ambassador.
0:24:20 > 0:24:21But to where?
0:24:21 > 0:24:22Is it a) The Arctic?
0:24:22 > 0:24:23b) The Antarctic?
0:24:23 > 0:24:24c) Catalonia?
0:24:24 > 0:24:25Or d) Mars?
0:24:25 > 0:24:28At the end of the show, Owen will hopefully give
0:24:28 > 0:24:34us the correct answer.
0:24:34 > 0:24:37Now, unless you've been hiding away for the last couple of years,
0:24:37 > 0:24:39you've no doubt heard about Momentum, the campaign group
0:24:39 > 0:24:46set up to support Jeremy Corbyn.
0:24:46 > 0:24:48Owen here is a high-profile supporter, and is involved in some
0:24:48 > 0:24:50of Momentum's campaigning.
0:24:50 > 0:24:53Yesterday, we reported on Momentum's new political objectives document,
0:24:53 > 0:24:59which it is asking prospective parliamentary candidates to sign.
0:24:59 > 0:25:01It got a few in the party a bit irked.
0:25:01 > 0:25:03One Labour MP tweeted that Momentum
0:25:03 > 0:25:04was like a "Stalinist cult".
0:25:04 > 0:25:05So, is that true?
0:25:05 > 0:25:07Or is the criticism overblown?
0:25:07 > 0:25:09Today's Times reports that some Labour councillors around
0:25:09 > 0:25:13the country are being deselected or pressured to stand down
0:25:13 > 0:25:16in favour of candidates more sympathetic to Momentum's aims.
0:25:16 > 0:25:18The in-fighting is particularly intense in Haringey,
0:25:18 > 0:25:21in north London.
0:25:21 > 0:25:29One of the councillors there, Tim Gallagher,
0:25:29 > 0:25:32says there is an "aggressive purge" happening in the local party.
0:25:32 > 0:25:34He added that the atmosphere is "inflamed with division,
0:25:34 > 0:25:36distrust and what at times feels like hatred".
0:25:36 > 0:25:46Meanwhile, the founder and chair of Momentum Jon Lansman
0:25:47 > 0:25:50is running for a place on the ruling body of the Labour Party,
0:25:50 > 0:25:51the National Executive Committee.
0:25:51 > 0:25:53At Labour's recent conference, Momentum successfully pushed
0:25:53 > 0:25:56for a change to Labour's leadership election rules, which means that,
0:25:56 > 0:25:58in future, candidates running to lead the party will only need
0:25:58 > 0:26:01the support of 10%, rather than 15%, of Labour MPs.
0:26:01 > 0:26:03But Jon Lansman said that the change to the rules "doesn't
0:26:03 > 0:26:04go far enough".
0:26:04 > 0:26:07He also wants to see further changes in the Labour Party, in particular,
0:26:07 > 0:26:12"giving members more influence over policymaking".
0:26:12 > 0:26:19Momentum says it has 31,000 paying members
0:26:19 > 0:26:23and a further 200,000 supporters.
0:26:23 > 0:26:26Many think that the organisation played a key role in helping
0:26:26 > 0:26:29Jeremy Corbyn and Labour to gain seats at the election back in June.
0:26:29 > 0:26:38With us now is Richard Angell, director of Progress,
0:26:38 > 0:26:43a centre-left pressure group.
0:26:43 > 0:26:48Are you concerned with the situation, particularly in har ingay
0:26:48 > 0:26:57Utterly ludicrous. Momentum played an historic role in the election. I
0:26:57 > 0:27:06hope Richard would agree..Come to the har ingayIt is about what
0:27:06 > 0:27:09member Labour put forward to represent the party adds councillor,
0:27:09 > 0:27:14you have seen a handful of examples in har ingay. And I should point out
0:27:14 > 0:27:20what a thriving party it is. In Hornsey and Wood Green do you how
0:27:20 > 0:27:25many members of the Labour Party, it is 1 in 14, a thriving Democratic
0:27:25 > 0:27:32Party. The problem s har ingay is the Labour council there is
0:27:32 > 0:27:38proposing a mass sell-off of council housing and public land including
0:27:38 > 0:27:44both MPs, including David Lammy, no Corbynite. And poe o opposed by
0:27:44 > 0:27:52consit City Council r os and some of those, when they support come up
0:27:52 > 0:27:56from election, there has been a handsful where members themselves
0:27:56 > 0:27:59democratically decided they would like to replace them with swuvenlt
0:27:59 > 0:28:02they might be disappointed with losing elections, they always are,
0:28:02 > 0:28:08but it is democracy.Is it democracy in action or a purge?It is a the pa
0:28:08 > 0:28:12earn taking place. The first woman leader of Leeds council has been
0:28:12 > 0:28:16triggered in her local party, a city with two women MPs for Labour in its
0:28:16 > 0:28:20whole history. You have it in Manchester, where the former Mr Gay
0:28:20 > 0:28:24UK has been deselected. You have a young, black lesbian woman in
0:28:24 > 0:28:27Southwark where it is taking place. There is a pattern across the
0:28:27 > 0:28:31country, Owen, this is now going to come to our Labour MPs potentially
0:28:31 > 0:28:35down the road. The Tory opponents don't have to deal with this, they
0:28:35 > 0:28:41are having to deal with different challenge, in Haringey, it isn't
0:28:41 > 0:28:46true, you have fallen for George Osborne's trap. He wanted to impose
0:28:46 > 0:28:49big swinging cuts on local government so, Labour people would
0:28:49 > 0:28:53take it out on Labour councillors rather than a Tory Treasury. That's
0:28:53 > 0:28:57why Momentum, not its membership, hover working really hard, but the
0:28:57 > 0:29:01Momentum leadership is taking it out on Labour councillors for decisions
0:29:01 > 0:29:05made by George Osborne. Why are you falling for their trap?Firstly in
0:29:05 > 0:29:09terms of falling for traps, it is disappointed if you are talking
0:29:09 > 0:29:13about factions, for your faction to go to the Murdoch press and try and
0:29:13 > 0:29:18-- that's what happened in the Times this morning.It happens in the
0:29:18 > 0:29:25public domainTo portray democratic selections by members as a purge. It
0:29:25 > 0:29:30is not, it is democracy in ction a. Your own, honoury President, Stephen
0:29:30 > 0:29:34Twigg, who I happen to like very much by the way he himself won his
0:29:34 > 0:29:39seat by deselecting...Yes he did. He deselected.He had no role in
0:29:39 > 0:29:43that deselection.Yes, he znchts your faction that's what they did.
0:29:43 > 0:29:53-- he ZThat's not trueLet me finish In terms of Richard's record
0:29:53 > 0:29:57on diversity it is excellent.Why are they deselecting people already
0:29:57 > 0:30:00in position, it is not so much about the diversity issue, it is about
0:30:00 > 0:30:07trying to get rid of people representing Labour already?
0:30:07 > 0:30:11Grassroots members of the Labour Party in handful of incidences, they
0:30:11 > 0:30:15have made themselves a democratic choice, look, if you get selected as
0:30:15 > 0:30:17a candidate for the Labour Party in any position, it is a huge honour,
0:30:17 > 0:30:21but it doesn't mean you have it for life, whatever you do. Members have
0:30:21 > 0:30:26the right to judge you on your record and values, if they
0:30:26 > 0:30:29themselves democratically decide they would prefer somebody else in
0:30:29 > 0:30:35their place, that is their role. The need to portray that as undemocratic
0:30:35 > 0:30:41manoeuvring when Labour now, I have to say before 2015n many places,
0:30:41 > 0:30:44local Labours were husks with very little activity, with council r os
0:30:44 > 0:30:48selected with very few members, Labour now is one of the biggest
0:30:48 > 0:30:52parties in the Concern world, is a thriving dome Western World is a
0:30:52 > 0:30:57thriving Democratic Party.We will come on to how they've manage to
0:30:57 > 0:31:04swell the numbers but back to haring game. You adduced Owen Jones of --
0:31:04 > 0:31:10you accused Owen Jones of falling for George Osborne's trap but do you
0:31:10 > 0:31:13accept in Haringey there was a great strength of feeling against what the
0:31:13 > 0:31:20council was proposing?
0:31:20 > 0:31:27This is what George Osborne wanted. This is not just Haringey.Let him
0:31:27 > 0:31:33finish. This is what the Tories wanted. In
0:31:33 > 0:31:41Haringey, what is wrong with local members saying, we don't agree with
0:31:41 > 0:31:44our representatives backing council proposals to make swingeing cuts,
0:31:44 > 0:31:49whoever you want to blame, that is democracy.
0:31:49 > 0:31:57They have no choice. They can't run a legal -- a deficit budget.
0:31:57 > 0:32:03When they put a motion to the Council on anti-Semitism, there were
0:32:03 > 0:32:07people who work in the chamber hounding those people and
0:32:07 > 0:32:12threatening them with deselection if they voted to tackle anti-Semitism.
0:32:12 > 0:32:19Jon Lansman is Jewish. Does that mean there is no tone of
0:32:19 > 0:32:24hatred as said by this young Labour councillor. Gallagher says he
0:32:24 > 0:32:29doesn't want to stand again because the atmosphere is poisonous,
0:32:29 > 0:32:33inflamed by distrust and what feels like hatred.
0:32:33 > 0:32:37We are seeing candidates who are very disappointed their brand of
0:32:37 > 0:32:45politics is no longer in the ascent, there is a mass democratic party
0:32:45 > 0:32:48full of optimism. And full of hatred he says.
0:32:48 > 0:33:00That is not true. I saw Richard Angell where your fellow -- your
0:33:00 > 0:33:06fellow travellers were leaving abuse.
0:33:06 > 0:33:15The vast majority of people as you would accept who have joined the
0:33:15 > 0:33:17liver party are decent, honest, optimistic.
0:33:17 > 0:33:24I did not say that. The people I campaign with, they
0:33:24 > 0:33:31were brilliant. I enjoyed getting on with them, we disagreed, we talked.
0:33:31 > 0:33:37There is something in the leadership actively supporting this. We have a
0:33:37 > 0:33:44loyalty test, any revisions to the manifesto... Momentum does not
0:33:44 > 0:33:49practice what it peaches, it does not have internal democracy, it
0:33:49 > 0:33:56decided who the candidate in Corby is without a ballot.
0:33:56 > 0:34:06On the loyalty test, we had a discussion, Richard brought this up,
0:34:06 > 0:34:10do you think you would have passed it at all stages in recent history?
0:34:10 > 0:34:16In spring this year after using the Copeland election, you called for
0:34:16 > 0:34:23Jeremy Corbyn to resign. You would not have met at contract.
0:34:23 > 0:34:30Yes, after voting for him, I was publicly disillusioned. Why am I
0:34:30 > 0:34:41working so closely with the Mentor? Momentum is a very broad church of
0:34:41 > 0:34:45members united by wanting to have a radical socialist Government to
0:34:45 > 0:34:54build a socialist society. The loyalty test, the Mentor
0:34:54 > 0:35:04supports candidates in internal elections.
0:35:04 > 0:35:08Progress... What we are proud of...
0:35:08 > 0:35:14Progress is a tiny group in comparison. Momentum have thriving
0:35:14 > 0:35:18democratic local groups which democratically selects their own
0:35:18 > 0:35:23board. Why are you so much smaller in terms
0:35:23 > 0:35:30of numbers? Compared to Momentum. You have to
0:35:30 > 0:35:35accept they have been hugely successful in terms of getting new
0:35:35 > 0:35:38members, injecting enthusiasm. Your branch of the party is running
0:35:38 > 0:35:44scared. We are recognising our politics is
0:35:44 > 0:35:50at a low ebb and we had to renew ourselves because, clearly, people
0:35:50 > 0:35:53think our ideas have run their course, people can't move on from
0:35:53 > 0:36:00the last Labour Party. I am allowed to believe what I
0:36:00 > 0:36:06believe and renew my politics. We are a growing organisation. Let
0:36:06 > 0:36:13me make this comparison. What Progress does in selection is
0:36:13 > 0:36:17provide training for people so they know the process, Labour makes it
0:36:17 > 0:36:25cloaked in secrecy. We don't donate money to campaigns, we don't get
0:36:25 > 0:36:29together to say you have two pre-select a candidate. We support
0:36:29 > 0:36:40as many as we can. Do you want everybody to be saying
0:36:40 > 0:36:44exactly the same thing on exactly the same issues so there is no
0:36:44 > 0:36:50deviation? Is it discipline to get your man into number ten?
0:36:50 > 0:36:55In the general election, I campaigns, including four MPs who
0:36:55 > 0:37:02have different politics from myself. Should they be deselected? No, that
0:37:02 > 0:37:09is not the case. In terms of the loyalty test, the Mentor is
0:37:09 > 0:37:15supporting certain candidates, as other organisations do, asking them
0:37:15 > 0:37:21to sign up to their values. There is nothing wrong.
0:37:21 > 0:37:28The former head of compliance... I remember being active when Tony
0:37:28 > 0:37:32Blair was leader and the atmosphere them towards people of my politics
0:37:32 > 0:37:38was often bitterly hostile. We were blamed for destroying the Labour
0:37:38 > 0:37:45Party, and the reality is now the Labour Party is far more open and
0:37:45 > 0:37:50democratic than it has been for a generation. It will mean elements of
0:37:50 > 0:37:55the old order who believe in what many people now believe is a failed
0:37:55 > 0:37:58orthodoxy, they will find that other people who join will maybe replace
0:37:58 > 0:38:04them. That is part of democracy. The
0:38:04 > 0:38:10Labour Party did far better than many expected even within the Labour
0:38:10 > 0:38:16Party itself. Do you accept the values and policies being espoused
0:38:16 > 0:38:22by Jeremy Corbyn struck a chord? It did. But also in that manifesto
0:38:22 > 0:38:28it aligned economic security and national security, the best of
0:38:28 > 0:38:32Jeremy Corbyn and Tom Watson, but in the days after the election, he said
0:38:32 > 0:38:40they would still get rid of Trident. He didn't do that.
0:38:40 > 0:38:50Very briefly, in the end, Labour were still two points behind, 20
0:38:50 > 0:38:55years ago Tony Blair came in 12 points ahead. In order to win do you
0:38:55 > 0:38:59not have is to be in that position of Tony Blair and a more centrist
0:38:59 > 0:39:05Labour Party to win an election? Those who support those politics on
0:39:05 > 0:39:14the continent are doing far worse for Labour's sister parties. Labour
0:39:14 > 0:39:18got 40%, New Labour at its peak got 44.
0:39:18 > 0:39:24Labour started on 24, within six weeks ended up on 40. In the next
0:39:24 > 0:39:33election if we going with 42%, what many Tory MPs fear is the only way
0:39:33 > 0:39:41is up. Because of the Mentor Labour did far better.
0:39:41 > 0:39:47If only that were true.
0:39:47 > 0:39:50Some say behind the door of Number 10 Downing Street lie
0:39:50 > 0:39:52the real power brokers - those who advise the Prime Minister
0:39:52 > 0:39:54on issues such as strategy, communications or policy.
0:39:54 > 0:40:03Emma Vardy has been having a look at who's in, and who's out.
0:40:03 > 0:40:05After the general election, Theresa May faced something
0:40:05 > 0:40:12of an exodus of staff.
0:40:12 > 0:40:14Some who were blamed for the disastrous result
0:40:14 > 0:40:15were shown the door.
0:40:15 > 0:40:16New faces came in.
0:40:16 > 0:40:18Others rewarded for their loyalty were promoted.
0:40:18 > 0:40:28She reshaped her inner circle and braced for the challenges ahead.
0:40:28 > 0:40:32Here were the two main casualties of the post-election clear-out.
0:40:32 > 0:40:34Former joint Chief of Staff Fiona Hill,
0:40:34 > 0:40:35and Nick Timothy, decided to walk.
0:40:35 > 0:40:37This man occupies the most powerful non-ministerial
0:40:37 > 0:40:38position in Government.
0:40:38 > 0:40:43Gavin Barwell got the job after losing his Croydon seat.
0:40:43 > 0:40:46He is now the Downing Street Chief of Staff, a highly influential role
0:40:46 > 0:40:48at the heart of Government.
0:40:48 > 0:40:54This is now the most senior female in Mrs May's team,
0:40:54 > 0:40:57Deputy Chief of Staff Joanna Penn, known as Jo-Jo, who worked closely
0:40:57 > 0:40:59with Theresa May in the Home Office.
0:40:59 > 0:41:01Another member of staff who followed Mrs May
0:41:01 > 0:41:05from the Home Office is Alex Dawson, now the political director
0:41:05 > 0:41:11of Number Ten, someone who has risen in prominence since that election.
0:41:11 > 0:41:14It's just so tiresome when you're trying to run the country and this
0:41:14 > 0:41:17lot is popping up with questions.
0:41:17 > 0:41:22So behind every Prime Minister there is hard-headed press team.
0:41:22 > 0:41:23It's a round-the-clock job, you know.
0:41:23 > 0:41:25Here's someone whose name you might remember
0:41:25 > 0:41:27from the credits of this programme.
0:41:27 > 0:41:30Robbie Gibb left his job as the boss of the BBC's live
0:41:30 > 0:41:32political output to become Theresa May's Director
0:41:32 > 0:41:39of Communications.
0:41:39 > 0:41:41Another former BBC journalist, Tom Swabrick,
0:41:41 > 0:41:44deals with the broadcast media while Paul Harrison is the current
0:41:44 > 0:41:45Press Secretary.
0:41:45 > 0:41:47And what about those set-piece media appearances
0:41:47 > 0:41:50which show the public the human side of the Prime Minister's personality?
0:41:50 > 0:41:53Overseeing those is Liz Sanderson, a former feature writer
0:41:53 > 0:41:57for the Mail On Sunday.
0:41:57 > 0:41:59Prime Ministers' careers are often later remembered for some
0:41:59 > 0:42:01of their key speeches.
0:42:01 > 0:42:04And that's where the wordsmiths come in.
0:42:04 > 0:42:07Help a PM to nail that podium moment and you might
0:42:07 > 0:42:09just go down in history.
0:42:09 > 0:42:14Although this speech might go down for all the wrong reasons,
0:42:14 > 0:42:19with Philip Hammond being the chief provider of cough sweets,
0:42:19 > 0:42:22Keelan Carr is Theresa May's new speech writer.
0:42:22 > 0:42:23And here is another journalist
0:42:23 > 0:42:24turned political aide.
0:42:24 > 0:42:27The former Political Editor of the Daily Mail, James Slack,
0:42:27 > 0:42:30is the Prime Minister's official spokesperson - he has the daily
0:42:30 > 0:42:35job of briefing lobby journalists at Parliament.
0:42:35 > 0:42:37Working behind this door, well, there aren't many jobs like it,
0:42:37 > 0:42:47but you never quite know how long it will last.
0:42:47 > 0:42:49We're joined now by someone who mixes with the movers
0:42:49 > 0:42:52and shakers on a daily basis, the political editor
0:42:52 > 0:42:55of The Sun, Tom Newton Dunn.
0:42:55 > 0:43:02Welcome back. Changes in personnel after the election, how has Downing
0:43:02 > 0:43:09Street changed? Considerably, a 180 degrees U-turn.
0:43:09 > 0:43:14There are some new names, Robbie give.
0:43:14 > 0:43:22I remember him.I understand his staff still get Molly King text
0:43:22 > 0:43:36messages despite the fact he has still moved on. -- rollicking. The
0:43:36 > 0:43:41two figures missing are Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill who drove the
0:43:41 > 0:43:47operation, and some say had a fair hand in driving the Prime Minister,
0:43:47 > 0:43:53very adversarial people. Without that, number ten is a lot more
0:43:53 > 0:43:58adversarial, less adversarial. Has it weakened the Prime Minister?
0:43:58 > 0:44:03After the election we talked about the possibility of those advisers
0:44:03 > 0:44:08having to load which they did, and it would be like losing a leg or an
0:44:08 > 0:44:12arm. Has that been the case? Sort of. An
0:44:12 > 0:44:18interesting dynamic. Number ten now has no majority and still have no
0:44:18 > 0:44:22money. Now they don't have much of a mandate.
0:44:22 > 0:44:29The entire job of this number ten is to build alliances in cabinet and
0:44:29 > 0:44:33Parliament, to be consensual and build bridges and a group effort
0:44:33 > 0:44:43which is the opposite of before when it was about driving through
0:44:43 > 0:44:47policies. Today, number ten is delivering on the mandate it has
0:44:47 > 0:44:54which is getting policy and governing without any majority.
0:44:54 > 0:45:00Does it make any difference who is behind the throne in terms of
0:45:00 > 0:45:05advisers, or is it still very much led by the Prime Minister, and her
0:45:05 > 0:45:14closest advisers who are elected? This is a directional lists -- a
0:45:14 > 0:45:18Government without direction. And the personnel Quetta but we have
0:45:18 > 0:45:22gathered you are not a supporter of this Government. Does it make a
0:45:22 > 0:45:22difference?
0:45:28 > 0:45:33#9dIt does, Nick Timothy, cut a figure. He is widely ridiculed often
0:45:33 > 0:45:38as the architect of a disastrous manifesto. But what that manifesto
0:45:38 > 0:45:42accepted was the free market consensus had collapsed T spoke how
0:45:42 > 0:45:50the state needed to take a far more actedive role and how things had
0:45:50 > 0:45:53failed. I think he was an interesting figure in that sense, he
0:45:53 > 0:45:56understood that. The problem with the Tories at the moment is they are
0:45:56 > 0:46:00flitting between either the position of saying let's double dog on free
0:46:00 > 0:46:03market dog marks we have not sold it properly, or to say the system isn't
0:46:03 > 0:46:09working. -- dogma. And that was the camp he was in.Do you accept that,
0:46:09 > 0:46:12this has been more about state intervention, un-Tory, but you have
0:46:12 > 0:46:16said yourself...The rhetoric, not the policy.The rhetoric, then, in
0:46:16 > 0:46:20that case. If somebody like Nick Timothy who has gone, was seen as
0:46:20 > 0:46:24the brain, if you like, behind the policy, do you need a person like
0:46:24 > 0:46:30that to actuallyAbsolutely. I think Owen - I think some of the policies
0:46:30 > 0:46:35were recently interventionist. Ed Miliband's policy, price freeze,
0:46:35 > 0:46:38kicking corporate governments around boardrooms and more shareholders
0:46:38 > 0:46:43having greater rights, workers on the board, etc, all of that was very
0:46:43 > 0:46:47un-Tory and certainly very unlibertarian Tory and you needed a
0:46:47 > 0:46:54character like Nick Timothy who fervently believed in it to drive it
0:46:54 > 0:46:57through, quite dogmaticically and swatting opposition aside.Do you
0:46:57 > 0:47:01need that sort of force behind politics,er is eial, everybody says
0:47:01 > 0:47:04it is about the 24-hour media. Is it important to have that narrative
0:47:04 > 0:47:07going through in a main or the Government?You need a vision and
0:47:07 > 0:47:10this Government doesn't have a clear vision whatsoever. The problem now
0:47:10 > 0:47:13with the Government is it is about day-to-day survival rather than a
0:47:13 > 0:47:17long of had term clear project for the country which meets its
0:47:17 > 0:47:20challenges, obviously it went horribly wrong for the Tories in
0:47:20 > 0:47:25that snap election but you did have someone like Nick Timothy who z I
0:47:25 > 0:47:30mean it was disastrous in terms of the dementia tax and election
0:47:30 > 0:47:35falling to pieces but in the overall society we have lived in, yes it has
0:47:35 > 0:47:38been stripped away completely and it is about how Theresa May survives,
0:47:38 > 0:47:42will she make it to the end of the day.They shaping events the current
0:47:42 > 0:47:45team now, and if it is a broader circle, they have managed to keep
0:47:45 > 0:47:49Theresa May in power at times when people have said it'll all fall
0:47:49 > 0:47:53over?And that is the number one goal of number ten at the moment,
0:47:53 > 0:47:57keep Theresa May in power and somehow get Brexit through without
0:47:57 > 0:48:03the Tory Party imploding, I think events also shame personle. The
0:48:03 > 0:48:07single most important person, Tuilagily the most important person
0:48:07 > 0:48:12apart from Mrs May, is Mr May, when history books are written, the role
0:48:12 > 0:48:14and effect and guidance he gave to the Prime Minister will be huge. We
0:48:14 > 0:48:17see very little of him. But certainly her most important
0:48:17 > 0:48:22advisor. After that it is Gavin Barwell the Chief of Staff and Gavin
0:48:22 > 0:48:27was chosen very much because he was nice guy Gavin. Tory MPs like him.
0:48:27 > 0:48:30He doesn't have an enemy in the House of Commons, you need that to
0:48:30 > 0:48:36build bridges and keep the PM where she is, try hard it get a minuscule
0:48:36 > 0:48:39policy, through like a stamp duty cut on first time buyers but really,
0:48:39 > 0:48:42the game is survival.Thank you.
0:48:42 > 0:48:44The new Defence Secretary, Gavin Williamson, has been warned
0:48:44 > 0:48:46that he faces a "substantial rebellion" if the Government allows
0:48:46 > 0:48:49any more cuts to the Armed Forces.
0:48:49 > 0:48:54Mr Williamson was facing questions for the first time in his new role
0:48:54 > 0:48:57in the House of Commons yesterday and he was left in little doubt
0:48:57 > 0:48:59about the widespread anger among his colleagues over further
0:48:59 > 0:49:00possible defence savings.
0:49:00 > 0:49:01Let's look at some highlights:
0:49:04 > 0:49:09What we have in terms of our national security and capability
0:49:09 > 0:49:15review is the opportunity to step back, look at the threats and
0:49:15 > 0:49:20challenges that this country faces, whether it is from cyber, whether it
0:49:20 > 0:49:29is more conventional threats, and make sure we have the right
0:49:29 > 0:49:32resources in place so that we can deliver for our Armed Forces.
0:49:32 > 0:49:34It was surreal last week to hear the Permanent Private Secretary
0:49:34 > 0:49:37say that the man in charge had made no formal pre-Budget request
0:49:37 > 0:49:39to the Chancellor for more money.
0:49:39 > 0:49:42It is one thing to ask and not get, Mr Speaker, but
0:49:42 > 0:49:45another not even to bother asking.
0:49:45 > 0:49:47Above all, will he speak to his right honourable friend
0:49:47 > 0:49:49the Chief Whip to remind him
0:49:49 > 0:49:53if he does not do so he will face a very substantial rebellion.
0:49:53 > 0:49:55It might seem illogical to have a defence
0:49:55 > 0:49:57capability review that could decrease our capabilities at a time
0:49:57 > 0:49:59when we need to do everything we can
0:49:59 > 0:50:03to increase the fighting power of our Armed Forces.
0:50:03 > 0:50:05I think my honourable friend makes a very
0:50:05 > 0:50:07valuable point in terms of making sure we have the right
0:50:07 > 0:50:12capability for all our Armed Forces.
0:50:12 > 0:50:18I am taking the opportunity to look at all the work that has been done,
0:50:18 > 0:50:22and making my own judgment of the best way to go forward on this.
0:50:22 > 0:50:24Joining me from Central Lobby in Parliament is the Chairman
0:50:24 > 0:50:30of the Defence Select Committee, Julian Lewis.
0:50:30 > 0:50:34How do you think the new Defence Secretary did?I think he got off to
0:50:34 > 0:50:39a good start. He showed himself to be open minded about the central
0:50:39 > 0:50:43issue - which is: Are we spending enough on defence. He knows the
0:50:43 > 0:50:49answer to, that not nearly enough. Is he going to do anything about it?
0:50:49 > 0:50:55We had Jonny Mercer here yesterday saying he is not prepared to see
0:50:55 > 0:50:58another degredation in this country's budget for the military.
0:50:58 > 0:51:04So say all of us. The problem is we are now spending barely the Nato
0:51:04 > 0:51:10minimum of 2% GDP on defence. The last time we faced the scenario of
0:51:10 > 0:51:15an acertive Russia, coupled with a terrorist threat, the 1980s. Do you
0:51:15 > 0:51:22know what we were spending then? Not 2%, 3%, generally 5% of GDP on
0:51:22 > 0:51:24defence, a similar sum to what we were spending on education and
0:51:24 > 0:51:31health.Why aren't you advocating 5% of GDP being spent on defence, you
0:51:31 > 0:51:35are only asking for 3?I think a 50% uplift in the defence budget would
0:51:35 > 0:51:39be a pretty good start. The reality is now we are spending nearly four
0:51:39 > 0:51:44times on health what we spend on defence and two-and-a-half times
0:51:44 > 0:51:47what we spend on education what we spend on defence and six times on
0:51:47 > 0:51:52welfare what we spend on defence and what's more for every £3 we spend on
0:51:52 > 0:51:56defence, we have to spend £1 on international aid. So defence has
0:51:56 > 0:51:59fallen too far down our scale of national priorities.So, are you one
0:51:59 > 0:52:03of the 30 MPs who are prepared to hold the Government's feet it the
0:52:03 > 0:52:09fire on the defence as Johnny Mercer said yesterday?Signed his letter at
0:52:09 > 0:52:14the first asking Avon been pressing now, until I'm blue in the face, as
0:52:14 > 0:52:19well as in the ideology, that we need to get defence up the spending
0:52:19 > 0:52:24order of priority.But how far are you prepared...3% is a start.How
0:52:24 > 0:52:27far are you prepared to go. Holding the Government's feet to the fire is
0:52:27 > 0:52:31one thing and as you say you have been talking about this until you
0:52:31 > 0:52:36are blue in the case, how can you ensure that those cuts don't go
0:52:36 > 0:52:42ahead?Well, I think it remains to be seen whether the cuts would be
0:52:42 > 0:52:48put in a situation in the Commons that would have to result in a vote,
0:52:48 > 0:52:57but I cannot see people who think as I do, and as Jonny does and as James
0:52:57 > 0:53:01Grey and Leo Doherty, who I think you showed in hour cuts, can't see
0:53:01 > 0:53:05us voting for ku.s the main thing, it took the previous Secretary of
0:53:05 > 0:53:09State, right up until the last few weeks in office, before he started
0:53:09 > 0:53:13to talk in terms of 2% was a base and not aing target or a egg Crookes
0:53:13 > 0:53:18whereas the -- not a ceiling, whereas the new Defence Secretary
0:53:18 > 0:53:21stated in his first outing that this was his stance. And so, he's got to
0:53:21 > 0:53:28build on that. He may not be a defence expert, but he is a pretty
0:53:28 > 0:53:31good infighter and an infighter is what we need to get the defence
0:53:31 > 0:53:36budget back to whering it ought to be.I suppose you see this, do you,
0:53:36 > 0:53:38as a point of maximum leverage? Because your colleagues and you are
0:53:38 > 0:53:44speaking out now? I know you have consistently, over the last few
0:53:44 > 0:53:47years, the Spending Review has been delayed until January or February,
0:53:47 > 0:53:50the Budget was last week, you know the Government has a fragile Commons
0:53:50 > 0:53:53'majority. Do you think you will get your way?Well, we have been trying
0:53:53 > 0:53:58to get this case across for a very long time, as you say. The previous
0:53:58 > 0:54:04Defence Secretary said that the review was being held, because of an
0:54:04 > 0:54:08intensification of the threat. Now, if you have an intensifying threat,
0:54:08 > 0:54:12that means you have got to spend more money on de-Phelps, not make
0:54:12 > 0:54:17defence cuts. So it's not a question of trying to blackmail the
0:54:17 > 0:54:23Government when its back is in a corner...But it might workIt's a
0:54:23 > 0:54:26question of persistently carrying on with the campaign, in the hope that
0:54:26 > 0:54:29we will, at last, begin to make serious progress.All right, thank
0:54:29 > 0:54:30you.
0:54:30 > 0:54:32Let's return now to our main story, the row about
0:54:32 > 0:54:35the Government's Brexit reports - edited versions of which have
0:54:35 > 0:54:37been given to the Brexit Select Committee.
0:54:37 > 0:54:39Labour has managed to secure an urgent question on the issue
0:54:39 > 0:54:44which ministers have been responding to in the last few minutes.
0:54:44 > 0:54:48Let's take a look:
0:54:48 > 0:54:51Mr Speaker this is not a game. This is the most important set of
0:54:51 > 0:54:54decision this is country has taken for decades. They need to be
0:54:54 > 0:54:59subjected to proper scrutiny. In my experience, the biggest mistakes are
0:54:59 > 0:55:03made when decisions are not scrutinised. Can I remind the
0:55:03 > 0:55:07minister and the Secretary of State that until this House passed the
0:55:07 > 0:55:10motion on 1st November, ministers routinely claimed that these
0:55:10 > 0:55:17analysis were extensive and there are at thattive. -- and
0:55:17 > 0:55:22authoritative. They say they have put them together. In September they
0:55:22 > 0:55:29answered a free dom of information question.We were clear that the
0:55:29 > 0:55:33documents did not exist in the form requested. We've collated
0:55:33 > 0:55:36information in the way that doesn't include some sensitive material but
0:55:36 > 0:55:39the documents which he freely admits he hasn't seen, do not contain
0:55:39 > 0:55:43redactions. It is noticeable that the original suggestion of
0:55:43 > 0:55:49redactions in the debate on 1st November, came from him. And came
0:55:49 > 0:55:51from him speaking for the front bench of the Opposition. He said in
0:55:51 > 0:55:55the debate he had accepted all along with the Government should not put
0:55:55 > 0:55:58into the public domain any information that woop undermine our
0:55:58 > 0:56:02negotiating position and that he accepts that there is a level of
0:56:02 > 0:56:04detail and confidential issues and tactics that should not be
0:56:04 > 0:56:14discussed.
0:56:16 > 0:56:19Robin Walker and Kier sfarmer there.
0:56:19 > 0:56:21-- Kier Starmer.
0:56:21 > 0:56:24There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz -
0:56:24 > 0:56:27Douglas Chapman, the SNP MP for Dunfermline & West Fife has
0:56:27 > 0:56:28suggested that we should have an ambassador to where?
0:56:33 > 0:56:36We'll ask Douglas because we have him down the line. We can talk about
0:56:36 > 0:56:41it. But do you know what the answer is, Owen?I'll go for a wild card,
0:56:41 > 0:56:46is it Mars?No, funnily enough. That got a laugh out of Douglas Chapman.
0:56:46 > 0:56:53Can you give us the correct answer? It is on the actic.Why do you want
0:56:53 > 0:56:57an ambassador to the Arctic?To create a greater focus around Arctic
0:56:57 > 0:57:03issues. I think we had our contoastic conference in Edinburgh
0:57:03 > 0:57:07this time last week talking about how we can collaborate more with the
0:57:07 > 0:57:12Arctic nations to secure issues around the environment and energy
0:57:12 > 0:57:14and you know there are economic opportunities there, that we need to
0:57:14 > 0:57:19manage and steward in a way that protects the environment. So there
0:57:19 > 0:57:23is lots of different reasons, and as you have discussed with Julian
0:57:23 > 0:57:26Lewis, on issues around defence and security, so there is a whole range
0:57:26 > 0:57:31of issues we think, having an Arctic ambassador would make sure there was
0:57:31 > 0:57:35a complete focus on the area and making sure that our relationships
0:57:35 > 0:57:40with Arctic countries are spot on. And where would this embassy be?
0:57:40 > 0:57:45Well, I think it's more a post for an individual.What about you?Well,
0:57:45 > 0:57:51thanks very much for the offer of a job...Not in my gift actually,
0:57:51 > 0:57:56anyway...I have an important job being an MP. But nevertheless, there
0:57:56 > 0:57:59is eminently qualified people out there who can fulfil this role and
0:57:59 > 0:58:03while we do have ambassadors for the UK in the likes of Norway and
0:58:03 > 0:58:07Iceland and so on, somebody who is focussed on Arctic issues, would be
0:58:07 > 0:58:12a great bonus and would give us a level of credibility amongst other
0:58:12 > 0:58:16Arctic nations to make sure they knew we were serious about taking
0:58:16 > 0:58:19the Arctic seriously.So when is this debate?Tomorrow, 11.00. I'm
0:58:19 > 0:58:24hoping we will hear from the minister, and while I'm not
0:58:24 > 0:58:29expecting him to give a big thumbs up and a big yes to this, I hope it
0:58:29 > 0:58:32puts the idea in his head and that we can make some progress over the
0:58:32 > 0:58:35next few years.Right, Douglas Chapman, thank you very much. Do you
0:58:35 > 0:58:41like the idea?It is a bit nippy, as it is. I have cold ears in on the
0:58:41 > 0:58:45way.You need the correct clothes. That's what they say. Douglas
0:58:45 > 0:58:48Chapman thank you very much and thanks to all of my guests today in
0:58:48 > 0:58:51the warm studio, particularly to you Owen Jones for being guest of the
0:58:51 > 0:59:01day.