0:00:40 > 0:00:43Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
0:00:43 > 0:00:46Brexit Secretary David Davis is talking about Brexit today,
0:00:46 > 0:00:49but it's his cabinet colleague Philip Hammond that's been causing
0:00:49 > 0:00:52a stir after saying he wanted the UK economy to only move "very modestly"
0:00:52 > 0:00:56apart from the EU.
0:00:56 > 0:00:58We've been speaking to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn
0:00:58 > 0:01:00about his political hero in the first in a new
0:01:00 > 0:01:04series starting today.
0:01:04 > 0:01:07At the moment it's possible to wave the yellow flag of the Islamist
0:01:07 > 0:01:10group Hezbollah at rallies like this one in London, but should
0:01:10 > 0:01:15the group's political wing also be banned?
0:01:15 > 0:01:18And after a mummified woman is found to be a very distant
0:01:18 > 0:01:21relation of Boris Johnson, we'll be taking a look at the family
0:01:21 > 0:01:28trees of a few of our leading politicians.
0:01:31 > 0:01:34All that in the next hour, and joining me for all of it -
0:01:34 > 0:01:37two keen observers of the political world with as yet undisclosed
0:01:37 > 0:01:41ancestral links to any 16th century mummies,
0:01:41 > 0:01:44or indeed the foreign secretary - it's Claire Fox of the Academy
0:01:44 > 0:01:46of Ideas, and Rafael Behr from the Guardian.
0:01:46 > 0:01:49Welcome to both of you.
0:01:49 > 0:01:53First today - Donald Trump is due to give a speech to the gathering
0:01:53 > 0:01:55of global business and political leaders in the Swiss resort
0:01:55 > 0:01:57of Davos later today.
0:01:57 > 0:01:59He'll be talking about free trade after yesterday predicting
0:01:59 > 0:02:03a 'tremendous increase' in UK-US trade post-Brexit.
0:02:03 > 0:02:05He's also apologised for re-tweeting messages from the far-right group
0:02:05 > 0:02:06Britain First last November.
0:02:06 > 0:02:14Here he is speaking to Piers Morgan on ITV.
0:02:14 > 0:02:16It was done because I am a big believer in fighting
0:02:16 > 0:02:20radical Islamic terror.
0:02:20 > 0:02:24This was a depiction of radical Islamic terror.
0:02:24 > 0:02:25They were verified videos.
0:02:25 > 0:02:29At least one of them was not would seem.
0:02:29 > 0:02:31Well, they are, but I do it.
0:02:31 > 0:02:33I did a retweet.
0:02:33 > 0:02:35I don't want to cause any difficulty to your country,
0:02:35 > 0:02:36that I can tell you.
0:02:36 > 0:02:40Can I get an apology out of you just for the retweets of Britain First?
0:02:40 > 0:02:41Well, if you're telling me...
0:02:41 > 0:02:43I think it would go a long way...
0:02:43 > 0:02:44Here's what's fair.
0:02:44 > 0:02:46If you're telling me that they are horrible,
0:02:46 > 0:02:48racist people, I would certainly apologise if you would
0:02:48 > 0:02:50like me to do that.
0:02:50 > 0:02:58I know nothing about them.
0:02:58 > 0:03:00And you would disavow yourself of people like that?
0:03:00 > 0:03:02I don't want to be involved with people like that.
0:03:02 > 0:03:04But you're telling me about these people, because I know
0:03:04 > 0:03:07nothing about these people.
0:03:07 > 0:03:14What worried you more that he didn't know who Britain First were, or the
0:03:14 > 0:03:20non-apology apology.I don't think anybody knew, hardly anybody knew
0:03:20 > 0:03:23who Britain First were before this. Should the president of the United
0:03:23 > 0:03:30States have found out? A small minor fascist organisation are racist,
0:03:30 > 0:03:36people are saying I didn't know they existed until he retweeted them.
0:03:36 > 0:03:41He's retweet lunatic. I wouldn't say that is the greatest crime Trump has
0:03:41 > 0:03:48committed. With so many people retweeting all sorts of things, he
0:03:48 > 0:03:52seems like everybody else who doesn't read what they retweet.But
0:03:52 > 0:03:56he is the president of the United States and he is sitting in the
0:03:56 > 0:04:02White House. It is reasonable if not to be shocked, because he is Donald
0:04:02 > 0:04:07Trump, at least very profoundly disappointed and alarmed that this
0:04:07 > 0:04:14person wields this power and has the capacity to elevate Britain First
0:04:14 > 0:04:18from being a small organisation into something that by definition the
0:04:18 > 0:04:25whole world knows about.He did apologise.He apologised to the
0:04:25 > 0:04:29existence of racism. It is clear from everything else he said he does
0:04:29 > 0:04:36haven't a clear definition of racism.He wanted to be clear he was
0:04:36 > 0:04:40against Islamic fundamentalist extremism and that will have a
0:04:40 > 0:04:46popular resonance.We can show Donald Trump now arriving at Davos.
0:04:46 > 0:04:49Because he will give a speech shortly. There he is waving to the
0:04:49 > 0:04:55crowds. The president of the United States. Actually, he talked about
0:04:55 > 0:05:00trade with Theresa May. Were you heartened, Claire, about his pledge
0:05:00 > 0:05:03to increase, there will be a tremendous amount of trade he said
0:05:03 > 0:05:07between the UK and the United States.Everyone should be heartened
0:05:07 > 0:05:12about the possibility of greater trade.Do you believe him.That is a
0:05:12 > 0:05:15whole different ball game. The difficulty is to know how seriously
0:05:15 > 0:05:22to take him as a president. It is important that Britain can do trade
0:05:22 > 0:05:27with America. A lot has been made of his protectionism and there is
0:05:27 > 0:05:31protectionism coming from the EU to everyone else. There is a lot of
0:05:31 > 0:05:36that trend around. So any time that he is talking about come on let's do
0:05:36 > 0:05:44deals, we can be pleased about that. It is this do you believe him.
0:05:44 > 0:05:48America/Britain trade deal is good. His integrity one can be anxious
0:05:48 > 0:05:52about.We know from everything Donald Trump has said about the way
0:05:52 > 0:05:56he does trade deals that his understanding of a good deal is one
0:05:56 > 0:06:00in which he or the United States or the person of Donald Trump will walk
0:06:00 > 0:06:06away satisfied and the other party is beaten and crushed. That is the
0:06:06 > 0:06:11way he conceives any negotiation and he conceives trade. The fact he
0:06:11 > 0:06:14thinks there will be a great deal doesn't mean that will be a good
0:06:14 > 0:06:20deal for the UK.I think most people want to get a good deal for the
0:06:20 > 0:06:24people they represented. It would be ridiculous to have a good deal where
0:06:24 > 0:06:30we don't get a good deal.The state visit looks like it is back on. Even
0:06:30 > 0:06:37if it is on 31st December.We are not clear it is a full state visit.
0:06:37 > 0:06:46I don't think the Prime Minister's in a hurry to have a big parade.
0:06:46 > 0:06:53Caused great excitement among those anti-Donald Trump. I think that is
0:06:53 > 0:06:59an immature response to what should be just a visit from the president,
0:06:59 > 0:07:06even though I can't stand Trump.
0:07:06 > 0:07:07Now it's time for our quiz.
0:07:07 > 0:07:10The question for today is about Environment Secretary, Michael Gove.
0:07:10 > 0:07:12He's launched a charm offensive aimed at Donald Trump -
0:07:12 > 0:07:15he wants him to lift the US ban on one tasty British delicacy.
0:07:15 > 0:07:16But which is it:
0:07:16 > 0:07:18a) Jellied eels, b) Haggis, c) Pork Pies,
0:07:18 > 0:07:21or d) Black pudding?
0:07:21 > 0:07:24At the end of the show Claire and Rafael will give
0:07:24 > 0:07:28us the correct answer.
0:07:28 > 0:07:32Now, Brexit is back centre stage today, with the Brexit
0:07:32 > 0:07:36Secretary David Davis due to give a speech this afternoon setting out
0:07:36 > 0:07:38the Government's vision for the transition period,
0:07:38 > 0:07:41the two or so years after we leave the EU in March next year.
0:07:41 > 0:07:44But when it comes to life after Brexit there have been plenty
0:07:44 > 0:07:47of noises off to show that not everyone in the Conservative
0:07:47 > 0:07:49Party is happy.
0:07:49 > 0:07:51When Chancellor Phillip Hammond took to the stage
0:07:51 > 0:07:54in front of business leaders at Davos yesterday, he said that
0:07:54 > 0:07:57Britain's trade relationship with the EU will only change
0:07:57 > 0:08:01'Hopefully very modestly' after Brexit.
0:08:01 > 0:08:03That met with a frosty response from the audience
0:08:03 > 0:08:11back in Downing Street, with the government saying:
0:08:11 > 0:08:13And it definitely prompted boos from many pro-Brexit
0:08:13 > 0:08:15Conservatives back in the UK.
0:08:15 > 0:08:17Jacob Rees-Mogg arranged his own performance to explain
0:08:17 > 0:08:19that the government's "timid and cowering" approach risked
0:08:19 > 0:08:23squandering the potential gains of leaving the EU.
0:08:23 > 0:08:26He said 'close alignment' after Brexit is unacceptable.
0:08:26 > 0:08:28The former minister Andrew Percy put it more bluntly
0:08:28 > 0:08:36and said the Chancellor should 'put a sock in it'.
0:08:38 > 0:08:39Brexit Secretary David Davis
0:08:39 > 0:08:42will tell the audience the UK wants to replicate the effects
0:08:42 > 0:08:44of the customs union during the transition period,
0:08:44 > 0:08:47but should be able to negotiate trade deals which would come
0:08:47 > 0:08:48into force at the end of the period.
0:08:48 > 0:08:50Well the Chancellor Philip Hammond has been speaking
0:08:50 > 0:08:53to journalists in Davos this morning, and Kamal Ahmed
0:08:53 > 0:08:55asked the Chancellor if he was a 'hyper-soft' Brexiteer.
0:08:55 > 0:08:56Not at all.
0:08:56 > 0:08:59I said yesterday that we will leave the European Union in 2019
0:08:59 > 0:09:02and at the same time we will leave the customs union and we will
0:09:02 > 0:09:07believe the single market.
0:09:07 > 0:09:11What I was explaining to my audience is starting as we do with a very
0:09:11 > 0:09:14high degree of trade with the EU, a very high level of alignment,
0:09:14 > 0:09:18we should be able to negotiate a very high degree of market access
0:09:18 > 0:09:20for the future, and a very smooth process at the border,
0:09:20 > 0:09:23which means that there should be minimal disruption to the trade
0:09:23 > 0:09:26patterns that the companies I was speaking to already have
0:09:26 > 0:09:27with the European Union.
0:09:27 > 0:09:32That will protect British prosperity and protect British jobs.
0:09:32 > 0:09:35We're joined now by the Conservative MP and leading
0:09:35 > 0:09:40eurosceptic Bernard Jenkin.
0:09:41 > 0:09:48Philip Hammond used a speech to say the UK economy, he only wanted it to
0:09:48 > 0:09:52move modestly from the EU. What was wrong with that?Well, the Prime
0:09:52 > 0:09:57Minister didn't like that phrasing. I think the speech reinforced the
0:09:57 > 0:10:01impression that the Chancellor is trying to pursue a different policy
0:10:01 > 0:10:06from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's been clear in her
0:10:06 > 0:10:10speeches in the Lancaster House speech and the Conservative
0:10:10 > 0:10:15manifesto, that we're leaving the customs union and going to seek to
0:10:15 > 0:10:18do a trade deal with Europe and other countries. This isn't some
0:10:18 > 0:10:24modest change. It is a substantial change. You can't be half in and
0:10:24 > 0:10:27half out.Shouldn't the Chancellor be able to speak for the Government
0:10:27 > 0:10:33on this?I think he should. I speak with some sympathy for the
0:10:33 > 0:10:40Chancellor, these are febrile times, but to put into a speech how he
0:10:40 > 0:10:45supports the views of Caroline fair burn after the CBI campaigned for us
0:10:45 > 0:10:50to stay in the customs union was in danger of giving the wrong
0:10:50 > 0:10:54impression. I think maybe with practice he will stop doing it.
0:10:54 > 0:10:57Should he be sanctioned? Would you like to see a different Chancellor?
0:10:57 > 0:11:03I think the Prime Minister is a bit hobbled by the fact that the cabinet
0:11:03 > 0:11:07doesn't reflect the same views as the vast majority of the
0:11:07 > 0:11:13Parliamentary party. And it that is arithmetic that reflects the views
0:11:13 > 0:11:19of the country. Even David Cameron could only persuade half the MPs to
0:11:19 > 0:11:25vote for Remain. And most are for Leave and the Ulster unionists are
0:11:25 > 0:11:31for Leave. Every party stood on a Leave ticket. The House of Commons
0:11:31 > 0:11:39and House of Lords have voted leave. Philip Hammond said prince Britain
0:11:39 > 0:11:45is leaving.I don't think smuggling the United Kingdom into a very
0:11:45 > 0:11:49similar arrangement constitutes leaving in most people's minds. The
0:11:49 > 0:11:53Prime Minister answered a question before Christmas and made it clear
0:11:53 > 0:12:00we are going to have full regulatory autonomy. If you don't have that,
0:12:00 > 0:12:09you can't have full regulatory autonomy. To do deals with other
0:12:09 > 0:12:14countries, you need autonomy. What do you think of him saying we need
0:12:14 > 0:12:18alignment after we leave. As long as we are in control of what is aligned
0:12:18 > 0:12:24and what is not aligned and are not bound by some permanent UK agreement
0:12:24 > 0:12:31like Norway or Switzerland. We want a Canada, plus, plus, not a Norway
0:12:31 > 0:12:36version. People like Ukraine and Turkey have done agreements with the
0:12:36 > 0:12:40EU in order to try and get into the EU. We are leaving the EU. We don't
0:12:40 > 0:12:47want to be in the customs union.You say the Prime Minister is hobbled by
0:12:47 > 0:12:51Philip Hammond, what should she do about him? I think she needs to have
0:12:51 > 0:12:56a frank conversation with him. They need to talk frankly about what
0:12:56 > 0:13:01advice the government is getting. I saw a tweet from a Foreign Office
0:13:01 > 0:13:06official that ridiculed me for saying that, and saying of course
0:13:06 > 0:13:1190% of Foreign Office officials are in favour of remaining in the EU.
0:13:11 > 0:13:17There is a tremendous inert ya in the bureaucracy making very heavy
0:13:17 > 0:13:21weather of Brexit and that is reflected in advice to ministers.
0:13:21 > 0:13:29Maybe Philip Hammond genuinely holds the beliefs about the Brexit he
0:13:29 > 0:13:37wants.If there are big ideological differences between the Chancellor
0:13:37 > 0:13:42and the Prime Minister, that is usual lip ly not good news for the
0:13:42 > 0:13:46stability of Government. I will leave that thought with you.The
0:13:46 > 0:13:52only way to address is it to push him out of cabinet.If there are
0:13:52 > 0:13:54serious ideological differences between the Prime Minister and the
0:13:54 > 0:13:57Chancellor, that is a very serious thing for any, the stability of any
0:13:57 > 0:14:02government.
0:14:05 > 0:14:07government.And Andrew Persie said Philip Hammond should put a sock in
0:14:07 > 0:14:13it. Do you think he should?I think he should make clear he is
0:14:13 > 0:14:17supporting the Prime Minister's policy and not try and play blow
0:14:17 > 0:14:24football with the policy.We have heard from the No 10 spokesperson
0:14:24 > 0:14:27that the Prime Minister has full confidence in the Chancellor. Do you
0:14:27 > 0:14:33you?It is always dangerous when the Prime Minister has to expressed
0:14:33 > 0:14:41confidence in her Prime Minister... ? Her Chancellor In? Her Chancellor.
0:14:41 > 0:14:50I remember Margaret Thatcher doing the same thing with Nigel Lawson.
0:14:50 > 0:14:55Boris Johnson also spoke out beyond his brief.To some extents cabinet
0:14:55 > 0:15:01is a coalition and you have to balance the different views in the
0:15:01 > 0:15:05cabinet and the Prime Minister only chairs the meetings, the cabinet
0:15:05 > 0:15:09ministers run their departments. What is the problem here is the
0:15:09 > 0:15:15Prime Minister has set out a clear policy, the cabinet doesn't reflect
0:15:15 > 0:15:23the views of Parliamentary party.
0:15:24 > 0:15:29Beyond the speeches, which Philip Hammond said he agreed with, what is
0:15:29 > 0:15:33the policy?Some confusion has crept in and about whether there is
0:15:33 > 0:15:37distinction between the customs union and a customs union.Is that a
0:15:37 > 0:15:43red line for you?If we joined a customs union that would be contrary
0:15:43 > 0:15:47to what the Prime Minister has been saying from the beginning. And I
0:15:47 > 0:15:51don't expect her to change that policy.Are you happy with the
0:15:51 > 0:15:55status quo position of the customs union and the single market for the
0:15:55 > 0:16:00period of the transition?Yes, I think most conservative MPs will
0:16:00 > 0:16:04tolerate that. It is far from ideal. But there are some qualifications.
0:16:04 > 0:16:09To put the UK in a position where we are basically subject to an alien
0:16:09 > 0:16:13legislative process, there would have to be safeguards. There would
0:16:13 > 0:16:18also have to be safeguards to stop the European Court of Justice doing
0:16:18 > 0:16:21something unexpected which affects our national interest in that
0:16:21 > 0:16:26period. Finally, it isn't going to be in fermentation period. We cannot
0:16:26 > 0:16:30be an extension of the negotiations. It means that when we signed the
0:16:30 > 0:16:34deal and agree to the limitation period, and to paying all of that
0:16:34 > 0:16:37money, we are actually implementing a trade agreement which has broadly
0:16:37 > 0:16:42been agreed at the outset. We are not going to continue negotiating a
0:16:42 > 0:16:45trade agreement be held hostage by the European Union all over again
0:16:45 > 0:16:50after we have paid all ludicrous money.You Philip Hammond to be
0:16:50 > 0:16:56brought into line. What about Jacob Rees Mogg? Is right he is able to
0:16:56 > 0:17:00question David Davis on the way he did, criticising Government policy
0:17:00 > 0:17:03and the negotiations?He is not a member of Government.But is it
0:17:03 > 0:17:08helpful in terms of the unity of the party?Jacob Rees Mogg is entitled
0:17:08 > 0:17:12to do what he is paid to do on that committee, which scrutinise
0:17:12 > 0:17:17Government policy. By all means ask me about Boris Johnson. I don't
0:17:17 > 0:17:20think Boris Johnson should be breathing out what he says to the
0:17:20 > 0:17:23Cabinet, committee on April six of one and half a dozen of the other. I
0:17:23 > 0:17:30think most people have a lot of sympathy for Theresa May. She has a
0:17:30 > 0:17:35lot of fractious members of her Cabinet arguing with each other. I
0:17:35 > 0:17:40think the party would like to see her impose her authority. Let the
0:17:40 > 0:17:43leopard cub bounding out of the cage and show her authority.On that
0:17:43 > 0:17:45poetic note, thank you very much.
0:17:45 > 0:17:48Well a short while ago we heard again from Jacob Rees-Mogg,
0:17:48 > 0:17:50he's the new leader of a group of Eurosceptic Conservative Mps
0:17:50 > 0:17:57about his reaction to Philip Hammond's comments in Davos...
0:17:57 > 0:18:04I think this is not a good position for the Chancellor to be in. To be
0:18:04 > 0:18:07undermining the Prime Minister. It is of utmost urgency that he should
0:18:07 > 0:18:11unite his position with that of the Prime Minister. And with that of the
0:18:11 > 0:18:16Conservative Party. A bit of freelancing in Davos is unhelpful. I
0:18:16 > 0:18:22support the Prime Minister in getting the Brexit that she has set
0:18:22 > 0:18:28out. It will bring huge benefits to the country, a cheaper cost of food,
0:18:28 > 0:18:31clothing, and that work helping the poorest in society most. And if she
0:18:31 > 0:18:34has confidence in the Chancellor that is good enough for me.
0:18:34 > 0:18:37Joining me now and listening to that was the Conservative MP
0:18:37 > 0:18:39and former minister Ed Vaizey.
0:18:39 > 0:18:44Welcome. You had your colleague saying there are big ideological
0:18:44 > 0:18:47differences on Brexit between the PM and the Chancellor, she needs to do
0:18:47 > 0:18:52something about that. In other words, sack him.I heard that. For
0:18:52 > 0:18:55giving a speech that word for word was Government policy. I wonder
0:18:55 > 0:19:00whether the people who shall be on Twitter have actually read what the
0:19:00 > 0:19:07Chancellor said. -- troll me. He backs the Chancellor who once asked
0:19:07 > 0:19:11to stay in a customs union. If you read the speed it says we are
0:19:11 > 0:19:14leaving the single market and customs union. He was giving a
0:19:14 > 0:19:17speech to business leaders were quite rightly he wanted to assure
0:19:17 > 0:19:23them of a smooth Brexit. -- if you read the speech. Hopefully we will
0:19:23 > 0:19:27have a smooth transition arrangement. For some reason people
0:19:27 > 0:19:30jumped up and down on his head for saying it.Because he said there
0:19:30 > 0:19:36should only be a modest change to the relationship the UK has with the
0:19:36 > 0:19:42EU. He said Britain could be part of a customs union. That would mean we
0:19:42 > 0:19:46haven't left the EU.It does mean that. He said there should be some
0:19:46 > 0:19:49customs arrangement. He made a valid point at 60% of our trade goes
0:19:49 > 0:19:54between Dover and Calais. You would hope there would be something. But
0:19:54 > 0:20:01has anybody read what has been said? I have.But that hasn't. He said we
0:20:01 > 0:20:05should -- he said that the speech said we would remain. She didn't say
0:20:05 > 0:20:12that. What is happening is that people like Philip Hammond and
0:20:12 > 0:20:15Carolyn Fairbairn are putting forward practical ideas about how we
0:20:15 > 0:20:21do Brexit. Brexiteers tore the television studio saying it is
0:20:21 > 0:20:26outrageous. But they will not tell us what they want.He has come he
0:20:26 > 0:20:30just said regulatory divergence. What does that mean?Completely
0:20:30 > 0:20:34different from independence is what he means.If you have your
0:20:34 > 0:20:38neighbours close to you it would make sense to have some. We'll just
0:20:38 > 0:20:44implemented the GDP are.
0:20:44 > 0:20:49implemented the GDP are. -- we just implemented the GDPR, because we
0:20:49 > 0:20:52want data regulations which are similar between Britain and Europe.
0:20:52 > 0:20:58I do not see that as a loss of sovereignty, it is sensible.Except
0:20:58 > 0:21:01at Theresa May and number ten and slapped down the Chancellor for what
0:21:01 > 0:21:09he said.Why?Why do you think?I have no idea.Because she doesn't
0:21:09 > 0:21:13agree with him.What is she agree with?Because of the vision for
0:21:13 > 0:21:20Brexit.I've read every single word of the Chancellor 's speech, the
0:21:20 > 0:21:23Prime Minister's speech, I cannot see any difference between the two.
0:21:23 > 0:21:27Modest changes. Those are the words that upset number ten because they
0:21:27 > 0:21:30are stars that there will be a radical, dramatic difference when
0:21:30 > 0:21:36Britain leaves the EU.
0:21:36 > 0:21:41Britain leaves the EU. -- because there are steps that would be
0:21:41 > 0:21:43radical and dramatically different in Britain leaves the EU.I see
0:21:43 > 0:21:47nothing wrong with the chance of Great Britain saying to a group of
0:21:47 > 0:21:50business leaders that hopefully over time the changes that they see will
0:21:50 > 0:21:54be modest in terms of these people trying to run businesses and export
0:21:54 > 0:21:58to the rest of the world.Was it unnecessary for number ten to
0:21:58 > 0:22:02slapped down the Chancellor?I have no idea why they would do that when
0:22:02 > 0:22:08he was saying word for word policies of the Government.What about when
0:22:08 > 0:22:12he took David Davis to task for a negative tone, not being optimistic
0:22:12 > 0:22:15enough about the Brexit negotiations, is that right?I
0:22:15 > 0:22:20thought he and Jacob Rees Mogg was supposed to be on the same side.
0:22:20 > 0:22:23Would you make of the fact he does not think the tone is positive
0:22:23 > 0:22:30enough? -- what do you make.Philip Hammond is trying to say to business
0:22:30 > 0:22:36leaders we will do this as smoothly as possible. And he is ambitious. He
0:22:36 > 0:22:41talks about a 21st-century British economy. He is very ambitious and
0:22:41 > 0:22:46excited about it. The whole theme of Davos was about the technology
0:22:46 > 0:22:50revolution going on in the UK, the factory of the centre of it. The
0:22:50 > 0:22:58fact the whole Government is about optimism. Why is Jacob Rees Mogg
0:22:58 > 0:23:02doing that? You would have to ask him. Philip Hammond says we are
0:23:02 > 0:23:06taking two economies are selectively moving them hopefully very modestly
0:23:06 > 0:23:09apart. Jacob Rees Mogg said the British people did not vote for
0:23:09 > 0:23:14that, they did not vote for the management of decline. Politicians
0:23:14 > 0:23:18must now deliver the optimism that was promised.
0:23:18 > 0:23:26Jacob Rees Mogg is criticising him. We have the largest level of
0:23:26 > 0:23:30employment we've ever seen. We've just fantastic growth this morning.
0:23:30 > 0:23:34Why would you as the Chancellor say, I tell you what we will do, we will
0:23:34 > 0:23:40throw it up in the air and create lots of uncertainty? He said it will
0:23:40 > 0:23:44be smooth orderly, disciplined.Can the Prime Minister survive much more
0:23:44 > 0:23:53of this?Of course.Should she?BS. What about her leadership in the
0:23:53 > 0:23:57Brexit negotiations. -- should she? Yes.
0:24:01 > 0:24:08You shouldn't use a radio interview for therapy.Use the TV!Boris
0:24:08 > 0:24:11Johnson ruined our conference by setting out his Brexit position. I
0:24:11 > 0:24:16agree with Bernard, Boris Johnson leaves a lot to be desired. It isn't
0:24:16 > 0:24:19the Prime Minister will should be criticising, perhaps we should be
0:24:19 > 0:24:23criticising some of her Cabinet colleagues for going behind her.If
0:24:23 > 0:24:27Philip Hammond is about, why not Boris Johnson?That's my point, he
0:24:27 > 0:24:32stuck to the script.Number ten did not immediately slapped down the
0:24:32 > 0:24:40Chancellor. It was only when they became aware that Jacob Rees Mogg
0:24:40 > 0:24:44and others were upset about these words about modesty did number ten
0:24:44 > 0:24:49realised there was a problem. The problem was with those people who do
0:24:49 > 0:24:52not really want to engage in a practical conversation about how you
0:24:52 > 0:24:59would deliver Brexit. But would be akin to keep the sense of being --
0:24:59 > 0:25:02but would be very keen to keep the sense of being betrayed. They don't
0:25:02 > 0:25:07want to get involved in the detail. They were upset. The PM felt she had
0:25:07 > 0:25:10to distance herself from the Chancellor. But the Chancellor was
0:25:10 > 0:25:16saying Government policy. And Bernard said if, if there is a
0:25:16 > 0:25:19different psychologically between the Chancellor and the PM, well,
0:25:19 > 0:25:25they present, she has been given the opportunity to do this discreetly.
0:25:25 > 0:25:29She should square that up with people on frontbenchers who might
0:25:29 > 0:25:35betray her.What do you to that?The vision of Brexit is a modest, serene
0:25:35 > 0:25:42affair. That is what is most are fronting and worrying. I know the
0:25:42 > 0:25:49disparaging term Brexiteers is being used, but for anyone who voted,
0:25:49 > 0:25:54either way, and for those who wanted Brexit to mean something. One critic
0:25:54 > 0:25:59said, we are going to get a rubbish photocopy version of Brexit. I think
0:25:59 > 0:26:04that is what people fear. The Chancellor, what he said when he was
0:26:04 > 0:26:09reassuring those business leaders this effortlessly and viscerally,
0:26:09 > 0:26:13saying don't worry everybody it is going to be fine. For those of us
0:26:13 > 0:26:19who wanted it to be an opportunity for a restart, a kick-start, of the
0:26:19 > 0:26:24British economy, nobody should be complacent about that. Taking that
0:26:24 > 0:26:30Hancock out and talking about AI is not what is needed. Sorry. We need a
0:26:30 > 0:26:33hugely dramatic new vision to shake up the problems of British
0:26:33 > 0:26:38productivity and of the economy. When you say, I agree with you on
0:26:38 > 0:26:41this, when you say there is a danger that Philip Hammond and Theresa May
0:26:41 > 0:26:46have the same ideological, I fear the same thing, which is a dull
0:26:46 > 0:26:49technocratic attitude when it comes to implementing Brexit because they
0:26:49 > 0:26:53have to, because that is what the people said. Rather than seeing this
0:26:53 > 0:26:58as an opportunity for an autonomous go at sorting out the British
0:26:58 > 0:27:02economy in a different way. Otherwise the UK won't be truly
0:27:02 > 0:27:05independent in the way Theresa May employed in both of her speeches on
0:27:05 > 0:27:13this.I was with claim until... Halfway through... Even in the EU we
0:27:13 > 0:27:18were free to organise our economy however we wanted. We could have
0:27:18 > 0:27:25voted in Jeremy Corbyn, nationalised everything that moved. I'm sorry if
0:27:25 > 0:27:33it is dull to preserve British drops and carry on what David Cameron and
0:27:33 > 0:27:38George Osborne started. -- preserve British jobs. That is at the heart
0:27:38 > 0:27:46of this. The people voted to leave the EU. People who
0:27:46 > 0:27:49the EU. People who didn't, they were not offered the opportunity to ask
0:27:49 > 0:27:54for what they wanted. Theresa May Philip Hammond put forward an
0:27:54 > 0:27:58alternative, they were criticised, but criticised by people who will
0:27:58 > 0:28:07not say what they want. I just think Philip Hammond, I
0:28:07 > 0:28:11cannot understand what he has been criticised for supporting his PM and
0:28:11 > 0:28:16the Government.The leopard should be let out...I gather the Leopard
0:28:16 > 0:28:21will be let out of the cage.Is that Theresa May?We're having this
0:28:21 > 0:28:25debate, it was kicked off by Nicholas Bowles, and it echoes what
0:28:25 > 0:28:29Claire has said, that there is nothing wrong with being bold and
0:28:29 > 0:28:32setting out radical visions. If the Prime Minister wants to do that she
0:28:32 > 0:28:36would have the support of all of her colleagues. Some of the people who
0:28:36 > 0:28:41like Nick Timothy have said. They are 100% supporters of Theresa May.
0:28:41 > 0:28:45If they are saying this they are saying it in a constructive way.
0:28:45 > 0:28:49Saying that this is a great country, Brexit offers opportunities, and
0:28:49 > 0:28:52there is a chance to set out great divisions. I am obsessed with
0:28:52 > 0:28:57technology. CHUCKLES
0:28:57 > 0:29:03On that great admission that you are dull. Come to us for another therapy
0:29:03 > 0:29:04session any time.
0:29:04 > 0:29:06And for more reporting and analysis of Brexit,
0:29:06 > 0:29:14you can go to the BBC News website - that's bbc.co.uk/brexit.
0:29:16 > 0:29:21MPs were calling for the Government to ban the political wing of the
0:29:21 > 0:29:26Islamist group his
0:29:26 > 0:29:28Let's talk now about a debate in the Commons yesterday,
0:29:28 > 0:29:30where MPs were calling for the Government to ban
0:29:30 > 0:29:32the political wing of the Islamist group Hezbollah.
0:29:32 > 0:29:35At present only the militant wing of the group, which is classed
0:29:35 > 0:29:38as a separate organisation, is banned in the UK, a distinction
0:29:38 > 0:29:40that was criticised by Labour and Conservative backbenchers.
0:29:40 > 0:29:42The official position of the Government and the Labour Party,
0:29:42 > 0:29:44however, is not to extend the ban.
0:29:44 > 0:29:46Here's a flavour of the debate.
0:29:46 > 0:29:47Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation, driven
0:29:47 > 0:29:48by anti-Semitic ideology, which seeks the
0:29:48 > 0:29:49destruction of Israel.
0:29:49 > 0:29:51It has wreaked death and destruction throughout the Middle East,
0:29:51 > 0:29:54aiding and abetting the Assad regime's butchery in Syria
0:29:54 > 0:29:56and helping to drive Iran's expansionism throughout the region.
0:29:56 > 0:29:58It makes no distinction between its political and military
0:29:58 > 0:30:06wings, and neither should the British government.
0:30:07 > 0:30:10The fact that some parts of Hezbollah are not prescribed
0:30:10 > 0:30:12limits the ability of law enforcement agencies to seize funds
0:30:12 > 0:30:18using asset freezing and forfeiture powers.
0:30:18 > 0:30:20I agree with her that this is incumbent on the government
0:30:20 > 0:30:23in principle and the opposition front bench would follow, I hope,
0:30:23 > 0:30:24to change the policy.
0:30:24 > 0:30:27We don't make prescription decisions based on ministers around a cup
0:30:27 > 0:30:29of coffee making it up, we make it with recommendations
0:30:29 > 0:30:31submitted to us by our law enforcement agencies,
0:30:31 > 0:30:33and our security services, both here and overseas
0:30:33 > 0:30:34intelligence services.
0:30:34 > 0:30:37We need to see Hezbollah prescribed, because by doing so you take
0:30:37 > 0:30:39away their money, you take away their resources,
0:30:39 > 0:30:41you take with their moral and political livelihood,
0:30:41 > 0:30:43and if you do that you stop the killer,
0:30:43 > 0:30:44that's got to be way forward.
0:30:44 > 0:30:46We on these benches condemn that violence absolutely.
0:30:46 > 0:30:49And we continue to support the prescription of the military
0:30:49 > 0:30:51wing, as has been the position of government.
0:30:51 > 0:30:53Can I just, I'll just make this one point,
0:30:53 > 0:30:55and I will give way to the member for Clywd West.
0:30:55 > 0:30:58We simply say that we believe engagement with the government
0:30:58 > 0:31:01and Parliament of Lebanon is very important in terms of the wider
0:31:01 > 0:31:02Middle East peace process.
0:31:02 > 0:31:04And I would simply say that we should be very careful
0:31:04 > 0:31:05about damaging that engagement.
0:31:05 > 0:31:08But it is, of course, a question of balance.
0:31:08 > 0:31:16I will give way.
0:31:20 > 0:31:22The Labour MP who called the debate, Joan Ryan,
0:31:22 > 0:31:26joins us now.
0:31:26 > 0:31:30We heard from MPs across the House yesterday and most agreed with your
0:31:30 > 0:31:34motion, why do you think the Government and the Labour front
0:31:34 > 0:31:42bench has not proscribed the military, Orrey or sorry the
0:31:42 > 0:31:47political wing of Hezbollah.We have to be clear Hezbollah are a violent
0:31:47 > 0:31:53organisation. They wreak death and destruction across the Middle East,
0:31:53 > 0:31:59in Europe, Latin America, from Cyprus to Singapore, so it seems
0:31:59 > 0:32:04inexplicable they wouldn't be banned. The explanation the minister
0:32:04 > 0:32:12appeared to be giving was that there was... A need to talk to Hezbollah
0:32:12 > 0:32:19who are elected in Lebanon.Is that not a valid point, if we're going to
0:32:19 > 0:32:25have a diplomatic relationship.He said it would destabilise Lebanon.
0:32:25 > 0:32:30The US, Arab league, they all proscribe Hezbollah in its entirety.
0:32:30 > 0:32:37I don't think they have any trouble talking to the Lebanese Government.
0:32:37 > 0:32:45The fact that Hezbollah have this, what their Secretary General has
0:32:45 > 0:32:48called moral political and social authority that is afforded to them
0:32:48 > 0:32:53by the fact that there is this false division of their political wing
0:32:53 > 0:32:59that is not proscribed. That is what destabilises Lebanon and don't
0:32:59 > 0:33:03forget they have not been proscribed, the political wing and
0:33:03 > 0:33:08they have been spoken to for the last 20 years and it has no
0:33:08 > 0:33:13difference. In fact they have become more extreme, more violent and built
0:33:13 > 0:33:16up a military capability that is threaten the stability across the
0:33:16 > 0:33:23Middle East.There are other countries who haven't provibed both
0:33:23 > 0:33:26parts of Hezbollah - Australia, New Zealand and the EU. What is your
0:33:26 > 0:33:32answer to them, keeping it separate, actually dealing with the political
0:33:32 > 0:33:38wing separately to the other wing. Hezbollah do not make this
0:33:38 > 0:33:44distinction. The Secretary General said this is a British invention and
0:33:44 > 0:33:48their political affairs officer has said that everyone knows that
0:33:48 > 0:33:53Hezbollah is one body, one entity that it is, it is military and
0:33:53 > 0:34:01political wings are unified. So it is a false distinction.The
0:34:01 > 0:34:05Government didn't agree you, nor did the Labour front bench who put out a
0:34:05 > 0:34:11briefing note against your motion. What do you say to your own party?
0:34:11 > 0:34:18As I said yesterday, although I appreciated the tone of the Labour
0:34:18 > 0:34:24front bencher on this, I think he is wrong. It is a debate I will
0:34:24 > 0:34:28continue to have to persuade the Labour Party to not just keep this
0:34:28 > 0:34:36under review. But to accept that this is a deeply anti-Semitic
0:34:36 > 0:34:41violent terrorist organisation and they're threatening stability in the
0:34:41 > 0:34:45Middle East, our global interest and more than that there is evidence
0:34:45 > 0:34:49that shows they are money laundering and drug dealing on the streets of
0:34:49 > 0:34:53London. So they're bringing criminality to our streets.On that
0:34:53 > 0:34:56basis, where are you surprised at the lengths that the Labour Party
0:34:56 > 0:35:00went to, the Labour front bench to convince your colleagues in the the
0:35:00 > 0:35:05House to vote against your motion or not to give against the motion, but
0:35:05 > 0:35:11not to agree with it?I have raised this issue and written to the Chief
0:35:11 > 0:35:16Whip and the home affairs shadow to raise the issue about the briefing,
0:35:16 > 0:35:21which I didn't agree with. However, what I would say is it's the
0:35:21 > 0:35:25government who get to proscribe. This is an issue for the Government.
0:35:25 > 0:35:30They appear to be telling us there might be evidence from the army, but
0:35:30 > 0:35:36let's face it, you know, Richard Dunnet, a former Chief of the
0:35:36 > 0:35:40General Staff, colonel Richard Kemp, who worked for the intelligence and
0:35:40 > 0:35:45security committee, have all said it is a false distinction and we have
0:35:45 > 0:35:50been speaking to Hezbollah for many years and it has made no difference
0:35:50 > 0:35:55and in giving them this authority, because we don't proscribe their
0:35:55 > 0:36:00political wing, we are putting our own interests at risk and right
0:36:00 > 0:36:05across Europe, the Middle East and Latin America.Claire were you
0:36:05 > 0:36:07surprised the Government didn't back this motion to deal with Hezbollah
0:36:07 > 0:36:17in its entirety?I was surprised as there is so much ill liberalism
0:36:17 > 0:36:24around they would ban everybody. I don't think they should be banned,
0:36:24 > 0:36:30no more than I think Donald Trump shower banned. Provibing people in
0:36:30 > 0:36:35that way is Ibbs liberal and tolerant. If there is criminality on
0:36:35 > 0:36:44the skreets he streets that can be dealt be the police. The same way I
0:36:44 > 0:36:50would have not banned Sinn Fein. Just in terms of kind of
0:36:50 > 0:36:54anti-Semitic point, because this is confused by a suspicion that the
0:36:54 > 0:37:05Labour might be soft on Hezbollah because of anti-Semitic feelings in
0:37:05 > 0:37:09the Labour Party. I have been critical of peers on the left with
0:37:09 > 0:37:15myself who have been soft on Hezbollah and anti-Semitism. That is
0:37:15 > 0:37:19still no excuse to ban them. I don't think that helps the matter.What
0:37:19 > 0:37:24about Joan making the distinction having not proscribed the political
0:37:24 > 0:37:29wing, hasn't helped in terms of diplomatic relations or trying to
0:37:29 > 0:37:35establish a better relationship.I wasn't suggesting we shouldn't
0:37:35 > 0:37:43proscribe them because we will all be friends. That is an excuse. It is
0:37:43 > 0:37:47dangerous to proscribe political organisations that are voted in
0:37:47 > 0:37:51parts of world. Because it is us that are badly reflected. That say
0:37:51 > 0:37:55there is no division. They're not a political organisation. They're a
0:37:55 > 0:38:01terrorist organisation.The point made was the minister saying we have
0:38:01 > 0:38:04been advised by the Security Services to not do this. Because you
0:38:04 > 0:38:07would be fascinated to know what that advice sounded like. They're
0:38:07 > 0:38:13not going to make it public. But it wouldn't make sense and no one would
0:38:13 > 0:38:16expect the current government to think we are happy for a terrorist
0:38:16 > 0:38:21organisation to operate on the streets of the UK. So clearly they
0:38:21 > 0:38:28have been told something that has made them think there is some
0:38:28 > 0:38:33intelligence or capabilities that makes it beneficial to the UK to
0:38:33 > 0:38:37keep them operating. Whether that is a good reason to have them
0:38:37 > 0:38:42operating, because they're a vile organisation, I don't know.What are
0:38:42 > 0:38:52you going do now?I'm not go to let this rest. We know that Hezbollah
0:38:52 > 0:38:56has amassed 150,000 weaponry, ballistic missiles, rockets...In
0:38:56 > 0:39:03Lebanon?Mostly in Lebanon. We know they have 45,000 men fighting force.
0:39:03 > 0:39:12This is more than some states have. They have said they want to
0:39:12 > 0:39:16obliterate Israel and they will blow up the nuclear reactor and they will
0:39:16 > 0:39:21do the same to the ammonia plant. That would cause huge destruction
0:39:21 > 0:39:25and death. This is not acceptable. Would proscribing them change any of
0:39:25 > 0:39:35that?I think it would clarify the situation and let's remember that
0:39:35 > 0:39:38Hassan Nasrallah, their secondary general said it would affect their
0:39:38 > 0:39:42ability to raise money through money laundering and drug dealing and
0:39:42 > 0:39:46undermine our political, moral and social authority. And I think that
0:39:46 > 0:39:50is very important and let's not forget this is in our interest,
0:39:50 > 0:39:55because they're on the streets of London and they're corrupting our
0:39:55 > 0:40:01young people and they are acting in a criminally unacceptable way and it
0:40:01 > 0:40:08has not been dealt with.Thank you.
0:40:08 > 0:40:09Who is your political hero?
0:40:09 > 0:40:12That's the question we'll be asking leading politicians in a new series
0:40:12 > 0:40:13here on the Daily Politics.
0:40:13 > 0:40:16In future weeks we're going to be hearing from MPs and peers
0:40:16 > 0:40:18including William Hague, Vince Cable and Emily Thornberry.
0:40:18 > 0:40:21But today it's the turn of the leader of the opposition
0:40:21 > 0:40:23Jeremy Corbyn, he's chosen the 18th century campaigner for women's
0:40:23 > 0:40:25rights Mary Wollstencraft, and he's been speaking
0:40:25 > 0:40:31to Elizabeth Glinka.
0:40:43 > 0:40:45Jeremy Corbyn, who is your political hero?
0:40:45 > 0:40:47Mary Wollstonecraft.
0:40:47 > 0:40:49So tell me about her.
0:40:49 > 0:40:53Well, we are in the chapel - over there is where she used to sit
0:40:53 > 0:40:56and worship.
0:40:56 > 0:40:59And Mary came to this place as a 25-year-old in order to
0:40:59 > 0:41:02found a girls' school.
0:41:02 > 0:41:05It didn't actually last very long, but it was
0:41:05 > 0:41:07the principle about women and girls' education that she was
0:41:07 > 0:41:12passionate about.
0:41:12 > 0:41:15Born in London in 1759, Mary Wollstonecraft is considered
0:41:15 > 0:41:18by many to be the mother of modern feminism.
0:41:18 > 0:41:19A radical thinker, novelist and writer,
0:41:19 > 0:41:27her love affairs and ideas scandalised polite society.
0:41:27 > 0:41:29She was a kind of historically suppressed figure if that's the
0:41:29 > 0:41:32right word.
0:41:32 > 0:41:36She had an approach which was - these days I suppose you
0:41:36 > 0:41:42would describe as sexual freedom or free love to some extent.
0:41:42 > 0:41:44And the mores of the 19th Century couldn't cope
0:41:44 > 0:41:48with that for women.
0:41:48 > 0:41:50Many people will be surprised that you have
0:41:50 > 0:41:51chose this proto-feminist - they might have
0:41:51 > 0:41:53expected you to pick a more kind of clear
0:41:53 > 0:41:55socialist thinker.
0:41:55 > 0:41:57So why her?
0:41:57 > 0:41:59Well, because she had a complicated life and she
0:41:59 > 0:42:03was always exploring.
0:42:03 > 0:42:06And I just think the process she went through
0:42:06 > 0:42:10in her life shows that if you think hard enough you can actually change
0:42:10 > 0:42:12a lot of things.
0:42:12 > 0:42:15And she didn't know it at the time, she was fundamental
0:42:15 > 0:42:18to changing attitudes between men and women.
0:42:18 > 0:42:20She didn't want women to be superior over men.
0:42:20 > 0:42:24She wanted women to control their own lives.
0:42:24 > 0:42:28Written when she was 33, her most famous work A Vindication
0:42:28 > 0:42:30of the Rights of Women, confounded the
0:42:30 > 0:42:33social order by imagining a world where women were the equals of
0:42:33 > 0:42:34their husbands.
0:42:34 > 0:42:36How did you first come across her?
0:42:36 > 0:42:41Well, I knew you were going to ask that.
0:42:41 > 0:42:45It must have been probably 1970s I should think,
0:42:45 > 0:42:48because a number of us were very active in the Labour Party on
0:42:48 > 0:42:51women's right to choose and women's rights of representation and I think
0:42:51 > 0:42:55it would have been about then.
0:42:55 > 0:42:57I'm sure my mother would have been talking about her.
0:42:57 > 0:43:00My mother talked about a lot of things, but I'm sure
0:43:00 > 0:43:01she talked about her.
0:43:01 > 0:43:02And I'm sure you listened!
0:43:02 > 0:43:03I always listened to my mother.
0:43:03 > 0:43:05Everybody should listen to their mother.
0:43:05 > 0:43:06Good advice.
0:43:06 > 0:43:09Inspired by the ideals of the French Revolution,
0:43:09 > 0:43:13Mary travelled to Paris in 1792.
0:43:13 > 0:43:15When the hard line Jacobins seized control the following
0:43:15 > 0:43:19year, she saw friends executed and was herself in danger.
0:43:19 > 0:43:24She was fascinated by the ideas of liberation that the French
0:43:24 > 0:43:26Revolution offered to obviously the vast majority of very
0:43:26 > 0:43:31poor people in France.
0:43:31 > 0:43:36But also she saw it as an opportunity for women to be
0:43:36 > 0:43:38liberated from their family enslavement, as well as their social
0:43:38 > 0:43:40enslavement in the whole country.
0:43:40 > 0:43:45And even at the height of the terror, Robespierre's
0:43:45 > 0:43:47Jacobins executing people willy-nilly all
0:43:47 > 0:43:49the time, she still supported the principles
0:43:49 > 0:43:55of the Revolution and she felt that the reign of terror would pass.
0:43:55 > 0:43:59While in Paris, Mary had given birth to a
0:43:59 > 0:44:01daughter by her lover, the American adventurer, Gilbert Imlay.
0:44:01 > 0:44:03When he left them, she would return to
0:44:03 > 0:44:05England and attempt suicide.
0:44:05 > 0:44:08But it was back in London that she fell in
0:44:08 > 0:44:10love and married the philosopher William Godwin.
0:44:10 > 0:44:14Her and Godwin had two houses next door to each other
0:44:14 > 0:44:19just near Euston station.
0:44:19 > 0:44:22And I don't quite know why they did this, they wrote letters to
0:44:22 > 0:44:23each other every day.
0:44:23 > 0:44:26Do you think that's the secret to a good marriage
0:44:26 > 0:44:27- separate houses?
0:44:27 > 0:44:28Corresponding rather than talking.
0:44:28 > 0:44:31I suppose it happens, I mean men go to the man
0:44:31 > 0:44:35cave in the garden, or go to the golf course
0:44:35 > 0:44:37or the allotment or something and women go somewhere else
0:44:37 > 0:44:40in order to be on their own.
0:44:40 > 0:44:43They just took it a bit further and had two houses.
0:44:43 > 0:44:46But I couldn't quite work out why there was a need to write to each
0:44:46 > 0:44:47other every day.
0:44:47 > 0:44:49Because they could have chatted over the fence.
0:44:49 > 0:44:52Tragically Mary would die just days after having given birth
0:44:52 > 0:44:54to her second daughter.
0:44:54 > 0:44:56Also called Mary, that little girl would go on
0:44:56 > 0:44:59to write the literary classic, Frankenstein.
0:44:59 > 0:45:01It would be many more generations before her mother's
0:45:01 > 0:45:04legacy would be truly appreciated.
0:45:04 > 0:45:07She didn't set out to create a legacy for herself, she didn't set
0:45:07 > 0:45:09out to make herself famous.
0:45:09 > 0:45:12She didn't set out to be a leader of anything.
0:45:12 > 0:45:14It sounds like someone else we know.
0:45:14 > 0:45:15She just believes in something...
0:45:15 > 0:45:17I can't imagine!
0:45:17 > 0:45:21She remains little known by some people.
0:45:21 > 0:45:24So if you were going to pay tribute to her, what would you say?
0:45:24 > 0:45:29She stood for what she believed in, she said that girls were as good
0:45:29 > 0:45:32as boys, that women are as good as men and that women should be
0:45:32 > 0:45:36supported, helped and educated so they can fulfil their full
0:45:36 > 0:45:38potential.
0:45:38 > 0:45:39Jeremy Corbyn, thank you very much.
0:45:39 > 0:45:47Thank you.
0:45:49 > 0:45:51That was Jeremy Corbyn's political hero, and next week it
0:45:51 > 0:45:56will be the turn of former Conservative leader William Hague.
0:45:56 > 0:46:03or did you make of his choice -- what did you make of this choice?
0:46:03 > 0:46:09I'm not a big fan of the normally, but this was an inspired choice. She
0:46:09 > 0:46:13represents that fight for liberation. I love her because of
0:46:13 > 0:46:19her commitment to reason. She was a supporter of the French Revolution.
0:46:19 > 0:46:23She was complicated. Everything he said. To his credit he did. I
0:46:23 > 0:46:28thought when he was speaking it was a reminder of where the roots of it
0:46:28 > 0:46:35came from, and that demand for equality.And how long it is taking!
0:46:35 > 0:46:38My fear is that contemporary feminism, which seems to wallow in
0:46:38 > 0:46:44its own victimhood and loss of urgency, has forgotten what the
0:46:44 > 0:46:50gains of sexual liberation really were.Do you think Mary
0:46:50 > 0:46:55Wollstonecraft was a safe choice? That he did not go for the great
0:46:55 > 0:47:00political revolutionary. And it is this part of Labour's softening
0:47:00 > 0:47:04presentational approach, such as going to Davos for the first time?
0:47:04 > 0:47:10He knows a lot about it. His interest, you can see it and it is
0:47:10 > 0:47:13sincere. It would be naive to imagine that when the request comes
0:47:13 > 0:47:18in committee want to do this slot, they don't sit down with a committee
0:47:18 > 0:47:22and think, we need to choose someone to protect what we want to project
0:47:22 > 0:47:27the most. It would be crass of him to choose a big revolutionary
0:47:27 > 0:47:37figure. The days of throwing the Little red book have gone.Why?They
0:47:37 > 0:47:43have a sniff of power. They are being cleverer about how to
0:47:43 > 0:47:48represent themselves.She was a female revolutionary, the leader of
0:47:48 > 0:47:55it.John McDonnell has been speaking at Davos this morning. His message
0:47:55 > 0:47:58is that anger is building over inequality and that people feel
0:47:58 > 0:48:02markets have been rigged against them. That is a similar message to
0:48:02 > 0:48:06that delivered this week by Oxfam which use Davos to launch a report
0:48:06 > 0:48:11about global inequality.
0:48:15 > 0:48:18The charity says that 82% of the money generated last year
0:48:18 > 0:48:20went to the richest 1% of the global population.
0:48:20 > 0:48:23Whilst the poorest half saw no increase in wealth at all.
0:48:23 > 0:48:25Oxfam says tax evasion, corporate influence on policy-making
0:48:25 > 0:48:27and an erosion of workers' rights and cost cutting has caused
0:48:27 > 0:48:28the widening gap.
0:48:28 > 0:48:31The charity said 42 people now have as much wealth as the poorest
0:48:31 > 0:48:33half of the world's population.
0:48:33 > 0:48:34But Oxfam's figures have been widely contested.
0:48:34 > 0:48:37The free market think tank, the Adam Smith Institute,
0:48:37 > 0:48:39are amongst those claiming that global inequality has actually
0:48:39 > 0:48:45fallen in recent decades.
0:48:45 > 0:48:47Well we're joined now by Katy Chakrabortty,
0:48:47 > 0:48:51the head of advocacy for Oxfam.
0:48:51 > 0:49:00Welcome. Do these statistics barely reflect the situation -- fairly
0:49:00 > 0:49:04reflect the situation?They do. We wish it wasn't the case, but it's
0:49:04 > 0:49:12true. This is a report that we put out for the last five years, six
0:49:12 > 0:49:16years, even, showing the increasing gap between the top and the bottom.
0:49:16 > 0:49:22I would like to make the point of why we do this. That's important.
0:49:22 > 0:49:26It's not about pointing the finger at the richest comments about this
0:49:26 > 0:49:33kind of inequality, this kind of... Economies that create this
0:49:33 > 0:49:38concentrated wealth at the top. They are creating barriers for those
0:49:38 > 0:49:43overcoming poverty at the bottom. Does it give a full picture?
0:49:43 > 0:49:47According to the World Bank the poorest people are also getting
0:49:47 > 0:49:52richer. They estimated in 2000 10.7% of the worlds population lived on
0:49:52 > 0:50:00less than $1 90 a day, and that was down from 35% in 1990, but that is
0:50:00 > 0:50:05not reflected in your figures?It is. We have made great strides about
0:50:05 > 0:50:11that.Not in the headlines.It has been in our reports that there has
0:50:11 > 0:50:16been enormous progress on overcoming poverty thanks to fair markets and
0:50:16 > 0:50:19investments, things like health care and education. But the World Bank
0:50:19 > 0:50:26themselves say that 200 million people will be left in extreme
0:50:26 > 0:50:30poverty, at under $1.90 a day unless we tackle inequality. That's the
0:50:30 > 0:50:35main reason we are talking about it today. The kind of jobs that are
0:50:35 > 0:50:38being created in these economies, they are not the ones lifting out of
0:50:38 > 0:50:4540 you and I would call poverty, you have workers in the US -- out what
0:50:45 > 0:50:50you and I would call poverty, you have workers in the US wearing
0:50:50 > 0:50:57nappies in order to work around the clock. And there are women who are
0:50:57 > 0:51:00not seeing their children because they have to migrate in order to
0:51:00 > 0:51:05keep a job.Looking at countries like China and India, inequality
0:51:05 > 0:51:09there is huge. Would you also accept that some people have benefited,
0:51:09 > 0:51:13hundreds of thousands of people, from the capitalist policies you are
0:51:13 > 0:51:20criticising?Of course. We have said that. It's a mixture of this
0:51:20 > 0:51:23embracing enterprise, embracing fair markets, but also being able to
0:51:23 > 0:51:27invest in health and education. There was an interesting study which
0:51:27 > 0:51:31looked up the difference between China and India. China has done a
0:51:31 > 0:51:38lot better in overcoming inequality. And that's because of investment in
0:51:38 > 0:51:41health and education.Oxfam tweeted that we have an extreme form of
0:51:41 > 0:51:44capitalism which only works for those at the top, but you have just
0:51:44 > 0:51:49said that it works for people lower down the scale, and that's why we
0:51:49 > 0:51:56are asking governments to manage inequality to benefit everyone not
0:51:56 > 0:51:59just the fortunate few. This language is close to the Labour
0:51:59 > 0:52:04Party and Jeremy Corbyn. Is it wise for a charity like Oxfam to be
0:52:04 > 0:52:10aligned with one particular party?I think we are on record saying that
0:52:10 > 0:52:15was a carelessly worded tweaked. We are talking about extremes. --
0:52:15 > 0:52:25carelessly worded tweet.
0:52:28 > 0:52:30carelessly worded tweet. The second thing I would say is that we have
0:52:30 > 0:52:34been saying this for years, and consistently. We also saying what
0:52:34 > 0:52:40many other people, if you want to point to other voices, we could say
0:52:40 > 0:52:45the World Bank, the Bank of England, President Obama, before she went to
0:52:45 > 0:52:49Davos Theresa May herself put out an article in the Observer calling time
0:52:49 > 0:52:53on fat cat bosses. And the solutions we are talking about, cracking down
0:52:53 > 0:52:57on tax havens, making sure work pace, will deliver the vision
0:52:57 > 0:53:03Theresa May said she wants herself. Clare, do you agree that the extreme
0:53:03 > 0:53:07forms of capitalism, as outlined by Katy, are actually hindering the
0:53:07 > 0:53:12poorest across the world?There is a danger for Oxfam. You keep saying
0:53:12 > 0:53:18that we have done this every year. Everybody knows. And there is now a
0:53:18 > 0:53:23backlash against you because it is oversimplistic.But are they wrong?
0:53:23 > 0:53:27About inequality being the cause and driver, absolutely wrong. It isn't
0:53:27 > 0:53:31inequality which is the problem. The problem is the lack of economic
0:53:31 > 0:53:36development. It comes over that what you are saying is that it is the fat
0:53:36 > 0:53:41cats. We need greater economic development. Highlighting exploited
0:53:41 > 0:53:46workers is OK. But I'm afraid in this instance you come over as
0:53:46 > 0:53:50making cheap points about the rich being blamed for the poor. It isn't
0:53:50 > 0:53:54helpful and it has backfired on you. I would look again at how you
0:53:54 > 0:54:00present your ideas.We need their economic development. We need the
0:54:00 > 0:54:05sorts of opportunities that are open to everybody. It isn't about blaming
0:54:05 > 0:54:09the fat cats. But it is about saying that some of the things that exist
0:54:09 > 0:54:14today help the rich at the expense of the poorest, which is why we must
0:54:14 > 0:54:19look at inequality. Decisions made in companies about let's pay huge
0:54:19 > 0:54:22dividends to our shareholders before we worry about a living wage, that
0:54:22 > 0:54:28helps the riches at the expense of the poor.But you think you might
0:54:28 > 0:54:33diminish your core message?$6.3 trillion in tax havens is the state
0:54:33 > 0:54:37of the world. If you call that sensational, that's what is going
0:54:37 > 0:54:42on. Pointing it out is incumbent on a charity that really wants to see
0:54:42 > 0:54:45an end to poverty.Thanks very much.
0:54:45 > 0:54:47Now, Boris Johnson got some unexpected news yesterday -
0:54:47 > 0:54:50not that he's been uninvited from the cabinet away day -
0:54:50 > 0:54:51scientists have discovered his great-great-great-great-great-great
0:54:51 > 0:54:52-great grandmother, Anna Catharina Bischoff,
0:54:52 > 0:55:00in the Swiss city of Basel.
0:55:04 > 0:55:06Her identity had been a mystery since her mummified remains
0:55:06 > 0:55:08were discovered in 1975.
0:55:08 > 0:55:10Her body was found to be riddled with mercury -
0:55:10 > 0:55:12a standard treatment for syphilis around that time.
0:55:12 > 0:55:14Boris tweeted his delight at discovering the family connection.
0:55:14 > 0:55:17"Very excited to hear about my late great grand 'mummy' -
0:55:17 > 0:55:25a pioneer in sexual health care. Very proud."
0:55:26 > 0:55:29Well joining us now to talk about the family tree of Boris
0:55:29 > 0:55:33and a few other eminent politicians is the genealogist Anthony Adolph.
0:55:33 > 0:55:41Welcome. Tell us how this was discovered.Extraordinary story. It
0:55:41 > 0:55:47shows how genetics and DNA has revolutionised geniality. They had a
0:55:47 > 0:55:50hunch as to who this person was because she was buried next to the
0:55:50 > 0:55:57altar. They used the same techniques we used to identify Richard III and
0:55:57 > 0:56:01disprove the person who said she was the grand Duchess Anastasia. I
0:56:01 > 0:56:10worked on that one years ago. They took DNA from this mummified corpse.
0:56:13 > 0:56:26This type of DNA can recognise the relationship. They had to trace back
0:56:26 > 0:56:29down the female line. They then found a sister, who had a daughter,
0:56:29 > 0:56:34who had a daughter, etc, who is still alive. I've done this type of
0:56:34 > 0:56:39work. It is so frustrating. You go down the line, then you find out
0:56:39 > 0:56:45that a woman did not have any children or only had male offspring.
0:56:45 > 0:56:49They found an exact match to the mummy, which proved their hunch as
0:56:49 > 0:56:54to who the woman was.What about Theresa May's Heritage?Very
0:56:54 > 0:57:00ordinary. Woman of the people, you could say. Very ordinary ancestors,
0:57:00 > 0:57:07mainly southern England. Her maiden name, Brazier, very ordinary, a
0:57:07 > 0:57:11contrast to her predecessor, David Cameron, who dissented from William
0:57:11 > 0:57:19IV. Derrey Royal origins.What about Jeremy Corbyn?As far as I can see,
0:57:19 > 0:57:26very much man of the people, solid working-class roots. Croydon. In
0:57:26 > 0:57:30terms of politics you could say he is representing the people, his
0:57:30 > 0:57:36ancestry matches his policy.Vince Cable?I don't know much about him.
0:57:36 > 0:57:39But I read something interesting that he descended from Thomas Moore,
0:57:39 > 0:57:44the Saint and politician who stood up against the king, and lost his
0:57:44 > 0:57:50head, so rather controversial.Have you ever traced your ancestors?It
0:57:50 > 0:57:55disappears off to Russian controlled eastern Europe, so it's difficult.
0:57:55 > 0:57:59I'm excited about the science but I'm afraid that we would all end up
0:57:59 > 0:58:06in pauper 's grave is if we looked at mine. Having a hunch because she
0:58:06 > 0:58:12was buried next to the church. But it is scientifically fabulous.
0:58:12 > 0:58:15Mathematically everybody likes to imagine that they did have famous
0:58:15 > 0:58:19ancestors, but the likelihood is that we mostly do not.Thanks very
0:58:19 > 0:58:20much.
0:58:20 > 0:58:24There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
0:58:24 > 0:58:26The question was which food is Michael Gove trying to get
0:58:26 > 0:58:28Donald Trump to lift the ban on is it:
0:58:28 > 0:58:31a) Jellied eels, b) Haggis, c) Pork Pies, or d) Black pudding?
0:58:31 > 0:58:32So what's the correct answer?
0:58:32 > 0:58:43The guests is Haggis -- guess is Haggis.You're correct.
0:58:43 > 0:58:44That's all for today.
0:58:44 > 0:58:45Thanks to my guests.
0:58:45 > 0:58:48The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.
0:58:48 > 0:58:51Sarah Smith will be back on Sunday on BBC One at 11
0:58:51 > 0:58:53with the Sunday Politics, and I'll be back here
0:58:53 > 0:58:55on BBC2 on Monday at midday with more Daily Politics.
0:58:55 > 0:59:02Bye bye.