Browse content similar to 26/01/2018. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Hello and welcome to
the Daily Politics.
Brexit Secretary David Davis
is talking about Brexit today,
but it's his cabinet colleague
Philip Hammond that's been causing
a stir after saying he wanted the UK
economy to only move "very modestly"
apart from the EU.
We've been speaking to Labour
leader Jeremy Corbyn
about his political hero
in the first in a new
series starting today.
At the moment it's possible to wave
the yellow flag of the Islamist
group Hezbollah at rallies like this
one in London, but should
the group's political
wing also be banned?
And after a mummified woman is found
to be a very distant
relation of Boris Johnson,
we'll be taking a look at the family
trees of a few of our
All that in the next hour,
and joining me for all of it -
two keen observers of the political
world with as yet undisclosed
ancestral links to any
16th century mummies,
or indeed the foreign secretary -
it's Claire Fox of the Academy
of Ideas, and Rafael Behr
from the Guardian.
Welcome to both of you.
First today - Donald Trump is due
to give a speech to the gathering
of global business and political
leaders in the Swiss resort
of Davos later today.
He'll be talking about free trade
after yesterday predicting
a 'tremendous increase'
in UK-US trade post-Brexit.
He's also apologised for re-tweeting
messages from the far-right group
Britain First last November.
Here he is speaking
to Piers Morgan on ITV.
It was done because I am a big
believer in fighting
radical Islamic terror.
This was a depiction
of radical Islamic terror.
They were verified videos.
At least one of them
was not would seem.
Well, they are, but I do it.
I did a retweet.
I don't want to cause any
difficulty to your country,
that I can tell you.
Can I get an apology out of you just
for the retweets of Britain First?
Well, if you're telling me...
I think it would go a long way...
Here's what's fair.
If you're telling me
that they are horrible,
racist people, I would certainly
apologise if you would
like me to do that.
I know nothing about them.
And you would disavow yourself
of people like that?
I don't want to be involved
with people like that.
But you're telling me about these
people, because I know
nothing about these people.
What worried you more that he didn't
know who Britain First were, or the
I don't think
anybody knew, hardly anybody knew
who Britain First were before this.
Should the president of the United
States have found out? A small minor
fascist organisation are racist,
people are saying I didn't know they
existed until he retweeted them.
He's retweet lunatic. I wouldn't say
that is the greatest crime Trump has
committed. With so many people
retweeting all sorts of things, he
seems like everybody else who
doesn't read what they retweet.
he is the president of the United
States and he is sitting in the
White House. It is reasonable if not
to be shocked, because he is Donald
Trump, at least very profoundly
disappointed and alarmed that this
person wields this power and has the
capacity to elevate Britain First
from being a small organisation into
something that by definition the
whole world knows about.
He apologised to the
existence of racism. It is clear
from everything else he said he does
haven't a clear definition of
He wanted to be clear he was
against Islamic fundamentalist
extremism and that will have a
We can show
Donald Trump now arriving at Davos.
Because he will give a speech
shortly. There he is waving to the
crowds. The president of the United
States. Actually, he talked about
trade with Theresa May. Were you
heartened, Claire, about his pledge
to increase, there will be a
tremendous amount of trade he said
between the UK and the United
Everyone should be heartened
about the possibility of greater
Do you believe him.
That is a
whole different ball game. The
difficulty is to know how seriously
to take him as a president. It is
important that Britain can do trade
with America. A lot has been made of
his protectionism and there is
protectionism coming from the EU to
everyone else. There is a lot of
that trend around. So any time that
he is talking about come on let's do
deals, we can be pleased about that.
It is this do you believe him.
America/Britain trade deal is good.
His integrity one can be anxious
We know from everything
Donald Trump has said about the way
he does trade deals that his
understanding of a good deal is one
in which he or the United States or
the person of Donald Trump will walk
away satisfied and the other party
is beaten and crushed. That is the
way he conceives any negotiation and
he conceives trade. The fact he
thinks there will be a great deal
doesn't mean that will be a good
deal for the UK.
I think most people
want to get a good deal for the
people they represented. It would be
ridiculous to have a good deal where
we don't get a good deal.
visit looks like it is back on. Even
if it is on 31st December.
not clear it is a full state visit.
I don't think the Prime Minister's
in a hurry to have a big parade.
Caused great excitement among those
anti-Donald Trump. I think that is
an immature response to what should
be just a visit from the president,
even though I can't stand Trump.
Now it's time for our quiz.
The question for today is about
Environment Secretary, Michael Gove.
He's launched a charm offensive
aimed at Donald Trump -
he wants him to lift the US ban
on one tasty British delicacy.
But which is it:
a) Jellied eels, b) Haggis,
c) Pork Pies,
or d) Black pudding?
At the end of the show Claire
and Rafael will give
us the correct answer.
Now, Brexit is back centre stage
today, with the Brexit
Secretary David Davis due to give
a speech this afternoon setting out
the Government's vision
for the transition period,
the two or so years after we leave
the EU in March next year.
But when it comes to life
after Brexit there have been plenty
of noises off to show that not
everyone in the Conservative
Party is happy.
When Chancellor Phillip
Hammond took to the stage
in front of business leaders
at Davos yesterday, he said that
Britain's trade relationship
with the EU will only change
modestly' after Brexit.
That met with a frosty
response from the audience
back in Downing Street,
with the government saying:
And it definitely prompted boos
from many pro-Brexit
Conservatives back in the UK.
Jacob Rees-Mogg arranged his own
performance to explain
that the government's "timid
and cowering" approach risked
squandering the potential
gains of leaving the EU.
He said 'close alignment'
after Brexit is unacceptable.
The former minister Andrew Percy
put it more bluntly
and said the Chancellor
should 'put a sock in it'.
Brexit Secretary David Davis
will tell the audience the UK wants
to replicate the effects
of the customs union
during the transition period,
but should be able to negotiate
trade deals which would come
into force at the end of the period.
Well the Chancellor Philip
Hammond has been speaking
to journalists in Davos this
morning, and Kamal Ahmed
asked the Chancellor
if he was a 'hyper-soft' Brexiteer.
Not at all.
I said yesterday that we will leave
the European Union in 2019
and at the same time we will leave
the customs union and we will
believe the single market.
What I was explaining to my audience
is starting as we do with a very
high degree of trade with the EU,
a very high level of alignment,
we should be able to negotiate
a very high degree of market access
for the future, and a very smooth
process at the border,
which means that there should be
minimal disruption to the trade
patterns that the companies
I was speaking to already have
with the European Union.
That will protect British prosperity
and protect British jobs.
We're joined now by
the Conservative MP and leading
eurosceptic Bernard Jenkin.
Philip Hammond used a speech to say
the UK economy, he only wanted it to
move modestly from the EU. What was
wrong with that?
Well, the Prime
Minister didn't like that phrasing.
I think the speech reinforced the
impression that the Chancellor is
trying to pursue a different policy
from the Prime Minister. The Prime
Minister's been clear in her
speeches in the Lancaster House
speech and the Conservative
manifesto, that we're leaving the
customs union and going to seek to
do a trade deal with Europe and
other countries. This isn't some
modest change. It is a substantial
change. You can't be half in and
Shouldn't the Chancellor
be able to speak for the Government
I think he should. I speak
with some sympathy for the
Chancellor, these are febrile times,
but to put into a speech how he
supports the views of Caroline fair
burn after the CBI campaigned for us
to stay in the customs union was in
danger of giving the wrong
impression. I think maybe with
practice he will stop doing it.
Should he be sanctioned? Would you
like to see a different Chancellor?
I think the Prime Minister is a bit
hobbled by the fact that the cabinet
doesn't reflect the same views as
the vast majority of the
Parliamentary party. And it that is
arithmetic that reflects the views
of the country. Even David Cameron
could only persuade half the MPs to
vote for Remain. And most are for
Leave and the Ulster unionists are
for Leave. Every party stood on a
Leave ticket. The House of Commons
and House of Lords have voted leave.
Philip Hammond said prince Britain
I don't think smuggling
the United Kingdom into a very
similar arrangement constitutes
leaving in most people's minds. The
Prime Minister answered a question
before Christmas and made it clear
we are going to have full regulatory
autonomy. If you don't have that,
you can't have full regulatory
autonomy. To do deals with other
countries, you need autonomy. What
do you think of him saying we need
alignment after we leave. As long as
we are in control of what is aligned
and what is not aligned and are not
bound by some permanent UK agreement
like Norway or Switzerland. We want
a Canada, plus, plus, not a Norway
version. People like Ukraine and
Turkey have done agreements with the
EU in order to try and get into the
EU. We are leaving the EU. We don't
want to be in the customs union.
say the Prime Minister is hobbled by
Philip Hammond, what should she do
about him? I think she needs to have
a frank conversation with him. They
need to talk frankly about what
advice the government is getting. I
saw a tweet from a Foreign Office
official that ridiculed me for
saying that, and saying of course
90% of Foreign Office officials are
in favour of remaining in the EU.
There is a tremendous inert ya in
the bureaucracy making very heavy
weather of Brexit and that is
reflected in advice to ministers.
Maybe Philip Hammond genuinely holds
the beliefs about the Brexit he
If there are big ideological
differences between the Chancellor
and the Prime Minister, that is
usual lip ly not good news for the
stability of Government. I will
leave that thought with you.
only way to address is it to push
him out of cabinet.
If there are
serious ideological differences
between the Prime Minister and the
Chancellor, that is a very serious
thing for any, the stability of any
And Andrew Persie said
Philip Hammond should put a sock in
it. Do you think he should?
he should make clear he is
supporting the Prime Minister's
policy and not try and play blow
football with the policy.
heard from the No 10 spokesperson
that the Prime Minister has full
confidence in the Chancellor. Do you
It is always dangerous when the
Prime Minister has to expressed
confidence in her Prime Minister...
? Her Chancellor In? Her Chancellor.
I remember Margaret Thatcher doing
the same thing with Nigel Lawson.
Boris Johnson also spoke out beyond
To some extents cabinet
is a coalition and you have to
balance the different views in the
cabinet and the Prime Minister only
chairs the meetings, the cabinet
ministers run their departments.
What is the problem here is the
Prime Minister has set out a clear
policy, the cabinet doesn't reflect
the views of Parliamentary party.
Beyond the speeches, which Philip
Hammond said he agreed with, what is
Some confusion has crept
in and about whether there is
distinction between the customs
union and a customs union.
Is that a
red line for you?
If we joined a
customs union that would be contrary
to what the Prime Minister has been
saying from the beginning. And I
don't expect her to change that
Are you happy with the
status quo position of the customs
union and the single market for the
period of the transition?
think most conservative MPs will
tolerate that. It is far from ideal.
But there are some qualifications.
To put the UK in a position where we
are basically subject to an alien
legislative process, there would
have to be safeguards. There would
also have to be safeguards to stop
the European Court of Justice doing
something unexpected which affects
our national interest in that
period. Finally, it isn't going to
be in fermentation period. We cannot
be an extension of the negotiations.
It means that when we signed the
deal and agree to the limitation
period, and to paying all of that
money, we are actually implementing
a trade agreement which has broadly
been agreed at the outset. We are
not going to continue negotiating a
trade agreement be held hostage by
the European Union all over again
after we have paid all ludicrous
You Philip Hammond to be
brought into line. What about Jacob
Rees Mogg? Is right he is able to
question David Davis on the way he
did, criticising Government policy
and the negotiations?
He is not a
member of Government.
But is it
helpful in terms of the unity of the
Jacob Rees Mogg is entitled
to do what he is paid to do on that
committee, which scrutinise
Government policy. By all means ask
me about Boris Johnson. I don't
think Boris Johnson should be
breathing out what he says to the
Cabinet, committee on April six of
one and half a dozen of the other. I
think most people have a lot of
sympathy for Theresa May. She has a
lot of fractious members of her
Cabinet arguing with each other. I
think the party would like to see
her impose her authority. Let the
leopard cub bounding out of the cage
and show her authority.
poetic note, thank you very much.
Well a short while ago we heard
again from Jacob Rees-Mogg,
he's the new leader of a group
of Eurosceptic Conservative Mps
about his reaction to Philip
Hammond's comments in Davos...
I think this is not a good position
for the Chancellor to be in. To be
undermining the Prime Minister. It
is of utmost urgency that he should
unite his position with that of the
Prime Minister. And with that of the
Conservative Party. A bit of
freelancing in Davos is unhelpful. I
support the Prime Minister in
getting the Brexit that she has set
out. It will bring huge benefits to
the country, a cheaper cost of food,
clothing, and that work helping the
poorest in society most. And if she
has confidence in the Chancellor
that is good enough for me.
Joining me now and listening
to that was the Conservative MP
and former minister Ed Vaizey.
Welcome. You had your colleague
saying there are big ideological
differences on Brexit between the PM
and the Chancellor, she needs to do
something about that. In other
words, sack him.
I heard that. For
giving a speech that word for word
was Government policy. I wonder
whether the people who shall be on
Twitter have actually read what the
Chancellor said. -- troll me. He
backs the Chancellor who once asked
to stay in a customs union. If you
read the speed it says we are
leaving the single market and
customs union. He was giving a
speech to business leaders were
quite rightly he wanted to assure
them of a smooth Brexit. -- if you
read the speech. Hopefully we will
have a smooth transition
arrangement. For some reason people
jumped up and down on his head for
Because he said there
should only be a modest change to
the relationship the UK has with the
EU. He said Britain could be part of
a customs union. That would mean we
haven't left the EU.
It does mean
that. He said there should be some
customs arrangement. He made a valid
point at 60% of our trade goes
between Dover and Calais. You would
hope there would be something. But
has anybody read what has been said?
But that hasn't. He said we
should -- he said that the speech
said we would remain. She didn't say
that. What is happening is that
people like Philip Hammond and
Carolyn Fairbairn are putting
forward practical ideas about how we
do Brexit. Brexiteers tore the
television studio saying it is
outrageous. But they will not tell
us what they want.
He has come he
just said regulatory divergence.
What does that mean?
different from independence is what
If you have your
neighbours close to you it would
make sense to have some. We'll just
implemented the GDP are.
implemented the GDP are. -- we just
implemented the GDPR, because we
want data regulations which are
similar between Britain and Europe.
I do not see that as a loss of
sovereignty, it is sensible.
at Theresa May and number ten and
slapped down the Chancellor for what
Why do you think?
have no idea.
Because she doesn't
agree with him.
What is she agree
Because of the vision for
I've read every single word
of the Chancellor 's speech, the
Prime Minister's speech, I cannot
see any difference between the two.
Modest changes. Those are the words
that upset number ten because they
are stars that there will be a
radical, dramatic difference when
Britain leaves the EU.
Britain leaves the EU. -- because
there are steps that would be
radical and dramatically different
in Britain leaves the EU.
nothing wrong with the chance of
Great Britain saying to a group of
business leaders that hopefully over
time the changes that they see will
be modest in terms of these people
trying to run businesses and export
to the rest of the world.
unnecessary for number ten to
slapped down the Chancellor?
no idea why they would do that when
he was saying word for word policies
of the Government.
What about when
he took David Davis to task for a
negative tone, not being optimistic
enough about the Brexit
negotiations, is that right?
thought he and Jacob Rees Mogg was
supposed to be on the same side.
Would you make of the fact he does
not think the tone is positive
enough? -- what do you make.
Hammond is trying to say to business
leaders we will do this as smoothly
as possible. And he is ambitious. He
talks about a 21st-century British
economy. He is very ambitious and
excited about it. The whole theme of
Davos was about the technology
revolution going on in the UK, the
factory of the centre of it. The
fact the whole Government is about
optimism. Why is Jacob Rees Mogg
doing that? You would have to ask
him. Philip Hammond says we are
taking two economies are selectively
moving them hopefully very modestly
apart. Jacob Rees Mogg said the
British people did not vote for
that, they did not vote for the
management of decline. Politicians
must now deliver the optimism that
Jacob Rees Mogg is criticising him.
We have the largest level of
employment we've ever seen. We've
just fantastic growth this morning.
Why would you as the Chancellor say,
I tell you what we will do, we will
throw it up in the air and create
lots of uncertainty? He said it will
be smooth orderly, disciplined.
the Prime Minister survive much more
What about her leadership in the
Brexit negotiations. -- should she?
You shouldn't use a radio interview
Use the TV!
Johnson ruined our conference by
setting out his Brexit position. I
agree with Bernard, Boris Johnson
leaves a lot to be desired. It isn't
the Prime Minister will should be
criticising, perhaps we should be
criticising some of her Cabinet
colleagues for going behind her.
Philip Hammond is about, why not
That's my point, he
stuck to the script.
Number ten did
not immediately slapped down the
Chancellor. It was only when they
became aware that Jacob Rees Mogg
and others were upset about these
words about modesty did number ten
realised there was a problem. The
problem was with those people who do
not really want to engage in a
practical conversation about how you
would deliver Brexit. But would be
akin to keep the sense of being --
but would be very keen to keep the
sense of being betrayed. They don't
want to get involved in the detail.
They were upset. The PM felt she had
to distance herself from the
Chancellor. But the Chancellor was
saying Government policy. And
Bernard said if, if there is a
different psychologically between
the Chancellor and the PM, well,
they present, she has been given the
opportunity to do this discreetly.
She should square that up with
people on frontbenchers who might
What do you to that?
vision of Brexit is a modest, serene
affair. That is what is most are
fronting and worrying. I know the
disparaging term Brexiteers is being
used, but for anyone who voted,
either way, and for those who wanted
Brexit to mean something. One critic
said, we are going to get a rubbish
photocopy version of Brexit. I think
that is what people fear. The
Chancellor, what he said when he was
reassuring those business leaders
this effortlessly and viscerally,
saying don't worry everybody it is
going to be fine. For those of us
who wanted it to be an opportunity
for a restart, a kick-start, of the
British economy, nobody should be
complacent about that. Taking that
Hancock out and talking about AI is
not what is needed. Sorry. We need a
hugely dramatic new vision to shake
up the problems of British
productivity and of the economy.
When you say, I agree with you on
this, when you say there is a danger
that Philip Hammond and Theresa May
have the same ideological, I fear
the same thing, which is a dull
technocratic attitude when it comes
to implementing Brexit because they
have to, because that is what the
people said. Rather than seeing this
as an opportunity for an autonomous
go at sorting out the British
economy in a different way.
Otherwise the UK won't be truly
independent in the way Theresa May
employed in both of her speeches on
I was with claim until...
Halfway through... Even in the EU we
were free to organise our economy
however we wanted. We could have
voted in Jeremy Corbyn, nationalised
everything that moved. I'm sorry if
it is dull to preserve British drops
and carry on what David Cameron and
George Osborne started. -- preserve
British jobs. That is at the heart
of this. The people voted to leave
the EU. People who
the EU. People who didn't, they were
not offered the opportunity to ask
for what they wanted. Theresa May
Philip Hammond put forward an
alternative, they were criticised,
but criticised by people who will
not say what they want.
I just think Philip Hammond, I
cannot understand what he has been
criticised for supporting his PM and
The leopard should
be let out...
I gather the Leopard
will be let out of the cage.
We're having this
debate, it was kicked off by
Nicholas Bowles, and it echoes what
Claire has said, that there is
nothing wrong with being bold and
setting out radical visions. If the
Prime Minister wants to do that she
would have the support of all of her
colleagues. Some of the people who
like Nick Timothy have said. They
are 100% supporters of Theresa May.
If they are saying this they are
saying it in a constructive way.
Saying that this is a great country,
Brexit offers opportunities, and
there is a chance to set out great
divisions. I am obsessed with
On that great admission that you are
dull. Come to us for another therapy
session any time.
And for more reporting
and analysis of Brexit,
you can go to the BBC News website -
MPs were calling for the Government
to ban the political wing of the
Islamist group his
Let's talk now about a debate
in the Commons yesterday,
where MPs were calling
for the Government to ban
the political wing of
the Islamist group Hezbollah.
At present only the militant wing
of the group, which is classed
as a separate organisation,
is banned in the UK, a distinction
that was criticised by Labour
and Conservative backbenchers.
The official position of
the Government and the Labour Party,
however, is not to extend the ban.
Here's a flavour of the debate.
Hezbollah is a terrorist
by anti-Semitic ideology,
which seeks the
destruction of Israel.
It has wreaked death and destruction
throughout the Middle East,
aiding and abetting the Assad
regime's butchery in Syria
and helping to drive Iran's
expansionism throughout the region.
It makes no distinction
between its political and military
wings, and neither should
the British government.
The fact that some parts
of Hezbollah are not prescribed
limits the ability of law
enforcement agencies to seize funds
using asset freezing
and forfeiture powers.
I agree with her that this
is incumbent on the government
in principle and the opposition
front bench would follow, I hope,
to change the policy.
We don't make prescription decisions
based on ministers around a cup
of coffee making it up,
we make it with recommendations
submitted to us by our law
and our security services,
both here and overseas
We need to see Hezbollah prescribed,
because by doing so you take
away their money, you take
away their resources,
you take with their moral
and political livelihood,
and if you do that
you stop the killer,
that's got to be way forward.
We on these benches condemn that
And we continue to support
the prescription of the military
wing, as has been the position
Can I just, I'll just
make this one point,
and I will give way to the member
for Clywd West.
We simply say that we believe
engagement with the government
and Parliament of Lebanon is very
important in terms of the wider
Middle East peace process.
And I would simply say
that we should be very careful
about damaging that engagement.
But it is, of course,
a question of balance.
I will give way.
The Labour MP who called
the debate, Joan Ryan,
joins us now.
We heard from MPs across the House
yesterday and most agreed with your
motion, why do you think the
Government and the Labour front
bench has not proscribed the
military, Orrey or sorry the
political wing of Hezbollah.
to be clear Hezbollah are a violent
organisation. They wreak death and
destruction across the Middle East,
in Europe, Latin America, from
Cyprus to Singapore, so it seems
inexplicable they wouldn't be
banned. The explanation the minister
appeared to be giving was that there
was... A need to talk to Hezbollah
who are elected in Lebanon.
not a valid point, if we're going to
have a diplomatic relationship.
said it would destabilise Lebanon.
The US, Arab league, they all
proscribe Hezbollah in its entirety.
I don't think they have any trouble
talking to the Lebanese Government.
The fact that Hezbollah have this,
what their Secretary General has
called moral political and social
authority that is afforded to them
by the fact that there is this false
division of their political wing
that is not proscribed. That is what
destabilises Lebanon and don't
forget they have not been
proscribed, the political wing and
they have been spoken to for the
last 20 years and it has no
difference. In fact they have become
more extreme, more violent and built
up a military capability that is
threaten the stability across the
There are other
countries who haven't provibed both
parts of Hezbollah - Australia, New
Zealand and the EU. What is your
answer to them, keeping it separate,
actually dealing with the political
wing separately to the other wing.
Hezbollah do not make this
distinction. The Secretary General
said this is a British invention and
their political affairs officer has
said that everyone knows that
Hezbollah is one body, one entity
that it is, it is military and
political wings are unified. So it
is a false distinction.
Government didn't agree you, nor did
the Labour front bench who put out a
briefing note against your motion.
What do you say to your own party?
As I said yesterday, although I
appreciated the tone of the Labour
front bencher on this, I think he is
wrong. It is a debate I will
continue to have to persuade the
Labour Party to not just keep this
under review. But to accept that
this is a deeply anti-Semitic
violent terrorist organisation and
they're threatening stability in the
Middle East, our global interest and
more than that there is evidence
that shows they are money laundering
and drug dealing on the streets of
London. So they're bringing
criminality to our streets.
basis, where are you surprised at
the lengths that the Labour Party
went to, the Labour front bench to
convince your colleagues in the the
House to vote against your motion or
not to give against the motion, but
not to agree with it?
I have raised
this issue and written to the Chief
Whip and the home affairs shadow to
raise the issue about the briefing,
which I didn't agree with. However,
what I would say is it's the
government who get to proscribe.
This is an issue for the Government.
They appear to be telling us there
might be evidence from the army, but
let's face it, you know, Richard
Dunnet, a former Chief of the
General Staff, colonel Richard Kemp,
who worked for the intelligence and
security committee, have all said it
is a false distinction and we have
been speaking to Hezbollah for many
years and it has made no difference
and in giving them this authority,
because we don't proscribe their
political wing, we are putting our
own interests at risk and right
across Europe, the Middle East and
Claire were you
surprised the Government didn't back
this motion to deal with Hezbollah
in its entirety?
I was surprised as
there is so much ill liberalism
around they would ban everybody. I
don't think they should be banned,
no more than I think Donald Trump
shower banned. Provibing people in
that way is Ibbs liberal and
tolerant. If there is criminality on
the skreets he streets that can be
dealt be the police. The same way I
would have not banned Sinn Fein.
Just in terms of kind of
anti-Semitic point, because this is
confused by a suspicion that the
Labour might be soft on Hezbollah
because of anti-Semitic feelings in
the Labour Party. I have been
critical of peers on the left with
myself who have been soft on
Hezbollah and anti-Semitism. That is
still no excuse to ban them. I don't
think that helps the matter.
about Joan making the distinction
having not proscribed the political
wing, hasn't helped in terms of
diplomatic relations or trying to
establish a better relationship.
wasn't suggesting we shouldn't
proscribe them because we will all
be friends. That is an excuse. It is
dangerous to proscribe political
organisations that are voted in
parts of world. Because it is us
that are badly reflected. That say
there is no division. They're not a
political organisation. They're a
made was the minister saying we have
been advised by the Security
Services to not do this. Because you
would be fascinated to know what
that advice sounded like. They're
not going to make it public. But it
wouldn't make sense and no one would
expect the current government to
think we are happy for a terrorist
organisation to operate on the
streets of the UK. So clearly they
have been told something that has
made them think there is some
intelligence or capabilities that
makes it beneficial to the UK to
keep them operating. Whether that is
a good reason to have them
operating, because they're a vile
organisation, I don't know.
you going do now?
I'm not go to let
this rest. We know that Hezbollah
has amassed 150,000 weaponry,
ballistic missiles, rockets...
Mostly in Lebanon. We know
they have 45,000 men fighting force.
This is more than some states have.
They have said they want to
obliterate Israel and they will blow
up the nuclear reactor and they will
do the same to the ammonia plant.
That would cause huge destruction
and death. This is not acceptable.
Would proscribing them change any of
I think it would clarify the
situation and let's remember that
Hassan Nasrallah, their secondary
general said it would affect their
ability to raise money through money
laundering and drug dealing and
undermine our political, moral and
social authority. And I think that
is very important and let's not
forget this is in our interest,
because they're on the streets of
London and they're corrupting our
young people and they are acting in
a criminally unacceptable way and it
has not been dealt with.
Who is your political hero?
That's the question we'll be asking
leading politicians in a new series
here on the Daily Politics.
In future weeks we're going to be
hearing from MPs and peers
including William Hague,
Vince Cable and Emily Thornberry.
But today it's the turn
of the leader of the opposition
Jeremy Corbyn, he's chosen the 18th
century campaigner for women's
rights Mary Wollstencraft,
and he's been speaking
to Elizabeth Glinka.
Jeremy Corbyn, who is
your political hero?
So tell me about her.
Well, we are in the chapel -
over there is where she used to sit
And Mary came to this place
as a 25-year-old in order to
found a girls' school.
It didn't actually last
very long, but it was
the principle about women and girls'
education that she was
Born in London in 1759,
Mary Wollstonecraft is considered
by many to be the mother
of modern feminism.
A radical thinker,
novelist and writer,
her love affairs and ideas
scandalised polite society.
She was a kind of historically
suppressed figure if that's the
She had an approach which was -
these days I suppose you
would describe as sexual freedom
or free love to some extent.
And the mores of the 19th
Century couldn't cope
with that for women.
Many people will be
surprised that you have
chose this proto-feminist -
they might have
expected you to pick
a more kind of clear
So why her?
Well, because she had
a complicated life and she
was always exploring.
And I just think the
process she went through
in her life shows that if you think
hard enough you can actually change
a lot of things.
And she didn't know it at the time,
she was fundamental
to changing attitudes
between men and women.
She didn't want women
to be superior over men.
She wanted women to
control their own lives.
Written when she was 33,
her most famous work A Vindication
of the Rights of Women,
social order by imagining a world
where women were the equals of
How did you first come across her?
Well, I knew you were
going to ask that.
It must have been probably
1970s I should think,
because a number of us were very
active in the Labour Party on
women's right to choose and women's
rights of representation and I think
it would have been about then.
I'm sure my mother would have
been talking about her.
My mother talked about a lot
of things, but I'm sure
she talked about her.
And I'm sure you listened!
I always listened to my mother.
Everybody should listen
to their mother.
Inspired by the ideals
of the French Revolution,
Mary travelled to Paris in 1792.
When the hard line Jacobins seized
control the following
year, she saw friends executed
and was herself in danger.
She was fascinated by the ideas
of liberation that the French
Revolution offered to obviously
the vast majority of very
poor people in France.
But also she saw it
as an opportunity for women to be
liberated from their family
enslavement, as well as their social
enslavement in the whole country.
And even at the height
of the terror, Robespierre's
people willy-nilly all
the time, she still
supported the principles
of the Revolution and she felt
that the reign of terror would pass.
While in Paris, Mary
had given birth to a
daughter by her lover, the American
adventurer, Gilbert Imlay.
When he left them,
she would return to
England and attempt suicide.
But it was back in
London that she fell in
love and married the
philosopher William Godwin.
Her and Godwin had two houses
next door to each other
just near Euston station.
And I don't quite know why they did
this, they wrote letters to
each other every day.
Do you think that's
the secret to a good marriage
- separate houses?
Corresponding rather than talking.
I suppose it happens,
I mean men go to the man
cave in the garden,
or go to the golf course
or the allotment or something
and women go somewhere else
in order to be on their own.
They just took it a bit
further and had two houses.
But I couldn't quite work out why
there was a need to write to each
other every day.
Because they could have
chatted over the fence.
Tragically Mary would die just days
after having given birth
to her second daughter.
Also called Mary, that
little girl would go on
to write the literary
It would be many more
generations before her mother's
legacy would be truly appreciated.
She didn't set out to create
a legacy for herself, she didn't set
out to make herself famous.
She didn't set out to be
a leader of anything.
It sounds like someone else we know.
She just believes in something...
I can't imagine!
She remains little
known by some people.
So if you were going to pay tribute
to her, what would you say?
She stood for what she believed in,
she said that girls were as good
as boys, that women are as good
as men and that women should be
supported, helped and educated
so they can fulfil their full
Jeremy Corbyn, thank you very much.
That was Jeremy Corbyn's political
hero, and next week it
will be the turn of former
Conservative leader William Hague.
or did you make of his choice --
what did you make of this choice?
I'm not a big fan of the normally,
but this was an inspired choice. She
represents that fight for
liberation. I love her because of
her commitment to reason. She was a
supporter of the French Revolution.
She was complicated. Everything he
said. To his credit he did. I
thought when he was speaking it was
a reminder of where the roots of it
came from, and that demand for
And how long it is taking!
My fear is that contemporary
feminism, which seems to wallow in
its own victimhood and loss of
urgency, has forgotten what the
gains of sexual liberation really
Do you think Mary
Wollstonecraft was a safe choice?
That he did not go for the great
political revolutionary. And it is
this part of Labour's softening
presentational approach, such as
going to Davos for the first time?
He knows a lot about it. His
interest, you can see it and it is
sincere. It would be naive to
imagine that when the request comes
in committee want to do this slot,
they don't sit down with a committee
and think, we need to choose someone
to protect what we want to project
the most. It would be crass of him
to choose a big revolutionary
figure. The days of throwing the
Little red book have gone.
have a sniff of power. They are
being cleverer about how to
She was a
female revolutionary, the leader of
John McDonnell has been speaking
at Davos this morning. His message
is that anger is building over
inequality and that people feel
markets have been rigged against
them. That is a similar message to
that delivered this week by Oxfam
which use Davos to launch a report
about global inequality.
The charity says that 82%
of the money generated last year
went to the richest 1%
of the global population.
Whilst the poorest half saw no
increase in wealth at all.
Oxfam says tax evasion,
corporate influence on policy-making
and an erosion of workers' rights
and cost cutting has caused
the widening gap.
The charity said 42 people now have
as much wealth as the poorest
half of the world's population.
But Oxfam's figures have
been widely contested.
The free market think tank,
the Adam Smith Institute,
are amongst those claiming that
global inequality has actually
fallen in recent decades.
Well we're joined now
by Katy Chakrabortty,
the head of advocacy for Oxfam.
Welcome. Do these statistics barely
reflect the situation -- fairly
reflect the situation?
They do. We
wish it wasn't the case, but it's
true. This is a report that we put
out for the last five years, six
years, even, showing the increasing
gap between the top and the bottom.
I would like to make the point of
why we do this. That's important.
It's not about pointing the finger
at the richest comments about this
kind of inequality, this kind of...
Economies that create this
concentrated wealth at the top. They
are creating barriers for those
overcoming poverty at the bottom.
Does it give a full picture?
According to the World Bank the
poorest people are also getting
richer. They estimated in 2000 10.7%
of the worlds population lived on
less than $1 90 a day, and that was
down from 35% in 1990, but that is
not reflected in your figures?
is. We have made great strides about
Not in the headlines.
been in our reports that there has
been enormous progress on overcoming
poverty thanks to fair markets and
investments, things like health care
and education. But the World Bank
themselves say that 200 million
people will be left in extreme
poverty, at under $1.90 a day unless
we tackle inequality. That's the
main reason we are talking about it
today. The kind of jobs that are
being created in these economies,
they are not the ones lifting out of
40 you and I would call poverty, you
have workers in the US -- out what
you and I would call poverty, you
have workers in the US wearing
nappies in order to work around the
clock. And there are women who are
not seeing their children because
they have to migrate in order to
keep a job.
Looking at countries
like China and India, inequality
there is huge. Would you also accept
that some people have benefited,
hundreds of thousands of people,
from the capitalist policies you are
Of course. We have said
that. It's a mixture of this
embracing enterprise, embracing fair
markets, but also being able to
invest in health and education.
There was an interesting study which
looked up the difference between
China and India. China has done a
lot better in overcoming inequality.
And that's because of investment in
health and education.
that we have an extreme form of
capitalism which only works for
those at the top, but you have just
said that it works for people lower
down the scale, and that's why we
are asking governments to manage
inequality to benefit everyone not
just the fortunate few. This
language is close to the Labour
Party and Jeremy Corbyn. Is it wise
for a charity like Oxfam to be
aligned with one particular party?
think we are on record saying that
was a carelessly worded tweaked. We
are talking about extremes. --
carelessly worded tweet.
carelessly worded tweet. The second
thing I would say is that we have
been saying this for years, and
consistently. We also saying what
many other people, if you want to
point to other voices, we could say
the World Bank, the Bank of England,
President Obama, before she went to
Davos Theresa May herself put out an
article in the Observer calling time
on fat cat bosses. And the solutions
we are talking about, cracking down
on tax havens, making sure work
pace, will deliver the vision
Theresa May said she wants herself.
Clare, do you agree that the extreme
forms of capitalism, as outlined by
Katy, are actually hindering the
poorest across the world?
There is a
danger for Oxfam. You keep saying
that we have done this every year.
Everybody knows. And there is now a
backlash against you because it is
But are they wrong?
About inequality being the cause and
driver, absolutely wrong. It isn't
inequality which is the problem. The
problem is the lack of economic
development. It comes over that what
you are saying is that it is the fat
cats. We need greater economic
development. Highlighting exploited
workers is OK. But I'm afraid in
this instance you come over as
making cheap points about the rich
being blamed for the poor. It isn't
helpful and it has backfired on you.
I would look again at how you
present your ideas.
We need their
economic development. We need the
sorts of opportunities that are open
to everybody. It isn't about blaming
the fat cats. But it is about saying
that some of the things that exist
today help the rich at the expense
of the poorest, which is why we must
look at inequality. Decisions made
in companies about let's pay huge
dividends to our shareholders before
we worry about a living wage, that
helps the riches at the expense of
But you think you might
diminish your core message?
trillion in tax havens is the state
of the world. If you call that
sensational, that's what is going
on. Pointing it out is incumbent on
a charity that really wants to see
an end to poverty.
Thanks very much.
Now, Boris Johnson got some
unexpected news yesterday -
not that he's been uninvited
from the cabinet away day -
scientists have discovered his
Anna Catharina Bischoff,
in the Swiss city of Basel.
Her identity had been a mystery
since her mummified remains
were discovered in 1975.
Her body was found to be
riddled with mercury -
a standard treatment for syphilis
around that time.
Boris tweeted his delight at
discovering the family connection.
"Very excited to hear about my late
great grand 'mummy' -
a pioneer in sexual health care.
Well joining us now to talk
about the family tree of Boris
and a few other eminent politicians
is the genealogist Anthony Adolph.
Welcome. Tell us how this was
Extraordinary story. It
shows how genetics and DNA has
revolutionised geniality. They had a
hunch as to who this person was
because she was buried next to the
altar. They used the same techniques
we used to identify Richard III and
disprove the person who said she was
the grand Duchess Anastasia. I
worked on that one years ago. They
took DNA from this mummified corpse.
This type of DNA can recognise the
relationship. They had to trace back
down the female line. They then
found a sister, who had a daughter,
who had a daughter, etc, who is
still alive. I've done this type of
work. It is so frustrating. You go
down the line, then you find out
that a woman did not have any
children or only had male offspring.
They found an exact match to the
mummy, which proved their hunch as
to who the woman was.
Theresa May's Heritage?
ordinary. Woman of the people, you
could say. Very ordinary ancestors,
mainly southern England. Her maiden
name, Brazier, very ordinary, a
contrast to her predecessor, David
Cameron, who dissented from William
IV. Derrey Royal origins.
As far as I can see,
very much man of the people, solid
working-class roots. Croydon. In
terms of politics you could say he
is representing the people, his
ancestry matches his policy.
I don't know much about him.
But I read something interesting
that he descended from Thomas Moore,
the Saint and politician who stood
up against the king, and lost his
head, so rather controversial.
you ever traced your ancestors?
disappears off to Russian controlled
eastern Europe, so it's difficult.
I'm excited about the science but
I'm afraid that we would all end up
in pauper 's grave is if we looked
at mine. Having a hunch because she
was buried next to the church. But
it is scientifically fabulous.
Mathematically everybody likes to
imagine that they did have famous
ancestors, but the likelihood is
that we mostly do not.
There's just time before we go
to find out the answer to our quiz.
The question was which food
is Michael Gove trying to get
Donald Trump to lift
the ban on is it:
a) Jellied eels, b) Haggis,
c) Pork Pies, or d) Black pudding?
So what's the correct answer?
The guests is Haggis -- guess is
That's all for today.
Thanks to my guests.
The one o'clock news is starting
over on BBC One now.
Sarah Smith will be back
on Sunday on BBC One at 11
with the Sunday Politics,
and I'll be back here
on BBC2 on Monday at midday
with more Daily Politics.