26/01/2018 Daily Politics

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

leading politicians.

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

non-apology apology.

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.

But

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 did

apologise.

He apologised to the

existence of racism. It is clear

from everything else he said he does

haven't a clear definition of

racism.

He wanted to be clear he was

against Islamic fundamentalist

extremism and that will have a

popular resonance.

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

States.

Everyone should be heartened

about the possibility of greater

trade.

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

about.

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.

The state

visit looks like it is back on. Even

if it is on 31st December.

We are

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

'Hopefully very

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

half out.

Shouldn't the Chancellor

be able to speak for the Government

on this?

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

is leaving.

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.

You

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

wants.

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.

The

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

government.

government.

And Andrew Persie said

Philip Hammond should put a sock in

it. Do you think he should?

I think

he should make clear he is

supporting the Prime Minister's

policy and not try and play blow

football with the policy.

We have

heard from the No 10 spokesperson

that the Prime Minister has full

confidence in the Chancellor. Do you

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

his brief.

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

the policy?

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

policy.

Are you happy with the

status quo position of the customs

union and the single market for the

period of the transition?

Yes, I

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

money.

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

party?

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.

On that

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

saying it.

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?

I have.

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?

Completely

different from independence is what

he means.

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.

Except

at Theresa May and number ten and

slapped down the Chancellor for what

he said.

Why?

Why do you think?

I

have no idea.

Because she doesn't

agree with him.

What is she agree

with?

Because of the vision for

Brexit.

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.

I see

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.

Was it

unnecessary for number ten to

slapped down the Chancellor?

I have

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?

I

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.

Philip

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

was promised.

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.

Can

the Prime Minister survive much more

of this?

Of course.

Should she?

BS.

What about her leadership in the

Brexit negotiations. -- should she?

Yes.

You shouldn't use a radio interview

for therapy.

Use the TV!

Boris

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.

If

Philip Hammond is about, why not

Boris Johnson?

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

betray her.

What do you to that?

The

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

this.

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 Government.

The leopard should

be let out...

I gather the Leopard

will be let out of the cage.

Is that

Theresa May?

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

technology.

CHUCKLES

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 -

that's bbc.co.uk/brexit.

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

organisation, driven

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

enforcement agencies,

and our security services,

both here and overseas

intelligence services.

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

violence absolutely.

And we continue to support

the prescription of the military

wing, as has been the position

of government.

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.

We have

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.

Is that

not a valid point, if we're going to

have a diplomatic relationship.

He

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

Middle East.

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.

The

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.

On that

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

Latin America.

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.

What

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.

I

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

terrorist organisation.

The point

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.

What are

you going do now?

I'm not go to let

this rest. We know that Hezbollah

has amassed 150,000 weaponry,

ballistic missiles, rockets...

In

Lebanon?

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

that?

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.

Thank you.

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?

Mary Wollstonecraft.

So tell me about her.

Well, we are in the chapel -

over there is where she used to sit

and worship.

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

passionate about.

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

right word.

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

socialist thinker.

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,

confounded the

social order by imagining a world

where women were the equals of

their husbands.

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.

Good advice.

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

Jacobins executing

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

classic, Frankenstein.

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

potential.

Jeremy Corbyn, thank you very much.

Thank you.

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

equality.

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

were.

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.

Why?

They

have a sniff of power. They are

being cleverer about how to

represent themselves.

She was a

female revolutionary, the leader of

it.

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?

It

is. We have made great strides about

that.

Not in the headlines.

It has

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

criticising?

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.

Oxfam tweeted

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?

I

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

oversimplistic.

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

the poor.

But you think you might

diminish your core message?

$6.3

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

great-great-great-great-great-great

-great grandmother,

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.

Very proud."

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

discovered.

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.

What about

Theresa May's Heritage?

Very

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.

What about

Jeremy Corbyn?

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.

Vince

Cable?

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.

Have

you ever traced your ancestors?

It

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.

Thanks very

much.

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

Haggis.

You're correct.

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.

Bye bye.