:00:00. > :00:08.Is the answer when it is in a party manifesto?
:00:09. > :00:12.As Philip Hammond is attacked from all sides for raising
:00:13. > :00:16.National Insurance, will this become Theresa May's big issue of trust?
:00:17. > :00:18.David Cameron's former Director of Communications
:00:19. > :00:26.He can explain to people, here is a path I took and this
:00:27. > :00:29.is why it is not a breach of a manifesto promise.
:00:30. > :00:32.The problem with that, as you are asking me
:00:33. > :00:35.and as you should rightly ask him and other members of the
:00:36. > :00:37.government, is people perceive this to be a breach.
:00:38. > :00:39.We'll be discussing making and breaking political promises.
:00:40. > :01:08.Also tonight, we discuss Isabelle Huppert and Paul Verhoeven's Golden
:01:09. > :01:11.Globe-winning thriller, Elle, and its complex portrayal
:01:12. > :01:25.of one woman's response to the most horrific rape.
:01:26. > :01:27.Can cinema take us to dark places where accepted views
:01:28. > :01:30.on rape are challenged through the character of a woman
:01:31. > :01:48.Three words freighted with probity and trust.
:01:49. > :01:51.But, after anything but an explosive budget, a firecracker blew up
:01:52. > :01:56.in the Chancellor's face today over the issue of a promise.
:01:57. > :01:59.The question being, why does the government deny
:02:00. > :02:04.breaking a manifesto pledge on National Insurance when the 2015
:02:05. > :02:06.election manifesto clearly said there would be no increase
:02:07. > :02:09.in National Insurance for the five years of an incoming
:02:10. > :02:15.Is it ever right to to promise one thing and do another?
:02:16. > :02:18.The Chancellor has raised the hackles of the right-wing press,
:02:19. > :02:23.Tory backbenchers of many stripes, and the opposition alike.
:02:24. > :02:25.Theresa May is in Brussels tonight where, at a press conference,
:02:26. > :02:28.probably for the first time in her life, she was hoping
:02:29. > :02:30.for questions about Brexit, but was pressed on this instead.
:02:31. > :02:35.I'm joined by our political editor, Nick Watt.
:02:36. > :02:41.What did she had to say about National Insurance?
:02:42. > :02:46.She is standing by the fundamental principle of this budget change
:02:47. > :02:48.which is that the self-employed should pay more in national
:02:49. > :02:53.insurance contributions because now they are able to benefit from the
:02:54. > :02:56.new state pension. She also bought herself time because legislation to
:02:57. > :03:00.implement think these changes is not going to be introduced until the
:03:01. > :03:05.autumn and I am hearing the first signs of how they are going to
:03:06. > :03:10.soften the impact of this National Insurance rise, by waiting until the
:03:11. > :03:13.autumn, the Chancellor will give himself the option of implementing
:03:14. > :03:17.some of the recommendations in the report by the former Tony Blair at
:03:18. > :03:23.Downing Street adviser Matthew Taylor. That could see maternity and
:03:24. > :03:28.paternity rights extended to the self employed and that would be
:03:29. > :03:31.very, very expensive. As I understand it, Philip Hammond is
:03:32. > :03:35.watching this very carefully because what he is concerned about is the
:03:36. > :03:41.revenue he has raised this week could be wiped out by that change.
:03:42. > :03:45.All this for that. Possible we could be seeing the first signs of not
:03:46. > :03:48.such a great relationship between numbers ten and 11? Theresa May and
:03:49. > :03:52.Philip Hammond made great play of the pack they want to restore the
:03:53. > :03:56.traditional relationship between Prime Minister and Chancellor and I
:03:57. > :04:00.can now confirm we have the traditional tensions between a Prime
:04:01. > :04:03.Minister who wants to spend and a Chancellor who wants to restrain
:04:04. > :04:08.public spending. And I am hearing the sound of complaints from the
:04:09. > :04:12.Treasury, firstly that number ten, I'm told, just want to spend money.
:04:13. > :04:18.Important visit the Chancellor did cough up on schools and social care.
:04:19. > :04:22.Secondly complaints that some senior political advisers around the Prime
:04:23. > :04:28.Minister have what are described as anti-Tory ideas about raising taxes.
:04:29. > :04:33.I'm told Philip Hammond had his work cut out battling against pressure to
:04:34. > :04:36.raise capital gains tax and, wait for it, increasing the national
:04:37. > :04:42.insurance contributions proposed this week to an even higher level
:04:43. > :04:46.for higher rate taxpayers. It has been a pretty bumpy response to the
:04:47. > :04:48.budget for the Chancellor so we thought we would take a look at the
:04:49. > :04:53.pressures on him. There have been too many
:04:54. > :05:00.in the last few years, too many Broken promises can be
:05:01. > :05:10.lethal for politicians. Look what happened
:05:11. > :05:13.to my namesake when the Liberal Democrat policy
:05:14. > :05:18.on tuition fees collided with the harsh reality
:05:19. > :05:24.of coalition government. And now Philip Hammond, the man
:05:25. > :05:27.who hoped to forge a duller and less glitzy era in the Treasury,
:05:28. > :05:30.and who would never be seen dead doing a stunt
:05:31. > :05:33.like this, has been caught out Make no mistake, they
:05:34. > :05:44.are feeling pain in the Treasury today as
:05:45. > :05:49.the right-wing press savages the Chancellor for breaking
:05:50. > :05:55.that general election pledge One source familiar with
:05:56. > :05:59.the thinking in numbers ten and 11 Downing St told me,
:06:00. > :06:01.this is all about trust. This troubled Budget will be
:06:02. > :06:05.remembered as the first self-inflicted wound
:06:06. > :06:07.of this government. And so far, nearly 20 Tory MPs,
:06:08. > :06:10.including the Wales Office Minister Guto Bebb, have
:06:11. > :06:12.questioned the change. It won't have the
:06:13. > :06:18.support from people We need to get out there
:06:19. > :06:25.and support entrepreneurs. As I say, they are the
:06:26. > :06:27.backbone of this economy. They are taking risks,
:06:28. > :06:29.opening small businesses, employing those apprentices, giving
:06:30. > :06:31.young people a chance. We have done for seven years and I'm
:06:32. > :06:35.going to make sure we My Whitehall source admitted
:06:36. > :06:38.that the government had slipped up by appearing
:06:39. > :06:41.to target white van man. In fact, the changes
:06:42. > :06:43.were aimed at catching out what are described as spivs
:06:44. > :06:45.and dodgy accountants. I think this is an interesting
:06:46. > :06:53.cultural economic moment, where the Conservative Party, which has long
:06:54. > :06:56.revelled in the impression that it was the party of enterprise and
:06:57. > :06:58.small entrepreneurs, has shown it There will be an opportunity
:06:59. > :07:05.in politics for other parties to make
:07:06. > :07:07.a pitch for these voters. The Chancellor is
:07:08. > :07:10.reluctant to back down. He needs the ?2 billion
:07:11. > :07:12.the changes will generate This evening, Theresa May pointed
:07:13. > :07:20.to a way out, using a review by a former Labour Downing Street
:07:21. > :07:24.official to soften the tax rises. What we are likely to see
:07:25. > :07:26.from the government is probably what they should have done
:07:27. > :07:29.when they first made this announcement yesterday,
:07:30. > :07:31.which is to set it much more in a broader context of
:07:32. > :07:34.looking at the whole picture of taxation for the self
:07:35. > :07:36.employed, which would be about the national insurance that
:07:37. > :07:39.firms pay when they employ people and use
:07:40. > :07:40.self-employed workers, not just that paid directly
:07:41. > :07:47.by the self-employed, and set it in the context of giving
:07:48. > :07:49.the self employed more benefit entitlements,
:07:50. > :07:53.like an maternity pay, and more support with things
:07:54. > :07:54.like pension savings. That overall package of support
:07:55. > :07:56.and slightly higher taxes is probably what we will see
:07:57. > :07:59.from the government in the coming months,
:08:00. > :08:01.and that's a good thing. If he emerges unscathed,
:08:02. > :08:03.Philip Hammond may reflect, he is the victim of a style
:08:04. > :08:06.of politics he hoped to end. That was the habit of George Osborne
:08:07. > :08:09.and Gordon Brown to lay traps for their
:08:10. > :08:11.political opponents. It was George Osborne who outlined
:08:12. > :08:14.the tax lock at the last No increases in VAT,
:08:15. > :08:21.National Insurance contributions, or This was a political trap,
:08:22. > :08:25.the so-called tax lock, to try and catch Labour out,
:08:26. > :08:28.but actually it has ended up catching out the Tories
:08:29. > :08:31.and they have fallen Probably the best comparison
:08:32. > :08:38.for Gordon with the 2015 Budget was Gordon's 2001
:08:39. > :08:41.pre-election budget, where he framed the election question as more
:08:42. > :08:43.investment, not less, and he invited the Conservative Party
:08:44. > :08:45.to oppose his spending plans. The difference was that Gordon
:08:46. > :08:47.was almost certain to be back in Downing Street
:08:48. > :08:49.after that election, so he could only make commitments
:08:50. > :08:52.like that if he was certain that he could
:08:53. > :08:54.deliver on them. The difference with George Osborne
:08:55. > :08:56.was that he probably wasn't ever expecting to be back
:08:57. > :08:59.in Downing Street to have to implement this tax guarantee,
:09:00. > :09:01.which made him far more reckless than he otherwise
:09:02. > :09:05.would have been. Who would have thought that such
:09:06. > :09:07.a steady Chancellor would find his budget being
:09:08. > :09:12.buffeted in the wind? Perhaps spreadsheet Phil is looking
:09:13. > :09:14.back wistfully at his The man who was at David Cameron's
:09:15. > :09:21.shoulder when the Conservative manifesto for the 2015 election
:09:22. > :09:28.was written and pledges made, was his Director of Communications,
:09:29. > :09:38.Craig Oliver. You have been literally in the thick
:09:39. > :09:42.of this before. In terms of manifesto pledges and commitments
:09:43. > :09:46.and so forth. Looking at this, the Chancellor insisted this is not the
:09:47. > :09:50.break of a manifesto but is it or not? The issue is, do people
:09:51. > :09:54.perceive it to be. The reality is that most people perceive this to be
:09:55. > :09:57.the breaking of our pledge. Would it have been better if he had just
:09:58. > :10:02.said, I'm breaking a manifesto promise, I'm going to raise class
:10:03. > :10:07.for national insurance because circumstances have changed since
:10:08. > :10:11.2015? Philip Hammond as a defender and I believe he is sincere in that
:10:12. > :10:16.and thinks that he is in a position where he can explain to people, here
:10:17. > :10:21.is a path I took and it is why it is not a breach of a manifesto promise.
:10:22. > :10:24.The problem with that, as you are asking me and as you should rightly
:10:25. > :10:29.ask him and other members of the government, is people perceive this
:10:30. > :10:37.to be a breach. They feel that when they looked specifically at what was
:10:38. > :10:39.written, you have breached that. The problem again with that if people
:10:40. > :10:42.start asking questions, can we trust you, are you being legalistic,
:10:43. > :10:46.dancing on the head of it was a ludicrous pledge to say that over
:10:47. > :10:52.the whole lifetime of the next government there would be no
:10:53. > :10:56.increases in VAT, national insurance for income tax? I don't think it is
:10:57. > :11:00.but once a political party has made that pledge and got into government
:11:01. > :11:03.you end up in a difficult decision if you are perceived to have broken
:11:04. > :11:09.that. David Cameron was always clear on this that when you made a pledge,
:11:10. > :11:13.you should not go back on it. He was constantly lobbied on international
:11:14. > :11:16.aid or the triple lock for pensioners by people saying, look at
:11:17. > :11:20.all this money we could take it we went back on this and he said, but
:11:21. > :11:24.I've made a promise to the poorest people and pensioners and what would
:11:25. > :11:28.people say if I went back on that? He knew he would reap the whirlwind
:11:29. > :11:34.if he broke those pledges. If you were advising Philip Hammond what
:11:35. > :11:38.would you advise on to say? The most interesting question is, do you
:11:39. > :11:42.actually intend to stick with this having delivered it in the budget?
:11:43. > :11:47.If you are going to and you are sure you will, you have to defend the
:11:48. > :11:51.decision you have taken an explain it. Having said that, the great
:11:52. > :11:55.difficulty for him, the sheer fact we are doing this interview, is that
:11:56. > :11:59.the entire perception of anybody looking at this is that you have
:12:00. > :12:03.broken a pledge. I can see how people in government, when they are
:12:04. > :12:06.balancing a lot of things, also moving parts, they get themselves
:12:07. > :12:10.into a position where they persuade themselves that is dependable. Not
:12:11. > :12:16.only was it called a pledge, David Cameron called it a Balliu, almost
:12:17. > :12:21.it had a religious significance that they would be no tax rises so in
:12:22. > :12:27.that regard it was very serious -- called it a value. When the decision
:12:28. > :12:31.was taken to make this pledge, people thought through that this was
:12:32. > :12:36.something that had to be defendable and people would be voting for them
:12:37. > :12:39.on it. When that decision was made, it was done very seriously. If you
:12:40. > :12:44.are the current government, you can say that actually the reality is
:12:45. > :12:48.there are different people running number ten and number 11. I suspect
:12:49. > :12:56.Philip Hammond actually thinks he was not explicit on this very
:12:57. > :13:00.specific area and technicality. In political broad terms, you can
:13:01. > :13:05.lampoon that and say it is ridiculous and a breach of trust but
:13:06. > :13:08.I can see how people can get themselves into that position but
:13:09. > :13:13.the problem is you have to be able to have people coming in late in the
:13:14. > :13:17.day and say, how will this look? Thank you very much. We did ask to
:13:18. > :13:18.speak to someone from the government tonight but nobody was available.
:13:19. > :13:21.The Sun newspaper has been fiercely critical of the budget, and I'm now
:13:22. > :13:23.joined by their political editor, Tom Newton Dunn.
:13:24. > :13:26.Also, Polly Mackenzie, who worked for Nick Clegg and is no
:13:27. > :13:29.stranger to the fallout of broken promises.
:13:30. > :13:39.Good evening. First of all, how damaging is this for the government?
:13:40. > :13:43.Having a broken promise can be enormously damaging to a political
:13:44. > :13:46.party but the truth is that Philip Hammond and Theresa May don't think
:13:47. > :13:51.of this as their manifesto, it is George Osborne's. They don't want to
:13:52. > :13:54.put it out because they put it undermines the legitimacy and feels
:13:55. > :13:59.they might have to call an election but said conduct have change and
:14:00. > :14:02.environment have changed and if they own the truth which is that they
:14:03. > :14:07.have defied the manifesto and make the case for this is not being...
:14:08. > :14:14.And a bonkers idea in the first place? The triple lock? Absolutely.
:14:15. > :14:17.It is George Osborne's political positioning and he is not exactly
:14:18. > :14:22.the most popular person in the country. Call it his manifesto and
:14:23. > :14:28.start talking about the fact that the Prime Minister, who is much more
:14:29. > :14:30.popular, doesn't want to be limited by the political promises of her
:14:31. > :14:39.predecessor who basically has moved on. The Sun newspaper said fight ban
:14:40. > :14:43.scam. You are going to make sure it is damaging for the government. Very
:14:44. > :14:47.much so, until the government decide they are not going to damage
:14:48. > :14:52.themselves any longer. Theresa May seem to be starting some kind of
:14:53. > :14:55.climb-down tonight, a recalibration. The truth is this will never get on
:14:56. > :14:59.the statute books and we knew that from about half past eight this
:15:00. > :15:04.morning when the first Tory MP said on the radio that they would vote
:15:05. > :15:10.against it. They were joined by about 30 others so this will not go
:15:11. > :15:13.ahead. What we will see if this play out over the summer, how they craft
:15:14. > :15:19.some travel package together to make it look like they are not doing a
:15:20. > :15:23.U-turn but they are. You take the view that actually gives government
:15:24. > :15:25.should not be tied up by a manifesto from 2015 or does it require another
:15:26. > :15:36.election? The entire government are all Tory
:15:37. > :15:40.MPs getting themselves elected with the same problem. I am afraid that
:15:41. > :15:44.they have to stick to this. Theresa May will say, huge amounts have
:15:45. > :15:47.changed, different economy, different membership of the European
:15:48. > :15:53.Union or not, so I can do something different. I have some sympathy for
:15:54. > :15:57.Philip Hammond in that he has been immensely boxed in by all sorts of
:15:58. > :16:02.clever gimmicks and promises made by George Osborne very successfully. It
:16:03. > :16:06.destroyed the Lib Dems. They won the general election and they destroyed
:16:07. > :16:10.Labour. Then they had to go on and govern with this incredible
:16:11. > :16:15.ring-fencing on pensions, the lot of it. The manifesto also commits us to
:16:16. > :16:19.staying in the single market. No Tory backbenchers are upset about
:16:20. > :16:24.that. We have an entirely new government setting out a new agenda.
:16:25. > :16:27.One of the key things that key things that Craig Oliver talked
:16:28. > :16:32.about was the foreign aid, which is deeply unpopular in some sectors.
:16:33. > :16:36.Many people want that shifted to social care. I doubt that Philip
:16:37. > :16:41.Hammond will tamper with foreign aid. Do you think he might unravel
:16:42. > :16:45.other parts of the manifesto in successive budgets? I don't think
:16:46. > :16:51.they are going to make a priority of bringing a free vote on fox hunting.
:16:52. > :16:58.Manifestos are filled with promises. The last manifesto was 25,000 words.
:16:59. > :17:04.Probably only about 15 words from the Liberal Democrat one! There are
:17:05. > :17:08.endless subclauses. So why have them? The voters must be going, what
:17:09. > :17:11.is the point of a manifesto? It's all very well for you to say, they
:17:12. > :17:17.don't read it, but the manifesto is meant to set out what the government
:17:18. > :17:22.believes in. Brilliant, that means we can stay in the single market.
:17:23. > :17:26.It's a promise, you say, this is what we are going to do, vote for us
:17:27. > :17:29.and then we do it whether you believe it or not, you have to go
:17:30. > :17:35.out of your way to do it, especially when these Sun readers vote for you
:17:36. > :17:40.would it not dead, you can't turn round and say, no thanks. He is in a
:17:41. > :17:45.terrible mess and we have sympathy. The other thing we will see if the
:17:46. > :17:52.triple lock promised on pensions. The spending on the triple lock and
:17:53. > :17:56.protecting Gray 's spending OAPs is astronomical, about ?78 billion,
:17:57. > :18:00.which puts all of these 3 billion here and there on national insurance
:18:01. > :18:04.rises into a small corner. Philip Hammond has bravely, I think,
:18:05. > :18:07.already said, we need to look at this. Whether they will be able to
:18:08. > :18:12.do it in time before the next election, it would be politically
:18:13. > :18:18.toxic. But if pensioners agree that they want to undertake the triple
:18:19. > :18:21.lock, they are not complaining about the manifesto. It becomes a badge of
:18:22. > :18:25.honour to say you are complaining about the manifesto when actually it
:18:26. > :18:25.is just a policy that you don't like.
:18:26. > :18:28.Tom Newton Dunn and Polly Mackenzie are staying with us because,
:18:29. > :18:29.alongside the farrago of the manifesto pledge
:18:30. > :18:31.was the revelation that Philip Hammond's predecessor
:18:32. > :18:34.is making good use of the economic and political acumen he gathered
:18:35. > :18:36.when he was at number 11 Downing Street.
:18:37. > :18:38.George Osborne declared an annual salary of ?650,000 for four days
:18:39. > :18:41.work a month from the world's biggest fund management
:18:42. > :18:44.It will augment his backbencher's salary of ?74,000, and speaking
:18:45. > :18:52.engagements which bring in north of half a million.
:18:53. > :18:54.He's certainly not the only former senior politician
:18:55. > :18:56.to purse a lucrative life - Tony Blair owns the playbook.
:18:57. > :18:58.But is all this good for politics or bad?
:18:59. > :19:07.Do we need to talk about the revolving door?
:19:08. > :19:11.People moving back and forth between government and the private sector.
:19:12. > :19:13.George Osborne, the former Chancellor, is, we learn,
:19:14. > :19:16.being paid ?650,000 per year to advise BlackRock,
:19:17. > :19:21.an investment manager, for four days of work each month.
:19:22. > :19:27.I think George Osborne would bring a wealth of knowledge
:19:28. > :19:34.Having been the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this country.
:19:35. > :19:37.He would also bring very good contacts around
:19:38. > :19:41.the world in governments and the private sector.
:19:42. > :19:44.The knowledge and the contacts that somebody like George Osborne
:19:45. > :19:48.would have accumulated over his tenure are very
:19:49. > :19:54.valuable for a period of about three to five years.
:19:55. > :19:56.There is a Whitehall process for approving these things,
:19:57. > :20:01.the advisory committee on business appointments, Acoba.
:20:02. > :20:03.Acoba approved Mr Osborne's plans, and they've barred him
:20:04. > :20:09.But lots of people who have been through Acoba don't
:20:10. > :20:13.Acoba is this slightly eccentric body where,
:20:14. > :20:15.when you leave government having been in a senior job,
:20:16. > :20:18.you have to get their permission in theory before you take
:20:19. > :20:23.If you disobey them, there is literally nothing
:20:24. > :20:31.It's hidden, you don't really understand how it works.
:20:32. > :20:33.They don't unfortunately give you straight answers
:20:34. > :20:36.to straight questions so, when I went through the process,
:20:37. > :20:39.I asked them, would I be able to come in and see government
:20:40. > :20:44.They will not answer questions of that sort.
:20:45. > :20:47.Which covers their back because, if you put your foot in it,
:20:48. > :20:50.they will be able to say you broke the rules.
:20:51. > :20:53.But you're never really told quite what the rules are.
:20:54. > :20:55.The voluntary nature of Acoba is a particular problem.
:20:56. > :21:02.48 senior special advisers have left government since December 2014,
:21:03. > :21:08.but there are published Acoba approvals for just 14.
:21:09. > :21:11.Jobs are not the only part of an ex-minister's life
:21:12. > :21:17.Today we learned Gordon Brown is releasing a memoir.
:21:18. > :21:20.Perhaps surprisingly, there is actually a rule book that
:21:21. > :21:22.governs what ex-ministers are allowed to put
:21:23. > :21:25.into their memoirs, the so-called Radcliffe rules.
:21:26. > :21:29.They can really be boiled down to three principles.
:21:30. > :21:32.The first is, don't publish anything that damages national security.
:21:33. > :21:35.The second principle is, don't publish anything that
:21:36. > :21:38.would damage our relations with other states.
:21:39. > :21:40.The third principle, though, is a bit odder.
:21:41. > :21:43.It states that ex-ministers shouldn't criticise any of the civil
:21:44. > :21:48.In fact, they also state that ministers shouldn't even name
:21:49. > :21:52.civil servants who gave them specific advice.
:21:53. > :21:54.In short, the Radcliffe rules basically get in the way
:21:55. > :22:01.of ex-ministers scrutinising their former departments.
:22:02. > :22:04.This country does have a revolving door problem in a variety
:22:05. > :22:07.of sectors, but we should worry as much about middle
:22:08. > :22:10.ranking officials who slip into the companies they are supposed
:22:11. > :22:18.to be regulating as we do about ex-ministers.
:22:19. > :22:24.And we're back with Tom Newton Dunn and Polly Mackenzie.
:22:25. > :22:31.Tom, is there anything wrong with a man who was Chancellor less than a
:22:32. > :22:34.year ago, who is still an MP, working for the biggest fund manager
:22:35. > :22:41.in the world and getting a lot of money for four days of work? That is
:22:42. > :22:45.a loaded question! Look, it stinks totally. George Osborne will make
:22:46. > :22:49.the argument that immersing himself in what he would call the real
:22:50. > :22:54.world, actual business, decision-making and hedge funds is,
:22:55. > :22:59.informs his ability as an MP to contribute to the public debate.
:23:00. > :23:03.Personally, I think by simply accepting a ?650,000 per year job
:23:04. > :23:08.for four days a month, ?30,000 per day, what he is saying is, I now
:23:09. > :23:12.know I will never be Prime Minister, because nobody would accept him with
:23:13. > :23:18.something like that. If it brings some expertise to his field, I would
:23:19. > :23:24.not want to stop it. It is not exactly a new issue. Ever since big
:23:25. > :23:28.business, MPs, prime ministers, chancellors have all gone into the
:23:29. > :23:33.private sector. Yes, but I think it's different once you have left
:23:34. > :23:36.government and parliament and you are just a private citizen. What is
:23:37. > :23:41.strange about this for me is George Osborne's priorities. He's got a
:23:42. > :23:45.constituency to represent, a job to do, and he is prioritising jetting
:23:46. > :23:52.around the world, receiving awards from the Americans, earning ?13,500
:23:53. > :23:54.per day. For me, it is about the principle of having a job in
:23:55. > :24:02.Parliament and the juicy details. Wood he did say that this week is
:24:03. > :24:06.not a bad snapshot of my life. On Monday, I was in New York accepting
:24:07. > :24:09.a Kissinger Fellowship. On Wednesday, I was in the Commons
:24:10. > :24:14.speaking about Europe Nato, you can join me in Knutsford in my
:24:15. > :24:19.constituency. This seems a very quick to spend my time and hopefully
:24:20. > :24:24.make a contribution to our national life. Fair to say that George
:24:25. > :24:29.Osborne believes passionately in this northern partnership and, if
:24:30. > :24:33.you can bring money from whoever, that is good, isn't it? He has a
:24:34. > :24:36.great lifestyle, but it is all about him and not really about its
:24:37. > :24:41.constituents. But he would accept that there is life after parliament
:24:42. > :24:47.but not, as far as you are concerned one they are still getting an MP
:24:48. > :24:51.salary. It is about time. If you are an MP and you want to spend an
:24:52. > :24:55.afternoon earning ?13,000 to be not being there, doing something else
:24:56. > :24:59.with relevance to being an MP, fine. If you are spending four and a half
:25:00. > :25:03.days jetting to New York, giving speeches in Berlin and then in some
:25:04. > :25:07.hedge funds of this in the city, is wrong. You should be looking after
:25:08. > :25:11.your constituents. What about the argument that a lot of people in
:25:12. > :25:15.parliament could earn a lot more money outside but they choose to
:25:16. > :25:19.deny themselves a bigger salary than 78,000, so it is acceptable when you
:25:20. > :25:24.leave office to augment that salary, and that is the way you get a flow
:25:25. > :25:30.of people into Parliament with greater ambition? You only allow a
:25:31. > :25:35.new flow of people if you allow the bed blockers, those who have been
:25:36. > :25:40.Cabinet ministers, to get out of the way. You don't catch people on
:25:41. > :25:44.?78,000. Look at some of the talent in parliament and you think, we
:25:45. > :25:48.could probably do better than that. I would probably take a close look
:25:49. > :25:52.at how much time they are spending in the building doing the job they
:25:53. > :25:53.are elected to do. They need performance related pay.
:25:54. > :25:56.Time now for Viewsnight, the part of the programme that actively seeks
:25:57. > :25:58.argument and dissent, often from surprising places.
:25:59. > :26:01.So today, when the latest Ipsos Mori STV poll puts support
:26:02. > :26:03.for Scottish independence at 50%, and Nicola Sturgeon talks
:26:04. > :26:06.about the commonsense timing of another independence referendum,
:26:07. > :28:17.here's Richard Dawkins's trenchant view of plebiscites.
:28:18. > :28:22.Watch this space for more Brexit views.
:28:23. > :28:24.French actress Isabelle Huppert received her first Oscar nomination
:28:25. > :28:27.this year for a film that, according to Huppert herself,
:28:28. > :28:32.The controversy around Elle - which won two Golden Globes
:28:33. > :28:34.and which opens tomorrow - centres on a horrifically violent
:28:35. > :28:39.attack and vicious rape which is revisited graphically
:28:40. > :28:43.during the film, along with further sexual attacks,
:28:44. > :28:45.and the unusual and shocking way that the woman who is
:28:46. > :28:49.Elle is the explosive result of the collaboration
:28:50. > :28:52.between the fearless, often transgressive actress
:28:53. > :28:55.and the Dutch director Paul Verhoeven, he of Basic Instinct
:28:56. > :29:01.The thriller-cum-black comedy tests the viewer to the limits.
:29:02. > :29:04.In a moment, we'll be discussing whether such
:29:05. > :29:06.a narrative is anti-feminist, or whether we need to accept
:29:07. > :29:09.a complex, often unpalatable truth that, for some,
:29:10. > :29:12.extreme violence is part and parcel of sex.
:29:13. > :29:15.But first - spoiler alert - here are some scenes from the film,
:29:16. > :29:34.Michele Leblanc starts to track down her attacker
:29:35. > :29:38.but doesn't go to the police, mainly because of the notoriety
:29:39. > :29:43.Her father was a psychopath who killed more than 20 people
:29:44. > :29:57.and who was unmasked when Michele was just ten years old.
:29:58. > :29:59.As the film unfolds, we have the unsettling
:30:00. > :30:01.sense that she could be luring her attacker to identify
:30:02. > :30:05.him or to kill him - or because, in some way,
:30:06. > :30:12.she is intrigued, even turned on by him.
:30:13. > :30:14.Well, Newsnight took two women to watch the film -
:30:15. > :30:16.Polly Neate, chief executive of the group Womens' Aid,
:30:17. > :30:39.Good evening. Is it important to have such a complex expression of
:30:40. > :30:44.rape as this and the impact of it? I think it is important to show how
:30:45. > :30:52.Watmore Neumann -- how one woman's life is completely framed every
:30:53. > :30:56.angle by male violence. Her father, her lover, by male violence and
:30:57. > :31:00.entitlement, her lover does not take no for an answer albeit in not in a
:31:01. > :31:04.physically violent way, and she is raped. But the extreme complexity of
:31:05. > :31:12.her life means it's very difficult to generalise from her reaction to
:31:13. > :31:16.what is an horrific assault. Ahead of it there is such controversy and
:31:17. > :31:23.yet it is important to have a complex view of rape. That is true,
:31:24. > :31:29.and it is conceded that she grew up with this violent father, but I felt
:31:30. > :31:32.very much it was an act of bad faith. All this effort put into
:31:33. > :31:40.creating the female character who wanted to be raped. That is quite an
:31:41. > :31:43.extreme position. Not really, because if you look at the structure
:31:44. > :31:51.of the film, and I allowed to spoil it? You can take a couple of things.
:31:52. > :31:56.She seeks out the situation in which she is going to be raped because she
:31:57. > :32:01.knows in the rapist is and she gets into the situation with the rapist.
:32:02. > :32:06.The creative drive is, this person, we have gone to a very deliberated
:32:07. > :32:13.place where this person for this reason and this reason wants to be
:32:14. > :32:16.the victim of rape. That may be your interpretation but the point surely
:32:17. > :32:20.is that what we have is an expression of damage in many ways
:32:21. > :32:26.and the idea that we should not just see a woman who has been raped as a
:32:27. > :32:31.victim. This is about an attempt to take some kind of control. I felt
:32:32. > :32:39.the film to a very great extent was about control. Talking about her
:32:40. > :32:45.being assailed by male violence at every... Even in her own business
:32:46. > :32:49.where she is the boss, her much more junior and younger male employees
:32:50. > :32:55.are still abusing her and harassing her. I don't agree it is an
:32:56. > :32:59.empowering narrative. It is exploitative of the viewer, it
:33:00. > :33:06.basically takes all your human empathy, your understanding, the way
:33:07. > :33:10.you would say, nobody has a right to legislate for the way another woman
:33:11. > :33:16.feels, nobody has the right to get another woman is feeling to it takes
:33:17. > :33:22.your sensibilities and uses them to submit you to repeated acts of
:33:23. > :33:25.sexual violence against a woman. I felt that the main character and all
:33:26. > :33:31.the women in the film actually, what they are exhibited towards the male
:33:32. > :33:35.characters was this mix of incredible frustration, anger and a
:33:36. > :33:40.level of disdain. I felt what it showed was a really toxic society in
:33:41. > :33:49.which male violence and entitlement on the one hand... Can accept, even
:33:50. > :33:52.the idea, she was looking for it, which is some of the narrative is
:33:53. > :33:58.you get, rather you might say that for some people clearly violent sex
:33:59. > :34:03.is a turn on. Sure, I have no problem with that is the premise for
:34:04. > :34:06.a film, no problem with the exploration of a character's
:34:07. > :34:11.sexuality as the premise for anything but I think this was used
:34:12. > :34:17.instrumentally... For gods you have somebody raped and repeatedly in
:34:18. > :34:22.flashbacks every five minutes and then again by the same person three
:34:23. > :34:27.more times so of course it was gratuitous. But she is imagining
:34:28. > :34:35.different outcomes and I think that is quite interesting, and she will
:34:36. > :34:40.be able to attack him back. I felt she was struggling for some control
:34:41. > :34:44.and an opportunity to attack him back. I'm sure it was ever realistic
:34:45. > :34:51.that would happen and I felt -- I'm not sure. I felt it painted a
:34:52. > :34:58.society where there was a veneer of wealth, style, that Parisian
:34:59. > :35:05.elegance but within that still male violence... To be fair, Isabella
:35:06. > :35:14.Bird said she read the book and wanted it to be put on film and
:35:15. > :35:19.wanted to do it -- Isabelle Huppert. Does it tell the viewer something
:35:20. > :35:23.about the possibilities of a real life rape situation? I don't think
:35:24. > :35:27.you can generalise anything from the reaction to rape of any woman, any
:35:28. > :35:34.single woman and particularly of somebody with the level of trauma...
:35:35. > :35:39.Isn't that exactly the point? You are invited into this territory
:35:40. > :35:45.where your own ecumenical sense of everybody having a right to the own
:35:46. > :35:48.response did leverage against it in a moral relativism. We are not
:35:49. > :35:53.allowed to say, yet again the brutalising of the woman is used...
:35:54. > :36:00.Do you think it is antifeminist? Could have been a comedy of manners,
:36:01. > :36:03.it didn't brag but it did not have much momentum and there were times
:36:04. > :36:11.when I thought, this could go on all week. -- it didn't drag. I thought
:36:12. > :36:16.the rape was being used as a way of forcing the plot forward. It didn't
:36:17. > :36:23.drag for me, I did find it quite disturbing and I was quite chilled
:36:24. > :36:27.by it. I felt it portrayed a very complex reaction to a society in
:36:28. > :36:31.which the one hand you are assailed by male violence and entitlement and
:36:32. > :36:36.on the other hand women are in a state of anger and almost disdain
:36:37. > :36:38.towards men. Where do we from there? Thank you very much indeed.
:36:39. > :36:41.The painter Howard Hodgkin, who died today at the age of 84,
:36:42. > :36:44.was described by the late Seamus Heaney as "the force that
:36:45. > :36:46.through the green fuse drives the flower" -
:36:47. > :36:50.In his very English way, Sir Howard suffered for his art.
:36:51. > :36:52.His emotions were extraordinarily close to the surface, and his vivid,
:36:53. > :36:54.seemingly abstract paintings were attempts to capture
:36:55. > :36:59.He won the Turner Prize and his works could sell
:37:00. > :37:04.But he always insisted that he hated painting.
:37:05. > :37:07.Sir Howard, who was 84, gave one of his last interviews
:37:08. > :37:09.to our Culture Editor, Stephen Smith, who looks back
:37:10. > :37:22.The artist who suffers for his work is a well worn trope
:37:23. > :37:26.but Sir Howard Hodgkin gave it a dryly humorous gloss.
:37:27. > :37:29.Surely such vivid and life affirming paintings as his
:37:30. > :37:42.I hate the act of painting, I always have done.
:37:43. > :37:45.People have said to me so often, amateur painters, aren't you lucky
:37:46. > :38:03.I may be lucky with the result but having to go through the horrors
:38:04. > :38:25.of painting a picture is not something I ever look forward to.
:38:26. > :38:28.His canvases, or rather boards, sometimes brooded over for years,
:38:29. > :38:32.were attempts to capture emotions he felt in certain places and times.
:38:33. > :38:37.Good luck getting him to explain further.
:38:38. > :38:41.If I had the temerity to ask you what prompted that
:38:42. > :38:43.picture, you would give me an old-fashioned look essentially.
:38:44. > :38:57.India held great fascination for Hodgkin and was a big
:38:58. > :39:03.The impressions were stored up and dwelt on back in the studio,
:39:04. > :39:09.a converted dairy opposite the British Museum in London.
:39:10. > :39:14.And there are lots of walls for me to stare at and...
:39:15. > :39:21.Our viewers shouldn't get the impression that you're staring
:39:22. > :39:27.at them bereft of inspiration, quite the reverse, is that right?
:39:28. > :39:30.Absolutely right, and it's simply so that I can continually readjust
:39:31. > :39:47.I used to make drawings, do all sorts of obvious things.
:39:48. > :39:53.And now I just get in there and do it, partly because I can feel time's
:39:54. > :40:01.winged chariot behind me all the time.
:40:02. > :40:07.It's been a great plus knowing that my days are numbered but...
:40:08. > :40:21.Many of us suffer a deterioration of our eyesight as we get older.
:40:22. > :40:23.That's of course particularly troubling for a painter,
:40:24. > :40:32.I've been completely spared it but I think that other things have
:40:33. > :40:40.Is that a fair exchange, would you say?
:40:41. > :41:01.Sir Howard Hodgkin, whose death was announced today.
:41:02. > :41:04.Just before we go, what do you get if you cross the French
:41:05. > :41:06.urban sport of Parkour and the iconic opening scene
:41:07. > :41:10.The Scottish freerunner Robbie Griffith decided to find out.
:41:11. > :41:26.Choose good health, low cholesterol and personal well-being.
:41:27. > :41:28.Choose an invigorated sense of self-worth.
:41:29. > :41:36.Choose to defy Newton's laws of motion.
:41:37. > :41:37.Choose to be breathless, tackling the obstacles
:41:38. > :41:44.Choose to travel, explore, creating experiences.
:41:45. > :41:46.Choose a mind-stimulating, physically strengthening pursuit
:41:47. > :42:11.that gets your heart pumping like never before.
:42:12. > :42:16.We saw spring sunshine across many parts of the country on Thursday.
:42:17. > :42:20.Friday brings us rather more cloud, but many places staying dry.