09/03/2017 Newsnight

Is the answer when it is in a party manifesto?

As Philip Hammond is attacked from all sides for raising

National Insurance, will this become Theresa May's big issue of trust?

David Cameron's former Director of Communications

He can explain to people, here is a path I took and this

is why it is not a breach of a manifesto promise.

The problem with that, as you are asking me

and as you should rightly ask him and other members of the

government, is people perceive this to be a breach.

We'll be discussing making and breaking political promises.

Also tonight, we discuss Isabelle Huppert and Paul Verhoeven's Golden

Globe-winning thriller, Elle, and its complex portrayal

of one woman's response to the most horrific rape.

Can cinema take us to dark places where accepted views

on rape are challenged through the character of a woman

Three words freighted with probity and trust.

But, after anything but an explosive budget, a firecracker blew up

in the Chancellor's face today over the issue of a promise.

The question being, why does the government deny

breaking a manifesto pledge on National Insurance when the 2015

election manifesto clearly said there would be no increase

in National Insurance for the five years of an incoming

Is it ever right to to promise one thing and do another?

The Chancellor has raised the hackles of the right-wing press,

Tory backbenchers of many stripes, and the opposition alike.

Theresa May is in Brussels tonight where, at a press conference,

probably for the first time in her life, she was hoping

for questions about Brexit, but was pressed on this instead.

I'm joined by our political editor, Nick Watt.

What did she had to say about National Insurance?

She is standing by the fundamental principle of this budget change

which is that the self-employed should pay more in national

insurance contributions because now they are able to benefit from the

new state pension. She also bought herself time because legislation to

implement think these changes is not going to be introduced until the

autumn and I am hearing the first signs of how they are going to

soften the impact of this National Insurance rise, by waiting until the

autumn, the Chancellor will give himself the option of implementing

some of the recommendations in the report by the former Tony Blair at

Downing Street adviser Matthew Taylor. That could see maternity and

paternity rights extended to the self employed and that would be

very, very expensive. As I understand it, Philip Hammond is

watching this very carefully because what he is concerned about is the

revenue he has raised this week could be wiped out by that change.

All this for that. Possible we could be seeing the first signs of not

such a great relationship between numbers ten and 11? Theresa May and

Philip Hammond made great play of the pack they want to restore the

traditional relationship between Prime Minister and Chancellor and I

can now confirm we have the traditional tensions between a Prime

Minister who wants to spend and a Chancellor who wants to restrain

public spending. And I am hearing the sound of complaints from the

Treasury, firstly that number ten, I'm told, just want to spend money.

Important visit the Chancellor did cough up on schools and social care.

Secondly complaints that some senior political advisers around the Prime

Minister have what are described as anti-Tory ideas about raising taxes.

I'm told Philip Hammond had his work cut out battling against pressure to

raise capital gains tax and, wait for it, increasing the national

insurance contributions proposed this week to an even higher level

for higher rate taxpayers. It has been a pretty bumpy response to the

budget for the Chancellor so we thought we would take a look at the

pressures on him. There have been too many

in the last few years, too many Broken promises can be

lethal for politicians. Look what happened

to my namesake when the Liberal Democrat policy

on tuition fees collided with the harsh reality

of coalition government. And now Philip Hammond, the man

who hoped to forge a duller and less glitzy era in the Treasury,

and who would never be seen dead doing a stunt

like this, has been caught out Make no mistake, they

are feeling pain in the Treasury today as

the right-wing press savages the Chancellor for breaking

that general election pledge One source familiar with

the thinking in numbers ten and 11 Downing St told me,

this is all about trust. This troubled Budget will be

remembered as the first self-inflicted wound

of this government. And so far, nearly 20 Tory MPs,

including the Wales Office Minister Guto Bebb, have

questioned the change. It won't have the

support from people We need to get out there

and support entrepreneurs. As I say, they are the

backbone of this economy. They are taking risks,

opening small businesses, employing those apprentices, giving

young people a chance. We have done for seven years and I'm

going to make sure we My Whitehall source admitted

that the government had slipped up by appearing

to target white van man. In fact, the changes

were aimed at catching out what are described as spivs

and dodgy accountants. I think this is an interesting

cultural economic moment, where the Conservative Party, which has long

revelled in the impression that it was the party of enterprise and

small entrepreneurs, has shown it There will be an opportunity

in politics for other parties to make

a pitch for these voters. The Chancellor is

reluctant to back down. He needs the ?2 billion

the changes will generate This evening, Theresa May pointed

to a way out, using a review by a former Labour Downing Street

official to soften the tax rises. What we are likely to see

from the government is probably what they should have done

when they first made this announcement yesterday,

which is to set it much more in a broader context of

looking at the whole picture of taxation for the self

employed, which would be about the national insurance that

firms pay when they employ people and use

self-employed workers, not just that paid directly

by the self-employed, and set it in the context of giving

the self employed more benefit entitlements,

like an maternity pay, and more support with things

like pension savings. That overall package of support

and slightly higher taxes is probably what we will see

from the government in the coming months,

and that's a good thing. If he emerges unscathed,

Philip Hammond may reflect, he is the victim of a style

of politics he hoped to end. That was the habit of George Osborne

and Gordon Brown to lay traps for their

political opponents. It was George Osborne who outlined

the tax lock at the last No increases in VAT,

National Insurance contributions, or This was a political trap,

the so-called tax lock, to try and catch Labour out,

but actually it has ended up catching out the Tories

and they have fallen Probably the best comparison

for Gordon with the 2015 Budget was Gordon's 2001

pre-election budget, where he framed the election question as more

investment, not less, and he invited the Conservative Party

to oppose his spending plans. The difference was that Gordon

was almost certain to be back in Downing Street

after that election, so he could only make commitments

like that if he was certain that he could

deliver on them. The difference with George Osborne

was that he probably wasn't ever expecting to be back

in Downing Street to have to implement this tax guarantee,

which made him far more reckless than he otherwise

would have been. Who would have thought that such

a steady Chancellor would find his budget being

buffeted in the wind? Perhaps spreadsheet Phil is looking

back wistfully at his The man who was at David Cameron's

shoulder when the Conservative manifesto for the 2015 election

was written and pledges made, was his Director of Communications,

Craig Oliver. You have been literally in the thick

of this before. In terms of manifesto pledges and commitments

and so forth. Looking at this, the Chancellor insisted this is not the

break of a manifesto but is it or not? The issue is, do people

perceive it to be. The reality is that most people perceive this to be

the breaking of our pledge. Would it have been better if he had just

said, I'm breaking a manifesto promise, I'm going to raise class

for national insurance because circumstances have changed since

2015? Philip Hammond as a defender and I believe he is sincere in that

and thinks that he is in a position where he can explain to people, here

is a path I took and it is why it is not a breach of a manifesto promise.

The problem with that, as you are asking me and as you should rightly

ask him and other members of the government, is people perceive this

to be a breach. They feel that when they looked specifically at what was

written, you have breached that. The problem again with that if people

start asking questions, can we trust you, are you being legalistic,

dancing on the head of it was a ludicrous pledge to say that over

the whole lifetime of the next government there would be no

increases in VAT, national insurance for income tax? I don't think it is

but once a political party has made that pledge and got into government

you end up in a difficult decision if you are perceived to have broken

that. David Cameron was always clear on this that when you made a pledge,

you should not go back on it. He was constantly lobbied on international

aid or the triple lock for pensioners by people saying, look at

all this money we could take it we went back on this and he said, but

I've made a promise to the poorest people and pensioners and what would

people say if I went back on that? He knew he would reap the whirlwind

if he broke those pledges. If you were advising Philip Hammond what

would you advise on to say? The most interesting question is, do you

actually intend to stick with this having delivered it in the budget?

If you are going to and you are sure you will, you have to defend the

decision you have taken an explain it. Having said that, the great

difficulty for him, the sheer fact we are doing this interview, is that

the entire perception of anybody looking at this is that you have

broken a pledge. I can see how people in government, when they are

balancing a lot of things, also moving parts, they get themselves

into a position where they persuade themselves that is dependable. Not

only was it called a pledge, David Cameron called it a Balliu, almost

it had a religious significance that they would be no tax rises so in

that regard it was very serious -- called it a value. When the decision

was taken to make this pledge, people thought through that this was

something that had to be defendable and people would be voting for them

on it. When that decision was made, it was done very seriously. If you

are the current government, you can say that actually the reality is

there are different people running number ten and number 11. I suspect

Philip Hammond actually thinks he was not explicit on this very

specific area and technicality. In political broad terms, you can

lampoon that and say it is ridiculous and a breach of trust but

I can see how people can get themselves into that position but

the problem is you have to be able to have people coming in late in the

day and say, how will this look? Thank you very much. We did ask to

speak to someone from the government tonight but nobody was available.

The Sun newspaper has been fiercely critical of the budget, and I'm now

joined by their political editor, Tom Newton Dunn.

Also, Polly Mackenzie, who worked for Nick Clegg and is no

stranger to the fallout of broken promises.

Good evening. First of all, how damaging is this for the government?

Having a broken promise can be enormously damaging to a political

party but the truth is that Philip Hammond and Theresa May don't think

of this as their manifesto, it is George Osborne's. They don't want to

put it out because they put it undermines the legitimacy and feels

they might have to call an election but said conduct have change and

environment have changed and if they own the truth which is that they

have defied the manifesto and make the case for this is not being...

And a bonkers idea in the first place? The triple lock? Absolutely.

It is George Osborne's political positioning and he is not exactly

the most popular person in the country. Call it his manifesto and

start talking about the fact that the Prime Minister, who is much more

popular, doesn't want to be limited by the political promises of her

predecessor who basically has moved on. The Sun newspaper said fight ban

scam. You are going to make sure it is damaging for the government. Very

much so, until the government decide they are not going to damage

themselves any longer. Theresa May seem to be starting some kind of

climb-down tonight, a recalibration. The truth is this will never get on

the statute books and we knew that from about half past eight this

morning when the first Tory MP said on the radio that they would vote

against it. They were joined by about 30 others so this will not go

ahead. What we will see if this play out over the summer, how they craft

some travel package together to make it look like they are not doing a

U-turn but they are. You take the view that actually gives government

should not be tied up by a manifesto from 2015 or does it require another

election? The entire government are all Tory

MPs getting themselves elected with the same problem. I am afraid that

they have to stick to this. Theresa May will say, huge amounts have

changed, different economy, different membership of the European

Union or not, so I can do something different. I have some sympathy for

Philip Hammond in that he has been immensely boxed in by all sorts of

clever gimmicks and promises made by George Osborne very successfully. It

destroyed the Lib Dems. They won the general election and they destroyed

Labour. Then they had to go on and govern with this incredible

ring-fencing on pensions, the lot of it. The manifesto also commits us to

staying in the single market. No Tory backbenchers are upset about

that. We have an entirely new government setting out a new agenda.

One of the key things that key things that Craig Oliver talked

about was the foreign aid, which is deeply unpopular in some sectors.

Many people want that shifted to social care. I doubt that Philip

Hammond will tamper with foreign aid. Do you think he might unravel

other parts of the manifesto in successive budgets? I don't think

they are going to make a priority of bringing a free vote on fox hunting.

Manifestos are filled with promises. The last manifesto was 25,000 words.

Probably only about 15 words from the Liberal Democrat one! There are

endless subclauses. So why have them? The voters must be going, what

is the point of a manifesto? It's all very well for you to say, they

don't read it, but the manifesto is meant to set out what the government

believes in. Brilliant, that means we can stay in the single market.

It's a promise, you say, this is what we are going to do, vote for us

and then we do it whether you believe it or not, you have to go

out of your way to do it, especially when these Sun readers vote for you

would it not dead, you can't turn round and say, no thanks. He is in a

terrible mess and we have sympathy. The other thing we will see if the

triple lock promised on pensions. The spending on the triple lock and

protecting Gray 's spending OAPs is astronomical, about ?78 billion,

which puts all of these 3 billion here and there on national insurance

rises into a small corner. Philip Hammond has bravely, I think,

already said, we need to look at this. Whether they will be able to

do it in time before the next election, it would be politically

toxic. But if pensioners agree that they want to undertake the triple

lock, they are not complaining about the manifesto. It becomes a badge of

honour to say you are complaining about the manifesto when actually it

is just a policy that you don't like.

Tom Newton Dunn and Polly Mackenzie are staying with us because,

alongside the farrago of the manifesto pledge

was the revelation that Philip Hammond's predecessor

is making good use of the economic and political acumen he gathered

when he was at number 11 Downing Street.

George Osborne declared an annual salary of ?650,000 for four days

work a month from the world's biggest fund management

It will augment his backbencher's salary of ?74,000, and speaking

engagements which bring in north of half a million.

He's certainly not the only former senior politician

to purse a lucrative life - Tony Blair owns the playbook.

But is all this good for politics or bad?

Do we need to talk about the revolving door?

People moving back and forth between government and the private sector.

George Osborne, the former Chancellor, is, we learn,

being paid ?650,000 per year to advise BlackRock,

an investment manager, for four days of work each month.

I think George Osborne would bring a wealth of knowledge

Having been the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this country.

He would also bring very good contacts around

the world in governments and the private sector.

The knowledge and the contacts that somebody like George Osborne

would have accumulated over his tenure are very

valuable for a period of about three to five years.

There is a Whitehall process for approving these things,

the advisory committee on business appointments, Acoba.

Acoba approved Mr Osborne's plans, and they've barred him

But lots of people who have been through Acoba don't

Acoba is this slightly eccentric body where,

when you leave government having been in a senior job,

you have to get their permission in theory before you take

If you disobey them, there is literally nothing

It's hidden, you don't really understand how it works.

They don't unfortunately give you straight answers

to straight questions so, when I went through the process,

I asked them, would I be able to come in and see government

They will not answer questions of that sort.

Which covers their back because, if you put your foot in it,

they will be able to say you broke the rules.

But you're never really told quite what the rules are.

The voluntary nature of Acoba is a particular problem.

48 senior special advisers have left government since December 2014,

but there are published Acoba approvals for just 14.

Jobs are not the only part of an ex-minister's life

Today we learned Gordon Brown is releasing a memoir.

Perhaps surprisingly, there is actually a rule book that

governs what ex-ministers are allowed to put

into their memoirs, the so-called Radcliffe rules.

They can really be boiled down to three principles.

The first is, don't publish anything that damages national security.

The second principle is, don't publish anything that

would damage our relations with other states.

The third principle, though, is a bit odder.

It states that ex-ministers shouldn't criticise any of the civil

In fact, they also state that ministers shouldn't even name

civil servants who gave them specific advice.

In short, the Radcliffe rules basically get in the way

of ex-ministers scrutinising their former departments.

This country does have a revolving door problem in a variety

of sectors, but we should worry as much about middle

ranking officials who slip into the companies they are supposed

to be regulating as we do about ex-ministers.

And we're back with Tom Newton Dunn and Polly Mackenzie.

Tom, is there anything wrong with a man who was Chancellor less than a

year ago, who is still an MP, working for the biggest fund manager

in the world and getting a lot of money for four days of work? That is

a loaded question! Look, it stinks totally. George Osborne will make

the argument that immersing himself in what he would call the real

world, actual business, decision-making and hedge funds is,

informs his ability as an MP to contribute to the public debate.

Personally, I think by simply accepting a ?650,000 per year job

for four days a month, ?30,000 per day, what he is saying is, I now

know I will never be Prime Minister, because nobody would accept him with

something like that. If it brings some expertise to his field, I would

not want to stop it. It is not exactly a new issue. Ever since big

business, MPs, prime ministers, chancellors have all gone into the

private sector. Yes, but I think it's different once you have left

government and parliament and you are just a private citizen. What is

strange about this for me is George Osborne's priorities. He's got a

constituency to represent, a job to do, and he is prioritising jetting

around the world, receiving awards from the Americans, earning ?13,500

per day. For me, it is about the principle of having a job in

Parliament and the juicy details. Wood he did say that this week is

not a bad snapshot of my life. On Monday, I was in New York accepting

a Kissinger Fellowship. On Wednesday, I was in the Commons

speaking about Europe Nato, you can join me in Knutsford in my

constituency. This seems a very quick to spend my time and hopefully

make a contribution to our national life. Fair to say that George

Osborne believes passionately in this northern partnership and, if

you can bring money from whoever, that is good, isn't it? He has a

great lifestyle, but it is all about him and not really about its

constituents. But he would accept that there is life after parliament

but not, as far as you are concerned one they are still getting an MP

salary. It is about time. If you are an MP and you want to spend an

afternoon earning ?13,000 to be not being there, doing something else

with relevance to being an MP, fine. If you are spending four and a half

days jetting to New York, giving speeches in Berlin and then in some

hedge funds of this in the city, is wrong. You should be looking after

your constituents. What about the argument that a lot of people in

parliament could earn a lot more money outside but they choose to

deny themselves a bigger salary than 78,000, so it is acceptable when you

leave office to augment that salary, and that is the way you get a flow

of people into Parliament with greater ambition? You only allow a

new flow of people if you allow the bed blockers, those who have been

Cabinet ministers, to get out of the way. You don't catch people on

?78,000. Look at some of the talent in parliament and you think, we

could probably do better than that. I would probably take a close look

at how much time they are spending in the building doing the job they

are elected to do. They need performance related pay.

Time now for Viewsnight, the part of the programme that actively seeks

argument and dissent, often from surprising places.

So today, when the latest Ipsos Mori STV poll puts support

for Scottish independence at 50%, and Nicola Sturgeon talks

about the commonsense timing of another independence referendum,

here's Richard Dawkins's trenchant view of plebiscites.

Watch this space for more Brexit views.

French actress Isabelle Huppert received her first Oscar nomination

this year for a film that, according to Huppert herself,

The controversy around Elle - which won two Golden Globes

and which opens tomorrow - centres on a horrifically violent

attack and vicious rape which is revisited graphically

during the film, along with further sexual attacks,

and the unusual and shocking way that the woman who is

Elle is the explosive result of the collaboration

between the fearless, often transgressive actress

and the Dutch director Paul Verhoeven, he of Basic Instinct

The thriller-cum-black comedy tests the viewer to the limits.

In a moment, we'll be discussing whether such

a narrative is anti-feminist, or whether we need to accept

a complex, often unpalatable truth that, for some,

extreme violence is part and parcel of sex.

But first - spoiler alert - here are some scenes from the film,

Michele Leblanc starts to track down her attacker

but doesn't go to the police, mainly because of the notoriety

Her father was a psychopath who killed more than 20 people

and who was unmasked when Michele was just ten years old.

As the film unfolds, we have the unsettling

sense that she could be luring her attacker to identify

him or to kill him - or because, in some way,

she is intrigued, even turned on by him.

Well, Newsnight took two women to watch the film -

Polly Neate, chief executive of the group Womens' Aid,

Good evening. Is it important to have such a complex expression of

rape as this and the impact of it? I think it is important to show how

Watmore Neumann -- how one woman's life is completely framed every

angle by male violence. Her father, her lover, by male violence and

entitlement, her lover does not take no for an answer albeit in not in a

physically violent way, and she is raped. But the extreme complexity of

her life means it's very difficult to generalise from her reaction to

what is an horrific assault. Ahead of it there is such controversy and

yet it is important to have a complex view of rape. That is true,

and it is conceded that she grew up with this violent father, but I felt

very much it was an act of bad faith. All this effort put into

creating the female character who wanted to be raped. That is quite an

extreme position. Not really, because if you look at the structure

of the film, and I allowed to spoil it? You can take a couple of things.

She seeks out the situation in which she is going to be raped because she

knows in the rapist is and she gets into the situation with the rapist.

The creative drive is, this person, we have gone to a very deliberated

place where this person for this reason and this reason wants to be

the victim of rape. That may be your interpretation but the point surely

is that what we have is an expression of damage in many ways

and the idea that we should not just see a woman who has been raped as a

victim. This is about an attempt to take some kind of control. I felt

the film to a very great extent was about control. Talking about her

being assailed by male violence at every... Even in her own business

where she is the boss, her much more junior and younger male employees

are still abusing her and harassing her. I don't agree it is an

empowering narrative. It is exploitative of the viewer, it

basically takes all your human empathy, your understanding, the way

you would say, nobody has a right to legislate for the way another woman

feels, nobody has the right to get another woman is feeling to it takes

your sensibilities and uses them to submit you to repeated acts of

sexual violence against a woman. I felt that the main character and all

the women in the film actually, what they are exhibited towards the male

characters was this mix of incredible frustration, anger and a

level of disdain. I felt what it showed was a really toxic society in

which male violence and entitlement on the one hand... Can accept, even

the idea, she was looking for it, which is some of the narrative is

you get, rather you might say that for some people clearly violent sex

is a turn on. Sure, I have no problem with that is the premise for

a film, no problem with the exploration of a character's

sexuality as the premise for anything but I think this was used

instrumentally... For gods you have somebody raped and repeatedly in

flashbacks every five minutes and then again by the same person three

more times so of course it was gratuitous. But she is imagining

different outcomes and I think that is quite interesting, and she will

be able to attack him back. I felt she was struggling for some control

and an opportunity to attack him back. I'm sure it was ever realistic

that would happen and I felt -- I'm not sure. I felt it painted a

society where there was a veneer of wealth, style, that Parisian

elegance but within that still male violence... To be fair, Isabella

Bird said she read the book and wanted it to be put on film and

wanted to do it -- Isabelle Huppert. Does it tell the viewer something

about the possibilities of a real life rape situation? I don't think

you can generalise anything from the reaction to rape of any woman, any

single woman and particularly of somebody with the level of trauma...

Isn't that exactly the point? You are invited into this territory

where your own ecumenical sense of everybody having a right to the own

response did leverage against it in a moral relativism. We are not

allowed to say, yet again the brutalising of the woman is used...

Do you think it is antifeminist? Could have been a comedy of manners,

it didn't brag but it did not have much momentum and there were times

when I thought, this could go on all week. -- it didn't drag. I thought

the rape was being used as a way of forcing the plot forward. It didn't

drag for me, I did find it quite disturbing and I was quite chilled

by it. I felt it portrayed a very complex reaction to a society in

which the one hand you are assailed by male violence and entitlement and

on the other hand women are in a state of anger and almost disdain

towards men. Where do we from there? Thank you very much indeed.

The painter Howard Hodgkin, who died today at the age of 84,

was described by the late Seamus Heaney as "the force that

through the green fuse drives the flower" -

In his very English way, Sir Howard suffered for his art.

His emotions were extraordinarily close to the surface, and his vivid,

seemingly abstract paintings were attempts to capture

He won the Turner Prize and his works could sell

But he always insisted that he hated painting.

Sir Howard, who was 84, gave one of his last interviews

to our Culture Editor, Stephen Smith, who looks back

The artist who suffers for his work is a well worn trope

but Sir Howard Hodgkin gave it a dryly humorous gloss.

Surely such vivid and life affirming paintings as his

I hate the act of painting, I always have done.

People have said to me so often, amateur painters, aren't you lucky

I may be lucky with the result but having to go through the horrors

of painting a picture is not something I ever look forward to.

His canvases, or rather boards, sometimes brooded over for years,

were attempts to capture emotions he felt in certain places and times.

Good luck getting him to explain further.

If I had the temerity to ask you what prompted that

picture, you would give me an old-fashioned look essentially.

India held great fascination for Hodgkin and was a big

The impressions were stored up and dwelt on back in the studio,

a converted dairy opposite the British Museum in London.

And there are lots of walls for me to stare at and...

Our viewers shouldn't get the impression that you're staring

at them bereft of inspiration, quite the reverse, is that right?

Absolutely right, and it's simply so that I can continually readjust

I used to make drawings, do all sorts of obvious things.

And now I just get in there and do it, partly because I can feel time's

winged chariot behind me all the time.

It's been a great plus knowing that my days are numbered but...

Many of us suffer a deterioration of our eyesight as we get older.

That's of course particularly troubling for a painter,

I've been completely spared it but I think that other things have

Is that a fair exchange, would you say?

Sir Howard Hodgkin, whose death was announced today.

Just before we go, what do you get if you cross the French

urban sport of Parkour and the iconic opening scene

The Scottish freerunner Robbie Griffith decided to find out.

Choose good health, low cholesterol and personal well-being.

Choose an invigorated sense of self-worth.

Choose to defy Newton's laws of motion.

Choose to be breathless, tackling the obstacles

Choose to travel, explore, creating experiences.

Choose a mind-stimulating, physically strengthening pursuit

that gets your heart pumping like never before.

We saw spring sunshine across many parts of the country on Thursday.

Friday brings us rather more cloud, but many places staying dry.