In-depth analysis with Emily Maitlis. Topics include the latest on the Paris attack, Corbyn's election speech, a profile of Philip May and Serena Williams's pregnant victory.
Browse content similar to 20/04/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
The centre of the city has been evacuated.
With an election just three days away, what impact will this
The next Prime Minister of the UK, Jeremy Corbyn.
He's defied the odds before - can he do it again?
It's the establishment versus the people.
It's our historic duty to make sure the people prevail.
We'll ask the man running Labour's election campaign
And what about the Conservatives - just how prepared are they?
We've found evidence that the Tories don't even have candidates lined up
for some of their most winnable target seats.
Also tonight, the other May that could decide June.
She might not act on it, but she'll listen.
What part does Theresa's husband Philip play
A big day for Labour today as Jeremy Corbyn
We'll be speaking to the man masterminding his campaign shortly.
But we begin this evening with a developing story in Paris,
which has once again become the focus of a terror attack
just three days before the country heads to the polls.
A major police operation is ongoing tonight after a shooting
The target this time around, police officers themselves.
One shot dead, two others seriously wounded.
Christian Fraser is close to the scene and we can go to him now.
Just talk us through what you're seeing and what happening there now.
We were down on the pavement and the top of Grand Armee. We have the cars
going around the Arc de Triomphe. It is deserted. Armed police are on the
pavements and I'd imagine that many of the people in the cafes, on the
terraces and in the hotels of that part of the street earlier this
evening are still in lockdown. While we were here broadcasting, around
9pm local time we started to feel that there was something happening.
One or two police cars were tearing down Grand Armee and then they
started coming from all directions, clearly the message had gone out on
the police radios that officers were needed. It got so silly at one point
that there were police cars overtaking each other, they were so
desperate to get there, nearly knocking down pedestrians here. Then
word went out that shots had been fired and obviously the panic
started to break out, so young people who were next to the eternal
flame and looking at the Arc de Triomphe were running in all
directions and a very jumpy police force because they didn't really no
what they were dealing with. This has happened very quickly. There is
an arrest warrant for the suspect. What stage is the investigation at?
The police are telling us that they are not looking for anyone in this
part of Paris but there is an operation going on in eastern Paris
near the parliament. They have the identity of the attacker and he is
known to the counterintelligence service here in France. Reuters are
reporting that there is a document, an arrest warrant for a man who came
into the country from Belgium and they are looking for this
accomplice. France is on a state of emergency which has been extended
for a fifth time until July, since the Algerian War. It will have
implications, you would think, for the election which is three days
away. Francois Fillon... We're losing you, I'm so sorry, I think
the signal has been badly scrambled. Understandable because there's quite
a big police presence and we don't know what's going on. But thanks for
joining us. Anne-Elisabeth Moutet is a French
journalist who lives a short distance from the scene
of the attack. Fingers crossed for this signal.
Thank you for joining us. It's pretty hard not to see this as a
provocation of some sort, just three days before the country goes to the
polls, isn't it? It's very tempting because it disrupts the democratic
process in Western countries and especially a western country which,
to give it its due, Francois Hollande has put it at the forefront
of fighting Islamic terrorism. The country was behind him on this. You
have four main candidates, 11th candidates in total, four have a
chance of being in the run-off in two weeks' time and of them, two
have put the emphasis on the dangers of Islamic terrorism, Marine Le Pen
and also Francois Fillon. This may be the time when Francois Fillon
manages to inch his way back into being in the run-off. It's
interesting because I think Emmanuel Macron said earlier tonight that,
the candidate of the left, this will be a threat to our daily life for
years to come. I guess that's quite a gamble, isn't it, to tell people
that they will have to carry on living with this? He is an
intellectual, a very bright technocrat, somebody who has never
run for election and he has been a young figure. It's difficult to say
that he is unknown because he was the economy Minister for two years
and he has run his campaign on enthusiast and, which is probably
what the country needs. But when it comes to the heavy things like
terrorism I'm not sure he has entirely got the atmosphere of the
country right on this one. It completely contrasts with what
Marine Le Pen has been saying. In concrete terms, when she talks about
terrorism, terrorist attacks, what does she intends to do to stop them?
Well, she certainly once a version of Frexit, meaning the Borders would
close, she would like a moratorium on immigration into France and some
measures she would take in the early months of her presidency. This
reminds you of Donald Trump, who said he had ten measures that he
would sign straightaway. The idea that she is a different politician
and that she's going to come up with campaign promises and say that she's
going to make them operated, even though this may not happen, it is a
good of her campaign. She has already said on television that she
was vindicated, that she was right all along. What she can do is going
to be interesting because we already have a state of emergency in the
country. So parliament voted that through and the population is
broadly behind Parliament on this. It was a left-wing government that
voted it in. OK, thank you very much indeed.
Jeremy Corbyn is perhaps never happier than back in campaign mode.
His lines today reminded his legion of supporters why they liked him:
a leader unafraid to be anti-establishment,
the feathers of the rich or upsetting the elites.
They came to hear him in person, some said
to escape the prism of a media they believe is out to get him.
And whilst the polls suggest he doesn't stand a change
And whilst the polls suggest he doesn't stand a chance
of winning next month, Corbyn dismissed popular wisdom,
reminding us that he's been underestimated not once,
We thought we'd start tonight with a meaty chunk
of Corbyn's message today at his campaign launch.
The dividing lines in this election could not be
It's the Conservatives, the party of privilege and the richest,
The Labour Party that is standing up for working
It's the establishment versus the people.
It's our historic duty to make sure the people prevail.
When we win, it is the people, not the powerful, who win.
The nurse, the teacher, the small trader, the carer,
the builder, the office worker, the student, the carer
So there's the big picture rhetoric, but what can we expect
Our policy editor Chris Cook has been assessing what we know so far
of what a Corbyn government would do.
Maldistribution of wealth in this country is something that's got
Jeremy Corbyn rallies aren't what they used to be.
After decades at the margins of his party, the long-serving
And the manifesto that emerges in the next few weeks
will crystallise what it means for Labour to be led from its left.
We will no longer allow those at the top to leech off those
who bust their guts on zero hours contracts, or those forced to make
sacrifices to pay their mortgage or to pay their rent.
Instead of the country's wealth being hidden in tax havens,
we will put it in the hands of the people of Britain.
We can say some things about what's likely to be in Labour's manifesto.
For example, the party's already announced that it wants free school
meals for all children in primary schools.
We can also make some educated guesses.
The party's campaigned recently on restoring grants for students
There are also tax rises that they have highlighted.
They're committed to reversing a recent cut in inheritance tax,
and they talk a lot about raising corporation tax, in particular
More importantly, though, we can also talk about Labour's view
What they have said in very broad terms is that they are not
necessarily looking for budget balance, they are looking for what
is called current budget balance, which is that they are willing
That would mean they could be spending in the medium-term
?30-40 billion a year more than the Conservatives,
so they're looking at a looser fiscal policy, as you'd expect,
Beyond that, though, is less clear, especially as snap
First, the party may just not have the time
So what we are expecting here is more of a direction of travel.
Yes, there will be some detailed policies in areas
For example free school meals for all kids funded by VAT
But you won't be expecting lots and lots of details
You definitely can't do that in the next few weeks
There will be things, I'm sure, that we will want to put
into the manifesto that we won't be able to put it just yet,
so the manifesto may be a rolling manifesto,
in that there will be other things coming in at the end.
Labour's sums have assumed a 2020 handover, not 2017.
Had we had an election in 2020 on current plans,
the deficit would have been significantly smaller
At the moment, it's still well in excess of ?50 billion.
So if the Labour Party is looking, if it is looking to get
a current budget balance, a deficit of maybe 30 billion or so,
that means there is still some austerity to go through in order
There will need to be some tax rises or spending cuts
as a fraction of national income to achieve that target.
That means some Corbyn ideas with big fiscal
implications might need delays, tweaks or rethinks.
Keep an eye on the abolition of university tuition
fees, or the seeding of a public infrastructure bank.
Labour's processes also cause issues for Mr Corbyn.
The third complication is how his party makes policy.
It has to go through party structures.
The Labour Party isn't about one person.
The Labour Party is a team of people all working together.
It's not about one MP, and it's not about one leader.
Mr Corbyn is strongly against nuclear weapons,
but Labour's leader doesn't control its manifesto on their own.
And despite attempts, when it comes to Trident,
I'm delighted to say that Labour is fully in favour
In fact, one of the advantages of the big toing and froing
that we have had in recent years on this is that we arrived
I tell you this, I wouldn't be sorry if it was a 60% tax
The Corbyn manifesto, then, might not be quite what he dreamed
it would be back when he was out on the margins.
Joining me now from Salford is Labour's Campaign
Jeremy Corbyn was very clear this morning, setting out in his speech
the establishment versus the people. He very helpfully listed the people,
even name checking some of the baddies, but just tell us who is the
establishment in this context? There is an important message, after seven
years of Conservative government, what we've seen is a growth in
inequality across our society. So people living and working hard in
Britain today feel as if they aren't getting their fair share of their
efforts. It reminds me very much of the message, clause four on the
Labour Party membership card, saying that we seek as a party to create a
society that benefits the many, not the few. Fundamentally that's what
this election is about, making sure we have policies in place that had
the many and the few. The message was clear but wasn't really was who
he was talking about. He went through this list of the people, the
nurse, the teacher, the carer, the builder, but who are on the other
side? He said versus the establishment. If you aren't a
nurse, if you're a doctor, a hospital manager, if you are a
headteacher, if you are a medium-sized trader, where are you
then? Are you part of the establishment?
Absolutely not. Where are you, then? What we are pointing to some of the
real sharp practices that have really grown in recent years. Some
of those exploitative employers that make use of things like zero hours
contractsin the worst possible way. Why should people that put in a
decent day's work not get the same rights that others enjoyed? Forgive
me... That is no longer acceptable. He didn't talk about unfair
practices. He said people versus the establishment, or the establishment
versus the people, and many people will be struggling to work out the
night whether you are on their side, whether they are viewed as the
establishment that you are against. If you are small business and you
start to do well and growing too big business, do you still support them?
We absolutely do, because it is about ordinary working people but
then develop small businesses that become the wealth creators and
employ more people. What we are talking about here is a rigged
society. We are talking about from the very top of government... So the
whole of the establishment is rates? No, we have had over the last six
years some decisions taken by Government that have really hit
people on low and average and medium incomes, whether it has been the
cuts to benefits and some of the tax changes that have affected people on
lower incomes as opposed to some of the tax changes that have really
benefited the super-rich. So when you say super-rich, this is what I'm
trying to pin down. You have already named checked the people you don't
like, the Philip Greens and the Mike Ashleys and the rest of it, but now
you go to the super-rich. If you are redistributing, you have to be
taking away from some. Who is super-rich? Is a doctor super-rich?
Is a surgeon super-rich? If you are redistributing, something has to be
taken away to give it to the people you think deserve it more. You need
to be a little bit patient because we will be publishing our manifesto
that will have all of our commitment, all of our policies
fully costed in the weeks ahead for the election campaign. But what you
will see... But you set those terms today, you have made a big speech
saying we are the people versus the establishment, that is why I am
asking. What you will see is a programme for fairness, that ensures
that those people who have really lost out and been hit hard under
this Conservative government over the last seven years will get a fair
say, a fair hearing, and we will build a Britain for the many and not
the few. And what we have heard time and again is that the Tories are
hell-bent on cuts to public services, that has been Jeremy
Corbyn's line. So you will end austerity? There will be no more
spending cuts after June if there is a Corbyn government, is that right?
You will have to wait and see some of the exciting announcements... If
you are a government ending austerity... I know you are trying
to get me to preannounce the manifesto live on Newsnight, I am
not going to do that. But you will be pleasantly supplies -- surprised
when you see some of the policy announcements we will make. When you
talk about ending austerity, the one thing people know about Corbyn's
Labour Party as they don't like austerities and cuts to public
spending, it should be written into concrete for you to be above say,
yes, we are ending austerity, no more public spending cuts. And you
will see when the manifesto is published that there is a real
commitment to investing in public services, in NHS, in social care,
that has really been cut back to the bone and is causing a crisis out
there. You will see investment in public services because of that is
the kind of society, a fairer society Labour wants to deliver. And
one thing you have been clear about and John Woodcock reinforced at the
end of that these is that we do know where you are on the Trident policy,
you would as a party renew Trident as things stand, is that right? The
Labour Party will always put the security interests of this country
first. And you will have a Trident policy, but you will have a leader
that wouldn't press the button, does that still stand? We will have a
Prime Minister who has Trident but doesn't arrest the button? You are
trying to drag me down a road here... I'm trying to get clarity.
The Labour Party in Government will do nothing that puts the security of
the United Kingdom at risk. Andrew Gwynne, thank you. Thank you.
Theresa May stunned Westminster when she called her snap
For the gamble to pay off she hopes to win a string
But Newsnight has tonight learned that the Prime Minister's secrecy
in calling the poll might have left her own party unprepared.
We wanted to find out how prepared Theresa May's party was for the
coming election, so we looked at 36 key target seats where there is a
Labour MP at the moment on a majority of less than 5000, and
crucially, constituencies that the analysis suggests voted for Brexit.
We managed to get in touch with 20 of those seats and get an answer
from them on their candidate selection, and we found that out of
those 20, not a single one had yet appointed a candidate for those
seats. Now, that matters of course because at the moment there is a
Labour MP going around seeking re-election or starting their
campaign, well bedded in, campaigning tomorrow and next week,
and some of these seats told us they hadn't even started the selection
process, some even had long list of 100 applicants still to wade through
to get a short list, and others hadn't even begun the process at
all, and it is highly unusual for a governing party to go into an
election in that sort of state of unpreparedness. Thank you.
The announcement of a snap election this week was one of those rare
moments in politics: a genuine surprise.
The fact it wasn't leaked points to a small but tightly knit coterie
around Theresa May, at the very heart of
May has since told us the decision was born as the couple enjoyed
the fresh mountain air and isolation of Snowdonia.
Philip May eschews the limelight but some say he could be the most
What role does he play in the workings of Number 10?
On the evening of July the 13th last year, all eyes were fixed on the
last candidate left standing after the brief but bloody battle to
succeed David Cameron. Out of the immediate shot of the cameras, an
unassuming figure, barely known outside Westminster, looked on with
pride as Britain's second female Prime Minister took office. This
week, the Prime Minister stood on the own in Downing Street, but this
was no lonely figure. Theresa May finally decided to take her
uncharacteristic gamble in the presence of just one other person.
Her husband, Philip May, during a walking holiday in Snowdonia. Philip
May's central hole -- central role at a defining moment shows that
here's a dip in dispensable member of her inner circle. Much attention
has been paid to number ten Joint Chiefs of Staff, Nick Timothy Fiona
hill, but Theresa May is loath to take any big political decision
without first consulting her husband. It is truly a marriage of
equals. I think it is hard to contest the view that Philip
Hammond, the Chancellor, is only the second most important Philip living
on Downing Street. Philip is clearly acting informally as an adviser to
Theresa May, probably much as Denis Thatcher did to Margaret Thatcher.
He will stand up to her, and I think sometimes fittest ideas against him,
and he will put a different point of view. She always listens to him. She
will listen. She might not act on it, but she will listen. Friends who
knew the couple when they met 40 years earlier would never have bet
that it would be Theresa May walking into Number 10. If you look back
into the history rather than how it turned out, you might have thought,
well, Phil would go into politics, but he didn't. But I think he has
been very supportive, and that is what you see today, that the
interest has stemmed from his politics, but Theresa is the one who
went mainstream. Oxford, a cradle of ambition for many wannabe Prime
Minister is, provided a lyrical setting for the start of the Made
partnership. The future Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto played
Cupid to what seemed an unlikely pairing. He was two years below her.
To be honest, he seemed a bit young, to a 20-year-old. He only just past
the height test, because Theresa liked her boyfriends to be at least
as tall as her, and I think he only just about past master.
# Watch that scene # Digging the dancing Queen.
In those heady days of the 1970s, it turned out that Philip May wasn't
her first Oxford romance. She certainly seems to be trialling a
fair number! I'm not sure many got very serious. But there were a
number she went out with. But once Philip appeared on the scene, it
rather felt like the rest were nowhere. Theresa May made what one
friend described as desultory attempts to pursue a career at the
Oxford union. She never held office herself, but returned to her alma
mater as her future husband embarked on his own union career. Within a
year of escorting one well-known figure two A1978 debate, Philip May
had secured the coveted post of union president for himself. Around
the time Margaret Thatcher entered Number 10 with her own low-key
consort in tow. He was very ambitious. I think it was fair to
say that he wasn't an exciting speaker. He was a worthy,
middle-of-the-road conservative. There were a lot of pretty colourful
people around who I think were more obviously going somewhere as
politicians. The following year, Philip May married Theresa brazier.
Shortly afterwards, Theresa May, an only child, lost both her parents.
I had huge supporting my husband, and that was very important for me.
He was a real rock from the. Theresa and Philip May knuckled down
in the city in the 1980s and it underwent the Big Bang up evil, but
they shunned the yuppie lifestyle to focus on fundraising. -- the Big
Bang up evil. As the local agent, my job was to make sure we kept the
local organisation going and focused on raising some cash and some money,
too, and she was very much and they were very much the leaders of the
local Conservative Party. Philip May. ABBA 1996 Conservative Party
conference, the 29-year-old Philip May showed he still had ambitions on
the national stage. I guess that most people would think that foreign
affairs isn't exactly a very sexy subject. The delivery was eight had
wooden, although he had a clear message on one contentious issue.
Britain has been a member of the European Community for 13 years and
we have helped to change many things in Europe for the good, and I hope
we will continue to do so. We need to strengthen the economic base of
the community by breaking down the barriers to the free movement of
goods and services. But you know Europe is not just an economic
community, it is a political community, too. In the early 1990s,
it was Theresa May who stood for Parliament. Unsuccessfully. By then,
Philip May's own political ambitions were waning. I asked him years later
after Theresa became an MP if he thought he might become one too, and
he said, no, we have discussed it, but we think one in the family is
probably quite sufficient. And I think they felt that it would be too
much work, and drawn too many ways. And he does in awful lot in the
constituency. Again, it is the support side. And he always has. He
sort of supports her job. So, Philip May decided to
concentrate on his City career in asset management, with a focus on
client relations. He was not flashy and was low-key as his wife's
political career rocketed after her election to Parliament in 1997. One
senior Tory MP who has known the couple since Oxford believes that
Philip May's City background leaves him well-placed to advise the Prime
Minister on the dangers posed by Brexit.
They both know, I think it's becoming more evident, that in
public policy too that leaving the EU and returning to the WTO rules
would be a high risk strategy and we need a new deal. The financial
services sector in particular needs to have a way of getting access to
Continental European markets. He knows a lot about that subject from
his background in insurance and other parts of the financial world
and I expect he's feeding those thoughts in. At a time when many
contemporaries of theirs are retiring, Theresa May's new role has
prompted her husband to make a career change of his own. He's still
working four days a week. He just said he'd given up one day a week to
run a private side. He said that Theresa has no time for it. Over the
coming weeks, Theresa May will portray herself as the ultimate safe
pair of hands. No doubt steady Phil will help to reinforce that message.
They aren't the most exciting people but as you know in politics, being
dial isn't always an advantage -- being dull isn't a disadvantage.
Perhaps what has taken the Prime Minister to the top would be less
easy without her rock. Phillips says to me, Theresa says it is a job and
you have to put it to one side when you've finished it and I think the
fact that she can go home developed and talk things through with him and
put it aside is a way of surviving it -- go home and talk to Philip.
Like many broadcasters, we entered into the spirit
of election 2015 rather excited about our polling models.
And the next day you might recall we pulled
the plug and sent it off to polling index heaven.
Well, who'd have thought we'd be back here so quickly?
So can we trust the pollsters, and what have they learned
In a moment we'll speak to Newsnight's former pet
But first here is Joe Twyman, from the leading pollsters, YouGov,
to have a go at explaining what he thinks went wrong,
The last few years have shown that we pollsters don't
It's worth remembering that we don't always get things wrong either.
The majority of election polls since World War II
have on average been within 2% of the actual vote share.
Only at one election has the average error
No final published poll has ever been more than 6% out.
The accuracy improved in 2001, 2005 and 2010 but in 2015, they were not
This error was due to a number of things, such as the way we model
voter turnout but the key factor was the difficulty in getting
We've gone back to the millions of data points we'd previously
collected and analysed them to identify the specific key groups
within our sample who need to be better represented in our surveys.
People who are not as interested in politics, for example.
It then becomes a matter of recruitment.
YouGov has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds last year
alone recruiting specifically targeted people to sign up
Since the last election, big data has also come into play.
Being able to draw on a host of additional variables and historic
data that is available on our servers has been essential
in developing a greater, deeper understanding
No matter how well we do, however, we cannot abolish
Polling is an inexact science and even the most perfect polls
will still have a margin of error associated with them
and they are only ever a snapshot of public opinion at the given
Chris Hanretty was our man in election 2015, and he's back now.
Nice to see you, Chris. Do you agree that it was the difficulty in
getting people to take part, there was a lack of enough data? Yes, the
key problem, as you heard, is one of recruiting people, how do you get
people who don't really care about politics to answer questions about
it? A tricky thing and paying them, working harder to recruit them, they
both ways of addressing these problems but how will we know
whether efforts have worked? We'll know after this election. What do
you do, then? I mean, can you assume that is something you don't know and
account for it, or does that not work? You can try and look for
characteristics that matter based on what you know about politics. One
example, education. The referendum showed clearly that education is
structuring our political views more than it has done in the past so
polling companies are making sure that the composition of the sample
matches what we know from the census about educational qualifications and
how they match up with age, so they are getting the right kind of
people. The point was made about big data. So much is known about us now,
even from our smartphones, it should be easier to read, people's
political allegiances and biases. It's a question of matching back to
the true value in the population. We know from things like the census how
many people are aged 18-25. We don't know, for example, how many people
watch Casualties and Newsnight. Those people may affect political
attitudes but we can't tell the population value. You need some
baseline truth against which you can measure yourself. This is
interesting, the pollsters, I think you were down with journalists and
us at one point in terms of the public perception! Do you think it's
about getting the numbers right, or is it about landing on the
Brightside of the coin? I think polling companies unfairly get
pilloried based on which side they ended up -- on the right side of the
coin. If you go back to the reverend, a lot of polls said that
Leave was ahead. Most pollsters said that it would go for Remain and that
is what stuck. People feel that the polls called it for Remain and
therefore they are rubbish, but they all said it would be close. In terms
of what you're doing with your modelling, this has been sprung on
everyone so you probably haven't got time, have you, to get something
that feels accurate? I'm probably going to steer clear of making any
firm forecasts for this election. This election has taken, I think,
certainly me by surprise. Thank you for joining us.
When you found out Serena Williams was pregnant when she won her 23rd
grand slam without dropping a set, what was your reaction?
Elation that pregnancy can be that liberating?
Or desperation that such a ridiculously high
The pregnant world is divided between those who hate
being viewed as ill or incapable for nine long months,
and those who who frankly, wish the world would cut
Here to discuss this are Anna Kessel, sports journalist
for the Guardian and the Observer and chair of Women in
Football, and Liz Young, a professional golfer.
She competed in the British Open last year when she was
Liz, I'm fascinated, not just by how it felt, in terms of your body and
your fatigue, but the perception of you, golfing, when you were so
heavily pregnant. Was there a lot of stigma about seeing a woman trying
to do competitive sport? I definitely had some second looks
from people who didn't realise that I was pregnant. I turned around and
the bump was showering and I have a second glance. On the whole, from my
friends on the tour and colleagues, they were very supportive and
congratulating me in doing it. On the other hand, I got some attention
that was, is this the right thing I should be doing, due to looking
after my unborn child? You weren't meant to be a competitive person
with a bump? Some people in the papers were questioning whether it
was healthy for the baby and whether it was healthy for me. Should I be
competing at a top level while being pregnant? And physically, was it
harder to concentrate? Was it harder to balance? Did it take a bigger
toll on your body than you thought? For me, the mental side became
easier because I started focusing more on her and worrying about that
rather than my golf, which took the pressure off, but physically as the
pregnancy went on, like I'm sure with all women, it becomes harder to
do. Do you think women will find it liberating to see these amazing
sportswomen, you know, competing with child as well, or is it an
extra hurdle? No, I don't think it's an extra hurdle, they are doing
their regular jobs. We may think it is amazing to win a Grand Slam,
Serena has won 23. We are never going to win them without or with a
pregnancy! What she has done is extraordinary and when you look at
the very few female sportswomen who have been threatened during their
careers... In football, we don't see pregnant women footballers? Not
many, there is one amazing example who played in the Champions League
final at four is pregnant but Burton need most of sport is very male
dominated and trying to persuade women not to have babies until they
retire. What Serena has done is breaking the mould and pioneering
and the frustrating newspaper headlines and discussion about
whether this is the end of her career... Most women can relate to
that and they will groan and think I'm just having a baby, I will come
back. Are there some sports where it is impossible to compete? Yes,
definitely. We were talking about golf, you play for the longer period
of time. Some sports are seen as more dangerous. Mary King competed
in the equestrianism. Paula Radcliffe I think said... You have
complimented that, she said that she lost a bit of her competitive edge
when she was pregnant. Do you think that is a part of it? Does that
sound anathema to you? That sounds like nonsense to me. Does it? When
Jessica Ennis-Hill announced her pregnancy a lot of the discussion
was about whether she would have the hunger to compete and I think that
is a trope that women are so fed up of hearing. It changes as in many
ways but it does not make us less ambitious. I'm glad we put that to
bed! Thank you for joining us. That's all we have time for for the
night but we will be back with a special from Paris.
The night will be mostly dry but cold in places with some patchy
Topics include the latest on the Paris attack, Corbyn's election speech, a profile of Philip May and Serena Williams's pregnant victory. Plus, are Tories ready for the vote, and can we trust the polls?
With Emily Maitlis.