20/04/2017 Newsnight


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.

Similar Content

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.

Download Subtitles