22/02/2018 Newsnight

The scandal in the charity sector

claims its biggest scalp yet.

Unicef's Justin Forsyth steps down.

Quitting not because of past

mistakes but because, he says,

he didn't want to damage

the organisation further.

But is too late?

We hear from a colleague

of his from Save the Children

who thinks he got what he deserved.

Thank you very much.

I don't think I'll be

going up against them.

I really think the NRA

wants to do what's right.

President Trump calls for an age

restriction on buying guns -

but will he still think

the same tomorrow?

Students demand tighter gun laws,

the head of the National Rifle

Association weighs in.

If these so-called

European socialists take

over the House and the

Senate and, God forbid, they get

the White House again, our American

freedoms could be lost and our

country will be changed for ever.

Is it possible we are

under-medicating those with

depression in this country?

I didn't want to be mentally unwell

and I felt that it was a stigma

to take the drugs and that

if I took the drugs it

would confirm I was ill.

We speak to the Royal College of GPS

and to a psychotherapist

who believes in talk not pills.

Good evening.

world has stepped down

from his job in a sector already

reeling from allegations

of inappropriate sexual behaviour.

Justin Forsyth - deputy

director of Unicef -

resigned from his role tonight just

days after the BBC reported that

while he was chief executive

at Save the Children he sent

unsolicited texts to

female members of staff.

He specified in a statement

that he was leaving Unicef

"because of the danger of damaging

both Unicef and Save the Children

and our wider cause" -

insisting he had already offered

unreserved apologies to the women

involved at the time.

Unicef is just the latest charity

to have found itself

caught up in the scandal.

This evening, the Haitian government

announced it would temporarily

revoke Oxfam's right to operate

in the country after the charity

confirmed several members

of staff had admitted

to sexual misconduct there.

How damaging is all this becoming

to the charity sector?

Here's Chris Cook.

Over the past few weeks we've had

revelations about Oxfam.

Then, the management

of Save the Children.

Brendan Cox, widow of Jo Cox,

has already conceded

that his behaviour towards women

at that charity was inappropriate.

And now, one of his former

colleagues has resigned

from his current role at Unicef.

Justin Forsyth, who ran

Save the Children, said

in a statement today that:

But Mr Forsyth's resignation follows

a major revelation by Radio 4's PM.

The programme learned

that there were three separate

complaints of him sending

inappropriate text messages

and making comments about female

employees' appearance

at Save the Children.

Mr Forsyth's account

of his behaviour at the charity had

always stated that there had been no

formal complaints and he'd

apologised to those concerned.

Mr Forsyth has been a central

figure in British aid over

the past decade or so.

You may remember this disastrous

moment as Gordon Brown was recorded

discussing a member of the public

with an aide.

That aide was Mr Forsyth,

who'd then been working

on development for six years

in Downing Street.

As the chief executive

of Save the Children,

he became a major figure

in that field.

Since leaving Save the Children

in 2016 he became the deputy

executive director of Unicef

and the UN Assistant

Secretary General.

Those are the jobs he has now left.

The ripples from the global

movement against harassment

continue to spread.

Earlier, I spoke to Bri O Kieff,

who worked at Save the Children

between 2011 and 2013.

She told me about her experience

of the working environment

under Justin Forsyth.

Justinc came in with a mandate

to lead and shake things

up and make us more

aggressive and that's what he did

but a side effect of that was also

that certain toxic leadership

behaviours were tolerated.

That included temper

tantrums, yelling,

disrespectful behaviour,

being on call at all hours and no

way for any upward accountability

or feedback to

be brought through.

Worse than any threat

to your job, should you

question things, you would be

sidelined from some of the best

projects.

In this atmosphere,

a really toxic culture grew.

I guess he is taking

responsibility for his

actions now, isn't he?

He resigned from Unicef

saying he doesn't want

any more damage to the

sector or the industry,

even though he says

he

made his apologies

at Save the Children,

dealt with through a proper

process many years ago.

I do think that Justin has

done a better job of

apologising unreservedly

for the incidents that he created

but he hasn't taken responsibility

for the

repercussions to the people

who were involved,

which I don't think

have

come to light, mostly because those

victims want to remain anonymous.

But he hasn't taken any

responsibility for the culture he

fostered at Save the Children.

What was the impact,

do you think, on the

charity and the sector

itself more widely?

I love Save the Children,

I loved working there and I've been

haunted for a long time

by this experience.

One of the things that kept

many of us from speaking out

earlier was a desire to protect

the organisation that we loved.

There was no way for

us to speak publicly

about the behaviour of Justin,

Brendan and others who have still

not been named, without damaging

an organisation we love.

We are in an atmosphere,

a political atmosphere,

where many people want

to and are capitalising upon these

these crises in order to push

an anti-immigrant,

anti-global agenda and that is not

what I want to see happen.

But I do want to see

reform in our sector, I

want to see immoral

behaviours by powerful

people being addressed

and

this will improve the charities'

work over the long-term.

You said others that

have not been named, you

can't name them here,

but how many others

are you thinking of that

were

behaving in that way similar to that

when you worked there?

There are probably

a handful within Save the

Children and then there are other

charities who I believe need to take

a good long look at themselves.

Senior people

have been treating other people.

At the very top of the organisation?

At the very top.

Alongside, like with the Oxfam

scandal and Haiti, there

are a lot of cases of

people on the ground

level abusing the poorest

and

most vulnerable, who are in

desperate need of services.

These are apples and

oranges but they are

still fruit and that you have people

serving the most vulnerable who need

food and water and shelter

and they are being exploited.

And then you have ambitious

young career people

working in London

who are idealistic,

but they also end up exploited

and

all that is about power

and the patriarchy.

When people put to you,

as I'm sure they do,

that Justin Forsyth massively raised

donations coming in,

that he was a force

for enormous good in

the time he worked for

the

charity, what is your response?

What is challenging

about all of these issues

is that people can be both

good and bad all at once and I feel

similarly about Brendan.

I loved working with him

for a long time, he

was actually very professional

and courteous in the office.

But it was an open secret

that he was up to no

good outside of the office

and somehow we were all groomed into

keeping this secret for him,

as the price we had to pay to do

very good work around the world.

I feel complicit in

that and that's one of

the reasons I'm speaking out now.

This may be used as a stick

by those who oppose

the foreign aid budget, to

politically speak out now, to say,

we told you so.

And I would say that

for those critics, their own

industries and causes close

to their hearts are not

immune to these scandals.

This is not a development sector

problem, it isn't an

international aid problem,

it is a society problem.

And they should be careful

as they move forward how

viciously they attack these things

because we don't know what industry

the Me Too movement

is going to hit next.

And a whole generation of younger

female staff are growing up

and feeling bolder and bolder and I

would count myself in those ranks

and we aren't going to keep

quiet for much longer.

I want to say that the work that

Save the Children and

Oxfam does is vital,

it is often unpopular

but it is desperately needed.

While people may be taking advantage

of the crisis I hope that

what comes out of the

process is sunlight that

disinfects it and makes

us better going forward.

Thank you very much.

Bri O Kieff there.

Justin Forsyth said in his statement

tonight that he did not resign

from Unicef because of the mistakes

he made at Save the Children.

They were dealt

with through a proper

process many years ago,

and he apologised

unreservedly at the time.

Save the Children said it had

commissioned "a root and branch

review of the organisational

culture" at the charity "addressing

any behavioural challenges

among senior leadership".

President Trump has said the age

limit for buying all guns

should be 21 years old.

By tomorrow, that may have changed.

Anyone looking for consistency

from America's commander-in-chief

on one of the most critical issues

of the age may be short-changed.

Last night, just before we came

on air, he declared schools

could be safer if certain

teachers were armed.

This morning, he'd

denied it in a tweet.

By this evening it was

back on the cards -

a great deterrent, he confirmed.

For those American students

who demand change -

showing a maturity and a commitment

to ending school mass murders that

may put their elders to shame -

the mixed messages will offer

nothing but frustration.

The financial and electoral power

of many of America's

legislators lies in the hands

of the National Rifle Association.

Today their chief told

the Conservative conference the anti

gun lobby were socialists,

intent on taking away

American freedom.

Our Father, who art in heaven,

hallowed be your name.

He prayed, and then he listened.

I was born into a world where

I never got to experience safety.

And peace.

And I don't understand

why I can still go

in a store and buy a weapon of war.

I'm from Stoneman Douglas high

school and I was there

during the shooting

and

I'm a survivor.

This was a chance for

the president to show he got it,

even if it required a crib sheet

to remind him what to say.

We heard from a father

who lost his daughter

in the Florida shooting and vowed

that America must change.

We are here because my

daughter has no voice.

She was murdered last week.

You go to the airport

I can't get on a plane with

but we leave

some animal to walk

into a school and shoot our

children.

And from a girl who asked

for the conversation to become less

polarised, more open

to thoughtful debate.

Our world right now is stuck

on what they believe and they don't

listen to what other people believe.

And then, after an hour

or so of listening,

the president spoke.

This is what he said.

It's called concealed

carry, where a teacher

would have a concealed gun on them.

They'd go for special training

and then they would be

there and you would no longer

have a gun free zone.

It was the only line

anyone would quote.

This morning it

transpired he hadn't said

it at all, it was simply the fake

old media who got it wrong.

Again.

By tonight he decided maybe

he had said it anyway.

Anyway, it was a jolly good idea...

A great deterrent.

The NRA agreed.

No surprises there perhaps.

Their chief, Wayne LaPierre,

put his finger on the real culprit,

socialism.

You should be anxious

and you should be frightened.

If they seize power,

if these so-called

European Socialists take over

the House and the Senate and God

forbid, they get the White House

again, our

American freedoms could be lost

and our country will be changed for

ever.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And that, don't forget, is the voice

of financial power in America.

They back the president

to the tune of $30 billion.

They back the president

to the tune of $30 million.

Does he have the appetite

to bite that hand?

Joining me now, John R Lott, Jr,

president of the Crime

Prevention Research Centre.

Can I start by asking you what you

felt and heard from those students

who were talking to Presidents Club

yesterday in the White House? Were

you moved? -- talking to the

president yesterday.

Anybody would

be moved, I guess, what's going to

happen, what's the impact of the

different laws they in place? We had

people talking about background

checks on private transfers, that's

been a number one thing people have

been asking for. But I can't think

of any attack this century that

would have been stopped in anyway if

that kind of law had been in effect.

You know, we want to do something, I

want to do something, but you want

to do something that will actually

be relevant for these attacks. I

think the president, who I think has

been consistent on this, about

allowing staff or teachers to be

able to go and carried permit

concealed handguns, is an era track

there.

So you would arm teachers in

schools? If you wanted highly

skilled teachers, they would have to

be top marksman and women as well as

teachers?

Right, well, you have 25

states, to varying degrees,

currently allowing teachers or staff

to carry. You don't need very many,

just a few at each place. The

alternative is to go and, let's say,

have an armed guard. The problem

with that is that having somebody in

uniform is like having somebody with

a neon sign saying, shoot me first.

Better to have teachers, then, who

have diddy marksman -- who have to

be marksman, a kind of SWAT team in

schools? Trump said that they would

get a bonus if they were armed. Is

that the route you would go down?

Look, in the last few years we've

had dozens of mass public shootings

which have been stopped by concealed

carry permit holders. There isn't

much difference here. About 17

million Americans have permits to

carry concealed handguns. These

individuals are extremely

law-abiding and even in the states,

you don't see any problems with it.

Would it just be teachers or would

it be of other members of staff?

Would you even arm the children? It

is a race to the bottom.

I think

that's a bit absurd, a two-year-old

being armed?

I'm asking you.

Well,

the point is, you'd have adults, OK,

who got additional training. We have

25 states. If you can point to one

problem, any significant problem...

I know of one accidental discharge

of a gun in all of the year is that

different states have had these

rules and no one was harmed. Beyond

that you find that these people are

very law-abiding, they haven't had

the problems. One thing that's

clear, not those places that have

allowed staff or teachers do have

permit concealed handguns have had

these kind of attacks. It's one

thing to put a sign in front of a

building saying, this is a gun free

zone, but another to say that

people...

I get that and I get that

the British culture has a different

take on this which is why we are

interested in your view, but

fundamentally, America loses what,

some 96 people on average every

month of every year to gun crime and

it doesn't seem worth considering

other issues, like background

checks, bump stock bands, like

proper mental health checks,

stopping selling guns to people

under 21? Why wouldn't you

incorporate any of those first?

Well, we have background checks,

there's a lot of academic literature

on that and unfortunately it doesn't

find that they be dues crime in

anyway. Think of it this way, how

easy is it for you to find illegal

drugs? -- that they reduce crime. In

college, 70% will say they can get

it. The same groups selling illegal

drugs are the same ones that sell

illegal guns. If I clicked my

fingers and caused all illegal drugs

to disappear from the United States

and all guns, how long would it be

before the drugs started coming back

in? 20 minutes. And how long before

those same gangs brought in guns to

protect their property?

Do you

believe that those calling for gun

safety laws were socialists,

politically motivated to reduce

American freedom?

Well, my big

concern about the gun control laws

is that they basically disarmed the

most honourable people in our

society. -- the most vulnerable

people. In Washington, DC, it costs

$125 to do a background check on the

private transfer of a gun. Who do

you price out of protecting

themselves and their families? Poor

minorities who live in high crime

areas.

Thank you very much, thank

you.

Are we too ideologically

resistant to the idea

of medicating depression?

A major scientific study -

the largest ever of its kind -

suggests that more than a million

extra people should be offered

antidepressants or other treatments,

and we should not be squeamish

about treating mental health

problems with drugs.

But they also recommended that

prozac - one of the best known, but,

they claim, least successful -

be swapped for others that

consistently perform better.

Katie Razzall has the story.

I don't know if you've ever been

driving and you just miss running

over a child and you feel completely

sick in your whole body.

It felt like that

but it never stopped.

Or, I don't know

if ever you have been

on a plane where there is an

emergency landing and you think you

are going to die.

It was like that, but

it just didn't stop.

I had this feeling I was

going to fall and the

pit was bottomless and I had

to hold on for dear life.

It's estimated mental

illness affects one

in four people in the UK each year.

For many of them, today's study

may be welcome news.

The drugs work for moderate

to acute depression is the

message.

Though some antidepressants are more

effective than others.

The number of prescriptions

for antidepressants in the UK has

doubled over the ten years

between 2006 and 2016.

There may be some overprescription,

those behind the

report accept, if the drugs

are given for mild depression.

But the bigger issue

for them is the 1

million people in the UK

who are missing out

on treatment entirely.

The big problem is that there

is a huge proportion of patients

who need the treatment

because they have

moderate to severe depression.

Yet they do not receive

an effective treatment.

When I say effective

treatment, I mean either

pharmacological antidepressants

or psychological.

And the other big problem

is untreated depression can

be fatal.

Rachael Kelly had her first

serious episode of anxiety

driven depression when

she was in her 30s.

I was suicidal and I was screaming

and saying I wanted to

die, and I felt so ill.

She spent a couple of

years on antidepressants

then, and again a few years later.

With such a stigma still around

mental illness and antidepressants,

she believes today's

report will help.

I think I felt a sense of relief,

because I think it is bad

enough feeling very depressed

and then to also worry whether the

treatment is the right treatment

or the wrong treatment.

I think my experience

is when you are severely

unwell, and if you are in

hospital and you are

suicidal, in a way,

the

whole debate is bonkers.

When you are that unwell,

you are going to try

and find drugs to get you

better.

The research shows that while more

than 90% of the world's

big pharmaceutical

companies were investing in

research in new drugs

for psychiatric conditions like

depression and schizophrenia back

in 2012, now only 27%

of them are doing so.

We need to innovate and find

new treatments to help people feel

better.

That is the big challenge

for the future.

Are you saying at the moment

the pharmaceutical

companies are not doing that?

No, because at the moment,

it is not cost-effective for them.

Some psychiatrists

believe the use of

antidepressants on a day-to-day

basis is already too high, so there

is some resistance to the suggestion

in today's report that more people

should be given the option of drugs.

Long-term use of antidepressants can

cause physical adverse effects,

including sexual impairment

and sometimes that can persist when

people stop taking medication.

They can cause

suicidal and sometimes

aggressive impulses in young

people, in particular.

They can cause foetal

abnormalities and they can cause

very prolonged and severe withdrawal

syndromes in some people when they

try and stop them.

And the mental impact

of long-term treatment, I

also think, is significant, because

they give people the message that

they need treatment

and that they are not able

to manage their problems themselves.

It was a stigma to take the drugs.

When Rachael Kelly was ill,

antidepressants were

the answer.

But she says ideally drugs

would be used only in the

short-term and they are not

the only solution.

Talking therapy, mindfulness, diet,

and even Sammy the dog

have all played a part

in her recovery.

She has kept the card on which

a psychiatrist wrote a message

when she was at her bleakest.

It says, "you will get better."

And I used to hold

onto this card for dear

life.

I sit here as someone who is well

now, and I did get better.

And other people will get better.

So anybody who is watching

who is feeling a bit emotional,

anybody who is out there

who is suffering, my

heart goes out to you and I

would not wish it on anyone,

but I do believe firmly

that you can get better.

Joining us here James

Davies, psychotherapist.

And Dr Helen Stokes Lampart,

practising GP and chair

of Royal College of GPs.

Very nice to have you here. Helen,

when you saw the study, what was

your first reaction?

I don't think

any GP in the country will be

surprised to hear that in many cases

the drugs work. We don't ascribe

antidepressants thoughtlessly, we do

it with the best interests of the

patient in mind, we do it because

they benefit many patients but is

only one way of treating depression.

Will it liberate more GPs to hand

out more pills, will it make it

easier for people to ask for them?

It will make it easier for some

people to overcome the stigma of

asking, dictation. I don't think GPs

have been inhibited from having the

conversation about medication but we

need time to have open

conversations, we need the range of

treatment options available. This is

helpful, clarifying certain things.

There has been a lot of myth in the

media about this so it's good to

have a conversation.

That's a pretty

good step, isn't it, if it removes

the stigma and people can talk about

it.

Anything that helps people to

speak about their emotional

difficulties is positive but we are

deeply concerned about the study, in

particular because it tells us

nothing that we don't already know.

The research says that the

difference between antidepressants

and placebo is very minor, in fact

clinically insignificant. What that

means is that there's any register

in the difference in a person's

real-world experience. The

differences are remarkably minor.

When it suggests up to 1 million

more people would benefit from

having treatment, drugs of some

kind, do you agree?

I don't at all,

I think that's an overstatement.

Unlike placebos, antidepressants

have side effects in between 40-70%

of people, depending on the study

you consult and they generate

withdrawal effects for around two

thirds of patients. In a large

cohort of those persons, the

side-effects are severe -- those

withdrawal effects are severe and

may last for years. We're very

concerned that the study is being

spun in such a way as to wrongly

lead people to believe that these

drugs are more efficacious than they

are.

Do you believe that there is

under medication in this country?

They're absolutely as well as there

is some over medication. It is a

difficult area, for some people

tablets are not the right thing but

others are reluctant to come forward

when there may be benefit. I

recognised some of what James is

saying about the study.

And

withdrawal? This isn't the same kind

of addiction, it isn't Mike being

addicted to cocaine, it's a

different experience it must be done

slowly and gradually and in a

supported way. But it is hard, isn't

it?

For some people, yes.

When you

are going through this, do you

explain it? You may had it out for a

short period of time.

Generally you

don't hand them out for a short

period, they are designed to be

taken for a minimum of six months,

following benefits. If you benefit,

at least six months, they aren't

designed for short-term use.

Is this about saving money?

Encouragement to say a medication is

quicker than therapy until?

Money

plays a huge role and if you look at

the research it says most to

approach their GPs for help with

emotional problems would prefer

psychological therapy or talking

intervention. Unfortunately they end

up with an antidepressant in most

cases because provision for nondrug

alternatives is woefully low.

We

would agree on that, there is not

enough talking therapy on the NHS

and waiting times are a problem.

This research looked at people

taking drugs for eight weeks only.

The majority of people in the UK

take these medications for many

months and in many cases many years.

The relevance of this finding that

those patients is in question.

Thank

you very much.

But it is the biggest

study ever.

If you need details of organisations

which offer support with mental

health you can find them

at bbc.co.uk/actionline.

Or you can call for free,

at any tim,e to hear recorded

information on zero 8000 564 756.

If your day has been a tough one

think on this - you were not,

at least, stuck in an EU Exit

and Trade Subcommittee for nearly

11 hours in Chequers.

Unless, of course, you were one

of those and you've just switched

on Newsnight to find out

what actually happened

after you dozed off.

This is the meeting that hopes

to finally resolve whether the UK

will seek to retain close regulatory

alignment with the EU.

We're not expecting any details

from the PM before Thursday.

Mr Corbyn is hoping

to pip her to the post

with an announcement

of his own position

on Brexit next week.

Tonight Emily Thornberry told

LBC's Iain Dale that

Labour would replicate

the customs union post-Brexit.

He's here now with Times

columnist Matthew Parris,

and the director of the Centre

for Labour and Social

Studies Faiza Shaheen.

Welcome.

Tell us what you heard

today? Emily Thornberry came in to

do a phone in and the customs union

is the thing, we expect Jeremy

Corbyn to make an announcement on it

on Thursday. I thought I will not

ask what he will say because she

will not tell me so I just said,

your thinking is developing the

customs union, isn't it, Emily? She

said, absolutely it is and we don't

intend to stay in the customs union

but we will have something as near

as damn it to it which would mean we

would not be able to agree our own

trade agreement. She said Britain

would have a special role with the

EU in negotiating trade agreements

but by the EU would agree I do not

know. Is she going out on a limb? I

don't think so, I think this is what

Jeremy Corbyn will announce that

will be interesting because 65% of

Labour members voted to remain but

that is not the same for Labour

voters and I think there will be a

lot to say we have heard rhetoric

from Corbyn about respecting the

wishes of the British people,

staying in the customs union

effectively means partially staying

in the EU.

Laura Kuenssberg has said

that the UK, the Cabinet agreed that

the UK wants to stick to standards

on its own terms. What does that

sound like to you?

You are going to

ask me. What does that sound like?

We have heard so much language

created to cover up the fact our

government has not got a decision on

what they are doing and how they

will do it and I'm not sure -- I'm

sure I am not the only person

frustrated. We have business lobbies

coming up with their own plans. We

might have divergence, we have to

look at the Northern Ireland border.

There is no clarity. It is a

breakthrough of unity. This is what

Laura is hearing. Matthew, from the

snippets coming out, do you feel the

Cabinet can now say we are united?

No. They could not have because we

know that they are split among

themselves and have different

opinions. There is no way Philip

Hammond can look at Liam Fox in the

eye and say we are united. We have

to treat these early rumours with

caution. You know dreams you have

when you are about to take an exam

and you have not read the syllabus?

I think Mrs May probably has a

nightmare that she is about to

announce a Brexit plan and she has

not got one.

What do you think they

are doing, from lunch onwards? I

think it has just broken up now.

Repeat the phrase again Laura said,

they agreed what?

From what I

understand they have agreed... A

breakthrough of unity in the Cabinet

for now, according to one minister.

James Forsyth, the political editor

of the Spectator reports they have

agreed on divergences. Within the

Cabinet? ! Divergence from EU

regulations, as you well know!

Managed divergences. That would be

seen as a breakthrough for the Prime

Minister because she would've got

Philip Hammond and Amber Rudd and

David Lidington onside. I have my

doubts that is the case because

think Matthew is right, there is a

splitting Cabinet. The Brexiteers

slightly have the upper hand. I do

not think Liam Fox, Boris Johnson,

possibly David Davis, could live

with a situation where there was

going to be more or less full

regulatory alignment. They will be

alignment of things, in particular

industries, it is in our interests,

but we have to have the freedom not

to do that.

A source told Laura that

divergences as won. You are now

cheering, if this is right?

I do not

see the point of leaving if you are

just going to obey all the rules in

perpetuity without any say in how

they are adopted. It may be in some

industries we mirror EU regulations.

I do not say we have to be

completely divergent but we have to

judge a case-by-case.

If Jeremy

Corbyn, John McDonnell, going to

come out next week and say, we think

there is now a change of heart,

policy for labour, do you think that

is where we will get to?

What does

that mean for the Northern Ireland

border when you have divergences?

This has been the problem. We seem

to go it at the wrong way making it

more about politics rather than

thinking about what it means for

people and in particular the border.

What can you do there? We have this

conversation and you come back down

and save Northern Ireland and

Ireland.

I do not want to put words

in Matthew's mouth, but people on

the Remains side see it as an

insoluble problem. It is not, when

you have the Irish government who do

not want a border, the British

Government and EU do not want a

border.

Let Matthew put words into

his own mouth.

A bespoke customs

arrangement...

Lovely phrases. This

spoke customs arrangement, deep and

special partnership. They are words.

Will we get a hard or soft Brexit,

if what you have heard is true, it

will be hard. In that case, I think

there is a majority in the House of

Commons with all the Labour Party,

if they go for customs union, as

seems likely, and 50, 60 members of

the Conservative Party who have a

majority for blocking this.

You now

trust that Corbyn will go one away

with the support probably of the

SNP, the devolved nations, the lords

as well probably. Can a Theresa May

government survive that?

I do not

think so. There is no majority in

parliament for that outcome.

As a

remain conservative, how would you

vote if it came to an election? A

general election?

Yes. I could not

vote for Jeremy Corbyn as Prime

Minister. I would stay in the

Conservative Party so I could vote

against Boris Johnson and Jacob

Rees-Mogg becoming...

If it was more

report -- comportment to give your

remain vote to Jeremy Corbyn?

I

would be torn, I suppose loyalty to

the old tribe would prevail but

there will be millions for whom it

worked.

People make speeches and

then sort of run away, they bottle

it and we do not hear anyone

clarifying or changing position. Do

you think next week is the week we

will hear a defined new Labour

position in your heart?

Things are

moving and we are coming to a point

where people are frustrated and

saying we are getting to the one

years since we triggered Brexit, how

can we not have a plan? Business is

rightly saying we cannot go on like

this. We hear from workers, in work

spaces the investment is not being

made, employers holding back in

terms of wages. We have to hit the

point where Labour themselves, there

is pressure for them to come up with

a solid plan. I think it has to

happen now and if it does not

happen, the repercussions for

people'slives in this insecure

environment, we also found a

majority that worry that the economy

is a threat to their employment

because they do not know what is

happening. Our politicians have not

done their job and they need to roll

out plans and say what they are

going to do, especially the

government in power.

You are right

the government have to say more

about their plans. We expected it

three months ago and hopefully we

will get it next week. Another

development tonight, Anna Soubry has

put down an amendment to the trade

bill calling for a customs union.

There are not 60 Conservative

members of Parliament who would vote

for it, but there probably are a

dozen, 15, which in theory the

government could be defeated and

then you would go to a situation

where you have a vote of confidence

presumably. Theresa May cannot allow

that to go through because it

undermines her strategy. Assuming

there is a strategy. There could be

interesting times.

Does it help the

Conservatives and Brexiteers if

there is a more solid commitment

from Labour to the customs union?

It

is difficult. I think Labour are in

a cleft stick with their own

supporters and membership. You will

rightly say the Conservative Party

has it on this but Labour does too.

If there were a general election and

parliament voted to stay in the

customs union, a form of it, and

Theresa May thought she could not

carry on on that basis, I do not

know how the parties would go into

election. Is anybody cancelling

holidays? No, and I will not make

any more election predictions.

We

have conflated two plans, one for

the transition period and the other

after the transition period and it

is possible the Cabinet agreed there

will be diverges after the

transition period or staying

together during it.

I think that is

right. Do you think Jeremy Corbyn is

now sniffing power?

The membership,

Labour membership support staying in

the single market but if we run the

election, what happened last year,

domestic issues matter and that is

where the Conservative Party has

failed massively and because of

Brexit they have kicked the can down

the road on issues and there have

been consultations after

consultation. If there were another

election, Labour could go hard and

it would help them on Brexit.

We

have run out. Thank you.

Evan's here tomorrow.

Till then, goodnight.