Unicef's deputy head quits. American schoolchildren v the gun lobby. Anti-depressant pills. Brexit.
Browse content similar to 22/02/2018. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
for the incidents that he created
but he hasn't taken responsibility
repercussions to the people
who were involved,
which I don't think
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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.
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,
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
American freedoms could be lost
and our country will be changed for
Thank you very much.
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
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
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
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.
that's a bit absurd, a two-year-old
I'm asking you.
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
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?
believe that those calling for gun
safety laws were socialists,
politically motivated to reduce
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
Thank you very much, thank
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
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
And the other big problem
is untreated depression can
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,
whole debate is bonkers.
When you are that unwell,
you are going to try
and find drugs to get you
The research shows that while more
than 90% of the world's
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
That is the big challenge
for the future.
Are you saying at the moment
companies are not doing that?
No, because at the moment,
it is not cost-effective for them.
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,
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
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
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
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
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.
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
For some people, yes.
are going through this, do you
explain it? You may had it out for a
short period of time.
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?
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.
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.
you very much.
But it is the biggest
If you need details of organisations
which offer support with mental
health you can find them
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.
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.
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?
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
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
Let Matthew put words into
his own mouth.
A bespoke customs
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.
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.
remain conservative, how would you
vote if it came to an election? A
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
If it was more
report -- comportment to give your
remain vote to Jeremy Corbyn?
would be torn, I suppose loyalty to
the old tribe would prevail but
there will be millions for whom it
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?
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
Does it help the
Conservatives and Brexiteers if
there is a more solid commitment
from Labour to the customs union?
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.
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?
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.
have run out. Thank you.
Evan's here tomorrow.
Till then, goodnight.