05/11/2017 Sunday Politics London

Good morning, everyone,

and welcome to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith.

And this is your guide to everything

that's happening in the world

of politics this Sunday morning.

On today's show:

Theresa May's right-hand man

Damian Green has denied claims that

police found pornography

on a computer in his office in 2008.

He says the allegations by a former

police chief are "political smears."

With claims of sexual harassment

at Westminster growing by the day,

can either Theresa May

or Jeremy Corbyn do anything to get

to grips with a scandal

threatening to engulf

the entire political class?

We'll ask a minister and senior

member of the Shadow Cabinet.

And some on the left of politics

have been gathering to mark 100

years since the Russian Revolution,

but was it an event that should be

mourned, rather than celebrated?

George Galloway and Peter Hitchens

will join me live.

In London, why the mental health

consequences of the Grenfell Tower

fire could prove the

greatest challenge yet.

So there's plenty of

explosive political news

to get you in the mood

for bonfire night -

and with me as usual,

three journalists who know quite

a bit about parliamentary plots -

if rather less about

gunpowder and treason.

It's Tom Newton Dunn,

Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.

So what are the big political

stories making the news this Sunday?

Well, the papers are brimming

with further allegations against MPs

in the sexual harassment scandal,

which according to one newspaper has

left Westminster frozen in fear.

First Secretary of State Damian

Green, already under

investigation over allegations -

which he strongly denies -

of propositioning a female activist,

is the subject of new claims that

police discovered pornography

on a computer in his Westminster

office in 2008.

Mr Green denies the allegation,

made by former senior

police officer Bob Quick,

saying it is "completely untrue,"

and adding that he is the victim

of disreputable "political smears."

Michael Fallon, who resigned

as Defence Secretary this week

over his past behaviour,

is also subject to fresh claims

he lunged at a female journalist

in 2003 after a lunch.

Labour is facing questions

over its handling of sexual

misconduct allegations.

This morning Shadow Cabinet minister

Dawn Butler refused to be drawn

on whether Jeremy Corbyn knew

about alleged misconduct by MP

Kelvin Hopkins when he was promoted

to the Shadow Cabinet.

And there is a reminder that normal

political life goes on,

with reports that the Cabinet has

agreed to put housing at the heart

of Philip Hammond's upcoming Budget.

Well, let's hear from

Home Secretary Amber Rudd now -

she was on the Andrew Marr Show

earlier talking about the claims

against her Cabinet colleague Damian

Green.

Absolutely not. I think it is

something that will take place in

terms of clearing out Westminster of

that sort of behaviour, and I think

that Westminster afterwards,

including the Government, will be

better for it. When we are confident

that men and women can work any

respectful environment and people on

the receiving end of abuse of power

can come forward. That will be a

positive thing.

Let's see what our panel make of

this fairly explosive week. Good

morning to all of you. Starting with

you, Steve. Not a party political

issue but the Tories are in

Government. How much harder for them

is it an Labour?

Always harder when

you are in Government because it

makes governing almost impossible.

And the wider context is a Prime

Minister who lost her overall

majority a few months ago and

actually that is the context of

everything. When you are having to

deal with the scandal of such

unpredictability, where the

terms are so imprecise, it is a

"lunge", a resignation issue, to use

that term, and nightmare. I don't

think it is fatal. Scandals rarely

bring down governments, but it makes

governing for Theresa May a form of

political health.

Isabel Oakeshott,

Damian Green has denied all

allegations made against him, but

there are more this morning. He is

being investigated by the Cabinet

Office at the moment. If Theresa May

were to effectively lose her Deputy

Prime Minister, has serious without

the?

I think very serious indeed. I

think it is very significant and

strange he was not defended in the

Home Secretary Amber Rudd in that

clip we saw today, she didn't say I

am certain he will survive, and I am

beginning to feel that Damian may

not survive this. We don't know

whether it is the last of the

allegations that may come out in

relation to him. It seems to me that

the allegations were previously of a

rather minor order, but this seems

to have escalated. And I think one

of the big problems for Theresa May,

and there are the many at the

moment, for months we have been

saying that this Government has no

bandwidth to do anything except

Brexit and right now she can't even

do Brexit. What is the point of it

all?

It is important to make clear

not only that Damian Green denies

all of these allegations, but the

computer mentioned was in a shared

office so there is no reason it

would definitely be his

# No guarantee it would definitely

be his. But we have had two MPs on

television this morning, Anna

Soubry, saying he should stand down.

There is an awful lot going on here.

It is not just a pretty awful sexual

harassment scandal. There are also

without a doubt MPs, police

officers, going about settling

scores. For me I have to say for our

pretty discredited police officer

Bob Quick, to make accusations

against serving Cabinet minister, to

suggest he should go for extreme

pornography on computers he may or

may not have known, it may be

extremely distasteful but it is

alarming for democracy to have

ex-police officers like this coming

in and trying to play with

democracy. Some politicians are also

meeting claims, some for the right

reasons to get the allegations out

there and so on but others for their

own agendas and all of this puts the

Prime Minister in an unbelievably

hard situation. I agree with Steve

and Isabel, she desperately needs

two show leadership in all this, but

every way she could turn there are

incredible downfalls, people blaming

her for trying to get to the bottom

of all this. It is very people who

she is relying on for her

leadership, the very Tory MPs the

support she can't lose.

It is not

just the Tory party and of course

Jeremy Corbyn will be making a

speech later today where this will

inevitably and there are accusations

about how the senior leadership in

the Labour Party have handled this.

What about that situation?

Yes, but

the Government is much harder

because you are meant to be doing

10,000 other things at the same

time. This is about a deregulated

work environment. For all those who

say, I hate the way Britain is too

regulated, this is what happens in a

deregulated work environment. The

House of Commons has no HR or

whatever, MPs, advisors, so, MPs

actually don't have much power but

they do have power over who the

point and how to treat them. I think

this is the way forward in terms of

the practical outcome, but it is

across the political spectrum.

But

it is unclear what it will be. Can

the party sort this out?

I'm not

sure I entirely agree, Steve, you

cannot regulate all human

interaction and a lot of these

stories have been about interactions

between politicians and journalists

alike, who have gone out for lunch,

chosen to drink, presumably to

create an informal atmosphere, and

at what point is a step towards

somebody to say goodbye, a peck on

the cheek or whatever, a lunge? You

can't regulate that sort of thing.

Throughout the programme will come

back to some of these things and how

they might be regulated.

Now, the Home Secretary has

also today been talking

about what she calls the "moral

duty" of social media companies

to stop child sexual exploitation,

ahead of a meeting with her US

counterparts this week.

We're joined now by the Home Office

minister Sarah Newton -

she's in our Truro studio.

Thanks very much for coming in to

speak the first night. I want to

talk to you about the Government's

efforts to tackle child pornography,

but let's pick up on some of the

sexual harassment issues at

Westminster first. Two of your

parliamentary colleagues this

morning saying they think the first

Secretary of State Damian Green

should step down whilst being

investigated. Do you agree?

Look, he

has vigorously denied these

accusations, and the Cabinet Office

is investigating these accusations,

so we do have processes for when

ministers have these accusations

made against them so they are

properly investigated. And that is

what is going on at the moment.

Is

that process people can be confident

in? He is effectively being

investigated by Jeremy Heywood, one

of his colleagues.

This is a tried

and tested process that has stood

the test of time, and it is

important...

Has it? Surely what we

are learning is it has not stood the

test of time and that in fact

allegations like this have been

swept under the carpet and ignored

for years and years in Westminster,

exactly what we are learning right

now.

I think you are conflating two

things they are, and what we really

do need to do is look at the whole

range of allegations people have

been making, and make sure

Parliament is a safe place for

people to work, a respectful

environment for people who have been

subjected to harassment or bullying

or inappropriate behaviour, so that

they feel confident to come forward

knowing they will be listened to,

that there will be an open and

transparent and fair to everyone

concerned process for getting to the

bottom of it, and that is exactly

what the Prime Minister and the

Leader of the Cows have set out,

Prime Minister's meeting with all

the leaders of the parties tomorrow

to set out a proper process so we

can modernise the work environment

at Westminster -- leader of the

House have set out.

You think Damian

Green should remain in the Cabinet

well being investigated?

That will

be down to Sir Jeremy Heywood. If he

thinks the misdemeanours have a

basis, that he should stand aside,

that will be the recommendation. I

will not second the inquiry on what

Sir Jeremy Heywood finds.

You were

in the Whips' Office yourself for a

year. And much has been said this

week of the whips being in receipt

of a lot of information about bad

behaviour, and instead of reporting

it to authorities they were using it

as ammunition. Was that your

experience?

Absolutely not. I was at

the Whips' Office up to 2015 and,

yes, I heard about the rumours of a

black spreadsheet, and I can

certainly say I never saw such a

thing. How I went about my business

as a whip is really twofold. It is

quite a technical job in many ways,

about of the Government through the

House, working with the House

authorities, the opposition. Also...

Did you ever hear rumours of these

people's bad behaviour?

Sorry?

Did

you ever hear rumours of MPs

misbehaving, sexual harassment,

allegations are that?

If anybody had

brought a complaint to me about the

behaviour of one of the MPs who were

in my flock, I would take that

really seriously, but bull-mac, that

didn't happen.

You said nobody

brought you a complaint. Did you

hear rumours? -- but no, that didn't

happen.

About the members of my

flock? Absolutely not.

Is that the

MPs you were specifically in charge

of?

I did not have that experience

at all.

Let's move on and talk about

the Home Secretary's trip to

Washington this week, where she will

urge tech companies to go further

and faster on online child abuse. We

have heard a lot from this

Government urging these companies to

do something. One specific ideas of

what they could do, do you have a

clear idea of what you are asking

from tech companies?

Absolutely

right. As you know, this horrendous

crime of child sexual exploitation

and grooming is constantly evolving

as the opportunities for the

perpetrators arise. They are now

using live streaming, different

sorts of platforms, which are

largely controlled by the big

companies in America. What we really

want them to do is to step up and

use their huge expertise, used the

huge money they have got, to help

find technological solutions to read

their sites and rid the opportunity

of these paedophiles to be able to

groom young people. We need the

politicians in America to exert

pressure, as well as other

companies, because these are global

problems. We are not going to solve

this problem in the UK alone. We

have made a lot of progress, working

with Facebook and other companies as

well, but we really need to keep one

step ahead of the technology, one

step ahead of the perpetrators, who

are using these opportunities to

commit horrendous crimes.

It was back in 2014 Theresa May for

the Internet companies to do more in

terms of child abuse online and we

have not seen significant action,

and it does not appear these kind of

calls from the Government actually

make difference.

Well, at the moment we are seeing

the police being able to make about

400 arrests per month, about 500

children being safeguarded. The

Government itself is investing a lot

of money in new technology like the

project Arachnid, and making sure

the police have the specialist

resources they need to go

undercover, and absolutely find

these perpetrators and bring them to

justice, but we do need to

constantly have the engagement and

support of the companies themselves

to invest in further technologies to

prevent this from happening. As you

say, we have made progress but we

need to see yet more.

Sarah Newton,

thank you very much for speaking to

us today.

Michael Fallon's decision

to resign this week,

saying his past conduct with women

fell short of the standard expected

of the Armed Forces, led

to something of a minor reshuffle.

And the Prime Minister took

Westminster by surprise

when she announced his replacement,

former Chief Whip and relative

newcomer to the ministerial

ranks, Gavin Williamson.

Here he is speaking on the day

of his appointment.

It's an immense privilege to have

been appointed Secretary

of State for Defence,

and what we need to be doing

is continuing to focus

on countering Daesh,

making sure that our national

security is at the forefront

of everything that we do,

and we have some of the world's

greatest armed services,

and it's such a privilege to be able

to work with them.

Gavin Williamson, who you saw there,

arrives at the Ministry of Defence

at a challenging time

for UK defence.

The Government has promised

an above-inflation increase

in spending every year

but the Ministry of Defence

is already committed to finding

£20 billion of savings

over the next ten years.

The Cabinet Office is currently

conducting a security review

which will look at military

capabilities and funding up to 2022,

while there are continuing

reports of shortages

of manpower and equipment.

And if Labour were to win power,

questions persist over

what a Jeremy Corbyn premiership

would mean for defence budget

and the traditional cornerstones

of UK defence policy

like Trident and Nato.

Well we're joined now

by the Shadow Defence

secretary, Nia Griffith.

Well we're joined now

by the Shadow Defence

secretary, Nia Griffith.

Let's talk about defence spending

first. Would Labour commit to the

same thing this Government has which

is an above inflation increase in

spending every year?

We've been

absolutely clear about that. First

and foremost we'd meet our

commitment of spending at least 2%

of GDP on defence as is our Nato

commitment and we would match the

Government's year-on-year 0.5%

increase above inflation. This is

really important. Labour's always

had a good strong track record of

spending on defence.

Jeremy Corbyn

seems to have a different view.

Speaking at a protest in 2010 he

said Labour wanted to fight all the

cuts except those in the Armed

Forces where we want to see a few

more cuts taking place. He doesn't

seem committed to defence spending?

In the manifesto for this year's

election, 2017, he and John

McDonnell have been absolutely clear

we support the exact words I've been

using now, at least 2% of the spend

of GDP spent on defence.

Jeremy

Corbyn's changed his mind on that?

He's been very clear about that and

it was in our manifesto this year.

You criticised the Government on

whether they meet their 2%

commitment on defence. You saying

they were fiddling the figures

because they were including

pensions. You would strip that out

and snake sure there's 2% spending

on defence which doesn't include

pensions?

Technically, the

Government would argue you are

allowed to include pensions by the

Nato rules. But we've been very

clear, really, when you're talking

about defence spending it should

mean defence. When you look at the

last year of the Labour Government

we spent 2.5% GDP on defence. We are

very much committed to looking at

what we need in our defence budget

and looking to the problems they

have now where they can't meet the

commitments they've made.

You would

sprip pensions out of those figures.

In order to live up to these

commitments you have to find an

extra billion for the defence

budgets because we're not

calculating pensions anymore?

John

McDonnell is well aware of what they

are doing. Putting in the conflict

resolution money which Gordon Brown

kept separate. He is well aware of

the figures and the difficulties. We

are certainly very committed to a

defence budget that really does make

a difference.

I'm not clear whether

you're telling me it will be 2% 69

spending, excluding pensions?

We

want it to be 2% of GDP as in the

way Labour always calculate it had

up until 2010, not including

pensions.

A significant increase in

military spending?

We are talking

about making sure the spending we

need is there because, at the

current situation, we have with the

current Government, they are

overstretched. Even the very caution

National Audit Office says they are

at immense risk of not being able to

meet the expenditure commitment the

they have made. Others talk about a

black hole. You mentioned it that

£20 billion. There is a real issue

we have to address.

To you know what

it will cost, how muchedingsal funds

will have to be found?

We have to

rook at what are the needs at the

time as well as the facts we want to

make that 2% commitment not

including things which have just

been brushed in now by the

Conservative Government.

Let's move

on to a different aspect of defence.

There is a treaty banning nuclear

weapons opened at the UN for

signatories. 122 countries have

already signed it. Would an incoming

Labour Government sign that treaty?

The important point here is there

was an Is inned opportunity for

there to be observers from the UK.

There should have been at that

treaty talks.

That doesn't change

the calculation whether or not an

incoming Labour Government would

sign that treaty?

We are committed

to a strong multi-lateral disarming

programme. That's what we've seen

missing.

This is a multilateral

approach to try to get rid of

nuclear weapons. What you say you

want. Would a Labour Government sign

that treaty?

You we have to look at

how you go about things. We need toe

somebody clear we want to

de-escalate tensions across the

world. Work with other nuclear

partners to help stop the

proliferation of nuclear weapons. We

want to work with those countries

who feel very strongly about the

treaty so we can work together. We

have to do that in a multilateral

framework.

This is a multi-lateral

disarmament framework. Under the

auspice Is of the UN disto see how

else it could be organised. This is

a great opportunity for you, who

have been a lifelong campaigner for

disarmament.ment Labour Government

will be the first nuclear power to

do so, sign it and lead the way.

We

need to use our position to be

responsible and call for responsible

multi-lateral disarmamentment there

was progress made on this in the

eighties and nineties with

considerable amount of are heads put

to one side and destroyed. We need

to get back on the front foot there.

I don't see any presence by the UK

Government at the moment on that

aagain da. It is not helpful for the

nukes leer nations to be separated

from the non-nuclear nation in the

these debates.

That's why I don't

understand why you're not taking the

opportunity to say a Labour

Government would Take The Stand.

We

should wok together and we should

use our position as a nuclear power

to work for a multilateral

disarmament programme.

You were very

clear in your manifesto that the

Labour Party would keep Trident for

the meantime.

Abs will yously.

We

know throughout his life, Jeremy

Corbyn's long wanted to get rid of

it. He signed up to the manifesto

saying Trident would stay. Has he

changed his minds?

The important

thing is that was a manifesto

Jeremy, John McDonnell's agreed to.

We stood on it in 2017 because that

is the Labour Party position.

Absolutely. I'm asking if the Labour

Leader really believes in that

position?

He believes in democracy

in the party. That is the Labour

Party position. I don't see that

position changing at all. He has

said very clearly that he accepts

that is our Labour Party position.

And that is the manifesto we've

stood on and will continue to stand

on.

I'll need to ask questions about

sexual harassment in Westminster. It

is as much as inissue for the Labour

Party as the Conservative. It was

not clear listening to Dawn Butler,

your colleague on The Andrew Marr

Show this morning, she was asked

whether or not the leadership knew

about allegations by Kelvin Hopkins.

Do you know?

I absolutely do not

know at this moment in time. That's

why there has to be an

investigation. It is extremely

important to find out what the

allegations were, exactly what

happened, who was told and who told

what to whom. Then we will be in a

position to see what the situation

is. In the meantime, Kelvin Hopkins

has been suspended which is the

cricket thing to do.

Rosie Winterton

has been outspoken about what she

let the leadership know. If it is

the case the leadership did know

about these allegations should he

have been put into the Shadow

Cabinet?

The real question is who

did know what when.

But what I'm

asking you is...

I am anot going to

speculate whether there was an if or

whatever. We need to know how that

information was transmitted. Was it

put in writing. What it made clear,

who was told what, when. Until we

have a full investigation it would

be inappropriate to comment. What is

absolute lie clear, we need to get

this right for the future. We must

have proper procedures so we deal

with incidents as and when they

occur. And we deal with them

prepperly in a way which gets to the

bottom of the issue and deals with

it properly.

Why should anyone have

confidence the Labour Party will

treat issues that seriously when,

firstly there's a question whether

they knew about Kelvin hop kips and

others have been dissuaded from

making complaints. Knots just Bex

Bailey. Monica Lennon said when she

was harassed at a party senior

figures in the Labour Party told her

it was her own fault. It seems as if

there hasn't been a culture within

Labour to make a complaint.

That's

why we're having a thorough review

of procedures. We brought in new

procedures in July. We need to

ensure there's a proper helpline

available. We are appointing an

independent organisation which will

deal with allegations first-hand so

nobody has to go to somebody they

think might know other people, be

friends with other people. They can

go somewhere completely confidential

and private. These are often things

you can't want to tell your cross

friends about. We will appoint that

organisation and make sure people

can go there and access to it is

made widely known. It is very, very

important when people come into a

job, they know if anything does

happen, they will be able to

complain. Whether they are ordinary

party members or working in

Westminster.

Thank you for talking

to us

For Thank you for talking to us some

on the left of politics,

this weekend wasn't just a chance

to mark the anniversary

of the failed gunpowder

plot here in Britain,

but also events in Russia 100 years

ago, when Bolshevik revolutionaries

led by Lenin seized power

and ushered in seven

decades of Communist rule.

For critics, that's something

to regret, not celebrate.

Elizabeth Glinka went to one event

in London to find out more.

The 7th November 1917.

Red Guards under the leadership

of Vladimir Lenin begin to occupy

Government buildings in Petrograd.

This uprising, known

popularly as Red October

because of the difference

in the Gregorian calendar,

was, in fact, a coup.

The winds of socialist change had

been blowing for some time.

The Tsars had resisted reform

and millions toiled in a state

of almost medieval surfdom.

Then war.

Nearly two million

Russians would die.

The revolution had really begun nine

months earlier in February 1917.

The world's first socialist

republic was declared.

October, well that

was the Bolsheviks

asserting their authority.

A hundred years on, as this

event at the TUC shows,

there's still plenty of people

who want to remember and even

celebrate those momentous events.

Mainly as an event in history,

this is an example of historical

development in action,

the ability of people to club

together and be able to affect

the discourse of history.

It was people's first attempt at

trying to build socialism.

Although there were many terrible

things that happened,

I think we have to try

and draw from experience.

Jeremy Corbyn's close friend

and adviser, Andrew Murray,

was chairing the opening session.

He didn't want to talk to us

but we did manage to speak

to the daughter of one of the most

famous Communists of all time.

TRANSLATION:

It's an historic moment

which opened up possibilities

for further changes

and allowed other people

to strive for a different world.

A world, which it seems,

some are still keen to push for.

We're growing, so there is obviously

a positive reflection.

There is a lot of negative

propaganda that comes

from the Cold War period.

It is harder to talk

to older people maybe.

But younger people

are quite receptive.

The events and discussions taking

place here today cover a whole range

of topics from women's

rights to the Third World

and the impact on British socialism.

But there's much less discussion

of the Russian Civil War,

the purges and the political

repression that would come later.

We wanted to have this conference

because we wanted to show it

in a positive light.

Whatever one's view of what happened

to the Soviet Union subsequently

the fact is it is important

to understand the process

of revolutionary change

for its own sake.

Red October would usher

in 70 years of communism.

The proletarite would rise,

find respect and security.

But the suppression of the peoples

of Eastern Europe, the forced labour

camps and the murder of hundreds

of thousands, if not millions

of people, make it difficult

for many to see that revolution

as something to celebrate.

That was Elizabeth Glinka reporting.

So is the centenary

of the Russian Revolution a cause

for celebration, or regret?

Well, to discuss this I'm

joined by former Labour

and Respect MP George Galloway,

and the journalist Peter Hitchens.

Good morning. Let me start with you

George Galloway. Is the October

revolution a cause for celebration?

With the, if not for the October

revolution, we'd been conducting

this interview in German. Though the

truth is this interview wouldn't be

taking place and we probably

wouldn't be alive for a variety of

reasons. The Soviet Union broke the

back of Hitler, as Mr Churchill

often owe pined in Parliament and

elsewhere. If not for the Soviet

Union, Hitler would have ruled. And

his successorsness, perhaps until

now, from Vladivostok all the way to

Portugal.

You say we wouldn't be

able to have this discussion. In the

former Soviet Union we couldn't have

this office either?

That's also

true. But even the...

George will be

able to say, that of course.

Even

the sun has spots on its face as

they used to say in the Soviet

Union. There is no doubt tremendous

abrasions, big crimes, a lot of

suffering but, if not for the

transformation, then the Soviet

Union, Russia's GDP increased from

1930 to 190 and the Nazi occupation.

And the strength that defeated

Hitlerism would not have been there.

Peter Hitchens, does it offend you

there are people celebrating 100

years since the Russian Revolution?

Offend? No, but in the Soviet Union,

in which I lived, you would not have

been able to say it was set up by a

cynical bitch, almost bloodless, but

engineered by the German Imperial

Government using -- a cynical

putsch, almost bloodless. That this

was the inauguration of an immensely

long period of repression,

brutality, secret police,

concentration camps and lies, which

I am likely to have seen come to an

end in my lifetime, and I cannot see

why anybody looking at that

disastrous country where so much

misery was needlessly imposed on so

many people for so long could

possibly celebrate the beginning of

it, which was completely avoidable,

and as I say was truly the result of

the cynical foreign policy and

intelligence operations of the

Imperial German Government is trying

to save it skin...

But everyone

including George Galloway

acknowledges the tyranny and terror

that followed.

He doesn't. He gives

statistics about GDP but fails to

mention the people murdered in

labour

camp... He was of course formerly a

Trotskyite and sung the praises of

Lenin, which I have not done and

neither have I done today. I have

never been a Communist, unlike Peter

Hitchens, but I do acknowledge and

celebrate that an entirely different

world opened up as a result of the

events in October 19 17. China, you

have just seen their party congress,

decorated with the iconography of

the Bolshevik Revolution, and China

is the most powerful, or soon will

be the most powerful country on the

earth.

With one of the most

repressive government?

I don't think

that is true. There is repression in

China, but...

Enormous repression in

China! How can you possibly argue

there is an?

China has taken more

people out of poverty in the last 30

years than any country, resume,

system, ever has -- how can you

possibly argue there is not?

All

despots always argue, trying to

distract your attention from the

mountains of skulls behind them,

their supposed economic success,

which generally does not turn out to

be as great as claimed. The Soviet

Union was an enormous pile of rust

by the time I lived there and was a

complete catastrophe.

Yes, that is

why it fell down. But we are talking

about the Revolution 100 years ago.

Is it possible to separate the two

events? A popular overthrowing of a

government is perhaps different from

the tyranny and terror that

followed.

It was not a popular

overthrow. You sure this Eisenstein

propaganda as if it were fact. What

we see was a film made afterwards.

What actually happened was a putsch

in the middle of the night in which

hardly anybody... Nobody has even

mentioned...

That German connection,

a rather more important...

Nobody

has even mentioned during this year

until now that there was a Russian

Revolution. There were two. The

first one was a genuine uprising,

overthrowing the old regime, and I

think we can all be glad of it. The

second one was a cynical for --

foreign financed putsch and it does

not deserve to be spoken out.

Is

that true, and Menshevik revolution

would have done better than a

Bolshevik one?

It is not my business

and entirely counterfactual fiction,

if I may...

Unlike how you open this

discussion.

That is the most

important thing. If not for the

Soviet Union, we wouldn't be here.

Hetmyer might still, and most of the

world, with its allies -- Adolph

Hitler might have won and they make,

and most of the world...

The effect

of Bolshevism and coming is on

Europe was colossal.

Let's bring it

all a little bit more up-to-date.

You were saying earlier you have

never been a Leninist, although

Peter Hitchens confesses he was at

one time.

Absolutely was a

Trotskyist, and now nor the complete

folly of that particular political

disposition.

John McDonnell in the

Labour Party openly says he is a

Trotskyist, a Leninist, is that a

problem for the Labour Party?

I

would have thought, arts would be

more respected now than he has been

for quite some time as capitalism is

collapsing around our ears. From

2008 the Economist itself, the bible

of capitalism, began to resurrect

Marxist economics and analysis, so I

really don't think it is. Jeremy

Corbyn is not a Marxist. It only

took them four years, 54...

It is

not that.

I think we are moving into

an era where Governments like the

Chinese Government are making plans,

and are succeeding in implementing

them, and thus transforming their

position. China in 1949, and I don't

need to tell you, was just about the

most backward place you could

possibly imagine. And from 1949 to

now it has sold transforms that it

is the world's biggest economy...

We

are in danger of getting sidetracked

by China here.

I have to put this

point in. If China was backward in

1949 it was far more backward by the

time Mao Zedong finished his great

leap forward and starved millions of

people to death in the period of

economic lunacy. You just don't

notice...

What George was saying

they are, and a sense certainly

amongst younger voters in this

country and others, where they are

turning against capitalism, they

don't think it has worked or

delivered for them, that this kind

of Marxist Leninist philosophy is

becoming more popular?

Let's hope

not. The fact the current system is

failing does not seem to recommend

the Soviet system, which is

demonstrably a failure, and even its

own leaders admitted it failed and

that is why they tried to reform it

in the period I was there and why it

collapsed. Whatever you might want

to conclude from examining our

position, the Soviet alternative is

not the thing you want the dues.

This was a long period of disaster,

and I remember at the end of it

watching in Moscow said a film which

has never been shown here, and the

title means approximately we can't

go on living like this, and for the

first time, the politburo told the

truth about what life was like in

the dreadful place and everyone in

that cinema was weeping because

finally they saw the truth being

told about the dreadful

anti-civilisation in which they had

been taught to live for so long. The

idea we should celebrate it revive

it seems to me to be verging on the

obscene.

George, one interesting

question about this of course,

whilst there are events going on in

London and across the UK to mark

this centenary, it is not being

celebrated in Russia.

I was in

Russia a couple of weeks ago. There

is a big debate about whether it

ought to be, and many people are

celebrating it...

Vladimir Putin is

not. He would want to ignore it.

But

the Communist Party is the second

biggest party in Russia. And it is

the ruling party in China, which,

with respect, is not a separate

thing, because China is continuing

the Russian Revolution and doing

rather better at it than the

Russians did, but there are many

people, particularly older, that is

true, who think that the era of the

Soviet Union was better than the

very cold period of capitalism that

succeeded it. So half the world

followed for a time the red flag,

the red banner of Leninism. No one

will do so again. Leninism of the

kind that Peter used to proselytise

is certainly not coming back, but

Marxism is going to live on.

Let's

hope not.

Thank you both, gentlemen,

for coming on to speak about that.

It's coming up to 11.40am.

You're watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up on the programme:

We've taken the moodbox to where

else but bonfire night celebrations.

We've taken the moodbox to where

else but bonfire night celebrations?

It wasn't just Westminster

that had the fireworks this week.

We're asking people in Guildford

in Surrey,

does Theresa May have control

of her Government and her party?

First, though, it's time for

the Sunday Politics where you are.

Hello.

Welcome to the London

part of the show.

I'm Jo Coburn.

Joining me for the duration today,

Rosena Allin-Khan, Labour MP

for Tooting who succeeded Sadiq Khan

in the seat.

And Andrew Rosindell,

the Conservative MP for Romford.

Welcome to both of you.

This week, the Bank of England said

it believed up to 75,000 jobs

could be lost in financial services

following Britain's departure

from the European Union.

They fear that in the event

of a no-deal Brexit, these jobs,

the overwhelming majority

of which are now in London,

would be moved to the continent.

The Bank of England described

that is as a reasonable scenario.

Do you agree?

How many predictions have we had

from the Bank of England that have

been completely wrong?

I'm afraid that too many people

are making productions which usually

turn out to be false.

And they never think

about the new jobs that will be

created by the global

Britain policy we're adopting.

Huge opportunities for Britain.

Of course, there will

be an adjustment.

Of course some jobs may change.

Some may go.

But it's a huge opportunity, and

that's the way we should

be looking at it.

Which predictions have the Bank

of England got totally

wrong in the past?

Well, if you remember,

before the referendum, the CBI,

the Bank of England,

all sorts of international

organisations, financial

institutions, said that there

would be an economic downturn,

a massive one, that we would go

straight into a recession.

Well, none of that

happened, and actually...

And you're saying none

of it will happen?

No one can predict

the future of any economy.

Econominies do go up and down,

but I think Brexit has

not been a disaster.

In fact, I think it's

going to be a great success.

Rosena, do you think it is true

to say that Project Fear,

as it was dubbed in the run-up

to the referendum, predicted

an immediate economic hit,

if you like, and that hasn't

happened, many people would say -

is this phase two of Project Fear,

predicting that up to 75,000 jobs

may be lost?

No, I don't believe it is.

I actually think that this is a very

serious warning sign from the Bank

of England that this Government's

misguided approach to the handling

of the Brexit negotiations

is going to have a seriously

negative impact on jobs

and growth in London,

and no deal would have an absolutely

catastrophic effect for living

standards and jobs in London.

And is that because you want

to thwart Brexit, and actually try

and find a way of remaining

in the European Union?

It's not that I want

to thwart Brexit at all.

It's the fact that I can see

what is going on out there.

People are so shrouded with fear

at the moment because this

Government clearly can't

negotiate their way out of a paper

bag, let alone a good deal,

that there already relocating

to other parts of Europe.

I mean, there is evidence of that

already, and we had that tweet

from the Lloyds boss saying he's

looking forward to spending

more time in Frankfurt.

I mean, there's somebody

in the industry worried

about banking jobs that

are going to move the other

capitals in Europe.

Jo, I'm here to serve my country.

I believe in Britain,

and I believe we're going to be

a great successful nation outside

the EU, and I really do think,

and I say to the Labour Party,

I say to businesses,

the Bank of England, get over this -

we are leaving the EU,

we can be very successful

economically as we've

always been in the past.

The EU is not the reason

why Britain is a great

successful economic entity.

It's because of our own policies,

of our own ingenuity,

and we should let that be

successful, and not keep harping

on about a referendum

which is now history.

Let's move forward and make

Britain a success.

If I may, while the Conservative

Government are trying to throw us

over an economic cliff edge,

I'd like to ask you,

if you can give me the date

that we can expect the first payment

of the £350 million for our NHS?

Again, we're bringing party politics

into what should be a united

position to do the best for Britain.

But the Conservative Government

are completely divided?

Not at all.

We want the best situation

for the United Kingdom post-Brexit,

and we'd like you on board

to help us.

This should be a national task

to actually ensure our

people are prosperous

and that Britain succeeds once

we leave the European Union.

I'm afraid you may not like it

but we are leaving the EU,

the British people voted for it

and we're going to

follow it through.

Did people actually vote,

as Philip Hammond said,

did they vote to be poorer?

He says not.

Well, that's not

going to happen, Jo.

We are going to be trading

globally, make our own laws,

our own trade agreements.

The opportunities there are vast.

But how do you know

if you've just said

that the predictions on the other

side, it's impossible to be able

to forecast what's going to happen?

How are you so confident,

how can you guarantee

it's going to turn out

in the way you say?

It is very easy because we make our

own decisions like we used to do.

When we make our own decisions,

the British people always succeed.

When we trade globally,

when we make our own laws,

we can always succeed

because we are a confident people.

Can I just correct myself?

Earlier I think I said the head

of Lloyds, what I meant

was Lloyd Blankfein,

who is the Chief Executive

of Goldman Sachs.

Talk about conflating the name

of the bank and the name

of the person at the head of it!

But in terms of those predictions,

the numbers vary so hugely, and it

does depend on the trade deal

that the UK actually secures.

So you also can't predict, really,

with any confirmation,

that it will be as bad as the Bank

of England says?

Of course.

But I do know the Labour Party

want to protect the rights of EU

citizens living and wokking here.

So do we.

The Conservative Party don't.

We've made that clear, haven't we?

What I do know is the Labour Party

want to protect workers' rights,

consumers' rights and our

environmental standards

and the Conservative Party don't.

How do you know that?

What evidence is there

the Conservative Party doesn't

want to protect workers' rights?

Because I sit in the

chamber all the time.

I see how they vote against every

amendment we put out there in order

to prove that the EU put

workers' rights first.

You have a party, Andrew,

that's so divided...

Sorry, we're integrating EU

laws into British law

so there is a seamless continuation

of the existing arrangement.

The Repeal Bill has been stalled

again and again and again.

The only reason this

Repeal Bill's been stalled

is because of the political antics

of the opposition.

So, we want to actually continue

with sensible arrangements,

whether it's workers' rights,

the environment, citizens' rights,

all of that is sensible.

We don't want to jettison any of it.

You really shouldn't say things

that aren't correct.

That debate is clearly going to go

on over the next two years.

Now, the fire at Grenfell Tower

in June caused an estimated 80

deaths and over 70 injuries.

But the local NHS Trust says

that it is the long-term mental

health impact that could be

the greatest challenge of all.

A few weeks ago, Grenfell Tower

was covered up by authorities.

An indication of how traumatic

the sight of the ruin is for so many

survivors and local residents.

Experts say as many as 11,000 people

could be suffering from mental

health difficulties as a consequence

of the fire.

The man leading the mental health

response claims that makes

the central and north-west London

NHS Trust the largest trauma

response operation in Europe.

They're not just the people

in the tower but people

in the neighbouring area

who were evacuated.

And the area around it,

very often people have very strong

social links to people in the tower.

They knew someone in

there who was affected.

Then you have the bereaved.

And, of course, if you look out

from Grenfell Tower,

which I have since the fire,

you see lots of tower blocks,

lots of people could see the fire

over a very long period of time.

Those affected include the head

of London Fire Brigade Dany Cotton

who has herself sought counselling.

The trust has so far seen more

than 1,300 people for post-traumatic

stress disorder or related concerns.

But there are worries many

who are suffering will not

seek the help they need.

200 staff have been dedicated

to knocking on doors

to find these people.

Psychologists have also accompanied

at least 40 survivors

on visits to the tower.

They wanted to go into their old

flats to collect usually thinks

of sentimental value -

photographs and keepsakes -

and for a lot of people

they were saying that it also gives

them some sense of closure.

They realised it brought it

home that they weren't

going back into there,

and so they were able to move on.

The blaze last summer lasted 60

hours, but the toll it's had

on the mental health of so many

Londoners will not be

known for many years yet.

Joining me to discuss

this is Claire Murdoch,

CEO of the central and north west

London NHS Foundation Trust.

Welcome to the programme.

With the NHS straining at seams,

according to many people

who work within it, do

you have the wherewithal

to cope with this extra

mental health crisis?

We absolutely do.

We've been inundated with offers

of help from experts

from across the country

who want to come and

bring their skills into

Grenfell and work with us.

We've recruited to more than 100

additional therapy posts to start

to treat people suffering

from post-traumatic stress disorder,

and the Government and NHS England

combined have made it quite clear

that we must do the best

by the people of Grenfell.

Do you need more money,

though, to deal with this?

It's both more money and more

people, and we have both of those.

Right.

I mean, Dr John Green, clinical

director at the Grenfell Tower NHS

Mental Health Response,

says it's the largest mental health

operation of its kind in Europe.

Is that true?

We think it's true, yes,

because it's the largest

incident of its kind,

and it's got some exceptional

characteristics that mean

that the trauma that is felt will be

felt now and for a long time,

and will need expert treatment

as people experience,

over the coming year, two and three,

post-traumatic stress

disorder and other anxiety,

depression, and so on and so forth.

So we believe it is true.

So have you got the guarantees that

you are going to have the resources

at your disposal in terms

of the expert staff

as well as the financial resources

to deal with this in the long-term,

from the Department of Health?

Yes.

What's Jeremy Hunt

promised you, then?

Well, I don't know if Jeremy Hunt

personally has promised me this,

but what we are doing at the moment,

because of the extraordinary nature

of Grenfell, we are working really

closely with the local community,

faith leaders, third sector groups,

the GPs and others to ascertain

the extent of the need.

I mean, we are learning

as we go as well.

Obviously where our expertise kicks

in as the NHS is in evidence-based

treatment for trauma,

but what we are clear

about at the moment is where

the need arises we will meet it.

And that funding and personnel,

at the moment, do not look

like they will be a problem at all.

Right, your colleague,

Doctor John Green, has said

that the trust is doing a lot

of things that people

had never done before.

What does he mean -

what, for example?

I think given the extraordinary

nature of Grenfell, we are learning,

as the NHS, to bring our expertise

to bear with the different

communities there, so we're

doing lots of outreach.

For example, day and night we've got

nurses with backpacks on who've

knocked on more than 3000 doors.

We are in the churches,

in mosques, we were at

the Notting Hill Carnival.

We have just had an outreach team

working around Halloween

and then Guy Fawkes night,

making sure that any event that

comes that needs additional support

for local communities

we are able to provide.

Rosena, what do you make

of the authorities' response

to Grenfell Tower, particularly

in relation to what is now

a mental health challenge?

Well, first of all I would just

really like to applaud Claire

and her team for the sterling work

that they are doing, and I think

what happened at Grenfell Tower

is an unprecedented catastrophe

of unparalleled magnitude

which is going to have

to psychological, physical

and traumatic effects

for the ongoing period.

Now, this goes beyond party

politics, but there are lessons

that need to be learned.

Some of the response

happened far too slowly,

and for example there was a family

in Tooting who really really

suffered as a result.

Do you think the

response was to slow?

And are you reassured

by Theresa May's commitment

when she says that mental health

should be given parity of esteem

with physical health issues?

It's relatively easy to say that -

how do you actually back it up?

I agree with her entirely, and,

Claire, you reassured a lot

of people today I think

in what you've said.

It's a terrible tragedy.

Rosena's right -

it was absolutely awful and no one

could have predicted it.

We've got to learn the lessons

from that, and certainly in terms

of those people that are suffering

trauma after this event -

not only those from Grenfell

but the surrounding area,

we need to be there for them,

and the Government has committed,

and Claire's confirming this,

that there is the support there.

Yes, it should be parity

with physical illness,

and I think the Prime Minister's

made that very clear,

that that's going to be

one of her priorities

in the coming years.

An extra billion is being put

into that in the next two

or three years alone.

Right, do MPs get it?

I mean, you're a trained doctor -

do you think your colleagues

in the Houses of Parliament have

really appreciated the importance

of mental health as an issue today?

I still practice

medicine in the NHS.

I'm a frontline

emergency trauma doctor.

I see people coming in with mental

health issues all of the time.

I see people in my community

suffering with mental health issues.

I see people coming

in with physical manifestations

of mental health problems.

Since 2010 there are almost 7,000

less mental health doctors

and nurses in our communities.

I think that people like Claire

and her team can only do their work

if they're adequately resourced.

I think a lot of hot air's come

out of this Government

about mental health provision.

We need to see the walk

being walked, not just

the talking about talked.

Why were there cuts made to

the numbers of mental health staff?

I can't answer that.

It is a decision based on local

needs and whether it is a trust that

decides that or Central Government,

that's a matter decided

there and then.

What we've all learnt from this

incident is we need more resources.

We've heard today there

are resources going in.

No Government gets it right.

Let's face it, any party in power,

there's always need for more money

for different things.

But Theresa May's obviously made

this a personal crusade?

She has done.

I applaud her for that.

We've really got to make sure this

doesn't become a political football.

The people out there need support.

Politicians of all parties should

work together to make sure

in a situation like that,

adequate resources

are made available.

To improve mental health

for people who have suffered

in the tragedy of Grenfell Tower,

how important is the fact

they should be housed adequately?

It is undeniable people need

the security of a home and to know

where they're going to be living.

We would see it as generally,

you can provide more effective

post-traumatic stress disorder

counselling once people

are living somewhere settled.

So, housing's important.

A home is important, of course.

Claire, thank you very

much for coming in.

Thank you.

Now, crowdfunding is being

increasingly used to fund community

projects in London many of which may

once have been run by councils.

So, is this type of civic

crowdfunding digital

democracy in action or is it,

as some critics claim,

privatisation masquerading

as democracy?

# I need the dollar, dollar, that's

what I need. #

From the Shoreditch cafe and art

space to the Camden high line.

All these community

projects are trying to get

the public to part with their cash

through online crowdfunding.

And civic crowdfunding

for projects that

provide a community service

or improve local spaces is a growing

trend in London.

It has the support of councils

across the capital,

as well as the mayor.

Crowdfund London can help

you make a real difference

in your local area.

This is one of the projects

the mayor is backing.

A new library in

Cricklewood in Brent.

The old library was closed due

to council cuts sparking protest

from the local community.

Now volunteers are crowdfunding

to recreate that service.

We have no choice.

There's no other community

space here that has open

access for everybody.

I don't want to mitigate

this constant cutting

of funds to councils.

I don't agree with it.

However, we're living in that world

on local civic projects

and are trying to make

the most of it.

Spending on local civic projects

in the UK like on swimming pools

or parks is estimated to have

dropped from £3 billion annually

to £600 million annually.

So how does civic crowdfunding dove

tail with the services

councils must provide

within these constrained budgets?

Councils across the country have

been hit hard by austerity.

That definitely means that

some services pull-back,

but this is actually a really good

example of something optimistic

and fresh that happening,

something we are keen to support.

For me, crowdfunding is really

something that should happen

in addition to what councils already

do, and in a way

which is complementary.

Spacehive, the London-based

website which is working

with councils and the mayor,

claims to be the world's first

crowdfunding platform

dedicated to civic projects.

There's actually a very small

number of people who feel

that they have the opportunity

to shape their local area.

Civic crowdfunding

opens the space up.

It does allow more people to come

forward with ideas and to support

them if they wish to do so.

And it's in that spirit that local

authorities are embracing this.

A lot of people come in thinking,

isn't it exciting that we can

mobilise different sources

of funding for this sort of stuff?

But they are really attracted

at the end of the day by the social

value that this brings,

the way it empowers communities.

25 councils in London

have Spacehive accounts,

of which 16 have pledged money

to crowd funded project.

So far 226 projects in the capital

have raised £5.2 million

through that one website alone,

and that figure is expected to rise

to £23 million by 2020.

But the civic crowdfunding

phenomenon has raised

concerns in some quarters.

If crowdfunding starts to be

normalised, actually it starts

to shift what we expect the council

to provide, and actually in the US

they do crowdfund the maintenance

of pavements or sidewalks,

so it shows you in what direction

this could start to go.

I'm also worried about the

democratic aspect of all of this.

In order to fund services

you have to have the money

in which to fund them,

and for people who don't have extra

income to fund services,

they're not having a voice either.

So does civic crowdfunding make

it easier for people

to improve their communities,

or let local authorities

and the Government off the hook?

MUSIC: I Need A Dollar

by Aloe Blacc

Rosena, should crowdfunding

be used to fund what

are statutory requirements for

council to supply, like libraries,

for example?

I think councils are finding

themselves in such difficult

circumstances with the amount

their budgets have been cut that

they are faced with choices that

quite frankly aren't really a

choice, such as funding social care,

funding rape crisis centres or

keeping a library open.

They're not able to do all of them.

It's not really a choice.

They're having to close

libraries, and community-led

initiatives are sprouting up more

and more, and I think it's a really

good idea and I welcome what

the mayor's doing supporting local

good idea and I welcome what the

mayor's doing supporting local

council.

Is that how you see

crowdfunding being used, the

actually plug a gap because of

a lack of funding at local authority

level?

Well, let's be clear about this.

This is an amazing new way

of raising funds, to provide

for local community projects.

People want to give money

to good causes, whether

its charitable causes,

local community centres.

Even small businesses can

use crowdfunding as a

way of bringing in extra revenue,

so I think overall it's a very good

thing.

I do take the point that

councils have certain

responsibilities, and it's no good

councils just avoiding having to do

things themselves and it being

replaced by crowdfunding, but it

can certainly be an addition

to what councils are doing.

Right, so in other words

you don't think it

should be used for those

sort of critical -

so it shouldn't be letting

councils off the hook?

No, where there are

gaps and where the

councils can't do things,

and let's be honest about this.

We are living in a

different world today.

You don't have endless amounts

of money to spend on things.

If crowdfunding can actually be used

to secure local facilities,

then it's a jolly good idea

and we should encourage it.

But I've looked at the website

of the company that was in the film,

and they are doing things

like Good Food, Catford,