05/11/2017 Sunday Politics North East and Cumbria

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

Here, protests gather pace over

fracking for shale gas in North

Yorkshire.

And why the number of

apprenticeships has fallen so

dramatically, we report

from Teesside.

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?

Hello, and a warm welcome

to your local part of the show,

just for those of you clever enough

to have decided to live

in the North-east and Cumbria.

This weekend, why have the number

of apprenticeships

fallen so dramatically?

Just when they seem

to be needed the most.

We report from Teesside.

Talking about that and the latest

on the controversy around fracking

for shale gas in North Yorkshire

are Conservative MP

Kevin Hollinrake and the Labour

MP for Blyth Valley,

Ronnie Campbell.

Welcome to you.

We also have the Liberal Democrat

leader, I will be talking

to Sir Vince Cable about

the Northern powerhouse.

First though, it has been

a tumultuous week at Westminster,

with several of the North's MPs

talking of the need to tackle

a sexist and bullying culture there.

Newcastle's Chi Onwurah told

the House of Commons that both male

and female researchers had been made

to feel deeply uncomfortable in one

of the Parliamentary bars

but that the issue had not

been taken seriously.

I knew a number of researchers,

male and female, made to feel deeply

uncomfortable in the sports

and social club here

by members of Parliament.

I was told that that happens in pubs

all over the country.

Would the Leader of the House

confirm that the duty

of care that we owe

extends 24/7 and to every

restaurant, bar in this place.

Chi Onwurah in the House

of Commons this week.

What do we make of the events

in Westminster, and does

the culture need to change?

Ronnie Campbell, you've been

in politics for 30 years.

Is there anything you've heard,

with male behaviour

towards women this week,

that has anything surprised you?

It hasn't really, because I think

in the olden days it was more

covered up, and I think with women

coming in, the amount of women

coming in, now I think

it is coming to a head.

It used to be like that at one time,

I heard stories when we first got

there and I saw things

I shouldn't have been seeing.

Of course, it did happen but

hopefully we will get it sorted out.

The leaders will get together

and come up with a scheme

where people can be proud to go

on without complaints.

Without naming names,

what needs to happen to people?

It depends, just touching

a knee, I would not think

that was a resigning offence

but if you are groping somebody,

or rape, it was even suggested this

week that someone was raped.

That is a sacking offence.

Kevin Hollinrake, you joined

the House of Commons more recently

after a career in business.

What do you make of the culture

in Westminster, is it a problem?

If there is sexual harassment,

which clearly contravenes

employment regulations,

or sexual assault, it should be

reported to relevant authorities

and I think there is an issue

in Parliament, that you work

for an MP, or researchers can work

for an MP and there is no really

independent means of redress

of grievances, and we would need

to institute that in the House

of Commons, so people feel

if there is an issue,

they've got somewhere independent

they can go to.

The word "Culture" is an overarching

word, I do not think it is cultural.

I don't think most people

in Westminster are engaged

in sexual harassment.

There's always been

the idea that there are men

messing about, really?

It's a gentleman 's club?

It is changing, as the make-up

of the House of Commons is changing

but most members of Parliament

are not sexual predators, and do not

engage in sexual harassment.

Were things acceptable,

or appeared to be acceptable

in the past, that are not now?

Or are people calling this out now?

It's a cultural change?

In the past, it was swept under

the carpet, it would go to the whips

and would be swept under the carpet

as they did not want the scandal.

Usually it was shoved

under the carpet.

I can give at least two or three

really bad stories in the early

days, when it was dominated by men

at that particular time,

there were only half a dozen women

on the benches in those days but now

since more women are coming in,

and more researchers

coming in now as well,

I've never seen so many researchers,

because MPs have a lot

of money to bring them in.

All of these people

have to be protected.

We are not all predators, but those

that are need to be dealt with.

OK, the Liberal Democrat leader

Vince Cable will be meeting

the Prime Minister and other party

leaders on Monday to discuss plans

for a new independent grievance

procedure for all staff

working at Westminster.

He is with me in the studio now.

Sir Vince Cable, what do

you make of all this

and what needs to change?

I think as you have just heard,

we are talking about a wide

spectrum of behaviour,

there is something that is criminal

and that is rape,

it is a police matter.

There are minor things

and in between there is crass

and nasty behaviour by men,

usually, it can go the other

way but in practice men

are taking advantage of women

with whom they have

a good deal of power.

In the past, this has either been

tolerated or as Ronnie says,

it has been swept under the carpet.

It has happened in all parties,

nobody is holier than thou in this

area, and what we have come

to is recognising that you've got

to have a proper system

and it is dealt with.

We've had problems in the past,

in my party we have set up

an independent person,

we call them a pastoral care

officer, to hear cases of this kind

and it should be common practice.

Let's move onto other issues,

as important as it is.

You've looked at north-east

businesses when you have

visited here, and a lot

as a member of government.

What is your assessment

of the state of the economy now

as compared to then?

It has recovered from the depths

of the banking crisis.

We were in a terrible state,

businesses were going bust,

they could not get back credit,

deep recession, things

are closer to how they were.

And the north-east?

The north-east has, historically,

lagged behind the rest

of the country in many ways.

That is the legacy of manufacturing.

At the moment, it is partly

the uncertainty around Brexit,

but things are weakening

at the moment.

Certainly business investment is not

happening, companies are holding

back investment decisions,

with what will happen

in future and I think

things are a bit fragile,

to be fair.

One of the ideas, we are supposed

to tackle this North-South divide

but the Northern Powerhouse,

which was born while you were

still in government.

A lot of businesses and politicians

think it has done little.

I think that is fair,

to the extent to which it exists,

it's largely the cross Pennine idea

of bringing together Liverpool,

Manchester, Sheffield,

Leeds and Hull, it doesn't really

encompass the north-east,

it's been left out of the picture.

What would you do differently

with the Liberal Democrats

to change that?

I would do two things.

I think we need a lot

more public investment.

I accept you need to have budget

discipline that you need to treat

capital investment separately

to ordinary government spending.

They could do more in freeing up

the investment programme

with Network Rail, that would be

an obvious way of doing it.

Or the other, the communities

minister Sajid Javid

has been advocating,

the government borrowing to invest

in affordable housing.

We should be doing a lot more.

Without the Treasury stopping it.

The other point is having more

power in the regions.

You cannot run the country

from Whitehall.

Manchester, Birmingham, they've now

got quite powerful deals.

I heard you this week

criticising quite strongly

the north-east council,

failing to come

to a devolution deal.

But they looked at the deal,

they were supposed to accept it

and they said is not good enough,

are they supposed

to accept anything?

No, but the big conurbations,

the guys who run Manchester

and Birmingham, they are tough

and they basically have more

power and more control...

It's a better deal?

In the north-east, I think Teesside

has gone its own way and you have no

North and South Tyneside boroughs

squabbling with each

other and it does not

create a good impression

when you are negotiating

with government.

They've got to get

their act together.

Sir Vince Cable, thanks.

Kevin Hollinrake, you raise the need

for fair infrastructure spending

between the regions,

with the Prime Minister this week

at Prime Minister's Questions.

You accept that the government

has a long way to go?

It's been a problem for decades

which is why I raised the point

with the Prime Minister and have

done many times before.

We are putting more money in,

13 billion by 2020 and that will

help things like trans-Pennine rail.

Some of that is for

potholes, I understand?

Some of it is but hundreds more

trains and more seats on these

trains between Manchester and Leeds,

these are good things and we need

more money for our roads, railways,

the digital networks and I think

it is a time where we should

separate the current spending

from investment spending.

I think it is a time to look...

Does your government get that?

The answer was positive from

the Prime Minister on Wednesday.

A 50% in the next four years,

those are figures and facts,

but this is not North versus South.

For decades we have seen transport

investment happening in London

and the regions do not get the same

deal - for every £35

spent in Yorkshire, £100

per capita in London.

We want to see a fairer

distribution in future and this

is what the Prime Minister

agreed should happen.

It is the conservatives who are

delivering for devolution here.

We have the mayor on Teesside,

and there's a possibility

of Newcastle and Northumberland

getting this as well?

Yes, that's what they say,

but I think it is pie in the sky,

it's what is on the table

and we have not seen that yet.

We are getting positive answers but,

as you said before,

that is all we are getting.

Until I see the money...

But some of the money

being spent on new trains...

I haven't got the line in yet,

that's been on the go since I got

elected 30 years ago.

The link to the Metrocentre,

that will cost quite a bit of money

but I cannot see that happening

in my lifetime,

to tell you the truth.

I've waited 30 years already

and if devolution has to do that,

that is fine but I still think

it is pie in the sky.

We can hope, we will see

what happens in the budget.

Staying with the economy,

the government has made much

of its success in creating

new apprenticeships,

helping many more young people

in particular into work and giving

them the high skill

training they need.

But it wasn't until this month

where figures suggested the number

of people starting apprenticeships

had fallen dramatically.

As David McMillan reports, that's

been blamed upon the introduction

of a new charge on large employers.

Teesport, where the spirit

of seafaring adventure meets

meticulous industrial planning.

For many plotting a career

here, and apprenticeship

For many plotting a career

here, an apprenticeship

is the way forward.

I was always going to be

hands-on, some sort of trade

within the industry,

it was electrical that caught my eye

and I'm glad I picked that.

I'm one of the young generation

to come into the engineering world,

whether it is civil,

mechanical or electrical

but if you don't get one

you will struggle.

It's important to get

an apprenticeship.

But apprenticeships have

hit troubled waters.

A new apprenticeship levy

was introduced by the government

this year in boosting funding

and addressing the skills shortage

but the number of people starting

apprenticeships has fallen by nearly

two thirds in the first three months

since the assessment began.

Labour say that the government has

created an unnecessary problem

which could have a big impact

in places like the Tees Valley.

I think what has happened

is the confusion around

the introduction of the scheme has

a lot of people basically saying

it is too difficult and I will not

get involved at all.

For employers paying the levy,

they are using the cash to fund

apprenticeships already

in the programme, which is what you

would expect for them to do.

I think the difficulty comes

with smaller companies

who are not paying this levy,

and they find for the first time

the government is expecting them

to pay some of the costs.

The new system sees big

companies ordered to pay

a percentage of their wage bill

on apprenticeships, but smaller

firms are not forced

to provide training.

This Teesside Conservative accepts

there have been teething troubles

but believes that the levy

will deliver in the long run.

It's really important in training

the next generation.

By all means, we will try and find

constructive solutions but that

isn't why it matters so much.

We have a bold ambition to deliver

millions of apprenticeships

apprenticeships make a difference

to young people.

I think there was a long-standing

suspicion that they were not worth

the paper they were written on.

That has to change.

Here, six new apprentices have

started work at this car parts

maker in Eaglescliffe.

Hundreds applied for the jobs.

The boss here says that the levy

needs to be reformed so that smaller

firms take more responsibility

for meeting that demand.

Unless there is an incentive

for those smaller companies

to also train apprentices,

who constantly rely on taking

from bigger companies or believe

that they cannot train their own.

The levy has had a difficult start.

The future success will have a big

bearing on the career prospects

for many young Teessiders.

David McMillan reporting.

The government has been

bullish in the past

about the apprenticeships that it

has created, here we have

numbers plummeting?

Let's look at the overall facts,

2.3 million apprenticeships

between 2010-15, and ambition

for 3 million between 2015-2020.

We already have one

million under our belts.

It's a big change to

the apprenticeship levy and it

will take time for companies to get

used to that.

A drop of 60%...

I think that is very short term,

and selective evidence.

The employers I speak

to in my constituency are very much

looking to take on more apprentices

and put this money to one side,

fill the pot up first before you use

that money to train apprentices.

I think that is a very short-term

and misleading statistic.

Some employers are struggling

to understand the scheme.

Some are not saying it is value

for money, especially

the smaller companies,

they do not like the details,

that apprentices have to be away

for 20% of the time.

Small employers are looking at free

access for training,

that's a fantastic scheme.

For larger employers I can

understand they are having

to pay into the levy,

and are taking time to adjust

but they will adjust.

I am seeing that, I've spoken

to employers in my constituency

and it makes sense.

If you pay a levy,

and you join back in terms

of training your apprentices.

This is about ensuring employers

pay their fair share but it needs

to take time to bed down?

Yes, but I think that cut of 60%,

that is down to austerity.

And the apprenticeships

and the skills people as well,

they have all been cut.

They have been cut to the bone.

Well, it is the employers making

these decisions, not the government.

As far as we are concerned,

all we are looking at is putting

more money into the pot,

taxpayers money, to get

good quality apprentices.

That hasn't come through yet,

the good quality stuff.

We want good quality apprentices

and the only way we can do

that is by putting the taxpayers

money in and we

suggested £1 billion.

What about £2.5 billion

going in a year by 2020?

Some of it is taxpayers money

and others from employers.

We should be training our young

local people in the UK to give them

more skills to take advantage

of the economic opportunities...

One of the problems

is getting the quality.

Absolutely.

We will have to leave.

We will have to leave it there.

We will see what happens

when it transpires.

That's have a look at the other

stories making the political

news this week in our 60

Second Round Up...

It proves to be one of now

ex-Defence Secretary Michael

Fallon's last jobs as he visited

the ANP Group's yard

at South Tyneside on Monday.

They hope to secure

government contracts on five

new Royal Navy frigates.

Pregnant but Screwed,

a new women's campaign group held

a Halloween march in Newcastle,

demanding better rights

for working mothers.

The UK's seven elected mayors, among

them the Tees Valley's Ben Houchen,

met in London for the first time

wanting new powers over

skills and taxation.

I want more powers, I've been

speaking to the central

government about that,

the Northern powers minister has

said that they are open

to a second devolution deal.

Sunderland's main court building

is more than a century old.

Damp and neglected with poor access

for disabled people,

according to Wearside MP Bridget

Philipson.

She called on the Justice Minister

Dominic Raab to take action.

Finally, more details have been

revealed by the government backed

Great Exhibition of the North

in June next year.

There will be a giant

fountain in the River Tyne,

a new anthem of the North,

and the return of Stevenson's

rocket to the region.

That's not our way of rolling stock

on the railways anyway!

The protests over fracking for shale

gas in North Yorkshire have been

growing in recent weeks,

with more arrests among protesters

and the police and crime commission

for the county warning

of the escalating costs

of policing this site.

There's no sign of the

controversy going away.

In 2016, North Yorkshire County

Council gave planning permission

for fracking at the site in Kirby

Misperton.

Friends of the Earth

and Frack Free Ryedale went

to the High Court to stop it

but they lost.

Protests on the site continue

as preparations for drilling began.

Today more than 20 protesters have

been charged with offences including

obstruction and assault.

The anti-fracking protest cost

North Yorkshire Police

£100,000 in September on top

of officer's wages.

The county's Police and Crime

Commissioner Julia Mulligan said

it was likely to impact policing

across the county.

Kevin Hollinrake, you are the MP

for Kirby Misperton.

In the last week or so you have met

protesters, I'm sure you have spoken

to plenty of locals.

What impact does this have

on the small community

in your constituency?

It is very difficult, and I

absolutely support the right of

peaceful protest, and the protesters

who protest peacefully. It's

absolutely right, that there are

some people in these protesters who

go way beyond that. Locking

themselves onto equipment or

premises, or breaking into the site,

when I was there, two protesters

were lying in the road after locking

themselves into a steel pipe full of

asbestos. Six police officers were

trying to chip away at it to release

them without causing damage to

themselves or the individuals. It

blocked the road for six or seven

hours. That kind of protest is

entirely inappropriate.

They are

obviously trying to stop what is

going on but given the cost to

policing, the convenience to local

policing, will any other community

do this in future?

It is right that

we look to the central government to

fund the cost of policing and make

sure we have police officers in the

streets of our communities... Will

we do that? I have a meeting with

the Police and Crime Commissioner, I

absolutely think it should happen as

there is no doubt that many of these

protesters are connected to national

campaigns rather than simply being

local protesters.

Ronnie Campbell,

people of course have the right to

protest, but this is cutting energy

bills for individuals and

businesses, fracking has to be

allowed to take place, doesn't it?

The High Court said it has to take

Place and unfortunately that is the

law. I don't really believe in

fracking but let's see what happens.

When that happens, and the water

starts to colour...

You were a coal

miner, this is less environmentally

destructive then coal mining?

If

there was a coal mine going there,

there would still be objections.

Either way, there will be

objections. You would not open a new

coal mine in this day and age. There

would be protesters there. I'm a

great believer in that. I want clean

energy.

But if the Labour Party

wants to lower energy bills, this is

one way of doing it?

We had to see

how it works out. We've heard

stories of fracking and what has

happened in Lancashire and in

places, and we will have to wait and

see. Kevin is going to be an

experiment!

I do not believe that

there is a situation where water

will be polluted or contaminated, we

have independent monitoring,

independent scientific monitoring,

this is the writ is geological

survey ensuring it is done properly.

If it cannot be done Robbie I will

oppose it but if it can, it makes

more sense to employ something we

can support.

These protesters are

determined and will not fade away,

it's incredibly bad purposes for an

area that needs tourism?

As I say I

do not feel that it is fair that

people will interrupt other people's

lives.

But if they do, it's a bad

image for the area.

I do not think

it is the right way to protest. I do

not think that shale gas exploration

will lead to contamination of water

or fundamentally damage the

countryside or changes anything more

then this area.

That's all from us,

we are not here next Sunday. Time

for a giant Sunday roast in bed,

to support.

All right, and at that point

we have to end it there.

My thanks to Rosena and Andrew,

and with that it's back to Sarah.

It's been a tricky

week for Theresa May -

again, you might think.

She's lost a Cabinet minister

and been forced into a reshuffle

which did little for party unity,

to say nothing of losing a Commons

vote on Brexit and yet more reports

of fireworks in Cabinet meetings -

this time apparently over housing.

So, is the Prime Minister's time

in office going with a bang

or more of a whimper?

Well, we sent Ellie Price

and the entirely unscientific

Sunday Politics moodbox

to Conservative-held Surrey,

to find out.

ALL:

Three, two, one.

# Ignite the light

and let it shine...#

It's a tale of lit fuses, plots,

conspiracy, treachery,

but enough of the recent goings

on in the Conservative Party,

it's firework night here

in Guildford and we're asking,

does Theresa May have control

of her Government and her party?

Yes or no?

# Baby you're a firework...#

With all the scandals in Government

at the moment

and Brexit seems to be dragging on

a little bit longer than we thought.

So, at the moment, I don't think

she is in control.

She's too many people sniping

at her back, really.

Do you think Theresa

May's in control?

I think she's in control.

She's in a good job

having a tough time.

No, I don't.

I think she's a mess.

Even when you read her body language

when she's being interviewed