05/11/2017 Sunday Politics North West

A special Panorama investigation.

Good morning, everyone,

I'm Sarah Smith.

that's happening in the world

of politics this Sunday morning.

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

And a former minister

tells me the north is being

misled on transport.

Plus, sold short - the Muslim women

who say their voices

aren't being heard.

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

are in danger of getting sidetracked

by China here.

I have to put this

are in danger of getting sidetracked

point in. If China was backward in

1949 it was far more backward by

point in. If China was backward in

time Mao Zedong finished his great

point in. If China was backward in

leap forward and starved

point in. If China was backward in

people to death in the period of

economic lunacy. You just don't

notice...

What George was saying

they are, and a sense certainly

they are, and a sense certainly

amongst younger voters in this

country and others, where they are

amongst younger voters in this

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

of Marxist Leninist philosophy is

not. The fact the current system is

of Marxist Leninist philosophy is

failing does not seem to recommend

the Soviet system, which is

demonstrably a failure, and even its

own leaders admitted it failed and

demonstrably a failure, and even its

that is why they tried to reform it

in the period I was there and why 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

position, the Soviet alternative is

This was a long period

position, the Soviet alternative is

and I remember at the end of it

position, the Soviet alternative is

watching in Moscow said a film which

has never been shown here, and the

title means approximately we can't

has never been shown here, and the

go on living like this, and for the

has never been shown here, and the

first time, the politburo told the

truth about what life was

first time, the politburo told the

the dreadful place and everyone in

first time, the politburo told the

that cinema was weeping because

finally they saw the truth

that cinema was weeping because

told about the dreadful

that cinema was weeping because

anti-civilisation in which they had

been taught to live for so long. The

anti-civilisation in which they had

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

London and across the UK to mark

celebrated in Russia.

I

London and across the UK to mark

Russia a couple of weeks ago.

London and across the UK to mark

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

celebrating it...

Vladimir Putin is

the Communist Party is the second

biggest party in Russia. And it is

the Communist Party is the second

the ruling party in China, which,

with respect, is not a separate

with respect, is not a separate

thing, because China is

with respect, is not a separate

the Russian Revolution and doing

rather better at it than the

Russians did, but there are many

people, particularly older, that is

Russians did, but there are many

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

the red banner of Leninism. No one

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,

Marxism is going to live on.

Let's

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

that had the fireworks this week.

I'm Nina Warhurst.

Coming up in the north-west:

Being sold short -

the Muslim women who say

their voices aren't being heard.

Women are not out and about

here most of the time.

They don't raise their voices

they need anything.

But, loud and proud in the studio

are two women who always

make sure they're heard.

Antoinette Sandbach is

the Conservative MP for Eddisbury,

and Julie Ward the Labour MEP

for North West England.

A warm welcome to you both.

The political story

of the week has been sexual

harassment at Westminster.

Here was one north-west MP's

question to the Prime Minister.

Three years ago I brought evidence

to her in this house that whips had

used information about sexual abuse

to demand loyalty from MPs.

On three occasions,

I asked her to act and on three

occasions she did not,

so can I ask her, in this

of all weeks, for the fourth time,

will she finally take concrete

action to tackle this?

Hear, hear.

Antoinette, isn't the case that not

just the Prime Minister but everyone

at Westminster has been aware

of this conduct for very long time

and nobody has been brave

enough to call it out?

I think you have 650 small employers

and the vast majority of MPs

are really good employers.

OK.

But clearly there are problems

and I think there needs to be

an independent body,

run by the House of Commons,

that staff or even MPs

can go and report to,

particularly in the workplace,

around workplace allegations.

I think that's important

and it looks like that

is going to be set up.

And if Lisa's allegations are true,

do you think the Prime Minister

should have acted sooner?

I'm not entirely sure which

allegations Lisa was talking about.

I think she may have been talking

about the allegations

that were looked into,

which were very historic allegations

around child sexual issues,

but I can't say that I know

particularly what

she is referring to.

The implication was that whips

were using this information to make

sure that MPs toed the party line,

allegations of abuse.

Well, I mean,

I'm not aware of that, but I know

that we are in a fast-moving

situation and stories are emerging

at the moment across the parties.

Yeah.

It's not just an issue on any one

particular site, as it were.

I think we really need

to have a safe space

in the parliament to raise concerns.

And Esther McVey this week

was elevated to the role

of Deputy Chief Whip.

Is that a strategic decision?

Is she the kind of woman that

could say, OK, let's make

a cultural shift here?

Well, you had Anne Milton

as the Deputy Chief Whip before,

and I know that she worked very hard

on this issue.

I am very glad to see

that there is another

woman Deputy Chief Whip.

I think it's an example of how

the Conservative Party

promotes people on ability.

Julie, Britain horrified this week

with news of what's been

going on at Westminster.

Is it the same in Brussels?

Do you think it's

the same everywhere?

I do.

I think this is something

that is endemic in society,

and it's because of unequal power

relationships, really,

between men and women.

I am a proud feminist,

and what I want to see is more women

visible in the public sphere.

And I want to see less sexist

advertising and objectification

of women, and I would like to see

proper sex and relationship

education around positive consent.

Do you think that there should be

more processes in place?

What has been interesting this week,

talking to everyone,

men and women of different

generations, is the grey area,

indeed whether a grey

area exists at all.

How do we put in place

processes against that?

How do we define what it is that

constitutes harassment?

Well, victims need to be believed.

They need to be listened

to and they need to be believed,

and they need to not be afraid

to speak up, and that is why we have

to have some independent bodies.

We have called for that

in the European Parliament,

exactly the same as I think

is needed in Westminster.

And I would also like to say that

I think the trade unions

have an important role to play

in this as well.

There's a number of organisations

that can actually support this.

And we could see Parliament

leading the way on that.

OK.

This week, the first-ever meeting

of all the UK's new city mayors

took place this week -

Greater Manchester's Andy Burnham

and Liverpool's Steve Rotheram both

attending the event in London,

alongside its mayor Sadiq Khan.

Now, the seven mayors said

they could boost Britain's economic

growth if the Government gave

them more powers.

I'd rather have any decision made

more locally than Whitehall

mandarins who have probably never

visited half of the areas

in our city region.

Well, it looks like those Whitehall

mandarins could still dictate

transport spending, because it

emerged this week that the initial

bill covering the new authority,

Transport For The North,

suggests it will only

have advisory powers,

whereas as Transport For London

oversees a budget of

£10 billion a year.

At Westminster, I spoke

to Lord O'Neil, the former

Treasury Minister and one

of the architects of

the Northern Powerhouse,

and asked him if the news that came

as a nasty surprise.

So if that's where the end place is,

not only would it be a surprise,

but it would extremely irritate me,

and I think it would cause me to be

more mark of a moaning Minnie

than I have been in the past.

I was in Government and persuaded

Osborne, the then Chancellor,

that we need to have something

like Transport For The North.

We talked about it being ultimately

the same as Transport For London,

which is a fantastic thing which has

helped drive economic

benefits for London.

Why does it matter that

Transport For The North has that

parity of power and power over

policy like Transport For London?

Well, if it doesn't have real

powers, then it's going to be

constantly subject to the whims

of what's going on over my

shoulder in Parliament,

and as we know, every other year

the transport manager changes.

-- every other year at the transport

minister changes.

Every five years, often less,

the Government changes.

You can't run a transport system

for connecting the North of England

based on the whims of those people

that just happen to be

sitting in those seats.

And the current transport

minister has publicly said,

I think you have actually

interviewed him saying,

that Transport For The North needs

to be owned and led by people

from the North.

How can they do that

if they are just going

to be an advisory body?

It doesn't make sense.

Well, what would you say

to someone who said, actually,

Transport For The North just hasn't

got its act together yet,

it's not ready and willing to take

on that fiscal responsibility

at the moment?

I accept the fact that

Transport For The North

is a new entity, and it might not be

operationally fully ready

for being given a lot of money

and a lot of powers,

which in ministers' and more

importantly in some officials'

minds means more money

for the national debt.

It might be a bit early

to give them full power,

but the way this bill looks

as though it's designed,

if the Government wanted,

this could be it.

And so what they need to be

clear about, that this

is an initial staging post

until Transport For The North

is fully capable of operating

in the way Transport For London

is today.

But the north isn't

the same as London.

It's not one big hub that

everybody looks towards.

With that in mind, perhaps it can

never work the same way.

So that question goes to the core

big picture challenge

for the Northern Powerhouse.

I more than most, given my role

in it, know the sensitivities

between all of the northern centres,

but I often describe it

as ManSheffLeedsPool.

We need one single market for labour

and consumers in the north,

otherwise there is no chance

of the Northern Powerhouse ever

working, and that means we need

a really effective transport body.

We keep coming back to transport,

don't we, when we talk

about the Northern Powerhouse?

Antoinette, is the inferior status

of Transport For The North compared

to Transport For London just another

example of us being fobbed off?

I totally disagree.

OK.

Transport For The North is

a new body and Transport For London

has been going for decades,

and as was pointed out that this

is a starting point.

It's not an end point.

They have recently been given

£60 million by the Government

to develop the future plans

for the north, and I know,

for example, with the consultations

around the Crewe Hub,

they are looking at Growth Track 360

to look at how we can improve

transport's links east-west.

Northern Powerhouse

Rail, Transpennine...

You know, there are some

huge, exciting projects

that are going on...

That comment, Julie.

You know, and they have just

put 300 million aside

to future proof HS2 for HS3.

It's in its infancy, isn't it,

Transport For The North?

Perhaps we should be

a bit more patient.

Well, I represent

a huge constituency.

I am an MEP I represent from Crewe

to Carlisle, and I travel

right across the region,

so I can tell you how

difficult it often is.

You know, you might get a fast

train, a Eurostar and then

a connection up to Manchester,

and then you are on really,

really slow trains.

Yes.

You know, with huge problems.

I have to say, there

is another issue about trains,

and that's the fact that the guards

will be taken off the trains,

and if we link that back

to the previous discussion

about sexual harassment

and safety of women,

we have got a big issue there.

We need to have...

But just sticking with this...

Antoinette, do you think...?

Jim O'Neill claimed this week at 40

civil servants are sat

in London trying to pre-empt

what Transport For

The North are deciding.

Is it time to bring them up

here or bring them under

Transport For The North?

Let's not forget this -

the Conservative Government that has

delivered devolution to the mayors

here in the north, they have only

very recently been elected.

There is a lot of work to do,

but I think it is really exciting

that there is actually going to be

a specific body looking

at transport, concentrating

on transport for the North

and working out how to deliver it.

That's what we need.

Good delivery and good planning.

I have absolutely no doubt

we will be back on this

story every single week.

Sorry, can I just say quickly...?

Just in terms of consultation

and participation, when the Northern

franchises were up for renewal,

there was no public meeting

at all in the north-west

constituency that I represent.

There were meetings in Edinburgh

and there were meetings in York,

and there was not a single meeting

for the public to come to.

So you would like to see

more transparency...

Did you ask for one?

I did.

I made some representations, yeah,

in the consultation,

so I think people are not

being listened to here.

Right, we move now from trains

to planes, or the use

of them to avoid tax.

Jeremy Corbyn this week called

on the Prime Minister to investigate

the number of people funneling

the purchase of private jets

through the Isle of Man.

957 business jets in the Isle of Man

seems a bit excessive

for any island anywhere,

and I hope it's investigated and due

tax is collected from those people

that are trying to avoid it.

Julie, the Prime Minister argues

that the top 1% of earners

are paying a greater percentage

of tax than they ever have before.

They now contribute one

quarter of income tax.

Well, good.

I'm glad, you know?

Because I got elected

to the European parliament...

Does that not mean the taxation

system is working?

Well, we are not collecting the tax

that actually people...that should

be being collected...

I know that within HMRC there is not

enough people working,

so austerity measures have meant

that we've lost a lot

of our people working...

That's completely not true.

..people working in the tax.

There is something like 34

billion uncollected taxes

which would have been paid.

-- should

And I have to say that I'm

very proud that I work

in the European Parliament,

which has a very, very strong view

about tax avoidance,

and in January 2019 there

was a new tax avoidance directive...

Antoinette, we've got the...

..that's going to be coming

into the member states and Britain

should be implementing that.

Well, we actually lead the way

in clamping down on tax avoidance.

This Government is collecting

an extra £160 billion worth of tax

and we've got the lowest tax gap

in the world.

That's 6.5%.

We are the country

with the lowest tax cap.

We have closed the most loopholes

and we have done that over

the last seven years,

and if we had left the loopholes

that were there under Labour,

we'd be £46 billion worse off.

So this is something the Government

is really committed to.

We are absolutely working on it

and we have also been

leading the way in terms

of tax transparency.

OK, we're going to have

to leave it there.

The British Government has been

blocking in the European Council,

stopping the good laws

that we are making in

the European Parliament.

OK, we have to move on.

It's seven years since the first

Muslim women were elected

to Westminster, including Bolton's

own Yasmin Qureshi, but are

the voices of ordinary Muslim women

still going largely unheard?

One Manchester councillor thinks

so and wants to make

sure they can speak up,

as Phil McCann reports.

Longsight in Manchester -

it in a constituency

where almost one third

of the population is Muslim.

But are half of them ignored?

We need to do more to engage

the women that are either not

allowed to speak or feel unable

to speak, or don't know the avenues

to, kind of, empower themselves.

Women are not out and about

here most of the time.

They don't raise their voice

if they need anything.

Do you think that the Government,

kind of, has a problem

with hearing from women?

Not only Muslims, but anyone,

any woman, any woman.

They are unable to express

themselves because of the family

or a religion, so there

is still a bit more to be

done on both sides.

Amina is a local councillor who's

so concerned she's writing a report

to find out why the voice of many

Muslim women may not be being heard.

I think it's even more important

that we go out and meet them

in the areas that they are in,

in the groups that they are in,

and in the houses they are in.

And marching in Manchester this

week was another party

which has taken up the cause.

We do need to talk about differences

in different communities

where they exist, and women are not

well represented, whatever

community they come from.

And in some organisations

representing Muslims,

it can be difficult to find women.

Of the Muslim Council

of Britain's seven most senior

officials last year,

for example, only one was a woman.

It's meant that some have

felt for a long time

that the voice of women in mosques

has been ignored.

But if the past was male-dominated,

the future may be changing.

But I do think it is incumbent

on people in positions of power,

people, particularly Muslim men

within organisations,

to definitely give Muslim women

opportunities within organisations.

But with eight Muslim women elected

this year to the most

diverse Parliament yet,

our representatives are slowly

becoming more representative.

Well, we're joined now

by Ambar Iqbal, who works

with the Islamic Society of Britain

to engage young Muslims in politics.

Welcome, Ambar.

Is there something specific

to Muslim communities which means

women aren't allowed or don't feel

empowered to speak out?

I think this image that Muslim women

are quite insubordinate

and they are quite suppressed

and their voice isn't being heard,

while I am not denying that it's

true for specific women,

there are powerful Muslim

voices that are out there.

I think that there can be more done

to empower Muslim women,

and there are of avenues that

you could go down.

I think the local Government do

have a duty to go into the community

and find these women,

encourage them to speak up more.

As was also being said,

community leaders,

Muslim community leaders,

do have the duty to also find

these women and ask them

about their opinions and care

about their opinion as well.

How do you do that, though?

How do you encourage a cultural

shift without imposing on family

life, without telling people

how to live?

I don't think it's telling

people how to live.

It is just encouraging

them to speak.

I mean, we do have Muslim voices,

as I've mentioned, in the community.

I think they have a duty

just as much as anyone

to also find these women.

I mean, I know my mother used

to hold events and she used to hold

gatherings of women and teach them

had how to speak up

in the community, and that's just

as important as local Government

going in and speaking

to these women.

And I think in the media as well,

when issues happen in the Muslim

community, they do tend to go

to the most Muslim-looking

young man, not young man,

older man,

rather than just going to any

ordinary Muslim woman.

OK.

So I don't think we are also given

the opportunity to speak out,

which I think is also a major issue.

OK, a question to you both now.

Should the two main parties do more

to encourage young Muslim women

to come through into politics?

We start with you, Julie.

Is the Labour Party doing it?

Well, the Labour Women's Network

is doing a lot and also Fabian Women

is doing a lot.

I host visits to the

European Parliament every

year for Fabian Women.

And a good 50% of the Labour women

who came over recently

were Muslim women, so...

And they are strong women

and they are very loud women.

They are very confident women.

But Gavin Shuker last year on behalf

of the Muslim Women's Network UK,

said there is systematic misogyny

within the Labour Party.

And more than that, he said

he was silenced when he tried

to raise this issue.

Well, we addressed the issue

of sexism earlier in the discussion,

and I think that we have a problem

across society in terms of women's

representation and the way

that women are treated.

On Manchester City Council,

there's eight Muslim

women on the council,

and that's about the right

representation for the amount of

Muslim women living in Manchester.

Yeah, but that's one

small area, isn't it?

Yeah, I know...

Well, in Westminster

in 2010, we had...

No, prior to 2010 we had no

female Muslim women MPs.

We now have 17.

I know that the Conservative Party

has Women2Win which is encouraging

all women to come and join.

So it's not religiously specific?

It's not religiously specific,

but I have been mentoring a young

Muslim woman who wants to get

involved in politics,

and I think that's really important.

And, Ambar, that's

a good point, isn't it?

We've gone from no Muslim MPs up

to 15 Muslim female MPs

in the space of seven years.

Are you optimistic about quite

a rapid shift now in politics?

Yeah, I am definitely hoping so.

I mean, I don't think you have to be

a Muslim woman in order to know

what they want to say,

as long as they are aware

that we have a voice

and they are listening to our voices

as well, and much as easily

as our voices are going to be given

across if they are aware

of what we are saying.

So, definitely, I think that's

a really good sign that

change is going to happen.

OK.

I recommend the Patchwork

Foundation, which particularly

reaches out to minority communities,

to encourage them from across all

political parties...

So the Patchwork Foundation

is a brilliant way to get involved.

There is a girl

to leader campaign...

I recently had a young woman

from Pendle came out for a European

project about girls who want to be

leaders, so the roots are there.

OK, so two groups

being endorsed there.

Many thanks.

And many thanks to you, Ambar,

joining us from London.

Thank you.

Thank you.

OK, time now for the rest

of the week's news now,

including more calls for laws

to help victims of disasters

like Hillsborough.

Here's Judy Hobson with 60 Seconds.

Intimidated and depressed

for decades, the former

Bishop of Liverpool

called for a charter for people

bereaved in public tragedies

to prevent others suffering

like the Hillsborough families.

They find the authorities,

the institutions, closing ranks

and putting their own reputation

over and above the needs

of the bereaved.

The Birkenhead MP Frank Field called

for new powers to protect families

transferring to Universal Credit.

He wants benefits paid fortnightly

rather than monthly.

Ten anti-fracking campaigners

were cleared of obstructing

the highway after blocking

Cuadrilla's shale gas

site in Lancashire.

Marketing to Mancunians only -

the developer who won't be

selling these new flats