05/11/2017 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

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

And coming up here:

The DUP wants direct rule ministers

in place within weeks we'll hear

from the shadow Secretary of State,

and find out how frustrating

the stalemate is for

Stormont's smaller parties.

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

leap forward and starved millions of

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,

Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics

in Northern Ireland.

With no deal between the DUP

and Sinn Fein and a call for direct

rule ministers to be appointed

within weeks,

is devolution about to disappear?

We'll hear from the Shadow Secretary

of State, Owen Smith,

and we'll get the thoughts

of the Green Party leader,

Steven Agnew, Gerry Carroll

from People Before Profit

and the Independent

MLA, Claire Sugden.

And with their thoughts

on that and more, my guests

of the day are Allison Morris

from the Irish News

and the News Letter's Sam McBride.

The DUP has called for direct

rule Ministers to be

in place within weeks.

Mr Dodds told the Inside Politics

programme on Radio Ulster that

Ministers from London could make

decisions in conjunction

with the parties at Stormont.

The Shadow Secretary of State,

Owen Smith, said the focus needs

to be on getting a successful

outcome to the negotiations before

moving to appoint London Ministers

and Mr Smith joins me now

from our Cardiff studio.

Thank you for joining us.

What is your understanding of where

the talks process is at the moment?

On Thursday night Gregory Campbell

said there was no reason for talks

not to happen again on Friday -

but John O'Dowd said this phase

of the process is over

because the budget.

I think the secretary of state was

clear. That is going to be a budget

in ten days. There is also an

opportunity for the parties to

continue talking. He said the

parties where continuing to talk on

Thursday and Friday last week. I

think where we are is there is one

last season over the next couple of

months to try and get things back up

and running. There is going to be a

parallel process where there is

going to be a budget. Otherwise, the

money for Northern Ireland.

You'd

want to see James Brooke and Shire

painting direct rule ministers?

I

think he should give it until

Christmas. I talked about the new

year putting in ministers is going

to be inevitable. You can afford to

have one last crack at trying to get

the parties to come back together in

the next couple of months, unless he

decides, and he is closer to this,

unless you

unless you decide the parties have

decided themselves and they are not

going to do a deal. In which case,

he needs to cockpit sooner.

Interesting that the DUP seems to

want it sooner rather than later.

Yes, that indicates perhaps that

they cannot do a deal or they think

the other side is not prepared to do

a deal. I suspect, both parties in

the negotiation see more risks than

benefits of getting back in

partnership together and may have

decided a period of direct rule is

what they are prepared to accept. In

that case, the secretary of state

needs to recognise that and the

Government needs to note that is his

opinion and we will see direct rule.

He will -- it will be harder to get

them back together.

What do you

think of Nigel Dodds's thoughts that

the good work in conjunction with

the Stormont parties? How would that

work, in your view?

My understanding

is James has been talking to the

parties about that. I do know some

of the smaller parties have been

discussing that with him. There are

models have been used before. At the

beginning of the Welsh Assembly,

there was a shadow Assembly. The did

not have the full devolution but an

Assembly grouping to which people

were collected and these good and

wise decisions being taken by

ministers. It has got to be

something around that sort of area

that they are discussing, whether

that is being back scrutiny

committees, having Assembly is set

in a binary session. I suspect that

is less likely. Some form of hybrid

situation might be advisable and

better than simply going to direct

rule because it makes it easier

perhaps for the parties to continue

talking and for us to revive

devolution proper.

You floated the

idea of some kind of scrutiny

Assembly. Do you have any sense to

whether the parties think that is a

good idea? That, surely, is an

admission that devolution as we have

known it, has not worked.

Yes, it

would be the conference league, in

comparison. It would be a big step

backwards. It is something I have

raised and I have raised it knowing

that the parties are talking about

it with the secretary of state and

it is something that has possibly

been talked about in the talks. The

truth is, this is out there and

being discussed between the

governments and the Secretary of

State and is something I think is

likely to be pushed for more broadly

over the next couple of weeks.

Another couple of things to

consider, we know the Alliance party

has called for an external

negotiator to push the process

forward. Is that worth giving

consideration to?

Yes, that is

something I mentioned last week to

be secretary of state. I do not know

why he has not been in favour. Under

the last Labour Government, notable

incidents of outside negotiators

bringing things forward. It did work

on occasion. The fresh pair of eyes

can be a helpful thing to bring

things to be. If people think the

Government are not facilitating

things efficiently, or are not

making things easier, and outside

Audie meet the where to look for

progress.

-- and outside body. The

secretary of state is going to seek

outside advice in terms of salaries.

Do you welcome that? You are not is

a port of drastic action being taken

in the short time? This delay shows

that drastic action does not work.

John Reid cut salaries in 2002 and

they work at again in 2003 and again

in 2005. It is hardly the quick fix

that we sometimes imagine it might

be. Getting outside advice and

looking at what point he would make

that decision is well worth him

doing. Clearly, if you have a role

for the Assembly that is short of

full scale devolution, support of

parties is something to look at. As

it will always be popular to cut any

politician's salary, it is a side

bar issue versus the really big

question we have got hanging over

the future of services in Northern

Ireland, moral questions, really

pressing stuff that should be

devolved ministers. --. -- devolved

Minister's response ability.

Weird you think we are? The DUP says

it could continue and they could

have direct rule ministers

appointed. Sinn Fein seem to be

suggesting it is dead in the water.

I think Sinn Fein's position is

over... What does that mean? Both of

those parties want to get the party

conferences out of the way. That is

the thing that is for most on their

mind. Neither of them is going to go

into the party conference not having

done a U-turn. I think even the

Secretary of State has two recognise

they have to let them get that out

of the way first and eighth period

of talks after that. An Smith is

right, he needs to bring in an

independent person. -- Owen Smith.

No conclusion by Christmas and then

direct rule ministers by January,

you are prolonging the process

unless there is structure in place.

Do you agree with that timescale? I

wonder what you make of what the

parties think they are actually

discussing. Again, on Thursday night

they could not seem to agree on what

the process was dealing with.

I

thought Thursday's night programme

was fascinating. It was the first

time that Gregory Campbell was open

to compromise any TVs juju. Is it a

case you're not going to get

everything you want and he said,

yes. -- TVs juju. Compromise, why

would we compromise on what are

compromising. That begs the

question, what on earth are Sinn

Fein negotiating? If they have

decided there is nothing to

compromise, what have they been

spending months talking to them

about? Clearly, that is not the

case. The are both willing to move

but there is no transparency to the

public.

Why do they want direct rule

so quickly?

We have massive

influence at Westminster, the DUP.

It also moves on this 1 million

pounds. Also, it is a recognition of

what people in the streets and

villages across Northern Ireland are

saying, if there is no one in

charge, we need someone in charge.

It was significant that Owen Smith

is moving to put pressure on the

secretary of state to see around

Christmas time there needs to be

ministers in place.

As any

circumstance that you think Sinn

Fein would sign up to a shadow

scrutiny Assembly?

The model...

Foxhall conference is what an Smith

would call it.

It is like a large

City Council and to pay that money

for people to be glorified

councillors would be a waste of

money.

I will speak to you again

later. Thank you for now.

As we know very well,

the negotiations have been primarily

between the DUP and Sinn Fein,

with the other main parties left

to watch from the sidelines -

and standing behind them trying

to get a glimpse of the action

are the even smaller parties

and Stormont's sole independent MLA,

Claire Sugden.

She joins me now along

with Steven Agnew, the Green Party

leader, and People Before

Profit's Gerry Carroll.

We asked Jim Allister of the TUV

to join us, by the way,

but he didn't want to.

Stephen, you said it is now time for

the Secretary of State to consider

different approaches if he is

serious about breaking the deadlock.

I think we'd stick these dishes away

from the parties. I have proposed

that we open them up to a citizen'

Assembly. As has been trialled in

Manchester, around issues of Brexit.

Put it to the citizens to test what

they think.

The parties tested what

they thought in March and June.

No,

we tested to the want to vote for.

On these issues, how important are

the two citizens? No party in

Northern Ireland can save you speak

for the majority. We are all

minority parties. That is why there

is equality. It it was the dozens.

It has been done in the Republic and

in places like British Columbia and

actually test the will of the

people. I think we are beyond the

point of representing people, they

are representing their own vested

interests.

In March of this year,

56% of people voted for the DUP and

Sinn Fein.

It is not clear because

if you divide that up, it is a split

population because of the views of

those parties are very dissimilar.

If we are to bring that into users

and Assembly, we can sort out the

dishes. It is not about taking in a

poke, it is about presenting the

evidence, letting lobby groups on

both sides making their case and

having a proper form of democracy

where citizens feed into decision

making and politicians follow the

people.

Are you agreeing with Steven

Agnew?

The key way to break what is

happening. For us, look at the last

year. We saw service is being

slashed, February and March this

year. Massive mobilisation of

people, trade unions on the

streets...

How long is it we have

seen people on the streets?

£7

million is being cut from the health

service, we sought mobilisation from

trade unions and people saying the

health service should be invested in

more rather than being cut back on.

People are being organised in their

communities and workplaces to push

back and curtail some of the

cutbacks in the health services.

Rather than waiting for Stormont to

deliver or a deal to be concocted

up, we are getting people organised

in the own communities and sing that

is essential and important and I

would advocate that for a week

forward. There needs to be a deal

that represents real change for

people in the north.

Does anything

ring true for you, without mandate

from March and June to reach

agreement on these key issues, what

chance is there for hundreds of

thousands of people being able to

reach an agreement on such difficult

issues?

Think under the current

structures of the Good Friday

Agreement, you get to you vote for

and it is Sinn Fein and DUP on this

occasion. They have mandate is not

to compromise. People vote for them

on the mandates and the behaviour

that they have demonstrated to date.

The only way we can legitimately

address this is to either change the

structure of the Good Friday

Agreement or go to another election

and let the people decide to book

for someone else.

Is that your

preferred option at this stage, and

other Stormont collection?

No,

because if we were to have another

election we would end up with the

same as what we have now because

there does not seem to be a credible

alternative. Unfortunately, politics

in Northern Ireland is based on the

issues of unionism and nationalism

and that is how people tend to vote.

I would put it to the people, go out

there and start thinking of other

issues, health care, education and

start thinking about who you are

voting for and can those people

deliver? For ten months, they have

not been able to. I think we need to

change what we are electing to.

2013, we need to revitalise the Good

Friday Agreement. Sinn Fein,

ironically, I was resistant to

change. I think we will not go back

to the status quo. I think the

Assembly as we know it is dead and I

think we now need to look at a

process for change. I think that is

through a process involving

citizens. It was the People's

agreement in 1998. Politicians have

now changed it without the people's

consent. I think we need to devolve

power back to citizens. I think it

has been shown to work with

difficult decisions in the Republic

of Ireland and there is no reason

why it could not work in Northern

Ireland.

What about a shadow

Assembly. We floated the idea with

Owen Smith today that direct rule

ministers could be appointed by

London but you would have checks and

balances Assembly in Stormont

keeping an eye on decisions as they

are made. Does that hold any

attraction?

The have

institutionalised sectarianism in

Stormont. That has been the case

since 1998. There is an attempt and

we are not weighted to those

structures. It is an attempt to try

and circumvent issues like equal

marriage, the right to an Irish

language act by talking about

structures and changing structures

and a shadow Assembly. Any change to

structure, does it implement real

change or is it used to block those

changes to society? That is our

business to judging those changes.

You are the sole independent MLA,

Claire Sugden, at Stormont. The

smaller parties met with yourself to

talk about how the process could be

moved forward. Did anything positive

come out of that? I assume everyone

was there apart from the Sinn Fein

and the DUP.

The parties outside of

the two parties were willing to come

together and have a discussion...

Was a fruitful? To be honest, no.

The power lies with the two main

parties. I would like to be part of

this process and put ideas forward.

I would like the secretary of state,

who I believe he has

irresponsibility to be small parties

because we have a mandate, he has to

talk to us and he has not up until

now. Until the two main parties can

work together, ultimately this is

what this is about, not an Irish

language act, marriage equality,

this is about working with one

another. The two cannot exist

without one another but they have to

sell it to the voters.

We need to

change the structures that allow

them to have so much power.

The Good

Friday Agreement structures...

Parties who are resistant to change

our ensuring that direct rule

happens. By the resistant to change

to the Good Friday Agreement, we

voted and the Green Party campaigned

for it, it is 20 years on now and we

are facing the anniversary with no

Assembly. We have to change the

structures and make them sustainable

and move the -- remove the B-2 of

them.

The majority of MLAs and

parties and is huge section of

parties are in favour of those.

The

DUP mac believe they have a mandate.

The majority of the assemblies are

in favour of those issues.

Any deal

in Stormont should take those into

consideration. If that is not action

on those issues, it will be seen as

a sell out.

That could be dealt with

at Stormont if the Assembly got up

and running again.

Potentially, but

these negotiations that are ongoing

and none of us are involved in them

and we just don't let -- we are not

involved in them and we do not know

what is going on.

You have a unique

insight into all of these. One year

ago, you were in the Executive

serving as justice minister. Did you

have any sense at all that the whole

point was built on such a fragile

foundation? That 12 months on, the

whole thing could have collapsed?

No, I may beat would not have

accepted the job. That said, I would

not go back on that belief that the

parties did work well together and

there did seem that the Government

could work forward around the issues

that do matter to people on the

ground.

What is your analysis on why

that fell apart so quickly?

I think

there was this misconception that

the DUP were walking over Sinn Fein.

What Sinn Fein did was that one

cannot exist without the other. I

think this is about them working

together and fighting a way to work

together. Yes, I agree with Jerry on

terms of the issues that can be

dealt with at Stormont. These issues

are not the issues. It is a form of

words. Each of them... Both have to

go back to their voter base and say

we have one.

It is interesting to

hear your perspectives on it. It is

very revealing. Thank you for

joining us.

Let's take a look at the week in 60

seconds. The secretary of state

stepped in for plans for a budget.

It is now very unlikely that an

executive will be in place within a

timetable to pass a budget.

But that

does not necessarily mean the talks

process is over.

We did our best. We

did our best to be flexible. We were

prepared to stretch ourselves.

That

does not stop us to continue to

engage with Sinn Fein in trying to

find a solution.

An SDLP MLA once

Sinn Fein to encourage more National

is to join the police.

That was too

much ambiguity around a statement.

You need to be stronger. People who

join the police are brave.

The

Defence Secretary was the first

casualties of the Westminster sexual

harassment casual.

What might have

been acceptable 15 or ten years ago

is clearly not acceptable now.

The

DUP Nigel Dodds what it off with

negotiator of the year.

-- negotiator of the year award.

Stephen Walker reporting.

And let's have a final word

with Sam and Allison.

A citizens Assembly, another

collection? I cannot be the thought

of another election. If we had

another election, the results would

be similar and if not the Ulster

Unionist Party might feel to exist

after another election. It was

interesting what she said about how

they were getting along really well

up until the breaking point. With

more good will, in maybe could have

worked. They would have stumbled on

a link collapsed anyway.

I think she

is right about that. There has been

revisionism, particularly from Sinn

Fein. These are parties who

appointed a joint spokesman to

promote their message. We knew they

had to work together. The most

interesting thing was that Steven

Agnew leading the charge on the

issue of a voluntary collagen. That

was dead and buried. Nobody would

lead talking about that. There is

the thought that Sinn Fein have

overplayed their hand and people who

were not energised by that to the

fore now.

We will leave

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

by people, she doesn't

seem like she's in control.

I think she has poor advisers.

I'm going to put it in the "yes".

I do think she's struggling but,

I still hope, still think she has

a bit of a grip on them.

The Queen is England's role.

It's her birth right.

She is England's role

of this country.

I'm going to vote for Theresa May.

I don't think there's anyone

who could do a better job.

I think she's had a bit of

a poisoned chalice with Brexit but

I think she could have done better.

The money's not going

to where it needs to go.

I think she should resign, really.

I feel a bit sorry

for her, actually.

I think she's been witch-hunted

a little bit.

She's doing her best.

With everything that's

going on with the Cabinet at the

moment, I think the Conservative

Party is in a real mess, actually.

Very disappointed.

Well, you get bickering in all parts

not just the Conservative Party.

And that's just sort

of par for the course.

But I'm sure she'll

hold everybody together

despite the current difficulties.

The Tories weren't in control

when they had the referendum

in the first place for the euro.

We've had two years

of complete chaos.

I don't see an end to it.

Well, I seem to have

acquired a few new friends.

The oohs and ahs are

over and so the moodbox

and the result is...

No.

The majority of people

here in Guildford

don't think Theresa May

is in control.

CHEERING

That was Ellie with the entirely

unscientific moodbox, and thanks

to Bushy Hill Junior School

in Guildford for having her along.

Let's put the Sorbol question to our

panel. Equally unscientific but all

seasoned Westminster watchers. Is

Theresa May in control of her

Government at the moment or is all

of this sex harassment allegations

swimming around loosening her grip?

Depends what you mean by in control.

All Prime Ministers have a degree of

control. They retain the power much

tat wrongage as we saw with her

reshuffle. Didn't go down well with

her MPs but she did it. You can't be

fully in control of these situations

in effectively what is a hung

Parliament. If she won a land sheep

in the election she would have the

authority to do what she wanted. She

could float over something like

this. Stories like this, you could

say she's perfectly suited for it,

the vicar's daughter, the church

goer, to sort it out. It is much

more complicated than that. I don't

think she will be able to get a full

grip of it. There are some practical

things that need to happen that will

happen. I remember with back to

basics and John Major, that equally

vague scandal, what was back to

basics about? It was still running

months afterwards, stories about a

minister having an affair. This is

different. I can see it will be

impossible for her to fully get to

grips with it.

Does it provide an

opportunity for Theresa May to be

seen to be taking really serious

action, trying to root out a bad

culture in Westminster and therefore

get some political credit for it?

That opportunity was available to

her all of last week and she hasn't

taken it. What's remarkable for me

is the near complete breakdown in

discipline in the higher ranks the

Tory Party. It is extraordinary you

have Cabinet level ministers who are

not supporting their colleagues.

Ministers and former ministers

giving interviews in which they slag

off their former colleagues. It is

an absolute unholy mess. There is no

sense that she is gripping this. Or

has any particular solution. I think

we can have a lot of sympathy for

her in terms of finding a solution.

How on earth do you grip a problem

like this where you're talking about

apparently an indefinite period of

retrospective examination of

potential faults. 15 years is no

longer too historic for somebody to

dredge up some small thing that may

or may not have happened to them. It

is very difficult for her. But she's

being battered around by events.

Where does this story go next?

I

think the whip's office on every

party, Tories, Labour, Liberal

Democrats, SNP all have their own

whipping operations. That seems to

be the place of it really. This is

because, where do we draw the line?

Going forward what mechanisms are

put in place to top this helping

again. To take allegations

seriously, report them and

investigate them independently. Or

is there a bigger job to go back

into the past retrospective, who

knew what when as Nia said about

Kelvin Hopkins. This is a Shadow

Defence Secretary saying what did

the Labour Party leader know about

Kelvin Hopkins' allegations when he

promoted him? Theresa May is unable

to do the retrospective bit. She's

simply too weak. I asked this of

Number Ten last week. Why are you

not more front-foot the on this.

They said they would be if they

possibly could be. She's running a

minority Government. She cannot be

seen to be going after a witch-hunt

on her own people. So, I think this

goes on. Enof thebly what the whips

new -- inevitably what the whips

knew will be parment. Amber Rudd did

the same thing on Andrew Marr.

They

are being precise about the fact

they didn't know anything. Sarah

Newton said she heard no allegations

about her flock, the the MPs she was

in charge of rather than rumours

about any other Tories.

Amber Rudd

say, I do not recognise the more

lurid allegations. What about the

less lurid once? So, this smells

very, very bad indeed.

Jeremy

Corbyn's going to have to answer

some of these questions as well?

Yeah, but the whip's thing is a red

herring. Their remit is to get the

vote out for the Government

fundamentally. Everybody knows that.

They are not there, it is one of the

problems. They are not there to be

moral guides to these MPs. They are

there to win votes for the

Government or the opposition if that

becomes possible. And deal brutally

with MPs to make sure they get out

and vote. Of course they knew

virtually everything. But whether

they were obliged to act as moral