Mark Carruthers with the latest political news, interviews and debate.
Browse content similar to 21/01/2018. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Morning, everyone, and welcome
to the Sunday Politics.
I'm Sarah Smith.
And this is your essential briefing
to everything that's happening this
morning in the world of politics.
Big fines for bosses who take
bonuses from firms with black holes
in their pension funds -
will the Prime Minister's promise
help the Government get
back on the front foot
after the collapse of Carillion?
Leading Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg
says the Lords risk fundamental
reform if they obstruct the passage
of the EU Withdrawal Bill.
Arch-remainer Lord Adonis
says that's their job.
We'll bring the MP
and the peer together.
Henry Bolton fights to save his job
after a week of damaging headlines
about his relationship
with a 25-year-old model.
We'll be talk to
the Ukip leader live.
Will it be his last
interview as party leader?
Coming up here - City Deals
for Belfast and Londonderry,
the chances of fresh talks
succeeding and the new Sinn Fein
President-elect will all be up
for discussion today.
All that coming up in the programme.
And with me today, our regular
gaggle of experts providing
the inside track on all the big
stories - Tom Newton Dunn,
Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.
First this morning, Theresa May
is proposing what she's
calling tough new rules
to penalise company executives
who try to line their own pockets
by putting their workers'
pensions at risk.
"An unacceptable abuse,"
she says, "that will end."
Her comments come as the Government
attempts to seize the initiative
after the collapse of the giant
and out-sourcing company, Carillion,
which went into liquidation
on Monday with debts
of around £1.5 billion.
One of Britain's biggest
construction firms, Carillion,
has been put into liquidation.
20,000 workers face
an uncertain future.
Carillion employed people providing
essential services in our schools,
hospitals, railways and prisons.
They had to be told they would be
paid when they turned
up to work on Monday.
Let me be clear that all employees
should continue to turn up to work
confident in the knowledge
that they will be paid
for the public services
that they are providing.
The firm had around 450
contracts with government,
on top of private work
and overseas projects.
Some of those had been handed
to the company after it issued
profit warnings last year.
Prime Minister, why were contracts
awarded to Carillion
despite the warnings?
Labour and the unions
Why did the Government
not heed the warnings?
Why did they continue to give
billions of pounds of contracts
to a company that the City
were backing against in 2013?
That's the real question.
And it's emerged the firm's former
chief executive, Richard Howson,
who left the firm last year,
received £1.5 million in pay
and bonuses in 2016,
while many ordinary employees face
the prospect of being laid-off
and a huge black hole
in the company's pension scheme
could result in their
pensions being slashed.
Subcontractors who hadn't been paid
for weeks were warned they might get
just 1p for every pound
they are owed.
Some warned that they too
might go to the wall.
We are not really a business
of a size that can trade
through that without some form
of support from the Government.
If it's not forthcoming, I think
ourselves and lots of businesses
like us will probably go
out of business.
In the wake of the collapse...
For Labour though, this was not just
about the failure of one company.
By Monday night, Jeremy Corbyn had
taken to social media.
At Prime Minister's Questions,
he pressed the point home.
This is not one isolated case
of government negligence
and corporate failure.
It is a broken system.
Virgin and Stagecoach's management
of East Coast Trains,
Capita and Atos' handling
of disability assessments,
and security firm G4S's failure
to provide security at the Olympics
were all examples, according
to Jeremy Corbyn, of the private
sector failing the public sector.
These corporations, Mr Speaker,
need to be shown the door.
We need our public services
provided by public employees
with a public service ethos
and a strong public oversight.
As the ruins of Carillion lie
around her, will the Prime Minister
act to end this costly racket?
Theresa May pointed out
it was the Blair and Brown
governments that signed
many of the big public-private
partnership deals and she suspected
there was something else behind
the current Labour leadership's
hostility to the private sector.
But what Labour oppose isn't just
a role for private companies
in public services but the private
sector as a whole.
This is a Labour Party that has
turned its back on investment,
on growth, on jobs.
A Labour Party that will always put
politics before people.
So, under a Labour government,
how far would their
nationalisation plans go?
Would every binman, builder
and even bankers have to be
employed by the state?
Carillion's collapses the big story
of the week and it will continue to
have political consequences I will
talk through now at the panel. Tom
Newton Dunn, presumably the caps of
Carillion has prompted this promise
from Theresa May that she will
punish bosses who continue to take
bonuses when they have black holes
in the pension fund, is this
This is our
expectation, the Prime Minister has
acted dramatically as a response to
the collapse of Carillion last week.
The problem as I recall a party
conference speech she gave in
October, 2016, the citizens of
nowhere, calling out a rotten
corrupt apples across the country
then, Philip Green who presided over
the collapse of BHS, leaving a
massive pensions black hole, an
entire year and a bit has passed and
no apparent government action. I
fear Theresa May with the bold words
in the new look Observer this
morning, action today, still action
It is what people want to
Certainly people do want to
hear it, although they are amazed it
has not happened before. Jeremy
Corbyn is playing this beautifully.
There is a much more worrying bigger
picture here for the Conservatives.
The opportunity they have created
for Jeremy Corbyn to underline his
case that unfettered free markets do
not work and somehow or other
Carillion symbolises everything that
is wrong about the system, as we
heard him say in the clip. I do not
think most voters are particularly
ideological, they just want things
to work. But if the Government is
seen to be incompetent on this
scale, it creates a vacuum for the
leader of the Labour Party to put an
ideological spin on it and he is
doing it very effectively.
Minister is right when she says more
of these PFI contracts were signed
under Blair and Brown than under
subsequent Tory governments, but now
you have a Jeremy Corbyn Labour
Party in opposition, they do not
have to shoulder the blame for that?
Jeremy Corbyn oppose them at the
time. The late 1970s in reverse,
that is what we are seeing. Bowman
the minority Labour government being
torn apart. Now we have a minority
Conservative government being
challenged by tidal waves which put
them on the defensive all the time.
We have not time to go through other
examples, but just on this one,
Theresa May is quite well equipped,
as Tom said, from the beginning, she
taught the language of intervention
and corporate governments, coming
after the bad people in the private
sector, but because of the lack of
action to follow it up and because
Jeremy Corbyn genuinely believes in
these things, it is much easier for
him to swim with these tidal waves
than her lead in this deeply
pressurised minority government.
have been talking to all three of
you through the programme, let us
pick up on Carillion with the Shadow
Attorney General, Labour's Shami
Chakrabarti. Labour have been very
critical of the Government's
response to the collapse of
Carillion, what would Labour have
done differently this week if you
had been in government?
I think what
we would do and what we will do, as
soon as we are in government, is
look in a far more fundamental way
at PFI, outsourcing, and by the
We will get on the principles
of this, but if you had won the
election in 2017, it would have been
a Labour government handling the
collapse, what would have been
different in your response?
not have left it so late, we would
not have bailed out a company that
already had raised serious warning
signals in the City, we would not
have allowed them to get into
subcontracting with, for example,
Cerco, worth millions of pounds,
profit warnings against that company
Cerco are a big government
provider, should they be looking at
all of their contracts with the
likes of Cerco who have also issued
You do have to look
at all of the arrangements and the
subcontracting arrangements. It is
not because I am ideological leap
opposed to the private sector, it
will be smaller private sector
companies suffering from nonpayment.
Should the Government help? The man
running the small business in the
film saying they might go to the
Quite possibly. But with
accountability. It is all very well
for Mrs May to say she will sting
the big executives, there has to be
ministerial responsibility as well.
One of my concerns is that when
vital public services of a kind
almost constitutional, for example,
prisons, get contracted out, what
you are actually devolving as
something goes terribly wrong, in a
vital utility, a matter of security,
infrastructure, and ministers, of
whatever colour, put up their hands
and say, it is wicked executives.
What we need is ministerial
responsibility, oversight, of course
we want a thriving private sector,
but some vital services need to be
run by public servants and with
ministers held to account.
when you hear Labour Shadow
ministers talking, it sounds as
though they want to take absolutely
everything back into public
That is not the case. I
believe in a mixed economy and I
know my colleagues do too but there
are times when some things need to
be in public hands. That will
include on constitutional grounds
talking about people's human rights,
basic security, and it will also
mean sometimes when you have a big
organisation and outsourcing is used
to grind down the working conditions
of some workers and break down the
sense of community solidarity.
is it appropriate for private
For example, there are
some things that the private sector
probably does better. When you're
running a police force, you are
unlikely to say, we will make the
motorbikes for the police officers
better than BMW. Maybe you will but
I doubt it will happen any time
You need to look at this. What
about cleaning in offices and police
stations? Should that be run by the
police or outsourced?
hospitals are better example because
cleanliness in a hospital is quite
often a matter of life and death.
Sometimes it is better even for
something that seems not a core
service like claiming to be in
public hands. You need to look at
this on a case-by-case basis.
not have many examples of where it
is appropriate for private companies
to be involved. Prisons and
probation, what about catering in
prisons, does that have to be in
What you want to do is
look at the quality of the service,
the quality of the conditions, for
the people working there, and to see
what would be best value for the
public and for the public purse. It
is not ideological, but in some
cases, principles are at stake.
are left with the problem here of
workers worried about pensions,
working for Carillion and
subcontractors who might not get
paid. If the Government work to talk
about putting taxpayers' money into
helping out those people or those
companies, would the Labour Party
We would want to look at the
conditions of spending public money?
In principle? It is not the fault of
the subcontracting small companies
they will not get paid.
if you decide to spend public money,
for example, to help the smaller
businesses, you want accountability
in response. You
in response. You might well want to
legislate to give priority to
pension funds, for example, over
shareholders who have not done their
job of corporate governance in these
Moving on to talk about
something else, if you don't mind,
the serial six attacker, this time
last week we were sitting here
talking about the fact the Justice
Minister said he would launch a
judicial review and now he will not
because it has little chance of
succeeding. Should the Government be
pursuing a judicial review?
at the time, I held my tongue about
it because I am used to politicians
wading in in a knee jerk way when
there is a case of this kind, my
view is that if there is to be a
judicial review of the parole board
decision, the best person to bring
such a review would be a victim
because the chances are their best
arguments would be under the Human
Rights Act which gives rights to
victims and not to politicians.
Crowdfunding attempt to raise money
to do that perhaps?
If the Justice
Secretary wants to make a name for
himself with this as a new Justice
Secretary, he might better give his
attentions to making sure the people
have decent levels of legal aid so
they can vindicate their rights
under the Human Rights Act. In
relation to the case of John Worboys
and the crisis of public confidence,
that it is in danger of creating, we
could do with an end review of the
whole case, from the moment a young
woman went to the police and was not
believed to the moment this release
decision was made arguably with the
lack of transparency and involvement
He was prosecuted for
offences against 12 women and we
know there were almost 100 other
women who came forward. The CPS said
there was not enough evidence and
they cannot revisit that decision,
if there was not enough evidence
then, there will not be enough now.
I am not second-guessing the
particular CPS decision is because I
am not in a position to do that but
there are issues for the whole
system from the moment that a woman
went to the police and was not
treated with the respect she
deserved, to victims.
Kier Starmer was director of
prosecutions at the time and he said
he didn't have any involvement in
the decision-making behind it.
did his predecessor.
But he should
have done, shouldn't he? He has
prosecuted for only 12 cases, the
DPP should be involved in that.
argument is this whole
story on this whole case and the
numbers of women involved and
frankly the anxiety this decision
has caused to women who weren't even
victims means there needs to be an
end to end review of how the system
has worked in this case, from the
moment a woman went to the police
and was arguably not believed in was
made without the input of victims
who I would expect to be given
notice and the opportunity to make
representations to the parole board.
There's a story running in the
Sunday Times this morning about
Momentum and saying they are trying
to deselect 50 Labour MPs. The fact
of the matter is whether have been
Parliamentary selections, momentum
candidates have... Do you think
actually the Parliamentary Labour
Party should better
Party should better reflect Jeremy
Corbyn's Labour Party?
not prioritising the selection of
some candidates over others. They
are part of the Labour movement that
has always had various strands
within it. What is exciting to me is
not exciting to the Sunday Times,
fair enough, but we have a
Democratic party becoming more
There is still a
massive disconnect between those who
sit in Parliament and those who have
joined since Jeremy Corbyn became
I think these things become
exaggerated. I have noticed people
uniting around purposes, not least
the scandal around Carillion. I
don't really spot this red Menace in
the way other people do. It's a
democratic party, and most popular
movement of about 600,000 people and
I think that something to be
Thank you for
talking to this morning.
Momentum haven't been that
successful so far.
I think it has
been overblown on the basis of the
evidence. You quoted the procedure
is taking place so far, they haven't
prevailed that often and in the
Sunday Times this morning they
resorted to the example of Haringey
Council where there are a lot of
specific local issues. At this point
it is unclear whether the selection
will become the overwhelming theme
over the next few years in the
Labour Party. It might do but the
evidence so far is it is much more
nuanced than some papers are
Three new Momentum
members on the NEC this morning, is
it going to make a difference do you
A huge difference because
Corbyn and his wing of the party can
now do precisely what they want, as
long as they have the union muscle
behind them during conference votes,
then the party and any which way he
wants to run it is his. I disagree
with Steve, the difference in
language Jeremy Corbyn and his close
associates were using after the NEC
elections this week on mandatory
reselection is, Shami wasn't asked
if she believed in them, Rebecca
Long-Bailey was, and they refused to
rule them out and say they were a
bad thing. In my view, it is without
doubt that Corbyn will at some stage
try to reshape the Parliamentary
party more in his image and you may
argue why should he not do that.
Shami was saying the party is much
more united around Jeremy Corbyn and
when we see a story like Carillion
it is easier for him to get the
backing of the Parliamentary party.
I think that's right. How unpleasant
and ugly and divisive is it to have
the story is out, whether or not
they are completely accurate or
whoever is briefing, I think it
looks very bad on the atmosphere of
the Parliamentary party. Where I do
think Shami has a good point is on
the size of the Labour membership.
600,000, the Conservatives can only
dream of getting a fraction of
dream of getting a fraction of this,
so clearly there is a big problem
for the Tory party there in matching
what Labour is doing.
We should ask,
mandatory reselection for Labour
MPs, are you in favour, Shami?
democratic process should be across
the board and for everyone. Where
MPs are doing a good job, including
working with their membership, and
you have to work with your
membership to get the vote out in
the Labour Party, that relationship
works well and I think that
relationship will only work better
into the future. I have been all
over the country to all sorts of
CLPs campaigning, and you would be
surprised at the number of places
where there is a very happy
relationship between the MP and the
party regardless of the particular
strand they come from.
Thank you for
Now, the Government's flagship
Brexit legislation -
the EU Withdrawal Bill -
hasn't always had the easiest
of times in the House of Commons,
but this week, MPs voted to send it
through for consideration
in the House of Lords.
A number of peers having expressed
concern about the so-called Henry
VIII powers the bill grants
to ministers to make changes to some
laws without parliamentary scrutiny.
And of course, a number
of peers are dismayed
about the process of Brexit itself.
So, are we likely to see more
dramatic attempts to change
the Bill in a chamber full
of unelected lawmakers?
Ellie Price has been
taking their temperature.
You'd think a bill that sought
to enshrine EU law into British law
after Brexit would be popular
with the pro-Remain
crowd in Parliament.
But when the Withdrawal Bill cleared
the Commons this week,
one Tory Remain-supporting MP said
he hoped the House of Lords would
make an enormous amount of changes.
Good lord, what are they up to?!
I think what will happen
is that the Government will suffer
a series of defeats,
which will reduce the power
of ministers to do things
without proper scrutiny,
and put in place a sensible series
of votes - both in Parliament
and the people at the end
of the process - so that when we do
get an end point to Brexit,
people can say that it's
been done properly.
So a second referendum
is on the table?
It's definitely on the table.
You would expect a Lib Dem
to say that, but some Tory
peers want changes too.
If it comes to the situation
where it looks as if what people
voted for cannot be delivered,
then we have to decide how
best to move forward.
I don't believe the House of Lords
is trying to block Brexit at all.
I think what the House of Lords
is doing is its constitutional duty.
So anyone hoping the House of Lords
will deliver a fatal blow to Brexit
will be disappointed,
but so too will anyone hoping
that the Withdrawal Bill will come
out of there unchanged.
So what is all the fuss about?
The extent of the Government taking
powers to itself while giving
powers to Parliament,
Henry VIII powers, this issue,
of course, about the kind
of protections we've had under EU
law that we've contributed
to for consumer protection,
they are coming into UK law
and that's what this bill does
but it needs to make sure they're
protected in UK law; they can't just
be overturned the next day.
There has to be a mandatory
process to do that.
But this was the reaction when some
elected MPs over in the Commons
voted against aspects
of the Withdrawal Bill,
causing a government defeat.
One of their own colleagues even
talked of treachery.
Another MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg,
this week said the laws would face
reform if it tried to frustrate
the democratic will of the people.
So is the chamber full of unelected
Remainers playing with fire?
Since I've been leader
in the House of Lords,
for just over two years,
what I've found is every time
someone doesn't agree
with something we're doing,
they will get quite
hysterical about "take
away their powers," it's almost
an off-with-their-heads moment.
But you know, there is quite
prescribed powers we do,
we take them seriously
and responsibly, and,
if there are changes
we think should be made,
we will send them back
to the House of Commons.
And even one of the lesser-spotted
Lords isn't worried.
There are a number of lords
are in cahoots with Messrs Tusk
and Juncker in trying to persuade
the British people that they made
a grave mistake when they voted
to leave Brexit, and I have no doubt
they will have a bit
of fun doing that.
But on the big issues,
like whether we should
have a second referendum,
the Lords voted by a majority
of more than 200 against that last
year; or if you look at the Commons
vote where the majority was over 200
against remaining in the single
market and the customs union,
I think the Lords will look
to the elected House and do
what they're good at,
which is to consider the detail.
Of course, one of the biggest
differences between the Lords
and Commons is the presence
of nearly 200 crossbenchers -
members who aren't in a party
and don't take the whip,
and they include some
of the most distinguished legal
minds in the country.
And debate over the bill's
constitutional implications may well
lead to more than one showdown
with the Commons.
It's worth remembering
that the Corporate Manslaughter
and Corporate Homicide Bill went
back and forth between the two
Houses seven times only a few years
ago, and that was just an aspect
of the criminal justice system,
it wasn't about the biggest decision
this country is taking since 1945.
So I think people need to be
a little bit relaxed about that.
Like the MPs on the Green
benches of the Commons,
the Lords on their red benches
agreed to trigger Article 50.
But the Lords, like the Commons,
is split on what Brexit
should actually look like.
There may be some toing and froing,
or ping-pong as it's known around
here, but pretty much everyone
agrees the Lords can't
and won't block the bill,
and it will go through,
probably, by the end of May.
Ellie Price reporting.
Well, to discuss this,
we're joined from Somerset
by the MP Jacob Rees-Mogg.
This week he was elected
chair of the influential
European Research Group,
made up of Brexit-backing
And in the studio, we're
joined by Andrew Adonis.
He's a Labour peer who resigned
from his role as a Government
adviser last month over
its Brexit strategy.
Lord Adonis, you have made your
opposition to Brexit clear, recently
describing it as a national list
spasm that can be stopped. Do you
think the EU Withdrawal Bill is the
opportunity to stop Brexit?
this is the biggest decision the
country will take since 1945. I do
not think the Lords can stop it,
this is an issue for the people. It
started with the people in a
referendum and my view is the final
sites should go to the people. The
critical issue over the coming
months will be the relationship
between the House of Lords and the
House of Commons in seeing people
have the final say.
When you say
people have the final say, you are
talking about a second referendum?
The first referendum on Mrs May's
terms on departure of the EU, not a
rerun of the referendum two years
ago because when we have that we
didn't know what the terms would be.
We are a democracy, we engage the
people, this is the biggest decision
since 1945 and the people should
have the final say.
Let me bring in
Jacob Rees-Mogg on that, you are
confident we will have a Brexit deal
that will look attractive to most of
the electorate so presumably you
wouldn't be too worried about the
second referendum on the terms of
I think the ambition of
the Lords in putting forward a
second referendum is to try to stop
tax it, and Lord Adonis has been
clear about that. He said only
yesterday he wanted to delete all of
the clauses of the Withdrawal Bill.
We have had a referendum, then a
general election where both main
parties backed the referendum
results. I think if somebody wants a
second referendum they should win a
general election first, campaigning
for one, rather than getting
unelected peers to use it as a
stratagem to obstruct Brexit. It is
noticeable Lord Adonis and others
have not called for a second
referendum on other things
referendum on other things like the
Lord Adonis, you have
sent you will make the Government's
life an absolute misery over the EU
Withdrawal Bill which sounds as if
you are using it as a stick to beat
a policy or a decision you don't
like rather than your real role
which is legislative scrutiny.
There's a huge amount of scrutiny to
do. The powers which ministers are
given in this bill is without
precedent in a single piece of
legislation, they have order making
powers over the whole sphere of
legislation that was previously
enshrined in European law so if the
House of Lords doesn't pay attention
to that it's not doing its job.
Coming back to Jacob's remarks,
Jacob himself has been a
supporter of the second referendum.
In the House of Commons in 2011 he
himself set out a case for a
referendum on the terms of departure
from the European Union if the
electorate voted first time around
to set the process in train. Jacob
is contradicting his own position.
You are shaking your head, Jacob
That is simply inaccurate. There was
a proposal for a referendum to begin
a process of negotiating
nonmembership, to give them a
mandate, and he would come back with
what he achieved, and there would be
a referendum on the result. The
Prime Minister decided to have a
straightforward referendum, in or
out. Lord Adonis is speaking about
discussion before the referendum
terms were set, then they were set,
everyone knew what they were voting
for, to leave the EU, it was clear
that meant leaving the single market
and the customs union. I put a dent
Lord Adonis, he would not be calling
for a second referendum had Remain
That is completely untrue. We
did not know what the terms were.
The Conservative manifesto for the
election before said we would stay
in the single market. These are
Jacob's words, in the House of
Commons, in 2011, it might make
sense to have the second referendum
after the renegotiation is
He says he is talking
about Cameron's renegotiation that
he went to before.
Exactly the same
principle applies now. We are seeing
the terms Mrs May is coming back
with, it is absolutely right that
people should have a safe and it
should not be Jacob Rees Mogg and
Brexit ideologues deciding what the
The difficulty with this
is that people decided in a
referendum, the general election
manifestos of both parties committed
to carrying out the result of the
referendum, if Lord Adonis wants to
put his case forward, he should try
to stand for election, something I
do not think he has ever done, win a
general election campaigning to
reverse the result. Unelected peers
should not try to frustrate the will
of the British people, as now
expressed in two Democratic votes.
On that, you have been issuing some
veiled threats this week, saying the
House of Lords would get into
difficulties if they try to
frustrate Brexit, what do you mean
I think what Baroness Smith
is saying is very sensible, the
House of Lords will abide by the
Constitutional conventions, it will
look to revise, I have concerns
about some of the Henry VIII powers
myself, a perfectly reasonable thing
for the Lords to look at in its
normal constitutional role. But if
the House of Lords gets into a 1909
position of peers against the
people, the people win and the Lords
need to be aware of that, they need
to observe the constitutional norms
and then everything will carry on.
The Lords need to be aware that what
might happen to them in those
circumstances, that government could
flood the Chamber with 200 new Tory
It is already pretty flooded,
but yes, you would have to have a
deluge on top of a flood. The House
of Lords has to abide by the
constitutional norms, otherwise the
Prime Minister would be perfectly
entitled to use reserve powers to
create more peers. I hope that will
not be necessary. This is a
conditional, not something I am
What he is doing is
threatening the Lords, Brexit
ideologues who will stop at nothing
to get Brexit through without the
people the final say. He is dodging
the issue because nobody is talking
about the House of Lords asserting
itself against the people. The issue
which it will come down to resist
the House of Lords invites the House
of Commons, Jacob and his
colleagues, themselves to reach a
decision again on the issue of
whether they should have a
referendum on the final terms. It is
not anti-democratic, it is the
proper expression of democracy and
the House of Lords. It is something
which Jacob himself has supported in
the past, no longer convenient for
him to recognise that fact, but
people's past does catch up with
them. Nigel Farage has come to
support a referendum on Mrs May's
Brexit deal because he realises it
is inevitable. As people realise the
gravity of this decision and the
fact Parliament itself is not in a
great place to take it because there
has been a referendum. The case for
a referendum on Mrs May's terms will
be unstoppable and the House of
Lords will play an important
democratic role in inviting the
House of Commons to reach a decision
Jacob Rees Mogg, it would
be ironic if the British
constitution is working its way with
the House of Lords making its
revisions sending it back to the
Commons, for you to argue against
that, when what you wanted was for
us to take control back of our own
I am all in favour of
taking back control and decisions
being made in the House of Commons
with the Lords acting as a revising
Chamber. You have to understand the
motives, they are trying to obstruct
Brexit. Lord Adonis said the
decision to leave for is as big a
mistake as appeasement in the 1930s,
almost hysterical reaction to the
Brexit decision, and they are using
it as a strategy to frustrate
Brexit. What they should do is not
used the unelected Lords but they
should campaign in a general
election if they have to campaign to
do it as the Labour Party notably
didn't in 2017, to call for a second
referendum and reverse the result,
Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics
in Northern Ireland.
Amid one final attempt
to bring Stormont back,
there's another deal politicians
here are working on with
Westminster - City Deals.
Could giving more power
to councils around Belfast
and the North West prove to be
the big economic game changer?
Plus, Micheal Martin's support
for abortion in the early stages
of pregnancy was one of the shock
moments of this week's Dail
debate on the repeal
of the Eighth Amendment.
We'll be live in Dublin for analysis
from the Irish Times'
former political editor.
And with me in the studio
for their take on events
are Professor Rick Wilford
and Suzanne Breen of
the Belfast Telegraph.
Behind the big political battles
of Stormont and Brexit,
the work to get City Deals in place
here is picking up pace.
Last November the Chancellor said
Belfast and surrounding council
areas could work up a plan to get
more power for economic growth
and more control over public
spending plans and it's hoped that
a deal will be signed
off this autumn.
Derry and Strabane Council,
meanwhile, has been fighting hard
for a deal of its own.
It didn't get a specific endorsement
from the Chancellor -
but politicians and business leaders
point to a commitment
from the former Secretary of State,
James Brokenshire, in December
that it will also get a City Deal.
Councillor Deirdre Hargey
is the chair of the Belfast City
Council committee leading the work
on the City Deal, and in our Foyle
studio MLA Gary Middleton has been
part of the lobbying efforts
in the North West.
Welcome to you both. What clear
benefit his Belfast hoping for from
a City Deal?
We have set a target of
bringing in an extra £1 billion of
investment into the Belfast and the
five surrounding council areas and I
think this would have a massive
opportunity to make real inclusive
growth within the city and beyond in
areas of skills and employability,
in immersive tech and that you are
digital infrastructure and bringing
it up to the standards of companies
within the city and surrounding
areas, to compete on an
international stage. I think this is
a game changer, obviously only one
element of an overall inclusive
growth strategy that our city and
surrounding areas are looking at but
it is a massive game changer for
success moving forward.
view, does this depend on the
restoration of devolution or not? In
November, when it was first mooted,
there seemed to be a suggestion from
the Treasury that was the case?
Obviously we want the institutions
working, that would be good for
everyone. The finance package would
be a partnership between the British
Government, the Executive and the
local councils and authorities. We
want a functioning executive but it
has to be on the right terms and
we're working on ensuring we are
taking the steps.
Do you still think
a City Deal would be deliverable
without a functioning executive?
because the department is how they
are and if there is a lot will
around everybody around key growth
areas, in terms of propelling
economic growth and dealing with
poverty and deprivation and low
skills and targeting jobs, then I
think everyone could buy into that.
In the North West, Gary Middleton,
Belfast has a formal status of
bidding for a City Deal with the
powers that be in London, but the
situation as well as Derry and
Strabane Council and surrounding
councils as you do not have that
formal endorsement at this stage,
how big of a drawback is that?
obviously we want to see Londonderry
get a City Deal, that is a priority
and I think we have political unity
around that. There have been
engagements in terms of recent weeks
and we have in place strategic
growth plans which we believe will
road map significant investment in
the North West. It will basically
boost economic growth in
productivity and employment. We have
had recent positive discussions and
we believe Londonderry is now ready
You have the endorsement
of James Brokenshire, when he was
Secretary of State, he has gone now
and has been replaced by Karen
Bradley. Have you spoken to her to
see if she supports this bit?
Absolutely, at a senior level, DUP
MPs have been in constant
negotiation and conversation with
the Secretary of State and we have
phrased it directly with her. And we
do believe that Karen does believe
City Deals are vital for the North
West region. From our own
perspective, we don't believe it is
an either or, we believe Belfast and
Londonderry can both benefit from
City Deal that complement each
other. Ultimately, when you look at
the Foyle constituency and the high
levels of deprivation and
unemployment, it is vital we get our
strategic growth plan in place. We
are not starting in a position of
zero, we start with a plan in place
and we believe it can create jobs
and have investment but we need to
deliver on key infrastructure
projects, which we have continually
raised, the A5, the Athe airport and
harbour, we are very positive and
remain positive going into the
In Gary Middleton's view,
there is no competition between the
two cities and regions. Are you
nervous the North West is also
bidding might steal your thunder?
No, we welcome and inclusive Growth
deal for Derry and the North West
more generally, I think that
enhances the past's case also
because we are a small economy and
if we're serious about propelling
the private sector and looking at
inclusive growth, so we let everyone
up in society, then the more of the
north that goes for these inclusive
Growth Deals, the better. We would
work in partnership with Derry and
we will collaborate with them and
look at synergies amongst our
inclusive Growth Deals and I look
forward to that partnership.
seems to claim credit that it is
part of the deal with the Tories and
that is what has led to particular
movement. Do you have to recognise
the fact that this is something that
has come out of that deal in
Westminster, which is maybe to the
benefit of everybody here in
I don't see it. We
have been in discussions in the
North West and in Belfast for nearly
two years now, we have been engaging
with the Executive and the British
Government and have been working
with institutions in the city, the
university, the harbour, etc, and I
do think it has been that push and
that partnership that has got us to
where we are today.
Donaldson says it was not an issue
of the non-Irish executive. The DUP
recognises that City Deals would be
good for Northern Ireland and we
want to see them rolled out. He says
they deserve the credit.
I don't see
that, the only deals I have seen
come out of this are Confidence and
Supply, which seems to be
gerrymandering constituency areas.
The City Deals we have been looking
at have been through discussion and
negotiation over two years, councils
have been pushing them, certainly,
but we do feel it is through our
engagement with both Westminster and
the Executive office because we do
need departments here within the
Executive to work behind us on this
and get behind us. I feel it is
through all of those partnerships,
working, that we have come to this
realisation. Because they know that
the economic growth and deal with
issues of poverty and deprivation,
that is good for the economy.
see this as a DUP initiative above
Well, what I would say as
we are aware that 20 City Deals have
already been signed through the UK
and we believe we need to be ready
in terms of having a plan in place
to allow us to go for a City Deal.
As Jeffrey has alluded to, the fact
we have a confident and supply
arrangement, City Deals are able to
be put clearly on the agenda, so we
have that commitment for the first
time, that City Deals will happen.
And we believe there needs to be
certainly one for Londonderry, as
with Belfast, but we do not see this
as a competition. I do believe it is
helpful at this moment to create a
competition, where we can try to
find out who was the first to say it
or deliver it, I believe we need to
work together to ensure me to get
City Deals for Northern Ireland. I
think that is how we should go
The North West is pushing
hard for investment, to bring jobs
to Derry and the region but we also
know there are threats from other
cities with similar deals, there are
issues, you said yourself, with
transport shortcomings, it is a very
market. Do you have a figure, Deidre
mentioned £1 billion for Belfast in
this region, what the figure you are
looking for in the North West?
Ultimately, our strategic growth
plan identifies a figure of 3.4
billion, Oliver infrastructure
projects, of towns and cities,
that's something we're working
towards. In terms of the City Deal
proposal, and we presented this is
obviously to the Government in
relation to the need for a £1.7
billion investment, we believe that
would eliminate those in jobs and
open up our economy in terms of
transport access, collectivity and
we need to get broadband
connectivity as well. We have
detailed this and I want to pay
tribute to the local council and all
who have prepared this worthwhile
document. We look forward to going
for with that in the future.
you. We have confirmation that Mary
Lou McDonald is the only candidate
to take over as president of Sinn
Fein very soon. There will be no
competition. Are you content with
I think there was an open
process within the party, in terms
of people putting names for that,
that concluded on Friday with just
one nomination received, which was
Mary Lou. And I think I was at a
party meeting yesterday, at which
that was announced, and there was a
real positive feeling within the
party. It's part of an overall
tenure transition plan which Gerry
Adams had set out last year. And
this is a step in that transition
plan. I think there is an upbeat
mood within the party and I think
it's a good move, Mary Lou is an
excellent leader coming forward...
You don't think the contest would
have looked better?
That is down to
the party and
those who their names forward. It is
not unique to Sinn Fein, the parties
have gone through similar processes
and similar outcomes. We are going
to be looking to a deputy leader
soon. And that will be another
process again but I think this is a
good move for Sinn Fein and for
Ireland as a whole.
Let's hear from my guests
of the day, Professor Rick Wilford
from Queen's University
and Suzanne Breen from
the Belfast Telegraph.
Suzanne, let's talk about me really
being confirmed at the only
candidate for that leadership, which
will be decided on the 10th of
February. Would it have looked
better if there had been a proper
contest or does it not matter? , I
think it is that that for a party
with many ambitious members, a huge
array of talent, particularly south
of the border, nobody has appeared
to want the leadership of the party.
I would have thought Pearse Doherty
was a good alternative candidate.
understand it could be for personal
reasons, he has young children and
commutes from Donegal to Dublin and
it could be too much for him. Yes, I
think there could be some criticism
levelled at Sinn Fein that only one
person contested the leadership that
we have to remember that live here,
I think I'm out of the six main
parties, it is only... Arlene
Foster, Peter Robinson did not,
leadership was gifted to them, so I
don't think we can criticise Sinn
Fein without looking at the DUP and
other parties too. What is different
is the downside. Both Micheal Martin
and Leo Varadkar faced leadership
battles, so maybe that might be used
against her down south.
again, there have not been contest
become the norm. Five out of the six
leaders in the North were
uncontested. I'm not sure, I
certainly agree you should not' Sinn
Fein for criticism on this issue.
But I think what matters is the
extent to which leaders are
successful in bringing their party
forward. The big issue here is to
what extent, if any, Mary Lou
McDonald is going to steer the boat
in a different direction. She said
yesterday, she could not fill Gerry
Adams's shoes. Will she assumed the
leadership in a pair of spiky
stilettos or will she be more
softly, softly, so a kitten heeled
approach to leadership. But she has
a lot of challenges with the
abortion issue and elections and the
talks up here, which she will have a
role, no doubt, so she stepping in
at the deep end. A very challenging
period for Northern Ireland.
brings us to the other issue I
wanted to talk about, fresh talks
announced by Karen Bradley starting
on Wednesday, short, sharp process,
she says, aimed at delivering based
Stormont project again. What chance
Nobody I have spoken to
across a wide range of parties
believes there will be a deal within
the next two weeks. I think this
process will drag on and on and the
talks will extend beyond the
fortnight. Gregory Campbell told me
on Friday that chances were not
great for a deal, there has been
speculation that Sinn Fein might be
motivated to have something in place
on the 10th of February, Gerry Adams
is finally departing the stage but
the private positions of the parties
at the same as the current public
positions, and if that's the case,
there is little hope.
If you are
looking for optimism, you could see
your interview ten days ago with Leo
Varadkar when he said it would be a
hard sell off there was a deal, you
can infer from that that maybe there
is a possibility. I thought it was
interesting that Gerry Adams said
yesterday that we must challenge
Unionists and we also have to
challenge ourselves and our base, in
terms of the development of the
party. I wondered whether I might be
reading too much between the lines
here but I wonder if you put those
two comments together, you might
infer that it is a glimmer of light
but there is no vaulting ambition.
People I have spoken to, their mood
is very downbeat.
We leave it there
And now with a look back at another
busy week in the political world,
here's Stephen Walker.
Sinn Fein MP Barry McElduff resigned
over his controversial Kingsmill
video. No that I offer an apology to
the families and the wider community
for consequences of the video. A new
short talks process was announced by
the Secretary of State.
become clear to me that time is
short. One last opportunity to reach
We need focus and
pressure. And an understanding and
context to allow the party to work
Parties also appeared keen
to seek resolution.
We must use this
time wisely. We have set out the
issues that need to be resolved.
needs to be a balance to deal,
capable of being supported.
Stormont doesn't return, might a
citizens Assembly fill the void? ? I
believe there should be used to
review, and revitalise the Good
Friday Agreement, to get new
When the leader of Fianna Fail,
Micheal Martin, said on Thursday
that he supported legalising
abortion in the early
months of pregnancy,
one TD reportedly said it would lead
to Mr Martin being "lynched"
by his colleagues.
It underlines the significance
of what Mr Martin did and what's
at stake for people on both sides
of the abortion debate.
TDs are currently discussing
the repeal of the Eighth Amendment -
which recognises the equal right
to life of the mother
and her unborn child -
and it's expected the Government
will put the matter
to the Irish people
in a referendum in May or June.
The former political editor
of the Irish Times, Stephen Collins,
joins me from Dublin.
Micheal Martin previously described
himself as pro-life -
so clearly not expected.
What are the consequences for him
and his party at this move?
He has taken a political risk and
surprised most of his own TTs and
senators by this line. But the party
is good at having a free vote, so
he, like the other TDs in Fianna
Fail is entitled to his views on
this issue. There has been support
of deleting the Eighth Amendment and
in support of the planned by the
committee to allow access to
abortion up to 12 weeks. The ground
had been paved but a lot of his TDs
were initially shocked and
surprised. A number said they would
take a different view. So far, there
has been no real vote in Fianna Fail
because people are allowed to
express their own views. At the most
recent party conference, in October,
there was overwhelming support for
retaining the Eighth Amendment. It
was designed after all by Fianna
Fail in the first place and the
party faithful still believe it
should remain. Micheal Martin is
taking a risk but I think he has
decided to move because Ireland is
changing and opinion polls show
there is possibly a majority for a
change and he doesn't want to be
left isolated as a backward looking
party and is taking this big
decision in that context.
challenge for the Taoiseach leader,
Leo Varadkar, who said publicly it
is critical beta date is conducted
appropriately and that he finds the
correct wording for the referendum
Yes, Leo Varadkar
has been moving slowly and nobody
doubts that he wants to go ahead
with removing the Eighth Amendment
and replacing it with what the
committee recommended, allowing
access to abortion up to 12 weeks. I
think he wants to get to that
position but he is moving slowly,
trying to bring as many waverers
with him because there are the
Niguel senators who will not be very
happy with this either but he is
trying to bring as many of them
along he can. -- the
along he can. -- the Fine Gael.
There has been talk of courts, which
may fuel opposition but so far, the
fact that both parties are allowing
a free vote, we have had a debate in
the Dail and the Senate and it was
pretty civilised. People expected it
to be bitter and divisive and that
did not happen. People had different
views but did not get involved in
what about Sinn Fein in all of this?
A party which will have a new leader
Yes, Sinn Fein in some ways
was a little behind on this. The
party didn't have a position of
repealing the Eighth Amendment but
whether or not they would support
access to abortion is an open
question. I think the party will
awaken other parties, De La Rue
members who have expressed strong
opposition in the past, so I think
Sinn Fein, like other parties, will
have difficulties. It is not in
their tradition to allow free votes
so we will need to see if they go
down that road.
Stephen Collins, thank you.
And let's have a final word
with Rick Wilford and Suzanne Breen.
Quite a shift on the part
of Micheal Martin.
Wherever you look in the world on
this debate, referendums tend to
become divisive and emotive. If you
go back to an early debate in the
Assembly in the early 2000, some of
the rhetoric by the anti-abortion
MLAs then was really colourful, to
say the least. So, it is a divisive
issue which divides parties. Micheal
Martin was persuaded by the evidence
he saw on the basis of the committee
report rather than reverting to a
kind of emotional spasm or response
and I think that was encouraging.
Were you surprised by Micheal
Martin's change of heart?
I think it
is very courageous and he has one
eye on the opinion polls and in some
ways Fianna Fail goes into the
referendum with the best of both
worlds because a lot of their rural
representatives are anti-abortion
and anti-repeal and yet they have a
leader who is pro-repeal. So they
can appeal to both sides of the
electorates and in future elections.
His speech was carefully crafted and
no one can argue when he said there
is abortion in Ireland whether they
like it or not. All we're doing is
exporting the problem and women are
buying pills online. I think what he
said had implications and what
happens down south could have huge
implications up here. If we see
abortion available down south, up to
12 weeks, we will find women instead
of going to London heading down to
Dublin and what with that say?
People would think the south was
being more progressive than the
Now, the Ukip leader,
Henry Bolton, faces his party's
ruling body later today,
who will decide whether they think
he should be sacked after less
than four months into the job.
The showdown comes after a week
of damaging headlines
about his private life.
54-year-old Henry Bolton met
25-year old Jo Marney
at a Ukip party last month.
He left his wife on 23rd December
and spent Boxing Day
with the former model.
Last weekend, the Mail on Sunday
revealed that Ms Marney had sent
racist text messages
about Prince Harry's
fiance, Meghan Markle.
She said Harry's black American
fiance would taint the royal family
with her seed and pave the way
for the way for a black king.
On Monday, she was
suspended from Ukip.
Mr Bolton said he would end
the romantic element
of the relationship.
But just two days later,
they were spotted having dinner at
a swanky restaurant in Westminster.
She later went back to his flat.
But Mr Bolton insists that was just
to collect her bags and he provided
a taxi receipt to prove it.
He says he still loves her,
it was "the happiest I've been
in years" during their whirlwind
romance and hasn't ruled out
re-kindling the relationship.
And Henry Bolton joins us now.
Can you rekindle your relationship
with the woolly executive? What do
you expect the outcome of the
meeting will be? -- with the
The meeting was set up to
discuss the present situation. They
may decide to have a vote of
no-confidence and if they do and it
goes against me, it goes to the
You could at that point
say, the National Executive
Committee do not have confidence in
the do, I had better stand down.
could do, but I will not. There are
number of elements here, the most
important is the NEC should have its
eye on the political poll, the need
for the party get itself on its feet
and deliver an effective message in
terms of the Brexit debate and how
policies shape for the UK
post-Brexit -- the political ball.
They will probably also have
questions about your personal life,
and this is an opportunity for clear
this up. On Monday, you told us your
romantic relationship with Jo Marney
was over and then you were seen
having dinner together and on the
tube going home after dinner, is the
I am not going to
go into the details. That
relationship in terms of the party
is now over, Ms Marney has resigned.
She was suspended.
She resigned as
of yesterday. She made an apology to
the members yesterday for the
embarrassment caused and any
disruption and problems caused for
the party. I think that draws a line
It doesn't because you
said publicly on Monday that the
relationship was over and then you
are seen having dinner with somebody
who's views, and she has revealed,
she had to apologise for, if you
judge someone by the company you
keep, you should not have dinner
We have information out in
the public domain that shows, that
proves, there is an insurgency going
on within the party. Some of that
information came from her, in
addition, she had a number of death
threat she wanted to discuss and she
did have to collect things from my
apartment. That is all done.
will not be having dinner with her
I may do. The romantic
element is over. It would be inhuman
to simply walk away and cut the link
entirely. I will not do that.
is someone who has embarrassed the
party and the leadership by sending
racist messages about Meghan Markle
but you think it is appropriate for
you to continue?
I have for the
content of the messages, they are
appalling, and she has admitted
that. -- I abhor the content of the
messages. My job is to get the party
on its feet. At the moment, everyone
is talking about Brexit, but
actually, leaving the EU is not the
point, the point is getting back our
independence for this country in
every area of administration, that
has been the objective.
lots of people who did not know you
were the leader of Ukip until this
hit the front pages! You have not
been doing a great job of getting
Ukip into the Brexit debate and
instead this relationship has
brought the party in to distribute
and surely if you want this to be
about the politics, you should stand
down? -- brought the party into
I am delivering the
message now, we have an agenda to
move forward in terms of internal
reform to build the solid base. But
it is necessary, they have been
neglected. They need to be rebuilt
and then we can move forward
politically. That is my core
purpose. Any other debate is a
distraction and I will not let
myself get drawn down that route.
She has left the party, we move
Your behaviour started the
Are we not talking about
this leadership thing being a moral
court as to what the state of my
marriage and personal relationships
is? What is important to the nation
and the voters under 17.4 million
people who voted to leave the EU is
that this country gets its
independence back from Brussels and
that we can move forward on that
You are suggesting we should
not have a period moral debate about
whether it was right for you to
leave your wife or have a much
younger girlfriend, people are upset
about you keeping company with
someone who has sent offensive and
racist messages and this is someone
you want to continue having some
kind of relationship with and that
questions your judgment -- prurient
I do not think that it
is good for British politics at all
or the nation to start focusing on
someone's domestic affairs rather
than the politics they are
delivering. With this country, we
need to work hard, this party needs
to work hard to unite the various
leave campaigns, to mobilise them
and take forward the cause for
independence and that is what I am
absolutely determined to do and I am
not going to let this party be
disrupted by internal squabbling
which has exploited my own domestic
situation in order to cause
You have said in your
leadership election that it would
cripple Ukip, why? -- you said the
new leadership election would
cripple Ukip, why?
It would take
months, it would take us off the
battlefield for the Brexit debate.
We cannot afford to do that
politically. At the same time, the
resulting in fighting would give our
political enemies ammunition to pull
the party apart. The party, if the
NEC makes the wrong decision today,
the party will start doing that in
itself. Politically, this party
cannot afford to have a leadership
Just to be clear,
regardless of whether or not the NEC
vote to have comments in you, you
will try to have confidence in you.
I will remain in contact.
Henry Bolton. Henry Bolton says he
wants to refocus us onto the
politics of Ukip, away from his
critical life -- personal life, do
you think there is any chance?
so depressing. We should be past the
stage where we hold politicians so
morally to account. I don't care
about Henry Bolton's love life, it
is not my business. I care about the
fact it is the only thing I know
about him and his leadership of the
UK Independence Party at the moment.
I do not mean to be rude, Henry, but
I think you are finished, Ukip is
finished, the sooner you accept
that, the better for all the people
who care about Brexit and the
delivery of Brexit because right now
you cannot focus on that, you are
too busy, too distracted, sorting
out this mess in your private life.
Now Nigel Farage and Arron Banks are
talking about a new movement,
separate to Ukip. Is it time to put
the party to bed and start something
That will be dependent on the
decision that NEC makes this
afternoon. If they decide to keep me
as leader, we will be able to move
forward with the agenda of reform we
have been talking about. If it takes
another course of action, I suspect
Isabel is right. It is a difficult
challenge, absolutely, but that only
chance for the party is to continue
as it is in the present agenda of
reforms I have initiated and taking
forward. If we do not do that, quite
frankly, I think Isabel is correct.
Tom Newton Dunn?
I think Ukip does
have a future. I disagree a tiny bit
with Isabel. If only it can somehow
stay together until Theresa May
finally does the deal with the EU
27. There will be compromises in the
deal, there may be payment of access
to the single market for financial
services, although Theresa May will
not call it that. It will be some
form of a fudge simply because it
has to be. We heard Emmanuel Macron
this morning, holding with Angela
Merkel's hardline of no cherry
picking. Ukip Ozma opportunity to be
the hard-core Brexit fighters --
Ukip's opportunity. They have to
stay, crucially, alive until that
point. Personally, for Mr Bolton, I
have a terrible feeling he will lose
his job and girlfriend after this. A
terrible individual tragedy.
Richards, is it necessary there is a
voice, whether from Arron Banks, and
Nigel Farage, whether it continues
to be Ukip, is there not a wing of
the Tory party, Jacob Rees-Mogg
earlier, are they not doing the job
of holding the Government to account
and making sure they get the kind of
Brexit they think people voted for?
Partly. Some Brexit voters went to
Labour because their concerns about
being left behind were partly
addressed by the Labour manifested
at the last election. It is also
about the credibility of the voice.
The problem Ukip has had over the
last 18 months is that all political
parties are fragile, the theme of
the programme today, the other big
ones all, but when you have all of
these leadership contest, all
triggered by wacky absurd
circumstances, the degree to which
weightiness and credibility is taken
away is such that it is difficult
for a party to recover. I am with
Isabel, it has reached the point
where even though Brexit is this
golden opportunity for Ukip, it has
imploded to such an extent I cannot
see how it pulls back.
welcome the return of Nigel Farage
to the political scene?
always welcome his return, he livens
up political debate, nobody can
doubt his passion for ensuring
Brexit is delivered in the way
voters who backed that in the
referendum envisaged. There is
clearly a vacuum. Bring it on, I
You think it is serious, the
idea him and Arron Banks might start
I do not know about
Arron Banks but I know Nigel Farage
has the appetite, he is extremely
worried about the fate of Brexit and
whether there will be some great
betrayal of voters and I know he is
thinking very carefully about what
to do next.
Would that worried the
Prime Minister, if Nigel Farage was
to come back central stage?
Brexit deal is going to disappoint
lots of people who voted Brexit.
There is political space there for a
harder Brexit political force. But
it has to have the other ingredients
of weightiness, credibility and
coherence that Ukip always struggled
Quick word. It has to have a
very persuasive narrator and Nigel
Farage, like I'm or loathe him,
there has been no politician in the
current generation who can put
forward a more persuasive case than
Nigel Farage. If he comes back, very
bad news for the government.
you very much to the panel and my
And before we go, there's just time
to tell you about a new podcast -
Prime Minister's Questions
with Andrew Neil.
It's available every
after Prime Minister's Questions,
with highlights and analysis
from Andrew and his guests.
You can listen and subscribe
on your phone's podcast
apps and iPlayer radio.