21/01/2018 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

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

construction, services

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

wanted answers.

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

something new?

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

tomorrow.

It is what people want to

hear?

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.

The Prime

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.

We

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

way...

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?

We would

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

too.

Cerco are a big government

provider, should they be looking at

all of their contracts with the

likes of Cerco who have also issued

profit warnings?

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

wall.

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

ministerial responsibility,

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.

Sometimes

when you hear Labour Shadow

ministers talking, it sounds as

though they want to take absolutely

everything back into public

ownership.

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.

Where

is it appropriate for private

contracts?

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

soon.

You need to look at this. What

about cleaning in offices and police

stations? Should that be run by the

police or outsourced?

Maybe

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.

You do

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

public hands?

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.

We

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

object?

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.

Indeed, but

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

cases.

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?

My view

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

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

of victims.

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.

Nor

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.

My

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?

Momentum is

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

democratic. I...

There is still a

massive disconnect between those who

sit in Parliament and those who have

joined since Jeremy Corbyn became

leader.

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

optimistic about.

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

suggesting.

Three new Momentum

members on the NEC this morning, is

it going to make a difference do you

think?

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?

Any

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

that.

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.

Stop Brexit!

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,

workplace protection,

environmental issues,

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

Brexit-supporting

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

Conservative backbenchers.

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?

I agree

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

the deal?

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

Scottish vote.

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

Rees-Mogg.

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

won.

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

completed...

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

terms are.

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

by that?

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

peers?

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

calling for.

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

on that.

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

government.

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,

but they

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.

In your

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?

Yes

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?

Well,

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

for this.

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

future.

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.

DUP

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

Northern Ireland?

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.

Jeffrey

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.

Do you

see this as a DUP initiative above

all else?

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

forward.

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.

Thank

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

that?

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.

Thank you.

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.

I

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.

Time and

again, there have not been contest

for leadership.

Coronations have

become the norm. Five out of the six

leaders in the North were

uncontested.

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.

That

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

of success?

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

for now.

Thanks both.

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.

It has

become clear to me that time is

short. One last opportunity to reach

agreement remains.

We need focus and

pressure. And an understanding and

context to allow the party to work

together.

Parties also appeared keen

to seek resolution.

We must use this

time wisely. We have set out the

issues that need to be resolved.

It

needs to be a balance to deal,

capable of being supported.

If

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

institutions reformed.

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.

Quite a

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

question itself.

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

personalised debate.

Very briefly,

what about Sinn Fein in all of this?

A party which will have a new leader

soon?

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

North.

Welcome back.

North.

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

executive.

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

membership.

You could at that point

say, the National Executive

Committee do not have confidence in

the do, I had better stand down.

I

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

relationship over?

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

under that.

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

with her.

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.

You

will not be having dinner with her

again?

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.

This

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.

There are

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

disrepute.

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

forward.

Your behaviour started the

debate.

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

basis.

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

moral debate.

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

problems.

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

election now.

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.

Thank you,

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?

It is

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

new?

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.

Steve

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.

Would you

welcome the return of Nigel Farage

to the political scene?

I would

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

say.

You think it is serious, the

idea him and Arron Banks might start