05/11/2017 Sunday Politics South West

Good morning, everyone,

and welcome to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith.

And this is your guide to everything

that's happening in the world

of politics this Sunday morning.

On today's show:

Theresa May's right-hand man

Damian Green has denied claims that

police found pornography

on a computer in his office in 2008.

He says the allegations by a former

police chief are "political smears."

With claims of sexual harassment

at Westminster growing by the day,

can either Theresa May

or Jeremy Corbyn do anything to get

to grips with a scandal

threatening to engulf

the entire political class?

We'll ask a minister and senior

member of the Shadow Cabinet.

And some on the left of politics

have been gathering to mark 100

In

have been gathering to mark 100

In the

have been gathering to mark 100

In the south-west,

have been gathering to mark 100

In the south-west, the

have been gathering to mark 100

In the south-west, the more

have been gathering to mark 100

In the south-west, the more

expensive the area, the more homes

So there's plenty of

explosive political news

to get you in the mood

for bonfire night -

and with me as usual,

three journalists who know quite

a bit about parliamentary plots -

if rather less about

gunpowder and treason.

It's Tom Newton Dunn,

Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.

So what are the big political

stories making the news this Sunday?

Well, the papers are brimming

with further allegations against MPs

in the sexual harassment scandal,

which according to one newspaper has

left Westminster frozen in fear.

First Secretary of State Damian

Green, already under

investigation over allegations -

which he strongly denies -

of propositioning a female activist,

is the subject of new claims that

police discovered pornography

on a computer in his Westminster

office in 2008.

Mr Green denies the allegation,

made by former senior

police officer Bob Quick,

saying it is "completely untrue,"

and adding that he is the victim

of disreputable "political smears."

Michael Fallon, who resigned

as Defence Secretary this week

over his past behaviour,

is also subject to fresh claims

he lunged at a female journalist

in 2003 after a lunch.

Labour is facing questions

over its handling of sexual

misconduct allegations.

This morning Shadow Cabinet minister

Dawn Butler refused to be drawn

on whether Jeremy Corbyn knew

about alleged misconduct by MP

Kelvin Hopkins when he was promoted

to the Shadow Cabinet.

And there is a reminder that normal

political life goes on,

with reports that the Cabinet has

agreed to put housing at the heart

of Philip Hammond's upcoming Budget.

Well, let's hear from

Home Secretary Amber Rudd now -

she was on the Andrew Marr Show

earlier talking about the claims

against her Cabinet colleague Damian

Green.

Absolutely not. I think it is

something that will take place in

terms of clearing out Westminster of

that sort of behaviour, and I think

that Westminster afterwards,

including the Government, will be

better for it. When we are confident

that men and women can work any

respectful environment and people on

the receiving end of abuse of power

can come forward. That will be a

positive thing.

Let's see what our panel make of

this fairly explosive week. Good

morning to all of you. Starting with

you, Steve. Not a party political

issue but the Tories are in

Government. How much harder for them

is it an Labour?

Always harder when

you are in Government because it

makes governing almost impossible.

And the wider context is a Prime

Minister who lost her overall

majority a few months ago and

actually that is the context of

everything. When you are having to

deal with the scandal of such

unpredictability, where the

terms are so imprecise, it is a

"lunge", a resignation issue, to use

that term, and nightmare. I don't

think it is fatal. Scandals rarely

bring down governments, but it makes

governing for Theresa May a form of

political health.

Isabel Oakeshott,

Damian Green has denied all

allegations made against him, but

there are more this morning. He is

being investigated by the Cabinet

Office at the moment. If Theresa May

were to effectively lose her Deputy

Prime Minister, has serious without

the?

I think very serious indeed. I

think it is very significant and

strange he was not defended in the

Home Secretary Amber Rudd in that

clip we saw today, she didn't say I

am certain he will survive, and I am

beginning to feel that Damian may

not survive this. We don't know

whether it is the last of the

allegations that may come out in

relation to him. It seems to me that

the allegations were previously of a

rather minor order, but this seems

to have escalated. And I think one

of the big problems for Theresa May,

and there are the many at the

moment, for months we have been

saying that this Government has no

bandwidth to do anything except

Brexit and right now she can't even

do Brexit. What is the point of it

all?

It is important to make clear

not only that Damian Green denies

all of these allegations, but the

computer mentioned was in a shared

office so there is no reason it

would definitely be his

# No guarantee it would definitely

be his. But we have had two MPs on

television this morning, Anna

Soubry, saying he should stand down.

There is an awful lot going on here.

It is not just a pretty awful sexual

harassment scandal. There are also

without a doubt MPs, police

officers, going about settling

scores. For me I have to say for our

pretty discredited police officer

Bob Quick, to make accusations

against serving Cabinet minister, to

suggest he should go for extreme

pornography on computers he may or

may not have known, it may be

extremely distasteful but it is

alarming for democracy to have

ex-police officers like this coming

in and trying to play with

democracy. Some politicians are also

meeting claims, some for the right

reasons to get the allegations out

there and so on but others for their

own agendas and all of this puts the

Prime Minister in an unbelievably

hard situation. I agree with Steve

and Isabel, she desperately needs

two show leadership in all this, but

every way she could turn there are

incredible downfalls, people blaming

her for trying to get to the bottom

of all this. It is very people who

she is relying on for her

leadership, the very Tory MPs the

support she can't lose.

It is not

just the Tory party and of course

Jeremy Corbyn will be making a

speech later today where this will

inevitably and there are accusations

about how the senior leadership in

the Labour Party have handled this.

What about that situation?

Yes, but

the Government is much harder

because you are meant to be doing

10,000 other things at the same

time. This is about a deregulated

work environment. For all those who

say, I hate the way Britain is too

regulated, this is what happens in a

deregulated work environment. The

House of Commons has no HR or

whatever, MPs, advisors, so, MPs

actually don't have much power but

they do have power over who the

point and how to treat them. I think

this is the way forward in terms of

the practical outcome, but it is

across the political spectrum.

But

it is unclear what it will be. Can

the party sort this out?

I'm not

sure I entirely agree, Steve, you

cannot regulate all human

interaction and a lot of these

stories have been about interactions

between politicians and journalists

alike, who have gone out for lunch,

chosen to drink, presumably to

create an informal atmosphere, and

at what point is a step towards

somebody to say goodbye, a peck on

the cheek or whatever, a lunge? You

can't regulate that sort of thing.

Throughout the programme will come

back to some of these things and how

they might be regulated.

Now, the Home Secretary has

also today been talking

about what she calls the "moral

duty" of social media companies

to stop child sexual exploitation,

ahead of a meeting with her US

counterparts this week.

We're joined now by the Home Office

minister Sarah Newton -

she's in our Truro studio.

Thanks very much for coming in to

speak the first night. I want to

talk to you about the Government's

efforts to tackle child pornography,

but let's pick up on some of the

sexual harassment issues at

Westminster first. Two of your

parliamentary colleagues this

morning saying they think the first

Secretary of State Damian Green

should step down whilst being

investigated. Do you agree?

Look, he

has vigorously denied these

accusations, and the Cabinet Office

is investigating these accusations,

so we do have processes for when

ministers have these accusations

made against them so they are

properly investigated. And that is

what is going on at the moment.

Is

that process people can be confident

in? He is effectively being

investigated by Jeremy Heywood, one

of his colleagues.

This is a tried

and tested process that has stood

the test of time, and it is

important...

Has it? Surely what we

are learning is it has not stood the

test of time and that in fact

allegations like this have been

swept under the carpet and ignored

for years and years in Westminster,

exactly what we are learning right

now.

I think you are conflating two

things they are, and what we really

do need to do is look at the whole

range of allegations people have

been making, and make sure

Parliament is a safe place for

people to work, a respectful

environment for people who have been

subjected to harassment or bullying

or inappropriate behaviour, so that

they feel confident to come forward

knowing they will be listened to,

that there will be an open and

transparent and fair to everyone

concerned process for getting to the

bottom of it, and that is exactly

what the Prime Minister and the

Leader of the Cows have set out,

Prime Minister's meeting with all

the leaders of the parties tomorrow

to set out a proper process so we

can modernise the work environment

at Westminster -- leader of the

House have set out.

You think Damian

Green should remain in the Cabinet

well being investigated?

That will

be down to Sir Jeremy Heywood. If he

thinks the misdemeanours have a

basis, that he should stand aside,

that will be the recommendation. I

will not second the inquiry on what

Sir Jeremy Heywood finds.

You were

in the Whips' Office yourself for a

year. And much has been said this

week of the whips being in receipt

of a lot of information about bad

behaviour, and instead of reporting

it to authorities they were using it

as ammunition. Was that your

experience?

Absolutely not. I was at

the Whips' Office up to 2015 and,

yes, I heard about the rumours of a

black spreadsheet, and I can

certainly say I never saw such a

thing. How I went about my business

as a whip is really twofold. It is

quite a technical job in many ways,

about of the Government through the

House, working with the House

authorities, the opposition. Also...

Did you ever hear rumours of these

people's bad behaviour?

Sorry?

Did

you ever hear rumours of MPs

misbehaving, sexual harassment,

allegations are that?

If anybody had

brought a complaint to me about the

behaviour of one of the MPs who were

in my flock, I would take that

really seriously, but bull-mac, that

didn't happen.

You said nobody

brought you a complaint. Did you

hear rumours? -- but no, that didn't

happen.

About the members of my

flock? Absolutely not.

Is that the

MPs you were specifically in charge

of?

I did not have that experience

at all.

Let's move on and talk about

the Home Secretary's trip to

Washington this week, where she will

urge tech companies to go further

and faster on online child abuse. We

have heard a lot from this

Government urging these companies to

do something. One specific ideas of

what they could do, do you have a

clear idea of what you are asking

from tech companies?

Absolutely

right. As you know, this horrendous

crime of child sexual exploitation

and grooming is constantly evolving

as the opportunities for the

perpetrators arise. They are now

using live streaming, different

sorts of platforms, which are

largely controlled by the big

companies in America. What we really

want them to do is to step up and

use their huge expertise, used the

huge money they have got, to help

find technological solutions to read

their sites and rid the opportunity

of these paedophiles to be able to

groom young people. We need the

politicians in America to exert

pressure, as well as other

companies, because these are global

problems. We are not going to solve

this problem in the UK alone. We

have made a lot of progress, working

with Facebook and other companies as

well, but we really need to keep one

step ahead of the technology, one

step ahead of the perpetrators, who

are using these opportunities to

commit horrendous crimes.

It was back in 2014 Theresa May for

the Internet companies to do more in

terms of child abuse online and we

have not seen significant action,

and it does not appear these kind of

calls from the Government actually

make difference.

Well, at the moment we are seeing

the police being able to make about

400 arrests per month, about 500

children being safeguarded. The

Government itself is investing a lot

of money in new technology like the

project Arachnid, and making sure

the police have the specialist

resources they need to go

undercover, and absolutely find

these perpetrators and bring them to

justice, but we do need to

constantly have the engagement and

support of the companies themselves

to invest in further technologies to

prevent this from happening. As you

say, we have made progress but we

need to see yet more.

Sarah Newton,

thank you very much for speaking to

us today.

Michael Fallon's decision

to resign this week,

saying his past conduct with women

fell short of the standard expected

of the Armed Forces, led

to something of a minor reshuffle.

And the Prime Minister took

Westminster by surprise

when she announced his replacement,

former Chief Whip and relative

newcomer to the ministerial

ranks, Gavin Williamson.

Here he is speaking on the day

of his appointment.

It's an immense privilege to have

been appointed Secretary

of State for Defence,

and what we need to be doing

is continuing to focus

on countering Daesh,

making sure that our national

security is at the forefront

of everything that we do,

and we have some of the world's

greatest armed services,

and it's such a privilege to be able

to work with them.

Gavin Williamson, who you saw there,

arrives at the Ministry of Defence

at a challenging time

for UK defence.

The Government has promised

an above-inflation increase

in spending every year

but the Ministry of Defence

is already committed to finding

£20 billion of savings

over the next ten years.

The Cabinet Office is currently

conducting a security review

which will look at military

capabilities and funding up to 2022,

while there are continuing

reports of shortages

of manpower and equipment.

And if Labour were to win power,

questions persist over

what a Jeremy Corbyn premiership

would mean for defence budget

and the traditional cornerstones

of UK defence policy

like Trident and Nato.

Well we're joined now

by the Shadow Defence

secretary, Nia Griffith.

Well we're joined now

by the Shadow Defence

secretary, Nia Griffith.

Let's talk about defence spending

first. Would Labour commit to the

same thing this Government has which

is an above inflation increase in

spending every year?

We've been

absolutely clear about that. First

and foremost we'd meet our

commitment of spending at least 2%

of GDP on defence as is our Nato

commitment and we would match the

Government's year-on-year 0.5%

increase above inflation. This is

really important. Labour's always

had a good strong track record of

spending on defence.

Jeremy Corbyn

seems to have a different view.

Speaking at a protest in 2010 he

said Labour wanted to fight all the

cuts except those in the Armed

Forces where we want to see a few

more cuts taking place. He doesn't

seem committed to defence spending?

In the manifesto for this year's

election, 2017, he and John

McDonnell have been absolutely clear

we support the exact words I've been

using now, at least 2% of the spend

of GDP spent on defence.

Jeremy

Corbyn's changed his mind on that?

He's been very clear about that and

it was in our manifesto this year.

You criticised the Government on

whether they meet their 2%

commitment on defence. You saying

they were fiddling the figures

because they were including

pensions. You would strip that out

and snake sure there's 2% spending

on defence which doesn't include

pensions?

Technically, the

Government would argue you are

allowed to include pensions by the

Nato rules. But we've been very

clear, really, when you're talking

about defence spending it should

mean defence. When you look at the

last year of the Labour Government

we spent 2.5% GDP on defence. We are

very much committed to looking at

what we need in our defence budget

and looking to the problems they

have now where they can't meet the

commitments they've made.

You would

sprip pensions out of those figures.

In order to live up to these

commitments you have to find an

extra billion for the defence

budgets because we're not

calculating pensions anymore?

John

McDonnell is well aware of what they

are doing. Putting in the conflict

resolution money which Gordon Brown

kept separate. He is well aware of

the figures and the difficulties. We

are certainly very committed to a

defence budget that really does make

a difference.

I'm not clear whether

you're telling me it will be 2% 69

spending, excluding pensions?

We

want it to be 2% of GDP as in the

way Labour always calculate it had

up until 2010, not including

pensions.

A significant increase in

military spending?

We are talking

about making sure the spending we

need is there because, at the

current situation, we have with the

current Government, they are

overstretched. Even the very caution

National Audit Office says they are

at immense risk of not being able to

meet the expenditure commitment the

they have made. Others talk about a

black hole. You mentioned it that

£20 billion. There is a real issue

we have to address.

To you know what

it will cost, how muchedingsal funds

will have to be found?

We have to

rook at what are the needs at the

time as well as the facts we want to

make that 2% commitment not

including things which have just

been brushed in now by the

Conservative Government.

Let's move

on to a different aspect of defence.

There is a treaty banning nuclear

weapons opened at the UN for

signatories. 122 countries have

already signed it. Would an incoming

Labour Government sign that treaty?

The important point here is there

was an Is inned opportunity for

there to be observers from the UK.

There should have been at that

treaty talks.

That doesn't change

the calculation whether or not an

incoming Labour Government would

sign that treaty?

We are committed

to a strong multi-lateral disarming

programme. That's what we've seen

missing.

This is a multilateral

approach to try to get rid of

nuclear weapons. What you say you

want. Would a Labour Government sign

that treaty?

You we have to look at

how you go about things. We need toe

somebody clear we want to

de-escalate tensions across the

world. Work with other nuclear

partners to help stop the

proliferation of nuclear weapons. We

want to work with those countries

who feel very strongly about the

treaty so we can work together. We

have to do that in a multilateral

framework.

This is a multi-lateral

disarmament framework. Under the

auspice Is of the UN disto see how

else it could be organised. This is

a great opportunity for you, who

have been a lifelong campaigner for

disarmament.ment Labour Government

will be the first nuclear power to

do so, sign it and lead the way.

We

need to use our position to be

responsible and call for responsible

multi-lateral disarmamentment there

was progress made on this in the

eighties and nineties with

considerable amount of are heads put

to one side and destroyed. We need

to get back on the front foot there.

I don't see any presence by the UK

Government at the moment on that

aagain da. It is not helpful for the

nukes leer nations to be separated

from the non-nuclear nation in the

these debates.

That's why I don't

understand why you're not taking the

opportunity to say a Labour

Government would Take The Stand.

We

should wok together and we should

use our position as a nuclear power

to work for a multilateral

disarmament programme.

You were very

clear in your manifesto that the

Labour Party would keep Trident for

the meantime.

Abs will yously.

We

know throughout his life, Jeremy

Corbyn's long wanted to get rid of

it. He signed up to the manifesto

saying Trident would stay. Has he

changed his minds?

The important

thing is that was a manifesto

Jeremy, John McDonnell's agreed to.

We stood on it in 2017 because that

is the Labour Party position.

Absolutely. I'm asking if the Labour

Leader really believes in that

position?

He believes in democracy

in the party. That is the Labour

Party position. I don't see that

position changing at all. He has

said very clearly that he accepts

that is our Labour Party position.

And that is the manifesto we've

stood on and will continue to stand

on.

I'll need to ask questions about

sexual harassment in Westminster. It

is as much as inissue for the Labour

Party as the Conservative. It was

not clear listening to Dawn Butler,

your colleague on The Andrew Marr

Show this morning, she was asked

whether or not the leadership knew

about allegations by Kelvin Hopkins.

Do you know?

I absolutely do not

know at this moment in time. That's

why there has to be an

investigation. It is extremely

important to find out what the

allegations were, exactly what

happened, who was told and who told

what to whom. Then we will be in a

position to see what the situation

is. In the meantime, Kelvin Hopkins

has been suspended which is the

cricket thing to do.

Rosie Winterton

has been outspoken about what she

let the leadership know. If it is

the case the leadership did know

about these allegations should he

have been put into the Shadow

Cabinet?

The real question is who

did know what when.

But what I'm

asking you is...

I am anot going to

speculate whether there was an if or

whatever. We need to know how that

information was transmitted. Was it

put in writing. What it made clear,

who was told what, when. Until we

have a full investigation it would

be inappropriate to comment. What is

absolute lie clear, we need to get

this right for the future. We must

have proper procedures so we deal

with incidents as and when they

occur. And we deal with them

prepperly in a way which gets to the

bottom of the issue and deals with

it properly.

Why should anyone have

confidence the Labour Party will

treat issues that seriously when,

firstly there's a question whether

they knew about Kelvin hop kips and

others have been dissuaded from

making complaints. Knots just Bex

Bailey. Monica Lennon said when she

was harassed at a party senior

figures in the Labour Party told her

it was her own fault. It seems as if

there hasn't been a culture within

Labour to make a complaint.

That's

why we're having a thorough review

of procedures. We brought in new

procedures in July. We need to

ensure there's a proper helpline

available. We are appointing an

independent organisation which will

deal with allegations first-hand so

nobody has to go to somebody they

think might know other people, be

friends with other people. They can

go somewhere completely confidential

and private. These are often things

you can't want to tell your cross

friends about. We will appoint that

organisation and make sure people

can go there and access to it is

made widely known. It is very, very

important when people come into a

job, they know if anything does

happen, they will be able to

complain. Whether they are ordinary

party members or working in

Westminster.

Thank you for talking

to us

For Thank you for talking to us some

on the left of politics,

this weekend wasn't just a chance

to mark the anniversary

of the failed gunpowder

plot here in Britain,

but also events in Russia 100 years

ago, when Bolshevik revolutionaries

led by Lenin seized power

and ushered in seven

decades of Communist rule.

For critics, that's something

to regret, not celebrate.

Elizabeth Glinka went to one event

in London to find out more.

The 7th November 1917.

Red Guards under the leadership

of Vladimir Lenin begin to occupy

Government buildings in Petrograd.

This uprising, known

popularly as Red October

because of the difference

in the Gregorian calendar,

was, in fact, a coup.

The winds of socialist change had

been blowing for some time.

The Tsars had resisted reform

and millions toiled in a state

of almost medieval surfdom.

Then war.

Nearly two million

Russians would die.

The revolution had really begun nine

months earlier in February 1917.

The world's first socialist

republic was declared.

October, well that

was the Bolsheviks

asserting their authority.

A hundred years on, as this

event at the TUC shows,

there's still plenty of people

who want to remember and even

celebrate those momentous events.

Mainly as an event in history,

this is an example of historical

development in action,

the ability of people to club

together and be able to affect

the discourse of history.

It was people's first attempt at

trying to build socialism.

Although there were many terrible

things that happened,

I think we have to try

and draw from experience.

Jeremy Corbyn's close friend

and adviser, Andrew Murray,

was chairing the opening session.

He didn't want to talk to us

but we did manage to speak

to the daughter of one of the most

famous Communists of all time.

TRANSLATION:

It's an historic moment

which opened up possibilities

for further changes

and allowed other people

to strive for a different world.

A world, which it seems,

some are still keen to push for.

We're growing, so there is obviously

a positive reflection.

There is a lot of negative

propaganda that comes

from the Cold War period.

It is harder to talk

to older people maybe.

But younger people

are quite receptive.

The events and discussions taking

place here today cover a whole range

of topics from women's

rights to the Third World

and the impact on British socialism.

But there's much less discussion

of the Russian Civil War,

the purges and the political

repression that would come later.

We wanted to have this conference

because we wanted to show it

in a positive light.

Whatever one's view of what happened

to the Soviet Union subsequently

the fact is it is important

to understand the process

of revolutionary change

for its own sake.

Red October would usher

in 70 years of communism.

The proletarite would rise,

find respect and security.

But the suppression of the peoples

of Eastern Europe, the forced labour

camps and the murder of hundreds

of thousands, if not millions

of people, make it difficult

for many to see that revolution

as something to celebrate.

That was Elizabeth Glinka reporting.

So is the centenary

of the Russian Revolution a cause

for celebration, or regret?

Well, to discuss this I'm

joined by former Labour

and Respect MP George Galloway,

and the journalist Peter Hitchens.

Good morning. Let me start with you

George Galloway. Is the October

revolution a cause for celebration?

With the, if not for the October

revolution, we'd been conducting

this interview in German. Though the

truth is this interview wouldn't be

taking place and we probably

wouldn't be alive for a variety of

reasons. The Soviet Union broke the

back of Hitler, as Mr Churchill

often owe pined in Parliament and

elsewhere. If not for the Soviet

Union, Hitler would have ruled. And

his successorsness, perhaps until

now, from Vladivostok all the way to

Portugal.

You say we wouldn't be

able to have this discussion. In the

former Soviet Union we couldn't have

this office either?

That's also

true. But even the...

George will be

able to say, that of course.

Even

the sun has spots on its face as

they used to say in the Soviet

Union. There is no doubt tremendous

abrasions, big crimes, a lot of

suffering but, if not for the

transformation, then the Soviet

Union, Russia's GDP increased from

1930 to 190 and the Nazi occupation.

And the strength that defeated

Hitlerism would not have been there.

Peter Hitchens, does it offend you

there are people celebrating 100

years since the Russian Revolution?

Offend? No, but in the Soviet Union,

in which I lived, you would not have

been able to say it was set up by a

cynical bitch, almost bloodless, but

engineered by the German Imperial

Government using -- a cynical

putsch, almost bloodless. That this

was the inauguration of an immensely

long period of repression,

brutality, secret police,

concentration camps and lies, which

I am likely to have seen come to an

end in my lifetime, and I cannot see

why anybody looking at that

disastrous country where so much

misery was needlessly imposed on so

many people for so long could

possibly celebrate the beginning of

it, which was completely avoidable,

and as I say was truly the result of

the cynical foreign policy and

intelligence operations of the

Imperial German Government is trying

to save it skin...

But everyone

including George Galloway

acknowledges the tyranny and terror

that followed.

He doesn't. He gives

statistics about GDP but fails to

mention the people murdered in

labour

camp... He was of course formerly a

Trotskyite and sung the praises of

Lenin, which I have not done and

neither have I done today. I have

never been a Communist, unlike Peter

Hitchens, but I do acknowledge and

celebrate that an entirely different

world opened up as a result of the

events in October 19 17. China, you

have just seen their party congress,

decorated with the iconography of

the Bolshevik Revolution, and China

is the most powerful, or soon will

be the most powerful country on the

earth.

With one of the most

repressive government?

I don't think

that is true. There is repression in

China, but...

Enormous repression in

China! How can you possibly argue

there is an?

China has taken more

people out of poverty in the last 30

years than any country, resume,

system, ever has -- how can you

possibly argue there is not?

All

despots always argue, trying to

distract your attention from the

mountains of skulls behind them,

their supposed economic success,

which generally does not turn out to

be as great as claimed. The Soviet

Union was an enormous pile of rust

by the time I lived there and was a

complete catastrophe.

Yes, that is

why it fell down. But we are talking

about the Revolution 100 years ago.

Is it possible to separate the two

events? A popular overthrowing of a

government is perhaps different from

the tyranny and terror that

followed.

It was not a popular

overthrow. You sure this Eisenstein

propaganda as if it were fact. What

we see was a film made afterwards.

What actually happened was a putsch

in the middle of the night in which

hardly anybody... Nobody has even

mentioned...

That German connection,

a rather more important...

Nobody

has even mentioned during this year

until now that there was a Russian

Revolution. There were two. The

first one was a genuine uprising,

overthrowing the old regime, and I

think we can all be glad of it. The

second one was a cynical for --

foreign financed putsch and it does

not deserve to be spoken out.

Is

that true, and Menshevik revolution

would have done better than a

Bolshevik one?

It is not my business

and entirely counterfactual fiction,

if I may...

Unlike how you open this

discussion.

That is the most

important thing. If not for the

Soviet Union, we wouldn't be here.

Hetmyer might still, and most of the

world, with its allies -- Adolph

Hitler might have won and they make,

and most of the world...

The effect

of Bolshevism and coming is on

Europe was colossal.

Let's bring it

all a little bit more up-to-date.

You were saying earlier you have

never been a Leninist, although

Peter Hitchens confesses he was at

one time.

Absolutely was a

Trotskyist, and now nor the complete

folly of that particular political

disposition.

John McDonnell in the

Labour Party openly says he is a

Trotskyist, a Leninist, is that a

problem for the Labour Party?

I

would have thought, arts would be

more respected now than he has been

for quite some time as capitalism is

collapsing around our ears. From

2008 the Economist itself, the bible

of capitalism, began to resurrect

Marxist economics and analysis, so I

really don't think it is. Jeremy

Corbyn is not a Marxist. It only

took them four years, 54...

It is

not that.

I think we are moving into

an era where Governments like the

Chinese Government are making plans,

and are succeeding in implementing

them, and thus transforming their

position. China in 1949, and I don't

need to tell you, was just about the

most backward place you could

possibly imagine. And from 1949 to

now it has sold transforms that it

is the world's biggest economy...

We

are in danger of getting sidetracked

by China here.

I have to put this

point in. If China was backward in

1949 it was far more backward by the

time Mao Zedong finished his great

leap forward and starved millions of

people to death in the period of

economic lunacy. You just don't

notice...

What George was saying

they are, and a sense certainly

amongst younger voters in this

country and others, where they are

turning against capitalism, they

don't think it has worked or

delivered for them, that this kind

of Marxist Leninist philosophy is

becoming more popular?

Let's hope

not. The fact the current system is

failing does not seem to recommend

the Soviet system, which is

demonstrably a failure, and even its

own leaders admitted it failed and

that is why they tried to reform it

in the period I was there and why it

collapsed. Whatever you might want

to conclude from examining our

position, the Soviet alternative is

not the thing you want the dues.

This was a long period of disaster,

and I remember at the end of it

watching in Moscow said a film which

has never been shown here, and the

title means approximately we can't

go on living like this, and for the

first time, the politburo told the

truth about what life was like in

the dreadful place and everyone in

that cinema was weeping because

finally they saw the truth being

told about the dreadful

anti-civilisation in which they had

been taught to live for so long. The

idea we should celebrate it revive

it seems to me to be verging on the

obscene.

George, one interesting

question about this of course,

whilst there are events going on in

London and across the UK to mark

this centenary, it is not being

celebrated in Russia.

I was in

Russia a couple of weeks ago. There

is a big debate about whether it

ought to be, and many people are

celebrating it...

Vladimir Putin is

not. He would want to ignore it.

But

the Communist Party is the second

biggest party in Russia. And it is

the ruling party in China, which,

with respect, is not a separate

thing, because China is continuing

the Russian Revolution and doing

rather better at it than the

Russians did, but there are many

people, particularly older, that is

true, who think that the era of the

Soviet Union was better than the

very cold period of capitalism that

succeeded it. So half the world

followed for a time the red flag,

the red banner of Leninism. No one

will do so again. Leninism of the

kind that Peter used to proselytise

is certainly not coming back, but

Marxism is going to live on.

Let's

hope not.

Thank you both, gentlemen,

for coming on to speak about that.

It's coming up to 11.40am.

You're watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up on the programme:

We've taken the moodbox to where

else but bonfire night celebrations.

We've taken the moodbox to where

else but bonfire night celebrations?

It wasn't just Westminster

that had the fireworks this week.

We're asking people in Guildford

in Surrey,

does Theresa May have control

of her Government and her party?

Hello.

I'm Martin Oates.

Coming up on Sunday Politics,

here in the south-west:

Remembering one of the region's

most charismatic MPs.

The former member for Falmouth

and Camborne Candy Atherton,

who died this week aged 62.

And for the next 20 minutes I'm

joined by Labour councillor

Rosie Denham and Conservative MP

Steve Double.

Welcome back to both of you.

Let's start with a warning

from the region's longest serving

Conservative MP that this week

delivered a bleak assessment

of his own government.

Steve, you obviously weren't

in Parliament as Gary is the only

one of the region's MPs who's been

in Parliament that long, but do

you recognise anything he says?

Clearly these are very difficult

times and we certainly not had

a great week and I think we do need

to take notice of people like Gary

who have been around a long time

and listen to the warnings

he is giving us, but the point I'd

make is that the one thing I think

is very different now

than it was in '92 is the Labour

Party are also very different.

He makes that point in The Times

on the back of his story.

And they also have huge

challenges of their own,

so I think in that regard it's very

different from '92 to '97,

but clearly as a Conservative Party

we need to listen and heed those

warnings.

Rosie, who was obviously invited

to write an opinion piece

in The Times having tweeted that

and he says one of the big

differences in the '92 to '97

Parliament, Blair was the coming

thing, it was clear the Labour Party

were strong and was going

to carry all before it.

He is saying the opposite

is the case now.

I don't think it's

the opposite at all.

Yes, the Labour Party has been

through some difficult times

and everyone is well aware of that,

but actually, the party feels

really, really united at the moment.

There is much clever

position now on Brexit,

which I think is welcomed

a lot by our members

and our supporters and I think

the country is looking for much

greater leadership and clarity

and at the moment the Labour Party

is the only party offering that.

Which position have they got

on Brexit this week?

It seems to change every week.

Gary also says in The Times piece

that it will be possible

for the Conservatives to soon-ish

to appear fresh again.

At this point in time

do you think that...?

I think that we've got some

incredibly talented and capable

new MPs over the last two or three

elections to I think

are coming into their own now.

I think the future is very positive.

Have the old guard had it?

Is that what you're saying?

Well I think that will happen

naturally, won't it?

And I think we need to buckle down

and get behind the current

Prime Minister, but also look

to the future.

I think new people coming through,

younger people coming

through is going to be good

for our party and I think

that is starting to happen.

Now, how many times on this

programme have you heard

politicians, people and even

presenters said that there

is a desperate shortage

of affordable housing?

If you had a pound for a number

of times, you could probably have

bought a home by now.

Then again, sadly, probably not.

The south-west suffers from the twin

pronged attack of having relatively

low wages and in some cases

sky-high accommodation prices.

The government has recently unveiled

yet another initiative to tackle

the problem and John Henderson has

had a crack at working

out what it could mean.

It's a stunning landscape,

and natural grand design,

but living the dream in South Devon

is something beyond

the means of most.

There's so many, there's

so much need for housing,

down here, Cornwall,

all over the place.

I rent in the private sector and it

costs a fortune to live here.

The solution is to first of all

reappraise the demand realistically.

And a reappraisal is exactly

what the government says it's doing

to fix what it describes

as a broken housing market.

In any area where the average house

prices are more than four

times average earnings,

we increase the number of homes

that will be planned.

Mr Javid says his new formula

is based on a more honest method

for calculating housing need.

One which looks at the ratio

between earnings and house prices.

It means asking councils with high

house prices to build more

and attempt to balance

supply and demand.

Here's a breakdown of those

authorities that would have to build

more houses in red and those that

would have to build fewer in blue.

Pricey South Hams would go from

seeing 196 homes a year up to 354.

For campaigners who fought various

developments or had proposals

for community projects refused,

it's the worst news.

Horrified, absolutely horrified.

I mean, we're promised 1,000 extra

houses for Totnes in Dartington.

Just imagine, it's a bottleneck.

Just imagine when the traffic comes

through, it's already

completely congested.

Others welcomed the

government's new approach.

We can't carry on complaining

about how there is a housing crisis,

about how young people can't afford

to get onto the housing ladder

and then when we are presented

with a solution, duck our heads

and walk away.

We have to face this problem head

on and that means finding more

sites for more houses.

But Mr Javid's plans to rebalance

the market might be scuppered

by councils who are joining forces.

Here in the South Hams the local

housing plan is shared

with West Devon and Plymouth.

The three councils combined

have seen a slight fall

in the government's

house building expectations.

But still going it alone,

Torbay has seen a lot

of development of late.

A few years ago the BBC filmed these

fields being prepared to houses.

Now they are going up,

but under the new formula the number

of houses built every year in Torbay

would fall from just

over 1,000 to 588.

Those who've drilled

the numbers aren't surprised.

Well I think the general consensus

in Torbay is that we don't actually

need that many homes

because the economy is flat-lining.

As if to reiterate the point,

a former planning chief who has

helped draw up Paignton's housing

plan says jobs must come first.

The link with employment and jobs

and through that the income

because without an income you can't

rent or buy.

It's that basic.

So the link with jobs is critically

important and you must have that

balance and as soon as that balance

is not recognised or get out

of balance, you get a problem.

Providing enough jobs to support

new homes is an even bigger

challenge in the South Hams,

but then most buying

homes here on thinking

about the nine to five.

here aren't thinking

about the nine to five.

John Henderson reporting.

Well joining us to discuss this

further is the councillor

in charge of house planning

in the South Hams Michael Hicks.

Welcome to the programme.

Thank you.

You are obviously one

of the councils who have been told

you are not planning enough houses

and the government is suggesting

you should almost double the number

of projected new homes.

Well, they are suggesting that,

or at least it seems

as if they are suggesting that.

There is a debate about how much

they are willing to stake on this.

Will come onto that.

Well, there are two things I need

to sort out to start with.

The first thing is that our local

plan is with the inspector

at the moment and we are under

the consultation document allowed

to continue with that

under the old rules.

So the new rules will not apply

to our plan unless something goes

pear shaped and it has

to be started again.

The other thing is that we have

looked at the consultation document,

obviously, and we have decided to do

a calculation based on the

government's suggestions and one we

did that we found that the figure we

came out with for the local plan is

900 houses more than that figure. So

we are in fact exceeding what the

government would have said had we

used that calculation.

So you are

saying the government has got it

wrong in your case?

No, I am saying

-- no, I am not saying that the

government has got it wrong. You

will end up talking about if you are

not careful two different things.

But yours is the correct figure and

the government's figure is wrong?

No, it's the difference between the

objectively assessed need which is

the starting point in all local

plans. That is deliberated over for

some time and we decide to arrive at

a figure and that figure is

somewhere near 354, which the

government has in the list. But what

you have to do then is moderate that

figure by using what we call

adjustments and the adjustments in

question are many and varied. In

fact, you have to deal with

employment...

So you are potentially

saying that local knowledge should

ultimately determine and outline

prescription.

I think it should it

does up to a point, but it's

important for us to understand which

figure is one we end up with.

Steve,

some people are seeing this as the

end of the process where government

has said you have had a certain

amount of time to get your own

houses in order, as it work, and if

you don't, will step in?

The housing

situation is one of the biggest

challenges facing our country and

it's clear that the way things have

been done in the past have worked.

In some ways this is a good approach

in not having a one size fits all

approach to housing needs, but

looking at local house prices and

wages. The meeting point for me in

places like all well and parts of

Devon is also looking at some of the

other factors in terms of second

homes, the number of people wanting

to move into the area and retire

which is what largely inflate house

prices in these areas. I don't think

the government has taken that

element into consideration. We need

to look a bit deeper.

Are you happy

with the projected number of houses

were corn well? Cornwall hasn't

changed very much. But generally in

Cornwall it looks as if they are

pretty much in the government's

books. On the other hand, and lots

of Cornish residents have become

servants.

When the local plan

figures were put together for

Cornwall it was a bottom-up process

with local parishes saying what they

felt the need was and we came up

with a figure. The planning

inspector then added to that because

of the factor of second homes that

had not been built in and that is

one of the big issues that has to be

addressed when we are looking at

housing need in places in the

south-west where people are buying

holiday homes and people in large

numbers are retiring to. It is a

step in the right direction, but you

said, local knowledge needs to be

factored in.

Rosie, some people are

saying that this is a big stick

approach. Back in the day, John

Prescott took a similar approach.

House building has been a disaster

under this government.

It was not

great under your government.

It is

well acknowledged in the Labour

Party that it is one of the things

we wish we had done more of, but the

situation is far worse now and the

levels of affordable house building

is at an all-time low. It's about

the type of how sweet it is well and

councils don't have control. Control

is being taken away during the

planning process and they can't

dictate the type of housing they

want to see. It's not a surprise

that we are seeing the government

make these changes, but we also need

to see recognition of the issues

like second homes, but also wider

spread issues around affordable

housing and how we deliver that.

Michael finally on that point, would

you agree that it's not just about

building houses, it's about the type

of houses?

It's not just about

building housing the delete-macro

houses, we need more low-cost

housing. That's what is so difficult

to do with because affordable

housing is funded by the higher cost

housing and the agreement we have

with our local plan at the moment is

30% affordable on any development

and that is something that we will

reinforce, but that means if you

want to increase the number of

houses in the South Hams, you have

got to have an awful lot of houses

just to acquire a fuel at low cost.

OK. Thank you very much for joining

us. Devastated, decimated and

destroyed. Some of the words used

regarding the impact on Brexit. It's

thought that the local market could

be swamped by low-cost products

coming in from other areas.

So we are in some of our over winter

crops which are part of our mid tier

scheme that we've just started.

Thinking ahead is something that

fits generation farmer George has

Thinking ahead is something that

fifth generation farmer George has

been preoccupied with ever

since the vote to leave the EU.

We will drill our next spring

crop into the residue.

So we will spray it off...

So we will spray it off...

On this 600 acre mixed crop

and cattle from the Exeter

which she runs in partnership

with his parents he is thinking

environmentally, as well as bringing

in a new grazing system

for their beef herd.

The idea is to head off any

issues Brexit might cause.

Clamping down on costs,

shouting about the premium product

and negotiating a direct deal

with London butcher shops.

The key concern here is that

post-Brexit trade deals

with countries outside the EU

could mean the British market

is flooded by much cheaper meat

from mass producers abroad.

We've got such a high welfare

model here in the UK.

It's probably some of the best beef

you'll find in the world

and we follow those assurance

guidelines and the cross

compliance guidelines.

So if they are just going

to undercut by bringing in lesser

quality imported beef,

it's good to be very difficult.

Trying to Brexit-proof a family farm

like this without really knowing

what Brexit is going to mean

is the sea and issue and some

of the concerns are taken directly

to Westminster week.

The son is very ambitious,

but this isn't easy, this isn't easy

at all because with regulation

and high animal welfare and...

As George keeps an eye on the farm,

his mother was telling

MPs his future depends

on the government

getting Brexit right.

If you're not making money

on your farm and you're not finding

that you have any profitability

or margin whatsoever,

you will not continue

with that particular product,

or livestock, or beef

production or lamb production.

It will be literally

landscapes without livestock.

The government says its aim

is to achieve the exact same trade

benefits outside the EU

as we enjoy inside.

A challenge that those on this Devon

farm are hopeful can be achieved,

but they are continuing

with their plan for if it

isn't, just in case.

Steve, there were farmers leaders

lining up really to say that there

was a real risk of things go badly

wrong on two fronts. One is leaving

the EU without any deal and enormous

tariffs being imposed and this fear

of cheap imports coming in from

outside.

Yes. First of all we are

hopeful that we will get a deal.

It

is no deal acceptable to you?

I

think it went been to the farmers.

To coin a phrase, no deal is better

than a bad one. We do need to

prepare for a no deal. Different

sectors will be affected

differently, but what the government

has been clear on is maintaining

welfare standards for animals in any

trade deal will have to reflect

that. I don't imagine a situation

where in the trade deal we would

allow our market... The government

wants us to be more self-sufficient

in home-grown food. We currently

import 35% and the government wanted

to go down so I then think they will

allow the market to be flooded with

cheap imports. We will look to

maintain standards.

There are

Conservative MPs who disagree. What

is your position?

Farmers are right

to be worried. I would say no deal

is a bad deal, so I don't think that

distinction is a helpful one. Of

course there is a worry about the

ability to export, there is a right

to be worried about imports and if

we have no deal then we will be very

exposed and I think it is the cost,

but it's also the welfare of the

animals, the quality of the meat

coming to market. All of those

things are important to consumers

and we should be making sure that we

do have all of those protections in

place and if we don't have a deal

then we are incredibly exposed.

Rosie has touched on the fact that

there are huge opportunities for

export. Liam Fox and the

international trade Department are

really working on export

opportunities, particularly with

Southwest bombers and there will be

positive opportunities.

In a break

with tradition, we will now be

paying tribute to Candy Atherton,

who passed away on Monday.

# I've lived a life that's for

# I travelled each and every

highway

# And more, much more than this

# I did it my way...#

I'm stuck!

LAUGHTER

The party serves.

Can you manage?

Are you all right now?

Oh, dear!

Right, we'll try again.

Thank you.

There we go.

APPLAUSE

You and Jeremy

Corbyn go back a long

way because he was your MP

when you were a councillor?

Yes.

I served six years in Islington

and I was mayor and

Jeremy was the north Islington

member of Parliament,

so obviously we came together to do

all sorts of things and

I've known him for years.

We don't always agree

about everything, but

we've always got on as friends.

You were then an MP

under Tony Blair.

Well I was always to

the left of Tony Blair, it

would be fair to say.

We all got, well every

woman was called a

Blairite and actually, you know,

there was a wide spectrum of women

right through the party,

and male MPs.

# I'll state my case...#

Falmouth and Camborne

have come home to

Labour.

# Of which I'm certain...#

I think it's a cock up and they

really are going to have to get

their act together before

next May's election.

Get in there and sort it out.

You have that strength.

# I find it all so amusing...#

Yes!

It's amazing, that,

and you didn't think that was

an issue.

I think that's a big issue.

I wouldn't have thought it was

an issue for a moment because...

LAUGHTER

# And may I say not in a shy way

# Oh, no, oh, no, not me

# I did it my way.#

Rosie, you are at the other end of

the region, but candy's influence

spread across the wider region.

Yes,

she contributed a great amount. --

Candy.

Steve, you have crossed

swords with her on this programme

and in other situations.

I met her

most often appearing on this

programme, but clearly a huge figure

in south-west politics and someone I

probably did not agree with about

much, but I respected her because

she campaigned passionately and

clearly achieved a lot in her time

as an MP.

I was told that she was a

tribal loyal Labour person and she

also did a lot behind the scenes

cross party.

She fundamentally just

believed in getting on getting

things done and serving her

community.

Thank you both. I

remember her as being great fun as

well. That

to support.

All right, and at that point

we have to end it there.

My thanks to Rosena and Andrew,

and with that it's back to Sarah.

It's been a tricky

week for Theresa May -

again, you might think.

She's lost a Cabinet minister

and been forced into a reshuffle

which did little for party unity,

to say nothing of losing a Commons

vote on Brexit and yet more reports

of fireworks in Cabinet meetings -

this time apparently over housing.

So, is the Prime Minister's time

in office going with a bang

or more of a whimper?

Well, we sent Ellie Price

and the entirely unscientific

Sunday Politics moodbox

to Conservative-held Surrey,

to find out.

ALL:

Three, two, one.

# Ignite the light

and let it shine...#

It's a tale of lit fuses, plots,

conspiracy, treachery,

but enough of the recent goings

on in the Conservative Party,

it's firework night here

in Guildford and we're asking,

does Theresa May have control

of her Government and her party?

Yes or no?

# Baby you're a firework...#

With all the scandals in Government

at the moment

and Brexit seems to be dragging on

a little bit longer than we thought.

So, at the moment, I don't think

she is in control.

She's too many people sniping

at her back, really.

Do you think Theresa

May's in control?

I think she's in control.

She's in a good job

having a tough time.

No, I don't.

I think she's a mess.

Even when you read her body language

when she's being interviewed

by people, she doesn't

seem like she's in control.

I think she has poor advisers.

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

I do think she's struggling but,

I still hope, still think she has

a bit of a grip on them.

The Queen is England's role.

It's her birth right.

She is England's role

of this country.

I'm going to vote for Theresa May.

I don't think there's anyone

who could do a better job.

I think she's had a bit of

a poisoned chalice with Brexit but

I think she could have done better.

The money's not going

to where it needs to go.

I think she should resign, really.

I feel a bit sorry

for her, actually.

I think she's been witch-hunted

a little bit.

She's doing her best.

With everything that's

going on with the Cabinet at the

moment, I think the Conservative

Party is in a real mess, actually.

Very disappointed.

Well, you get bickering in all parts

not just the Conservative Party.

And that's just sort

of par for the course.

But I'm sure she'll

hold everybody together

despite the current difficulties.

The Tories weren't in control

when they had the referendum

in the first place for the euro.

We've had two years

of complete chaos.

I don't see an end to it.

Well, I seem to have

acquired a few new friends.

The oohs and ahs are

over and so the moodbox

and the result is...

No.

The majority of people

here in Guildford

don't think Theresa May

is in control.

CHEERING

That was Ellie with the entirely

unscientific moodbox, and thanks

to Bushy Hill Junior School

in Guildford for having her along.

Let's put the Sorbol question to our

panel. Equally unscientific but all

seasoned Westminster watchers. Is

Theresa May in control of her

Government at the moment or is all

of this sex harassment allegations

swimming around loosening her grip?

Depends what you mean by in control.

All Prime Ministers have a degree of

control. They retain the power much

tat wrongage as we saw with her

reshuffle. Didn't go down well with

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

fully in control of these situations

in effectively what is a hung

Parliament. If she won a land sheep

in the election she would have the

authority to do what she wanted. She

could float over something like

this. Stories like this, you could

say she's perfectly suited for it,

the vicar's daughter, the church

goer, to sort it out. It is much

more complicated than that. I don't

think she will be able to get a full

grip of it. There are some practical

things that need to happen that will

happen. I remember with back to

basics and John Major, that equally

vague scandal, what was back to

basics about? It was still running

months afterwards, stories about a

minister having an affair. This is

different. I can see it will be

impossible for her to fully get to

grips with it.

Does it provide an

opportunity for Theresa May to be

seen to be taking really serious

action, trying to root out a bad

culture in Westminster and therefore

get some political credit for it?

That opportunity was available to

her all of last week and she hasn't

taken it. What's remarkable for me