Browse content similar to 05/11/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
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
have been gathering to mark 100
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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.
it is unclear what it will be. Can
the party sort this out?
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?
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.
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
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
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?
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.
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
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?
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
You said nobody
brought you a complaint. Did you
hear rumours? -- but no, that didn't
About the members of my
flock? Absolutely not.
Is that the
MPs you were specifically in charge
I did not have that experience
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?
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
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.
thank you very much for speaking to
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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
I'm not clear whether
you're telling me it will be 2% 69
spending, excluding pensions?
want it to be 2% of GDP as in the
way Labour always calculate it had
up until 2010, not including
A significant increase in
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
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
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
This is a multilateral
approach to try to get rid of
nuclear weapons. What you say you
want. Would a Labour Government sign
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
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.
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
That's why I don't
understand why you're not taking the
opportunity to say a Labour
Government would Take The Stand.
should wok together and we should
use our position as a nuclear power
to work for a multilateral
You were very
clear in your manifesto that the
Labour Party would keep Trident for
Abs will yously.
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?
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
Thank you for talking
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.
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.
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
You say we wouldn't be
able to have this discussion. In the
former Soviet Union we couldn't have
this office either?
true. But even the...
George will be
able to say, that of course.
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...
including George Galloway
acknowledges the tyranny and terror
He doesn't. He gives
statistics about GDP but fails to
mention the people murdered in
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
With one of the most
I don't think
that is true. There is repression in
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?
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
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
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
That German connection,
a rather more important...
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.
that true, and Menshevik revolution
would have done better than a
It is not my business
and entirely counterfactual fiction,
if I may...
Unlike how you open this
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...
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
Absolutely was a
Trotskyist, and now nor the complete
folly of that particular political
John McDonnell in the
Labour Party openly says he is a
Trotskyist, a Leninist, is that a
problem for the Labour Party?
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...
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...
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
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?
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
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
Vladimir Putin is
not. He would want to ignore it.
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.
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
does Theresa May have control
of her Government and her party?
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
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
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
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.
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
So you are potentially
saying that local knowledge should
ultimately determine and outline
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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
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
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
Yes. First of all we are
hopeful that we will get a deal.
is no deal acceptable to you?
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
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
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
# And more, much more than this
# I did it my way...#
The party serves.
Can you manage?
Are you all right now?
Right, we'll try again.
There we go.
You and Jeremy
Corbyn go back a long
way because he was your MP
when you were a councillor?
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
# 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...#
It's amazing, that,
and you didn't think that was
I think that's a big issue.
I wouldn't have thought it was
an issue for a moment because...
# 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.
she contributed a great amount. --
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
She fundamentally just
believed in getting on getting
things done and serving her
Thank you both. I
remember her as being great fun as
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.
Three, two, one.
# Ignite the light
and let it shine...#
It's a tale of lit fuses, plots,
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.
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...
The majority of people
here in Guildford
don't think Theresa May
is in control.
That was Ellie with the entirely
unscientific moodbox, and thanks
to Bushy Hill Junior School
in Guildford for having her along.
Let's put the Sorbol question to our
panel. Equally unscientific but all
seasoned Westminster watchers. Is
Theresa May in control of her
Government at the moment or is all
of this sex harassment allegations
swimming around loosening her grip?
Depends what you mean by in control.
All Prime Ministers have a degree of
control. They retain the power much
tat wrongage as we saw with her
reshuffle. Didn't go down well with
her MPs but she did it. You can't be
fully in control of these situations
in effectively what is a hung
Parliament. If she won a land sheep
in the election she would have the
authority to do what she wanted. She
could float over something like
this. Stories like this, you could
say she's perfectly suited for it,
the vicar's daughter, the church
goer, to sort it out. It is much
more complicated than that. I don't
think she will be able to get a full
grip of it. There are some practical
things that need to happen that will
happen. I remember with back to
basics and John Major, that equally
vague scandal, what was back to
basics about? It was still running
months afterwards, stories about a
minister having an affair. This is
different. I can see it will be
impossible for her to fully get to
grips with it.
Does it provide an
opportunity for Theresa May to be
seen to be taking really serious
action, trying to root out a bad
culture in Westminster and therefore
get some political credit for it?
That opportunity was available to
her all of last week and she hasn't
taken it. What's remarkable for me
is the near complete breakdown in
discipline in the higher ranks the
Tory Party. It is extraordinary you
have Cabinet level ministers who are
not supporting their colleagues.
Ministers and former ministers
giving interviews in which they slag
off their former colleagues. It is
an absolute unholy mess. There is no
sense that she is gripping this. Or
has any particular solution. I think
we can have a lot of sympathy for
her in terms of finding a solution.
How on earth do you grip a problem
like this where you're talking about
apparently an indefinite period of
retrospective examination of
potential faults. 15 years is no
longer too historic for somebody to
dredge up some small thing that may
or may not have happened to them. It
is very difficult for her. But she's
being battered around by events.
Where does this story go next?
think the whip's office on every
party, Tories, Labour, Liberal
Democrats, SNP all have their own
whipping operations. That seems to
be the place of it really. This is
because, where do we draw the line?
Going forward what mechanisms are
put in place to top this helping
again. To take allegations
seriously, report them and
investigate them independently. Or
is there a bigger job to go back
into the past retrospective, who
knew what when as Nia said about
Kelvin Hopkins. This is a Shadow
Defence Secretary saying what did
the Labour Party leader know about
Kelvin Hopkins' allegations when he
promoted him? Theresa May is unable
to do the retrospective bit. She's
simply too weak. I asked this of
Number Ten last week. Why are you
not more front-foot the on this.
They said they would be if they
possibly could be. She's running a
minority Government. She cannot be
seen to be going after a witch-hunt
on her own people. So, I think this
goes on. Enof thebly what the whips
new -- inevitably what the whips
knew will be parment. Amber Rudd did
the same thing on Andrew Marr.
are being precise about the fact
they didn't know anything. Sarah
Newton said she heard no allegations
about her flock, the the MPs she was
in charge of rather than rumours
about any other Tories.
say, I do not recognise the more
lurid allegations. What about the
less lurid once? So, this smells
very, very bad indeed.
Corbyn's going to have to answer
some of these questions as well?
Yeah, but the whip's thing is a red
herring. Their remit is to get the
vote out for the Government
fundamentally. Everybody knows that.
They are not there, it is one of the
problems. They are not there to be
moral guides to these MPs. They are
there to win votes for the
Government or the opposition if that
becomes possible. And deal brutally
with MPs to make sure they get out
and vote. Of course they knew
virtually everything. But whether
they were obliged to act as moral
guard yawns in these situations, I
don't think they were. It was not
part of their job. Maybe you need
moral guardians in there but not the
Normally, less than
three-weeks out from a budget that's
what we'd been talking about.
Dominating our conversation. Given
that's set for November 22nd, is
that an opportunity for the
Government to seize back control of
Philip Hammond may be
glad we're not spending too much
time talking about the budget. It
should be an opportunity for the
Government to seize the agenda, draw
a line under all of this. I think
one of the very difficult as pects
of this so-called scandal for the
Government to manage is knowing
quite how long it will run. In the
normal scheme of things they lose
steam after a couple of weeks. But
there are so many potential gayses
that could come out, it might run
longer than that. Rather like the
expenses scandal. But there is an
opportunity at the budget to reset
the' again da. I just don't think
Philip Hammond will take it. I think
he's a very caution Chancellor. At
the moment, there is a feeling
Theresa May's leadership is so weak
it will be too dangerous for them to
do anything particularly dram attic
why. I expect a steady as you go
budget where they will be hoping not
to make any mistakes.
You say there
is disagreement in the Cabinet about
what should be in the budget?
Disagreement between the Chancellor
and the Prime Minister. The
witch-hunt is hiding a huge story
which is the incredible dysfunction
between Number Ten and number 11.
Philip Hammond and Theresa May can't
bear to be in the same room with
each other let alone agreeing what's
in the budget. It is coming down to
housing. Everybody agrees it has to
be the centrepiece of the budget.
They have to get more houses built.
Philip Hammond wands that bee
deregulation. Theresa May wants to
are borrow up to 50 billion
merchandise more for the Government
to build for themselves.
That's all for today.
There's no Sunday Politics
while Parliament is in recess,
but I'll be back here at 11am
on BBC One in two weeks' time.
Until then, bye bye.
Sarah Smith and Martyn Oates with the latest political news, interviews and debate. The programme includes an interview with shadow defence secretary Nia Griffith. Plus former MP George Galloway and journalist and author Peter Hitchens discuss the Russian revolution. Steve Richards, Isabel Oakeshott, Tom Newton Dunn are on the political panel.