05/11/2017 Sunday Politics West Midlands

Good morning, everyone,

and welcome to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith.

And this is your guide to everything

that's happening in the world

of politics this Sunday morning.

On today's show:

Theresa May's right-hand man

Damian Green has denied claims that

police found pornography

on a computer in his office in 2008.

He says the allegations by a former

police chief are "political smears."

With claims of sexual harassment

at Westminster growing by the day,

can either Theresa May

or Jeremy Corbyn do anything to get

to grips with a scandal

threatening to engulf

the entire political class?

We'll ask a minister and senior

member of the Shadow Cabinet.

And some on the left of politics

have been gathering to mark 100

And in the Midlands,

winter is coming.

Are our hospitals prepared

or will patients wait on trolleys

in corridors for hours on end?

Some answers, we hope,

in half an hour.

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,

Hello and welcome to

the Sunday Politics in the Midlands.

The winter is almost upon us.

Are our hospitals ready for it

or will we see another midwinter

crisis with patients stuck

on trolleys in corridors

for hours on end?

Not long to wait for some answers

today from Adrian Bailey,

Labour MP for West Bromwich West,

and James Morris, Conservative MP

for Halesowen and Rowley Regis.

Two of the Black Country's finest.

A little later on we hear how

campaigners fighting the closure

of children's centres

in Warwickshire have

carried their fight to Westminster.

But we begin with the furore over

accusations of sexual misconduct.

There aren't many politicians

who have actually benefited from it

but Gavin Williamson's promotion

to Defence Secretary

confirms the rise and rise

of the South Staffordshire MP

and adds another name to the

inevitable leadership speculation.

Only a week ago, Mark Garnier,

who was on this programme

last Sunday, admitted

sending his secretary

to buy sex toys.

The International Trade Minister

and Conservative MP for Wyre Forest

is under investigation

by the Cabinet Office.

And that opened the floodgates

for the welter of allegations

against politicians

from both main parties.

One of our leading women MPs

wants a concerted lead

from Parliament and parties alike.

This is a problem all over

the country in all walks of life.

However, the specific problem

with Hollywood and now

Parliament is about power.

It is about the power that people

have over other people

and how they use that.

There needs to be independent bodies

set up, both by Parliament but also

by the political parties themselves.

That needs to happen swiftly.

This is not something new,

this is something that has been

asked for within political parties

for some time.

That needs to be a HR function

and independent specialist advice

for people who have grievances

and specialists in people dealing

with people who suffer

from sexual violence.

Jess Phillips making the point

there that in the absence

of anything remotely like a human

resources department at Westminster,

there is a need for some sort

of independent services advice

and support for people.

James, is she on to something there?

I would agree on that.

I think it's important that

if there are allegations made,

that there is a mechanism

in Parliament for people to be able

to get independent advice and also

to have some kind of process

of independent arbitration.

I think that is an important point.

The problem is that MPs are

basically the boss in the office.

You are only accountable

to your electorate really.

I think it's important

that MPs still have that

but there is a strong argument

that there needs to be some more

independent arbitration

and the ability for people to have

that independent arbitration as part

of the Parliamentary process.

It strikes me that at one extreme

there are obviously very,

very serious allegations here,

but at the other end

there are quite dubious ones.

It's very easy to lump

the whole lot in together.

Yes, it is.

Obviously there are gradations

of offences and the most serious

ones should go to the police.

I think what we have to make clear

is that anybody who has suffered

a very serious sexual harassment,

tantamount to a criminal act,

must go to the police.

I think it is the obligation

of all the political parties

to ensure that they have both

the processes and support for that

person so that they don't feel that

by going to the police

and exercising their rights,

that they are going to

have their career ruined

as a result.

I have to confess that there

is an obvious awkwardness.

It has just worked out this week

that we are an all-male line-up

talking about gender issues,

but to refer to something said

by a senior female lobby journalist,

Rachel Sylvester, she says

there is a culture of

misogyny at Westminster.

Is there?

I think there is an issue

about the culture that I don't

think it's widespread

but there is a certain

aspect of the culture

that we need to attend to.

We are living into the 21st century

and there needs to be modern working

practices in Parliament and people

need to treat each

other with respect.

That is a fundamental principle that

I think needs to be applied

to the culture in Parliament.

And Parliament struggling

still to recover public respect

after the expenses scandal.

This isn't going to help, is it?

No.

I think we have to remember that

misogyny exists in many professions

and in society as a whole

and therefore it is unlikely

that parliamentarians

as representatives of society

will be excluded from this.

But I would agree with James

that the numbers involved

are a relatively small proportion.

Can I say, my experience is that

misogyny actually is more

rife at local level.

I'm dealing with an issue

with my local authority.

There has to be mechanisms

not just in Westminster

but replicated at local level to.

OK, a very clear message going out.

With winter coming, should we be

braced for yet another

midwinter hospital crisis?

Some of England's longest

waiting times last winter

were at the Royal Stoke University

Hospital.

For two weeks during January,

the hospital is cancelling routine

operations and it's bringing in 45

extra beds but it's also been

in financial special

measures since March.

James Bovill has been finding out

if the hospital is in any fit

state to prevent history

from repeating itself.

The Royal Stoke University Hospital

is working flat out,

treating more and more patients

with a budget it is

unable to balance.

A&E hasn't hit government targets

here for four years and doctors

say they can't carry

on with the resources they've got.

It's an incredibly stressful

environment to work in.

Burn out of clinicians

and nurses is a real problem

when you come in on a daily basis

to a crowded emergency department.

We know we are not seeing

patients quickly enough.

So isn't more money

the obvious solution?

If somebody gave us money right now,

it could make a small difference,

but actually it's how

we organise our services.

This hospital has 1,450 beds

and during winter they will be full.

We have no room for any more

so it is how we use those beds

and how we use our resources

which is what's really

important during winter.

Staff are clearly doing

all they can but the stats

don't make good reading.

The trust that runs this hospital

and County Hospital in Stafford

is due to overspend by nearly

£70 million this year alone

and it's spending so much

because it's so busy.

In A&E in September,

a quarter of patients weren't

seen within four hours.

That's the third worst

performance in England.

And bed blocking or delayed

discharge is still a big problem.

At any one time, 170 patients

could be ready to leave this

hospital but unable to do

so because there is no care package

available elsewhere.

So what is in the hospital's winter

plan to deal with it?

It's spending £2 million

on 45 new beds to get

patients out of A&E quicker.

Consultants will work on the front

line like during the junior doctor

strikes to increase efficiency.

The hospital is also cancelling

all non-urgent elective surgery

for the first two weeks in January,

like this lower leg reconstruction,

to ease that intense

pressure on hospital beds.

Patient satisfaction

remains high though.

Tony came into A&E last Friday

night with chest pains.

He was seen straight away

but his wife Sue says

the strain was clear.

It was terrible.

There were so many people,

it was unbelievable.

Quite frightening if you don't go

to these places very often.

The government should help out more.

It's a wonderful hospital

and I think it needs more help.

Staffordshire's precarious position

was raised in Parliament last week

by local MP Gareth Snell,

who re-extended a month's

old invitation for Health Secretary

Jeremy Hunt to visit to see

the struggles for himself.

An invitation still not taken up.

But Mr Hunt did acknowledge

this week that the NHS

will need extra funding.

There is no doubt that we are going

to need to find more money

for the NHS in the years that come

ahead of us because we have

a million more over 75s coming

down the railway track

in the next decade.

As autumn turns to winter,

hospital bosses will spend the next

few months trying to avoid a crisis.

Solving the NHS's long-term

problems will be a far more

intricate operation.

James Bovill.

And we're also joined

today by Robin Morrison,

the chief executive

of Healthwatch Staffordshire,

the independent watchdog.

Do you feel that we are heading

towards another midwinter crisis?

I think, Patrick, that we all know

there is increased patient demand

during the winter period

and it is good to acknowledge

that the trust in particular has put

a robust plan in place to mitigate

some of those known pressures

they are going to have.

Including cancelling

routine operations.

That's already a bit tough.

There are already victims.

Those are the people scheduled

to have elective surgery.

Yes, and that's one of the concerns

the public have flagged up,

increased waiting times,

and having to travel longer

distances for treatment.

But part of our role is to monitor

that and take on people's issues

and complaints and refer them back

to the trust in this case.

We posed the question

about whether the hospital is in any

fit state to approach midwinter.

Everywhere you look there seems

to be a squeeze on budgets.

In terms of bed blocking,

the better care fund commissioning

groups are closing community beds.

All of this seems on the face of it

to be a prescription for bed

blocking once again.

Well, what we have here is a whole

system issue, to be honest.

It's not just the hospital and bed

blocking, it's the local authority

providing care as well

and in a very, very

financially tough situation.

Being docked £20 million

for docking their targets

on bed blocking too.

What is your answer to all that?

My view is that we have

got the sustainable

transformation partnership now.

In need of improvement, officially.

In need of improvement,

but at least we can improve

and go on from here.

We are part of that partnership

as Healthwatch and we feed

the patients' concerns

into that partnership.

There is a lot of re-education to go

on, a lot of changes in service

delivery patterns as well,

and this will take some

considerable time.

It will not be

an overnight solution.

It seems to me, from what Robin

is saying, you were until recently

the parliamentary private secretary

to the Health Secretary,

that the Stoke hospital

is being penalised simply

because it's so busy.

There's an awful lot more stick

than carrot in all this.

Well, the point about the systems

change is the right thing.

We have increased funding

to the health service every year

since 2010 and actually,

for this particular approach

to winter, there's a lot

of preparation, there's

an additional £100 million that's

been allocated to cope with winter

pressures and we are treating more

people, more people are going

through A&E than ever before.

Are we going to be at the wrong end

of those waiting lists this winter?

Clearly there are pressures.

Every winter we have to be prepared,

we have to make further investment,

we have to get a particular emphasis

on prevention so that we don't have

so many people presenting at A&E,

but we also need to make sure

that we are using innovative

practice to make sure

that we are able to cope

with those volumes.

Over the last seven years,

we are seeing more people

through A&E than ever before

in the NHS and seeing a lot of them

in a very timely fashion.

Innovative practice, and that has

to mean greater efficiency.

A business model in the health

service that was good 70

years ago is not good

now, is it?

I think we must compliment

the health professionals,

those who deliver the health

service, on their resourcefulness

and their forward planning on this.

There is no doubt about it

that they are alert to this issue

and they are making contingency

arrangements.

But on the other hand there are some

very serious issues.

Already, in general,

hospitals have higher bed occupants

than they did at this time last

year, which could have very

serious implications.

And there are longer waiting lists

in accident and emergency.

We have a shortage of nurses and,

basically, we need first

of all a short-term injection to get

us over this particular? So it does

So it does

come back to taxpayers' money?

In some respects it does

but it's not solely that.

It means more support for local

authorities to have more care

packages to free up beds.

It means better recruitment

of doctors and nurses,

a longer term strategy has

to be in place.

We know there is big pressure

on the Chancellor with just over

a couple of weeks until the budget

but I was struck by what the chief

nurse said in the report.

She was actually talking

about the need for organisational

efficiency, as much as extra money.

What is your view on that?

We have done studies at A&E

departments in various hospitals

in Staffordshire and what we find

is, a lot of people reporting to A&E

don't need to be there.

They could actually use NHS 111,

they could go to their GP,

they could go to the pharmacist.

But it's quite attractive,

the lights are on, there's a coffee

machine, they are not going to have

to wait for ages in theory,

but in practice it

turns out different.

And a lot of people are willing

to put up with the wait as well

because they are going to be treated

on the day and they are going

to see a specialist.

We found that out.

There is a balance here.

But the balance is that

total system review.

When we did a consultation

on the sustainable transformational

plan for Staffordshire,

we made contact with over 50,000

residents of Staffordshire by

various means and they acknowledge

the need for change.

But they wanted to be

involved in that change.

To get their voice

heard in the system.

Very briefly, predictions from each

of you, are we heading

towards a midwinter crisis?

I certainly think they are going

to be really difficult times ahead

and if we have the predicted flu

epidemic, it could be

an absolute disaster.

We are always well advanced

with winter planning.

Every year, the NHS has put

in contingency plans,

there is additional money

going in for trusts to be able

to cope, there are a lot

of pressures but I think they can

be coped with.

Thank you very much.

Now, they have been described

as a lifeline for parents with young

children but now Warwickshire's 39

children's centres could be

replaced by 14 new children

and family centres.

The county council need to take over

£1 million out of their budget

for children's centres as part

of nearly £70 million savings

required by the government by 2020.

But the council faces increasingly

determined opposition

from campaigners who have

taken their fight to Westminster.

Shelley Phelps.

Save our children's centres!

Save our children's centres!

Taking their protest to Parliament,

campaigners are stepping up

the fight to save 25 Warwickshire

children's centres

from possible closure.

The centres cater for children up

to five years of age and offer

services ranging from stay and play

sessions to help with breastfeeding.

For this Nuneaton mum,

the service was a lifeline.

I had a newborn baby boy,

I didn't know what I was doing,

I didn't know how to be a mum,

how to be a parent,

and they helped me get friends,

they helped me learn how to be

the mother I am today.

South Warwickshire's new Labour MP,

who is also a county councillor,

has been asking his party's

frontbench for help

highlighting the issue.

This is a critical part

of all education, as if not more

important than higher and further

education, because the provision

is universal to all children.

It is so important, and that's

what we want to be pressing for.

We believe the money is there,

it is simply a choice.

Warwickshire County Council

is redesigning the service as part

of efforts to save just over

£1 million from the

children centres budget.

It plans to transform 14 sites

into enhance children and family

centres that will provide care

for a broader range of ages.

It hopes that other sites will still

be used for outreach work.

Next week the Cabinet

is expected to make a final

decision on the matter.

They said they want to thank people

for contributing their views

to the consultation

and that they have been listening.

And they said they hope that

people will be pleasantly

surprised by the outcome.

And if they aren't, then

these campaigners will be

shouting louder than ever.

Shelley Phelps.

By the sounds of it we shouldn't

have long to wait to find out

what exactly that pleasant surprise

turns out to be.

Adrian Bailey, what do you think

that pleasant surprise should be?

What I want to see is a level

of service that would enable as many

children as is humanly possible,

particularly from low-income

families, to enjoy a level

of facility that they have had

historically in Warwickshire

because all the evidence shows that

for young children going into early

learning, socialising,

benefit enormously as they go

through subsequent stages

of education.

It is poor people and deprived

families that will be

a disproportionately if these occur.

That's presumably why it's

described as a lifeline.

What would you say?

I think early intervention is really

important but in the end

the delivery of a high-quality early

years service is not

dependent on a building.

If you take Labour-run

Wolverhampton, they have also reduce

the number of buildings

in which Sure Starts are located

but they've been given a good Ofsted

rating for the delivery

of the service.

If you look at Warwickshire,

apparently there's around a thousand

families in Warwickshire who should

be using Sure Start centres

but they don't want to use

the existing facility.

It might be better to co-locate some

of those Sure Start facilities

in other areas in order to create

this early intervention hub.

I don't think it's

all about buildings.

In Warwickshire, 50%

of the cost of Sure Start goes

on to management and administration.

We should be trying to focus

as much of the money

on the front line as possible.

But it is about taking

a million out of the budget?

Again, talking about

innovative practice.

It's about access.

If you are reducing 37 to 14,

there will be an awful lot

of people? But family centres

is a bigger age range,

But family centres is a bigger age

range, a bigger service.

Yes, but in a county

as large as Warwickshire,

that is going to preclude some

low-income families from having

a level of access which they have

historically had in the area.

Isn't it time for the government

to ease off on austerity

and to relax the pressure

on local authorities?

These are decisions to be made

by local authorities.

They need to make those strategic

decisions in relation

to their statutory responsibility

and the resources they have.

It's actually true that you can

deliver a better service

where 50% of the cost

is going on administration.

We need to shift that resource

into the provision of a high-quality

service at the front line.

Matt Western says it's a matter

of choice but that's what it's

about, hard choices.

There are always more

or less deserving cases.

But the real choice

is between government concentrating

spending from Whitehall,

spending it in the regions

through local authorities,

through metropolitan mayors,

and so on and so forth.

They say they believe

in devolution of financial power

but they have got to deliver.

I know James is itching to come back

but we must leave it there.

Let's see if we can sum up the rest

of the week's political

developments in just 60 seconds.

Our round-up today is

brought to us by Amy Cole.

Litchfield Tory MP Michael Fabricant

made an appearance on Channel 4's

Celebrity First Dates program

to raise money for the Stand

Up To Cancer charity.

Labour deputy leader Tom Watson led

calls to cut the maximum stake

on fixed-odds betting terminals

from the current £100 to £2

to tackle gambling addiction.

Birmingham has failed

World Health Organisation

tests on air quality.

The city did better than London

or Leeds but was behind Manchester.

Andy Street joined his metro' mayor

colleagues in City Hall in London.

They want the government to give

them greater tax raising powers.

And the former British Leyland

worker and trade unionists

Derek Robinson has died

at the age of 90.

Dubbed Red Robbo by the media,

he was involved in a series

of strikes and walkouts

at the Longbridge car

plant in the 1970s.

He stood up for the rights

of working people, made sure that

when they were prepared to fight

they got support, but always put

the argument with intelligence,

care and diplomacy.

And as a young-ish news reporter

back then, I remember many a frosty

morning in Cofton Park culminating

in a unanimous show of hands.

We are reminded by Richard Burgon,

Labour MP whose constituency

includes the former Longbridge works

that it took bad management

as well as the unions to make

Longbridge what it became.

Is that a fair verdict?

I wasn't very old at the time

of these things happening

but obviously he was a very

colourful character, Red Robbo,

and he's left his own legacy.

Probably we'd hope that trade union

relations with management

at companies will have moved

on a bit from that time but I'm sure

he leaves his own legacy.

It was all part of the winter

of discontent , which helped bring

down the Callaghan government.

He led apparently 500 plus walkouts

between '78 and 79.

I am old enough to remember.

I am sad to see him gone.

I didn't agree with a lot of things

he did but he was a product

of an era when there was real

confrontation between

management and union.

Now look at the difference.

You have the unions working

with management and invested

in companies like Jaguar Land Rover,

transforming the local economy.

We must leave it there.

My thanks to Adrian Bailey

and James Morris.

Finally from me, are you able

to scrutinise your council?

The Local Government Minister

and Nuneaton MP Marcus Jones comes

under scrutiny himself tomorrow,

appearing before the

Communities Select Committee.

They are examining how local

authorities are scrutinised

and it is select committees

who scrutinise government