12/03/2017 Sunday Politics Yorkshire and Lincolnshire

Download Subtitles




Andrew Neil and Tim Iredale with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Andrew discusses the Brexit bill with UKIP's Nigel Farage and Conservative MP Anna Soubry.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 12/03/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



It's Sunday morning and this is the Sunday Politics.


David Davis tells MPs to leave the Brexit bill untouched,


ahead of a week which could see Britain begin the process


We'll talk to a Tory rebel and Ukip's Nigel Farage.


Phillip Hammond's first budget hit the rocks thanks to a tax rise


But how should we tax those who work for themselves?


And remember Donald Trump's claim that Barack Obama had ordered


We'll talk to the former Tory MP who set the whole story rolling.


Later on the Sunday Politics in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire,


we ask whether enough volunteers are coming forward to run


the services which have fallen victim to council cuts.


And joining me for all of that, three self-employed journalists


who definitely don't deserve a tax break.


It's Steve Richards, Julia Hartley-Brewer


They'll be tweeting throughout the programme with all the carefree


abandon of Katie Hopkins before a libel trial.


BBC lawyers have suddenly got nervous!


So first today, the government is gearing up to trigger Article 50,


perhaps in the next 48 hours, and start negotiating Britain's


Much has been written about the prospect of the Commons


getting a "meaningful vote" on the deal Britain negotiates.


Brexit Secretary David Davis was on the Andrew Marr programme


earlier this morning and he was asked what happens


Well, that is what is called the most favoured nation status deal


There we go out, as it were, on WTO rules.


That is why of course we do the contingency planning, to make


The British people decided on June the 23rd last year


My job, and the job of the government, is to make


the terms on which that happens as beneficial as possible.


There we have it, clearly, either Parliament votes for the deal when


it is done or it out on World Trade Organisation rules. That's what the


government means by a meaningful vote.


I think we get over obsessed about whether there will be a legal right


for Parliament to have a vote. If there is no deal or a bad deal, I


think it would be politically impossible for the government to


reject Parliament's desire for a vote because the atmosphere of


politics will be completely different by then. I take David


Davies seriously. Within Whitehall he has acquired a reputation as


being the most conscientious and details sadly... And well briefed.


Absolutely and well travelled in terms of European capitals of the


three Brexit ministers. It is quite telling he said what he did and it


is quite telling that within cabinet, two weeks ago he was


floating the idea of no deal at all. Being if not the central estimate


than a completely plausible eventuality. It is interesting. I


would suggest the prospect of no deal is moving up the agenda. It is


still less likely than more likely to happen. But it's no longer a kind


of long tail way out there in the distance. Planning for no deal is


the same as having contents insurance or travel insurance, plan


for the worse case scenarios are prepared it happens. Even the worst


case scenario, it's not that bad. Think of the Jeep 20, apart from the


EU, four members of the G20 economies are successful members of


the EU. The rest aren't and don't have trade deals but somehow these


countries are prospering. They are growing at a higher rate. You are


not frightened? Not remotely. We are obsessed with what we get from the


EU and the key thing we get from leaving the EU is not the deal but


the other deals we can finally make with other trading partners. They


have higher growth than virtually every other EU country apart from


Germany. It is sensible as a negotiating position for the


government to say if there is no deal, we will accept there is no


deal. We're not frightened of no deal. It was clear from what David


Davies was saying that there will be a vote in parliament at the end of


the process but there won't be a third option to send the government


back to try to get a better deal. It is either the deal or we leave


without a deal. In reality, that third option will be there. We don't


know yet whether there will be a majority for the deal if they get


one. What we do know now is that there isn't a majority in the


Commons for no deal. Labour MPs are absolutely clear that no deal is


worth then a bad deal. I've heard enough Tory MPs say the same thing.


But they wouldn't get no deal through. When it comes to this vote,


if whatever deal is rejected, there will then be, one way or another,


the third option raised of go back again. But who gets to decide what


is a bad deal? The British people will have a different idea than the


two thirds of the Remain supporting MPs in the Commons. In terms of the


vote, the Commons. Surely, if the Commons, which is what matters here,


if the Commons were to vote against the deal as negotiated by the


government, surely that would trigger a general election? If the


government had recommended the deal, surely the government would then, if


it still felt strongly about the deal, if the other 27 had said,


we're not negotiating, extending it, it would in effect become a second


referendum on the deal. In effect it would be a no-confidence vote in the


government. You've got to assume that unless something massively


changes in the opposition before then, the government would feel


fairly confident about a general election on those terms. Unless the


deal is hideously bad and obviously basso every vote in the country...


The prior minister said if it is that bad she would have rather no


deal. So that eventuality arrives. -- the Prime Minister has said. Not


a second referendum general election in two years' time. Don't put any


holidays for! LAUGHTER -- don't look any.


So the Brexit bill looks likely to clear Parliament this week.


That depends on the number of Conservative MPs who are prepared


to vote against their government on two key issues.


Theresa May could be in negotiations with our European


partners within days, but there may be some


wheeler-dealings she has to do with her own MPs, too.


Cast your mind back to the beginning of month.


The bill to trigger Article 50 passed comfortably


But three Conservatives voted for Labour's amendments to ensure


the rights of EU citizens already in the UK.


Seven Tory MPs voted to force the government to give Parliament


a say on the deal struck with the EU before it's finalised.


But remember those numbers, they're important.


On the issue of a meaningful vote on a deal, I'm told there might have


been more rebels had it not been for this assurance from


I can confirm that the government will bring forward a motion


on the final agreement to be approved by both Houses


And we expect, and intend, that this will happen before


the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement.


When the government was criticised for reeling back


from when and what it would offer a vote on.


The bill then moved into the Lords, where peers passed it


And the second, that Parliament be given a meaningful vote on the terms


of the deal or indeed a vote in the event of there


The so-called Brexit bill will return to Commons


Ministers insist that both amendments would weaken


the government's negotiating hand and are seeking to overturn them.


But, as ever, politics is a numbers game.


Theresa May has a working majority of 17.


On Brexit, though, it's probably higher.


At least six Labour MPs generally vote with


Plus, eight DUP MPs, two from the Ulster Unionist party


If all Conservatives vote with the government as well,


Therefore, 26 Conservative rebels are needed for the government to be


So, are there rough waters ahead for Theresa May?


What numbers are we looking at, in terms of a potential rebellion?


I think we're looking at a large number of people who are interested


This building is a really important building.


It's symbolic of a huge amount of history.


And for it not to be involved in this momentous time would,


But he says a clear verbal statement from the government on a meaningful


vote on any deal would be enough to get most Tory MPs onside.


It was already said about David Jones.


It's slightly unravelled a little bit during


I think this is an opportunity to really get that clarity


through so that we can all vote for Article 50 and get


We've have spoken to several Tory MPs who say they are minded to vote


One said the situation was sad and depressing.


The other said that the whips must be worried because they don't


A minister told me Downing Street was looking again at the possibility


of offering a vote in the event of no deal being reached.


But that its position was unlikely to change.


And, anyway, government sources have told the Sunday Politics they're not


That those Tory MPs who didn't back either amendment the first time


round would look silly if they did, this time.


It would have to be a pretty hefty lot of people changing their minds


about things that have already been discussed in quite a lot of detail,


last time it was in the Commons, for things to be reversed this time.


There's no doubt that a number of Tory MPs are very concerned.


Labour are pessimistic about the chances of enough Tory


rebels backing either of the amendments in the Commons.


The important thing, I think, is to focus on the fact


that this is the last chance to have a say on this.


If they're going to vote with us, Monday is the time to do it.


Assuming the bill does pass the Commons unamended,


it will go back to the Lord's on Monday night where Labour peers


have already indicated they won't block it again.


It means that the Brexit bill would become law and Theresa May


would be free to trigger Article 50 within days.


Her own deadline was the end of this month.


But one minister told me there were advantages to doing it early.


We're joined now from Nottingham by the Conservative MP Anna Soubry.


She's previously voted against the government on the question


of whether Parliament should have a final say over the EU deal.


Anna Soubry, I think it was clear this morning from David Davies that


what he means by meaningful vote is not what you mean by a meaningful


vote. He thinks the choice for Parliament would be to either vote


for the deal and if Parliament doesn't, we leave on World Trade


Organisation rules, on a bare-bones structure. In the end, will he


accept that in the Commons tomorrow? No, because my problem and I don't


think it is a problem, but my problem, the government's problem is


that what I want is then to answer this question. What happens in the


event of their not being any deal? David Davies made it very clear that


in the event of there being no deal, Parliament would have no say. It


means through your elected representatives, the people of this


country would have no say on what happens if the government doesn't


get a deal. I think the request that Parliament should have a say on


Parliamentary sovereignty, is perfectly reasonable. That is what I


want David to say. If he says that, I won't be rebelling. If he does...


They have refused to say that. Sorry. If he continues to say what


he said the BBC this morning, which means that the vote will be either


to accept the as negotiated or to leave on WTO rules, will you rebel


on that question but no, no, sorry, if there's a deal, Parliament will


have a say. So that's fine. And we will see what the deal is and we


will look at the options two years down the road. When who knows


what'll happen in our economy and world economy. That is one matter


which I am content on. The Prime Minister, a woman of her word has


said that in the event of a deal, Parliament will vote on any deal. I


don't difficulty. To clarify, I will come onto that. These are important


matters. I want to clarify, not argue with you. You are content that


if there is a deal, we will come under no deal in a second, but if


there is a deal, you are content with the choice of being able to


vote for that deal or leaving on WTO terms? No, you're speculating as to


what might happen in two years' time. What the options might be.


Personally I find it inconceivable that the government will come back


with a rubbish deal. They will either come back with a good deal,


which I won't have a problem with or they will come back with no deal. To


speculate about coming back with a deal, there is a variety of options.


I understand that that is what the Lord amendments are about. They are


about a vote at the end of the process. Do forgive me, the Lords


amendment is not the same that I've voted for in Parliament. What we


call the Chris Leslie amendment, which was talking about whatever the


agreement is, whatever happens at the end of the negotiations,


Parliament will have a vote. Parliament will have a say. The


Lords amendment is a bit more technical. It is the principle of no


deal that is agitating us. Let's clarify on this. They are


complicated matters. What do you want the government to say? What do


you want David Davis to say tomorrow on what should the Parliamentary


process should be if there is no deal? Quite. I want a commitment


from him that in the event of no deal, it will come into Parliament


and Parliament will determine what happens next. It could be that in


the event of no deal, the best thing is for us to jump off the cliff into


WTO tariff is. I find it unlikely but that might be the reality. There


might be other alternatives. Most importantly, including saying to the


government, go back, carry on. The question that everybody has to ask


is, why won't the government give My fear is what this is about is


asked deliberately, not the Prime Minister, but others deliberately


ensuring we have no deal and no deal pretty soon and in that event, we


jumped off the cliff onto WTO tariffs and nobody in this country


and the people of this country do not have a say. My constituents did


not vote for hard Brexit. You do not want the government to


have the ability if there is no deal to automatically fall back on the


WTO rules? Quite. It is as simple as that. We are now speculating about


what will happen in two years. I want to find out what happens


tomorrow. What will you do if you don't get that assurance? I will


either abstain, or I will vote to keep this amendment within the Bill.


I will either vote against my government, which I do not do


likely, I have never voted against my government until the Chris Leslie


clause when the Bill was going through, or I will abstain, which


has pretty much the same effect because it comes into the Commons


with both amendments so you have positively to vote to take the map.


Can you give us an idea of how many like-minded conservative colleagues


there are. I genuinely do not know. You must talk to each other. I do


not talk to every member of my party. You know people who are


like-minded. I do. I am not doing numbers games. I know you want that


but I genuinely do not know the figure. I think this is an


uncomfortable truth. People have to understand what has happened in our


country, two particular newspapers, creating an atmosphere and setting


an agenda and I think many people are rather concerned, some


frightened, to put their head over the parapet. There are many millions


of people who feel totally excluded from this process. Many of them


voted to remain. And they have lost their voice. We have covered the


ground I wanted to. We're joined now by the Ukip MEP


and former leader Nigel Farage. Article 50 triggered, we are leaving


the EU, the single market and the customs union. What is left you to


complain about? All of that will happen and hopefully we will get the


triggered this week which is good news. What worries me a little I'm


not sure the government recognises how strong their handers. At the


summit in Brussels, the word in the corridors is that we are prepared to


give away fishing waters as a bargaining chip and the worry is


what deal we get. Are we leaving, yes I am pleased about that. You are


under relevant voice in the deal because the deal will be voted on in


Parliament and you have one MP. You are missing the point, the real vote


in parliament is not in London but Strasbourg. This is perhaps the


biggest obstacle the British Government faces. Not what happens


in the Commons that the end of the two years, the European Parliament


could veto the deal. What that means is people need to adopt a different


approach. We do not need to be lobbying in the corridors of


Brussels to get a good deal, we need is a country to be out there talking


to the German car workers and Belgian chocolate makers, putting as


much pressure as we can on politicians from across Europe to


come to a sensible arrangement. It is in their interests more than


ours. In what way is the vision of Brexit set out by David Davis any


different from your own? I am delighted there are people now


adopting the position I argued for many years. Good. But now... Like


Douglas Carswell, he said he found David Davis' performers this morning


reassuring. It is. And just as when Theresa May was Home Secretary every


performance she gave was hugely reassuring. She was seen to be a


heroine after her conference speeches and then did not deliver. I


am concerned that even before we start we are making concessions. You


described in the EU's divorce bill demands, 60 billion euros is floated


around. You said it is laughable and I understand that. Do you maintain


that we will not have to pay a penny to leave? It is nine months since we


voted exit and assuming the trigger of Article 50, we would have paid 30


billion in since we had a vote. We are still members. But honestly, I


do not think there is an appetite for us to pay a massive divorce


Bill. There are assets also. Not a penny? There will be some ongoing


commitments, but the numbers talked about our 50, ?60 billion, they are


frankly laughable. I am trying to find out if you are prepared to


accept some kind of exit cost, it may be nowhere near 60 billion. We


have to do a net agreement, the government briefed about our share


of the European Union investment bank. Would you accept a


transitional arrangement, deal, five, ten billion, as part of the


divorce settlement? We are painted net ?30 million every single day at


the moment, ?10 billion plus every year. That is just our contribution.


We are going to make a massive saving on this. What do you make of


what Anna Soubry said, that if there is no deal, and it is being talked


about more. Maybe the government managing expectations. There is an


expectation we will have a deal, but if there is no deal, that the


government cannot just go to WTO rules, but it has to have a vote in


parliament? By the time we get to that there will be a general


election coming down the tracks and I suspect that if at the end of the


two-year process there is no deal and by the way, no deal is a lot


better for the nation than where we currently are, because we freed of


regulations and able to make our own deals in the world. I think what


would happen, and if Parliament said it did not back, at the end of the


negotiation a general election would happen quickly. According to reports


this morning, one of your most senior aides has passed a dossier to


police claiming Tories committed electoral fraud in Thanet South, the


seat contested in the election. What evidence to you have? I read that in


the newspapers as you have. I am not going to comment on it. Will you not


aware of the contents of the dossier? I am not aware of the


dossier. He was your election strategists. I am dubious as to


whether this dossier exists at all. Perhaps the newspapers have got this


wrong. Concerns about the downloading of data the took place


in that constituency, there are. Allegedly, he has refuted it, was it


done by your MP to give information to the Tories, do you have evidence


about? We have evidence Mr Carswell downloaded information, we have no


evidence what he did with it. It is not just your aide who has been


making allegations against the Conservatives in Thanet South and


other seats, if the evidence was to be substantial, and if it was to


result in another by-election being called an Thanet South had to be


fought again, would you be the Ukip candidate? I probably would. You


probably would? Yes. Just probably? Just probably. It would be your


eighth attempt. Winning seats in parliament under first past the post


is not the only way to change politics in Britain and I would like


to think I proved that. Let's go back to Anna Soubry. The implication


of what we were saying on the panel at the start of the show and what


Nigel Farage was saying there would be that if at the end of the process


whatever the vote, if the government were to lose it, it would provoke a


general election properly. I think that would be right. Let's get real.


The government is not going to come to Parliament with anything other


than something it believes is a good deal and if it rejected it, would be


unlikely, there would be a de facto vote of no confidence and it would


be within the fixed term Parliaments act and that be it. The problem is,


more likely, because of the story put up about the 50 billion, 60


billion and you look at the way things are flagged up that both the


Prime Minister and Boris Johnson saying, we should be asking them for


money back, I think the big fear and the fear I have is we will be


crashing out in six months. You think we could leave as quickly as


six months. Explain that. I think they will stoke up the demand from


the EU for 50, 60 billion back and my real concern is that within six


months, where we're not making much progress, maybe nine months, and


people are getting increasingly fed up with the EU because they are told


it wants unreasonable demands, and then the crash. I think what is


happening is the government is putting in place scaffolding at the


bottom of the cliff to break our fall when we come to fall off that


cliff and I think many in government are preparing not for a two-year


process, but six, to nine months, off the cliff, out we go. That is my


fear. That is interesting. I have not heard that express before by


someone in your position. I suspect you have made Nigel Farage's date.


It is a lovely thought. I would say to Anna Soubry she is out of date


with this. 40 years ago there was a good argument for joining the common


market because tariffs around the world was so high. That has changed


with the World Trade Organisation. We are leaving the EU and rejoining


a great big world and it is exciting. She was giving an


interesting perspective on what could happen in nine months rather


than two years. I thank you both. It was Philip Hammond's first


budget on Wednesday - billed as a steady-as-she-goes


affair, but turned out to cause uproar after the Chancellor appeared


to contradict a Tory manifesto commitment with an increase


in national insurance contributions. The aim was to address what some see


as an imbalance in the tax system, where employees pay


more National Insurance The controversy centres


on increasing the so-called class 4 rate for the self-employed who make


a profit of more than ?8,060 a year. It will go up in stages


from 9% to 11% in 2019. The changes mean that over one


and a half million will pay on average ?240 a year


more in contributions. Some Conservative MPs were unhappy,


with even the Wales Minister saying: "I will apologise to every


voter in Wales that read the Conservative manifesto


in the 2015 election." The Sun labelled Philip


Hammond "spite van man". The Daily Mail called the budget


"no laughing matter". By Thursday, Theresa May


said the government One of the first things I did


as Prime Minister was to commission Matthew Taylor to review the rights


and protections that were available to self-employed workers


and whether they should be enhanced. People will be able to look


at the government paper when we produce it, showing


all our changes, and take And, of course, the Chancellor will


be speaking, as will his ministers, to MPs, businesspeople and others


to listen to the concerns. Well, the man you heard mentioned


there, Matthew Taylor, has the job of producing


a report into the future Welcome. The Chancellor has decided


the self-employed should pay almost the same in National Insurance, not


the same but almost, as the employed will stop what is left of your


commission? The commission has a broader frame of reference and we


are interested in the quality of work in the economy at the heart of


what I hope will be proposing is a set of shifts that will improve the


quality of that work so we have an economy where all work is fair and


decent and all jobs give people scope for development and


fulfilment. The issue of taxes a small part. You will cover that? We


will, because the tax system and employment regulation system drive


particular behaviours in our labour market. You approve I think of the


general direction of this policy of raising National Insurance on the


self-employed. Taxing them in return perhaps for more state benefits. Why


are so many others on the left against it from Tim Farron to John


McDonnell? Tax rises are unpopular and it is the role of the opposition


parties to make capital from unpopular tax rises. I think as tax


rises go this is broadly progressive. There are self-employed


people on low incomes and they will be better off. It is economic league


rational because the reason for the difference in National Insurance --


economically. It was to do with state entitlements. The government


is consulting about paid parental leave. A series of governments have


not been good about thinking about medium sustainability of the tax


base. Self-employment is growing. But it is eroding the tax base. It


is important to address those issues. A number of think tanks have


said this is a progressive move. Yet, a number of left-wing


politicians have been against it. And a number of Tories have said


this is a progressive move and not a Tory government move, the balance of


you will pay more tax, but you will get more state benefits is not a


Tory approach to things. That a Tory approach will be you will pay less


tax but entitled to fewer benefits as well.


I preferred in and policies to politics -- I prefer policies. When


people look at the policy and when they look the fact that there is no


real historical basis for that big national insurance differential,


they see it is a sensible policy. I don't have to deal with the


politics. There has been a huge growth in self-employment from the


turn of the millennium. It's been strongest amongst older workers,


women part-timers. Do you have any idea, do you have


the data in your commission that could tell us how many are taking


self-employment because they like the flexibility and they like the


tax advantages that come with it, too, or they are being forced into


it by employers who don't want the extra costs of employment? Do we


know the difference? We do, broadly. Most surveys on self-employment and


flexible forms of employment suggest about two thirds to three quarters


enjoy it, they like the flexibility, they like the autonomy and about a


third to one quarter are less happy. That tends to be because they would


like to have a full-time permanent job. It is not necessary that they


don't enjoy what they are doing, they would like to do other things.


And some of the protections that come with it? Yes. There are some


people who are forced into southern employees by high-risk but also some


people feel like they can't get a proper job as it were. --


self-employment by people who hire them. It is on the narrow matter of


tax revenues but if you are employed on ?32,000 the state will take over


?6,000 in national insurance contributions, that is quite chunky.


If you are self-employed it is ?2300. But the big difference


between those figures isn't what the employee is paying, it's the


employer's contributions up to almost 14%, and cupped for as much


as you are paid. What do you do about employers' contributions for


the self employed? -- it is uncapped for as much. What I recommend is


that we should probably move from taxing employment to taxing labour.


We should probably have a more level playing field so it doesn't really


matter... Explained that I thought it was the same thing. If you are a


self-employed gardener, you are a different tax regime to a gardener


who works for a gardening firm. On the individual side and on the firm


side. As we see new business models, so-called gig working, partly with


technology, we need a more level playing field saying that we're


taxing people's work, not the form in which they deliver that. That is


part of the reason we have seen the growth of particular business


models. They are innovative and creative and partly driven by the


fact that if you can describe yourself as self-employed there are


tax advantages. Coming out in June? Will you come back and talk to us?


Yes. We say goodbye to viewers


in Scotland, who leave us now Coming up here in 20 minutes,


we'll be talking to the former Tory MP who was the root


of Donald Trump's allegation You're watching the Sunday Politics


for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. Coming up today: Is the Big


Society filling a big Why a growing army of volunteers


are running services which have And following those stinging budget


headlines, we hear from white van man on that controversial rise


in national insurance. Yes, plenty to talk about today


with the fallout from the budget Our guests are Philip Davies,


Conservative MP for Shipley, Angela Smith, Labour MP


for Penistone and Stocksbridge, Greg Mulholland, Liberal Democrat MP


for Leeds North West. Well, look, the question I'm


going to ask you is, or the people you represent


going to feel better Well, Tim, I have seen


many of my voters, and there are a high proportion of my voters


who are self-employed and they are going to feel


very badly let down. Conservative Government promised


there would be no increases in national insurance,


and here we are. And on top of that we've got only


?2 billion in additional funding for social care,


when we know that it's been cut There is a real crisis


in social care. And I'm afraid this budget provides


no answers to the problems faced by the country,


and the voters in my constituency. Do you accept this has


not been the best week I don't think we should have


increased national insurance contributions on the self-employed -


as Angela said, we promised If we were going to scrap our


manifesto commitment, we would have been far better off


scrapping of promised to spend And cut that budget and use that


to fund social care. That would have been far better


and for more popular And I certainly don't support


what the Chancellor is doing with Greg Mulholland, whenever


you are on the programme, we always bill you as Parliament's


voice of the pub. Well, I think there were many


serious issues that people There were some pieces of positive


news to reverse some of the dangerous increases


in business rates that affect pubs and also affect other


businesses like sports shops, but I think Angela is right -


it was a very disappointing But now it's chaotic because already


we've had something of a U-turn. Theresa May has said, we won't


actually do this until autumn. And actually frankly,


and I think you see signs of working together across the parties


and the backbenches, we want to get rid of this very


unfair attack on the self-employed, who don't get paid holidays


and don't get sick pay. It's outrageous,


as well as a broken promise. And it's self-defeating


for what the Government A number of Yorkshire


and Lincolnshire Conservatives have criticised the controversial


proposal to increase national insurance contributions for many


self-employed workers. Although Theresa May has said this


won't now be debated by MPs until the autumn,


it hasn't stopped a fierce backlash against the


Chancellor's announcement. It's been described


as a tax on white van man. Millions of self-employed workers


will pay an average of ?240 more And it's a move that


will affect people like Darren, We are a very, very easy target,


because we pay our taxes and because we, you know,


we live how we are supposed So I just feel that we are


a bit of an easy target. The Chancellor says he wants


to create a level playing field when it comes to the national


insurance paid by employees and those who are self-employed,


but that's not how many business Some of the people they are


competing with our large businesses who, perhaps,


will be enjoying business rates cuts and certainly corporation tax cuts,


so the playing field We feel that this is an unfair


development and it should be looked at very carefully and perhaps


reversed and changed. We have to have a tax


system that is fair, and it's right that we ask people


to contribute appropriately for the benefits that they are


receiving from the state. So, no U-turn, but,


with negative budget headlines, many MPs hope the Chancellor


will look again at this So, just to be clear on this,


Philip Davies, if this came to a vote in the autumn amongst MPs,


you would vote against it? I mean, I don't know what proposals


that the Prime Minister or the Chancellor might bring


forward to mitigate against it, But, as things stand,


if it came to a vote Do you think this will now be


quietly ditched by the Treasury? You know, seeing as there is so much


opposition from your party. Well, I think they're


going to have do something, just because of the parliamentary


arithmetic. If all of the opposition


parties are against it, which they appear to be,


it only takes about ten or so Conservative MPs to vote


against it and it is sunk, so, given the scale of opposition


received to it, it seems they are going to have


to do something. Angela Smith, this was, by all


accounts, a badly received budget. The Conservatives are still almost


20 points ahead in the polls. You must be banging your head


about the lack of opposition. The point I would make


here is that we have do, as a party, I think,


but the focus squarely on how the Government is performing here,


and maybe that is where some Because, you know, when you look


at it properly, what you see and what we see in front of us


is a Government whose borrowing The borrowing is


as high as it ever was. They have boxed themselves


into a corner with a promise of no tax increases,


a promise they are now breaking. And public spending


is at rock-bottom levels, and is now cutting


deeply into essential services So, why isn't your


party making traction? I think we need to start making


traction on these key issues, so, for instance, on the self-employed,


the fact that self-employed workers will start paying this extra


national insurance on only 16,500 a year and above, is utterly unfair


and it's something that I hope our front bench will fight


very, very hard indeed. And I think, in addition


to that, there is no promise from the Government


that they will reciprocate, in terms of these insurance increases,


with an improved benefit entitlement, which we need


to see before we can even think about accepting any


of these proposals. As they stand at the moment,


they are totally unacceptable. Greg Mulholland, do you accept


now that unless something catastrophic happens Theresa May


is cruising to another The elephant in the room


that was completely omitted by the Chancellor, extraordinarily,


who... It begins with B, and it's


the incredible political, but actually economic and financial,


turmoil caused by Brexit. So, frankly, who knows


where we will be at the time Or if Theresa May will have been


able to deliver any of the things That, of course, is why


the Liberal Democrats have said that the people should get their say


on the terms of our exit. People have had their say,


though, haven't they? Absolutely, and if we trusted them


to make that decision, we should trust them again


on the terms of exit. But this Government


have a lot of things At the moment they are not


and they are being very glib So I don't think any of us will know


where we are at the moment, but I do know that more and more


people are saying that they will And I think, you know,


to support what Greg was saying to some extent,


that there is evidence already that inflation is beginning


to increase quite significantly The fall in the value of the pound


since the decision on Brexit. But, by and large, do you accept


the economic meltdown you predicted on programmes like this


has not happened? I never predicted an economic


meltdown, but what I will say The value of the pound has fallen


because of the decision. That is now showing itself


in the shape of increased prices in the shops,


and retail spending is beginning The indicators are beginning to show


that there is trouble ahead for us, which is one of the reasons,


I think, when the Chancellor has taken some of the decisions


that he has taken. 60 billion into this part,


when we don't have enough money for our schools,


hospitals, and for social care. Trouble potentially ahead


for the Government tomorrow, because the House of Lords'


amendments go back to Are you predicting a significant


rebellion tomorrow, Philip Davies? These are issues that have


already been decided The Commons passed them quite


comfortably last time. I think the House of Commons


will reject the Lords' amendments tomorrow,


and I hope and believe that, at that point,


the House of Lords will say, we have done our bit,


and we will cave in and... Theresa May's final Brexit deals,


as Greg Mulholland suggests, should No, that has already been rejected


by the House of Commons We don't know what the


deal looks like yet. A second referendum has been


rejected by both the House of Commons and House of Lords,


so that is not going And there is no reason why these


amendments will through. And yet, Philip, now,


is very keen on that, when he wanted to let the people


have their say, and now suddenly They have had to say


in or out, Philip. People like the Lib Dems,


they want to find any way to overturn the result by the back


door, and it isn't going to happen. We have decided we


are going to leave. No, but we need to trust the people


do have a say on what happens We can't keep people voting


and voting until you get the result you like,


Greg. The anti-Europeans have been


doing that for years. I am not saying a second


in-out referendum. But if we trusted the people


in the first place, when they actually see what it means


and what the impact will be in all sorts of areas,


then I think it's perfectly say, would they like to have


a comment on what the Government You've lost the vote


in the Lords and the Commons. I suspect you two are not


going to agree with him on this Well, we have one by about two


to one in this process a list. Now, do you remember that


phrase the "Big Society" which was championed by last


occupant of Ten Downing Street? Well, some would say the Big Society


is alive and well thanks to an army of volunteers running services such


as libraries and leisure facilities which have been


cut back by councils. So, with more public


spending cuts to come, is it time to resurrect the idea


of people power The Big Society demands


a big social response. It means millions of people


answering that noble question asked by JFK,


ask can not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do


for your country. A bold statement from David Cameron


back in 2010, but seven years on, Welcome to Lower Wharfedale


in North Yorkshire, where volunteers I think it's very important


that people put back. It sounds like a cliche,


doesn't it, that he put back? The public footpath right-of-way


network is very important, And we know that, you know, councils


are suffering at the moment, but even when there were good times,


we volunteered to help, because we believe that


the right-of-way network is vitally Richard is just one of more


than 20,000 people across Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, giving


up their time and volunteering Our authorities have


had their budgets cut by ?2 billion since 2010,


and some may ask, is There is a lot of talk


about volunteers taking over and running libraries and so on,


and in some part of some cities, like Sheffield, if a library


is closed that is a real problem for some of the poorest and most


vulnerable people, so it is quite... There is a balance


to be struck, I guess. Council cuts meant the closure


of Stocksbridge leisure Centre near Sheffield,


but it was saved by a group of very dedicated people,


and now runs as a community leisure centre with a mix of paid staff


and at least 40 volunteers. If I didn't come here,


I don't know what I'd be doing. We all volunteer because we are


passionate about it. The people that come here,


they are providing a friendly atmosphere, where everybody


appreciates everything that It gets me out of bed in the morning


and keeps me fit and healthy. Many giving up their time


are retired, and, as the working age increases, there are concerns


about future volunteer levels. Traditionally, volunteers tended


to be people that have retired. They have got lots of skills,


lots of time on their hands, and they want to feel part


of the community and give something back, which is great,


but how long can we, And so it's a concern,


so we try always to think of how we can, sort of,


bring younger people in and get Three days of paid volunteering


leave was pledged by I think one of the challenges


is how they make it work. I don't think the Government is ever


going to say to an employer, you must free people up for three


days to make this work, so I think it's always going to be


something which was around encouragement and carrots


rather than sticks. The concern is that


unless the Government backs up its pledge,


community groups will be left to pick up the pieces with


a diminishing pool of volunteers. That was Sarah Urwen


reporting there. So, Greg Mulholland,


is this really a vindication of what David Cameron


always wanted - communities coming together,


not relying on the state? Well, the first thing to say,


and I am sure we would all absolutely agree,


is to pay tribute to all of the wonderful


volunteers that we saw there, and the many that we know personally


who are in our own constituencies. But let's face it, the Big Society


was a fairly vacuous idea. It was one that David Cameron hoped


to be remembered by. Instead he is being remembered


as the person who foolishly gambled on trying to placate his


backbenchers and lost over Brexit. But we need to have a serious


debate about many things, because the fact is we have a social


care system in crisis, which has been something that has


been an elephant in the room I'm pleased to say the coalition


came forward with something of a plan, which the Conservatives


dropped as soon as But we will not be able to have


volunteers if we keep seeing the state pension age rise,


as people are busy, but I can certainly tell you that having


volunteers will not deal with the social care crisis


or the state of the NHS, and that needs, frankly,


a proper review. And that's why I back having


a cross-party convention to discuss the future of the NHS


and social care. Do you accept in some areas


volunteers actually have been probably more successful in running


services than the council? I mean, I think the point made


in the package by Neil Cleeveley I want to pay tribute


to the volunteers as well. One of those sets of volunteers


is at Stocksbridge leisure Centre in my constituency,


and they have done a great job I don't think it really ever should


have been closed, but it was, And equally, in Penistone,


the same thing has happened I have, however, a community-run


library as well in Ecclesfield, and they equally have done


a great job. But libraries provide


a statutory service, and I have a real worry


that we will lose professional skills in the very long-term,


librarianship in the context When it comes to social care,


as Greg has pointed out, and health care, we have got to find


the right balance between the role of the state and the statutory role,


and the very important role that nurses and doctors play


in delivering the service. And the role of volunteers


in supporting the professionals There is a balance, but,


at the moment, there is a real All right, let me ask


Philip Davies, just how far can OK, you can get volunteers to run


libraries and to paint bus shelters, but, actually, when it comes


to the really, really big things, like social care, there is no


substitute for Government No, there are certain


things that have to be run by the state, obviously,


the NHS being a prime example. I don't think anybody


is suggesting otherwise. We have got to remember,


back in 2010, the Government were spending ?600 billion a year,


roughly, and it was borrowing ?165 billion a year to spend


?600 billion a year. We can't carry on like that,


so we had to find a way of scaling There is no painless way out


of that kind of debt. And so we had to find


a way where we actually scaled back what the state


were spending its money on, and we need to focus on the things


that only the state can do, So, what more would you personally


cut that hasn't been cut already? Well, overseas aid is a thing that


I would particularly like to cut. It was ?8 billion in 2010


and it is now ?12 billion. It will be ?16 billion in 2020


and that is a luxury Well...


Like free schools? I think free schools,


there is a one in a million school in Bradford, free school,


helping lots of deprived kids, But a 9 billion overspend?


A 9 billion overspend? The money we should be


saving is on overseas aid. The free schools in my constituency,


I have got one, and it enjoys a much better funding deal than the other


schools in my area. It has already been calculated that


just to avoid emergency situations and to deal with emergency


situations in terms of maintenance, And yet, the budget gives ?1 billion


in capital for the building If we haven't got the money now,


to maintain our current school buildings, then how on earth


is the Government going to find the money to build ?1 billion worth


of grammar schools and free schools? Let's get some more of the week's


political news now. Our 60-second round-up is voiced


by the legend that is Len Tingle. This week's Prime Minister's


Question Time, and Batley's Tracy Brabin asked why it's so difficult


to get compensation for an 11-year-old damaged


by inoculation against swine flu. Will the Prime Minister today


promise that no more of these disabled children will be hounded


through the courts? Later, a conservative celebration of


what was International Women's Day from Louth and Horncastle's


Victoria Atkins. International Women's Day


is a chance to reflect on how governments and democracies


across the world serve women. Will my right honourable friend


confirm that when it comes to female Prime Ministers,


it's two-nil to the Conservatives? But outside the chamber,


not much joy for these women - as flagged up in last week's


Sunday Politics, a protest against seeing state


pension age raised to 66, but not a word about


it in the budget. And William - now Lord -


Hague hit the headlines. He wants the Minister to call


an early general election. OK, so we heard about


International Women's Day. Let them speak to a member


of Parliament's Women How did you mark


International Women's Day? The Prime Minister,


who was doing a fantastic job. In fact, I think two of our finest


Prime ministers have both been female prime ministers,


so Victoria was absolutely right. It goes to show that rather


than just talking about it, we get on with it, and I think,


as Mrs Thatcher once said, if you want something said,


ask a man, and if you want What do you make of him


being on this committee? Well, Phil is entitled to be


a member of that committee, and I will leave it at that,


but what I will say about women in Parliament is that, actually,


we may not have had a woman leader in the Labour Party,


but we have produced more women MPs then all of the other parties put


together and more. So we have got the best record by


far on this. We do need to have, I think, a woman leader sometime soon


and that is essential. Or would that be?


I would not put money on anybody, but my point is, an important point,


it is Labour who have provided the backbone of women's representation


in parliament. We have the best record and I am proud of my party


record on that. A serious point, because Philip


Davies pushed for Parliament to discuss International Men's Day, was


that a right decision for him to do? Philip will make his own decisions.


We must discuss issues of importance for women and issues of importance


for men, that must be the case. There are issues serious unserious


campaigns, that were highlighted with International Women's Day, and


I am delighted to support them. I agree with Andrew, I don't know


about Philip... But a lot more needs to be done about certain equality.


Equality issues in the workplace, and in terms of pay. I went to come


on Thursday night, a town hall in my constituency, to see a performance


of made in Dagenham. It shows that although progress has been made,


there is still work to be done... People turning into Elaine Paige on


Sunday. An important political issue as well


Briefly, William Hague wants a snap Briefly, William Hague wants a snap


election, should it and will it happen?


No and no. Angela Smith?


Remain open minded as to whether or not they will be another election,


because everything is volatile, but who knows what will happen next? I


am ready for an election at any time.


Are you ready? I am always ready for an election,


Tim. The idea that a prim minister on a whim or for cynical political


reason could cause all the turbulence of election, is nonsense.


-- a Prime Minister. Turbulent times for the country at the moment, so


that must be the priority rather than cynically wondering about


whether it might be the right moment whether it might be the right moment


for a Conservative Prime Minister to go to the polls. We have serious


issues to deal with for the country. And the price of a pint of beer


going up by 2p tomorrow. You have the rest of today to fill your


boots. Not that we encourage binge drinking. They give all of your


thoughts. Now the government plans for new


grammar schools. The Education Secretary


Justine Greening was speaking to a conference


of headteachers on Friday. They're normally a pretty polite


bunch, but they didn't Broadcasters weren't


allowed into the speech, but this was captured


on a camera phone. And we have to recognise actually


for grammars, in terms of disadvantaged children,


that they have, they really do help them close


the attainment gap. And at the same time


we should recognise that ..That parents also want choice


for their children and that those schools are often


very oversubscribed. I suppose it is a rite of passage


for and education secretaries to have this at a head teachers


conference book the head are usually more polite. Isn't part of the


problem, whether one is for or against the expansion of grammar


schools, the government plans are complicated, you cannot sum them up


in a sentence. The proof of that is they can still get away with denying


they are expanding grammar schools. They will find an alternative


formulation because it is not as simple as a brute creation of what


we used to know is grammar schools with the absolute cut-off of the 11


plus. I am surprised how easy they found it politically. We saw the


clip of Justine Greening being jeered a little bit but in the grand


scheme, compared to another government trying this idea a decade


ago they have got away with it easily and I think what is happening


is a perverse consequence of Brexit and the media attention on Brexit,


the government of the day can just about get away with slightly more


contentious domestic policies on the correct assumption we will be too


busy investing our attention in Article 50 and two years of


negotiations, WTO terms at everything we have been discussing.


I wonder if after grammar schools there will be examples of


contentious domestic policies Theresa May can slide in stock


because Brexit sucks the life out, takes the attention away. You are a


supporter. Broadly. Are you happy with the government approach? They


need to have more gumption and stop being apologetic. It is a bazaar


area of public policy where we judge the policy on grammar schools based


on what it does for children whose parents are unemployed, living on


sink estates in Liverpool. It is absurd, we don't judge any other


policy like that. It is simple, not contentious, people who are not


sure, ask them if they would apply to send their child there, six out


of ten said they would. Parents want good schools for their children, we


should have appropriate education and they should be straightforward,


this is about the future of the economy and we need bright children


to get education at the highest level, education for academically


bright children. It is supposed to be a signature policy of the Theresa


May administration that marks a government different from David


Cameron's government who did not go down this road. The signature is


pretty blurred, it is hard to read. It is. She is trying to address


concerns about those who fail to get into these selective schools and


tried to targeted in poorer areas and the rest of it. She will


probably come across so many obstacles. It is not clear what form


it will take in the end. It is really an example of a signature


policy not fully thought through. I think it was one of her first


announcements. It was. It surprised everybody. Surprised at the speed


and pace at which they were planning to go. Ever since, there have been


qualifications and hesitations en route with good cause, in my view. I


disagree with Juliet that this is... We all want good schools but if you


don't get in there and you end up in a less good school. They already do


that. We have selection based on the income of parents getting into a


good catchment area, based on the faith of the parents. That becomes


very attainable! I might been too shot run christenings for these. --


I have been. Now, you may remember this time last


week we were talking about the extraordinary claims by US


President Donald Trump, on Twitter of course,


that Barack Obama had ordered And there was me thinking


that wiretaps went out Is it legal for a sitting


President to do so, he asked, concluding it was a "new low",


and later comparing it to Watergate. Since then, the White House has been


pressed to provide evidence for this It hasn't, but it seems it may have


initially come from a report on a US website by the former Conservative


MP Louise Mensch. She wrote that the FBI had been


granted a warrant to intercept communications between Trump's


campaign and Russia. Well, Louise Mensch joins


us now from New York. Louise, you claimed in early


November that the FBI had secured a court warrants to monitor


communications between trump Tower in New York at two Russian banks.


It's now four months later. Isn't it the case that nobody has proved the


existence of this warrant? First of all, forgive me Andrew, one


takes 1's life in one's hand when it is you but I have to correct your


characterisation of my reporting. It is very important. I did not report


that the FBI had a warrant to intercept anything or that Trump


tower was any part of it. What I reported was that the FBI obtained a


warrant is targeted on all communications between two Russian


banks and were, therefore, allowed to examine US persons in the context


of their investigation. What the Americans call legally incidental


collection. I certainly didn't report that the warrant was able to


intercept or that it had location basis, for example Trump tower. I


just didn't report that. The reason that matters so much is that I now


believe based on the President's reaction, there may well be a


wiretap act Trump Tower. If so, Donald Trump has just tweeted out


evidence in an ongoing criminal case that neither I nor anybody else


reported. He is right about Watergate because he will have


committed obstruction of justice directly from his Twitter account.


Let me come back as thank you for clarifying. Let me come back to the


question. -- and thank you. We have not yet got proof that this warrant


exists, do we? No and we are most unlikely to get it because it would


be a heinous crime for Donald Trump to reveal its existence. In America


they call it a Glomar response. I can neither confirm nor deny. That


is what all American officials will have to say legally. If you are


looking for proof, you won't get it until and unless a court cases


brought. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The BBC validated


this two months after me in their reporting by the journalist Paul


Wood. The Guardian, they also separately from their own sources


validated the existence of the warrant. If you are in America, you


would know that CNN and others are reporting that the investigation in


ongoing. Let me come onto the wider point. You believe the Trump


campaign including the president were complicit with the Russians


during the 2016 election campaign to such an extent that Mr Trump should


be impeached. What evidence did you have?


That is an enormous amount of evidence. You could start with him


saying, hey, Russia, if you are listening, please release all the


Hillary Clinton's e-mails. That's not evidence. I think it rather is,


actually. Especially if you look at some of the evidence that exists on


Twitter and elsewhere of people talking directly to his social media


manager, Dan should be no and telling him to do that before it


happened. There is a bit out there. The BBC itself reported that in


April of last year, a six agency task force, not just the FBI, but


the Treasury Department, was looking at this. I believe there is an


enormous amount of evidence. And then there is the steel dossier


which was included in an official report of the US intelligence


committee. You've also ... Just to be clear, we don't have hard


evidence yet whether this warrant exists. It may or may not. There is


doubt about... There are claims about whether there is evidence


about Mr Trump and the Russians. That is another matter. You claimed


that President Putin had Andrew Breitbart murdered to pave the way


for Steve Bannon to play a key role in the Trump administration. I


haven't. You said that Steve Bannon is behind bomb threats to Jewish


community centres. Aren't you in danger of just peddling wild


conspiracy theories? No. Festival, I haven't. No matter how many times


people say this, it's not going to be true -- first of all. I said in


twitter I believe that to be the case about the murder of Andrew


Breitbart. You believe President Putin murdered him. I didn't! You


said I reported it, but I believed it. You put it on twitter that you


believed it but you don't have a shred of evidence. I do. Indeed, I


know made assertions. What is the evidence that Mr Putin murdered


Andrew Breitbart? I said I believe it. You may believe there are


fairies at the bottom of your garden, it doesn't make it true. I


may indeed. And if I say so, that's my belief. If I say I am reporting,


as I did with the Fisa warrant exists, I have a basis in fact. They


believe is just a belief. I know you are relatively new to journalism.


Let me get the rules right. Andrew, jealousy is not your colour... If it


is twitter, we don't believe it but if it is on your website, we should


believe it? If I report something and I say this happened, then I am


making an assertion. If I describe a belief, I am describing a belief.


Subtlety may be a little difficult for you... No, no. If you want to be


a journalist, beliefs have to be backed up with evidence. Really? Do


you have a faith? It's not a matter of faith, maybe in your case, that


President Putin murdered Andrew Breitbart. A belief and a report at


two different things and no matter how often you say that they are the


same, they will never be the same. You've said in today's Sunday Times


here in London that you've turned into" a temporary superpower" where


you "See things really clearly". Have you become delusional? No. I am


describing a biological basis for ADHD, which I have. As any of your


viewers who are doctors will know. It provides people with


unfortunately a lot of scattered focus, they are very messy and


absent-minded but when they are interested in things and they have


ADHD they can have a condition which is hyper focus. You concentrate very


hard on a given subject and you can see patterns and connections. That


is biological. Thank you for explaining that. And for getting up


early in New York. The first time ever I have interviewed a temporary


superpower. Thank you. You are so lucky! You are so lucky! I don't


think it's going to happen again. Please don't ask us to comment on


that interview! I will not ask you, viewers will make up their own


minds. Let's come back to be more mundane world of Article 50. Stop


the killing! Will it get through at the


government wanted it? Without the Lords amendment falling by the way


that? I am sure the Lord will not try to ping-pong this back and


forth. So we are at the end of this particular legislative phase. The


fact that all three Brexit Cabinet ministers, number ten often don't


like one of them going out on a broadcast interview on a Sunday,


they've all been out and about. That suggests to me they are working on


the assumption it will be triggered this week. This week. The


negotiations will begin or at least the process begins. The negotiation


process may be difficult, given all of the European elections. The Dutch


this week. And then the French and maybe the Italians and certainly the


Germans by the end of September, which is less predictable than it


was. Given all that, what did you make of Anna Soubry's claim, Viacom


on her part, that we may just end up crashing out in six months question


-- fear on her part. It was not just that that we made that deliberately


organising. I want us to get on with the deals.


Everyone knows a good deal is the best option. Who knows what is going


to be on the table when we finally go out? Fascinatingly, the demand


for some money back, given the amount of money... Net gains and net


costs in terms of us leaving for the EU. It is all to play for. That will


be a possible early grounds for a confrontation between the UK and the


EU. My understanding is that they expect to do a deal on reciprocal


rights of EU nationals, EU nationals here, UK citizens there, quite


quickly. They want to clear that up and that will be done. Then they


will hit this problem that the EU will be saying you've got to agree


the divorce Bill first before we talk about the free trade bill.


David Davis saying quite clearly, no, they go together because of the


size of the bill. It will be determined, in our part, by how good


the access will be. The mutual recognition of EU residents' rights


is no trouble. A huge amount of fuss is attracted to that subject but it


is the easiest thing to deal with, as is free movement for tourists.


Money is what will make it incredibly acrimonious. Incredibly


quickly. I imagine the dominant story in the summer will be all


about that. This was Anna Soubry's implication, members of the


governors could strongly argue, things are so poisonous and so


unpleasant at the moment, the dealers are advancing -- members of


the government. Why not call it a day and go out on WTO terms while


public opinion is still in that direction in that Eurosceptic


direction? No buyers' remorse about last year's referendum. The longer


they leave it, view more opportunity there is for some kind of public


resistance and change of mind to take place. The longer believe it,


the more people who voted for Brexit and people who voted Remain and


think we didn't get world War three will start being quite angry with


the EU for not agreeing a deal. In terms of the rights of EU nationals


he and Brits abroad, by all accounts, 26 of the 27 have agreed


individually. Angela Merkel is the only person who has held that up.


That will be dealt with in a matter of days. The chances of a deal being


done is likely but in ten seconds... It would not be a bad bet to protect


your on something not happening, you might get pretty good odds? The odds


are going up that a deal doesn't happen. But, as I said earlier, the


House of Commons will not endorse no deal. We are either in an early


election or she has to go back again. Either way, you will need us!


We will be back at noon tomorrow on BBC Two ahead of what looks like


being a big week in politics. We will be back here same time, same


place. Remember, if it's Sunday,


it's the Sunday Politics. They're calling it an


entertainment extravaganza audience fun and frolics


and outrageous shenanigans. And I don't even know what


those HONK words mean.


Andrew Neil and Tim Iredale with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Andrew discusses the Brexit bill with UKIP's Nigel Farage and Conservative MP Anna Soubry. Guests include Matthew Taylor of the Independent Review of Employment Practices and journalist Louise Mensch. On the political panel are Janan Ganesh, Julia Hartley-Brewer and Steve Richards.