05/11/2017 Sunday Politics Yorkshire and Lincolnshire

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

Later on the Sunday Politics:

have been gathering to mark 100

Does the school academies system

need a radical shake-up?

Why the collapse

of this Yorkshire chain

has prompted

some serious questions.

So there's plenty of

explosive political news

to get you in the mood

for bonfire night -

and with me as usual,

three journalists who know quite

a bit about parliamentary plots -

if rather less about

gunpowder and treason.

It's Tom Newton Dunn,

Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.

So what are the big political

stories making the news this Sunday?

Well, the papers are brimming

with further allegations against MPs

in the sexual harassment scandal,

which according to one newspaper has

left Westminster frozen in fear.

First Secretary of State Damian

Green, already under

investigation over allegations -

which he strongly denies -

of propositioning a female activist,

is the subject of new claims that

police discovered pornography

on a computer in his Westminster

office in 2008.

Mr Green denies the allegation,

made by former senior

police officer Bob Quick,

saying it is "completely untrue,"

and adding that he is the victim

of disreputable "political smears."

Michael Fallon, who resigned

as Defence Secretary this week

over his past behaviour,

is also subject to fresh claims

he lunged at a female journalist

in 2003 after a lunch.

Labour is facing questions

over its handling of sexual

misconduct allegations.

This morning Shadow Cabinet minister

Dawn Butler refused to be drawn

on whether Jeremy Corbyn knew

about alleged misconduct by MP

Kelvin Hopkins when he was promoted

to the Shadow Cabinet.

And there is a reminder that normal

political life goes on,

with reports that the Cabinet has

agreed to put housing at the heart

of Philip Hammond's upcoming Budget.

Well, let's hear from

Home Secretary Amber Rudd now -

she was on the Andrew Marr Show

earlier talking about the claims

against her Cabinet colleague Damian

Green.

Absolutely not. I think it is

something that will take place in

terms of clearing out Westminster of

that sort of behaviour, and I think

that Westminster afterwards,

including the Government, will be

better for it. When we are confident

that men and women can work any

respectful environment and people on

the receiving end of abuse of power

can come forward. That will be a

positive thing.

Let's see what our panel make of

this fairly explosive week. Good

morning to all of you. Starting with

you, Steve. Not a party political

issue but the Tories are in

Government. How much harder for them

is it an Labour?

Always harder when

you are in Government because it

makes governing almost impossible.

And the wider context is a Prime

Minister who lost her overall

majority a few months ago and

actually that is the context of

everything. When you are having to

deal with the scandal of such

unpredictability, where the

terms are so imprecise, it is a

"lunge", a resignation issue, to use

that term, and nightmare. I don't

think it is fatal. Scandals rarely

bring down governments, but it makes

governing for Theresa May a form of

political health.

Isabel Oakeshott,

Damian Green has denied all

allegations made against him, but

there are more this morning. He is

being investigated by the Cabinet

Office at the moment. If Theresa May

were to effectively lose her Deputy

Prime Minister, has serious without

the?

I think very serious indeed. I

think it is very significant and

strange he was not defended in the

Home Secretary Amber Rudd in that

clip we saw today, she didn't say I

am certain he will survive, and I am

beginning to feel that Damian may

not survive this. We don't know

whether it is the last of the

allegations that may come out in

relation to him. It seems to me that

the allegations were previously of a

rather minor order, but this seems

to have escalated. And I think one

of the big problems for Theresa May,

and there are the many at the

moment, for months we have been

saying that this Government has no

bandwidth to do anything except

Brexit and right now she can't even

do Brexit. What is the point of it

all?

It is important to make clear

not only that Damian Green denies

all of these allegations, but the

computer mentioned was in a shared

office so there is no reason it

would definitely be his

# No guarantee it would definitely

be his. But we have had two MPs on

television this morning, Anna

Soubry, saying he should stand down.

There is an awful lot going on here.

It is not just a pretty awful sexual

harassment scandal. There are also

without a doubt MPs, police

officers, going about settling

scores. For me I have to say for our

pretty discredited police officer

Bob Quick, to make accusations

against serving Cabinet minister, to

suggest he should go for extreme

pornography on computers he may or

may not have known, it may be

extremely distasteful but it is

alarming for democracy to have

ex-police officers like this coming

in and trying to play with

democracy. Some politicians are also

meeting claims, some for the right

reasons to get the allegations out

there and so on but others for their

own agendas and all of this puts the

Prime Minister in an unbelievably

hard situation. I agree with Steve

and Isabel, she desperately needs

two show leadership in all this, but

every way she could turn there are

incredible downfalls, people blaming

her for trying to get to the bottom

of all this. It is very people who

she is relying on for her

leadership, the very Tory MPs the

support she can't lose.

It is not

just the Tory party and of course

Jeremy Corbyn will be making a

speech later today where this will

inevitably and there are accusations

about how the senior leadership in

the Labour Party have handled this.

What about that situation?

Yes, but

the Government is much harder

because you are meant to be doing

10,000 other things at the same

time. This is about a deregulated

work environment. For all those who

say, I hate the way Britain is too

regulated, this is what happens in a

deregulated work environment. The

House of Commons has no HR or

whatever, MPs, advisors, so, MPs

actually don't have much power but

they do have power over who the

point and how to treat them. I think

this is the way forward in terms of

the practical outcome, but it is

across the political spectrum.

But

it is unclear what it will be. Can

the party sort this out?

I'm not

sure I entirely agree, Steve, you

cannot regulate all human

interaction and a lot of these

stories have been about interactions

between politicians and journalists

alike, who have gone out for lunch,

chosen to drink, presumably to

create an informal atmosphere, and

at what point is a step towards

somebody to say goodbye, a peck on

the cheek or whatever, a lunge? You

can't regulate that sort of thing.

Throughout the programme will come

back to some of these things and how

they might be regulated.

Now, the Home Secretary has

also today been talking

about what she calls the "moral

duty" of social media companies

to stop child sexual exploitation,

ahead of a meeting with her US

counterparts this week.

We're joined now by the Home Office

minister Sarah Newton -

she's in our Truro studio.

Thanks very much for coming in to

speak the first night. I want to

talk to you about the Government's

efforts to tackle child pornography,

but let's pick up on some of the

sexual harassment issues at

Westminster first. Two of your

parliamentary colleagues this

morning saying they think the first

Secretary of State Damian Green

should step down whilst being

investigated. Do you agree?

Look, he

has vigorously denied these

accusations, and the Cabinet Office

is investigating these accusations,

so we do have processes for when

ministers have these accusations

made against them so they are

properly investigated. And that is

what is going on at the moment.

Is

that process people can be confident

in? He is effectively being

investigated by Jeremy Heywood, one

of his colleagues.

This is a tried

and tested process that has stood

the test of time, and it is

important...

Has it? Surely what we

are learning is it has not stood the

test of time and that in fact

allegations like this have been

swept under the carpet and ignored

for years and years in Westminster,

exactly what we are learning right

now.

I think you are conflating two

things they are, and what we really

do need to do is look at the whole

range of allegations people have

been making, and make sure

Parliament is a safe place for

people to work, a respectful

environment for people who have been

subjected to harassment or bullying

or inappropriate behaviour, so that

they feel confident to come forward

knowing they will be listened to,

that there will be an open and

transparent and fair to everyone

concerned process for getting to the

bottom of it, and that is exactly

what the Prime Minister and the

Leader of the Cows have set out,

Prime Minister's meeting with all

the leaders of the parties tomorrow

to set out a proper process so we

can modernise the work environment

at Westminster -- leader of the

House have set out.

You think Damian

Green should remain in the Cabinet

well being investigated?

That will

be down to Sir Jeremy Heywood. If he

thinks the misdemeanours have a

basis, that he should stand aside,

that will be the recommendation. I

will not second the inquiry on what

Sir Jeremy Heywood finds.

You were

in the Whips' Office yourself for a

year. And much has been said this

week of the whips being in receipt

of a lot of information about bad

behaviour, and instead of reporting

it to authorities they were using it

as ammunition. Was that your

experience?

Absolutely not. I was at

the Whips' Office up to 2015 and,

yes, I heard about the rumours of a

black spreadsheet, and I can

certainly say I never saw such a

thing. How I went about my business

as a whip is really twofold. It is

quite a technical job in many ways,

about of the Government through the

House, working with the House

authorities, the opposition. Also...

Did you ever hear rumours of these

people's bad behaviour?

Sorry?

Did

you ever hear rumours of MPs

misbehaving, sexual harassment,

allegations are that?

If anybody had

brought a complaint to me about the

behaviour of one of the MPs who were

in my flock, I would take that

really seriously, but bull-mac, that

didn't happen.

You said nobody

brought you a complaint. Did you

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

happen.

About the members of my

flock? Absolutely not.

Is that the

MPs you were specifically in charge

of?

I did not have that experience

at all.

Let's move on and talk about

the Home Secretary's trip to

Washington this week, where she will

urge tech companies to go further

and faster on online child abuse. We

have heard a lot from this

Government urging these companies to

do something. One specific ideas of

what they could do, do you have a

clear idea of what you are asking

from tech companies?

Absolutely

right. As you know, this horrendous

crime of child sexual exploitation

and grooming is constantly evolving

as the opportunities for the

perpetrators arise. They are now

using live streaming, different

sorts of platforms, which are

largely controlled by the big

companies in America. What we really

want them to do is to step up and

use their huge expertise, used the

huge money they have got, to help

find technological solutions to read

their sites and rid the opportunity

of these paedophiles to be able to

groom young people. We need the

politicians in America to exert

pressure, as well as other

companies, because these are global

problems. We are not going to solve

this problem in the UK alone. We

have made a lot of progress, working

with Facebook and other companies as

well, but we really need to keep one

step ahead of the technology, one

step ahead of the perpetrators, who

are using these opportunities to

commit horrendous crimes.

It was back in 2014 Theresa May for

the Internet companies to do more in

terms of child abuse online and we

have not seen significant action,

and it does not appear these kind of

calls from the Government actually

make difference.

Well, at the moment we are seeing

the police being able to make about

400 arrests per month, about 500

children being safeguarded. The

Government itself is investing a lot

of money in new technology like the

project Arachnid, and making sure

the police have the specialist

resources they need to go

undercover, and absolutely find

these perpetrators and bring them to

justice, but we do need to

constantly have the engagement and

support of the companies themselves

to invest in further technologies to

prevent this from happening. As you

say, we have made progress but we

need to see yet more.

Sarah Newton,

thank you very much for speaking to

us today.

Michael Fallon's decision

to resign this week,

saying his past conduct with women

fell short of the standard expected

of the Armed Forces, led

to something of a minor reshuffle.

And the Prime Minister took

Westminster by surprise

when she announced his replacement,

former Chief Whip and relative

newcomer to the ministerial

ranks, Gavin Williamson.

Here he is speaking on the day

of his appointment.

It's an immense privilege to have

been appointed Secretary

of State for Defence,

and what we need to be doing

is continuing to focus

on countering Daesh,

making sure that our national

security is at the forefront

of everything that we do,

and we have some of the world's

greatest armed services,

and it's such a privilege to be able

to work with them.

Gavin Williamson, who you saw there,

arrives at the Ministry of Defence

at a challenging time

for UK defence.

The Government has promised

an above-inflation increase

in spending every year

but the Ministry of Defence

is already committed to finding

£20 billion of savings

over the next ten years.

The Cabinet Office is currently

conducting a security review

which will look at military

capabilities and funding up to 2022,

while there are continuing

reports of shortages

of manpower and equipment.

And if Labour were to win power,

questions persist over

what a Jeremy Corbyn premiership

would mean for defence budget

and the traditional cornerstones

of UK defence policy

like Trident and Nato.

Well we're joined now

by the Shadow Defence

secretary, Nia Griffith.

Well we're joined now

by the Shadow Defence

secretary, Nia Griffith.

Let's talk about defence spending

first. Would Labour commit to the

same thing this Government has which

is an above inflation increase in

spending every year?

We've been

absolutely clear about that. First

and foremost we'd meet our

commitment of spending at least 2%

of GDP on defence as is our Nato

commitment and we would match the

Government's year-on-year 0.5%

increase above inflation. This is

really important. Labour's always

had a good strong track record of

spending on defence.

Jeremy Corbyn

seems to have a different view.

Speaking at a protest in 2010 he

said Labour wanted to fight all the

cuts except those in the Armed

Forces where we want to see a few

more cuts taking place. He doesn't

seem committed to defence spending?

In the manifesto for this year's

election, 2017, he and John

McDonnell have been absolutely clear

we support the exact words I've been

using now, at least 2% of the spend

of GDP spent on defence.

Jeremy

Corbyn's changed his mind on that?

He's been very clear about that and

it was in our manifesto this year.

You criticised the Government on

whether they meet their 2%

commitment on defence. You saying

they were fiddling the figures

because they were including

pensions. You would strip that out

and snake sure there's 2% spending

on defence which doesn't include

pensions?

Technically, the

Government would argue you are

allowed to include pensions by the

Nato rules. But we've been very

clear, really, when you're talking

about defence spending it should

mean defence. When you look at the

last year of the Labour Government

we spent 2.5% GDP on defence. We are

very much committed to looking at

what we need in our defence budget

and looking to the problems they

have now where they can't meet the

commitments they've made.

You would

sprip pensions out of those figures.

In order to live up to these

commitments you have to find an

extra billion for the defence

budgets because we're not

calculating pensions anymore?

John

McDonnell is well aware of what they

are doing. Putting in the conflict

resolution money which Gordon Brown

kept separate. He is well aware of

the figures and the difficulties. We

are certainly very committed to a

defence budget that really does make

a difference.

I'm not clear whether

you're telling me it will be 2% 69

spending, excluding pensions?

We

want it to be 2% of GDP as in the

way Labour always calculate it had

up until 2010, not including

pensions.

A significant increase in

military spending?

We are talking

about making sure the spending we

need is there because, at the

current situation, we have with the

current Government, they are

overstretched. Even the very caution

National Audit Office says they are

at immense risk of not being able to

meet the expenditure commitment the

they have made. Others talk about a

black hole. You mentioned it that

£20 billion. There is a real issue

we have to address.

To you know what

it will cost, how muchedingsal funds

will have to be found?

We have to

rook at what are the needs at the

time as well as the facts we want to

make that 2% commitment not

including things which have just

been brushed in now by the

Conservative Government.

Let's move

on to a different aspect of defence.

There is a treaty banning nuclear

weapons opened at the UN for

signatories. 122 countries have

already signed it. Would an incoming

Labour Government sign that treaty?

The important point here is there

was an Is inned opportunity for

there to be observers from the UK.

There should have been at that

treaty talks.

That doesn't change

the calculation whether or not an

incoming Labour Government would

sign that treaty?

We are committed

to a strong multi-lateral disarming

programme. That's what we've seen

missing.

This is a multilateral

approach to try to get rid of

nuclear weapons. What you say you

want. Would a Labour Government sign

that treaty?

You we have to look at

how you go about things. We need toe

somebody clear we want to

de-escalate tensions across the

world. Work with other nuclear

partners to help stop the

proliferation of nuclear weapons. We

want to work with those countries

who feel very strongly about the

treaty so we can work together. We

have to do that in a multilateral

framework.

This is a multi-lateral

disarmament framework. Under the

auspice Is of the UN disto see how

else it could be organised. This is

a great opportunity for you, who

have been a lifelong campaigner for

disarmament.ment Labour Government

will be the first nuclear power to

do so, sign it and lead the way.

We

need to use our position to be

responsible and call for responsible

multi-lateral disarmamentment there

was progress made on this in the

eighties and nineties with

considerable amount of are heads put

to one side and destroyed. We need

to get back on the front foot there.

I don't see any presence by the UK

Government at the moment on that

aagain da. It is not helpful for the

nukes leer nations to be separated

from the non-nuclear nation in the

these debates.

That's why I don't

understand why you're not taking the

opportunity to say a Labour

Government would Take The Stand.

We

should wok together and we should

use our position as a nuclear power

to work for a multilateral

disarmament programme.

You were very

clear in your manifesto that the

Labour Party would keep Trident for

the meantime.

Abs will yously.

We

know throughout his life, Jeremy

Corbyn's long wanted to get rid of

it. He signed up to the manifesto

saying Trident would stay. Has he

changed his minds?

The important

thing is that was a manifesto

Jeremy, John McDonnell's agreed to.

We stood on it in 2017 because that

is the Labour Party position.

Absolutely. I'm asking if the Labour

Leader really believes in that

position?

He believes in democracy

in the party. That is the Labour

Party position. I don't see that

position changing at all. He has

said very clearly that he accepts

that is our Labour Party position.

And that is the manifesto we've

stood on and will continue to stand

on.

I'll need to ask questions about

sexual harassment in Westminster. It

is as much as inissue for the Labour

Party as the Conservative. It was

not clear listening to Dawn Butler,

your colleague on The Andrew Marr

Show this morning, she was asked

whether or not the leadership knew

about allegations by Kelvin Hopkins.

Do you know?

I absolutely do not

know at this moment in time. That's

why there has to be an

investigation. It is extremely

important to find out what the

allegations were, exactly what

happened, who was told and who told

what to whom. Then we will be in a

position to see what the situation

is. In the meantime, Kelvin Hopkins

has been suspended which is the

cricket thing to do.

Rosie Winterton

has been outspoken about what she

let the leadership know. If it is

the case the leadership did know

about these allegations should he

have been put into the Shadow

Cabinet?

The real question is who

did know what when.

But what I'm

asking you is...

I am anot going to

speculate whether there was an if or

whatever. We need to know how that

information was transmitted. Was it

put in writing. What it made clear,

who was told what, when. Until we

have a full investigation it would

be inappropriate to comment. What is

absolute lie clear, we need to get

this right for the future. We must

have proper procedures so we deal

with incidents as and when they

occur. And we deal with them

prepperly in a way which gets to the

bottom of the issue and deals with

it properly.

Why should anyone have

confidence the Labour Party will

treat issues that seriously when,

firstly there's a question whether

they knew about Kelvin hop kips and

others have been dissuaded from

making complaints. Knots just Bex

Bailey. Monica Lennon said when she

was harassed at a party senior

figures in the Labour Party told her

it was her own fault. It seems as if

there hasn't been a culture within

Labour to make a complaint.

That's

why we're having a thorough review

of procedures. We brought in new

procedures in July. We need to

ensure there's a proper helpline

available. We are appointing an

independent organisation which will

deal with allegations first-hand so

nobody has to go to somebody they

think might know other people, be

friends with other people. They can

go somewhere completely confidential

and private. These are often things

you can't want to tell your cross

friends about. We will appoint that

organisation and make sure people

can go there and access to it is

made widely known. It is very, very

important when people come into a

job, they know if anything does

happen, they will be able to

complain. Whether they are ordinary

party members or working in

Westminster.

Thank you for talking

to us

For Thank you for talking to us some

on the left of politics,

this weekend wasn't just a chance

to mark the anniversary

of the failed gunpowder

plot here in Britain,

but also events in Russia 100 years

ago, when Bolshevik revolutionaries

led by Lenin seized power

and ushered in seven

decades of Communist rule.

For critics, that's something

to regret, not celebrate.

Elizabeth Glinka went to one event

in London to find out more.

The 7th November 1917.

Red Guards under the leadership

of Vladimir Lenin begin to occupy

Government buildings in Petrograd.

This uprising, known

popularly as Red October

because of the difference

in the Gregorian calendar,

was, in fact, a coup.

The winds of socialist change had

been blowing for some time.

The Tsars had resisted reform

and millions toiled in a state

of almost medieval surfdom.

Then war.

Nearly two million

Russians would die.

The revolution had really begun nine

months earlier in February 1917.

The world's first socialist

republic was declared.

October, well that

was the Bolsheviks

asserting their authority.

A hundred years on, as this

event at the TUC shows,

there's still plenty of people

who want to remember and even

celebrate those momentous events.

Mainly as an event in history,

this is an example of historical

development in action,

the ability of people to club

together and be able to affect

the discourse of history.

It was people's first attempt at

trying to build socialism.

Although there were many terrible

things that happened,

I think we have to try

and draw from experience.

Jeremy Corbyn's close friend

and adviser, Andrew Murray,

was chairing the opening session.

He didn't want to talk to us

but we did manage to speak

to the daughter of one of the most

famous Communists of all time.

TRANSLATION:

It's an historic moment

which opened up possibilities

for further changes

and allowed other people

to strive for a different world.

A world, which it seems,

some are still keen to push for.

We're growing, so there is obviously

a positive reflection.

There is a lot of negative

propaganda that comes

from the Cold War period.

It is harder to talk

to older people maybe.

But younger people

are quite receptive.

The events and discussions taking

place here today cover a whole range

of topics from women's

rights to the Third World

and the impact on British socialism.

But there's much less discussion

of the Russian Civil War,

the purges and the political

repression that would come later.

We wanted to have this conference

because we wanted to show it

in a positive light.

Whatever one's view of what happened

to the Soviet Union subsequently

the fact is it is important

to understand the process

of revolutionary change

for its own sake.

Red October would usher

in 70 years of communism.

The proletarite would rise,

find respect and security.

But the suppression of the peoples

of Eastern Europe, the forced labour

camps and the murder of hundreds

of thousands, if not millions

of people, make it difficult

for many to see that revolution

as something to celebrate.

That was Elizabeth Glinka reporting.

So is the centenary

of the Russian Revolution a cause

for celebration, or regret?

Well, to discuss this I'm

joined by former Labour

and Respect MP George Galloway,

and the journalist Peter Hitchens.

Good morning. Let me start with you

George Galloway. Is the October

revolution a cause for celebration?

With the, if not for the October

revolution, we'd been conducting

this interview in German. Though the

truth is this interview wouldn't be

taking place and we probably

wouldn't be alive for a variety of

reasons. The Soviet Union broke the

back of Hitler, as Mr Churchill

often owe pined in Parliament and

elsewhere. If not for the Soviet

Union, Hitler would have ruled. And

his successorsness, perhaps until

now, from Vladivostok all the way to

Portugal.

You say we wouldn't be

able to have this discussion. In the

former Soviet Union we couldn't have

this office either?

That's also

true. But even the...

George will be

able to say, that of course.

Even

the sun has spots on its face as

they used to say in the Soviet

Union. There is no doubt tremendous

abrasions, big crimes, a lot of

suffering but, if not for the

transformation, then the Soviet

Union, Russia's GDP increased from

1930 to 190 and the Nazi occupation.

And the strength that defeated

Hitlerism would not have been there.

Peter Hitchens, does it offend you

there are people celebrating 100

years since the Russian Revolution?

Offend? No, but in the Soviet Union,

in which I lived, you would not have

been able to say it was set up by a

cynical bitch, almost bloodless, but

engineered by the German Imperial

Government using -- a cynical

putsch, almost bloodless. That this

was the inauguration of an immensely

long period of repression,

brutality, secret police,

concentration camps and lies, which

I am likely to have seen come to an

end in my lifetime, and I cannot see

why anybody looking at that

disastrous country where so much

misery was needlessly imposed on so

many people for so long could

possibly celebrate the beginning of

it, which was completely avoidable,

and as I say was truly the result of

the cynical foreign policy and

intelligence operations of the

Imperial German Government is trying

to save it skin...

But everyone

including George Galloway

acknowledges the tyranny and terror

that followed.

He doesn't. He gives

statistics about GDP but fails to

mention the people murdered in

labour

camp... He was of course formerly a

Trotskyite and sung the praises of

Lenin, which I have not done and

neither have I done today. I have

never been a Communist, unlike Peter

Hitchens, but I do acknowledge and

celebrate that an entirely different

world opened up as a result of the

events in October 19 17. China, you

have just seen their party congress,

decorated with the iconography of

the Bolshevik Revolution, and China

is the most powerful, or soon will

be the most powerful country on the

earth.

With one of the most

repressive government?

I don't think

that is true. There is repression in

China, but...

Enormous repression in

China! How can you possibly argue

there is an?

China has taken more

people out of poverty in the last 30

years than any country, resume,

system, ever has -- how can you

possibly argue there is not?

All

despots always argue, trying to

distract your attention from the

mountains of skulls behind them,

their supposed economic success,

which generally does not turn out to

be as great as claimed. The Soviet

Union was an enormous pile of rust

by the time I lived there and was a

complete catastrophe.

Yes, that is

why it fell down. But we are talking

about the Revolution 100 years ago.

Is it possible to separate the two

events? A popular overthrowing of a

government is perhaps different from

the tyranny and terror that

followed.

It was not a popular

overthrow. You sure this Eisenstein

propaganda as if it were fact. What

we see was a film made afterwards.

What actually happened was a putsch

in the middle of the night in which

hardly anybody... Nobody has even

mentioned...

That German connection,

a rather more important...

Nobody

has even mentioned during this year

until now that there was a Russian

Revolution. There were two. The

first one was a genuine uprising,

overthrowing the old regime, and I

think we can all be glad of it. The

second one was a cynical for --

foreign financed putsch and it does

not deserve to be spoken out.

Is

that true, and Menshevik revolution

would have done better than a

Bolshevik one?

It is not my business

and entirely counterfactual fiction,

if I may...

Unlike how you open this

discussion.

That is the most

important thing. If not for the

Soviet Union, we wouldn't be here.

Hetmyer might still, and most of the

world, with its allies -- Adolph

Hitler might have won and they make,

and most of the world...

The effect

of Bolshevism and coming is on

Europe was colossal.

Let's bring it

all a little bit more up-to-date.

You were saying earlier you have

never been a Leninist, although

Peter Hitchens confesses he was at

one time.

Absolutely was a

Trotskyist, and now nor the complete

folly of that particular political

disposition.

John McDonnell in the

Labour Party openly says he is a

Trotskyist, a Leninist, is that a

problem for the Labour Party?

I

would have thought, arts would be

more respected now than he has been

for quite some time as capitalism is

collapsing around our ears. From

2008 the Economist itself, the bible

of capitalism, began to resurrect

Marxist economics and analysis, so I

really don't think it is. Jeremy

Corbyn is not a Marxist. It only

took them four years, 54...

It is

not that.

I think we are moving into

an era where Governments like the

Chinese Government are making plans,

and are succeeding in implementing

them, and thus transforming their

position. China in 1949, and I don't

need to tell you, was just about the

most backward place you could

possibly imagine. And from 1949 to

now it has sold transforms that it

is the world's biggest economy...

We

are in danger of getting sidetracked

by China here.

I have to put this

point in. If China was backward in

1949 it was far more backward by the

time Mao Zedong finished his great

leap forward and starved millions of

people to death in the period of

economic lunacy. You just don't

notice...

What George was saying

they are, and a sense certainly

amongst younger voters in this

country and others, where they are

turning against capitalism, they

don't think it has worked or

delivered for them, that this kind

of Marxist Leninist philosophy is

becoming more popular?

Let's hope

not. The fact the current system is

failing does not seem to recommend

the Soviet system, which is

demonstrably a failure, and even its

own leaders admitted it failed and

that is why they tried to reform it

in the period I was there and why it

collapsed. Whatever you might want

to conclude from examining our

position, the Soviet alternative is

not the thing you want the dues.

This was a long period of disaster,

and I remember at the end of it

watching in Moscow said a film which

has never been shown here, and the

title means approximately we can't

go on living like this, and for the

first time, the politburo told the

truth about what life was like in

the dreadful place and everyone in

that cinema was weeping because

finally they saw the truth being

told about the dreadful

anti-civilisation in which they had

been taught to live for so long. The

idea we should celebrate it revive

it seems to me to be verging on the

obscene.

George, one interesting

question about this of course,

whilst there are events going on in

London and across the UK to mark

this centenary, it is not being

celebrated in Russia.

I was in

Russia a couple of weeks ago. There

is a big debate about whether it

ought to be, and many people are

celebrating it...

Vladimir Putin is

not. He would want to ignore it.

But

the Communist Party is the second

biggest party in Russia. And it is

the ruling party in China, which,

with respect, is not a separate

thing, because China is continuing

the Russian Revolution and doing

rather better at it than the

Russians did, but there are many

people, particularly older, that is

true, who think that the era of the

Soviet Union was better than the

very cold period of capitalism that

succeeded it. So half the world

followed for a time the red flag,

the red banner of Leninism. No one

will do so again. Leninism of the

kind that Peter used to proselytise

is certainly not coming back, but

Marxism is going to live on.

Let's

hope not.

Thank you both, gentlemen,

for coming on to speak about that.

It's coming up to 11.40am.

You're watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up on the programme:

We've taken the moodbox to where

else but bonfire night celebrations.

We've taken the moodbox to where

else but bonfire night celebrations?

It wasn't just Westminster

that had the fireworks this week.

We're asking people in Guildford

in Surrey,

does Theresa May have control

of her Government and her party?

Hello, good morning.

You're watching the Sunday Politics

for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire.

Coming up today:

Does the school academy system

need a radical shake-up?

Why the collapse

of this Yorkshire chain

has prompted

some serious questions.

Well, it's an absolute scandal.

It's outrageous, what's gone on.

There's been six years

since the school was academised.

It's been six years of uncertainty.

And we report from the city

that is set to have

the worst-funded

schools in the country.

You won't be surprised to hear

that teachers aren't happy.

It's not fair on those pupils

sat in the classroom

of 30 plus students,

where they used to be

in smaller class sizes.

Recent years have seen

a large increase

in the number

of schools becoming academies.

This means they

are independent state schools

which receive their funding direct

from central government,

rather than being run

by a local authority.

But the recent collapse of

the Wakefield City Academies Trust -

which announced it was pulling out

of 21 schools across Yorkshire -

has prompted some to ask

whether the academy system

is still best way of

improving school standards.

Sophia Ewen reports.

Teachers and governors

gather at Westminster.

They are angry and want answers

about why an organisation

that runs 21 schools

in Yorkshire collapsed,

creating uncertainty

for thousands of children.

Well, it's an absolute scandal.

The truth should be told.

There's money that's gone.

Wakefield City Academies Trust

evolved over a five-year period,

and now manages 21

Yorkshire schools,

many of which were deemed

to be failing.

The idea was they would benefit

from the expertise

of the original school,

Wakefield city Academy.

This is Goole Academy,

one of those 21 schools taken over

by Wakefield City Academies Trust.

Just two years ago, the trust

was seen as so outstanding,

it was given money to look

into taking over even more schools.

But, by September this year,

as we know, things had changed,

when the trust asked

the Government to step in.

So what went wrong?

Well, by the end of August 2016,

the trust's deficit had grown

from £276,000 in 2014

to £1.5 million.

This confidential report

by Chris Pickering,

who was brought in

as the trust's interim CEO in May,

was written before the announcement

that Wakefield City Academies Trust

was giving up all its schools.

The report says

that leadership at the trust

was inadequate at all levels,

except in some pockets.

And there was inadequate

accountability and a blame culture.

And just four out of 21 schools

were rated good or better.

It's an absolute scandal.

It's outrageous, what's gone on.

There's been six years

since the school was academised.

It's been six years of uncertainty.

We've had people at

the top coming in and out

like it was a revolving door.

It's six years of

lost opportunities.

Aside from those failings,

it emerged that highly controversial

payments had been made.

According to accounts

filed at Companies House for 2016,

the trust paid £460,000 to its

former interim Chief Executive

and his daughter,

in the way of payment

for IT and clerking services

over a two-year period.

Senior leadership costs for five

people were £824,000.

Each of them was paid

more than £100,000.

And the trust paid

more than £843,000

in redundancy and severance payments

to get rid of teachers and staff.

Now some schools in

the trust claim they

have had hundreds of thousands

of pounds taken off

their balance sheets and transferred

to the trust's central fund -

cash they say was vitally important

to improve their schools,

many of which serve children

from deprived backgrounds.

Our concerns get bigger and bigger

because there's money that's gone

that should be spent on education,

that's disappeared.

The DfE have known about this

for over 18 months,

and yet parents and teachers and

staff have suddenly found themselves

in schools that don't have money

for books and for paper.

We are getting information,

but it's anonymous and it's secret

because there's a culture

of bullying -

people have been sacked

or threatened with the sack

if they say anything.

Parents have been removed

from the governing body

without any kind of reason why

except they were asking questions.

It's a secretive organisation.

Sunday Politics approached

the Department for Education for

Wakefield City Academies Trust,

the Regional Schools Commissioners

or the Minister to respond

to these criticisms.

No-one was available

for an interview.

But, last week, the Secretary

of State for Education,

Justine Greening, told us this.

We make no apology

for stepping in

to improve those schools.

One of the things that

the Wakefield Trust itself

was doing was trying to lift up

schools that were already

not doing a good enough job.

Wakefield itself has been defeated

by those challenges.

Preferred new trusts

have been identified

for each of the 21 academies

in the Wakefield group.

But critics say some of these trusts

are facing similar issues,

and many are questioning whether the

academy system is fit for purpose.

That was Sophia Ewen reporting.

We are joined today from Hull

by Emma Hardy, the Labour MP

for Hull West and Hessle.

And joining me in the studio

are John Proctor,

the Conservative

MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber,

and Terry Wrigley, the editor

of the Improving Schools Journal.

Hello to you all.

Emma Hardy, in the Labour government

years, we saw a huge roll-out

of the academies programme.

In fact, your predecessor,

as the Hull West MP, Alan Johnson,

was a huge advocate of academies.

What's gone wrong?

Well, many things have

gone wrong since then,

and I think part of the problem

has been the acceleration

of the academies programme

and the lack of financial oversight.

I mean, just this week,

I was interviewing Anne Spielman,

the chief of Ofsted,

in my role on the Education

Select Committee,

and she was saying that she wants

the power to inspect academy chains,

and this is being blocked

by the DfE.

That is not acceptable.

It only goes to prove

that they know,

if Ofsted are allowed

to inspect these properly,

we will uncover even more scandals

which will be too embarrassing

for this government.

John Proctor,

there's a big problem here.

Yorkshire and the Humber has

the highest proportion

of failing academies in England.

Do you think the academy

system in many areas

is failing our children?

No, I don't.

This was a Labour Party policy

and proposal that was brought

about in the first instance.

There are many, many outstanding

academies right across the country

and here in Yorkshire and the Humber

region, in particular,

there are some stunning examples,

and there are many

which I have seen

first-hand myself.

Clearly, something has gone

wrong in this instance,

and issues need to be addressed.

That's absolutely clear.

But when you look at

the Wakefield City Academies Trust,

there were some eye-watering sums

of money diverted away

from school budgets,

and many parents are asking,

"Where is the accountability here?"

So we are now told, but we clearly

didn't know that at the time.

As I say, something has

clearly gone wrong here.

A full investigation

needs to take place.

What we shouldn't forget, though,

is that this academy trust

grew too fast -

21 different schools in a relatively

short space of time, spread

right across the region as well.

It clearly shouldn't have been

allowed to grow that quickly,

it clearly got out of control.

However, the Secretary of State said

in the piece that you've just shown

that what the academies trust

was trying to do

was take control of schools,

many of whom were failing

in the first instance.

But, I mean, there was a report

earlier this year that found

that that particular chain

was dysfunctional

and had inadequate management.

That should have landed

on the Minister's desk,

and the Minister should

have taken action.

But, indeed, action was taken -

somebody else was brought in

to take control,

try and rescue that academy trust

and try to bring it

back from the brink.

Unfortunately, that wasn't possible.

Terry Wrigley, what lessons can be

learned from the WCAT saga?

I think there are local lessons,

but I also think there are national

lessons that can be learned.

First of all, it's not true to say

that the trust simply grew too fast.

It was pushed into growing.

The first report of financial

maladministration came

in the summer of 2015,

just two years ago.

Within months of that,

the Northern Powerhouse Fund

was giving the trust £500,000

in order to grow,

in order to take

over more academies.

Then we have the saga

of money being handed

to the Chief Executive's own family

firm, and then we have the saga

of money being robbed from schools.

So all of this could have been

halted if any notice had been taken

of the maladministration.

But what I'm trying to argue is,

on a systemwide scale,

there are problems.

Emma Hardy, obviously we know bad

things have happened

in certain academy chains,

but do we have to be careful,

you don't want to throw the baby out

with the bath water.

I mean, I know many parents who send

children to very good academies,

which have raised school standards.

But it's a question

of accountability and transparency.

I mean, this is our money.

This is taxpayers' money.

We know schools don't

have enough money.

So the fact that it's been wasted

in this way is a scandal.

I mean, the report that Terry

referred to, over £120 million has

been given from academies

to what they call related parties.

That's people who have direct family

association with the academy system.

Now, that is wrong.

The Government have attempted

to rectify this by increasing

by increasing the number

of Regional Schools Commissioners,

and instead now they're

wasting money on that.

The budget for the Regional Schools

Commissioners has gone

from 4 million to 26 million,

because they know there's a problem.

Still, they're blocking Ofsted

from being able to inspect them.

I mean, this is a scandal.

Schools don't have money,

children don't have money,

their money is being wasted

and thrown away by this

unaccountable academy system.

We love to hear from the Regional

Schools Commissioner, I have to say.

If they're watching,

they're more than welcome to sit

in that chair any time

over the next few weeks.

I mean, this has to be

the lesson from this saga,

hasn't it, John Proctor?

There has to be greater scrutiny

of where the money goes.

These academy groups,

where money is paid to related

parties, that is just wrong.

I agree.

Payments to related parties

is wrong, and it should be stopped.

As has already been mentioned,

some action has been taken.

Perhaps, you could argue,

not enough action has been taken.

What we shouldn't forget, though,

is that with the academisation

programme, we have seen dramatic

improvement in attainment

of many, many schools.

We shouldn't take that away

from anybody, and certainly

not those academies.

There were literally hundreds

upon hundreds of millions of pounds

that were wasted and locked away

in local education authorities.

That money wasn't seeing

its way to schools.

We have seen that with

the academisation process.

It has been a good

thing, a good proposal.

I'm delighted Labour actually

introduced it, actually.

We've built it and moved it forward.

That is not to say that there

aren't real issues in this

particular instance,

in relation to Wakefield.

But, as you say, we shouldn't throw

the baby out with the bath water.

I want to come back to this,

but we'll have to move on.

Staying with the school theme,

the new national fairer funding

formula for education was drawn up

to level the playing field.

But it's seen one of our local

authorities placed in the unenviable

position of being the worst funded

in the country.

Pupils in York will get

around £4,700 per head,

compared to Hackney in London,

where they will get £7,840.

It's an increase overall for York,

but teachers in the classroom say

the sums just don't add up.

Gemma Dillon reports.

OK, so, essentially what's happening

is we've got a change in funding.

Bob Webb is a physics teacher

in York,

and has been teaching since 2009.

He says the budgets are stretched,

and has big concerns.

In 2019/20, that is due

to change, to decrease to -

let me get this right -

£4,186, which means that

you have a change of £119.

A decrease of that amount of money.

The Government called this

a fairer funding formula,

but Bob says it's anything but fair.

It's not fair on those pupils

sat in the classroom

of 30 plus students,

where there used to be

smaller class sizes.

As well is that, it's not fair

on those schoolteachers whose

workload has increased as a result

of there being more students

in the class.

It's certainly not fair

on those school leaders

that are juggling all

of these changes with less

and less money each year.

In real terms.

So even though York is the bottom

of the table when it comes

to education funding,

it has actually seen the second

largest increase in that funding

if anywhere in the country.

The Government say this

is all about levelling the playing

field and making sure that every

child reaches their full potential.

Before this change, there were huge

differences in funding

between similar schools in different

parts of the country.

Now a variety of factors

are considered when sharing out

the cash, such as social deprivation

and population density.

Also doing his homework on the sums

is Councillor Stuart Rawlings.

With extra pressures like pension

contributions for teachers

and paying a Living Wage,

is he confident the

extra cash will help?

No matter how much we increase it,

there will be those challenges.

As you said, there is inflation

and increases in salaries

and all the other costs that

are coming through.

As a local authority,

we work for a closely with both

local authority schools

and the academies to make sure

that we spend as much of that extra

money on front-line teachers

and put the right people in

front of the children,

because that's what get results.

Meanwhile, at York College,

the budgets for those at 16

and over get even tighter.

Those balancing the books are also

struggling with the money

provided by the Government.

Our students, 16- to 18-year-olds

in schools and colleges, are funded

for 15 hours of education week.

That doesn't even

cover for A-levels.

-- four A-levels.

A student can't have that broad,

funded curriculum because 15 hours

a week is just about sufficient

for three A-levels.

When they hit 18, then

the funding goes down again

and gets to 12 hours a week.

Back in the classrooms,

school funding is a burning issue,

and teachers are urging

the Government to put more money

into education to help pupils

reached their full potential.

Gemma Dillon reporting there.

Emma Hardy, do you applaud

the Government's decision to look

at the historical imbalances

in the way schools are funded?

There's always been an imbalance,

and any attempt to address

the balance is good.

But it doesn't take away

from the fundamental problem,

which there isn't enough money

in the system.

That is a fact, that

is the main problem.

I mean, I'm hearing from teachers

just this week, I met a group

of teachers and the consequences

of this underfunding is devastating.

They are talking about increasing

behaviour problems because there's

not as many staff in the school

to deal with individual children.

We're talking about very troubled

children not getting that mental

health support that they need.

There is not that money

for the early intervention.

And the money that Justine Greening

has promised is still in real terms

a decrease for schools.

Even if you look at a school getting

the highest amount increase

they possibly could,

an increase of 3%, inflation is 3%.

So even if you say, right, nobody

is going to have any cost rises,

any sort of increased salaries

whatsoever,

inflation will still wipe that out.

That's for the best schools.

So what she's actually offered is,

for a very small number of schools,

the ability to tread water.

That's all they can do,

stay the same and tread water

while the rest of them

actually lose out.

Well, OK, there's a still

a huge disparity here,

John Proctor, as we just heard.

York will get £4,700

per pupil,

Hackney in London

gets nearly £8,000.

That's not fair, is it?

There's a load of different issues,

clearly, in Hackney,

aren't there, compared to York.

There was a clamour from the 40

worst provided for education

authorities in the country

to change the formula.

The Government responded to that,

they came up with proposals.

They were welcomed by those

very people

who were demanding those reforms.

They then played out,

and now the view's suddenly changed.

York's getting more money,

we've heard that,

more money than its got before.

Still bottom of the pile, though.

It may be bottom of the pile,

but it's getting more money than it

currently is getting.

That's important for us to note.

Terry Wrigley, will be ever find

a school funding formula that

satisfies everybody?

I think, in part, the difference

in funding between schools relates

to the needs of the pupils.

That's obviously the case.

One of the things that this

balancing out act appears to be

doing is taking very large amounts

of money from the most socially

troubled areas in the country,

but the areas which are more

advantaged are actually

not gaining very much.

So, in other words, everybody

is suffering to different degrees.

That isn't what is happening.

There isn't a drastic cut in school

budgets overall at all.

Yes, there is in real terms.

88% of schools are having a cut

in their school budgets.

It is easy for us to

talk about real terms.

Because the real terms are real!

In your view and your world, maybe.

No, in everyone's view.

Real terms are real,

they're not imaginary.

If we listen to Labour,

they want more money in the NHS...

For schools, yes.

And the NHS.

Yes, we do.

More money in public services,

more money to councils.

Where is the money coming from?

This is just not the real world.

OK, Emma Hardy, again it comes

back to that question -

where is the money coming from?

Maybe he should ask his ministers

and his government, who managed

to find 9 billion for the DUP.

There obviously is a little magic

money shrub around there somewhere,

which they could perhaps give

another shake and find

some money for schools.

But on a serious note,

this is desperately needed.

I was talking to the head

of a special school,

and she said that the lack of money

for post-16 children

in special school provision means

that she might not be able

to open her school all five

days, because she said,

"I can't cut TAs,

I can't cut the staff ratios,

so what can I do?

I've got to cut the number

of hours we are open."

And that is absolutely

shocking and appalling.

And who is talking

about these children?

Nobody.

Always an interesting debate, this.

I mean, there are so many

avenues we could go down.

But thank you very much

for your thoughts today.

Let's get some more of the week's

political news now.

James Vincent has our

round-up in 60 seconds.

Speaker of the House John Bercow has

denied claims from a Yorkshire MP

that he dismissed her bullying

concerns as "women's issues".

He says he would never

use that form of words.

York Central Labour MP

Rachel Maskell made the accusation

in the House of Commons.

It is absolutely vital that,

in this opportunity, that we address

the issue of bullying,

and that we bring forward mandatory

training for everyone in this house.

The new Defence Secretary

is a Yorkshireman.

Gavin Williamson is a former

Scarborough schoolboy and went

to the University of Bradford.

His move means the Skipton and Ripon

MP, Julian Smith, has been promoted,

he's now Chief Whip,

giving him the job of making sure

Conservative MPs toe the line.

And a public vote could be held

in a bid to decide the future

of devolution in South Yorkshire.

Plans to hold a community

poll have been announced

by Barnsley and Doncaster.

The choice?

Sheffield city region

or Yorkshire-wide devolution.

The poll will cost £240,000

and won't be binding.

Another busy week in politics.

Revelations coming out all the time

in the Westminster sleaze saga.

What is your take on all this

as a new MP, Emma Hardy?

Well, I suppose one of the first

things is that anybody who's been

a victim of any of these awful

atrocities should be encouraged

and welcomed to come forward

and speak about this,

because anybody who is guilty

of this needs to be held to account

for it, and they cannot hide behind

any secrecy any longer.

I suppose one of the things is...

I mean, obviously it's

disappointing, you know,

it's upsetting and it's worrying

for all those people affected.

I heard one of your Labour MP

colleagues on the radio

the other day saying,

there are certain male MPs

at Westminster who she avoids

because of their reputation.

Is that a widely held view?

To be absolutely honest,

it's not one I'm aware of.

I mean, I'm not saying that other

people aren't saying that.

But, in all honesty, it's not

something I've been warned about.

I've genuinely just found

people to be quite nice

and quite welcoming.

Actually, from both sides

of the house as well.

But I do think that anyone who has

experienced it shouldn't be

disbelieved or belittled,

and they should be encouraged

to come forward and see a result.

How does this or compare

with the European Parliament?

I'd be fascinated.

Is behaviour better

or worse in Brussels?

My experience of the European

Parliament is completely