14/01/2018 The Andrew Marr Show

Good morning.

It's that moment in January.

You've made all of those great

New Year's resolutions

and, two weeks in, one

by one, they're crumbling.

You were going to dominate your

party with a dramatic reshuffle.

No more privatisation

crises - not in 2018,

enough of the online abuse

and, above all, absolute

clarity on the big issues!

But...

It's the middle of January.

Let's pour a glass of

the cooking wine after all!

I've no idea whether it's Dry

January for Scotland's First

Minister, but Nicola Sturgeon's

New Year's resolution -

to join us here in the studio -

appears to be intact.

And if there's one promise the new

Tory Chairman wants to deliver

this year, it's for his party

to get effective online -

and a bit less nastiness all round.

Easier said, Brandon Lewis.

And Labour's Shadow Foreign

Secretary Emily Thornberry.

Last year, she called Donald Trump

"an enormous asteroid of awfulness."

Her resolution for 2018 is to start

telling us what she really thinks.

Speaking of Donald Trump,

Steven Spielberg, Meryl Streep

and Tom Hanks have been telling me

why their new drama,

set in 1970s Washington,

is really all about today's world.

They're throwing rocks at the media.

Often the rocks are being hurled

at the largest collection of truth

when the truth doesn't appease

the rock hurlers.

And reviewing the news today,

Andrew Pierce of the Daily Mail,

and the New Statesman's

Deputy Editor, Helen Lewis.

All of that coming up soon.

First, the news with Ben Thomson.

Good morning.

The Justice Secretary, David Gauke,

is considering a possible judicial

review of the decision to release

the serial sex attacker,

John Worboys.

The former black cab driver

was jailed indefinitely in 2009

for drugging and sexually assaulting

12 women, but police believe he may

have attacked up to a 100.

The parole board's decision

earlier this month to release him

drew widespread criticism.

The Parole Board said it

was confident that the correct

procedures were followed

in this case.

The Governor of Hawaii has

apologised and promised to tighten

procedures after authorities

mistakenly issued an alert warning

of an imminent ballistic

missile attack.

An official text message,

sent to people's phones in error,

left people scrambling for shelter.

A corrected message wasn't sent out

until nearly 40 minutes later.

The state governor has blamed human

error and the US government has

announced a full investigation.

Ukip has suspended the girlfriend

of its party leader, Henry Bolton

after she reportedly made racist

remarks about Prince Harry's

fiancee, Meghan Markle.

The Mail on Sunday has published

text messages sent by Jo Marney

that include derogatory

comments about black people.

Ms Marney has apologised

and says the messages

have been taken out of context.

Key talks aimed at securing

the future of the troubled

engineering company Carillion

are continuing today.

The construction and outsourcing

giant owes £900 million

to Britain's five biggest banks.

The Government says it's working

to ensure that all contingency plans

are robust should it collapse.

The Hollywood actor Mark Wahlberg,

has given the money he earned

for reshooting scenes

in a film to a fund that

supports people who've

experienced sexual harassment.

Wahlberg was paid more

than £1 million for the reshoot -

whilst his female co-star

Michelle Williams

received just £60 a day in expenses.

The scenes had to be filmed again

after Kevin Spacey was dropped

following sexual

assault allegations.

That's all from me.

The next news on BBC One

is at one o'clock.

Back to you, Andrew.

Many thanks for that. To the papers

and most of the stories you've just

heard are on the front pages as

well. The Sunned tames has the story

about the on-Bouys case. The

Observer has an interview with Nigel

Farage in which he says the Brexit

side are losing the argument. He's

beginning to talk again about a

second referendum. We'll talk much

more about that. Could he be coming

back as leader of Ukip? If so, it

SMEI be down to a story on the Mail

on Sunday. It says the girlfriend of

the current leader of Ukip said

disgusting things about Meghan

Markle. She's been suspended. It is

a party clearly in some crisis or

other. The Conservative Party on the

front page of the Sunday Telegraph.

Tories too Shi'ite to fight left

online. That's about the importance

of the Tories getting more effective

online and they hope, starting to

crack down on the culture of abuse

that can appear on Twitter, Facebook

and elsewhere. Let's start with

that, Helen, Nigel Farage piece.

He

called for a nationwide debate on

why people should listen to Nigel

Farage again. He said the remain

errs are winning the argument and a

man could come out of retirement to

help make this case again. It is

interesting. There has been a sense

the narrative has really shifted.

Labour's position is deliberately

fuzzy. They know they've voters who

support both sides. It is a

millimetre to the left of whatever

the Tory position is. They are

coming round to the idea of maybe

staying in the customs union. If you

lookity communique just before

Christmas, it says unless they come

up with a magic border arrangement

we'll have to keep the arrangements

between Northern Ireland around

southern island very similar. The

hard Brexit people wanted is not

being delivered.

To be clear, what

Farage is worried about is not that

we won't leave the EU but the way

won't be the kind of Brexit he

always wanted. It is a question how

close to Europe we continue to be?

Exactly. The ballot paper asked a

very simple question. What you take

from that is is very hard. The

numbers are not there in Parliament

for some of these very hard

measures.

Andrew, do you think it's

true the Remainers are now winning

the argument?

They're certainly

making thing ament in the way the

leer errs aren't. Heseltine says he

will use every bone in his body to

try to overturn Brexit even though

there's been a referendum in favour

of it. When it goes to the House of

Lords, of course, Brexit will be in

a lot of trouble. There are so many

remain errs on the Conservative side

who will do all they can to try to

scupper it.

Farage back into the

fight. Do you think Henry Bolton,

the current Ukip leader can survive?

No. This extraordinary store why

about his 25-year-old girlfriend

who's #345ied appalling racist

remarks about Meghan Markle. He's up

against his Nashing of national

ex-tech I've on Thursday. She's been

suspended. How can they continue

with a leader with that connection?

Maybe that's part of the reason why

a party like Ukip is in such

trouble?

Ukip is finished. It was a

one-manband. It was Nigel Farage.

Numbers he chooses to come back. He

said last time I spoke to him he

isn't coming back. They've no money,

no support. They're not making the

case on Brexit either.

What's really

interesting, one of the reasons he

talks about the reason he might come

back and have a second referendum is

to settle the question. Having

another referendum will not settle

the question of Europe. What you say

is true, I've grown up in a politics

where leave errs felt passionately

against Europe. You've ended up with

ared enremain errs, people who

really, really care. Pro-European.

A

shift in sentiment. You can see that

all over the place.

It's

fascinating.

Let's move on to one of

the other big stories. The war boys

case. -- Worboys. This is the just

citiesities secretary saying he's

trying to get a legal review of the

release of Worboys. Why is this

happening?

I think it accepts back

he was prosecuted over 12 cases but

there are 93 allegations not tested

in court. You feel this is somebody

who is a repeat offenders. They find

it very difficult in the idea of

rehabilitation for safe release. You

can't seat the Parole Board's

reasoning.

They're not allowed by

their terms of reference to tell us

why they're releasing Worboys. I'm

amazed he wasn't prosecuted for the

other cases when you consider the

historic cases of the likes of Jimmy

Savile, the guy who died in prison

recently.

It is very difficult for

Theresa May.

Observer, it says one

of the reasons for his release one

of the psychologists was give undue

provenance in the decision?

I think

David Gauke has to get this right.

Public opinion is appalled by the

idea Worbou will be Lee leased. It

is what they call an indetermine at

sentence which is being abolished.

It is a case where you could learn a

lot. Some of these women were

laughed at essentially when they

came into the place. We see here so

much about rape not being taken

seriously, not being prosecuted

properly. I hope if this happened

again it would be treated in a

totally different way.

Now to the

front page. Sunday Telegraph.

What

he wanted to talk about was the fact

he says the tolling and the abuse of

public figures is right at the very

top of the Labour Party. He's

talking about John McDonnell, the

Shadow Chancellor who said of Esther

McVey, lynch the bitch.

To be fair,

Tim, he says he was repeating

something said by other people?

People?.

I think he used a different

"B" word.

It was deeply unpleasant.

The Telegraph say the Tories have

lost the war on social media. But

the Telegraph says that's all very

well but you have to have something

to engage with. Where are the

policies, the retail policies to

attract people under the age of 35.

So far, there are none.

We haven't

mentioned the reshuffle, Helen.

Didn't go quite as it was supposed

to do. I think Iain Martin... ?

This

is now quite a common opinion the

reshuffle. You might have expect add

few rising stars promoted rap the

lidly to see what they can do. The

name Dominic Raab comes up. He's

ended up with housing as a Minister

of State rather than a full Cabinet

role. That is not the actions of

somebody grooming the next

generation and giving people a

chance to kick their tyres. The

assumption is she sees herself there

for as long as she can. She's not

keen to get the next generation

through and out.

She didn't appoint

a new First Secretary of State after

Damian Green. Jeremy Hunt was

thought to get that job. Does she

see him as a threat. They ended up

with one less gay person in the

Cabinet and no more ethnic faces.

The real problem was it was too

caution and too disruptive. The

entire Cabinet Office hassual new

ministers.

Lots of people said to

the Prime Minister, I'm not doing

that, I'm doing something else.

Jeremy Hunt said he wouldn't move.

Snow how do you deliver those big

policies?

Another big story Donald

Trump not coming to Britain. A piece

in the Sunday Times saying the

reason he didn't come was nothing to

do with the embassy being in South

London but he was feeling too little

love from the British people.

He's

not adored enough. The Sunday Times

reporting plans were fairly well

advanced for him to have lunch with

the Queen at the palace. The Sunday

Times says he thinks Theresa May ace

Government regards imhim in the same

way as Sadiq Khan who doesn't want

him to come to London.

This is a

problem for Theresa May because this

strategy needs an open treaty with

America. That means Trump.

Obama

said Britain will be at the back of

the queue for a trade deal. Donald

Trump said the reverse. If he now

thinks that the May Government

regards him in such a low light,

that's not good for the trade deal

we need.

I don't feel that dismayed.

I don't think Donald Trump knows

what he feels one day to the next.

He'll change his mind in a few

weeks. Let's talk about two other

stories quickly. Dry January, the

January. Veganuary.

Which?

Dry

January ended on January 6th for me,

sadly.

Veganuary, we all go vegan.

London has its first vegan pub.

Something Donald Trump can't sample

now he's not coming here. Lots of

people work in my office are already

vegetarians. It is becoming a really

common thing, particularly among

younger people. Good for the planet.

Going vegan means you have to have a

separate, special menu. People hand

you an aubergine if you go to a

restaurant. I think this is a really

good thing.

I'm not going. Not going

to a vegan restaurant or pub. You

want a pint of beer and a pie.

Somebody else who wants to pint of

beer and a pie. Very interesting.

She has not given an interview to

the BBC he said slightly tartly, as

somebody who always wanted to

interview her. She has had a

conversation.

That's how they're

spinning this. Alastair bruise, the

Royal historian, a great

conversation with the Queen. They

discovered in the royal archive, the

letter she wrote describing her

father's Coronation when she was 11.

She writes to mummy and papa in

memory of their Coronation from

Lilibet. Very sweet and charming.

We've cracked through a lot of

stories in a short space of time.

Now to the weather.

And so to the weather,

it's all been a bit January.

A bit white, a bit

bleak, a bit cold.

I'm beginning to wish

I wasn't doing Dry January.

Over to Sarah Keith-Lucas

in the weather studio.

A lot of cloud, grey in the last

couple of days, more today but the

cloud is breaking so we should have

spoils of sunshine, head of the rain

that will arrive in the north-west

later, before it arrives for many of

us the cloud will break up so

Sunshine of the northern England and

Wales, down to southern and western

England, cloudy in the east and for

Scotland and Northern Ireland ahead

of the strong winds and rain

sweeping in later. Temperatures

around two to 9 degrees typical of

this time of year. Those winds might

be disruptive in the north-west, 70

mile an hour gusts, strong winds

south and east across the country

through the cause of tonight, so I

think Monday morning we are likely

to have a lot of rain, strong winds

as well, potentially a soggy rush

hour Monday morning, and colder

conditions moving in from the

north-west later. The heavy rain,

the strong squally winds easing

towards the east, and then a return

to some sunshine, something we have

not seen in awhile, also wintry

showers, sleet and is over Scotland

and possible than Ireland,

herbicides rain, hail, and perhaps

something more wintry over the

hills, that that's us up for a more

unsettled, colder week ahead.

hills, that that's us up for a more

unsettled, colder week ahead. All in

all pretty filthy!

It wasn't that long ago,

that Emily Thornberry was consigned

to the Labour backbenches

after an ill-advised tweet

about the St George's cross.

Well, changed days.

Now Shadow Foreign Secretary,

and, I read, a gay icon,

she is tipped as a future Labour

leader and even Jeremy Corbyn's

most ardent admirers look forward

to her Prime Minister's Questions.

But has she got the answers too?

She joins me now.

Welcome, Emily Thornberry. Can I

first ask about the John Warboys

case. Do you hope this goes to

judicial review and that the release

is reversed? You are a lawyer after

all.

The path that they are taking I

don't quite follow and I have not

had a chance to look at it properly

but I think this. The public are

completely bewildered that John

Warboys is being released as early

as he is. He is a serious criminal

and a threat to women. I do not

think that his victims nor frankly

the majority of women will be

convinced that he doesn't continue

to be a threat to us.

Do you find it

surprising that they're all these

allegations of many more

allegations of many more rapes and

attempted rapes not prosecuted and

left to one side at the moment?

Two

things. The Crown Prosecution

Service can't proceed unless they

think they have a realistic chance

of a conviction. But I think we

still have to continue on a journey

whereby we prosecute rapes as well

as we possibly can. And I think we

are coming from a very dark place.

They have not been prosecuted

properly for quite a long time.

Improvements but have they improved

enough? And has John Warboys

benefited from some of those

prosecutions not being them as well

as they should be and from those

women not being taken seriously

enough?

Now the decision has been

taken, going back to the judicial

review is about all the government

can do?

Am sorry that I have not

thought through the legal

ramifications of this.

Accorded your

spectacular comet about Donald

Trump. You have said he is a

dangerous man. You delighted that

he's not coming to this country?

Don't want him here. He should not

have been given that invitation. I

think it was wrong for Theresa May

to prematurely give him a state

visit. It embarrasses the Queen and

is humiliating for her and it is

wrong to have brought her into it.

The visit in February was supposed

to be opening the embassy. And then

the question is what kind of visit

did he think he would get? Did he

think he would travel in a gold

coach?

Loved up?

All that stuff.

Londoners are not impressed with

him, and surprise, surprise, neither

the British.

I think the formal

position is that he is still invited

to come to this country sometime

this year. Is your position that he

should not come at all?

It is very

difficult, when the invitation for a

state visit has been made, to

withdraw it. Only the Queen can

withdraw it. I don't want to put in

that embarrassing position. The

government can give advice to

Washington and mention security

considerations. There will be

demonstrations. He did say at one

point that he did not wish to come

to Britain until the British had

learned to love him and I feel quite

relaxed about that!

You've all had

fun at his expense in Parliament but

isn't there a serious problem. Once

we leave the EU, if we leave the EU,

everything depends upon getting

trade deals and other countries,

including America. If we have hacked

off Donald Trump it will be much

harder for a future government,

which could be a Labour government,

to do the deal.

Let's take this in

stages. The first thing was he said

he wanted a trade deal with Britain

and he thought he could do it within

weeks. That shows he doesn't have a

real grasp of what a trade agreement

is, these things take years.

Secondly it would be failing to make

the deal. There are many people in

the United States. We are not in

some medieval court where he... The

American democracy has checks and

balances and the number of people

are important to speak to. And we

never know from day to day what

Donald Trump even thinks. Thirdly we

had been trading perfectly

successfully with the United States

for a long time. They are our

biggest trading partner outside the

EU without a deal anyway.

He may be

there for a long time, you might win

another election, and calling him an

asteroid of awfulness, good though

it is, may not be enough to cut yet.

He is an asteroid of awfulness who

has fallen on this world, I think he

is a danger and I think he is a

racist.

You've been clear on that.

Now Iran. Why is it so difficult to

decide between the protesters and

the regime, who in your words have

the white hats?

OK. The situation is

this. We would condemn any arrest of

peaceful demonstrators. Some of them

are now in prison in Iran, and this

is wrong.

And torture being used.

People should be allowed to express

their views in a peaceful way and it

is completely wrong, it is a breach

of human rights for this to happen.

But the picture is a complex one.

You have Rouhani who is, I hate to

say, liberal in the context of Iran

but he is responsible for the

economy, the Iranian nuclear deal

with a stopping building nuclear

weapons, he is trying to move the

country...

We need to keep him there

to talk to?

We've been talking to

him successfully until Trump arrived

and tried to undermine the Iranian

nuclear deal. On the other hand is

those responsible for the courts and

security seem to be from a

completely different tradition

politically. And there is tension in

Iran. Demonstrations, some in favour

of one side, some the other, a

complete picture. Rohani has said,

and he is right to say this, people

should have the right to demonstrate

peacefully.

I get that but when you

see women waving their hijabs saying

they have been oppressed and the

Labour leader celebrating 35 years

of the Iranian revolution it seems

that Labour are not living up to

their international instincts.

We

want Iran to move forward. We think

that one path that is available this

comedy Iranian nuclear deal has an

important part to play in that in

terms of bolstering up the

democratic, more liberal instincts

of one side of the political

perspective in Iran. And for the

Iranian nuclear deal to be

successful and for the Iranian

economy to get back on its feet on

the back of that was very important.

And it may be that as time goes on,

the theocracy which is around the

supreme leader might dwindle if the

economy did well. It's quite a game

of chess.

Let's move onto something

that is not a game of chess. Do you

believe in party democracy.

Of

course do.

Your party polls and

members when it came to bombing in

Syria, for instance. That is a good

thing. So why would you listen to

your own party members when it comes

to things like staying inside the

customs union and the second

referendum -- why would you listen

to your own members.

We have a

responsibility when developing

policy to have deep respect for our

membership but also for the country

as whole. I a responsibility to be a

representative with my constituents

want to remain in the EU in the

country wants us to leave. A

difficult balancing act. We said we

must respect the results of the

referendum which we have to leave,

look after the economy which in my

view means we don't go very far.

David Davis said famously what is

democracy if it can't change its

mind? If, when we see the final deal

on offer, people are not happy about

it, could there then be a second

referendum to reverse the decision?

Which deal, the divorce...

About the

final deal which we should see the

basic shape up by the end of this

year.

By the end of this you will

have the divorce and then they can

negotiate our ongoing relationship

with Europe, so that's the important

bit. So we will have an interim

period...

Roughly speaking by the

end of the year, at that point would

it be a reasonable democratic thing

to ask people to think again. Nigel

Farage is talking about it after

all.

First we need a meaningful vote

in Parliament. That is what we are

finally ran out of this government

with the Withdrawal Bill. Next week

they will have another go at going

back on that, but those who

represent this country in Parliament

must vote on the divorce. And if it

is the wrong thing then the

government should go back and

renegotiate. As for a second

referendum... First of all, do you

mean at the divorce the final

relationship because the final

relationship will be agreed in many

years' time.

In either case.

Of 90%

of the population now says we must

stay in them that must be a

challenge that would be there for

all of us who are Democrats.

55%?

At

the moment we proceed in good faith,

do as we are instructed, we are

leaving the EU. Yet we must keep

this government honest and make sure

that when we leave will make

decisions that look after our

country first and foremost. Which

means looking after the jobs of our

kids.

Emily Thornberry, thank you

very much for talking to us.

Coming up later this morning:

Sarah Smith will be talking to the

newly appointed Immigration Minister

Caroline Nokes about her new brief

and the government's difficult week.

And she'll speak to Shadow

International Trade Secretary

Barry Gardiner about just how big

Labour's divisions over Brexit are.

That's the Sunday Politics

at 11am here on BBC One.

Brandon Lewis was picked out

by Theresa May this week

to rebuild the Conservative Party,

to bring in more members,

to start to give the Tories

a better profile online

and restore some campaigning

confidence after that terrible,

stuttering General Election.

Frankly, from the perspective

of January 2018,

it looks like a big job.

Brandon Lewis.

Good morning.

Can I

start by asking you about the John

Warboys case, can you confirm the

government is looking for judicial

review to reverse the decision to

release him?

Yes, the Secretary of

State is looking out at getting

advice on whether it can be

judicially reviewed because if we

can and we can go forward in a

positive way we will look to do

that. I think every victim, every

friend or family of a victim and

everyone has read about this case

will want to know we can to make

sure the victims are properly

protected. We respect the situation

and the feelings people have been

through, these tragic, awful

situations.

To you personally

understand the outrage about this

case.

Absolutely, I know someone

who's been a victim of this. But

even just reading about it anyone

will appreciate how awful this must

be the victims to see what is

happening, to think about someone

like that being out on the streets.

It's absolutely right. The Secretary

of State for Justice will be doing

everything he can to make sure this

man stays behind bars.

Have taken

over the Conservative Party

chairman, would you like the party

to have more members.

Am always

looking to get people working for

the party, delivering leaflets like

we did yesterday as well as knocking

on doors, and the number that really

matters to me, voting for us in

elections.

So you need those

members. Have you any idea how many

members who have at the moment?

We've got a party that is devolved,

a localised party, membership is

counted locally. I do want to bring

the numbers and the data into a

central base. So in the future I

will be able to give you an idea of

our members but right now, my main

focus is on the people who vote for

us.

Isn't it simply a member of -- a

question of edition com you've got

members in Kent and in Scotland,

just add up the numbers.

We can all

play with numbers, look at the way

the Labour Party play with numbers

and include them, what matters to me

is that we have a huge number of

people, not just members, but

volunteers around the country who

are knocking on doors, delivering

leaflets, getting involved in social

media, spreading a message about the

positive things we are doing for

people so we win votes in local and

general elections to give people

good governance.

Have you as many

numbers as the Labour Party.

I'm not

going to play number games, tempting

as it is...

They are absolutely

taking you to the cleaners online,

as you have more or less admitted,

and they have lots and lots of

people do hit constituencies with

real bodies knocking on doors and

handing out leaflets. The

Conservatives have nothing like that

number of people.

We have a huge

number of great people delivering

leaflets, knocking on doors every

day. In June last year we didn't win

the seats we would like to win but

we got over 1 million more votes

than before, the biggest vote share

we have had in decades. I want to

build on that, and quite rightly

build an online presence but doing

it in a respectful way.

You have

more less accepted that Labour are

doing better on Twitter and

Facebook. You are fighting back.

Let's look at something you are

using to fight back. This came

online this morning. We've banned

credit card charges. Is that true?

It's coupling across the European

Union.

It is an EU directive.

We we

are currently part of at the moment.

The EU have has band credit card

changes. You've been mocked online

saying very pleased the Conservative

Party have seen the benefits of

European legislation.

The

Conservative Party, MEPs, we're

fully represented and part of that

process making those decisions.

Slightly embarrassing?

No, it's not.

We've got to spread that message

about things we're doing on home,

work on the environmentment. We do

it with respect. We've seen in the

Labour Party the way the online

media's being abused and people

abused on it that's not acceptable.

You're going to crackdown on all

abuse onloan. You want people to a

respect pledge and you'd like the

Labour Party to do the same?

We'll

draft up a pledge. All our

candidates will sign up to behave

responsibly and show respect during

the elections. Corn coach's on TV --

Jeremy Corbyn's on TV this morning

he should be coming on board with

this. We've seen people endorsing

physical threats against other MPs.

He's not apologised for that. We

have to make sure orders at the very

top of the party, avoid this rot at

the top of the Labour Party. We show

from the very top we will use...

We'll argue our case robustly but

with respect.

No politician has had

more abuse online than Diane Abbott.

Including from Conservatives.

Nobody

should suffer. I do mean this

cross-party. Any personal physical

abuse should be robust arghments but

abuse is a different thing. I will

go further. If people in our

candidates in the election this year

breach that code, there's evidence

they've breached that responsibility

pledge, we will suspend them. I call

upon the Labour Party to stand up

and make the same statement.

Let's

move on to another subject. Donald

Trump said he wasn't coming for the

February visit because he didn't

like the site of visit, the real

reason is he doesn't feel enough

love from Britain for him. He fierce

specifically the Conservative Party

think abouts him much as Jeremy

Corbyn and Sadiq Khan think about

him?

I don't think it helps our

country when we've senior

politicians asking world leaders and

making comments Sadique has made.

We've a very strong long standing

huge relationship with the United

States. That relationship is not

just the special relationship but it

is important. They're one of the

biggest investors in trade. Hugely

important to our security interests.

I can't say the word on air when he

uses the word s her hole about black

majorities, douse see that as

outlandish racist language?

I don't

anyone should use that language.

Last I heard was the President

didn't actual assay. That it is

language nobody should be using.

Would you like to see him come to

this country this year?

Emily, less

than a year ago said he should be

coming. It is right the President of

the United States has a welcome into

the UK. It is a very important

relationship for us. One we should

be looking to develop in the future

for the benefit of all our residents

and our industry businesses and our

security relationship.

One big

policy issue. Carillion on the edge

of collapse, maintains half or

prisons, many schools and hospitals.

Isn't this a classic case of the

dangers of privatisation. You put a

private company deep into the

business of the state and it gets

into trouble and you have a real

problem about whether to bail it

out?

There's a large amount of work,

we're keeping a close eye on this to

ensure there are contingency plans

in place. This business is a going

concern. Hopefully they can work

with their partners to get the

working capital they need to

continue services.

Is there any

chance of the taxpayer bailing it

out?

It a going concern, a

comearplugy sensitive situation. I

can't comment further...

You

wouldn't rule out the tax paying

bailing it out?

They need to work

with their partners. Ministers and

the Secretary of State is keeping a

close eye on it.

In 1971, secret papers surfaced

showing that each US President since

Kennedy had misled Americans about

the human cost of the Vietnam War.

The Washington Post's

owner, Katharine Graham,

was faced with a choice.

Publish the "Pentagon Papers"

and defy the law, risking jail

and the end of her newspaper.

Or remain silent and placate her

friends in the Nixon White House.

Her dilemma is at the heart

of Steven Spielberg's new film,

with Meryl Streep as Graham

and Tom Hanks as her

editor, Ben Bradlee.

I met all three recently

to talk presidents past, present,

and future.

So, can I ask you a

hypothetical question?

Oh, dear, I don't like

hypothetical questions.

Well, I don't think you're

going to like the real one either.

Do you have the papers?

Not yet.

This is a devastating security

breach that was leaked

out of the Pentagon.

The most highly classified

documents of the war.

The Times has 7,000 pages detailing

how the White House has been lying

about the Vietnam War for 30 years.

They way they lied, those

days have to be over.

We have a story that happened

to take place you know in 1971,

that was frighteningly

like the story that we've

been enveloped with over

the last 18 months.

The fact that, you know,

it's more than mudslinging,

they're throwing rocks at the media,

often the rocks are being hurled

at the largest collection of truth

when the truth doesn't appease

the rock hurlers.

The other big part of this movie,

which really attracted me to it,

was the Katharine Graham story.

There's an amazing scene

where you walk up the stairs

surrounded by protesting women.

You walk into the boardroom.

Every person there is a man.

This is about an era before women

had found their voice.

Was that one of the reasons it

attracted you to the film?

Yes, absolutely, it attracted me

to the film, but I'm not sure it's

about a time when women had not yet

found their voice.

They weren't included

in any of the rooms where

they would have been heard.

So Katharine Graham was delivered

into a pre-eminent role

in the media landscape by virtue

of an inheritance.

I mean, her father owned

the newspaper the Washington Post,

and she was ill-equipped to take

that position but yes,

this moment in which she...

She has one huge decision to take.

Yes, exactly.

What would have happened to America

if the Washington Post

had flinched, and said,

OK, we're not going to publish?

That's a very good question.

And that's where the bravery comes

in, whether Katharine Graham

will risk her entire business,

and all her employees and the legacy

of her family to make this decision.

Tom, your character Ben Bradlee

is really connected to what was then

the liberal establishment.

A really close friend

of Jack Kennedy.

Very, very proud of that.

He was.

How much of this film

is about the dangers of journalists

becoming too close to politicians?

Well, that was the personal crisis

that Ben and his wife Toni

suffered then because,

the question of, if you get close,

can you tell the truth about them.

Ben was not a cynic

but he could be cynical about...

the truth is that

public figures lie.

Whether you're the dog catcher

of the county or the head of police

in a small New England town,

it is the national inclination

of people in power to maintain

the status quo, keep their private

parking place and hold

on to whatever purchase...

And they are willing

to lie in order to do it.

That rattled him.

And I think out of that came

a new kind of work ethic

from him, that said,

look, it's a matter of, there is

an incontrovertible truth out there.

And as long as you can confirm

it, you must print it.

Letting whatever personal

chips fall as they may.

Politicians and the press,

they trusted each other

so they could go to the same dinner

parties and drink cocktails

and tell jokes, while there

was a war raging in Vietnam.

I don't know what we're talking

about, I'm not protecting them.

You've got his former

secretary, the man who

commissioned the study...

I'm not protecting him,

I'm not protecting any of them.

I'm protecting the paper.

It's a small Georgetown world,

everyone knows everyone else,

the parties are going on at the same

time as all of this.

Yes.

I wondered in terms of Kay Graham

being a woman who was thrust

into a position taking huge decision

and the public position

she didn't expect or

particularly want at the time.

I was thinking of Oprah Winfrey

and that amazing speech she made

at the Golden Globes.

Do you think that was a moment

when Oprah suddenly thought,

do you know, this is possible,

this is real.

I could be a candidate?

I don't know if she was thinking

that specifically, although I do

hear now that she is

really considering it.

But she certainly set the bar

pretty high for anybody

else who decides to run.

Because no-one can speak in less

lofty terms and adhere to principle

and passion in a political campaign

because we've seen

that it's possible.

And that is how you rouse people,

that is how you lead.

That was the voice of a leader.

And so, you know, I pity

whoever does try to run.

OK, a question for all of you,

first of all, you gentlemen,

Oprah as a possible candidate,

I've asked you if you wanted to be

a candidate in the past

and you said no, no,

I would never run,

because I'm an actor.

What I do is, I empathise with other

people, I'm not a politician.

Isn't the same true for Oprah?

No, I believe that Oprah is some

other type of social force

that is one-of-a-kind that has never

existed before, quite frankly.

I believe Oprah gets up

in the morning and both personally

and professionally wonders

what she can do specifically

in order to make the

world a better place.

Maybe it's a very local event

or maybe it's going out and giving

voice to something that needs to be

given voice to.

And we have proven, I think,

just within the last few years,

that if you want to be President

of the United States, guess what,

there's a way that that can happen.

That's one thing Trump has shown.

Yes, yes indeed.

A tiny little nod there, Steven.

Oprah has 35 years of experience

of building bridges.

Creating conversations between

disparate people who don't agree.

And she has brought so many

different sides together.

35 years of being on her

syndicated television show.

That is, for me, those

are credentials for qualification.

I want to ask you two guys what do

you think about Trump saying

that Meryl as overrated?

Having now worked with her,

I never would have...

At first I said how

dare he, now, I'd...

LAUGHTER

He has a point!

I've spent some time

with the lady, and I think...

And Meryl, you've talked about..

I think you're underrated.

You've spent some time talking

about having the cross hairs

on your forehead and the odd feeling

about suddenly being

in the line of public attack.

Yet, you have to do it.

You said, you've got no choice.

It's your duty.

You have to stand up, speak out.

How does it feel at

the moment being a voice

for the liberal establishment?

I don't think I'm the voice

of anything except Meryl Streep.

That's the only group that I can

authentically speak for.

She is a multifarious group!

The question you asked earlier,

really interests me,

because drawing the parallels

between then and now,

I think what's most pernicious

about this particular moment is not

that the person in power disagrees

with the story that is being written

or is trying to suppress a story.

This is about trying to actually

take the credibility away

from the institution that

delivers the stories.

To delegitimise the press

itself as an entity,

and to say there is no place you can

go for the truth.

That's the thing

that's so dangerous.

It's not disagreeing

with the Pentagon Papers

story, Nixon trying to...

It's taking away the legitimacy

of the Washington Post,

The New York Times.

Every single credible

organ of the truth.

The weapon of choice today

is creating chaos of confusion

so we can't find the truth as easily

as it used to be in 1971,

we had three TV networks,

and had newspapers and we had some

radio and that was it.

It's a different world. To those who

say it is a museum piece to film but

you have the presses thumb. It is a

lost world. What is the message to

today's media

?

It takes the same amount of sourcing

and correlating of facts and what...

Raymond Chandler used to call it

gumshoe, you've got to get out

there and you've got

to find the story.

That will never change.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

And The Post opens in cinemas

across the country this Friday.

Now, in the second of our

New Year leaders interviews,

I'm joined by Scotland's

First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon.

Welcome, can I first ask you do you

accept that Scotland is going to

leave the EU.

Is still hope there is

an alternative. I think is best in

Scotland, I believe it's best to the

UK to remain within the EU. But I

have a job to do which is to

pragmatically look at how I best

protect Scotland's interests in all

circumstances. Assuming that the UK

is going to leave the EU we can have

to look at the potential outcomes

are, and work out what the best of

the least damaging outcome would be.

Tomorrow the Scottish Government

will publish a paper looking at the

three potential Brexit outcomes,

short of staying in the EU. They are

staying in the singles market or the

customs union, a free trade

agreement or reverting to WTO

terms... That's modelling, the UK

Government, it's a great shame, all

these months after the referendum it

still hasn't done itself. But will

model the impact of each of these

three outcomes on Scotland's

economy. And what the paper will

show is that each of these three

outcomes will damage our economy but

staying in the singles market, the

customs union will be the least

damaging in terms of the impact and

the future perspective.

We haven't

seen the papers, have you seen them?

We've seen some redacted material.

Not useful.

Everyone has concluded

that what we were told previously by

David Davis was comic in-depth

impact studies, no such thing. I

really think it's shameful that the

UK Government is the government that

is looking to take the UK out of the

European Union and hasn't even

bothered to properly looked to egg

look at the impact...

Will these

papers give impact on for example

the Scottish fishing industry.

It's

not sectoral analysis at this stage

but it will look at GDP and trade,

it will extensively at the

importance. I know this a

controversial subject but it will

look at the importance, I think

particularly to the Scottish economy

given our demographics of retaining

the ability to attract skills and

talent from elsewhere in the

European Union...

Is this not

Project Fear in a Scottish accent?

It is looking in a clear eyed

hard-headed way of the impact on the

economy. Don't get me wrong...

Doesn't it say anything positive

about Brexit?

I will look for the

positives about Brexit if I can find

them!

You are a politician. This is

supposed to a neutral scientific

economic analysis.

You can judge

tomorrow. It's been done by Scottish

economists, it is an economic model

and it says that by far the best

option for the Scottish economy is

to stay in the EU but should've that

the least damaging option is staying

in the single market. There's a

window of opportunity and I been

listening to some of the other

interviews you've done this morning.

I believe there's an majority in the

House of Commons for remaining

within the single market if Labour

gets its act together. You put to

Emily Thornberry that the majority

of Labour members want the UK to

stay in the single market. If we can

bring that consensus together I

believe there is an opportunity...

Jeremy Corbyn?

He needs to decide

where he stands on this. I think

most of his supporters will be

disappointed that he appears to be

only slightly less in favour of

perhaps the hardest possible Brexit

than the Tories. And many will find

that completely inexplicable.

I

wonder to what extent the Scots are

different to the British on these

issues because recent research by

Sir John Curtis suggests that the

Scottish live that the rules should

be the same for Scotland as the rest

of the UK,.

That research is

interesting, it said the majority of

people wanted things like fishing

and agriculture to revert to

Scotland rather than be centralised

in the UK. If you take free trade

and immigration, for example, 63%,

as compared to 53% across the UK

would prioritise free trade over...

There are some similarities, there

are some differences. But I think we

will see those figures potentially

change to magically if we start to

see the outcome or the shape of this

next phase of negotiations

demonstrate that the path the UK

Government is going down is going to

be deeply damaging to our economic

interests.

It's easy to get confused

about this. When year ago I was with

you in Bute house. Simple big

picture terms, England had voted one

way on Brexit, Scotland had heard

the other way. Therefore it seemed

pretty clear to you that this was a

parting of the ways, and

independence in Scotland was an

inevitable result of this. Yet

things have changed badly this year

from your point of view. Why is

that.

I'm not going to say anything

different, I still believe

independence is the best future for

Scotland. I still believe that

whatever future Scotland juices, and

you know what side of that I am on,

that is a feature that shouldn't be

imposed on us. We should have the

ability to choose and decide for

ourselves. It was plain that there

was a lot of confusion. This is a

complex issue. People in Scotland,

I'm sure it's the same in many other

parts of the UK, people want clarity

to emerge about the state of the

relationship between the UK and the

EU. At that point I have said we

will look about and determine at

that stage of Scotland should then

have the right to choose between

whatever that the relationship with

the UK will be choosing to be an

independent country.

Lets try and

nail this down. You've in the past

as soon as it could see the overall

picture, you could then take a

second decision on an independence

referendum. Last week the Prime

Minister said that the European

Parliament will take a decision in

October and the idea is that the

British Parliament shortly before

should take a decision as well. By

the relatively early autumn we

should have the broad picture...

As

I understand to be the case. I

should caveat that by saying I'm not

in control of that timetable. But

based on what the Prime Minister has

said for the European Commission is

seeing, by the autumn of this year

we should have some clarity...

Between October and the end of the

year you will be able to tell us...

That's when I'll be able to make a

judgment about the next appropriate

steps for Scotland. I will then

report that to the Scottish

Parliament and the people of

Scotland.

Is not enough time for a

second referendum before the UK

leaves the EU. If we are leaving in

March 20 19th and you have to take a

decision in autumn 2019 them isn't

enough time to take the decision,

have the referendum, leave the UK...

We'll take the decision when we get

to that time. We've also got a

situation and I accept that the

detail has yet to emerge...

The

weeks pass at a speed you can't

control.

Code on a second. The Prime

Minister now says they will be an

implementation period, everyone else

calls it a transitional period. As I

understand it, it's yet to be

agreed, I will make judgments, might

judgments, I have to put them to the

Scottish Parliament about what I

believe is in the best interest of

Scotland protecting our best

interests in all circumstances.

Do

you ever said late at night and say

that maybe the Scottish people don't

want independence in the same. We

are debited leader said recently I

don't think most folk in their daily

lives give two hoots about whether

Scotland as a member of the European

Union, constitutional issues are not

the biggest concern for many people.

I rarely talk Scottish independence

in the chamber because I talk about

things that mattered to the people

of Aberdeen.

And has a 2-part

question. Let me answer both parts.

Firstly, about public opinion on

independence, most of the polls

carried out since the referendum in

2014 show that support for

independence is either the same or

in many cases has increased. The

majority there would say that

support for independence has grown.

There was one that put support for

independence and 49%, of course in

2014 the yes vote was 45%. Kirsty

was making a point.

That people

don't give two hoots about

independence.

The pointer made my

entire political life is that

independence is in some

constitutional obstruction. It is

about the living standards. The

society, the economy we have. The

relationship between how we are

governed and those conditions in

Scotland is the important

relationship, that was the point she

was making.

Two important process

questions. Firstly when the

withdrawal bill goes through

Parliament there then has to be a

process of legislative approval by

the Scottish parliament, the Welsh

assembly and so forth. What if you

refuse legislative approval.

It's a

convention, I have never said

otherwise.

You could say we don't

approve it and it still goes

through.

I think it is unthinkable

that the House of Commons, that the

UK would ignore not just because of

the Scottish parliament but the

Welsh assembly as well. We've never

been in this territory before. You

ask me what will happen. We are

trying to plan for our part. We have

this week announced that we have a

continuity bill of our own. Let me

be clear right now. If the First

Minister of Wales were here he would

say the same as I'm about to say.

Right now I can't and I will not

recommended the Scottish Parliament

approval of the withdrawal bill,

because it is a power grab on the

powers of the Scottish parliament.

We are seeking to come to an

agreement with the UK Government,

they are dragging their heels.

Months into these discussions we are

no further forward. I hope that

changes in the next weeks but I

would argue that it is in the

interests of the UK Government as

well as about doing the right thing,

in the interest to get agreement

otherwise the Scottish parliament

will not approve.

The problem with

an acceptable is that Theresa May

turns back on you and carries on

doing it anyway again and and again.

She doesn't think you have the power

to do anything about this.

If that's

the message to Scotland it's not a

positive one.

She would say it's a

message to Nicola Sturgeon.

It

sounds as if it is a message to

Scotland which is, I can do, Theresa

May saying she can do whatever she

likes because Scotland can

likes because Scotland can never go

against it. I have said, whatever

Scotland chooses, and it's always a

matter that the Scottish people, not

for me or any other politician, it

must be a feature that we choose,

not one imposed upon us by Theresa

May or whoever her successor may be.

Let me ask about this continuity

bill. I don't quite understand it.

That's to do with the consequences

of British withdrawal from the EU,

to Scotland. How does it work.

It's

a Scottish version of the withdrawal

bill which look at areas within

devolved competence and legislate to

continue the effect of EU law after

Brexit, in Scotland.

Would it mean

Scotland staying in the common

agricultural policy?

Effectively it

says on the day after Brexit all the

laws that we have, for example the

law that you talked about with

Brandon Davis, about ending credit

card charges, they will stay in

place until such time as the

Scottish Parliament chooses to

change them. It is a continuity

bill. We may not have to do that if

we can reach agreement with the UK

Government but we won't stand back

and watch her approve a power grab.

I've been through your manifesto and

I can't see a promise to introduce

new tax bands.

We are a minority

government, we have to build

consensus. And be serious about the

austerity we face. Our budget next

year as a result of decisions taken

by the Chancellor in the House of

Commons will be a resource budget,

£200 million in real terms, smaller

than it is this year. Let me finish,

we are putting forward proposals on

tax that will seek 70% of all

taxpayers... Hold on, a majority of

taxpayers because we were

introducing new statutory rate, they

will pay less than if they lived

elsewhere in the UK. But for the top

30% we are asking them to pay a

little more. If you have £100,000 is

about £35 a month more. It enables

us to invest properly and the

National Health Service...

If you

are a low to middle rate taxpayer,

you say, you will be completely

protected. It is not to review and

£35,000 a year. You will pay more.

Median wages in Scotland, if you

earn less than £32,000 you will pay

slightly less under these proposals

than now. If you earn and £26,000

not only will you pay less, you

would pay less than if you lived

elsewhere in the UK making Scotland

the place in the UK where you will

be able to pay less and we will

properly invest.

And that's all we

have time for, thank you Nicola

Sturgeon.

Now a look at what's coming up

straight after this programme.

Join us at ten from Bradford, will

discuss the sexual politics of

flirting, and with thousands of

Christians worldwide persecuted

should Britain do more to give them

refuge? And could taxing second

homes heavily help the homeless? See

you on BBC One.

That's all for this week.

Thanks to all my guests.

We'll be continuing our Leader's

interviews next week

with the leader of France,

President Emmanuel Macron.

Until then, goodbye.