11/03/2018 The Andrew Marr Show

Good morning.

I was reminded this week

of something Lenin said:

"There are decades where nothing

happens;

and there are weeks

where decades happen."

It's been one of those weeks -

the Donald and Little Rocket Man

making nice, a chilling return

to the Cold War at home,

and a new stand-off

between the British Government

and Brussels over the very

future of The City.

As time seems to accelerate, how

much can we pack into the next hour?

To update us on the British

Government response to that

attempted murder, and to discuss

whether he has at last got room

to spend a bit more,

I'm joined by the Chancellor,

Philip Hammond.

And from Berlin, Marina Litvinenko,

the woman whose husband was murdered

- she thinks on the orders

of the Kremlin - to tell us

what she wants from Theresa May now.

Now, I've quoted Lenin already.

I wonder whether John McDonnell,

the Shadow Chancellor,

who's in Dundee, can top that

when he speaks to us later on.

And, with the Ides of March coming

up this week - Thursday -

it's appropriate to be talking

about those swaggering populists

Julius Caesar and Marc Anthony -

wowing the plebs at London's newest

theatre.

I've been talking to actor

David Morrissey and director

Sir Nicholas Hytner.

Were I Brutus, Brutus Anthony,

there were an Anthony would ruffle

up your spirits and put a tongue

in every wound of Caesar that

would move the stones of Rome

to rise and mutiny.

And reviewing the news,

the Guardian's Political

Editor Anushka Asthana

and the Daily Mail's Amanda Platell.

All that coming up soon.

But first, the news

with Ben Thompson.

Good morning.

BBC News has learned that traces

of the nerve agent used to poison

a former Russian spy

and his daughter

have been found in a branch

of the Italian restaurant, Zizzi,

that they visited in Salisbury.

Sergei and Yulia Skripal

remain in a critical

condition in hospital,

almost a week after

they were taken ill.

No one who was in the restaurant

at the same time is

thought to be in danger.

The Chancellor, Philip Hammond,

is arguing that there is light

at the end of the tunnel

for the economy, as he prepares

for his Spring Statement this week.

The Shadow Chancellor,

John McDonnell, has criticised his

approach, saying the Conservatives

can not deliver the change

the country needs.

President Trump has said he thinks

North Korea wants to make peace.

He said Pyongyang had promised

to halt missile tests while it held

meetings with the US,

and he believed it would

honour the commitment.

Mr Trump has said he'll meet

the North Korean leader,

Kim Jong-un, to discuss

the regime's nuclear programme.

Speaking in Pennsylvania,

he said the discussions could end

in failure or result

in the greatest deal for the world.

The water industry regulator

for England and Wales

is to investigate why thousands

of homes suffered shortages

or total loss of supply

following the recent cold weather.

Ofwat says the review will determine

whether companies had

proper contingency plans in place,

and are offering sufficient

compensation to those affected.

A charity co-founded by Bono has

apologised after staff

made claims of bullying,

harassment and abuse.

The ONE organisation said workers

at its office in Johannesburg had

alleged they were belittled

and subjected to sexist comments.

In a statement, Bono said

the charity's new chief executive

had taken decisive action

to address the matter.

That's all from me.

The next news on BBC

One is at 1:00pm.

Back to you, Andrew.

Many thanks. As I said, head

spinning morning for news with lots

going on, but the papers have more

or less decided what the main story

is. The Sunday Telegraph, corrupt

Russians face UK Visa bank,

suggesting the tough American and

Canadian act against misbehaving

Russians might be applied in

Britain. The Sunday Times have a

different take on the story, talking

about the Russians playing large

amounts of money into the

Conservative Party coffers. Marina

Litvinenko will be on the story

shortly. She has been speaking about

that as well. The Mail on Sunday has

another charity scandal story, this

time Bono's charity. I keep

attacking the red tops for not

tackling serious stories, but a

shout out to the Sunday People,

eight targets on booting's hit list

in the UK. They have identified

eight people who might be next. This

could be the beginning of the story.

And the Sunday express has the spine

poison in a parcel, was it in Zizzi

or a parcel. The Observer has top

paid men outstripping women by

Quattro- one in pay. And this is a

tangerine dream, beautifully

coordinated. We'll start off with

the Russian story.

Every paper seems

to have a different take on this.

People has a former Russian spy

saying the Russians tried to poison

him. He is all over the People with

other spies he says is on the hit

list. They say it was in the

restaurant, the poison was in the

restaurant. The Sunday Express says

the poison was in a parcel that was

sent to his home. The Mail on Sunday

says it was in the flowers by the

grave.

It was somewhere.

No one has

a clue. What strikes me about all

this, we have the government saying,

we are doing a fantastic job and

taking it really seriously. Why

then, when and on double agent, a

former Russian spy, was found with

his daughter frothing at the mouth

on a park bench in rural England

with his daughter beside him, didn't

and alarm go off, and didn't

somebody say, maybe we should get

somebody in, this might be a

poisoning.

It did take days, didn't

it?

It was something like five days

before they brought the army in and

even to take the ambulance away that

he was carried to the hospital in.

It just seems insane.

In terms of

the political response, to big front

pages. -- to make big front pages.

The Sunday Times focusing on all the

money going into the Conservative

Party covers from prominent

Russians.

You get a different

impression to the government

response to Salisbury by looking at

these papers. The Sunday Telegraph

says it will make it harder to get

visas, but the Sunday Times has a

totally different approach. It's

about the government's links to

Russian oligarchs and the amount of

money given to the Conservative

Party in particular. When Theresa

May one came into power aides said

she would suck with a long spoon

when it came to Moscow. It turns out

that spoon was effective at getting

a lot of money in.

At this stage we

should say we have no proven link to

the Kremlin. It's all supposition.

Absolutely.

And there are very nice

Russian billionaires that are here.

The Sunday Times is clearly linking

this to the Salisbury thing in some

ways because they have goats in here

where they have Cabinet ministers

privately accusing the Prime

Minister of a limp response.

Apparently people were furious when

she slapped down Boris Johnson in a

cabinet meeting for saying Russia

was responsible for the meeting. I

wonder who briefed that.

She also

said this week that when we find out

who is responsible, there will be

serious repercussions. It took them

nearly ten years to get... I can

ever pronounce his name.

Litvinenko.

In the meantime we are planning to

ban going to the World Cup, we will

have played in Russia and Qatar

before they have even decided if it

is state funded.

But we are not

sending a junior minister. That will

scare them. The next story, please.

The Sun.

As you have Philip Hammond

on today...

A really important

interview on the Sun. But it wasn't

on the front page.

Very mean of

them. It's a little bit on page two.

He is here to give is great news,

austerity is over and the light is

shining again. One thing I do like

is that he is giving a big plug to

tackling the scourge of plastic.

When you read through this piece,

what he is saying is unemployment is

down, wages are up nearly 3%. And

manufacturing is up. We have had two

quarters now where we are paying off

debt Day to Day, the so-called end

of austerity. It's a sudden Upland

's message.

Philip Hammond has has

walking into the light. But two

things we can be sure of... One

thing we can be sure of, you will

not switch the light on on Tuesday

because of expectation management is

to be believed, he will do hardly

anything when it comes to the Spring

statement, but before the light

there is quite a lot of darkness.

This story in the Observer about

millions of families basically

facing the deepest benefit cuts in

years, these are things already

announced but will come into action

this year, and they will hit 11

million families. Many of them are

in that just about managing group

that the government says it wants to

help. You have to be careful with

the language you use around

austerity. More than one politician

has got in trouble previously for

suggesting we are about to start

prancing into the sunny.

I don't

think he will be that prancing

today, do you?

We are watching and

hoping for a bit of Prance. A great

cartoon in the big story of the

week.

Hugely important, Donald Trump

tweeted he would meet up with North

Korean leader Kim Jong-un. You don't

often get a story completely

encapsulated in one cartoon. The

short fat maniac rocket man, I

believe? The old mentally deranged

ductile, I presume. And with a nice

warhead there.

It's a clever take on

a famous cartoon by David Lowe,

great wartime cartoonist, and it is

the Molotov pact between Hitler and

Stalin. It was a very clever and

beautifully drawn and accurate take

on one of the world was not most

famous cartoons.

I think he's

showing off!

showing off!

Back to domestic

politics. I love this. You know when

you use WhatsApp and it turns out

it's quite private, it turns out it

doesn't always work that way. This

is a massive link to Buzzfeed of the

WhatsApp messages between the

European research group, essentially

the Tories' backbench Brexiteers,

and it starts off with their

response when ardent Remainer Anna

Soubry said Theresa May should

essentially fling them out of the

party. Former leader Iain Duncan

Smith, you can imagine his tone,

says, my suggestion is colleagues

should not engage in this. Although

immediately, they engage. A message

from an main, the MP for St Albans,

who basically says she wants a badge

with 35 stars, the number Anna

Soubry said there were of Remainers.

A pair of swivel eyes. She said,

stay focused, we intend to win. And

they are not big fans of Philip

Hammond. They repeatedly called him

Philly no mates.

They come onto

these programmes and a very

restrained in their language, but

between themselves they are furious.

They agree lines they will take

between them. They are furious at

some things Theresa May has done and

furious EU citizens will continue to

have free movement during

transition. It's really quite

telling.

And because it's a Sunday

morning you are not ruling out some

of the abusive bits.

There are some

swear words.

That's the Conservative

side and their divisions, but also a

titanic struggle between Jon

Lansman, creator and co-leader of

Momentum on one side of Labour, and

then the Unite candidate on the

other side. Its unions against the

mass movement that challenged in the

Labour Party.

Groups who you thought

would be on the same site. But the

leadership seems to be backing the

Unite candidate in this, but Jon

Lansman wanted to throw it open.

It's interesting he said female

members in the Labour Party should

feel free to put their names

forward, and there is a now inspired

by Jon Lansman hashtag with loads of

women coming forward for the role.

It's an interesting problem for them

because the unions have always been

at the heart of the labour movement

from the start. And now I think they

have the most successful mass

membership party in Europe.

And they

are isolating them.

Jon Lansman's

background is that he thinks members

should have the power.

Shall we do

dogs? It's a Sunday morning. Crufts

is on at the moment and it's

completely captivating.

completely captivating. These

wonderful animals running along with

all their beautiful fur flying

around. This is what the poor little

guys look like beforehand. I

wouldn't do that to myself to get my

hair looking that good. Would you?

No.

But it's worth a watch and I

think the final might be tonight.

You have a very interesting story

about a graduate suing.

This is

really interesting. This graduate,

who was from Hong Kong, now living

in London, came and applied for a

degree at Anglia Ruskin University

and one of the promises in the

prospectus was that you would have

massive opportunities for employment

afterwards. Well, she has concluded

that it was a Mickey Mouse degree

and she doesn't have all those

opportunities.

Very interesting.

And

she is suing the University. This is

changing, students are seeing

themselves as customers and is

saying, well I get...

She is saying,

the degree wasn't tough enough?

Interesting.

The claim includes

allegations that one lecturer

arrived late for lessons, finished

early, and occasionally simply told

students to self-study. I have to

say, I thought universities are all

about self-study.

It was International Women's Day,

but today is Mother's Day.

This is

wonderful. Gary Oldman, fresh from

winning his Oscar, is with his mum

on Mother's Day. It's not that he

just goes on about his mum. When he

moved to America, he brought her

over with him. She is now frail. He

now lives with her. That's the way

to treat your mum. Did you remember

to send your mum flowers?

I did! She

got them, so I'm OK. Thank you both

very much indeed.

For anyone with half a memory,

the Salisbury nerve agent attack

is horribly reminiscent

of the murder of Alexander -

or Sasha - Litvinenko.

Killed in central London in a plot

which a public inquiry

concluded was probably

approved by Vladimir Putin.

Marina Litvinenko, his widow,

joins us now from Berlin.

Thank you for joining us. This must

have brought back terrible memories,

the Skripal attack in Salisbury. Can

you tell us how you responded when

you heard the news?

Very good

morning. Yes, it was a very

difficult moment when I saw this

news, because I believe it's never,

ever happened again, after public

enquiry provided evidence of the

death of my husband. But

unfortunately it did happen. Now I

am living every day in news from

Salisbury, and trying to understand

what happened and who might be

behind the crime.

Your husband was

murdered 12 years ago, and you

fought very hard for a public

enquiry. After that enquiry reported

and suggested there was probably a

link, you got a letter from Theresa

May, the then Home Secretary.

We had

a meeting and we had a discussion

about what you might achieve after

this public enquiry. After this

meeting, I received a letter. And I

actually I would like to notice what

was saying in this letter at the

end. I and this government are clear

that we must continue to pursue

justice for your husband's killing,

and that we will take every step to

protect the UK and its people from

such a crime ever being repeated.

But unfortunately it happened again.

It means something was not done, and

a lesson received after the murder

of my husband was not learned.

What

more do you think the British

government could have done, after

the enquiry into the murder of your

husband, that it didn't do?

We

understand that the relationship

between two countries like Russia

and the UK need to be at a very high

level, but we know Russia never

supported the investigation of

killing my husband. Nobody was

punished, and people who have been

the killer of my husband are not

even suspects, because this

investigation provided all evidence.

They still live in Russia. He is a

member of Parliament. .

Going back

to the Salisbury attacks, at this

stage we don't have any proof of

Russian involvement. How sure are

you that this was a Russian attack?

Russia has a very bad reputation

now, and everything happening in the

world, doping in sport or

involvement in elections,

immediately Russia is in the front

of all minds. But in this case I

would like to get very serious and

take its all evidence, and maybe

sometimes to provide as a tool, and

was it Russia or any other country

behind this crime? For us, it was

almost ten years to provide this

facts and evidence, and it was all

proof. I want the same case to be

made in the same way. It will not be

politically motivated, and only

after proper investigation we could

say who is behind this crime.

There

is a sense at the moment that Moscow

was almost laughing at Britain.

President Putin talked about his

enemies swallowing poison and then a

presenter of a Russian television

programme was talking about Britain

being a very dangerous place

being a very dangerous place for

Russian, people falling out of

windows and such.

It is a very

important job, and I hope the

British government will understand

these words and take it seriously.

They are talking about sanctions or

reaction for what happened in

Salisbury, need to be very serious.

Given now what we are saying from

Moscow, you need to react and you

need to understand it's some kind of

message, and not just relax.

So in

her letter to you, Theresa May said,

when she was Home Secretary, that we

are going to take every step to

protect the UK and its people from

such a crime ever being repeated.

What is your message to Theresa May

now?

You need to be very selective

who you are friends with, and when

you allow people with money to come

to your country and make a business,

you need to be sure what kind of

money these people bring to your

country. They offer this money

stolen from Russian people, and

sometimes it's a very serious crime

behind this money. And I'm

absolutely solidarity with this

whole question and asking to United

with all this action that was

already done in the United States

and in Europe. I think they have to

do the same steps.

You have

commented already about the number

of -- the amount of Russian money

that has gone to the Conservative

Party. Do you think the Conservative

Party should hand that money back?

I

agree with this, because you don't

know what kind of money you accept.

You are talking about reputation. I

think this minute, very serious now,

your reputation has to be very

clear, particularly in politics.

You

are in Berlin at the moment, but you

live in Britain. Do you yourself

feel safe in Britain?

Since what

happened with my husband, I have

this question in almost every

interview. You can't say 100%, but I

would like to feel safe. I would

like my son to feel safe, because we

are both British, and I would like

all British people to feel safe.

Marina Litvinenko, thank you so much

for talking to us.

And so to the weather.

The month started wildly

but it's getting milder.

You may know the old saying, that

March weather comes in like a lion

and goes out like a lamb.

Louise Lear has more details.

You are quite right. It has been a

relatively unsettled start to the

month, but through the morning it

looks like some early morning fog

will drift away, and we have had

some sunny spells, as you can see

from this picture. We are surrounded

by weather fronts, topping and

tailing the country. This area of

low pressure will be more of a

player today. Looking at a recent

radar picture, the rain confining

itself to the far north of Scotland,

fringing eastern England, and

pushing into the South West. Ahead

of it, one or two scattered showers.

The rest of Mothering Sunday, looks

like sunny spells and scattered

showers for England and Wales. The

best of the weather in northern

England, Scotland and Northern

Ireland, and warmer there than it

has been of late. Perhaps not quite

as warm across the rest of England

and Wales, but not a bad afternoon.

A spell of more organised rain as

that low pressure moves in, moving

steadily north and west to start off

Monday morning. Cooler, with a touch

of frost in Scotland, but a decent

day up here tomorrow.

Now, coming up later this morning,

as the investigation

into the nerve agent attack

in Salisbury continues, Sarah Smith

will be talking to the former

Home Secretary Jack Straw and former

Security Minister,

Pauline Neville Jones.

Also live on the programme, the

Universities Minister, Sam Gyimah.

Also live on the programme, the

Universities Minister, Sam Gyimah.

Also live on the programme, the

Universities Minister, Sam Gyimah.

That's the Sunday Politics

at 11:00am here on BBC One.

And so, back up north

to my hometown of Dundee,

where the Scottish Labour Party

Conference is underway.

Today's keynote speaker is the

Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell.

He joins us now. Welcome. Can I ask

you first about the story we have

been talking about on this programme

a lot, the poisoning attack in

Salisbury? There is a suggestion

that the organisation that cracks

down on Russian money coming into

the country should be applied in

Britain as well. Do you agree with

that?

The Labour Party moved

amendments to the money laundering

bill only a week ago to introduce

this clause. At that stage, the

Conservative Party opposed our

amendments. We hope now that they

will enable us to bring those

amendments back at report stage of

the bill so we can have effective

action. What it does is identifies

those individuals who are basically

found you'll see of human rights

abuses, and then prevents them from

having bank accounts in our country,

and effectively... It was introduced

several years ago by the Obama

administration. I don't know why the

Conservatives opposed our

amendments. They said there was some

technical issues. There was some

panic among the Conservative ranks

on this, but let's now use this

legislation.

If there was a Russian

attack, and I say if, clearly there

needs to be a strong British

response. Mrs Litvinenko was

suggesting that after the report

into her husband's murder, the

response was not strong enough. What

with the Labour Party like to see?

Lets see the outcome of the

investigation. We cannot leap to any

conclusions. We need to use any

diplomatic methods we can, linked

with our European and global I'll...

Global allies. It may well be a

criminal operation. We don't know at

the moment. We cannot tolerate

another state putting at risk our

own citizens or people living in

this country, so we have to isolate

them. One of the methods we can do

that, is the sort of measures like

the Magnitsky clause that we are

putting forward.

One of the very

clear things we can do is stop

appearing on rush-hour today, which

has been described by one of your

ministers as a Kremlin propaganda

vehicle.

I think that is right now.

I have appeared on that in the past,

sometimes to challenge some of the

issues internationally or raise

issues here that we are concerned

about, not just Russia but also the

international scene overall. I think

that's right, because what we are

seeing from Russia at times goes

beyond objective journalism.

So a

change in direction. Your deputy was

on Russia today only yesterday. Will

you encourage the rest of your

colleagues to follow that lead?

Yes,

I am. I've been looking overnight at

what is happening in terms of

changes in coverage on Russian

media, and I think we have to step

back now. I can understand why

people have been on it up until now,

because

because we have treated it like any

other television station. We have

tried to be fair. As long as they

abide by general journalistic

standards that are objective, that

is fine. But we will be having that

conversation.

With respect, it

wasn't like any other TV station.

Tom Watson said that Russia today

was reporting false stories, and

aligned its policy with Vladimir

Putin's Russian state. That was back

in November.

At times there were

examples of that, and we need to

take that into account in the

current climate.

Let's turn to the

economic story of the day, a

cheerful Philip Hammond statement in

the sun today, when he talks about

wages gumming up by nearly 3%,

paying off debt finally, the end of

austerity, light at the end of the

tunnel. Putting aside the politics,

can you give to cheers for what

appears to be a change in the

economic story of this country?

No,

because I don't think it's accurate.

Last year we had the lowest economic

growth in the G-7 countries, so we

shouldn't be celebrating that. The

head of the OBR has said that

austerity is holding growth back.

Wages are now below what they were

in 2007, 2008, below the banking

crisis. In terms of the deficit, we

were promised by the Conservatives

that they would wipe the deficit out

completely three years ago. I think

what he has done, very cleverly, is

he has shifted the deficit onto the

shoulders of NHS managers,

headteachers and local government

leaders. Conservative council

leaders now are saying, I quote his

own council leader in Surrey, that

they are facing a financial crisis

because of government cutbacks. This

is not a matter for celebration. He

should be coming into the real

world. The Resolution Foundation

said today that 11 million people

today, not just the poor, are going

to be hits next month by the cuts

they get to the benefit system. Not

a matter for celebration by any

means.

Pay has been rising by an

annual rate of 2.9%. We have had the

two strongest quarters of

productivity growth, and a budget

surplus for the first time since

2002. Something is happening.

Pay is

simply, at the moment, just about

matching inflation. What else did he

promised? The pay cap lifting? Look

at what they are doing to health

workers. They are offering them a

standstill wage increase, and then

forcing them to give up a day's

holiday pay. These are dedicated

staff in a vocation. I think it is

miserly, mean-spirited, and it's the

sort of thing we should be

condemning.

You have said recently your

objectives are socialist, no

surprise there. This means an

irreversible shift in the balance of

power and wealth in the face of

ordinary people. What do you mean by

irreversible? Governments come in

and create policies, but those

policies can be replaced. What is

irreversible?

The Clement Attlee

government won the argument about

how we manage our economy, and they

won it for a generation, about how

we manage the economy in the

interests of everybody, how we

establish a welfare state so

everybody lucked and cared for, how

we give everybody a free and free

NHS. They won the argument for a

whole generation. I think we are

winning the argument now and I think

by embedding the understanding of

how the economy could work for

everybody, we would be able to have

irreversible change in this country.

Just round the corner from you in my

hometown, lots of fishing

communities on the east coast.

Traditional fishing communities. You

have your own version of cherry

picking when it comes to Brexit, you

want changes on state aid, workers'

rights and so forth. You need to

have a proper negotiation in turn

with Brussels. Would you be prepared

to see continental -based fishing

fleets coming into British waters as

part of that negotiation?

We want to

ensure that our own fisher people

lead the discussions we are having

about the future of our fishing

industry. What they are saying to us

is that in any negotiations you have

to ensure our livelihoods are

protected, but also you have to

ensure that the stock of fish is

protected. So when we go into

negotiations, those are the people

we will be listening to.

You say

when you go into negotiations, but

isn't it the truth that it is more

likely if you become Chancellor, you

will become so after the deal is

done? And in that context, you will

have seen the impact assessments

from the government this week about

potential outcomes. Do you think

they are accurate, broadly speaking?

I am anxious about some of those

impact assessments. Because it does

reflect, I think, the nature of the

negotiations as they now are. It

does reflect, I think, the inability

of our current government to secure

a decent negotiated settlement. I

think if you change the style of

negotiations, worked on the basis

of... And I have said this to you

before, if you change the tone of

negotiation so your recognise you

are negotiating on the basis of

mutual interest and mutual benefit,

we can protect our economy and

protect jobs. That's what we will do

in those negotiations.

If these

impacts assessments are in any way

accurate, it's a bad assessment for

any chance of coming in. I don't

normally called Tony Blair to you,

but it said Labour will have less

money to deal with the country's

problems and be distracted by

dealing with Brexit rather than the

health service, jobs and living

standards. He has a point, you would

come in possibly in a situation

where you have a lot of trouble on

your plate about Brexit, and yet you

want a huge change in economic

direction.

I welcome Tony Blair's

advice, obviously, but I am saying

this to you, of course I know we

could inherit a real mess as a

result of the way the government is

negotiating with the EU. I

understand that, they are making a

Horlicks of it, as some of their own

sides described it as. I think we

could resolve those matters by

ensuring we have cooperation in

those negotiations. We don't flounce

about saying no deal is better than

a bad deal and this sort of stuff,

threatening to walk away from the

table. We have got to negotiate in

the interests of our country and

bring the country back together

again. From day to day I don't know

who is negotiating in this

government because they fall out in

cabinet all the time.

I am sure we

will talk more about this, but enjoy

Dundee for now and thank you.

If you haven't heard of the BBC's

podcast about all things Brexit,

it's called Brexitcast,

and they'll be marking one year

to go until we leave the EU

with a special edition live

at the BBC Radio Theatre in London.

You can apply to join the audience

at bbc.co.uk/showsandtours.

Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" has

always been popular but it really

seems to be speaking

to today's politics.

With its knife-in-the-back plots,

an out-of-touch elite

and rabble-rousing demagogues,

this is not simply a history play.

Sir Nicholas Hytner has directed

a new version in which audience

members become part of the action

itself, joining the mob on the floor

of The Bridge Theatre,

London's newest venue.

Recently, I caught up with him

and with David Morrissey

who plays Marc Antony.

We all stand up against the spirit

of Caesar, and in the spirit

of men there is no blood.

O that we then could come

by Caesar's spirit,

and not dismember Caesar!

But alas, he must bleed for it.

Were I Brutus, Brutus Anthony,

there were an Anthony would ruffle

up your spirits and put a tongue

in every wound of Caesar that

would move the stones

of Rome to rise and mutiny.

I've been really knocked out

by the response to the play

being performed in this way,

that you are interacting

with people, that you see them

as the crowd reacting to you every

step of the way, and...

For the people on the floor,

they are having one experience,

and the people in the seats,

when I speak to them,

they say it's like seeing a sea

of people, and they ask me

whether they are planted

or whether they are stage managed,

and I say, no, they just

find their place.

It's really exciting.

They make eye contact

the whole time.

They make eye contact,

you're touching them,

you're bringing them

around, you know.

They shout things out.

There's something...

The play starts with a holiday.

It's a party.

They're having a party,

and that gets rudely interrupted,

and the crowd really respond

to that rude interruption.

They really don't like it.

Yeah, they tell them to go home.

That's the first line of the play.

"Home, you idle creatures.

"Get you home."

It's a pretty good way

to start a play, to tell

the audience to get out!

And this is a very fashionable play

at the moment, Julius Caesar.

It's fashionable in the States

and it's fashionable here.

There's another

production of it as well.

Why is this play so

much of the moment?

What's so interesting about it

in the European context

is the way it explores

the failures of liberalism.

The people who kill Julius Caesar -

Brutus, Cassius, the conspirators -

they are revolutionaries.

They are the intellectual elite.

They are the Metropolitan elite,

and what goes wrong for them

is they don't know how to bring

the mob, the people, with them.

They are, many of them,

people of great integrity.

Brutus does have terrific

intellectual and emotional

integrity, but he is too arrogant

to know how to sell the necessity

of his project to the rest

of the Roman population.

So, Marc Antony, you are

a brilliant, brilliant demagogue.

Just explain to people who don't

know the play a little bit about how

you are able to take the crowd

into your hand and manipulate them.

What happens is that there

is the funeral of Caesar,

and he is allowed by Brutus

and Cassius to make a speech,

and what Marc Anthony does

is he is able to turn the crowd

around by appealing to the security

of yesterday, and also saying,

"Hey, I'm one of you.

"I'm like you.

"I come from your place.

"I walk like you, I talk like you,

I want the same things as you.

"I'm not like those guys,

who are intellectuals, scholars.

"They are the ones who are

telling you what you need to have

"and what you need to do,

but I know you people."

And it's a great deal

of fun, in a kind of grim

way, this production.

There's a lot of things going on -

smoke, machine guns,

rock music and all the rest of it.

And you have talked,

in your recent autobiography,

about the tension between art

on the one hand and showbiz

on the other, because we want

to come to be entertained as well.

Just tell us a little bit about how

it you deal with that

Just tell us a little bit

about how you deal with that

in a play like Julius Caesar.

Well, when you start

with Shakespeare, you're starting

with the great master.

That balance between

substance and entertainment,

between art and show business -

because Shakespeare is always

hurling at you stuff that will,

in effect, silence the mob.

Politically, Shakespeare is none

too fond of the mob,

and one of the few undeniable

constants in Shakespeare's

plays is that he...

He fears democracy, really.

He suspects the crowd,

but as an entertainer,

he knows exactly what to throw them,

so ending with a big battle

sequence, that's not a bad idea.

Terrific set piece

speeches, terrific idea.

Scenes that are none

of them too long.

Always on to the next thing.

Good jokes.

Good jokes, gripping story...

Romans, war scenes, crowd pleasing.

Let me ask you a little

bit about Britannia,

because that's been a huge epic

on Sky, and it's the

Romans and the Britons.

Behold, gods of Britannia.

I am Rome.

And where I walk is Rome.

It's written by Jez Butterworth,

and what's happening is the Romans

are coming back to Britain

for the second time,

because Julius Caesar couldn't

hack it the first time,

so there's something that...

Going in the second time, it's like,

you're taking his crown,

and they are going to stay.

So they are much more vicious.

Also what they do is they find

who hates each other and they set

them off against each other...

One tribe against the other.

That's how they do it,

and that's how they conquered most

of the world, is by going in

and saying, "You're all Roman now."

Let's end by talking

about The Bridge and its future,

this great theatre.

In a sense, it's London Theatre,

of course, but it's reshaping

the kind of geography

of London culture.

It's yet another big development

on the east of London.

Yes, East and South.

Back to the future.

Shakespeare's theatre

was on the South Bank,

and Southwark was the great

entertainment borough

back 400 years ago.

Even back 100 years ago,

Elephant and Castle

was the Piccadilly of the south.

I think there is a huge amount

of energy surging East in London.

The great thing about here

is that we can put all our shows out

all over the country

using National Theatre Live,

which was one of the things

that I'd started

when I was at the National Theatre.

Julius Caesar will be

out March 22nd.

What we are hoping to do here...

We have no great remit

beyond putting on what we hope

are terrific, thought-provoking,

entertaining shows,

and getting as many people

to see them as possible.

That's our remit.

If we can get them out over

the whole country, all to the good.

All over the world.

Bums on seats, and, in this context,

feet on the floor as well.

Thank you both very much indeed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So, as we've heard earlier,

the Chancellor believes the economy

is at last on the turn and there's

light at the end of the tunnel.

Well, that's a relief.

But, with a huge round of

new welfare cuts looming and intense

pressures on the health and defence

budgets, does this mean

that he will actually

put his hand in his pocket?

I will come onto that in a second. I

will start by asking about this

poisoning in Salisbury. If it is

proven to be an action of the

Russian state, how serious is that

for our relationship with the

Russian government?

First of all, as

you say, it's a police investigation

and it will be evidence lead and we

must go where the evidence takes us.

We have to allow the police

investigation to take its course.

But if there were to be an

involvement of a foreign state,

evidenced by this investigation,

then obviously that would be very

serious indeed and the government

would respond appropriately.

You

might have heard Marina Litvinenko

was saying last time around the

response wasn't nearly strong

enough. In that context, I wonder

what you think now about the

Magnitsky Act proposal for much

stricter these are restrictions on

named individuals.

The proposals put

forward greater power we already

have. The Home Secretary already has

power to exclude individuals from

the UK if she believes their

presence here is not conducive to

our national security or the public

good. So it's not strictly

necessary. But we are seeking to

reach an accommodation with those

who have put this amendment forward.

Let's see if we can come to a

proposal that works for everyone.

You were there as Foreign Secretary

at the end of the Litvinenko

enquiry. You summoned in the Russian

ambassador at the time. Marina

Litvinenko suggests what you did was

not tough enough. What's your

message to her?

The enquiry took

some time and it was sometime after

the events before we had the

evidence from the enquiry, but we

took appropriate steps, measures

which are still in place today.

You

kicked out a couple of diplomats,

and that's about it.

But the

Russians have not complied with

their international obligations

despite being members of the

Security Council. They have

continued to protect those who we

seek to extradite in respect of the

murder of Mr Litvinenko.

And yet, in

a sense, they are laughing at us in

this country. They still think this

is a place where they can do what

they like without any serious

repercussions and London is still

one of the prime places for Russian

money to arrive. Do you need to look

at the whole thing again?

The police

enquiry and depth and detail, the

vast resources that have been

deployed and the high-level assets

that we have had to be able to make

these analyses show that nobody is

laughing at us. This is a very

serious investigation that's going

on and let's see where it leads us.

Your party has taken massive

donations from Russian oligarchs and

others. Is it time to hand them

back?

There are very strict rules about

donations to political parties. Only

British citizens can make donations

to political parties. All donations

are carefully vetted.

But the facts

have changed. Isn't it time to

change your mind?

There are people

in this country who are British

citizens who are of Russian origin.

I don't think we should tar them

with Putin's brush. We should

recognise that people come to this

country from many places, they

become British citizens, they live

under UK law, and they should have

full participation rights in our

society.

Light at the end of the

tunnel, a turning point for the

economy. You've given examples

economy. You've given examples about

wage growth, finally ending the

austerity years of paying back the

budget day by day, and all of that.

It feels like a really important

moment.

There is light at the end of

the tunnel because we are about to

see debt starting to fall after it's

been growing for 17 continuous

years. That's a very important

moment for us. But we are still in

the tunnel at the moment. We have to

get debt down. We have taken a

balanced approach over the last

couple of fiscal events, using

flexibility that we had to continue

paying down debt, but also to

provide additional support to our

public services, to invest in our

future and to reduce taxes for

families and small businesses who

are feeling it.

For the people who

are about to be hit with the next

round of welfare cuts, are you going

to be able to help them at all?

There has been speculation in the

media about what the OBR numbers

will be when they are published on

Tuesday. I suggest we wait until we

see the numbers. This is not a

fiscal event in itself. I will not

be making tax or spending

announcements on Tuesday. I will be

signalling some areas we want to

consult ahead of the budget in the

autumn. We should be very careful

looking at single sets of figures,

one or two quarters. We need to look

at what is happening sustainably in

the economy. If there is the

flexibility to do something, we will

decide in the autumn how we are

going to use that. We will continue

to take a balanced approach,

addressing the debt problem,

investing in Britain's future,

reducing taxes for hard-working

families and putting money into our

public services.

Is austerity over?

Most people take that to be a

reference to the public sector pay

cut, and we have removed the 1% cap

on public sector pay.

on public sector pay. We have an

agenda for staff in the NHS, which I

hope will lead to a pay settlement

which satisfies workers in the NHS

but is also fair to taxpayers,

because it tackled some of the

challenges we have in the NHS and

makes it more effective.

The working

families affected by these welfare

changes, £200 a year worse off on

average. That feels like no light at

the end of the tunnel for them. Can

I ask you about local authorities?

All across the country, both Tory

and Labour local authorities are

screaming with pain. They feel

austerity has been pushed to the

limits and they are, in the words of

one of your colleagues, facing a

financial precipice. Can you give

them some relief at last?

Just to be

clear, this is not a fiscal event. I

will not be making fiscal

announcements. Local authorities

have well over £200 billion of

course spending power over the

five-year period from 2015 to 2020.

They have reserves of £23 billion,

which is £8 billion higher than in

2010. Local authorities have done an

incredible job in delivering

efficiencies.

And they are now in

crisis.

We understand that they are

under pressures. At the spring

budget last year, I put an extra £2

billion into social care. We have

also given them greater flexibility

through the precept in the recent

local government settlement, so that

local authorities now have £9

billion worth of additional,

dedicated spending for social

services over the next three years.

That is an act chew aerial answer to

people who are screaming in pain, in

terms of a system at absolute

breaking point.

We understand there

are pressures in the system. We

discuss them with colleagues in

local government and in spending

departments across Whitehall. When

we get to the autumn budget, we will

look at the numbers there. I will be

paving the way in this autumn budget

for a spending review in 2019, which

will look at public spending from

2020 onwards, what the total

envelope should be, how we allocated

between departments and the local

government.

You are pushing off the

good news until closer to

good news until closer to the

general election. Can I ask you

about an important issue on the Tory

backbenches, defence spending. One

of your ministers has said that 2%

is not enough these days. The entire

military system is in real problems.

They need more tanks and planes. A

lot of your backbench colleagues are

determined that you have to do

something for them.

I was Defence

Secretary for nearly three years,

and I am full of admiration for the

Armed Forces and what they do to

keep Britain safe, and I understand

the complexity of the defence

budgets. Very long-term projects at

the cutting edge of technology. Some

of the media talk as if defence is

being cut. Let's be clear about the

facts. Defence will receive more

than £1 billion extra in each year

of this Parliament. It's the fastest

growing resource budget in

Whitehall. Defence is not being cut

by any means. I accept there are

pressures on defence, including

foreign exchange pressures, because

a lot of the military equipment we

use is bought in US dollars. The

Prime Minister has announced a

defence mechanisation programme,

where she and I and the Defence

Secretary are working closely and

looking at these challenges. We are

committed to making sure Britain is

always properly defended.

It sounds

like yet more jam tomorrow. Can I

reduce something that Nick Timothy

said? Mr Hammond must now declare an

end to austerity. The government has

achieved its surplus. It can now

invest in the economy in the

long-term and increase public

spending.

Nick Timothy is the debt.

We have a debt of 86.5% of our GDP.

All of the International

organisations recognise that is

higher than a safe level. This isn't

some ideological issue. It's about

making sure that we have the

capacity to respond to any future

shock to the economy. There will be

economic cycles in the future. We

need to be able to respond to them

without taking our debt over 100% of

GDP.

John Redwood spoke about the

debt, and said that this level of

debt is easily sustainable, and

suggested that the austerity

programme was a political choice,

not an economic essential one.

With

respect to John Redwood, I think he

is wrong. We have £65,000 worth of

public debt for every household in

this country. When I became

Chancellor, I changed the fiscal

rules. I said, we will tackle the

debt. We have to tackle the debt.

But we will spread out the time we

do it a bit further, creating more

flexibility, so that at the same

time as tackling the debt, we also

invest in Britain's future and put

money into the public services, and

relieve small businesses and

families with tax breaks. That's

what we've done and that's what we

intend to go on doing.

Is your real

message...

It's wrong to say that

every penny of capacity we have has

to go to bringing down debt, but

it's equally wrong that every penny

should go into additional public

spending.

I must ask you about

Brexit. It's going to be a complex

negotiation. The Prime Minister said

last week we would not get the full

amount of access to all markets we

have at the moment. You have a very

difficult negotiation over the

future of London and the financial

services. Is it worth it?

Yes.

Financial services is a very

important part of our economy.

Is

Brexit worth it, I mean?

The British

people have decided that we are

leaving the European Union, and that

is what we are doing. Our job is to

make sure we get the best possible

job for Britain, that we make a

smart Brexit, one that works for

Britain, British jobs and British

businesses, and that is what we are

all about.

Do you accept we are

going to take some kind of economic

hit, as Mr Tusk says?

He is a

negotiator, and on Wednesday he

didn't say anything I wouldn't

expect a skilled negotiator to say

at the beginning of the

negotiations. He basically said the

deal would have to contain none of

the things you want and all of the

things we want. That is an opening

negotiating position.

Looking at

what you have said about the

importance of the financial

services. You have said again and

again that this has to be part of a

fair deal. Is this at last a

government Red Line?

The Prime

Minister said clearly in her speech

that the way to negotiate

successfully with the Europeans is

not to threaten, not to talk about

walking away from tables or anything

like that, but to engage, to talk,

to explore the options. The reason I

think the financial services has to

be part of the deal is firstly, the

shape of Britain's economy. The

services are very part of our

economy, and this needs to be part

of it. Secondly, the financial

system in London is an asset of

Europe as a whole. £1.1 trillion

worth of loans to European companies

facilitated through the City of

London. A vast proportion of

transactions go through the City of

London.

You know they are thinking

differently. The French have said we

are not going to get this kind of

deal. If we get a deal that doesn't

include the financial services, that

would be an unfair or a bad deal?

I

don't accept that premise. I think

we will get a deal on financial

services, but the

question is how? What kind of access

we are able to negotiate

reciprocally. Many European banks

operate in London as part of

London's financial services.

At

least we know what the government

want out of the negotiations. How do

you modelled the economic effect of

that?

We haven't embarked on the

negotiation yet. The next step in

the process at the European Council

next month is to hopefully agree the

implementation period, so that

businesses can plan over the next

three years with certainty. Then we

will get the guidelines from the

European Union for the next phase of

negotiation. Then we start talking

with them about the shape of a

future partnership, which will cover

economics, trade, investment, but

also security, domestic and external

security. Once we know what the deal

looks like, we will certainly model

it.

Chancellor, thank you very much

indeed. Now look at what's coming up

straight after this programme.

Join

us from Newport were after a week of

schmoozing the Saudi prince we ask,

should Britain be proud of its air

trade? And Public Health England

says we are far too fat and getting

bigger. Is be city a matter of

personal choice or is it a matter of

interest for the government?

That's

all from us this week. Thanks to all

my guess is, and happy Mother's Day.