26/10/2017 This Week

Roll up, roll up!

For the This Week State Circus.

Tonight, Andrew's cannon fodder.

Whoops!

There he goes.

You're left with me,

for one night only, John Pienaar,

the This Week ringmaster.

BOOING

Ladies and gentlemen,

children of all ages, watch

our clever beasts perform

their daring display of dangerous

political discourse.

I wanted to be a tiger.

Politics is a bit of

a circus, full of clowns.

Meanwhile, Kate Williams

thinks the whole

country is in danger

of clowning around.

I'm laughing my head off.

The mysterious Andrew Rawnsley

rounds up a pulsating pageant of

political poppycock.

Balderdash and bumpkins.

And who is the world's

strongest man?

Scottee will be putting

masculinity to the test.

You don't have to be

macho to be masculine.

Yes, throw your hat into the ring.

It's the This Week big top.

Evenin' all and welcome

to This Week.

Now, I don't care how much hooch

you've put away tonight,

you've probably noticed that I'm not

Andrew.

It's OK though.

I matched the specs in the BBC

situations vacant ad.

"Wanted: temporary presenter.

"Aerodynamic hairstyle,

built for comfort, must come

"with your own pooch".

So, let's settle into our comfy

chairs, pour a lovely warm glass

of Blue Nun and spare a thought

for the poor soul in the news this

week who was described as "anxious,

despondant and discouraged,

"begging for help.

Eyes ringed with dark shadows."

No, I don't mean John Craig,

the scuba diver who surfaced at sea

and found his boat was gone,

and swam home followed

by a 12-foot tiger shark.

I mean Theresa May.

After all, John Craig was only

circled by one man-eating shark.

The Prime Minister's surrounded

by maybe three or four

hungry Cabinet ministers,

all following behind, and smiling

supportively, jaws wide-open.

This week poor Mrs May was described

in a German paper as having begged

to be rescued at her dinner with EU

Commission President

Jean-Claude Junker.

Although who can blame her for that.

Jean-Claude denied

leaking that story.

So it can't have been him!

Can it?

Then the Brexit Secretary,

David Davis, infuriated MPs

by saying they might not get a vote

on the Brexit deal

until after it's done.

Mrs May had to contradict

him straight away.

Sort of.

He said MPs might not get

a vote, unless they did.

She explained MPs would

definitely get a vote,

unless of course they don't.

Brexit's a bit like that

for Mrs May and her Government.

A long, hard swim,

gaping jaws on all sides.

Talking of fishy characters,

joining me on the sofa

are the Captain Ahab and Free Willy

of British Politics.

I speak, of course, of Michael

#choochoo Portillo and Liz

#fourpercent Kendall.

And we're also joined by Nelson,

my Portuguese Water Dog,

who's standing in for Molly,

and is a bit jumpy about

EU citizens' rights.

Michael, your moment of the week.

The government commissioned an

Oxford professor to do some

The government commissioned an

Oxford professor to do some work on

energy policies, and he came back

and said the government had made

spectacularly bad decisions, that

their green subsidies had

overestimated the cost of

conventional energy sources and,

indeed, of alternative energy

sources, that they had locked

themselves into long-term contracts

with much higher prices than

necessary, that the average consumer

is probably paying £150 per year

more on their electricity bill than

they need to, and the amount of

subsidies is Jude to go up by about

three times in the next 20 years. I

would like to add to that that the

Government's intervention also looks

like it will produce a situation

where we actually don't have enough

electricity. If there was one lesson

I thought we had learned 30 years

ago was that government intervention

in markets tends to lead to a

shortage. Just look at the Soviet

Union if you doubt it.

And more

intervention on the way. Liz, your

moment.

It has to be the utter

shambles we have seen on Brexit this

week. On Monday, Theresa May told

MPs there will not be a transition

deal until there is a future trade

deal, which will create a cliff edge

for business, and then Number Ten

said she had misspoken. On Wednesday

David Davis said Parliament may not

get a boat on either the initial

Brexit deal, or the long-term trade

deal, until after we have left the

EU, only to issue a clarifying

statement afterwards. This would be

a complete joke that it wasn't

causing such uncertainty for

business. That is my worry. They

have to take decisions close to the

end of this year, or early next

year, and there is no clarity about

what is happening.

I sense we may

come back to that later in the

programme.

Now, what with Andrew away

we're feeling a little

off the leash tonight.

Aren't we, Nelson?

So much so that we're

going to break our golden rule.

That's right, we want

to hear from you.

Both of you.

Which means it's Twelfie time.

So, in honour of today's

Westminster Dog of the Year

competition, we'd like to see

a picture of you and your pooch.

Or, in fact, whatever pet you like.

The weirder the better.

But remember you have to be seen

to be watching the programme.

Our technology wizards will be

on hand to edit them

into our end credits!

As ever, bonus points will be

awarded for crazy outfits,

keep them clean, and lashings

of Blue Nun.

And for a chance to make it

onto our Twelfie finale,

make sure you use hashtag twelfie.

Now, this week it was the turn

of billionaire media mogul

Michael Bloomberg to wade

into the Brexit debate,

calling Brexit the single stupidist

thing any country had ever done.

Though he did say America had

since "Trumped that".

The former mayor of New York

ought to watch out.

A certain government whip

might be on his case.

Chris Heaton Harris was accused

of McCarthyism this week

after drawing up a list

of university lecturers

who taught Brexit courses.

So has Britain lost the plot?

Are we suffering a national

nervous breakdown?

Or should we stiffen our sinews

and tell the naysayers to naff off?

Here's historian, Kate Williams,

with her take of the week.

If the clowns in Parliament

were in a circus, rather

than presiding over

the destiny of our country,

it would be a laughing matter.

But I'm beginning to worry

about the direction our once great

country is going in.

The Conservatives came

into the election this year

promising successfully managed

Brexit.

Instead, they've proved themselves

incapable of the juggling act.

We have a Cabinet in civil war,

and a leader who always

has to watch her back.

With a government divided,

how can we expect to

have a strong negotiating hand?

And as for Labour, is their position

pragmatism, opportunism?

Great Britain is in limbo.

A country with a sense

of purpose should encourage

free speech and debate.

But instead we have a Conservative

whip on a strange mission to audit

university teaching on Brexit.

Pretty McCarthyite.

On the other side, confusion

about who should and shouldn't

be allowed to speak.

We should nurture the great

minds of the future,

not tunnel their vision.

China has announced plans to build

66 more airports over

the next five years.

The UK can't even decide

where to build one runway.

The truth is, if we don't manage

Brexit with a bit more skill,

we might not even need one.

The CEO of Goldman Sachs has

already said he's going to be

spending more time in Frankfurt,

and the boss of Bloomberg said

he might not even have

built his company's new HQ here,

had he known about Brexit.

This is really no time to be taking

false comfort in those pretty

average growth rates.

The show must go on,

and it's time to get

it back on the road.

And our thanks to the

Moscow State Circus.

Kate Williams has joined us. Thanks

for coming in. Liz and Michael, do

you agree, is the country suffering

a kind of national nervous

breakdown, tearing its hair out and

afraid of the future?

I think where

Kate is right is about the lack of

leadership and vision for where the

country is going. I actually think

that is a much bigger problem for

Theresa May than the weakness and

division over Brexit. If I think of

the great reforming Labour

governments, they had a national

mission that brought people

together. In 1945 after winning the

poor, we were winning the peace with

the welfare state. In 1964, it was

seizing the white heat of

technological revolution. In 1997

there was a strong message about

opportunity for all and investing in

public services. For me, we have a

huge challenge of Brexit but the

real challenge for May and the

government is they don't have a

clear vision for where the country

is going, and they will never get

out of the hole they are in until

they do.

You sound as if you think

with the right attitude, vision and

plan, which might need to be

rewritten, it could work.

I would

like to see greater honesty over the

Brexit debate. Immediately after the

referendum I said that what Theresa

May should do is to try and say,

Remainers are not kind to get

everything they want and neither are

Brexiteers. They will have to be

compromise and honesty about the

challenges we face. Instead, she got

into bed with the hard-line

Brexiteers in her own country and

the divisions have remained.

I agree

that the country runs best when

people have a clear idea of the way

in which they want to lead it. Your

history was selected because you

left out Margaret Thatcher, the

greatest example of a leader knowing

where she wanted to lead the

country.

But very divisive.

I would

add to Kate's list a number of

things. The state of our prisons is

appalling and I am unhappy about the

state of our education and our

National Health Service, the state

of our policing, public trust in

public institutions. There are a

whole lot of things which make the

country at the moment look rather a

laughing stock. I am Rob Lee less

worried about Brexit than about some

of those things, because in the end

Brexit will work out all right.

You

will never have the money to put

into prisons or education if there

is a problem with our economy caused

by Brexit. One of the most important

things is, I believe Brexit was, and

I have said before, I cry for

change. The problem is, the way the

government is going, we will end up

with no Deal or a bad deal, which

will make the underlying problem is

far harder to deal with.

We have the

situation in which the government

has commissioned reports on the

effect of Brexit and the economy,

and we are not seeing them. In fact,

we are not told which aspects of the

economy they are on. And now we are

being told that Theresa May probably

hasn't read them and that Kavanagh

has just read summary reports. To

me, that is a massive discrepancy, a

complete dereliction of duty. If we

want to know what is going to

happen, we need research. There is

research but it is not being read or

disgust. There is no honesty about

the effects of Brexit. Too much

cheerleading, talking about red,

white and blue Brexit. The

Conservatives at the election said,

vote for me and a hard Brexit, did

not get the result they were

expecting and there has been chaos

ever since. The concern is that we

literally have, businesses have no

idea what's going on and we have one

year to decide what kind of deal we

want. By October next year, we need

a decision. The very fact is that

even if MPs are given a vote, which

first David Davis said they were

not, but even if they are, it is a

choice between the deal on the table

and no Deal because there is no time

to renegotiate.

It is time that Liz

repeated the mantra from before the

general election, very wisely, that

the people have decided and that you

believe in the authority and

autonomy of the people, and you will

respect their decision. Remember,

this was a democratic decision. When

you were frightened of losing your

seat, you said so rather clearly,

and I think you ought to say so

again.

I always have done. Brexit

was on the ballot but not what type

of Brexit we get.

The European Union

loads to democracy. Again and again

it has had countries who have had

referendums. When they come out the

way the European Union does not

like, those people are normally

forced to vote again. The first

time, they came up against the

British people, will not be asked to

vote twice because they have ready

made up their mind. If they were

asked to vote again, they would

certainly give a Roseberry to those

asking them to vote a second time.

The European Union can't bear

demonstrations of democracy, but the

British people have spoken and it is

the job of all of us...

That is not

the point that Kate was making.

Kate

was being sneering about Brexit, for

which the people voted.

Ayew

irredeemably gloomy about this?

Britain 12-macro world wars and even

a World Cup. It is possible, is it

not, to make a success of Brexit?

We had a lot of help to win those

World Wars. To say our civil

servants got us through the Blitz.

They are working hard, but no-one is

looking at their work. The thing

about the vote, it was a democratic

vote and of course it was 52%, a

win. Many people believed what they

were going to get was something, it

was not a

were going to get was something, it

was not a hard Brexit. Many talked

about staying in the single market

and the customs union. Things will

pretty much be the same with more

money. We wouldn't be making -

Are

you over stating your case a bit?

You talk about McCarthyism?

I would

love it if I was proved -

They have

written saying, what are you doing

saying about Brexit that is not

McCarthyism?

We have a setup in what

is going on with Brexit is blamed on

critics. People who criticise it,

whether on TV or possibly in

universe tics they are not

criticising Brexit but teaching

critical thinking. We have a

situation where the Guardian

newspaper and commentators are

blamed for the problems. The

problems are complicated.

We need to make it clear to the

public.

What people feel strongly

about is that we are a liberal

democracy and in a liberal democracy

people are entitled to express their

opinions. One of the reasons I'm

proud to be British is because of

that freedom speeched and tolerance.

I think the accusations that people

are enemies of the people or

saboteurs in trying to shut down

debate or criticisms of Broadcasting

Corporations for not being positive.

We should be proud of that freedom

of speech.

People should use

moderate language. That's all very

unfortunate. As I've said on this

programme before. Actually, most

people in this country are

absolutely convinced that we do not

want to go the way that the rest of

the European Union is going. We

don't want to be part of the euro.

We don't want to be part of a United

States of Europe. We don't see to

see the bullying there has been been

of Greece. We don't want mass youth

unemployment in Italy or Spain.

Do

you think there should be more

honesty about the compromises, risks

and tradeoffs? I think that is the

problem. We need to be honest about,

you know, if we are out of the

single market, what that will mean

and what the tradeoffs are? I just

feel that at the moment anybody who

raises questions or concerns is

shouted down.

I think people

honestly don't know the answers.

Interesting interview with the Head

of Operations for Nissan. He was

saying - five million parts come

into the factories in the UK every

day. 40,000 jobs. If there a one

minute delay in his supply chain.

It's a disaster. Six minutes is a

complete disaster. There is no

clarity of what is happening to all

of his parts due to the customs

union. No-one can give anyone an

answer.

At the moment there are four

countries outside the European Union

who trade without any kind of

tariffs with the European Union. Now

if the European Union is really

going to impose tariffs on Britain

when it doesn't impose tariffs on

four other European nations. The

Norway, Iceland -

They are a single

market.

If it will impose tariffs on

Britain when it doesn't impose

tariffs on other countries, I don't

see how that would be a defensible

position.

If we have no deal it's

WTO tariffs not EU.

Why no deal?

Because -

Some members of the

Cabinet and back benchers want it.

This is the fundamental issue.

No,

they want to give us a

negotiationing position.

The --

negotiating position. The Tory party

is split.

Negotiations are coming.

The Government of course has got to

confront a political reality on the

European side of the table. They

need to judge how far they want to

make it clear it's better off to be

in the club than outside. That is a

political dynamic that is

underlined?

The Brexiteers who go

around talking about no deal at all

have so far done us an extraordinary

favour. They have strengthened our

negotiating position so that when

Mrs May went to the European summit

the other day suddenly they were

talking about working on the treaty,

accelerating the process. They got

rather scared by the idea of their

being no deal and not surprisingly

because many be European businesses

would be very unhappy by the idea

there would be no deal and they

would face tariffs on their exports

into Britain. They export much more

into Britain than we export to them.

We need to round things up. It's a

safe bet we will come back to this.

Now it's late.

"Too late for Jeremy Corbyn to watch

This Week" kind of late.

Which is a shame because the Labour

leader's due to appear

on Gogglebox this weekend,

and we were hoping he'd cast his

expert eye over this shambles.

Apparently, he prefers

Tracey Ullman.

Fair enough!

Anyway, someone who's

undiscriminating enough to think

this programme deserves some

attention is the artist and writer

Scottee, who'll be putting the issue

of masculinity

in tonight's Spotlight.

And regular viewers will know how

much we love getting

feedback on this show.

Is anyone buying this?

So, if you'd like to get in touch,

then the team tell me there's

something called the Tweeter,

the Fleecebook, the Snapnumpty,

and the

Straight-into-Andrew's-waste-bin.net

You have been warned!

This week, motorists in central

London were made to pay

an additional T-Charge -

or "Toxic Tax" - if their cars

spew out high emissions.

Which made us wonder what kind

of charge they'll slap

on our poor old Chancellor,

who the papers have started

calling "Toxic Phil",

chugging across Westminster Bridge,

causing his own backbenchers

to cover their noses with their blue

silk polka dot hankies.

Senior government figures fear

that the Chancellor has become

so toxic that he can't drive

difficult measures

through the Commons,

without getting towed off

to the scrap heap, or even,

who knows, the House of Lords.

Here's Andrew Rawnsley with

the round up of the political week.

Ah-ha, there you are again.

We all know that politics

is a strange business,

a game of smoke and mirrors,

a world of distortion,

but this week we really went

through the looking glass.

The week began with a leaked account

of private talks at the EU Summit.

It was claimed that a hollow-eyed

Theresa May had been reduced

to begging for help from Jean-Claude

Juncker.

The President of the European

Commission is fond of the grape,

but he insisted that he kept

his mouth corked.

REPORTER:

Did you tell the German

press what happened?

No, never.

I'm really surprised,

if not shocked, by what has been

written in the German press

and of course repeated

by the British press.

Nothing is true in all this.

I had an excellent working

dinner with Theresa May.

She was in good shape.

She was not tired.

She was fighting, as is her duty.

So everything, for me, was OK.

The Brexit Secretary,

David Davis, DD to friends,

he's a confident fellow.

Can swagger sitting down.

I'm not saying he's in love

with his own reflection,

but when he looks in a mirror,

he certainly sees a lot to admire.

His breezy insouciance got DD

into trouble when he suggested that

MPs might not get to vote on any

Brexit deal until after

Britain has left the EU.

I'm sorry, the vote of our

parliament, the UK Parliament,

could be after March 2019?

Yes, could be.

Which would be, sorry...

Well, it can't come

before we have the deal.

That would surely be too crazy,

even for the Westminster fun has.

Where the Government is already

in so much difficulty

over its Brexit legislation.

I'm confident, because it is in

the interests of both sides,

and it's not just this parliament

that wants to have a vote on that

deal, but actually there will be

ratification by other parliaments

that we will be able to achieve that

agreement and that negotiation

in time for this parliament

to have the vote

that we committed to.

It's not news that the Cabinet

is divided about Brexit.

And you'd think that's quite enough

to be going on with but, oh, no,

as next month's Budget comes

into view, Tories are also

quarrelling about what Philip

Hammond should put in his red box.

Sajid Javid, once a dry

as dust Thatcherite,

emplored the Chancellor to get more

housing built by allowing

additional borrowing.

What I want to do is make sure that

we're using everything

we have available to deal

with this housing crisis.

And where that means, for example,

that we can sensibly borrow more

to invest in the infrastructure that

leads to more housing,

take advantage of some of the record

low interest rates that we have,

I think we should absolutely

be considering that.

Chancellors don't take kindly to

having their elbow nudged like that.

Spreadsheet Phil sounded like he'd

rather chew broken glass than take

the advice of his Cabinet colleague.

Can I therefore welcome

the Communities Secretary's

statement yesterday

that the Treasury has agreed

to increase net borrowing by I think

£50 billion in order to enable

this to happen.

Will he confirm that this

is Government policy?

No, Mr Speaker, that was not what my

right honourable friend said,

as the right honourable gentleman

very well knows.

I would however agree with him

that increasing activity

in the construction sector is a very

good way of creating jobs.

Brexit is warping our

politics in all manner

of weird and wacky ways.

Take Shadow Chancellor

John McDonnell.

This unashamed admirer of Karl Marx

appears to be shape shifting

into a champion of corporate

Britain.

Business leaders yesterday made it

clear that they need the certainty

now that there'll be

a sensible transition period.

Businesses cannot wait,

they need to plan now.

Could that be the same

John McDonnell who once boasted

that his pastime was fermenting

the overthrow of capitalism?

Yes, the very same one.

Chris Patton, Chancellor

of Oxford University,

former Cabinet Minister,

all-round Conservative grandee,

accused another Tory of "idiotic

Lennonism."

Tory witch finder - sorry, whip -

Chris Heaton-Harris,

had written to universities asking

for the names of academics

teaching about Brexit

and the contents of their courses.

Universities Minister, Joe Johnson,

was put up to try to douse the row.

Chris has got a very longstanding

interest in European affairs

and the history of European thought

and he, I've spoken to him,

was pursuing inquiries

of his own that may in time I think

lead to a book on these questions.

So Ii was more of an Aachen demic

inquiry rather than attempt to

constrain the freedom that

academics rightly have.

Oh, it's for yet another book,

by yet another Tory about Brexit.

JK Rowling shouldn't lose any sleep.

It's four months since the election

and the Government still hasn't set

up some key committees,

including the important

Intelligence Committee

which scrutinises our spies

and the Liaison Committee

which grills the PM.

Speaker John Bercow got very cross.

THE SPEAKER:

It is absurd

and indefensible that,

more than four months

since the State Opening

of Parliament, that committee,

which of course consists ever

the chairs of the Select Committee,

has yet to be constituted.

These committees are there

to scrutinise the executive branch.

Jeremy Corbyn rarely mentions

Brexit, except in passing,

during his weekly ding-dongs

with Mrs May.

The Labour leader reckons

a lot of voters are more

concerned with other things,

such as the trouble the Government

has got into with the introduction

of universal credit.

The Conservative Party

and the Government says they have

full confidence in universal credit,

but won't vote for it.

Yeah!

They say they will end the NHS pay

cap, but won't allocate any

money to pay for it.

This Government is weak,

incompetent and divided and unable

to take the essential decisions

necessary for the good

of the people of this country.

You don't build a stronger economy

by planning for capital flight

and a run on the pound.

That's what Labour would do

and we will never let it happen.

Strength in politics

is all about perceptions,

who's got authority,

who's losing it.

Just remember, in the Westminster

Hall of Mirrors, nothing

is quite what it seems.

# Don't look back.

# Don't look back.

# Don't look back...#.

Thanks to Gala Bingo in Tooting,

South London who let Andrew

and his reflection loose

in their Hall of Mirrors.

The Chancellor, Philip Hammond, is

he a one-man episode of Mission:

Impossible just now? He's out to

stimulate the economy, but he has no

money. He's out to help the hard

pressed, but he can't spend

anything. He has to tackle the

generational divide of opportunity

and fairness and yet how do you

upset older voters, yet again, if

you are a Tory Chancellor? Michael,

what do you think?

His main problem is his limited

credibility. He has had serious

accidents during his chancellorship.

What was leaked in advance of his

plan to have different tax rates for

people at different ages went down

like a lead balloon. I don't know

whether this was simply testing the

water and finding out that it was

too hot to step into, but it has not

done his reputation any good. I

think Sajid Javid is on to the right

point, which is that what is most

urgently needed is a sea change of

transformation in the quantity of

housing that is built. I think the

Conservative government should not

be afraid to build large numbers of

council houses, and it is perfectly

reasonable, as Sajid Javid says,

when interest rates are low, to

borrow for what is infrastructure,

what is capital, what survives, is

not frittered away. The houses are

therefore all time. Because you

increase supply, that would bring

down the time and that would really

make a difference to the correctly

identified generational problem.

You

have been Chief Secretary to the

Treasury, so if you were hoping that

the next Budget together and trying

to do what you have described, does

that mean letting local councils

borrow the money they say they need

to build houses?

That is exactly

what it means. The Government has to

authorise the amount of capital

local authorities can use. But the

local authorities are the only

people who can make almost an

overnight change to the amount of

housing being built.

Absolutely.

Because in the private sector it

seems the limited number of big

house-builders would rather build a

small number of big houses for big

profits come rather than large

numbers of small houses for small

profits. Local authorities can do

things quickly.

What is wrong with

letting them do that? George Osborne

kept a lid on this. It adds to the

national debt, but that borrowing

creates jobs, creates housing, it is

productive spending, Liz.

It is

something I have supported for a

long while. I think it would also

help with one of the big challenges

the economy has which is that it

still remains very geographically

unbalanced. I would also like to see

more investment in transport

infrastructure in the regions, not

just north to south, but east to

west, and in skills, absolutely. And

I think that... The problem... You

need the right Chancellor and leader

for the right time. Actually what we

need is a reforming Chancellor who

is going to deal with the underlying

causes of the anger I think that

people felt and why they voted for

Brexit, and make sure that our

economy, the fundamental problem is

it is not delivering rising earnings

for the majority of British people.

And that is due to deep seated

long-term problems, lack of

investment, geographical and

balance, inequality. And I don't see

anything of the radical reforming

Chancellor in Philip Hammond.

We

still have rock bottom interest

rates, which is handy. Would you not

be risking that if you start opening

up the spending and borrowing taps?

Would the markets be comfortable

with that?

We do have rock bottom

interest rates which are useful for

the government to borrow against. Of

course, they also encourage people

to borrow on wisely. We do have a

big credit problem. So I am not sure

that we should not have slightly

higher interest rates anyway. The

governor of the Bank of England has

been hinting every six months for

the last four years that we will

have higher interest rates, and I

think not with a great sense of

despondency. Maybe that is a risk we

can take.

Let me pick up something

else laid out there. We have seen

vote after vote where the

government, because it thought it

might be at risk of losing, simply

ran away and did not play. What does

that say about the government's

respects our parliamentary

democracy?

Firstly, not to be naive,

it tells you the government does not

really have a majority, which is not

a huge surprise. We learned that on

election day.

Is that a specious

point? We have not seen too much of

this in the past.

It depends what

passed you are talking about. There

was a play in the West End recently

which was a salutary reminder of how

the Labour government survived

between 1974-1979, on a wing and a

prayer and every kind of trickery

that it could invent. And that is

the only way this government will

survive five years, if it does.

Liz.

I think it is disrespectful to

Parliament that I am more concerned,

actually, that particularly on the

issue of universal credit, which is

yet to be rolled out in my part of

the world, that they are not

actually changing it. The risk for

the Tories is that "Nasty party"

label will remain. And the votes

that they have not wanted to have

our own issues where they are not

helping those on the lowest income

and the working poor. And those are

the votes they should be seriously

concerned about. Because it is part

of their reputation. I come back to

Philip Hammond again. I don't see

him, a Chancellor who understands

that all will have the courage to

push those changes through.

Just in

a word, Michael, we have not

discussed universal credit this

evening but it has been discussed

all week wherever you look. There

are concessions backing up in the

pipeline.

Of course, remember that

universal credit is an ideal kind of

thing. People have been hoping to

invent this for decades, something

that really made it clear to

claimants and made it worthwhile to

be in work. Not surprisingly, a

government department is not able to

deliver it in an efficient way. It

is extraordinary that they should

have to wait six weeks for payments.

Can you imagine any minister signing

a bit of paper that says if you ring

up about your credit it will cost

55p per minute to be on the

telephone? The idea is brilliant but

if the administration is as bad as

it appears, it will have to be

postponed.

You think it should be

paused altogether?

Of course it

should be paused.

A government that

has no majority cannot risk a repeat

of poll tax over Christmas.

It

should be paused. It feeds back into

the idea that government ministers

do not understand that if you have

to wait six weeks for your money,

you can't survive and might lose

your home. This is exactly the

problem, and Philip Hammond is not

the person to deal with that.

This Week, I'm told, is famed

for indulging male privilege.

But, viewers, it's all

change under my watch.

I've tied Michael's best

cummerbund around his knees

to stop his manspreading,

given Liz a pay rise,

and after the show, we're giving

Lou Lou's a swerve and heading

to hers to watch a box set

of Dolly Parton movies.

Michael loves the bits

where he can sing.

Yes, we're doing our bit

to challenge old attitudes.

That's why we're putting masculinity

in this week's Spotlight.

In a week when a BBC survey suggests

that half of women have been

sexually harassed at work or a place

of study, retiring peer

Baroness Trumpington reckons ladies

have reached their limit.

Women used to be terrified

of making a fuss.

Now, they don't give a damn.

But will we now take a woman

at her word when she makes a fuss?

Maybe this is it, maybe this

is the watershed moment

where we believe women.

Allegations of misogyny

against Labour's Jared O'Mara have

been taken seriously enough that

he's been suspended from the party.

He called me an ugly bitch.

But should the onus be on victims,

or should everyone fight

for better treatment of women?

All of us in this house should have

due care and attention to the way

in which we refer to other people.

And should show women in public life

the respect that they deserve.

In a new era of respect,

is there room for vulgar

comments made in jest.

On your knees, bitch.

Jeremy Corbyn, leader of

the Labour Party, visiting Norwich.

Jezza, was Clive Lewis

wrong to say that?

Completely wrong, should

never have said it.

This kind of language

is not acceptable in any

circumstances, any time.

But are blokes just

hard-wired to be obnoxious?

Well, if Emmanuel Macron's pooch,

Nemo, is anything to go by...

Artist Scottee thinks men need

to face up to their flaws

and take more responsibility

for their behaviour.

But is it really hard being a man?

And Scottee is with us now.

Thanks for coming in. Give us your

verdict in essence. It is male

superiority confined to an

anachronistic corner of our gender,

or is it hard-wired in the male

brain?

I think it's starker than

that, more sinister. I think men in

this country, and let's talk about

this country, are socialised to be a

hegemonic version of masculinity.

They are told they have to be

violent, be dominant, to be leaders.

We have created cultures that

endorse that. So we are witnessing

the effects of that. It's important

to say, looking at that short film

which is a light-hearted look at

some horrific things that have come

to light in the last couple of

weeks. But this idea that somehow

these have just emerged, that these

thoughts have just come out, women

have been telling us for decades

that this stuff is going on. We've

got to understand there is going to

be this rage, this anger, this

backlash, that all of this

conversation is about, let's say

sorry, my daughters, yes, it's now

time to listen to women. Women have

been saying this for a long time.

Yes, they have. They have.

Its disk

rates fall, embarrassing, actually,

that we have prolific Hollywood film

stars saying, it's now time that we

listen to women. Actually, we need

to do more than that. It would be

really easy in their capacity to

sign contracts in which they see the

contracts of women playing alongside

them and make sure they are being

paid the same.

You don't see any

signs of attitudes changing? Is it a

generational thing to any degree?

That is far too simplistic. My daily

experience of a big, fat, queer

femme, of existing in this world, is

one of violence, people taking

photographs of me in public space,

trucks veering across the road to

shout expletives at me, every day

being ridiculed. In fact, I was on

the phone to the non-emergency

police line reporting a homophobic

hate crime whilst another was taking

place to me. That is how much people

like me have to deal with. If we are

asking if it is generational, no,

this is happening, this is actually

happening. I want us to get beyond

saying maybe it is just banter,

maybe it is just what masculinity is

about. We have to start really

critiquing this and looking at it.

That is what I am trying to do with

my art works around the country, to

have conversations that go beyond

the echo chamber.

You do what you do

with your art. Have you got anything

else by way of a solution, the

beginning of an answer to how to

make things better?

That's a

difficult question, because how is

me, to some extent I am a victim of

masculinity, because of the

aggression that I put up with on a

day-to-day basis, why is it us, why

is it queer, trans-, non-binary

people who have got to come up with

the theory is to be eloquent enough

to be able to say, this is how we

disable toxic muscular nutty?

Actually, this has to come from

within. Men have to acknowledge

their privilege, and I want them to

hand over power. Also, I want them

to hand over some platform. I am up

for trying a matriarchy. We have

done patriarch you for a long time

and it has not worked.

Michael, I am

completely enlightened. What do you

think?

I have heard a great deal of

rubbish. Men are not trained to be

dominant and violent. I was trained

to obey a woman, my leader, Margaret

Thatcher. And in the present world

we have a female queen, a female

Prime Minister.

A female queen, a

woman who was an elected.

A female

First Minister of Scotland, a female

leader of the Conservative Party in

Scotland, a female leader of the

Labour Party in Scotland. I don't

recognise the picture you are

painting at all.

You don't recognise

the misogyny we are experiencing in

the world.

What is more, won the

mark-up or thing about the last 20

years has been the Emancipation of

gay people. We now have gay

marriage. What, we don't have gay

marriage? You are not saying there

has been a transformation?

I will

tell you what would be a good

idea...

This isn't just confined to

the movie industry. It is

everywhere. I experienced it when I

was a kid growing up in Watford,

being groped when I was a waitress,

when I was working a Saturday job in

a computer store, going to the boss

and being told to just ignore it, or

to avoid the person. This is about

power. Every organisation in the

land, every public, private, every

political party should be looking at

Cannes women speak out, who can they

go to, is there a proper process

there, and I also think that it is

about women's peeking out, but also

men's saying to other men, this kind

of behaviour isn't acceptable. We

get accused of being prim and proper

if we get angry that someone has

said something to us, but that is

because we never know where it will

end up. It is clearly, my brother,

many of his friends and many of my

friends are not like that at all and

things are changing, but there is

still far too much going on and we

are deluded if we think there isn't.

I have to live up to every

stereotype and stop you and talk

over you and wind up the programme.

That's your lot for

tonight but not for us.

We've changed our plans,

and after we've gone

through Michael's Dolly Parton box

set tonight, we're watching another

called Bird-watching for Beginners.

We're a nation of animal lovers.

Aren't we, Nelson?

The British predilection for feeding

wild birds is, apparently,

causing the little fellows to grow

longer beaks than their

continental cousins.

One can only imagine the amazing

evolutionary transformations

we might see in our post-Brexit

countryside, unfettered

by European influence.

Foxes with opposable

thumbs, perhaps?

Badgers able to defend themselves

against Ukip leaders.

Now that's entertainment!.

Nighty night, don't

let the Twelfie bite.