for a family which has lawrence day. for a family which has enjoyed so much from stephen's murder, deplored early stages of the police enquiry and the escape on some of his killers, the news that there will be an annual commemoration of his life was welcomed. stephen's father neville represented —— said it represented what they had been striving to achieve the years. our son's memory will be enshrined in history for yea rs. will be enshrined in history for years. are you that's a summary of the news, newsday is coming up at midnight — now on bbc news it's time for newsnight with evan davies. i want to enable the windrush generation to acquire the status that they deserve. british citizenship. quickly, at no cost and with product of assistance through the process. sometimes apologies are not enough even when you repeat them, even when they are grovelling so no surprise the home secretary has gone further to resolve the windrush injustices.
this does not explain why we got into the mess and while it's taken so long to resolve it. reaction from mp david lammy and some of the families affected. also old customs die hard, the government reaffirms its desire to take is that of any eu customs union, but is it up to the government at all? theresa may faces crucial votes in parliament on the issue where pro—europeans are hoping to force her hand and eu has a view as well. it's the issue that could cause mayhem, we'll hear perspective from the brexit side and ireland. and a record number of women are standing for the 2018 us mid—term elections. emily's been to texas, which has seen one of the biggest jumps in the country, to ask why. i've heard this quite a bit before, he may accidentally make america great again. meaning? meaning people are coming out of their shells, they're realising their own power,
because they have something to fight for. hello there. having watched the windrush crisis spin out of control for a week, home secretary amber rudd tried to show she's on top of it today. so news came that a statement would be made to parliament this afternoon, and then along it came with an offer of more than the bare minimum to rectify the status of those given a hard time by the immigration authorities. the home secretary had clearly seen the sympathetic public reaction to the numerous cases of long—settled residents being excluded from the country, so she's giving full citizenship to the windrush generation and compensation to those who have suffered a loss. it is hard to remember the last time that a british government tried so hard to sound not hostile
to people who've settled here from abroad. all members of this house will have seen the recent, heartbreaking stories of individuals who have been in this country, sometimes for decades, struggling to navigate an immigration system in a way they never, ever should have been. these people worked here for decades. in many cases they helped establish the national health service. they paid their taxes, enriched our culture, they are british in all but legal status. and this should never have been allowed to happen. the details of the offer may need fleshing out. the home secretary said that the home office would proactively help people with the process of sorting their status out, and would waive fees, language and citizenship tests. but can she guarantee that all cases will get to stay? or will this morph into a general amnesty for anyone who's been here for a long time? well, for the shadow home secretary, the issue was how we got into this. the home secretary said the situation should never have been allowed to happen. she is the home secretary. she allowed it to happen.
these cases can't come as a surprise to her. for some time many of my colleagues on this side of the house have been pursuing individual cases. she is behaving as if it is a shock to her that officials are implementing regulations in the way she intended them to be implemented. the home secretary has to understand that ultimately the buck stops with her. diane abbott. well, we did ask the government to join us tonight but nobody was available. but i am joined by david lammy, the labour mp who's been prominent in fighting for the windrush generation here, and whose own parents came here from guyana. also with us, two people who you might have seen on the programme last week. sonia williams believes she is one of nine people whose cases the home secretary today said had been resolved. and samantha barnes—gha na.
her father clayton barnes spent 50 years in britain but has been stuck for several years in jamaica and unable to return to the uk after losing his leave to remain and being denied a visa. samantha, the bbc managed to catch up with your father yesterday, here's a little bit of our interview with him from his hospital bed. samantha, the bbc managed to catch up with your father yesterday. he is in hospital so we willjust play a bit of the interview with him from his hospital bed. now you're here injamaica you're away from them at the exact time when you'd need to be with them. yes. that must be awful. i'd seen it like when they came lastly to see me, it was only a few weeks. i'd like to go back and see them back and forwards in the holidays, see them and come back again, as long as i can do it, i'd love to. because you, you have the right, you worked to do this. you paid into the system to do this. yes. yes, yes. when did you last see him?
excuse me... over a year ago but i haven't seen him while he has been really poorly. that is the first time i've been able to see his face, just talking to him on the phone and relying on him saying that doctors won't speak to me! have you told him yet there has been this change today? i haven't been able to get in touch to tell him there has been a change today. what is your reaction because it seems very likely he will come back if he wants to. yes, i have three emotions. i am happy that obviously he's getting better. i am extremely sad that he may not be able to fly because i don't know if he's well enough now. and i'm a bit angry that it hasn't happened quicker, to be honest. he went to retire, would he come back for good if he had the chance? i think he would because he's getting older, he's got five
grandchildren, four of them are mine, he's very close to mine, he hasn't seen them, he enjoys watching them play football or ice hockey so now i think he probably would want to stay here with us. sonia, samantha had three words to describe her different reactions. your case is different. you arrived in 1975 which is after the 1973 cut—off date. tell us what happened last week because they were pretty quick to pick you up? they gave me no time limit indefinite leave to remain. and a plastic card? and a card, which i haven't received yet. the lady i was with, they gave her full citizenship. a friend of yours? yes. i was quite happy because i didn't have it before but then she announced today it is for all the windrush children and the generation and everything. so i was still a bit worried because it was 1973 and i came here in 1975.
but i'm sure she means what she says... we spoke to the home office who said everyone would be offered citizenship and have their fees waived, it did not matter when they came. it's hard to believe that both of you are not sorted out. what about the issue of compensation? sonia, you had your driving licence taken away, you effectively started on a path of the most appalling... in 2014 i was made redundant... and that was because, you think... i honestly do think that, it wasn't said to me outright but i think it was part of it because had only renewed my information to my work earlier in 2014. by the end of the year, within two weeks, they said, you are being made redundant. i was none the wiser. ijust left it. what about you samantha, is compensation an issue for you?
i think my dad deserves compensation, i do. he has been away, he hasn't been able to come and see us, and even things like flights or anything really. did he pay visa fees and he was refused a visa? we paid visa fees, yes, absolutely. david lammy, is this exactly what you asked for? you said you want a full... i think you asked for something described as a full amnesty except it isn't an amnesty because they were legally here in the first place. is it now done as far as you're concerned? theresa may says people can claim citizenship will want to. i think it's important to be absolutely clear. people from the caribbean and the west indies, were very much part of the british empire. we were colonised, we were subjects. so you deserve a passport. and there are some countries
like antigua, saint lucia, grenada, saint kitts, that got the independence in the late 1970s early 1980s. what happens to those countries after 1973? i think the community feels very strongly, it's not about indefinite leave to remain, it is about a passport and a citizenship that i think caribbean people deserve. absolutely deserve for all they've given to this country, not just windrush but over many hundreds of years. will it be easy to administer this, david? telling the difference between somebody legally here, like ourfriends here, and somebody not legally here or who came much later? do you believe ultimately that anyone who's got here up to, say, the year 2000, isjust going to now be given the right to citizenship? is this a general amnesty for everyone who came or is this for very specific categories? and if it's for specific categories, they need to documents
to prove they‘ re in those categories. they need some documents but the burden needs to be low. accepting that, let's be clear, we are all here in this studio because the british state took us... there's no argument about that... the burden has to be low. the second set of questions are, amber rudd says it's all terrible, "we've heard these stories, i'm upset with my department..." there are many, many nigerians and gha naians suffering the same fate... this is where i was going to go, do you think they should be included, is your understanding that they are included? i think britain can't have it both ways. britain can't have it both ways. britain can't be in the business of trade agreements with the commonwealth and not expect its responsibilities in relation to that commonwealth.
we can't have one set of rules for australians, canadians, new zealanders and a different set of rules for different set of people. some people will say, if you go along with what you say, and indeed potentially your interpretation of what amber rudd has said, this is a huge change to british immigration policy that has been announced today. is that your interpretation of what has happened, that it is a kind of watershed moment in british immigration history? i think this may be the moment where the race to the bottom, where the constant anti—immigration rhetoric, where people suddenly look at these faces, saw these people and knew these people because in the end we've been here for so long, and it might be the moment but we draw back. that is very much up to the home secretary. would you support this being, then, anyone who came before 2000, nigeria, kenya, any commonwealth country, this is your chance to get documented and become
part of the community? absolutely. it's a terrible thing to be living in the underground, terrible to be unable to access so many state services for all of those reasons, let's regularise these people and let them get on with their lives. can i ask each, the tone of the speech today seemed different to the tone in which immigration is often talked about. did you feel that? does it feel like a big moment to you in which the debate has changed? it does feel like a big moment but at the same time my dad is still not here. it's got to happen. in my opinion, that's like, it's great but when will it happen? i don't have a lot of time now, my dad is 82. if this is going to happen over the next couple of years... we can'tjust be talking. i feel the same way. how long will it take for them to give me full citizenship and british passport?
instead of giving the indefinite leave to remain? thank you all very much. i suppose it was inevitable at some point, that the whole brexit process would find itself stuck at customs, or on the issue of the customs union. and the argument over that has certainly erupted now. it is the showdown issue on different visions of brexit; a new frontier in the remain—leave war. it's suddenly the centre of attention, partly because the lords voted for a pro—customs union amendment last week, but also because the sunday times reported that theresa may would not be too upset if she was forced to keep britain tied to the eu customs zone. downing street last night said otherwise. so is it really now in play? the first point is politics: mps will get more than one chance to vote on it and could easily end up supporting it. if they do, we're in an interesting world and you can draw complex decision trees of the different scenarios.
and then the second point is that the eu may make it costly to refuse the customs union at some point. nick watt can explain. the reason i've been seeing brexit and brexit is closely because it does. brexit means brexit. brexit means brexit. brexit means brexit. and we are going to make a success of it. it's the mantra of a prime minister certain that she can shape brexit around her vision. but as the clock counts down, theresa may faces questions about whether she controls brexit or whether it controls her. two forces are working to challenge theresa may's redlines. eu and pro—european tories have found common ground over the nature of the uk's customs relationship with the eu after brexit. theresa may is opposed to remaining parts of the customs union, orfudging it is a member of a customs union because that
would restrict the uk's ability to negotiate trade deals. but later this spring pro—european tories plan to force a vote to oblige theresa may to negotiate a customs union with the eu on the same terms as the current arrangement. one government source told us that losing the support would effectively constitute a vote of no—confidence in the prime minister. at the end ofjune theresa may will attend an eu summit which some diplomats regard as an informal deadline to resolve the dilemma over the irish border. this means finding an agreement on a customs relationship. we want substantial progress on the issue of the border and the customs arrangement at the european council meeting in june. that has been agreed as the timeline throughout. we missed a deadline, the british government missed a deadline in october eventually resolving it in december. there has been political agreement on this, there has been a legal
proposition from the european side, it is now the british government ‘s responsibility to interpret that political agreement and work towards what the european side have said is a solution to the issue. october is the very last roll the dice. a customs union is seen by pro—european tories as the only way of dealing with the irish border. and downing street has been warned to ignore parliament if mps in the trade bill in favour of such a move. if the amendment was passed and they tried to be clever and say we will pay lip service to it but we are going to somehow not give sufficient weight to what the sovereign parliament has said, mps have said on behalf of the constituents, i don't think it would be a place where ministers would want to be in their relationship with parliament. i have to say i see no evidence that
ministers would want to behave in that way, the prime minister has always been, as has david davis, always respectful of parliament. they are playing hardball because they sense a brief spring to midsummer window to force the prime minister onto territory she currently regarded as unacceptable. the tory whips have high hopes of a compromise to avoid a damaging defeat in parliament. but if the prime minister did lose that vote and was forced to shift her position on a customs union there are mutterings of a potential tory leadership challenge. senior conservatives say it's one thing to gather the signatures to trigger a vote of confidence, it's quite another to persuade 159 tory mps to unseat theresa may. the prime minister has been told there is a simpler solution. the eu is trying to call the shots in these negotiations quite clearly, setting a timetable which the government accepted out of goodwill i think. but now they are refusing to talk
about anything it would appear apart from the solution they prepare which is effectively annex in northern ireland to the european union. i think it's time for us to say look, that's not on the cards, come back and talk to us when you are prepared to talk about sensible technological revolution is to this problem but until then we will go away and think about our future outside the eu. time is marching on and with each day theresa may's quest to achieve the brexit she dreamt of risks becoming obscured by demands from westminster and the eu. nick is with me now. there is a cabinet brexit subcommittee who have to decide on the british line on these things, it may not be up to them but they have to decide on what the british government liners, and they are meeting this week and theyjust had to have
all this out? and a number of cabinet ministers are going to say they are not happy and want to reject one of the proposed models they think is theresa may's favoured model for dealing with that is, the so—called customs partnership in which the uk would collect tariffs on behalf of brussels. they believe it's been dreamt up by all lee robinson chief eu negotiator and would effectively end up keeping the uk in the customs union and the eu and that ministers are much more interested in the customs arrangement david jones was talking about in my film which is using technology to deal with this. what the ministers are saying is we need to get agreement in the cabinet subcommittee so there can be agreement in the cabinet so by the time there are these votes later on this spring there is a united cabinet position. there is a vote this week but that's not important? that's just a backbench guidance vote. wind is at all really happen? the one that really matters is after the local elections in early may there will be an amendment to the trade bill which would keep the uk in a customs union but look at the wording, it would enable the uk to participate after exit date
in a customs union with the eu in the same terms as existed before exit day, so it is a customs union but it has the effect of the customs union. there are sources saying maybe parliament can do the heavy lifting on this one but brexit supporters are saying at the prime minister lost that vote that would bring the house down. but they are confident she will not lose that vote. thank you very much indeed. so let's try to make sense of where things are heading. daniel hannan is a conservative mep and marian harkin is an independent irish mep who represents the area close to the border with northern ireland. they're both in brussels. your basic point as i understand it is you want us in a customs union to make the irish border issue much simpler to resolve, correct?
indeed, the british have already committed, back before christmas they said either a comments of free trade agreement or a solution, or regulatory alignment. subsequently they have committed, there will be no hardening of the border. despite theresa may's recent proposals about a customs partnership, that goes part of the way, to be fair to horror i think she's making an effort. i think that should be recognised. but it would be extremely difficult to implement. the uk will have to track goods, if it costs firms money because they had to claim refunds, customs officials say it will take five years to set up this system. so despite the fact the british government has moved, it's not moved sufficiently to ensure that there be no hardening
of the border. in the end a lot of this is coming down to what one means, the opinion one has of technology and technological solutions. we have cameras all over the place within the uk, police cameras and traffic cameras, speed cameras, everywhere you go you are filmed in your car. in the end doesn't this all hinge on you saying you cannot even have those cameras near the irish border because that is unacceptable, is that what this comes down to? it doesn't come down to just that. but the uk have committed to have no infrastructure border infrastructure on the border. but that doesn't just come down to that. if you look at the customs partnership as i said it's an extremely complicated process to put in place. so it's notjust about cameras, it's not just about technology. and apart from anything else there is something like 43 million trips across the border every single year. it'sjust going to be impossible to monitor all those,
does not matter how many cameras you have. let me put some of these point across, yourfear, you can say better than i can bet your fear is that northern ireland is a tail wagging the brexit dog, correct? we have committed an uk side right from the start there will not be any obtrusive border infrastructure on our side. the whole argument is about what is on the other side, what does ireland or the eu do and we should acknowledge that our ability to determine that is limited because it ultimately up to the eu. but i would make the observation that the one big country which is in a customs union with the european union, if you exclude micro—states like monaco, the only big country in such an arrangement is turkey.
turkey's border with the eu is heavily policed, in places mineralised and heavily intrusive. far more so than the swiss eu border a lot of which is completely unmanned and i cross every month when i travel to strasbourg without noticing it is there. so plainly been in the customs union as turkey is does not mean you avoid a hard border. switzerland is a better starting point. do you accept what the prime minister a seed which is no physical infrastructure near the border or at the border? we've committed that, both sides agree there cannot be physical infrastructure and that means both sides, you cannot just dump the problem on the irish side. i don't accept that the camera is physical infrastructure... barriers, no queues... let me put that, is a camera physical infrastructure? it's difficult to hear you but i think you're asking me about cameras... does a camera count as physical infrastructure? it does... but that's not really the issue...
but... we're not going to agree on cameras, but if we don't agree we are reliant and we are in the customs union, is that not what we have said? being out of the eu but in the customs union would mean brussels control the hundred percent of our trade policy with zero input from us as to what that trade policy should be. i thought we signed up to that in december, if we do not agree customs union and alignment, is that not what we said we would do? we did not say customs union, we talked about alignment. the paragraph mentions the customs union, paragraph 50 of the joint record december... alignment in the sense of mutual recognition would solve the problem and if the uk and eu signed at deep and of free trade agreement where we recognised each other's
standards that would be the way of obviating the border and the delay in negotiating that is not on the uk side. one point about the customs union, people think it's a compromise or halfway house. you have heard me on your programme by forcing the should be compromise, it was a narrow vote so we should look at what eu programmes to remain in, continued right to take upjobs, membership, but the customs union is not like that, it's the worst case scenario. it's not like having an medium burger because half the country wanted it well done and the other have rare, it's like throwing the burger away and eating the napkin. you would rather remain in the eu than be a member of the customs union outside the eu? yeah because no other country, the only country in that situation partially is turkey and the hate it.
they only agreed to do it as a step towards membership. why are we asking for a worse deal than norway has, switzerland has, because people wanted to be a bad deal because they see it as a way of reversing it. if parliament took a different view and said we would rather be in the customs union, manufacturers and people like that are keen. if parliament took a different view would you respect parliament's right to determine basically the negotiating position and change theresa may's brexit or should the government somehow overrule parliament or threaten confidence vote and all sorts of things that may or may not work? should the government do that to thwart the will of parliament? these are uncharted legal territories as we saw with the gina miller court case the degree to which parliament can mandate a crown decision is being tested as we go back i find it extraordinary to find
labour mps who were always against what jeremy corbyn as recently as january criticised as a protectionist customs union now standing up not only in favour of something which is bad for the third world but in favour of something which clobbers the poorest people in britain, by raising prices for food, clothing and footwear. disproportionally or impacting the people they claim to represent. a lot of people are saying the irish question is that the uk cannot brexit in any meaningful way? in the uk have made commitments and i think we are asking them to stand by those commitments but i would put one other point to you. talking about the customs union, i think most british people, certainly many, voted for brexit because they did not want free movement.
if you don't stay in the single market that is dealt with. i'm not sure many people voted for brexit saying we have to do our own trade deals, your trading partners are of the eu and it makes no sense to leave your trading partners behind. thank you both very much. right — from brexit to trump now. president trump has been in office a58 days, which means he has 1,003 left to go until his second term or his departure. plenty of americans are counting the days under trump, and preparing for election 2020. emily is over in the states and joins us now from washington. thanks, evan. good evening from washington. the november midterms are still six months away, but already we're seeing one extraordinary trend. women are running for office in record numbers — higher than at any point in american history. call it the metoo effect. call it the trump effect. perhaps it's something far more complicated. a mixture of both or neither. at the moment women only hold around 20% of the seats in congress. will that change in 2018?
we headed to texas, where they haven't voted a new woman into congress for 22 years. courage, the old cowgirls say, is being scared to death and saddling up anyway. certainly there is a fearlessness to texan women that has always been apparent in their horsemanship. they start them young on sheep, mutton busting teaches kids to hang on for dear life. a seven—year—old girl wins the trophy here. it's going to be a close call as we look to our official. but in 2018 they are taking the reins in a whole different way, running in record numbers for congress. no surprise perhaps that this is a deeply conservative state. texas has not voted for a new female
candidate for congress the 22 years. they call it the texan drought. it isn't that women weren't winning, they were not even running. but now suddenly they are in theirdroves, at least three times more than two years ago. so we've come to the lone star state to find out why. i think women have had important roles all along but just because of everything that is being said and all the different nuances in politics i think it's coming out more and more, you see it more. as a gay woman living in texas it's just go get them is all i have to say. do you have any sense of why things are changing now, three times more women standing now than two years ago. i think it has to do with the brave women who are speaking up. women all want a voice but they need someone to lead them. vanessa is a schoolteacher and a democrat.
she made up her mind to run on the women's march in washington the day after the inauguration of trump. almost every speaker said if you don't like the way things are grab a clipboard, get signatures and run yourself. i think donald trump has made a lot of things normal that shouldn't be. he has used his platform, in a sense, to bully others. that has an impact on our communities, and our children, on the way we interact with our neighbours, and we become much more divided, and the problem with us and them is that they're always includes our neighbours, it includes people we love. we need to get away from this divisive rhetoric that has been started by this administration especially during the election. jena, standing in san antonio, served a country in iraq and syria, she redefines what us veteran looks like, gay, filipina, a veteran and a democrat. she says the turning point for her also came, the day the 2016
administration took shape. the response to a president, a commander in chief who thinks you can grab women by their private parts, we are not going to assume what we can do for ourselves. people who have the most to lose, women, the lgbt community, other minorities, saying, i can do this, i am going to run for office. 50 women are standing for the november midterms in texas, a record number and also a pattern that looks to be replicated across the country. there is perhaps a perfect irony to what is happening now. the trump presidency has ignited, inadvertently, anyway. feminism. —— a new wave of feminism. trump being the momentum behind their choice
to run, be it in response to his policies on women's health care, the rolling back of reproductive rights and freedoms, or his unconventional path to the white house proves quite frankly that anyone can have a go. i can get you some coffee or some tea. jennifer brown as a republican in austin. she says it is too simplistic to claim it is all about trump. there is a pink wave of women running nationally but that's only part of the story. in texas we haven't seen a woman elected in 22 years and we have eight urban seats in congress. i think so many women are running in texas because there's a chance for the first time. an opens it creates an opportunity. are responding to that lack of incumbency, like of incumbency is the biggest challenge for women, they get an opportunity to run when there is an open seat. certainly the newcomers have a tough fight ahead, texas was one of the lowest voter turnouts in the country. and perhaps too easily swayed by moustaches and machismo i can't help wondering if this red meat state is ready for change. the thing is, women need to step up to the plate,
just like manner. why do you think it is happening now. i have no idea but i'm glad they are doing it. i think is a great thing because it's part of our country is about. equal rights, and women have their say sojust like men. november midterms, just six months we will show was ever greater number of female candidates translates into ballot success. certainly there are uphill battles, not because they are women but because they are democrats fighting in the deep south. perhaps that misses the point. there is now a pink wave of female electoral energy making itself felt across the relatively small ones but the movement itself looks as if it has the first steps may be relatively small ones but the movement itself looks as if it has ‘s list. i'm going to try to let you explain what emily ‘s list does, pro—democrat and
pro—choice specifically. we've been around for over 30 years but our that was our piece in texas, we are back in washington and i have stephanie from emily ‘s list. i'm going to try to let you explain what emily ‘s list does, pro—democrat and pro—choice specifically. we've been around for over 30 years but mission is to elect pro—choice democratic women to office. we train, recruit, support, set at kitchen tables across this country, encourage women to run, back them up and that's what we have been doing for over three decades. you come to this agenda of policy. as the policy itself more important than the number of women standing? we are very much about representation. our goal is dizzy in the senate, and house 50% women, maybe 60% to make up for lost time! our real goal is to make sure that all bodies have an equal number of women and men sitting at decision tables looking at policies that affect ourfamilies. this has been going on for a couple of decades.
when you look around and see what the women in my piece described as an extraordinary sense of change, what is pushing it? i'm so glad you are in texas because we are seeing bodies have an equal number of women and men sitting at decision tables looking at policies that affect ourfamilies. this has been going on for a couple of decades. when you look around and see what the women in my piece described as an extraordinary sense of change, what is pushing it? i'm so glad you are in texas because we are in every state and dizzyjean ortinones coming through, we are seeing this have been practising for three decades for this moment. it's has been doing this for over three decades. i sometimes feel we have been practising for three decades for this moment. it's has had over 36,000 women contact us wanting to run for office.
why was it not happening before? when you look back, trump administration can you say this was the moment when people energised, this was where the momentum came from? it's something we've been talking about because it sometimes feels as if we have been waiting for this moment and we've encouraged so many women to run and we've helped them, over 100 women have won because of but i think what we combination of hillary election 2016. it was the combination of many women were committed to seeing her win, and when she didn't win and she lost to that man, donald trump, who is willing to talk about women against terrible terms as we all know he does, that was the catalyst for who was so immensely qualified that so many women were committed to seeing her win, and when she didn't win and she lost to that man, donald trump, who is willing to talk about women against terrible terms as we all know he does, that was the catalyst some need to take control. which is extraordinary. except one criticism that people have laid at the door parts of the obama administration was that there were not enough women coming through. why was and bernie sanders to choose from, where was this large raft of female voices, democrats,
the party didn't have any. why had it not nurtured that talent enough? i would say you have to look underneath. the presidential election, only one person comes through at the end of the day and hillary clinton broke through a significant glass ceiling to become the first ever woman nominee of a major party in this country. we could not be proud of. i've no doubt that you and i hillary clinton and bernie sanders to choose from, where was this large raft of female voices, democrats, the party didn't have any. why had it not nurtured that talent enough? i would say you have to look underneath. the presidential election, only one person comes through at the end of the day and hillary clinton broke through the significant glass ceiling to become the first ever woman nominee of a major party in this country. we could not be proud of. i've no doubt that you and i will first, second and third woman president of the united states coming direction we elected four new women to the senate,
we erected dozens of women across the country. but you are right, something else has shifted. we've been making steady that direction we elected four new women to the senate, we erected dozens of women across the country. but you're right, something else has shifted. we've been making steady but i am proud of the of progress we need to make huge sea change of about. thank you very much. that's all we have time for in washington but tomorrow normal service resumes and we'll be back talking about men's work, trump hosting french president emmanuel macron. back to you, evan. thank you, emily. that's it for tonight. i'll be back tomorrow. but we can't leave without mention of the other story today. the duchess of cambridge left hospital this evening, giving us a glimpse of her new son. it's fiendishly hard to find things to say about a royal birth once all the old faithful cliches have been repeated, so we thought we'd compile this little tribute to the young fellow. all you have to do is explain the connections. goodnight.
ididn't i didn't get that, obviously not a sharp enough cookie! weather, i tell you what, not looking amazing for this week, let's say it's actually looking normal for the for the time of year compared to what we had last week, last week was like the middle of summer. as far as the short—term is concerned, relatively on the cool is concerned, relatively on the cool, breezy side and tonight not that cool in the south because of the cloud, stopping the temperatures falling to below 12 in london and where you have the clear skies in the north, a bit fresher, six or seven in rural areas. tomorrow the weather looking messy, lots of different things happening, a fair bit of cloud in the south and rain pushing into parts of wales,
possibly the midlands, a bit uncertain how far north or south the rain will go but in this swathe of the country we expect damp weather. scotland, especially here, a mixture of sunshine and showers, bright weather occasionally interrupted by rain and rain on and off in northern ireland as well. across—the—board, temperatures between 12 and 1a typically, so maybe a fraction below the average for the time of year. that's it. i'm rico hizon in singapore. the headlines: at least nine people are killed after a man deliberately drives a van into a pedestrians in toronto. president macron of france arrives in the us — the first foreign leader to be given a state visit under president trump.