14/04/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Jeremy Corbyn's made his first major intervention in the EU referendum

campaign with the socialist case for staying in.

The Labour leader still isn't the European Union's biggest fan,

but he says his party overwhelmingly backs membership

So will his intervention give a boost to the campaign to remain?

The government's plans for expanding academy schools have run

We'll ask one former Education Secretary if ministers

Is being Chancellor the trickiest job in Whitehall?

We've got the latest in our series looking at how to do

And Ellie's been to meet the latest addition to the diplomatic corps -

but like many experienced politicians, he's already

Palmerston, what are your thoughts on Britain leaving the EU?

All that in the next hour and with us for the whole

of the programme today is the veteran documentary

He's profiled leading political figures from Edward Heath onwards,

and if it's worth talking about in Westminster or Whitehall,

First today, let's talk about Jeremy Corbyn,

who this morning has been making the case for staying

It's been a while coming and it wasn't exactly a passionate

love-letter to the EU, with a series of caveats

about the need for socialist reforms, but he argued

that it was better to stay in and fight for change.

Of course he voted against membership of the common market

at the referendum in 1975, but we're told he's

So will it give the In campaign a much-needed shot in the arm? This

was Mr Corbyn speaking earlier. The move to hold this referendum

more been more about managing divisions in the Conservative Party

but it's now a crucial democratic opportunity for people

to have their say on our country's future and the future

of our continent as a whole. As Alan explained,

the Labour Party's overwhelmingly for staying in because we believe

the European Union has brought investment, jobs, and protection

for workers, consumers and the environment and offers

the best chance of meeting the challenges we face

in the 21st-century. Labour is convinced that a vote

to remain in is in the best Jeremy Corbyn there. Michael

Cockerell you covered the 1975 referendum and many senior Labour

politicians voted against membership of the EEC as it was then. Jeremy

Corbyn has said he has been on a journey, are you convinced by his

conversion? It has been a rapid conversion, he was talking about the

EU as brutal last September, to do with Greece. Many of the people have

made the journey the opposite way from 1975, people like Norman

Tebbit, who were in favour of us staying in, becoming a great

sceptic. He is doing an unusual journey. Clearly it was something I

think when he became leader he thought that this was a battle he

could not win. The whole of the Labour Party voted unanimously... He

is doing it through gritted teeth? I am not sure there is absolute

passion and conviction in this conversion but you do what you have

to as a leader. I thought he made rather a good speech in the

wonderful art deco building of Senate house, the headquarters of

London University, and he made a speech with a number of clever jabs

at David Cameron. It is ironic that number ten had been putting great

store by this speech, hoping because of how the polls had tightened, that

Jeremy Corbyn could help it swing their way so there are just as many

people who are politically fluid into what they want and whose side

they are on. We will talk more about how vital his role may

Well, let's see now if Mr Corbyn has convinced one Labour Eurosceptic,

the MP Graham Stringer, who's campaigning to leave the EU.

Welcome to the show, are you disappointed with Jeremy Corbyn?

Disappointed but not surprised. I have talked to him and it was clear

he has decided as leader of the Labour Party to go in for party

management and management of his relationships with the trade unions

rather than his core beliefs. Every time I voted against these issues,

he has been in the same lobby as I have been and I have no reason to

believe he has changed his core beliefs. You don't think he has

changed his mind coming is doing this through gritted teeth as I

said? I think it is about 40 management, he can fight on only so

many grounds. He is obviously in a minority in the parliamentary Labour

Party, the majority of the trade unions take this view and I think he

thinks it's not worth the fight but it's dangerous and a mistake, what

he's doing. I don't think Labour voters, when you look at them and

those who left us at the last two elections, many of them are

Eurosceptic and I don't think they appreciate an argument that in

effect support the Conservative Prime Minister and Chancellor who

are one of the main causes of austerity and cuts in this country.

If you feel he would be happier in your camp, could you have done more

to persuade him to be true, as you believe, to his own beliefs? I think

a situation he was in, he made that decision under pressure from the

Shadow Cabinet and the trade union leadership just after he was

elected. When he had made that decision, he was going to stick with

it. I'm sad about it and I think it is a mistake for the Labour Party,

which has a history of getting the European Union wrong. I tried to

persuade Ed Miliband, if we had gone for a referendum at the last

election, we would not have a majority Conservative government. We

undoubtedly lost 12 or 14 seats because Labour voters who wanted a

referendum voted Conservative or Ukip. Number ten are counting on

Jeremy Corbyn, ironically from their perspective, to help them win this

referendum because arguably trust in David Cameron has been damaged to

some extent recently. Do you think he will be a forceful weapon for the

remain side? I certainly hope not. I think the media know and most Labour

voters know that his heart is not in this campaign. The argument he is

using a quite poor about trying to form an anti-austerity allowance in

Europe when the euro is one of the main causes of deflation and

austerity across the continent which is causing huge unemployment. As he

has said, brutality against the workers in Greece. That has a

knock-on effect in this country. I think he will not persuade Labour

voters to vote the support a Conservative Prime Minister and

Chancellor of the Exchequer who are wreaking havoc on our communities.

It is dangerous for the Labour Party to take this position. Thank you

very much. Well, we're joined now

by Chris Bryant, he's a former Europe minister and current member

of Jeremy Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet. Jeremy Corbyn's heart is not in this

campaign, as Graham Stringer said, he will not be able to persuade

Labour voters to vote for remain or come out at all. I couldn't hear

much of what Graham was saying but I guessed what he was going to say

anyway. Most of the Brexit campaigners have been desperate to

be disappointed by anything that comes along. If you look at Jeremy

Corbyn from 1975 until the leadership campaign, his track

record has been sceptical of the EU and not a fan. The point I was going

to make was that... The Labour Party movement has been phenomenally

united on this issue apart from a couple of small trade unions, they

nearly all have had vote and decided to stay in. Unison with the latest

this week, people thought they might have gone the other way. Party

policy has been united on this and for me, I have all been passionate

pro-European, I come to that with the particular animus and I think

Wales in particular, in my constituency, we would be stuff if

we were to lose. I think it is important that Jeremy and other

sceptics, historic and genuine sceptics, have been on a journey and

changed their mind. I honestly think that people who come on TV and says

Jeremy doesn't believe a word of this, I don't think that's Jeremy.

He doesn't say things he doesn't believe, that is the reason he won

the leadership of the Labour Party. If you look at what he has said

until very recently, it does not sound authentic and it does not

sound like this conversion is heartfelt. He voted against the

Lisbon Treaty in two dozen eight, during the leadership campaign he

refused to rule out campaign to leave the EU -- 2008. He talked

about Greece as we heard from Michael Cockerell but what I'm

saying is the journey... I understand, you think he's lying. I

think it is unusual for the BBC to do that but I think we should

take... We are using the facts of what he has said. Am I allowed to

say anything? You accuse me of saying I don't believe him but some

of your colleagues don't so how will it persuade Labour voters if some of

your own party don't question we have been on the doorstep a great

deal. In my constituency we have assembly elections for the Welsh

assembly and a lot of Labour voters say, what do you think about the

referendum, because they are genuinely uncertain. I think for

some of them, be strong, passionate argument I would want to make about

how we can tackle the big issues like climate change, international

terrorism and crime and so want without being part of the EU, those

carry weight with them but for some others it is Jeremy's version which

is different. It is a different argument from mine but in the end it

comes down to a simple thing which is on the Labour Party membership

card, that we achieved far more by a common endeavour than by going it

alone. Has he left it too late? If he is going to be so persuasive, it

is late in the day, we only have ten more weeks. We have ten more weeks!

To be honest, we are very focused on the assembly election in my

constituency so much as I would like to talk about Europe every day until

the 23rd of June because I feel very passionately about it, I think it is

important you have all those different wings of the Labour Party

barbed a tiny marginal element, arguing in favour of remaining in --

apart from a tiny element. I don't like David Cameron, I would like to

get rid of him as pie ministers tomorrow or last year but... --

Prime Minister. I'm not sharing a platform or not it would come and

making a different argument. When we came to power in 1997, one of the

things felt strongly here was that we wanted to sign up to the social

chapter. It doesn't quite exist in the same way now but it guaranteed

workers rights, it enhanced LGBT writes, a whole series of things,

and we did that in 1997 and the Tories have been trying to step

aside from that and that is one of the reasons we want to stay in. How

enthusiastic did you think Jeremy Corbyn sounded in that speech? Did

you think it was full throttled enthusiasm and warmth? You have me

on that because I was speaking in the House of Commons throughout the

speech so I have not heard or even read the speech. I have books to

Jeremy about this issue and I know he believes that Britain will

achieve best and Labour constituencies will do best and the

people that Labour wants to represent with the best if we remain

in the European Union. In terms of the polls, which are very tight, and

we know they can be wrong, you say there are ten weeks to go, if Jeremy

Corbyn is going to save the day come do you expect to see him out between

now and the 23rd of June, even ahead of assembly elections, campaigning

vigorously for remain? He will be campaigning for In. When will we

hear from him again? You clearly have a mindset on this, you clearly

have a mindset. Why don't you just take him at his word? He has said he

wants us to stay in, the whole of the Labour movement apart from a

tiny proportion want us to stay in the European Union and we do so on

Labour arguments, not Tory arguments. If you take a single

issue on climate change. How can you possibly try to pretend this country

is a hermetically sealed unit? How can you do it on international

crime? The people campaigning to leave don't like the European Arrest

Warrant... You're making the argument for staying in. So is

Jeremy. I'm asking if you have full faith and trust? Yes, I have full

faith and trust. Until recently he was hugely sceptical. I have not

seen the whole speech, I talked to him before he made it, yesterday and

the day before, he has described a journey he has been on and there are

people in this country who are passionate like me and have -- have

always been convinced but there are 19 to 25% of the population who are

still wondering which way to go and I think Jeremy's voice will carry a

great deal of weight with a significant proportion of those.

Do you think Jeremy Corbyn will get the Labour vote out? Because now

there are reports saying that will be the critical factor and could

affect the result. It could well be the article factor but there's also

another factor from his speech. Because he said were the reasons has

changed his mind is because he now sees a reformed EU, if they can do

it in the way he wants, as furthering the cause of socialism,

so if you voted to stay in, you will further the cause of socialism and

further Jeremy Corbyn's career, so it could actually be

counter-productive. You get Labour votes but you switch off Tories and

people who are inclined to vote for Ukip. That's always a difficulty in

a referendum with people from different prodigal parties were

different mindsets, coming with different arguments, but all I would

say is, even the big prodigal parties, we know they are a

coalition, the Tory parties, the first past the post system, but the

truth is, a series of different parts if you like that are leading

to the same conclusion and that's why I think Jeremy's speech today

are so important because he's not, like me, I couldn't make my speech

but we are saying the same thing and saying it to Labour voters. One

thing about Jeremy and the speech. Not his body language but his

clothes, he was clearly making a speech to the Labour Party because

he was wearing his old light coloured cream jacket. You have just

been elevated to our sartorial correspondence. Who are you speaking

to today? I'm wearing a dark suit. Seeing as you accuse me of having a

fixed mindset before this interview started, very unfairly, she said,

why have anti-EU articles been deleted from Jeremy Corbyn's

website? I have no idea. It's disappeared from this website. I

have absolutely no idea and you know perfectly well I have no idea. I

can't even challenge you on whether its true what not. I have absolutely

no idea. Would you do that, delete things? There are things in my past

I would love to delete I'm simply not going to go there. What a shame

we don't have time to do that. The reasons he's deleting it is because

solidarity with David Cameron, David Cameron before the last election

deleted all his speeches and articles up until 2014. We have

reached a political balance. We would be stuffed as a country,

cutting off our noses to spite our face. Finally I've persuaded you.

Thank you, Chris. The question for today is what has

Jacob Rees-Mogg auctioned off b) A signed photo of him

and Margaret Thatcher. d) Latin lessons given

by Rees-Mogg himself. At the end of the show Michael

will give us the correct answer. Chris Bryant will go for all of

those, I think. Without a Conservative majority

in the House of Lords, the government is having a hard time

getting some major pieces of Last night the Housing Bill,

which is meant to introduce several manifesto commitments,

suffered the latest in a series of upsets at the hand

of Labour, Liberal Democrat The wide-ranging bill will introduce

starter homes for first time buyers at discounts of 20%,

force councils to build more houses, makes high earners pay more

for their social tenancy, and loosen planning rules

for brownfield land. The first of this week's defeats

would make starter home owners repay a proportion

of their discount when they sell up, to make sure funding

is still available to properties The second defeat stops

the government allowing Whitehall to set the targets for the number

of homes required rather And last night a third defeat

ensured that any payment to the Treasury from the forced sale

of council homes would be subject to parliamentary

scrutiny and approval. The government was forced to make

further concessions, promising to reflect on an amendment

that ensures each high-value home sold off is replaced like-for-like,

accepting an amendment that protects rural areas from the forced sale

of council homes and providing additional safeguards

over bad landlords. There are three more days of debate,

starting next week. Labour have promised further

opposition, describing the Bill as "half baked",

"extreme" and "not fit for purpose". We did ask to speak to a minister

about their Housing Plans However we are joined

by Bob Kerslake, he's a crossbench peer and president

of the Local Government Association and chairman of the Peabody

housing association. And we're joined

by Andrew Griffiths. He's a Conservative MP

and was on the committee looking Welcome to you both. Do you accept

criticism from labour that this bill is not fit for purpose? Not at all.

This is a comprehensive package that will set out what we said we would

do in our manifesto. This is about increasing homeownership, meeting

the aspirations of people across the country, survey after survey says

86-88% of people want to own their own homes. They aspire to be a

homeowner. What has happened to home ownership in the last few years? For

a long period of time, home ownership has been falling. I'm

pleased to say actually we have been able to hold to that and it is now

stable. Clearly, we need to do more. That was under Coalition Government

and Tory governments. My frustration is what we're seeing in the House of

Lords at the moment, wealthy people who own their own homes, trying to

prevent other people from getting on the housing ladder. Is that what you

are doing? Not at all. I'm in favour of homeownership. But the way to

more homeownership is to build more houses. That is the basic thing. We

need to be doubling the amount of houses we build an essentially,

that's why homeownership is fallen because... The bill is not stopping

homes being built, is it? It's helping in some respects but it is

really problematic, it's helping some people access homeownership, at

the expense of people who come at the moment, could never afford to

buy and desperately need affordable rented accommodation. It helps one

group at the expense of another and that's where the concerns are most

strong. Because we cannot shut out people on low incomes from the

opportunity of decent housing. Isn't that the sort of problem, the crux

of the criticism which has come about this bill, the priorities are

wrong? Nobody would disagree broadly with the principle of people wanting

to own their own homes but not if means whole sections of the

population are still going to be in substandard housing, will never be

able to afford own home or private rents are going to continue to soar

and they could be kicked out? What this bill does is address all of

those things. It speeds up the ability to build homes, it makes

homes more affordable for first-time buyers particularly. What rate are

we talking about? ?450,000 in some cases, that's not affordable. That

is a cap, so in a pace like my constituency, Burton, starter home

would be ?100,000 so with a 20% discount, that would be about

?80,000. That is affordable to many people. What's wrong with that? The

starter home is now being built at the expense of what was previously

being built, affordable rented, and the other thing the Lords have not

liked is the top-down centralised nature of the way things are being

done. So a percentage of every single site, 20%... On average,

affordable housing has been 22%, you don't need to be a great

mathematician to see that this will displace people. We need starter

homes, actually. What we must not do was have one group helped at the

expense of another. People really understand that. It is clear from

the opposition and concession after concession you had to make, this

bill was not properly scrutinised and there is a wealth of opposition

and powerful arguments being made against aspects of this bill and

that was your failure. Not personally, but you didn't

scrutinise before it went into the House of Lords. That's simply not

true. There has been concession after concession. Of course, we are

working with people who have concerns over the bill to find

something which works for everybody, but this was thoroughly scrutinised.

We sat until almost 2am. Time isn't necessarily the amount of time...

Let me coming there. I can't let that point ago. If you scrutinised,

I don't know what you did because this is a framework Bill. The

massive details simply not available. That's what the Lords

have got so upset about. In my view, we have a great Secretary of State

who is wanting to address the issues but we can't get away from the fact

that this bill was simply not ready and much of the frustration in the

Lords, on all sides, not just Labour and the Lib Dems, we haven't had the

essential details with which to make the decisions, so that's another big

issue, fairness is one of the lack of readiness is another. Let's pick

up on those issues because the government has now promised to

rethink this idea and make an amendment on the one like-for-like

replacement for each council home sold under for sale, which you

weren't going to do beforehand, so that would have meant fewer council

homes making payments to the Secretary of State is from the

forced sale of council homes will now be having a council approval.

That should have been thought about. We said throughout the bill we were

going to do one-for-one replacements. In fact, in London, we

are doing two for one. I beg your pardon... Let me make my point.

We've said from the very beginning we going to do one for one. Under

the new scheme, we are doing far in excess of that. We have committed to

doing two for one in London because they recognise the pressure on

London housing. All we have done with this concession is part of that

on the face of the Bill. What I would say about social housing,

local authorities have in their headroom ?3.2 billion to go and

build social housing. We would encourage them to do that. The

previous Coalition Government Biltmore council housing in its

period -- Biltmore. This is a government delivering on social

housing. Let me ask about the preparation and scrutiny because do

not have to accept some of the blame for this bill being described as

half baked because you were overseeing housing policy admittedly

last year at the committee 's garment? Not this bill. This is a

post-election bill I had no part of. I thought was announced in 2014 you

were the permanent secretary. We have to differ on that point. Is he

right, though? What was announced in 2014 was a different policy, starter

homes, exception brown field sites, but it became during the election

process, a replacement for affordable renting and that's where

the problems of started. Completely different project. Let me just deal

with this question raised about the scrutiny of the Bill. It really has

not have the proper analysis and we have not had the detail on it. I

think that is a very big issue. You have got to sit alongside other

policies so, in future, instead of secure tenancies for those who live

in social rented, they will be given a maximum five years, these are big

issues. It will impact on ordinary people. There are priorities and the

government made clear its priorities. Before the election with

a manifesto. There has been some criticism of your role and whether

there is a question of a conflict-of-interest because you are

chairman of the Peabody Housing Association and one of the

criticisms made is extending the right to buy to those tenants. Do

you accept that? The housing associations have done a deal with

governments so if this is just about my role with Peabody I could

reasonably say a deal has been done. My deal with local authorities and

the impact on them, that is more my role in local government, I'm most

concerned about the impact on the opportunity for ordinary low income

people to access the party and a home. That's what bothers me. Do you

accept there will be more opposition to this bill? No, before the House

of Commons another strong majority. You don't have a majority House of

Lords. Exactly right and it's frustrating when manifesto

commitment the general public voted for being blocked by the unelected

house. I'm going to have to finish there unfortunately. We are seeking

to revise it and amend it. Absolutely right. Maybe we'll have

you both back on again at the next stage. You are booked!

The leader of the SNP in the Commons, where of course

the party is the third largest group, used his regular question

to the Prime Minister yesterday to challenge the government's

efforts to crack down on tax avoidance.

To make his point, Angus Robertson deployed a striking statistic.

3,250 DWP staff have been specifically investigating benefit

fraud whilst only 300 HMRC staff have been systematically

I will look carefully at his statistics but they sound

So was the Prime Minister right to question the statistic?

With us to shed some light on the matter is Will Moy,

Was Angus Robertson correct with his statistic? He had a point but not as

big as the point he was trying to make with it. The Prime Minister

went on to say that there were 26,000 people in HMRC dealing with

compliance and enforcement and that is true but Angus Robertson was

focused on rich individuals, not Starbucks and the rest of it, he was

focusing on the rich people. There are more than 3500 people dealing

with and that fraud at the DWP and the nearest comparable figure is 700

people in HMRC dealing with the tax affairs of people earning more than

150,000 a year and have more than ?1 million to their name. Where did he

get the statistic from? It was not correct, the point was being made

but it was not accurate so where did he get it from? His broad point that

there were more people working directly on benefit fraud and tax

evasion among individual rich people is correct but his figures were

wrong. His DWP figures were slightly out of date and with HMRC, he has

found the 300 people dealing with people who have between one million

and ?20 million to their name, there are another 400 people dealing with

high net worth individuals, more than ?20 million to their name so

combined there are 700 people dealing with what you might call the

super-rich. I understand you put this to the SNP, what was their

response? I have not heard back on the detail. I don't know what they

would say about the figures. The 300 he is using it a fair figure, it is

just a subset of the total. The DWP figure is just a little out of date.

We are expecting a response so we will bring it to viewers tomorrow.

Stay with us. The impact of statistics like that can be powerful

and making a moral equivalent judgment that there are ten times

more staff dealing with the poorest in society than super-rich evading

their taxes so how important is it to be accurate? It is important if

you can be found out within the next day or even the same day on social

media. People can Google it themselves quickly and say he has

got it wrong so it is very important, especially... He was not

actually making a partisan political point, it was more a Whitehall

point. But it was interesting what has been just said. It was the

famous Tory Victorian by Minister Disraeli who said there are lies,

dammed lies and statistics. It is a favourite phrase of politicians and

journalists alike! Will Moy, thank you very much.

Now, the Chancellor George Osborne is often spoken of as a future

Conservative leader, but in a YouGov poll in this morning's

Times found that in a straight choice between Mr Osborne

and Jeremy Corbyn for Prime Minister, Mr Corbyn

It's perhaps a reminder that the job of Chancellor is a tricky one

at the best of times, and can easily finish

Here's Giles Dilnot with the latest in our series, so you want to be

Could you be responsible for the entire British economy,

how much we spend, how much tax we collect and how much money every

So, you want to be Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The fun of the Treasury is that you are right at the heart

of government so if you are a real political addict, I think

the Treasury is the one you want to go to.

The Treasury is the most disliked department in Whitehall

Within three months of me being there we had the first run

on a bank for over a century and if the world is in meltdown,

running around like Corporal Jones doesn't really help that much.

You should never panic until it is absolutely

That was the only job I wanted, to be Chancellor.

It was one I felt that everything I had done in my previous career

It is also, at any time, probably the most important

Jill Rutter, who was a senior civil servant and now

at the Institute for Government, agrees being Chancellor

is a powerful position but it's more complex than that.

The unique thing about being Chancellor is you are likely to get

You will see yourself as the number two in government but actually

you can call on the resource and the big battalions

of the Treasury so it's quite often possible for you to outgun the Prime

The hidden secret about the Treasury is actually, if the economy

is going OK, there is not much you have to do so one

of your choices is what you do with all that spare time,

Totally different, though, if you find yourself

in the middle of a crisis when it is all hands on deck,

People think you are sort of driving a car and you press

Actually it is much more complicated than that.

You are dealing with the consequences, one, of things

totally beyond your control, two, insofar as decisions effect

the economy, you're dealing with the consequences of decisions

made probably 18 months, two years before.

Nigel, now Lord, Lawson, alongside his Prime Minister,

Margaret Thatcher, pushed through huge economic changes

in the 1980s but even he admits you can't know it is going to work.

When you become Chancellor, you are conscious of the fact

that it is you who has to take the decisions and in real

life, you never know for sure that the decisions

You believe they are, you think them through very carefully,

but in this world you can never have absolute certainty.

For Ken Clarke, however you dress it up, how successful anyone has been

at driving the economy is something of a moot point.

It is a combination of growth and low inflation, that is the holy

And absolutely nobody has delivered it since the war for anything other

The classic British pattern has always been to make a complete

Horlicks of the thing and when it finally collapsed,

you find yourself in a sterling crisis, you are forced to devalue

and the Chancellor is sacked or moved sideways or you move

The Bank of England would not have lent us any money

if we were in an unstable financial position.

Alistair Darling had to face just such a calamity and when it came,

the clock was ticking faster than we might imagine.

When things get out of control and people are panicking,

that is when governments start to shake.

I received a call from the then chairman of RBS to say

that the bank, RBS, was haemorrhaging money.

We did have a rescue plan ready to go.

He said, well, maybe two or three hours.

That was when it struck me that whatever decision we took,

and we had to take it within minutes, would make

a profound difference, never mind to the government's

fortunes, but frankly to the country because if RBS had gone down,

the cash machines would have gone off, the drawers would have closed

and every other bank would have come down with it.

Crises aside, one event, for a Chancellor, is fixed

I got someone to help me write a speech because you have to be

a bit careful of the language you use.

I couldn't do my usual thing of getting up with a few notes

because I would suddenly change the markets by using

And on budget day I used to go out to enjoy it.

I had absolutely worked God knows what hours

for the previous six months, the entire department was pretty

Budget day, you are presenting it, you are selling it, the British

turn their annual budget into a bit of a circus for some bizarre reason.

All the waving the red box about, drinking the whiskey off

Lord Lawson says the budget razzmatazz may seem odd

A lot of people think how antiquated and stupid all this ritual

is but in fact it is very good for one day of the year to be able

to focus the minds of the people on not just the budget measures

but also on the economic policy of which they are a part.

Delivering the budget, controlling the money,

To Norman Lamont, that makes a Chancellor a cut

If I may say something that will annoy some people,

I think it is probably much more demanding being Chancellor

of the Exchequer or Prime Minister than it is Foreign Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary won't like me saying that

but I remember Jim Callaghan, who was both Chancellor

and Foreign Secretary, said the latter was a doddle.

It seems the price to be paid for being in charge of the money

is that your political capital is spent managing it

all and your stock as a politician ultimately rises or falls on how

Most memorable Chancellor for you in recent times? I think Roy Jenkins

with a pretty powerful Chancellor because he inherited the aftermath

of the devaluation when Jim Callaghan was moved to the Home

Office and they swapped jobs and the economy was in a real mess. Another

one is Denis Healy, he had the IMF coming... A begging bowl! He said,

of all the jobs he did, it was the only one that kept him awake at

night. The amount of work, sheer hard slog you had to do in that time

was unbelievable he said. And the other way around, I remember Mrs

Thatcher said to Nigel Lawson, Nigel, you must get your hair cut,

the markets won't trust a long-haired Chancellor! It might

take more than a haircut! I asked Ken Clarke about the Treasury, this

famous secret institution and he said, it was full of first-class

brains from Oxford and Cambridge, we had these wonderful debates like all

souls College in Oxford, brilliantly argued, brilliantly articulate and

totally out of touch with the real world. That is very reassuring when

they are running the country! What about the chances of the top job?

Let's look at George Osborne, are you selling shares in brand Osborne

at the moment? The chances for a top job for a Chancellor have not been

very good. There have been a couple. John Major, Gordon Brown, Jim

Callaghan. He did all the great offices of state. Winston Churchill

in the 1920s. You don't necessarily get the job, it is slightly like the

fly on the oxcart we'll come if the economy is going welcome the flight

thinks he is pushing the oxcart. So what are the chances for George

Osborne? Ask me that on the 24th of June because everything in the

kaleidoscope of British politics will become a little clearer. You

have a get out of jail free card! The Government yesterday

defended its plan to force every school in England to become

an academy in the face of criticism from both the Labour Party

and its own backbenchers. The proposal has led to teachers

calling for a one-day strike and the Local Government Association

has said the move defies reason. Let's have a look at some of the

debate from the Commons yesterday. The Government's plan has been met

with such concern even by the very school leaders they claim to be

supporting because it is a bad It is yet another policy from this

government that obsesses with school The academies programme

takes our core Conservative belief that public services should be run

by front-line professionals. That means heads, teachers

and governors running our schools. International evidence shows

that the autonomy of schools is linked to improved performance

and school accountability As a Conservative, I also believe

in choice so could she outline to me the downside of allowing academies

or schools to migrate organically, if they choose to, to academy

status, rather than imposing a compulsory and arbitrary

Not one person there has had the courage to stand up and say

there is fundamentally something totally inaccurate in the motion

today, claiming that she and our government are trying to ban

the role of parents on governing bodies in schools.

Every single secondary school in my constituency is an Academy

and they all have parents on governing bodies.

So can we please have a compromise at the end of this process

by which county councils will not necessarily be forced to give up

control of their small primary schools?

It is essential in rural areas that we keep them open.

I know she wants to proceed in a compromise not forcing

Call me old-fashioned but I'm of the view that if you've got

a well governed school running well, just leave it alone and let it

Joining us now is former Education Secretary, Lord Baker.

Welcomed with the show. Let's pick up on that last point. If it ain't

broke, why not leave schools if they are doing fine under local authority

control? In the light of the debate yesterday, I thought Vicky Morgan

will be taking soundings amongst her backbenchers. I think she will

listen to their concerns to see how she can meet them. I'm not against

it. You are a big fan of them. In the 1980s I said at the first 16

schools technology colleges but I did it slowly. You constantly make a

school become independent unless the headmaster is capable of running it.

With a budget, appointing staff, buying his own equipment, it takes a

lot of time to get into that, so I believe in the inevitability of

gradual loss. If the policy wrong, imposing it on schools? I think that

will be modified to some extent. How do you do that without just having

to retreat completely? The way to do it is to coax them because when

Labour left office, the coalition started in 2010, there were 200

academies and now there are 4700. The law has not been changed. People

had seen the advantages. In some cases, a well-run Academy can

improve basic standards of schools, so I would let that processed,

generate that more actively, as it were, and the rot problems of

course. Like small rural primary schools. I would let it alone. I'm

in favour of academies. I would encourage more of their development.

The school I'm setting up are technically all academies,

Independent. Do you think it is not conservative to force and impose

this, when you should give people choice? At the end of the day, I

think there are great problems which are now so many academies, you got

to have some intermediate bodies between the departments of the

academies, because the department could not run 24,000 schools. It

could not even run one school and that's why the Academy trust... It

would make it less central in that sense but do you feel the

government's intention to remove the obligation to keep parent governors

is also misguided? I do think so because I think parent governors at

a great deal. You heard the MP from Gloucester saying exactly the same.

All his schools are academies in his area. With parent governors on it. A

parent governor is part of the local community. Certainly my colleges

have parent governors. You would like that bit too dropped? Yes,

modified. A lot of modification on this policy. Do you accept by

literally renaming a school, making it an Academy, it doesn't

necessarily make it a good school, does it? It's not a question of

names. An Academy is good but would be better if the managing team, the

head and the governing body, are determined to make it better and

know how to do it. That's why I believe the inevitability of gradual

as is the way to do it. You have to train people, governing bodies,

Headmasters, in this, so they understand the complexity of running

a school. You can't change most schools easily into an Academy

because most complex area is the finance. The sustainability of

financing. It's very, very, located. Were you surprised by the number of

Conservative backbenchers who criticise this policy? No, MPs take

a great interest in education. They go to schools, see the parents and

children and are very involved. Do you think those are showing more

rebellion in the Conservative backbenchers? Some of them are

rebelling any case about the referendum. Do you think that has

allowed them to be a little more vocal? It is an emotive force. I'm

interested in Ken Baker talking about the inevitability of gradual

loss, because that's the famous Roman general, fabulous, after whom

the Fabian Society, when I strike, I strike hard, the inevitability of

it. I was also struck by how partisan this whole debate about

education is. If you think about going back to when Kenneth was

Education Secretary and subsequently Tony Blair wanted to make education

one of his issues, he said education, education, education. The

following week, John Major was so worried about that, he said, on this

platform last week, Tony Blair said his priority was education,

education, education. Well, they are my three priorities for government

but not necessarily in that order. That's quite a good joke. Do you

remember that? I would love to take education out of politics. Really?

Yes, the colleges I'm setting up are supported by all three parties and I

was conscious to get Labour to supported and the Liberals because

those are the changes which survive and our colleges will survive. I

think teachers might sign up to it being taken out of politics. They

hate all that tinkering. And the unions. Some teachers are very

politicised, no doubt about that. Thank you.

Now, we often talk about moments of political theatre or high

drama at Westminster, but next week it will be playing

In what's claimed to be the first ever performance of a Shakespeare

play in the Houses of Parliament, members of the public

are being invited in to watch a new production of this history

play Richard II, Shakespeare's story of power and plotting

This version has been reworked as a modern

Westminster power struggle, but let's have a listen

to the play's most famous speech, as performed by John Gielgud.

This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.

This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings,

feared by their breed and famous by their birth, renowned

for their deeds as far from home, for Christian service and true

chivalry, as is the sepulchre in stubborn Jewry, of the world's

This land of such dear souls, this dear, dear land,

dear for her reputation through the world.

Well, we're joined now the co-directors of the play,

Sorry, I was listening to it so intently. You got a lot to live up

to. Yes, it's one of Shakespeare's best plays and we hope to do it

justice. How is it a modern take? We do a lot of work with Shakespeare in

schools around the country with our theatre company and we find that

these plays, when done right, they do connect and engage with all

generations and transcend the generations in society. Amazingly,

Richard II and his history plays are about society, about power, who has

it, who is losing it, and in a sense, these plays speak to

politics. They are relevant for today. Absolutely, it's a power

struggle. A power struggle between someone who believes he deserves to

be king and someone else who believes they would be a better

leader than the one currently in power. Why do you decide to staged

in the House of Commons? We felt, when we found that the rules had

changed recently to allow the public to apply to put on events in the

House of Commons, we thought what better way to commemorate the

anniversary of Shakespeare's death to literally put one of his greatest

political thrillers at the centre of national politics. What do you think

it will add to the atmosphere? I think it would give it an immediacy.

We are doing it in the members dining room off the Central Lobby

but in the Commons and the Lords, and it feels like the type of room

where plots are made. Skulduggery goes on! That room is amazing. How

have you adapted it and made it relevant and resonate for younger

audiences? It's still very much Shakespeare's play, written entirely

in his verse, the changes we have made have been more to follow

through the lines of history from the settings Shakespeare had. To

modern political landscapes, so for example, there was a joust

originally which we thought what would be the modern equivalent of

that and it would be a TV debate, a public debate. Who is in your joust?

Bolingbroke, the charismatic Challenger and Thomas Mowbray, who

has some questions to answer about a mysterious political death. You have

filled so often in the Houses of Parliament when they finally let you

in. How do you think this will work? Are you pleased this is the sort of

cultural activity being staged? Absolutely. The House of Commons,

you go in there, it's built on the site of William the Conqueror 's

first palace, and it reeks of history around every corner. There

is plotting going on. You feel, you smell the conspiracies going on and

you watch people. People watching as they walk through the new part of

the House of Commons, portcullis house, you see he's talking to him

and all that kind of thing. It is living theatre and when you say

about the joust, every week, Prime Minister's Questions is a joust. I

have to leave it there but good luck. Thank you. Come and see it. I

would love to. There's an invitation.

Now, there was a big new appointment at the Foreign Office yesterday.

Nothing to do with a government reshuffle, but the arrival

of a new cat which caused a bit of a stir across Whitehall.

It's a tale which starts on the mean streets of London.

But it ends well, for this is a cat that's found its place in one

of the great offices of state, the Foreign Office.

And a name to befit the role - Palmerston.

They are after a mouser because I do understand

that they have a pest problem, but they're also very keen

to have a companion cat for all the people who work there,

and we think he'll fit the bill for both very well.

He's really confident, he's really sociable,

he loves people, but he has what we call a really high play

drive and he loves to stalk toys and chase toys and pounce on toys,

which suggests that he'd also like to exhibit that

Obviously this is an important role for anyone in the Foreign Office

so I think it's fairly crucial we ask Palmerston what his views

are on some of the big issues of the day.

Palmerston, what are your thoughts on Britain leaving the EU?

No diplomatic car, but the formerly feral feline turned ministerial

mouser mog was officially announced to Whitehall.

Palmerston has only just arrived here in the Foreign Office,

but seems to be fitting in very well to ministerial life.

He refused to do an interview any shots with the assembled world media

here, but I have been given a statement

A cat a few words. Do you think Palmerston will settle into the

Foreign Office? There are lots of mice and the Foreign Office as one

of moles. Yes, exactly. He's got a big job to do. I was thinking about

making a film about animals and politics. It could be called

Political Animals. There is a thing. There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was what has

Jacob Rees-Mogg auctioned off Was it his nanny, a signed photo

of him and Margaret Thatcher, one of his beautifully cut suits,

or Latin lessons given So, Michael, what's

the correct answer? Jacob Rees Mogg, I said he's a

member for the 18th century and he said far too late. 16th century.

Latin lessons. It's not, it is tea with his nanny, can you believe?

That is at Fortnum and Mason 's and it went for ?5,000 at a fundraiser.

Excellent. You said it was auctioning off his nanny? That's it.

Goodbye from us.