18/10/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Ukip's trapped in a death spiral, according to the man who once

looked like becoming the party's next leader.

Steven Woolfe says he's resigning following that famous

Can any of the candidates still in the running hope to stop

We'll have the latest on the battle to retake the Iraqi City of Mosul

from the so-called Islamic State, in what could prove to be

a turning point in the fight against the militants.

MPs have been debating the future of England's pharmacies,

after claims that government plans could see thousands close.

And now that David Cameron's gone, who will mourn the passing

We'll be looking at the end of a successful political cliques.

We'll be looking at the end of a successful political clique.

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

of the programme today, it's the Conservative MP Nick Boles.

He's been Planning Minister, Skills Minister, but he stood down

He once described himself as an attendant

Which makes him aristocracy in our book - welcome to the show.

Let's start today by talking about the battle to retake

the Iraqi city of Mosul from the so-called Islamic State.

British aircraft were involved in coalition airstrikes

against the group in the area yesterday, and Iraqi forces are this

morning "ahead of schedule", according to the Pentagon,

The jihadists overran Mosul in 2014 before taking control of much

This is the area controlled by the militants in January last

year when Islamic State had spread across Iraq and Syria.

At its peak it's thought that 10 million people lived

But it is thought to have now lost about a quarter of that territory,

and Mosul is the jihadists' last major urban stronghold

Well, we can speak now to Edgard Jallad from

So, this is going to be an extremely important stage in the fight against

IS, because Mosul is symbolically some important to them? Yes, this is

a turning point as you mentioned. This is the capital of the caliphate

and if you look deep into the philosophy of the so-called Islamic

State, it is based on ruling people on a piece of land. And if they

start losing the land, they are losing their raison d'etre, so they

have to change their strategy in the future and this is what many of the

experts in jihadist groups are analysing now and saying what could

be the next step for them if they lose Mosul and they are left with

Raqqa only. So most of them think they will change their tactics, they

will change radically their strategies to something similar to

Al-Qaeda, from controlling land to targeting specific targets in the

West, or even in the region where they are operating. So we have to

wait and see. This is a long battle and it will take some time because

it did not start an engagement between the Iraqi forces and the

so-called Islamic State fighters didn't start yet. So so far they are

trying to tighten up around their defences which are concentrated in

the western part of the Mosul city. So far the battle was taking place

mainly in the eastern part. Are they going to stay and fight? There has

been some talk that maybe they would flee the IS fighters? They will

continue to fight because they have no other options. Some people

thought they might flee and there was some psychological pressure from

them by throwing leaflets and trying to persuade them to leave for the

western part of the country, because there is still a corridor open to

them, taking them to Syria, to rack, and it was left on purpose it seems.

And what about civilians being protected? We have seen pictures

from Mosul earlier today. How will they be protected when they battle

starts? Is the most difficult part and the concern of the international

community about hundreds of thousands of civilians who are stuck

inside these areas. So far, the Iraqi government and the coalition

just dropped leaflets asking them to stay in safe places or to leave

before the start of the battle. Definitely the civilians will play

the highest price in this battle. The second worry of these citizens

is the sectarian problem of the country. We all know that Mosul has

a Sunni majority and the Iraqi army has a Shia majority. This was the

element that was delaying this battle for a long period of time, so

this is the biggest challenge of the Iraqi government to prove they are a

government for all Iraqis and not a sect of them only. Thank you.

And we're expecting a statement on events in Mosul from a defence

minister in the Commons in the next hour or so.

One presumes that if Mosul is retaken by the Iraqi army, what will

that do in the minds of British voters and parliamentarians, in

terms of the debate in our involvement in foreign wars? I think

it will be at Mendis Lee important step because Iraqi is a democratic

government, it is an ally of the West and it has been an appalling

state of affairs that effectively a huge portion of the country was not

in control of the Iraqi government and was in control of Isil, and it

will be psychologically a hugely damaging blow to Isil, across the

whole of the rest of the Middle East. People who might have thought

of supporting them, indeed, some of our own population who might have

thought of joining them or supporting them, are less likely to

be attracted to them when they see they are actually on the back foot

and losing territory in this way. Do you think it will rewrite the story

of Iraqi, when we go back to the original water and the millions who

stood and marched against that intervention in Iraq and here we are

in 2016, if IS does have to fall back and it does look like a victory

in an overall defeat against IS, will that bolster people into

thinking it will be a good thing to intervene? I think it will be hard

to shift those views. They have been well entrenched over many years and

there is a huge passion between them -- behind them, but I hope people

will stick by our Iraqi allies. They are a democratic government and they

asked us to help and we are right to do so.

Now Ukip likes to style itself as the People's Army,

but it's been showing anything but military discipline

Last night the man who once seemed a shoo-in as the party's next

leader, the MEP Steven Woolfe, announced that not only would he not

be standing but that he was resigning from the party.

Mr Woolfe, who spent days in hospital after an altercation

with a fellow MEP, said the party is now trapped in a death spiral.

Steven Woolfe said his altercation with fellow MEP Mike Hookem

at the European Parliament in Strasbourg had left him

Describing the incident, Mr Woolfe said he asked Mr Hookem

to leave a heated meeting of Ukip MEPs for a "man to man" chat

which he never intended to become physical.

Mr Woolfe then maintains that Mike Hookem rushed at him

Mr Hookem has consistently denied assaulting Mr Woolfe,

saying "there were no punches thrown" and he acted

Responding to Mr Woolfe's resignation, Mr Hookem said

Steven Woolfe's career had effectively ended "once he showed

disloyalty to the Ukip party" when he

Mr Woolfe may be out of the running but the party's ruling body -

it's NEC - says a new leader will be in place by 28th November.

Nominations open today and will close on 31st October.

There will be a series of hustings

So, who is likely to be in the running?

Ukip MEP Bill Etheridge is standing, as is former Nigel Farage aide

And former London Mayoral candidate Peter Whittle has also

But what about potential front-runners Suzanne Evans

So, far neither have put their hat in the ring.

Expect announcements from them - and others - in the next week.

Let's have a listen to Mr Woolfe speaking to the BBC's Alex Forsyth.

There is something rotten at the heart of Ukip,

rotten between its MEPs who have an internecine warfare,

the National Executive which has caused sides to fight.

The way that some of them forced out Diane in making sure

that she wasn't able to do the job that she would have

The way that they challenged me during the previous election

in trying to stop me from standing, releasing personal information

to the press, suggesting I wasn't even a member and all that has done

to me has made me realise that I can no longer be a part of Ukip.

We're joined now by the Ukip MEP Bill Etheridge.

He's in Brussels and as I said he's standing for leader,

and by the NEC member and former leadership hopeful Liz Jones.

Welcome to both of you. First of all, Bill Etheridge, Steven Woolfe

has left the party, should Mike Hookem follow him out of the door? I

believe the NEC have full enquiry results to look at and they will

take a judgment from that, so it will be wrong of me to make any

further comment. I trust our NEC and the party to do the right thing. It

is very unfortunate that Stephen has taken the action he has. You don't

think that Steven Woolfe should have resigned from the party altogether?

Well, Steven was elected due to the hard work of Ukip activists and

voters putting him where he is today. Then he decides because he is

disappointed about some things he will sit on his own as an

independent. Not really the right choice in my opinion. Perhaps he

should roll the sleeves up and put things right. Isn't it the

honourable thing to do and should Mike Hookem do the same? He is

choosing to bow out after this embarrassing altercation? I don't

believe there is anything honourable at all. You are elected under the

party banner, not as an individual. The really honourable thing to do

would be to stop being an MEP and let someone else from the party

takeover. Quite frankly, I'm disappointed with what Sam-macro --

Steven has done but now it is time to look to the future. You were

first on the scene, what did you see? I did not really see anything

at the time. Soap Steven Woolfe has misremembered? Not at all. Did he

misremembered? I haven't a clue and frankly, what he says is irrelevant

to Ukip. He has left. We have to get on with our important work of

pursuing Brexit. Steven Woolfe says Ukip is in a death spiral and there

is something rotten at the heart of the party. Is he right? He is

completely wrong. Do recent events demonstrate he is wrong? Certainly.

We're looking at the headline activities of MEPs who are elected.

As Bill rightly says they are elected through the list system

where you merely vote under the party banner. You do not vote for

the individual. Meanwhile, while we have all this hullabaloo,

Hartlepool, we have won a councillor, 49%, Ashford, we have

won another councillor 42%, the grassroots of Ukip are continuing

with their excellent activism and pushing forward the message of

Brexit. But people have defected and even Steven Woolfe is reported to

have talked to the Tories. There are reports that donors are withdrawing

their money from the party. There is party infighting. Which part of

Steven Woolfe saying it is innate death spiral is wrong? All of it.

There is only one donor who said he may possibly cease funding to the

party and that is Aaron Banks. He did not say for certain he would be

ceasing funding. That is one donor. We have an array of donors. I'm sure

once they get behind a balanced steady leader we should move forward

and funds will come. Is part of the instability part of the NEC's fault?

It stopped some candidates from standing last time and allowed the

divisive Neil Hamilton into the party. If there is party infighting

it is down to you? Not at all. The processes by which Steven Woolfe's

leadership application where processed were at highly aboveboard

and appropriate. He did not reveal a criminal conviction when he entered

into the Police and Crime Commissioner 's election. He had not

revealed that to us. Is that why you stopped him, not because he got his

papers in late? It is a punitive effect. We had the issue of not

disclosing a criminal conviction. Then we had the issue of the late

paperwork. Then we have the issue of the somewhat tired and emotional

incident on his birthday, he was 49, that happened between him and Mike

Hookem. It sounds personal. I don't know what the relationship is

between him and Mike Hookem. No, I mean between you, the NEC and Steven

Woolfe. Order has to be maintained and rules have to be followed

because all rules have to apply to every single member, whether you are

grassroots or an MEP. Can this party function without

Nigel Farage? Of course it can. It will flung again. There are some

that say it's not functioning at the moment. He is there as interim

leader. Does it need Nigel Farage, is the only person to lead the

party? Of course it isn't. Nigel is an inspiration to us and he will

always be someone we always look to and glad to have around but of

course we don't just need one man. We have very many number of talented

people here who can lead this party, it just needs some grit and

determination and bringing order to the situation which we are going to

do. We will get back to business as normal. There will be no problem.

Why would you want to do it at this point? We have just had this

discussion. I cannot see anything that would be deeply attractive for

a prospective leader. Well, the reason I want to do it because I

believe in this party and I believe in what we can bring to the people

of our country and frankly if it's allowed to drift then we may well

get to a situation where things start going badly wrong. It's time

to get a grip of the situation and I think one of my skills that I can

bring is the fact I am a tough nut. And we need someone now who is firm,

steady and can take control of the situation, get us back on track and

back actually fighting the other parties and fighting for freedom and

Brexit and I think I am the guy. Let's go back to the NEC. At the

moment you are the one that is trying to keep the party together.

You changed the rules to make sure any leadership candidate had been a

party member for five years. Then two years, now it's 28 days. Why do

you keep changing the leadership rules? We keep changing the

leadership rules because that was decided at the NEC, it was

considered that in order to stop various conspiracies coming to

light, in order to stop mistrust, let everyone stand. 28 days'

membership and anyone can stand. Right it hasn't exactly led to a

consistent approach. Are you going to stand? I don't know at the

moment. The bar is rather high now, you have to get 20% of the vote in

order to have your deposit returned which is ?5,000. You have to pay an

immediate administration fee of ?500 and a further fee of ?1,000 in

order... So too expensive for you? Maybe not, it's cost benefit

analysis. Will I recover and get more than 20%? Probably unlikely. So

cost benefit analysis. Bill, you are laughing there, what are you

laughing at? Well, I think it is rather expensive. I like the way

that Liz puts these things. She's got a certain turn of phrase.

Frankly, you know, it's worth it for the party's sake. I think Liz is a

good person, I would like to think she would vote for me but I am being

cheeky there. But the main thing is we get this sorted as soon as

possible. Will you vote for him, if you don't stand it doesn't sound

like you are minded to at the moment, will you vote for Bill I

will reserve judgment on that until I know what the full... Are you

holding out for Suzanne Evans and Paul Nutall. I don't know who else

is going to come out of the woodwork. Would you like those two

is to stand We would like as many people as possible to stand. Would

you like to see those two stand? Absolutely. We want the best field

of candidates possible. I think it's time that a few things were settled

and that we got on with business as usual afterwards. Yeah, bring them

all on. Let's have a good proper debate. Settle the scores peacefully

perhaps in the future. Yes, good luck to you. Always, always. Thank

you for coming in. There are not one but two

parliamentary by-elections Yesterday we were in west

Oxfordshire, where the departure of former Prime Minister David Cameron

has created a vacancy. But today Adam's been

to the Yorkshire constituency of Batley and Spen, where voters

are preparing to go to the polls four months after the killing

of the Labour MP Jo Cox At the train station, the way this

constituency wants to be seen, courtesy of a mural

in the underpass. The place is dotted

with towns and villages It's home to some famous brands

like Johnstons Paints. It used to be home to

the Frontier Club which played host to people like Shirley Bassey

and Louis Armstong in the 50s, Here you will find the HQ

of Fox's Biscuits. In Batley itself there is a big

Asian community And, it's also home

to Batley Bulldogs But there is also a tribute

to Jo Cox, a reminder of why this At the cafe next door to her office

the mums still remember A lot of kids were crying

and everyone was upset and when we got the text message

from school saying they were locking the school down until further

notice it was scary. You just want to be able to pick

them up and bring them home It means there is hardly

any by-election buzz. Have you even noticed

anything is happening? Not in Batley, being

truthful, not at all, no. I don't think anybody realises it's

happening to be fair. That's because the party leaders

at the time didn't just leave flowers after Jo Cox's death,

out of respect David Cameron said the Tories wouldn't stand,

neither have the Lib Dems, Chatting to voters most understand

the sentiment but a few Of the ten candidates

who are standing several are from the Smaller right-wing

and they've been accused of trying And there's been a controversial

leaflet. It purports to be from

the Britain Stronger in Europe Because it doesn't say

who it's really from, In normal times we'd find out

if a constituency that voted to leave the EU would return

a candidate who voted to remain. How a re-elected Jeremy Corbyn goes

down with actual voters, how the parties are faring

in the Brexit era but these are not normal times

here in Batley and Spen. As Adam said, the major parties

are not fielding candidates in Batley and Spen out of respect

for the death of Jo Cox, but for a list of the candidates

who are standing for election on Thursday, you can

visit bbc.co.uk/politics. The parliamentary system

for allowing backbenchers to get their own laws

onto the statute books is 'broken and discredited',

according to a report today. The Commons procedure committee

wants to stop private members bills being blocked by MPs talking them

out, and says the government Here's Ellie with a reminder of how

it all works. The ballot for private members'

bills in the present session It's a big day if

you're a backbencher. The lottery to decide which MPs

will get the chance to put It can be a cause they've long

championed or one they've been And some could capture

the country's attention. Mr Speaker, it is an honour for me

to put forward a bill which has at its heart,

the heart of our democracy. This private members' bill

was eventually defeated in the Lords, but it shows just how

high profile they can be. Legislation to abolish the death

penalty and legalising abortion started life as private

members' bills. It's really only the first seven

that stand any chance of getting anywhere,

that's because they've got the most Of those seven, far fewer

are expected to succeed. In fact, last year,

just four got through. One of the reasons is that under

current rules there is no time limit on speeches and no guarantee

of a vote at the end the debate so opponents can simply talk

out or filibuster bills There is also a very big

geographic inequality. Deputy Speaker, this speaker has

already been speaking for one hour It is no mean feat but it is also

one of the ways critics say And we're joined now by the chairman

of the procedure committee, I should say we have been in touch

with the Government for a response to MrWalker's report and they

promised to get back to us shortly. Should I hold my breath? Are you

expect one shortly? We will get a response and I hope it's a positive

response. The private members' bill system is just a farce. It's a

charade most of the time. The real problems centre on the ballot.

Because it's like a roll of a dice. 440 MPs put their name into the

ballot, 20 are drawn out. You have a one in 20 chance of really one in 22

chance of being one of the lucky winners. That absolutely militates

against people investing serious time in developing legislative. Do

you agree I do, in life, generally hard work should be rewarded and you

by and large don't want random chance to determine who is actually

going to take forward an idea and propose it to the House of Commons

as legislation. You want somebody who's really worked at it and talked

to relevant people and researched it and prepared the ground and that's

what would be ensured by the system he is proposing. Do you think the

Government's dragged its feet on reform I think the Government's got

a lot else on its plate at the moment and we have a new Government

and it's fair enough. But I think I agree with Charles that the response

of the last Government to proposals for reform were somewhat

disappointing. We have a fantastic new leader of the House of Commons

in David Lidington and I am very hopeful that he will take a positive

approach. What about the quality of the legislation and the proposals,

isn't that the problem rather than the random nature of how they're

selected? The key recommendation is up to the first four bills under our

new system, chosen by the back bench business committee. That would allow

serious minded legislators to spend a year, two years, working across

the House, working with permanent Secretaries, Ministers, Shadow

ministers and experts to work out a properly thought out proposition.

The current system is the name comes out of the ballot, you go oh my

word, what the hell am I going to do? The Chief Whip of the

Conservative Party will say here is Government handout bill, do this. If

you are an opposition member with no support you get a worthy charity,

take this piece of legislation through and actually in the main

that piece of legislation is poorly thought out and drafted and

shouldn't become law. The problem is with the quality of the proposed

legislation or the proposed bill that's coming from MPs and I

underline the point not coming from the Government in this particular

instance. If it's not a very worthwhile piece of legislation,

whoever is choosing it, it's not going to get enough parliamentary

support, is it? That may be the case. In a sense I think the process

and including the filiBuster process, would be less objectionable

if you thought that the bills that were getting the greatest chance of

success were ones where the back bench business committee had taken a

view as to the level of preparation and the thought throughness of the

legislation. Because actually, you know, my dear colleagues they do

actually - they are open to persuasion when an idea is really,

really good and has huge support. That says it's not the system that

is broke, it is just the quality of what is being put forward. No, it is

the system. If the name comes out of the ballot you have three weeks to

come up with a legislative proposition, three weeks to get

something on the table. That is just simply not long enough to craft a

thought out, well thought out piece of legislation. Right, except you

can have party MPs working around the person who has been pulled out

of the ballot with an important piece of legislation, we saw James

Wharton there with the EU referendum bill. That wasn't quite a Government

bill, because the Lib Dems were in Government then. That was Jaime

Wharton's, his life would be made misrain if he said I want to do my

own thing. He would still be trying to get back to earth! One of the

points surely of this referendum that we have been through and I was

on the Remain side in this campaign, but one of the reasons why people

voted to leave is because they wanted parliament to assert itself

and parliament to be the source of legislation. Like having a vote on

the terms of the negotiation No, on the strategic priorities for the

negotiation discussed in parliament. But the point is they didn't mean

they want the Government to have a bigger role, they want parliament to

assert itself and one way is for backbenchers to assert themselves in

a cessible way. It is a modest change we are proposing. It sounds

fairly sensible. Let's see what the response is going to be. On

filibustering, that seems like a deliberate device to talk out bills

that people are opposed to, as we saw Philip Davis doing. Is it also

an opportunity to expose flaws in legislation that might not otherwise

be explored? Under the current system I am sad to say if the

Government isn't willing to kill off a bill itself you need people on the

back benches to talk it out. The most unattractive thing about the

system is when you see a Government Minister welcoming a legislative

proposition, while at the same time Government whips are working on the

back benches organising a filibuster. If the Government wants

to kill off a bill it should dip its hand in blood. It should not get the

whips doing another thing object the back benches. You are nodding in

treatment agreement I am shocked! Yes, I can see how authentic and

genuine that shock is! If we get a response from the Government we will

tell our viewers. The government's decision on airport

capacity will be made by a subcommittee next week. We had

thought it would be this week. It was reported there would be a cause

for Cabinet ministers to express their views but which Cabinet

ministers views we don't know on airport expansion. Ministers opposed

to the decision will be allowed to express their personal views for a

limited period. So we will have a third runway at Heathrow, is that

what you are expecting? I hope so. We have Stansted down the road so I

think many of my constituents will be delighted to see a third runway

at Heathrow. On that, we will say goodbye.

MPs have been debating the future of pharmacies in England

following the suggestion that as many as 3,000 could be

forced to close by cuts to Government funding.

Labour used an urgent question in the Commons yesterday to warn

the plans were a false economy, while ministers said it was too

early to talk about pharmacies shutting their doors.

Ministers have been, frankly, all over the place.

We've had mixed messages and false hope.

The Government announced a pause to these cuts.

Isn't there now a compelling case that we must make this

Mr Speaker, he hasn't got any mixed messages from me.

There was a pause that was announced because the original consultation

gave the intent to go ahead with this on 1st October

With a change of Government, the change of Prime Minister,

new Chancellor, new Ministers, we took the opportunity

to have a look at this again to make sure that we get it

right for the patients, for the NHS and for

We're joined now by the Labour MP Kevin Barron, who's chair

of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on pharmacies.

Welcome to the Daily Politics. The government says the final savings

package is still to be announced. We just heard a new Health Minister

consulting on the changes. Is talk of thousands of farmers is closing

an exaggeration? That started with the civil servants, quite frankly.

It was a chief pharmacy officer who said that to us that it could

between -- could be between one and 3000. It yesterday what the minister

said was it is peppered with too many pharmacies. There might be

34-macro pharmacies within a few hundred yards of each other but that

community might have some very difficult health problems and

deprivation as well. It seems to me that has to be a plan if we are

going to talk about running down the local pharmacies. You don't want to

see any pharmacies closed? I wouldn't say that and it is an

all-party group that wheelchair. We believe this change does come a long

it should be changed that is accepted for the good of the

community. It sounds like a false economy. Previous governments have

long held the pharmacy are somewhere for local people to go so they don't

have to visit their GP and clog up the services they are so surely we

should be putting more money into pharmacies not less? No one wants to

jump to conclusions that there is no savings but I represent a very rural

constituency and I would be very troubled if some communities were

left completely unserved and people to be requiring a nonexistent local

bus service to travel for long distances to go to pharmacy. Some

people don't know this but they can advised people on minor ailments so

you can keep people out of the GP 's surgery rather than going to A

They are not rushing into it. There was a lot of concern expressed on

the Conservative benches as well. I'm sure it will be looked at

carefully. Let's come back to the issue of savings and money. As you

know, the NHS is being asked to make ?22 billion worth of efficiency

savings by the end of this Parliament, so surely pharmacies

will have to take some of that on board? The chief negotiating body

offered, the SNC, the pharmaceutical negotiating committee, they looked

that this issue and they have been looking at it for a long time. This

was announced in December last year. They said they could make savings

but all the savings would not this is thoroughly be made in the

pharmacy budget. Their view is that is being turned down because of

that. It seems to me there is a need for more pharmacies. We are looking

now at people with long-term conditions, managing their medicines

and things like that. This is a area is where we should be looking. 70%

of NHS expenditure is on people with long-term conditions. That is what

we should be attacking. We did to somebody from the

Department of Health and they won was available. No doubt they will

respond to further following the discussion in the House of Commons.

If there were savings made, couldn't they make savings without actually

closing? There is a potential they could do that. I guess pharmacies

will favour have to cut hours and things like that. We have some 100

hour pharmacies which are contracted to open for 100 hours per week. This

is problematic unless there is a plan somewhere which will protect

the interests of the communities and patience. I'm not sure there is. The

SNC give the impression they don't think there is. What would be the

impact if one of the pharmacies in part of your constituency closed? It

all depends on whether there is another pharmacy which is equally

accessible. If there is it might be something that is accessible and it

is important that the NHS makes savings in the sort of non-care and

bits budget. When you look at the scale of the budget... You have to

look for savings everywhere. But what would not be acceptable is this

whole communities were left unserved and that is one of the things which

is worrying a lot of people. Would they look at where there are areas

where there are perhaps clusters of pharmacies, then you could perhaps

close one or two. I am not suggesting they do but they should

look at that proposal not getting rid of one. It was mentioned that

they could merge as well but my understanding is the rules about

merging have not gone through Parliament. There is an impact

assessment going to be made. It is being made now we're seeing, but

they will publish that when they publish the results of where the

savings are going to take place. That might be the cart before the

horse. I would like to see an impact assessment, how could we mitigate

this on behalf of patience and pharmacies. If some small pharmacies

have to merge then I am sure the regulations will be in place before

that goes ahead. At this stage it is out of car. Come back and tell us

when you get a response. Thank you. Now our guest of the day here had

a busy summer during his party's You may remember it ended up

with all the contenders other than Theresa May deciding

to pull out. Nick initially backed

Boris Johnson's bid for the top job, but then switched and became

Michael Gove's campaign manager. You may also remember that

Mr Gove pulled the rug from underneath Mr Johnson

by dramatically announcing that he, not Boris, was up to the job

of being party leader Let's just remind you of what Mr

Gove had to say in those heady days back in June.

I have to say I never thought I'd be in this position.

Indeed, I did almost everything I could not to be a candidate

I was so very reluctant because I know my limitations.

Whatever charisma is, I then have it. Whatever Glamour may be, I do

think anyone could associate me with it.

Well, Michael Gove being very self-deprecating. Did you persuade

Michael Gove to stand? No, I did try to before and that is well

advertised. There were a lot of people who tried to persuade him to

stand, but he did have deep reluctance and so ultimately, things

followed a different course. It would have been much better if we

had been successful, but it is all water under the bridge now and we

have got on with it, and we have a great new Prime Minister and Foreign

Secretary say Michael and I are supporting her. I will not let you

off that easily, it was not that long ago. What was the thought

process is going through yours and Michael Gove's minds? You are old

friends. What made him do it? I'm sorry, I am not going to go into all

that detail. It is not the basis on which you asked me to come onto this

show and I am not willing to discuss it. It was a mistake them? It was a

mistake for Michael not to run in the first place? He accept that and

I will always regret it. The reality is that unlike other parties we have

been discussing today, the Conservative Party gave the country

a new Prime Minister with all of the qualifications to do the job within

a matter of weeks, and that has been profoundly good. I accept that, but

at the time it was a very turbulent time indeed. Even Michael Gove said

the move sent him crashing into a brick wall. Do you agree with him?

We didn't have much time, people were very tired and people were

quite caught up in the aftermath of the referendum, the resignation of

the Prime Minister, so it was a fraught time. The decisions were

made for the reasons they were made. Ultimately, it did not work out, and

now we are all getting on with the situation we have which is

profoundly good to the country. Do you regret sending that message to

your fellow MPs urging them to thwart Andrea Ledson? No, but you

did not ask me on the show to talk about this. You knew we would ask

about it. You asked me to talk about Brexit. I am not happy to disinter

the leadership election which is long past. But this was about you.

Whatever reasons we got you on the programme, we do want to discuss

what happened in that very difficult time, and on that, was it because

you were right in the middle of what was such a heady time, in those few

weeks, that you wrote that and didn't realise the impact it would

have, at least on party grassroots? If you want me to stay on the

programme... I do! We will have to move on. OK. Have you and Michael

Gove discussed where the Tory party is now and where it is going?

Absolutely. He is my closest friend in life as impolitic, and both of us

share genuine MPs he asked them for the direction that Theresa May is

taking the government. I thought her party conference speech was super.

It moved us into a territory where we are focusing on those people for

whom the British economy, and British society has not been working

for in some cases decades, and that is hugely welcome and her

willingness to intervene assertively in the economy, in other spheres of

life, to ensure that the country delivers for people who have been

failed, is something that Michael spoke about in his speech when he

was launching his leadership bid. It is what motivates me and him for

decades, arguing for reform in the Conservative Party, so we are both

entirely enthusiastic and supportive of the government's direction. Fine,

but you were on the Remain side as was Theresa May. Do you accept there

is a new division for those who campaigned for Leave and want a hard

Brexit, coming out of the single market, and remain as who want to

stay in the single market? There are some people who are very troubled by

the idea of leaving the single market? Most of them and the most

vocal of them are in the opposition parties. But they are in the Tory

party as well. I think the difficulty they face is that both

sides of the debate, in the referendum campaign, discussed the

vote for the single market and both David Cameron and others and myself

included said it would be a disaster to leave the single market which

would be marred by a Leave vote, and equally the Leave campaign, which

was quite controversial at the time, made it clear that we were not

proposing where we move into a position like Norway's where we were

in the economic area, they were proposing to leave the single

market. It is hard for people who have lost the referendum vote, and I

am one of them, it is hard to say it is an open question about whether we

should leave the single market. But you talked about attempts to block

Brexit as nauseating and you mentioned Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg

from the opposition parties, do you think the Chancellor Philip Hammond

is the same? I think what turns my stomach is when two individuals who

have practically destroyed their political parties, in one case

delivering it into the hands of Jeremy Corbyn and his peculiarly

unattractive followers, and in the other case, decimating, literally

decimating their numbers in the House of Commons, it was them I

found a bit stomach churning. But he is also accused of being a block on

Brexit and wanting curbs on migration Esmat he may be a lot of

things without them being true. Philip Hammond is a superb

Chancellor who quite rightly have made the point in his conference

speech that nobody voted to become poorer. His job as Chancellor is to

ensure that the arrangements that we have, that takeover from single

market membership, the free trade agreements that we reach our ones

that are insured. These are Tory MPs. Some feel fill

limb Hammond is putting the brakes on or trying to. The Prime

Minister's spokesman had to say they have full confidence in... You love

to stir it up... I don't think it's up stirring it up. Philip ham manned

has not said anywhere I have seen that it's somehow essential we

remain in the single market. What he has said and I entirely agree with

him, is that we must reach a set of agreements that ensure that people

are not worse off, that we must have a very, very full set of free trade

agreements covering, not just goods, but services and including the city.

He's absolutely right on that. I happen to know that the Prime

Minister agrees with him on that. And that's what the Government will

be seeking to achieve. All right, we will leave it there.

Now, are our diplomats equipped for the modern world?

Tom Fletcher was our man in Beirut and Britain's youngest

He argues that the digital revolution can transform

the diplomatic service and the way they promote

My name is Tom Fletcher and I am a recovering Ambassador,

an ex-Excellency and although I no longer work for the Foreign Office,

I care deeply about diplomacy and I am worried that people

And when I say diplomacy I don't mean the maps and chaps,

the stereotypes, the summits and soundbites and the protocol

I don't even mean the Ferrero Rocher.

I mean the stripped back, raw diplomacy that goes all the way

back to the first caveman who persuaded his fellow

Neanderthals to stop clubbing him and go out and hunt together.

We live in an age of massive technological change,

of people on the move, of distrust of authority.

Trump, Brexit, the rise of extremism, these are all

symptoms of the uncertainty that these trends create.

In previous times of massive technological change,

the industrial revolution, the arrival of the printing press,

the nations that lost were those that turned inwards.

The nations that won were those that turned outwards

to find new partners, new ideas, new markets.

In the 20th century, we knew where the dividing line was.

In the 21st, it's not between East and West, between North and South,

between rich and poor, between Christianity and Islam.

It is between those who believe in co-existence and those

None of these great challenges will be solved by building bigger walls.

All around the world people are connecting in new ways,

through Facebook, through Twitter, through Instagram, with each other

Diplomacy is going to have to evolve.

Diplomacy is going to have to get digital, to use its extraordinary

smartphone superpower to reach out, to network, to connect and to take

But while Ministries like this are working hard

to change and to evolve, they can not win this argument

What we now need is for everyone to think like citizen diplomats,

working hard offline and online to get their voices

heard in the corridors of power and beyond.

Diplomacy is now much too important to be left to diplomats.

So I say over to you, your Excellencies.

And Tom Fletcher joins us in the studio now.

You present a very optimistic vision, your vision in your soapbox

about diplomacy. But if you look at recent events, Ukraine, Syria, the

refugee crisis, hasn't diplomacy all but failed? Absolutely and I was

part of that failure on Syria specifically as ambassador in

Beirut. For me those are better reasons, stronger reasons for us to

improve what we are doing and I don't think - if diplomacy didn't

exist we would have to invent it. We do need people out there trying to

provide the lubricant in the system as countries interact. Does that

soft power still have an impact in terms of relations and world events?

Absolutely. I was just this morning with a bunch of the creative

industries federation. It's our fasters growing sector. In an

Embassy you realise how much power that gives you. I used to often go

to universities and people would talk about British foreign policy

but wearing Premiership kits. That great leveller. Really a West Ham.

Let's not get into teams we support. How would this work? We see them

around us every day, many of our professions, there are citizen

diplomats everywhere. For me it's anyone working for co-existence and

against the intolerance, this growing intolerance we see around

us. Take, for example, citizens in Munich, the companies now providing

places for Syrian refugees, that for me is a frontline of real diplomacy

now. In that sense, do you think it is the end really because we talked

earlier about British military intervention, that really in the

world we are in and we look at IS, perhaps look at some of the cyber

espionage, is it all about soft power? No, you also need the hard

power and we seeing that in Syria, if you don't have a credible threat

it's harder to get your way when you are playing poker with Putin, you

still need that hard power element but increasingly to succeed in the

21st century the soft power will need to be a larger component than

the past. How did you react when you heard Boris Johnson telling

parliament he would like to see demonstrations outside the Russian

Embassy, this is over their actions in Syria? Well, I think that's one

element really and of the overall approach to Russia and to Syria. I

think there is a lot you can do through mobilising the public and I

tried to do that in Lebanon, connecting with different people in

society to take on big arguments. I have some of my best arguments

online with the Russian Embassy in the UK. The sectarian issues must be

difficult to deal with from your perspective? Absolutely and you are

conscious as an ambassador or diplomat tweeting if you get it

slightly wrong you could start world war three, you have to be very

careful. There are big risks. But the biggest risk is not on there at

all. Of course Theresa May says she's not giving a running

commentary on Brexit. What did you think of Boris Johnson's comments?

One of the former diplomats was upset, said it would endanger staff

who are abroad in some of these embassies and in a way it wasn't the

most beligerrent of comments, Duke it was dangerous The point -- Do you

think it was dangerous The point was Stop The War only wants to stop wars

when either the United States or Britain is involved and has

absolutely nothing to say about wars prosecuted by Russia in Ukraine or

by Russia and allies... But he is the Foreign Secretary. He holds more

weight in that sense. I understand that but that was his main point. I

think that the general argument is is a strong one and in a sense if

you wanted to think of the best example of your citizen diplomats,

it would be the Olympic medallists who we saw in Manchester. What they

have done for Britain's standing in the world, not just our own sense of

it, but other countries' sense of it. They think of us differently now

they see that actually we are the third biggest medal winner in the

world. You have been in Lebanon and clearly that has been a good example

of a sort of British export, if you like, our Olympians, what's the view

of Britain there now? I think people see us as magnetic and I think

that's a quality that we should be proud of. We shouldn't be chasing

students away, we should be chasing after students to come here. People

are fascinated by the Royal Family. They love the Premiership as I

mentioned, our creative industries, from Beckham to the Beatles to Adele

to bond. All of that, it has a real talismanic power and we should be

prouder of that. They're curious, they enjoy London, they see us as a

dynamic trading outward looking nation. The biggest threat to us at

the moment is we turn our back on that key part of our DNA as a

country and turn inwards. History tells us that's when you lose. Tom

famous as the setting for the hugely successful romantic

But for Westminster-watchers like us, this affluent part

of the city also gave its name to a very successful political

clique, which at one point ruled the Conservative

But with the departure of David Cameron as Prime Minister

and the arrival of Theresa May, the so-called Notting Hill set isn't

# It's amazing how you can speak right to my heart.

I won't be back until 9.00pm tonight.

# Without saying a word you can light up the dark.

# What I hear when you don't say a thing.

# The smile on your face let's me know that you need me.

# There's a truth in your eyes saying you'll never leave me.

# The touch of your hand says you'll catch me wherever I fall...

We're joined by the Evening Standard's Joy Lo Dico who's written

in today's paper about the death of the Notting Hill Set.

And, by good fortune, our guest of the day, Nick Boles,

A bit player! No, don't demote yourself. Come on, you were part of

that. How are relations since the EU referendum? In my own case very good

with everyone. Obviously it has caused strain on relationships, not

just within that group, but in families and in friendship groups.

It's been an extraordinary issue in our times. I think for the first

time in my life I understand what people say about the Spanish civil

war, the way it actually separated whole communities and families and

this has come close to that. I hope that as we now move away from it

people can come back together. Right. What do you think, how do you

see tensions at the moment in what is the Notting Hill set? Having

spoken to a number of people about it, it's got to a level where there

are confrontations going on in the street... Between? I think it would

be impoll tick to say at this point in time. There are dinner parties in

the area looking at guest lists carefully thinking, should I invite

this section or not invite that section? David Cameron still has a

court there as does George Osborne. So, there are also Brexiteers there.

There was an article in The Times at the weekend that said it was agony

at the moment socially with various groups, bearing in mind what Nick

said that's going to happen post such a divisive contest as the

referendum. Michael Gove, not having double crossed anybody, has become

this idea of the outsider who wants something different and Notting Hill

is built largely on this idea of kind of open, multicultural, you

know, outward looking sort of media and literary society with

politicians added in. The rest of the country has rejected it and

there is Michael Gove wandering around as what was leader of that

movement. There is even talk and suggestions that you have made today

he might be moving out of the area. That's what a couple of the locals

have been saying. I don't know whether that's wishful thinking or

not. It certainly is a little awkward. They were Godparents to

each other's children, they were doing school runs together, it's

impossible to go through Notting Hill without bumping into somebody

you know in these classes. Most sort of politicians, Prime Ministers,

have sets around them. Has Theresa May got a set? Well, I was trying to

think whether she and Amal Clooney and Heston Blumenthal, that would be

a marvellous dinner party to report on, I don't think that's going to

happen and I feel she doesn't have a set other than her local

Conservative Party association. Probably by design. Part of the

reason a number of people lost their jobs was an objection to that W also

11 insiderness. I have to say goodbye to our set here. Thank you

to Nick Not too offended I hope by the end of the programme.

The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.