15/05/2016 Sunday Politics Wales

comparing the mission of the European Union with

what Hitler was trying to achieve - has the Leave campaign's self-styled

Churchillian attack dog gone too far?

He says leaving the European Union

will improve the lives of the "have nots" -

but is the man who presided over billions of pounds of welfare

cuts really on the side of working people?

Reducing the powers of the House of Lords

would not be acceptable, says the woman charged with keeping order

in the upper house - but with 60 government defeats

Later in the programme: have their Lord and Ladyships

As talks continue between Labour and Plaid over the deadlock

in Cardiff Bay, what will both sides be looking for in an agreement?

And with me - as always - three journalists who'd have been

sure to win the Eurovision political punditry contest: Helen Lewis,

Isabel Oakeshott and Amol Rajan who'll be tweeting throughout

So earlier in the week the Prime Minister warned that

leaving the EU could precipitate armed conflict in Europe.

Today, Boris Johnson hits back, comparing the European Union

to Hitler in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph:

"Napoleon, Hitler, various people tried this out,

The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods."

Boris goes on to say "The euro has become a means by which superior

German productivity is able to gain an absolutely unbeatable advantage

Could you organise an ordinance that British politicians should just shut

up about Hitler? It is an interesting one, the campaign are

getting quite grumpy, saying that he was not really talking about Hitler.

Boris is to clever not to know that if you mention Napoleon and Hitler

people will write headlines. He is a columnist and he knows this. It is

bizarre. It was Sadiq Khan sitting at home thinking he was the only

London mayor was not mentioned Hitler? The campaign has become

quite personal, it is about David Cameron's relationship with them,

and whether he has a hope of becoming leader. And as always like

to make things personal. It does not surprisingly in the slightest that

it is becoming more personal as the clock ticks towards the key date. On

Boris Johnson's comments, absolutely agree with Helen but no good can

come of a politician mentioning Hitler, but the reaction to the

remarks has been rather hysterical. If anyone bothers reading the

context... In the context. The Mac was an absolutely reasonable

statement of historical fact. We should not get to a point where

nobody can mention anything historical without it creating a

ridiculous action. I don't think it will be arise if it helps them win

votes. He fancies herself as an inherent to Winston Churchill, it

was in store. In your dreams, if the copy had come in and you had seen

the word logo might think you have a chance for a headline. Ever since

the collapse of the Roman Empire there have been attempts to unify

Europe. In a way, the Germans have that... There was a slight

difference in having endless pragmatic committees and ruling

tanks and to Poland. By different means is quite different. He was

arguing it was an attempt to unify Europe, it is bundled together

different ideas. It is a bit of a stretch. But overstretch! I think

there was a real danger... And what is the European Union, parable?

People support Brexit would say it was an attempt to build a European

super structure without a Democratic base. Democratic nations. It is

completely reasonable. Ireland begins to cover girl to make

important arguments about historical trends. Butler was Fromer remark.

He only mentioned Napoleon. Maybe he should have mentioned other leaders.

What do you make of the polls, showing neck and neck but they are

so far ahead in the economic argument, and that is why we will

win. They always hoped that. The evidence is that people put the

economy as the highest concern. What the Leave campaign is trying to do,

we've seen this from Nigel Farage, make the point that this is not just

about GDP, a few extra pounds in your pocket. The Leave campaign will

be hoping to highlight the question of what this means for society.

Now - would leaving the European Union be good

for the poor and disadvantaged in Britain?

That's the case that's being made by the former Work

and Pension Secretary Iain Duncan Smith.

I will be talking to him in a moment.

But first let's hear the warnings earlier this week about

the short-term impact of Brexit on the economy

from the Governor Bank of England, Mark Carney.

A vote to leave the European Union could have material economic effects

on the exchange rate, on demand, and on the economy's

So, this combination of influences on demand,

supply and the exchange rate could lead to a materially lower

path for growth and a notably higher path for inflation

than in the central projections set out in today's

Welcome back to the Sunday Politics. You've claimed that leaving the EU

would be good for the have nots but the Governor of the Bank of England

says it could lead to recession, inflation, unemployment. That could

be bad. If all the predictions were right. Every single one of these

predictions is done by groups of people who've got most of their

predictions wrong. The point I would make to you, the Treasury prediction

and the IMS prediction all show that if Britain left the EU the economy

would grow. Their argument is it would not grow as fast but how you

can predict a 0.6% variation is beyond me. He was the point I really

believe about the bank, which is where I find this very back. I think

the bank, the governor has strayed into an expression of a simple,

personal prediction. I don't think it is actually possible for you to

say with any absolute accuracy that that will happen. In a sense, when

you listen to what he said, he started to nuance about the idea, he

was not seeing it actually would be comic he said he thought it could be

about that. Here is my point about the independence of the Bank of

England. Section ten of the 1998 act makes it very clear that if he is to

talk about monetary policies, for which he has independence, he has to

be open, impartial and all things must be available. Last year, in

2015, when he spoke about the threat to the British economy, he made the

point which Mervyn King has made that the euro instability and the

crash has been very damaging to the British economy and will be even

more damaging as it goes on. Notice that when he came out on Thursday he

said nothing about the overall problems if we remained in. If

you're going to be impartial then you had damned well better say

something about the alternative case and the threats of remaining are

very clear. Mervyn King said there is a crisis going on and he does not

see an end to it. Why don't we hear from him about that? Has he breached

his obligations as Governor of the Bank of England? I believe that he

has. Should he resign? I think he ought to be asked why he has not

brought out both sides of the issue. He used to work for Goldman Sachs.

They are running through this, funding the campaign, he has been

very clear on it. You bring out Goldman Sachs, lack of impartiality,

you think he is not keeping his remit, should he resign? I think he

needs to answer about this one simple charge. I would like to see

the e-mail exchange over this issue, the telephone conversation minutes,

to see whether the Treasury has had any involvement in this process

whatsoever, what worries me slightly about what is going on, the Bank of

Scotland comes out on Thursday and then suddenly the head of the IMF

comes out on Friday with a similar prediction. These are the same

people that were telling us all that the UK is too small to leave and too

insignificant. Now we are so insignificant that we are plunging

the world into an economic crash. Are we saying this was an accident?

The governor did not call? Let me ask you this, we know what made...

Are you saying they are colluding? I wonder. Do you have any evidence?

Suddenly on Wednesday and Thursday, you have reports coming out, do you

think they spoke to each other about what they are doing? I wonder about

that. The Chancellor is supporting the governor, he then stands behind

Christine Lagarde. We know that they are players in this. The IMF always

works with them. We know which major economic authorities you don't like.

The Treasury, the IMF, the Bank of England, the OECD, which major

economic authorities do you rate? There have been some good reports

out, there are a number of good economists, lots of others from the

city who have produced a report which got very little coverage about

the prospect... Any major economic apologies? Yes but when they have

come out with these reports they have said the UK would continue to

grow. Not as quickly. Not as quickly. My point is if you're going

to be balanced you need to constantly reference that point and

if they want to say that there is a possibility this could lead to a

problem he must also point out that if we remain there is a possibility

that we will be damaged by this. You made that .3 times. Let me ask you,

can you name a major economic authority on your side of the

argument? I would not expect one to be on our side. So you have none? It

would be completely unusual for all these institutions not to want to

act the status quo. All these institutions said there was no

problem in 2007 and then one year later we hit the buffers and the

economy went down. None of them predicted it. Including the

Conservatives. None of them have apologised for their failure.

I want to show you this chart. This shows our balance of payments, our

deficit. It is the difference between our exports and imports. We

import a lot more than we export in goods and services. It has

continually got worse under your government. This deficit, which is

multi-billion, is financed by foreigners who buy our sterling as I

to make up the gap. If Brexit create a falling pound, why would the

foreigners continue to pay for our deficit? If the economy didn't

perform, why would be, but if you look at all those who predicted

where we would be now, they all said the threat of Brexit would actually

bring the pound crashing. The pound is now rising back up, close to

where it was when we started this campaign. 10% on last November. We

had this deficit, it is financed by foreigners. If they lose confidence

in this country, confidence in Stirling, how do we pay for this? We

have to make sure we run the economy in a way that they have confidence

in it, we have to get some of those regulations down, we have to make

British industry more competitive. We have to have a better plan to get

industry working again. That would be in the long term, this could be a

short-term problem that could hit in the summer. If it results leaving in

an uncontrolled, plummeting sterling, and the foreigners because

of the uncertainty and sterling going down are saying we are not

going to continue to finance it, the bank would have to raise interest

rates, wouldn't it? If that was the circumstance, yes, but it is what

you plan to do. Why are they investing in what we are doing at

the moment? They buy the bonds because they believe the Government

has a long-term plan to get the deficit down and reduce borrowing.

Therefore they believe the UK is a good investment and running a trade

surplus with the rest of the world. We are running a huge deficit. Yes,

but we are running a trade surplus. If they need to finance this

deficit, and it is not the budget deficit, it is how the foreigners by

our assets in order to help us run this deficit. If interest rate did

rise, it follows that mortgage rates could rise substantially. Yes but

the alternative could be the same, in other words if they believe what

we are doing is right for the economy they are prepared to back

it, which means you wouldn't have rising interest rates. All of this

is speculation because we don't know. Boris Johnson has admitted

that after Brexit there would be a Nike tick, that he believes the

economy would take a hit, but it would recover strongly. Do you

believe that? Possibly but this is speculation about something nobody

knows. There has been speculation about forecast in these economies,

most of them are wrong because people are unable to tell us about

what they think about our prospects afterwards. If we vote to leave, we

are already able to show we can get our money back in due course and we

are able to start planning our own economy so we are able to get the

kind of deals we need. That shows you have a plan that works. You

could offer short-term crisis in the interim, couldn't you? They are

worried whether their mortgage will have risen by August or September of

this year. If that were to happen but the word is if. This is pure

speculation. The point I am making is that the reality is it may go in

the opposite direction. Nobody can say that. The EU guarantees a number

of social protections for workers, covering things like equal pay,

working time, maternity pay. Can you pledged to fight to maintain all of

these protections if we leave? All of these were accepted by the

Conservative government and I believe strongly then need to be

protections for workers. All of these things in a democracy are

debated but the British government have actually themselves instituted

protections for workers. So would you fight to keep the protections

they currently have under EU guarantees? As it stands, yes. Why

should people trust you because you opposed the Web Time directive in

1996, and voted against the minimum wage in 1997. Why would they have

not looked to you for this social protection? Because rather than

forecast ahead, look back at what has happened to them. The

immigration has damaged them. I'm simply saying what has happened,

therefore my argument has been, and you have known that over a long

time, over nine years I have argued this process has been most damaging

to the people at the low skilled end. That is the migration issue, it

may well be true. I'm asking you why should people trust you on these EU

social protections that they would remain if we came out since you

voted against them when they were being proposed? The working Time

directive gave little or no flexibility at the time. It has been

in place and we had to work with it. You protect the workforce but you

make sure the competition that they face in terms of their jobs is

actually fair competition, not unfair competition. What has

happened, as you saw on Thursday with the national insurance numbers,

is a very high proportion of people coming in in under 52 weeks here who

have no commitment to the UK often staying in bed sits, compete on the

low salary end of life. Is the working Time directive, which

guarantees the hours people work in a week and proper breaks, is that

safe after Brexit or not? UK law would enshrine what we think is best

for protection of workforce and that is right. A democratic government

will decide on what it thinks is right. That is possible for Labour

or Conservative. I believe it is right to have it, the question is

how flexible... People watching this will not be reassured by this. I

will stick to the agreements we have. You point your fist in the

Commons when the Chancellor announced the new national living

wage, now you say it is a magnet for migrants, what changed? I said it is

a good people for people wanting to come and work here because they will

get a higher wage. I am wholly in favour of a rise to the minimum wage

because I believe that over time what happens to businesses is they

have got around paying lower wages... Would you still be in

favour of it if we stayed in the EU? Yes, because it is the best way you

can drive the wages up but if we stay in the EU it will become a

magnet for people to come in here and it will lead to huge problems.

The point I made on Tuesday this week was that have we have seen

already lots of people from the EU tend to come in. The vast majority

of people coming from the European Union into the UK, they tend to be

low skills, they tend to be ones taking a high proportion of those

low skilled jobs. They have taken them at lesser salary and driven it

down. The overall average wage will still be low for those on low

skills. You have brought up migration several times in this

interview, isn't the blunt truth, because I was asking about the

economics, you are losing the economic arguments, the polls show

that, you are more dependent on scaring people. John Major says:

What do you say? Rubbish. Very simple, he is talking nonsense. He

said only a few years ago that there was a real issue over immigration.

The Government had a target to get tens of thousands, the limit down to

tens of thousands, we are not achieving that. We talked about it

in the run-up to the election. The Prime Minister himself made a strong

commitment that we would ensure our borders were protected against

people coming to be here so it is nonsense because we are not raising

this is an issue because we are trying to win the referendum. Most

people in the country believes there is an issue about the open border

with the European Union. Why is it demagoguery, why is it extremism to

speak for British people who feel like their views are being tossed

aside? If you don't do it, the extreme parties get onto it. Was it

wise Boris Johnson to compare the EU's ambitions? I thought it was a

good article because he spoke about this nonsensical... Was it wise to

compare it with Hitler? Do you think Hitler's efforts to unify Europe are

the same as the European Union's efforts? I think the whole process

of trying to drive Europe together by force or democracy ultimately

makes problems. Isn't this referendum getting vaguely absurd?

We have the Prime Minister dangling the thought of world War three if we

leave, and on your side we have Boris Johnson saying Hitler and the

European Union are on the same script. It is both nonsense and you

know that. All he is doing in the interview is talking about the trend

towards the idea, and he's using historical parallels to explain it.

You go through this great idea that somehow there is a thing called

greater Europe. Whether or not you like the linguistics of this, my

point remains the same. If you vote to remain on the 23rd, you are

voting, the 12 residents said it clear that they intend to deepen...

The five presidents. The five presidents rather. David Cameron and

George Osborne won't debate other Tory ministers during the

referendum, are they concerned about party unity or just running scared?

You will have to ask them. My view about it is that it is right to have

a proper debate and by not opening that debate the British public will

be left to wonder why they were not allowed to see the two opposing

sides of the argument from the leading figures. You would debate

the Prime Minister? Yes, we need to get these things straight

face-to-face. After all, if this were an election would be Remain

side be allowed to say we won't debate Ed Miliband fustian might

know, they cannot do that. There are two side to this argument, if two

sides have to debate it that is right and proper. It should be down

to impartiality that we have two sides, the two sets of leaders. Iain

Duncan Smith, thank you. Now, the Commons are elected,

the House of Lords are not and is supposed to be

a "revising chamber". But have their lord and ladyships

been overstepping the mark? Over the the past year,

they've inflicted 60 defeats on a Government that's now poised

to clip the Lord's wings - reducing their power

to block changes in the law. But in an exclusive interview before

she steps down as the speaker of the House of Lords in the summer,

Baroness D'Souza has told us that the powers of the Lords

should not be curtailed. It's very obvious why

they are called the crossbenchers, My guide knows this place pretty

well, how it works, who's who. Since 2011, she's been Lord Speaker,

a role which involves overseeing proceedings here,

representing the Lords at home and abroad, and sitting

on a sack of wool. But the business in here over

which Baroness D'Souza presides has come under increasing criticism

from the Government. 247 members of the House of Lords

sit as Conservatives peers, making the governing party

a significant minority of the 807 members eligible to take

part in the Upper House. The Government has faced 60 defeats

in the House of Lords in the most The rate of defeats this time

round is more than twice that Then, the Government was defeated

in less than a quarter of votes compared to more

than half in the present one. Now there's a sense that the Lords

are too rebellious, they have been too rebellious over the last few

years and essentially the Lords You know, all governments

and all parliamentarians, or at least House of Commons,

always feel that the House of Lords is a place that thwarts them

in one way or another. And they're right, they do,

but that is in the nature They have all the power

and rightly so. I still think it's right

that the Lords should be free to scrutinise and to question

and to hold the Government to account, and to send back

legislation which it feels is not adequate, either in terms

of its clarity or because perhaps it infringes from time to time

individual liberties And that's exactly what happened

last October. The House of Lords effectively

blocked the Government's proposed changes to tax credits,

a massive blow to George Unelected Labour and Liberal Lords

have voted down a matter passed by the elected House of Commons,

that raises constitutional issues and David Cameron and I are clear

they will need to be dealt with. The way they dealt with it was to

ask Lord Strathclyde He concluded peers should

lose their absolute veto over detailed laws known as secondary

legislation, and instead be allowed only to send it back

to the Commons to think again. There's going to be a lively debate

about this in the House of Lords and I think that there will be a lot

of views expressed and obviously you would expect the Lords

to want to retain their power to scrutinise their power,

their privilege. If you start curtailing or eroding

or limiting the power of the Lords to do its job,

there is a question There is another question,

too, over the sheer number Baroness D'Souza told me

she would be pushing for a Lords motion in the new session,

she says the House of Lords should not be larger than the Commons,

suggesting the number of peers At least 20% of them should be

independents or crossbenchers, and no one party should

have a political majority. She said all of that can

be achieved by 2020. So, the size is making

it inefficient? It does have an impact unfortunately

on the role of the House of Lords in holding the Government

to account. It's very difficult if you're

limited to sort of say, in timed debates, a minute or two

minutes to speak, to develop a sustained argument

which will convince your fellow peers but also the Government

of what it is you are The traditional pomp and ceremony

of the Lords is well known but its relationship

with the Commons and exactly what role it can play in the future

is far more uncertain. And the man who was charged

by the Government to review the Lord's powers, Tam Strathclyde,

joins us now from Oxfordshire. Welcome to the programme. Nice to

see the sun is shining rate you are. We've just heard, what would be the

point of the Lloyds if the powers are watered down as your review

proposes. What do you say to her? There is no suggestion and no

recommendation by anybody in government to fundamentally change

the powers of the House of Lords. I made the most mild and humble

recommendation about process, where frankly most of us had understood

that the customs and conventions that had been built up would stick.

Last October, they broke down, as a result there is no consensus and

agreement on what those powers could be. I propose a new power to be able

to reject and ask. What is interesting is every school child

knows that the purpose of the House of Lords is to scrutinise but not to

block. What happened was the House of Lords using a veto and given it

is unelected, I don't think that power should ever be used. Is the

government going to implement your recommendations? Since I reported

before Christmas there have been four further reports, three in the

House of Lords and one in the House of Commons, commenting on this. I

think what the government will want to do is look carefully at these

reports before responding. I don't think there needs to be a rush to

legislation, and there may well be an attempt to get an agreement

between the parties in the House of Lords, between the two Houses of

Parliament. But if that consensus cannot be reached, I think the

government will have no option but to legislate on this matter. Your

government has had 60 defeats at the hands of the Lords. You wonder

whether the conservative tune has changed because it was Tory peers

inflicting defeat on Labour governments. Now you are getting a

taste of your own historic medicine, you just don't like it. I was Leader

of the Opposition for most of those years, particularly after the end of

the last century. We did defeat the government regularly on primary

legislation, not secondary legislation. What was interesting in

your package is the government has been defeated in the House of Lords

many more times than it did in the first Parliament of Tony Blair's

government. Over half of all the votes in the House of Lords are

defeated. This is not revision and scrutiny, this is not complementing

the work of the House of Commons, this is an aggressive political

statement why the other political parties. Is it really? This is a

government which increasingly brings forward ill thought out ideas which

it has not planned in advance, not without consultation, and is forced

into U-turns. There has been a series of them. That is why you need

a second chamber, to do proper scrutiny. I am the greatest defender

of the second chamber and indeed, a Conservative Party that fully

understands the central tenets of the Constitution, the balance

between the houses, but what we've seen in the last 12 months, and

remember, this is the first 12 months of a new conservative

administration, people who were elected to government, scarcely one

year ago, and what we've seen in the House of Lords are blocking tactics,

using vetoes rather than working with the House of Commons in order

to improve that legislation which you rightly criticise. Are you a

supporter of the way that governments have bloated the House

of Lords? There are over 800 active peers. The US Senate needs 100 and

it has real power. You've not got much power and those over 800 of

you. Is that sensible? When Mr Blair and his friends throughout the

hereditary peers in the 1990s I did argue that there was an inevitable

consequence that prime ministers would try to increase their own

numbers in the house. What's interesting about Mr Cameron is he

has created far more Labour peers. Wide of the need to be 800 of you?

You don't. -- why does there need to be 800. But those who want to reduce

it to 500 should say how they plan to do that. I would prefer either

people to be involved in the decision and they should be directly

elected. Thank you for joining us. It's just gone 11.35,

you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland who leave us now Hello and welcome to

the Sunday Politics Wales. Well, we expected to

have a First Minister by today, After a week of high drama

in Cardiff Bay, Plaid and Labour are still talking about how to break

the deadlock over who'll be Here's how the plenary

session ended. TRANSLATION: The result of the vote

for nomination as First Minister was Carwyn Jones, 29,

Leanne Wood, 29. and following the fact

that there is no majority, I therefore adjourned

the remainder of this setting for the time being and I therefore

close this meeting. A little earlier I spoke

to the former Plaid leader Lord Wigley and asked him

if it was anything more than a shot I think an effective democracy needs

a strong leadership from government but it also needs a strong

opposition and I think that's what came through loud

and clear from that. To the extent that it was a shot

across the bows then there is 30 is a very different number from

29 and Carwyn Jones has to live with a minority government

in the circumstances and the programme has to be one

that he can take through his party but also through

the Assembly if he is going You have mentioned a couple of them

there, the black route of the M4 and some of the WDA

sort of body, what would be your red lines in terms

of the negotiations now? No, I'm not in a position

to give my red lines because I don't know what the flexibilities

in the negotiations are. Definitely has to be some

meeting of minds. No party can get everything

its own way and no doubt the Labour government

will be looking to see if they can carry

the Conservatives on some issues and therefore may not

be just looking in one direction. Heaven forbid that they are looking

in the direction Carry the Conservatives,

Dafydd Wigley says! We'll hear from Labour in a few

minutes, but now the man who wants The Conservative leader

Andrew RT Davies. How close in all honesty now were

you or was Wales to being led by Leanne Wood and supported by the

Conservatives last week? Well, I need to correct you. While we may

have voted on Wednesday, it was making the point that Labour does

not have a majority so frankly you could have put Bagpuss up only would

have voted for him. So it was a stunt? I had a conversation with

Carwyn Jones on Tuesday and face-to-face on Wednesday talking to

various issues. I can't understand why Labour allowed themselves to

walk into this elephant trap. It was well-known which way the vote would

go that afternoon and so to think that Plaid Cymru held them up is a

bit far off the mark. Is maybe the gaze that they were expecting a

bloody nose so they might as well get it out of the way. I want to

look at, was there ever a serious appetite with you and Plaid Cymru to

do anything other than just the shot across the bow is? B known if they

expected to get a bloody nose, that was far from the case. Carwyn Jones

stop people going forward for the providing officers roles which was

surprise for me because I've heard they were not whipping nominations.

But we are not being told what got rid of was. It's in important thing

that the black groups could be sacrificed and business development

-- black roots. Carwyn Jones set is little credibility against doing and

is now were looking that he might jettison all of that? There are

serious issues that Labour members need to ask over the leadership and

how they found themselves in this predicament is because... But what

is wrong with talking to opposition parties? Nothing. They have to do a

deal with someone else. You just scorned because it is with Labour

are not the Conservatives? Lake-mac 's grub Mac there is a golden period

in every parliament and Assembly, the first few months when consensus

can be reached especially of structural issues that need to be

addressed that don't necessarily restrict themselves to one party. I

have made the case that we have had conversations with Plaid Cymru and I

had conversations with Carwyn Jones but regrettably, there was a strut

about the Labour Party that believes they had a majority and they could

do what they want. What you are asking from Carwyn Jones? I cannot

go through on TV... Go on, just between us. Those discussions were

happening and therefore the Labour leadership and the advisers allowed

the party to walk into this elephant trap. How serious were your

discussions? well, if i was a labour backbencher i would be very

concerned. you can set things up with labour as much as you want but

i want to talk about what you were asking for from carwyn jones? how

serious were those discussion? there is a golden opportunity in the first

12 or 18 months in any parliament to talk about some of the big issues

that need dealt with. we know labour do not have a majority. i have said

time and time again that i would say my party are grown-up enough to

recognise that not one party has the majority that we face. At this

juncture, we could be reaching out, we could be having discussions that

did take place and yet the elephant trap was what's into by the

governing party and Lenny labour members were left in the lurch. Do

you think the game is up now in terms of any involvement for your

party? Is it just going to be Plaid Cymru and Labour are cooperating on

a programme of government or do you think there is still room for input

focus ever to? My door is always open. We are pragmatic enough to

know that not one party has all the answers. I'm not sure why Labour

would think that Plaid Cymru have necessarily gone into a coalition

with them and that would be there as their problems as they have 11

votes. There is no reason for Labour not to renominate their cans at this

week and I keep hearing logjam besought by the agreement from Plaid

Cymru and Labour. Leanne Jones used to make the point, the difference is

there is not a Lib Dem group any more and so that bankable vote for

the Labour Party has gone and ultimately there are no opposition

parties that first they will talk and discuss and ultimately will fall

together. So you have shot a Leanne Wood's Fox because you will not fold

with her next week so calm and walks in. I use saying that they don't

want to discuss and that you will support them? That is for the Labour

Party to come to a conclusion over. I fail to see why there is a logjam

in the system because ultimately if they log the nation comes forward,

certainly we believe the leave it will be better with a different

First Minister but there is an offer on the table and therefore we would

abstain as we often do. We will wait to see what happens.

The other big drama of the week - can you cope? -

was Ukip voting for Neil Hamilton, not Nathan Gill

One leading member has told this programme Ukip could be

Others say Neil Hamilton ticks all the boxes of being a leader.

Cemlyn Davies now on murky goings on in the corridors of power

and corridor conversations in the Bay.

Deals may or may not have been done, promises made or broken.

On Tuesday, Ukip's seven AMs met to decide who would lead

Nathan Gill, who remains the party's leader in Wales,

was challenged for the position by Neil Hamilton and it was

he who secured the crucial backing of South Wales West's AM

Caroline Jones whom Mr Gill's camp had thought would support their man.

It all led to this impromtu press conference held in a back corridor.

Well, we have achieved an outcome by consensus.

There are only seven of us so it wasn't difficult to do,

And we've decided to put all past differences behind us,

forget the lead up to the election campaign

where there was a lot of personal animosity created.

So says Neil Hamilton, but his victory has exposed

a deep division within the party, one which Ukip had

But by Wednesday, the split was clear for all to see

in the Senedd Chamber as those AMs on Nathan Gill's side

sat across the aisle from their colleagues

I have spoken to a number of party members over the past few days,

including senior figures within Ukip Wales and one,

a supporter of Nathan Gill, told me the result on Tuesday wasn't what he

wanted or expected and he doesn't see Neil Hamilton uniting the party.

Another member who is also a supporter of Nathan Gill warned

the Assembly group will have a rocky ride under Neil Hamilton

whose ego, he said, has got the better of him.

The same member said Neil Hamilton has a few sharpened knives

James Peterson is chair of Ukip's Newport branch.

The carpenter who has helped to renovate this concert venue is

unhappy with the way Neil Hamilton has flexed his muscles.

Ukip need to take a grasp on what they promised

the Welsh people and what I think is reasonable

to presume that Nathan Gill would be head of the party.

You said Nathan Gill has taken the party forward in Wales.

Are you concerned now that with Neil Hamilton as group

leader in the Assembly you could could go backwards here?

Ukip have made significant gains over the past few years

and I think this will have the possibility of taking

the party backwards and all the hard work of

the grassroots activists being led by Nathan and Nigel as well

Neil Hamilton refutes that, claiming Ukip Wales has been going

backwards and he is the man to unify the party

In the meantime, many other members have welcomed his election

He brings a wealth of experience and knowledge and in my books,

he ticks all the boxes for being a reader.

There is going to be disappointment, but we've got to go

beyond that and think about what we are going to do

Nevertheless, days after celebrating electoral success,

this isn't how Ukip and its supporters

I think it could be damaging to Ukip but again, it depends who is

monitoring their progress and how much emphasis is the party going

How active are they going to be in committees

and in the everyday running of the assembly?

Or are they going to remain for cursed on issues that are

How the Assembly's newest party fares

is likely to be one of the most interesting subplots

These corridors will play an important role

This week the UK Government announced a major

Others were shocked that the expected root

and branch reform isn't going to happen.

I spoke to the man in charge of BBC Wales, and asked

Rhodri Talfan Davies whether he was relieved.

I think anyone who read the lurid headlines and warnings

over the last couple of weeks might have feared for the worst,

but actually I think what we have got is a strong settlement.

I think we've got an endorsement of the BBC for the next 11 years

and certainty that the licence fee will underpin that settlement.

It means we can get on with what we do best

which is making programmes not just here in Wales,

Do you get the sense that John Whittingdale has had to

and the initial what he wanted from the BBC?

He has rowed back quite substantially from that.

Well, I think there were genuine fears at the BBC

a few months ago when the Green Paper arrived that there might be

I have to say, reading the White Paper, what I see

overwhelmingly is an endorsement of what the BBC does and also now the

creative freedom to get on with what we do best.

Now, as well as the White Paper, we have this letter

from Tony Hall to the First Ministers of each part of the UK

saying there is going to be more money

for English-language programmes in Wales for example.

there has been a 20% cut on that in Wales.

This won't make up for that, will it?

Well, we don't yet know what the level of

Tony Hall has been very clear throughout that he

has felt there is a deficit in English-language television

provision in Wales and what we saw in a letter from the

director-general to the first ministers across the UK was

recognition that there is a particular problem in Wales and that

the levels of funding at the moment are unsustainable.

He is committing to new investment, fresh money,

but we've still got some detailed financial planning to do

Well, how much do you think it should be?

Because Carwyn Jones thinks it should be 30 million,

Every BBC boss is going to tell you that

they want as much as possible and clearly we have seen a significant

With whatever money we can secure, it will make a big difference on

screen whether it's comedy, whether it's drama,

I don't want to get into a numbers game.

There's clearly some detail work to do.

We are doing this in the context

of a ?500 million savings plan that the BBC need to put

together so this is going to be a difficult conversation.

But isn't that the danger, that you are looking

for this additional money at a time when money is incredibly

tight and therefore you might not get as good a deal

I think it's going to be challenging.

It's particularly pleasing to see the director-general

recognise the particular issues we have in Wales and make this

commitment that there will be new investment,

but I understand that until people see what that level of

investment is, people will want to hold their position.

Is there a danger or do you ever worry

that with things like this, it's always the ones who shout loudest

who get most and actually, normally, that's Scotland in terms of the BBC

in Scotland, the dangers that the BBC are facing

there of a breakaway Scottish BBC, that actually they

will probably get more money as a bit of a sweetener?

Well, I don't really recognise that reality.

I think if you look at the story

of network television in Wales and across the UK,

I think if you look at the development of indigenous

language services across the UK, Wales has led the way.

And I think the particular issues with

English-language television, they are particularly acute in Wales

and that is not me saying that, that is the director-general of

the BBC and recognising that very open and very candidly.

So I don't think it's about who is shouting,

I think it's about looking at the evidence, making the case and then

getting involved in some detailed discussions internally.

Isn't the weakness of BBC Wales that we do...

Lots of drama is based in Wales for the network, Doctor Who and

Sherlock and so on, but we don't do anything about Wales, we don't

reflect Wales to our own audiences or elsewhere, we are just somewhere

where drama happens rather than somewhere portrayed in dramas?

But you have only been doing one of those things.

We've had The Indian Doctor, we have had Hinterland.

It's not true there hasn't been drama about Wales.

But you're right, we have had an extraordinary success story in a

and nothing we do should diminish this.

That's a terrific success story that we should be shouting about,

but you're right, side-by-side with that success,

we want to see increased commitment to stories that tell us

Without being too looking into ourselves and comparing too often

with Scotland, there is talk of a Scottish

Is that an avenue down which you would want to go

for BBC Wales, at six o'clock news for an hour?

I mean, we are looking at a whole range of options for news.

You will have heard talk of whether there should be,

for example, Welsh bulletins on some of

We also need to look at whether our digital and online

and social media services, have we got those rate?

So there are lots of competing areas we are looking at.

Television is part of that discussion.

I'd hope we would be able to share the conclusion of that

Back to our main story now and the ongoing talks between

Labour and Plaid about the deadlock in Cardiff Bay.

Cathy Owens is a former Labour special adviser and knows the ins

and outs of how to do these kinds of political deals.

Just first of all, that spectacle of last week, political drama, whatever

we want to call it. How does that rate in terms of the excitement of

the Assembly? Is it fairly new at the top right you relax about it?

It's exciting for people like me. This is what we do for a living.

Exciting for political journalists but not very exciting for Mrs Jones

at home. She needs a government to be focusing on jobs, the economy,

prosperity, social justice. . Discussions are happening now. What

will Labour and Plaid Cymru be discussing now? We don't know. It is

happening behind closed doors and the parties must be able to do it.

This is not new politics, its old politics. This is just maths. What

is that they're discussing? Lets you shoot it is about one budget other

we don't really know. Is it about broad principles and how the country

would be involved in decisions or is it real bread-and-butter issues? We

do not know but if you look at both manifestos, there is a lot for

everyone agrees so let's get some of that sorted out first and then, when

you think about it, Labour have 29 seats, Plaid Cymru have 12 and they

are not going to be in government. This is not a 50-50 split. We know

there will be areas they can agree Sister manifestos are so similar,

but what spot the stumbling blocks that will come down the line? In

September there will be a big announcement in changes to tuition

fees and there is a big difference in the parties there. What happens?

They will agree to discuss it. Labour have not outlined what their

response was B. But it will not be blocked Plaid Cymru want, will it?

If they still come up with a notch and for per students to come to the

best university, they will come to an agreement. Is the door close to

the Conservatives now? Plaid Cymru and Labour are talking now and they

have form since 2007. Do you think this alliance will last the term of

the next five years? Absolutely not. This is the new maths and this is

something we have talked about for a long time. We did not begin to

happen on day one. Stove Labour and Tory deals are on the cards? Every

party has to talk to every other party. And even Ukip? We always

assumed that they would not be together... Well we don't know that.

If Neil Hamilton manages to fix these things, was Labour talk to

Ukip everybody needs to talk to everyone else because that is the

new maths. What happened in the last five years was that Labour could

talk to both Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems. They cannot do that now which

means Plaid Cymru has a strong hand in the negotiations which they

played in the very belligerent way as they have every right to do so.

You have to be able to talk with all the parties in the Assembly over the

next five years because that is what the people have asked you to do in a

sense. There's lots of really interesting things. Major reform is

quite difficult in the sort of arena or the sort of things that we might

not see is major reorganisation of government because Plaid Cymru. Want

to be in government in that regard. They have not won enough seats to be

able to make wholesale changes to the structure. We have seen that

message on Friday that said we are not grids look at a coalition, it'll

be informal arrangement and yet we have been to hold Kirsty Williams

has been offered a cabinet position or discussions by Carwyn Jones. If

that is a price you? I have not heard that from Carmen Jones. I have

not heard him speak about that. It could be one way that he is reaching

out to all parties -- Carwyn Jones. It still does not reach 31. It's all

about 31. 29 doesn't matter and that's why there was never any

likelihood that Leanne Wood could be First Minister. You need to get 31

to get your budget through and that's what's important. Very

quickly, is it definitely going to be this week to think? Who knows?

The full deal is not going to be done by Tuesday that they will have

agreed on perhaps the principles. We will keep an eye have you back in.

Don't forget you follow all the latest on Twitter.

We're @walespolitics but for now that's all from me.

Diolch am wylio, thanks for watching.

heard assist that. Thank you for coming. Great to see you both. Back

to you. Welcome back. Now, have you had enough

of the EU referendum? Well there's a Queen's speech

next week in which we're promised Her Majesty will be talking

about something other than Europe. When Her Majesty visits

Parliament on Wednesday, front and centre in her speech

will be measures for curbing extremism, including banning hate

speakers from working with children And David Cameron will push forward

with Conservative plans for the British Bill of Rights,

in an attempt to assert the supremacy of UK courts

in the run-up to the EU referendum. The Prime Minister will also press

ahead with reforms to the adoption system, to speed up the placement

of children with permanent families. New rules will also be brought

in to make Britain a world leader in the development of driverless

cars, and the fishing port of Newquay may be about to become

the UK's first spaceport. It is one of eight sites

the Government will be looking at. And finally, schools in England

will be on the Queen's Along with the Government's

watered-down plans for academies, ministers will also now be

scrambling to work out new rules to stop parents

taking their children out of school for family holidays during term

time, following the High I don't get the impression there is

much to detract from the referendum campaign. Who knows whether any of

it will happen? You were just talking about the Lords and the

number of defeats, this has been a very torrid legislative session for

the government. You've had situations where the whips don't

seem to know what is going on. The Sunday trading Bill, it seemed like

the government did not realise they had not got the votes locked down.

Nobody knows who will be pro Minister after June the 23rd. Who

will be driving this legislation through? -- who will be Prime

Minister. Theresa May is a complicated opinion on the EU, she

wants to leave the EC HR but stay part of the EU. It is not there to

be exciting, it is to prove the government is doing something. To

the extent that there is any theme to what he announces, we need to go

back to 2005, David Cameron said he wants sunshine to win the day, the

wants his party to stop banging on about Europe and to be a social

reformer. There is a mention of reforming adoption systems, it is

like the big society has been wrenched back and David Cameron

wants people to think about his legacy as different from the one

nation Tory. Would be too much of an exaggeration to say that the

government is running the Remain campaign and is too busy doing that?

I don't think that it's an exaggeration at all. This speech is

going through the motions, I don't think it is something they need to

do. I don't think anyone will get terribly excited about it. This

British bill of rights, I had to look it up to see if it is the same

thing he has been talking about since opposition. But unless you

come out of the European Court, it does not make any difference. You

can always go to Strasberg. What was your take from Iain Duncan Smith.

He's an interesting media performer but I'm not sure he has appeal

beyond the base. The swing voter everybody is trying to target tends

to be an older northern man, classic Labour voter. What figures can speak

to those kind of people? I think all politicians have got a problem. Some

pollsters said, who is the figure who could convince people? They

said, the guy from money supermarket. The Governor of the

Bank of England is the closest you get in the political sphere. This is

a real problem for the Leave campaign, they don't have enough

people who preach beyond the converted. I was at the premiere of

Brexit The Movie. I felt that was a missed opportunity. So many

commentators were wheeled out who were over the age of 50, the

audience loved it but will it appeal beyond? I worry about that.

Commentators over the age of 50 will never catch on. What did you take of

it? There was a John Major called and Iain Duncan Smith winced with

fury. You realised this Tory civil war, the wounds were first fleshed

out 30 years ago. This stuff goes deep. Clearly immigration is his

strongest card and the idea that it is a conspiracy between these people

to keep us in, that is going to be their strongest card. That and

immigration. He did effectively call for the resignation of Mark Carney.

Now the rhetorical heat has been turned up on both sides

Let's just compare David Cameron's language in November last year

Some people seem to say that really Britain couldn't survive,

couldn't do OK outside the European Union.

Let's be frank, Britain is an amazing country.

We've got the fifth biggest economy in the world, we are

If we vote to leave on the 23rd of June, we will be

We will be voting for fewer jobs, we will be voting for lower growth.

We will be voting potentially for a recession.

He has dined out on the Euro-sceptic shilling for all these years and it

contrasts hugely with what he is saying no. It was bound to come back

and haunt her. It is remarkable the extent to which David Cameron has

been radicalised by his own campaign. Being in number ten is

like being in a cult. He has lost everything about his heritage. He is

fundamentally Euro-sceptic. Now we hear somebody banging the drum as if

Armageddon is happening if we vote out. It is bizarre. It is a problem,

what is the true David Cameron? Is it the one that we had only last

November? We should go back into the archives further, to see what he is

saying then,. But is it the one who says if we leave there will be armed

conflict? The issue for me, if you believe this, why would you risk

armed conflict for minor changes to our welfare balance? There is a

really interesting difference between him and Theresa May. She

said the sky will not fall in but in a dispassionate way, on balance, I

want us to remain in. That is realistic. Jeremy Corbyn has handled

this better than a it Cameron. That is another politician who is

naturally Euro-sceptic comedy follows the left-wing line that

there is a democratic deficit, corporate interests. When he is

asked about it he gives an answer as he did yesterday that is about

social protections and workers and sounds quite convincing. What do you

make of it? When David Cameron and owns the referendum it was born of

panic. The cause we have short-term culture in politics, it was brought

about by the rise of Ukip, Nigel Farage was doing fantastically well.

Little did they know that they would only get one MP and it has backfired

massively. If this was going to risk Armageddon it was stupid and

irrational of the Prime Minister. I wanted to ask you about the polls

but we've not got time. By next week, maybe when it has sunk in, so

far we have not seen any difference in the polls.

Now, viewers in the North West will have just seen Conservative MP

for Cheadle Mary Robinson challenged about whether expenses

for volunteers on a Conservative election Battle Bus in the run-up

to last year's general election should have been charged

to her local campaign or the national party.

The Conservative Party are under investigation for failing

to declare these expenses - something they put down

to an administrative error - but Ms Robinson insisted

The party was quite clear to us locally that it would be included

in the national spend and that was what we relied on,

and from my point of view it was never going to be a national

The national party told you this was going to be a national expense?

The national party was clear that it was part of the national expense.

It is not going away. It is really important. Journalists come under a

lot of flak. This is a very difficult story to report. It is

about minor details, accounting. This has been kept alive entirely by

journalists. Particularly Michael Crick on Channel 4 News. Exactly.

Things come out and it is hard to keep them down. People sitting at

home thinking journalism is all terrible, for once people will think

happier. Think of the fury of the Labour moderates, this is an open

goal, a well-organised Labour Party, strong leadership, it might be

exposed a bit, but they should exploit this. They have got complete

silence. So far you've got 11 police forces investigating the

Conservative Party about fraud and not a pipsqueak. The reason there

are so quiet is because they are up to their necks in it as well. That

is the difficulty, that it has been very difficult for broadcasters to

get MPs on from other parties because they are all concerned that

they have too much to hide. When I asked Alan Johnston about it, he did

not know anything about it. Michael Portillo did not know about it

either. I found that quite remarkable. It is a hard story to

digests. What is the one sentence explanation for that? When there is

all this blunder about the EU, it is crowding everything out. The money

was charged to the national campaign which was under the legal limit. It

should have been charged to the local campaigns but that would have

put it over the legal limit and that is where the criminal penalties are.

This is a big story about the way elections are funded, which is

ridiculous. As soon as somebody gets into government they lose interest

in it. You need to cover American elections if you think that is

ridiculous. I'm serious, the evidence we have is about the

Conservatives, how serious? I think they will get away with it. I don't

think the Labour Party is well placed to exploit it. The problem is

it will solidify and consolidate a feeling lots of people have that

politicians are a bunch of crooks, most of them are not. This certainly

stinks. We shall see. The police investigations are going on. That is

it for today. Thank you to all of my guests. I will be back at the same

time next week here on BBC One. The Daily Politics is back tomorrow. If

it is Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.