:00:38. > :00:40.Afternoon folks and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:41. > :00:49.in a government review of their powers
:00:50. > :00:50.so will it have 11 lords-a-leaping(!)
:00:51. > :00:52.in outrage this Christmas?
:00:53. > :00:54.David Cameron says he wants to stay in the EU
:00:55. > :00:58.but can he do a deal in Brussels that will satisfy his colleagues
:00:59. > :01:01.The US central bank raises interests rates
:01:02. > :01:04.from near zero for the first time in seven years,
:01:05. > :01:06.what does that mean for the rest of the world's
:01:07. > :01:20.And, politicians on the real meaning of Christmas...
:01:21. > :01:31.Four tax returns, three more boules, and a rebate of 21p! -- three more
:01:32. > :01:35.bills. the penultimate Daily Politics
:01:36. > :02:02.of the year, that means second last(!),
:02:03. > :02:05.and with us for the duration today and expert of parliamentary
:02:06. > :02:07.rebellions. Phil Cowley, welcome
:02:08. > :02:09.to the programme. It wasn't rebellion
:02:10. > :02:11.in the government's own ranks that gave George Osborne a headache
:02:12. > :02:14.earlier this year. They rejected his cuts to tax
:02:15. > :02:16.credits forcing the Chancellor
:02:17. > :02:17.to perform a U-turn. But he promised to "deal with"
:02:18. > :02:20.the House the Lords and the PM commissioned
:02:21. > :02:22.a review of its power. Well that review's reported this
:02:23. > :02:24.morning and it's recommended that their Lord and Ladyships
:02:25. > :02:26.have their wings clipped, losing its power of veto over
:02:27. > :02:29.some changes in the law. Here's the Leader of the Lords,
:02:30. > :02:31.Lady Stowell, responding
:02:32. > :02:34.to that report. There was a long-standing convention
:02:35. > :02:37.in the House of Lords which is about how the house of Lords uses its
:02:38. > :02:39.powers, that has broken down, there's that has broken down, we
:02:40. > :02:42.need a new settlements to insure that the elected House of Commons
:02:43. > :02:44.always has the final say. Lord Strathclyde has had a big piece of
:02:45. > :02:49.work, coming up with three options, he has made one of those
:02:50. > :02:51.recommendation, it is effectively a compromise solution, which will
:02:52. > :02:55.offer the House of Lords a new power, and they will be looking at
:02:56. > :03:03.that and thinking about that and they will respond in the New Year.
:03:04. > :03:04.We're joined now by the Conservative Peer,
:03:05. > :03:06.George Young, and from the Lords' Lobby in parliament,
:03:07. > :03:16.What is the significance of what has been proposed? On one level, fairly
:03:17. > :03:19.minor, the Lords really use this power in the past, I think it is
:03:20. > :03:22.more indicative of a Conservative government, the first Conservative
:03:23. > :03:26.government that has not had a majority in the Lords. Historically
:03:27. > :03:31.they could always count on a majority in the upper house. After
:03:32. > :03:35.the reform in 1999, no party had a majority but the Conservatives were
:03:36. > :03:38.in opposition, and even last time, there was an effective government
:03:39. > :03:41.majority in the Lords, so the first time they are having to deal with a
:03:42. > :03:46.House of Lords which does not have a majority. This is over secondary
:03:47. > :03:51.legislation, that is what upset them, statutory instruments. This is
:03:52. > :03:56.what causes me the most concern, we use secondary legislation to much
:03:57. > :04:00.anyway, and they are not terribly well scrutinised, I think there must
:04:01. > :04:04.be an incentive, if you go down the road proposed by the government,
:04:05. > :04:07.that it is an even greater incentive to put more and more legislation
:04:08. > :04:13.into secondary legislation by governments. George Young, you lost
:04:14. > :04:18.on the tax credits, isn't this a bit of an overreaction? No, this is a
:04:19. > :04:21.real problem for whoever is in government, until quite recently
:04:22. > :04:25.there was a convention that the House of Lords did not overturn,
:04:26. > :04:30.happened rarely, then it happened on this occasion, and it is in
:04:31. > :04:35.everyone's's interest. Basically what we have done is apply the
:04:36. > :04:38.statutory instrument, the same process we have with bills, asked
:04:39. > :04:43.the Commons to think again, but we can't kill it. What Tom Strathclyde
:04:44. > :04:46.has recommended is for the House of Lords to have an additional weapon
:04:47. > :04:49.in their armoury, which more accurately reflect their role of
:04:50. > :04:52.revising and asking the second chamber, the first chamber, to think
:04:53. > :04:57.again, instead of the nuclear option, which kills the statutory
:04:58. > :05:02.instrument if we rode against it. This is a hammer to smash a nut,
:05:03. > :05:08.governments have only been defeated on secondary legislation four times
:05:09. > :05:12.since the 1960s! Not only did it happen with tax credits, but there
:05:13. > :05:15.was a concerted attempt, a few days afterwards, to do it on another
:05:16. > :05:22.piece of legislation, on electoral reform. There is a need to sort this
:05:23. > :05:25.out. I hope there is not a knee jerk reaction, that we cannot have this,
:05:26. > :05:29.the government has said they will think about it and come back with a
:05:30. > :05:33.response in January, I hope that other parties in the Lords, we may
:05:34. > :05:37.at some point have the same problem, take the same considered response.
:05:38. > :05:39.White lets see, Toby Harris, will you care to give as a knee jerk
:05:40. > :05:43.reaction? -- Toby Harris, will you care
:05:44. > :05:52.to give as a knee jerk They are overreaction, although the
:05:53. > :05:57.House of Lords did, using its historic way of operating, was to
:05:58. > :06:01.refer the matter back to the House of Commons and say, think again. And
:06:02. > :06:04.then low and behold, George Osborne did think again, changed his mind!
:06:05. > :06:10.LAUGHTER The whole point, that was the system
:06:11. > :06:14.working! You make a good point, that was the upper chamber in such power
:06:15. > :06:21.as it has working in a spectacular way, it made you think again about
:06:22. > :06:26.tax credits, they were unpopular even among your own MPs, the
:06:27. > :06:29.Chancellor scrap it altogether, the Lords made you think again, the
:06:30. > :06:33.government included, it was right that you thought against blue the
:06:34. > :06:37.proposal by Tom Strathclyde would do the same thing, we could have
:06:38. > :06:41.rejected it and enjoy invited House of Commons to think again without
:06:42. > :06:47.using the nuclear option, despite what Toby Harris has said, they
:06:48. > :06:51.decline to pass it, they did not ask the government to think again. Did
:06:52. > :06:57.you set out not to think again but to kill it? No, we reverted back, we
:06:58. > :07:02.said, not at the moment, come back when you have thought about it
:07:03. > :07:04.properly. The reality is that most statutory instruments are barely
:07:05. > :07:08.considered an House of Commons, shuffled off to a small
:07:09. > :07:11.subcommittee, with a government majority, there is not the proper
:07:12. > :07:15.scrutiny, the things that the House of Lords is all about, what it is
:07:16. > :07:20.for, what ever is constituted, it is good to me, to look in detail at the
:07:21. > :07:25.practicalities of what the government is proposing. Ask the
:07:26. > :07:31.government to think again, but not nuclear bomb it. George Young has
:07:32. > :07:35.said this several times, that you were out to nuclear bomb it.
:07:36. > :07:39.Splitting an infinitive there, sorry, to bomb it in a nuclear
:07:40. > :07:45.way(!) what is your reaction to that? As I have said several times,
:07:46. > :07:50.we reverted back to the Commons to think again, but the other thing
:07:51. > :07:55.that has happened, and it is accelerating, government, both
:07:56. > :07:58.parties, all parties, have being increasingly using statutory
:07:59. > :08:02.instruments in a way which was never intended, if Parliamentary democracy
:08:03. > :08:06.is going to work, there has got to be proper scrutiny of important
:08:07. > :08:10.points of principle, and the mechanics of how government is
:08:11. > :08:14.operating. If Parliament does not do that, what is the point of the upper
:08:15. > :08:18.house? The Commons, as I think Toby Harris has said, often has very
:08:19. > :08:21.little time to do the scrutiny of these issues, it is a convenient way
:08:22. > :08:26.of the government getting things through under the radar. Surely a
:08:27. > :08:31.legitimate purpose is not to stop it or bonded with nuclear weapons,
:08:32. > :08:37.weapons of mass destruction(!), but scrutinised and sent it back? What
:08:38. > :08:41.we have proposed meets Toby Harris's macro point, it asks the government
:08:42. > :08:45.to think again by sending these statutory instruments back, if they
:08:46. > :08:51.approve it, fine, if they reject it, then the House of Commons has had
:08:52. > :08:56.the last word. -- meets Toby Harris's point. The Lords ask you to
:08:57. > :09:01.think again... There will be a king without a poll. That is the point?
:09:02. > :09:08.That is what the House of Lords ought to be all about. -- there will
:09:09. > :09:20.be a without a partner -- there will be a ping without a pong. If all
:09:21. > :09:26.that you do is, think again, this is a much weaker process, this would
:09:27. > :09:31.divide even greater incentive for governments to put it into
:09:32. > :09:33.secondary. That is to ignore one of the recommendation from Tom
:09:34. > :09:37.Strathclyde, that we should be careful what we put into secondary
:09:38. > :09:41.legislation. Part of his recommendation. That is like giving
:09:42. > :09:48.somebody a pistol and saying, don't use it. Was part of the problem that
:09:49. > :09:52.the Lords overplayed its hand, you have already defeated this
:09:53. > :09:57.government 23 times, in the House of Lords, as the of November, perhaps
:09:58. > :10:02.you need to be more disciplined in the areas where you pick your
:10:03. > :10:05.fights? Most of those defeats were on world that started in the House
:10:06. > :10:09.of Lords, we were not saying no to the House of Commons we were saying,
:10:10. > :10:15.we should look at this bill in a better shape before you even begin
:10:16. > :10:18.considering it, that is the role of the House of Lords. The government
:10:19. > :10:22.does not like scrutiny and does not like challenge, and so it is
:10:23. > :10:27.removing the powers from the House of Lords, diminishing that scrutiny,
:10:28. > :10:30.it is not doing anything about the powers in the House of Commons. We
:10:31. > :10:35.need to leave if there are, before you go, Toby Harris, you are share
:10:36. > :10:39.of the Labour peers group, by all accounts you had a pretty heated
:10:40. > :10:44.meeting last night, can you give is a little colour as to what happened?
:10:45. > :10:48.I do not know what you mean by heated, it was a large and well
:10:49. > :10:53.attended meeting. -- can you give us a little colour as to what happened?
:10:54. > :10:56.I have attended meetings of the Parliamentary Labour Party which
:10:57. > :11:00.have been much more heated. People raised issues, the leader of the
:11:01. > :11:03.Labour Party answer them, most people went away satisfied, that he
:11:04. > :11:07.has been there and answer the question. Was there an altercation
:11:08. > :11:12.between Peter Mandelson and Ed Jeremy Corbyn? Asked a question, got
:11:13. > :11:16.a reply, Neil Kinnock asked a question, he got a reply, as did ten
:11:17. > :11:23.others. Do you think that he was happy with the reply? You would have
:11:24. > :11:30.to ask them about that. Nothing to see, move along? Absolutely! -- was
:11:31. > :11:34.there an altercation between Peter Mandelson and Jeremy Corbyn? Peter
:11:35. > :11:38.Mandelson asked a question, and he received a reply.
:11:39. > :11:42.The question for today is what was proposed should replace
:11:43. > :11:45.Was it a) Daleks, b) Royal Marines
:11:46. > :11:47.c) former chief whip Andrew Mitchell or d) Stormtroopers?
:11:48. > :11:51.Philip will hopefully give us the correct answer.
:11:52. > :12:06.This afternoon, David Cameron finally arrived in Brussels to try
:12:07. > :12:08.to persuade the 27 other presidents and prime ministers to agree to
:12:09. > :12:11.changes to the terms of Britain's membership of the European Union.
:12:12. > :12:14.Our correspondent Chris Morris is in Brussels. Is going to need a fuchsia
:12:15. > :12:16.is because it is going to be so long! What is on the agenda, what is
:12:17. > :12:19.the timetable? It starts with the migration crisis, which is what all
:12:20. > :12:23.of those other 27 leaders that David Cameron will be speaking with our
:12:24. > :12:26.far more concerned about, he will have to wait until that debate is
:12:27. > :12:31.finished, until dinner time, when his big moment comes, and there will
:12:32. > :12:37.at last be a substantive, in-depth debate about the UK we renegotiation
:12:38. > :12:41.proposals, it is very clear that at least one part of it, the whole idea
:12:42. > :12:45.of restricting access to in work benefits for migrant workers, that
:12:46. > :12:50.is unacceptable, does not fly in several countries, how to find a way
:12:51. > :12:53.past that? There has been technical discussions, there has been legal
:12:54. > :12:58.discussions, four months, the message from other capitals is
:12:59. > :13:02.clear, we need to hear a notablys political argument from David
:13:03. > :13:07.Cameron about why he needs this, why this is so important, why it is so
:13:08. > :13:13.important for the United Kingdom, people are wondering... They want to
:13:14. > :13:16.help but they need to be given a solid political argument. They have
:13:17. > :13:21.their own political constituencies back and to think about, they need
:13:22. > :13:27.to find a way to do a deal. Britain is not just the agenda but on the
:13:28. > :13:30.menu(!) over dinner, it involves the top politicians, so it has to be a
:13:31. > :13:36.relatively general discussion, and am I right in thinking that the most
:13:37. > :13:39.that we can hope is some general words on their attitude towards
:13:40. > :13:43.Britain's demands, but that all of the real work, a lot of the real
:13:44. > :13:45.work, is still yet to be done? The next stage is another summit in
:13:46. > :13:53.February? A lot of the work that still need to
:13:54. > :13:56.be done but all of the bureaucrats are saying that mini political
:13:57. > :14:00.guidance from the top level, what is possible in the UK and in other
:14:01. > :14:06.countries, until we hear that, we cannot move the work along. I have
:14:07. > :14:08.heard from senior officials that it is intensely complicated comment we
:14:09. > :14:12.are nowhere near a solution, for the next couple of weeks most people
:14:13. > :14:16.will go off with mulled wine and Christmas pies, they will not be
:14:17. > :14:18.paying attention to Britain's problems, and they are far more
:14:19. > :14:23.concerned about the migration crisis anyway. Despite all of that, we are
:14:24. > :14:29.told there is a good chance we can have a deal on this by early
:14:30. > :14:32.February, if there is a rabbit to be pulled out of the hat, at the
:14:33. > :14:34.moment, Andrew, they are keeping it pretty well hidden. Sounds like it
:14:35. > :14:38.is going to be a long night! So what impact is the Prime
:14:39. > :14:41.Minister's renegotiation having on public opinion and how they might
:14:42. > :14:44.vote in the referendum was altered in September it's looked
:14:45. > :14:54.like a close race in the nearly 30 internet polls that
:14:55. > :14:55.have been conducted - most have "remain" in the lead
:14:56. > :14:58.but they've narrowed recently with some polls showing
:14:59. > :15:01.the "leave" answer edging it. But polls conducted over
:15:02. > :15:06.the telephone rather than the internet have consistently
:15:07. > :15:13.shown a big lead for "remain" with the latest from ComRes giving
:15:14. > :15:18."remain" 56% and "leave" 35%. That was bigger than the staying in
:15:19. > :15:26.campaign in the Scottish referendum. Public opinion could be altered
:15:27. > :15:28.by the kind of deal David Cameron In an ICM poll published on Tuesday
:15:29. > :15:33.the percentage who said they would vote to leave went up
:15:34. > :15:36.from 41% to 45% if "freedom of movement" rules allowing EU
:15:37. > :15:38.migrants to live and work That is the current state of the
:15:39. > :15:47.polling. We're
:15:48. > :15:55.joined now by the pollster Why is there a difference between
:15:56. > :16:00.online polling and telephone? That is what we wanted to find out,
:16:01. > :16:04.whether it was house a or method effect. Over the weekend we
:16:05. > :16:09.conducted an online and telephone poll to look at the differences and
:16:10. > :16:13.in the telephone poll we had a 21 percentage point lead for the remain
:16:14. > :16:20.campaign but it was neck and neck online. We found exactly the same
:16:21. > :16:26.discrepancy. Different people? Yes, and this is the point, with online
:16:27. > :16:30.samples on voting intention you get similar figures between online and
:16:31. > :16:34.telephone but that is because it is voting intention is built over years
:16:35. > :16:38.and people don't change very often but you start from such a low
:16:39. > :16:43.knowledge base on this issue that bit more of an engaged sample
:16:44. > :16:48.online, people more engaged in social media, that can have an
:16:49. > :16:56.impact on how they say they bowled. What should politicians do and
:16:57. > :17:02.depend on? -- say they vote. Should Boris Johnson lead the out campaign
:17:03. > :17:05.or stick with the in campaign? It was really interesting because over
:17:06. > :17:11.the weekend we looked at how voter groups voted in or out and we found
:17:12. > :17:15.that whereas Labour were very much, their voters wanted to stay in the
:17:16. > :17:20.EU, in the Conservatives there was a high level among them don't know,
:17:21. > :17:27.they are the swing voters and that is all to play for. I was told that
:17:28. > :17:32.that is why David Cameron is crucial among conservative voters.
:17:33. > :17:36.Absolutely. Given that he won the election when not expected to, his
:17:37. > :17:41.stock is high with Tory voters and how he comes out will have a big
:17:42. > :17:46.impact, perhaps not on the whole country but certainly in the Tory
:17:47. > :17:49.heartlands. Yes, and certainly negotiations will have a massive
:17:50. > :17:54.impact. Things like migrants and four years of not having benefits,
:17:55. > :17:59.people are more likely to stay in if that was renegotiated. Are you
:18:00. > :18:04.surprised by this discrepancy? A little bit in that in the election
:18:05. > :18:08.as you say, there was no real difference between online polls and
:18:09. > :18:12.telephone. The argument that this is about knowledge and engagement is
:18:13. > :18:19.plausible. The knowledge base is quite low. Lots of people have yet
:18:20. > :18:23.to engage. Loads of people are movable on this and I think the
:18:24. > :18:30.point about the Conservatives as a bloc, the other key thing is that
:18:31. > :18:34.it's not just cave David Cameron -- it's not just David Cameron. The
:18:35. > :18:39.fact that there will be a fight is not necessarily bad, to be able to
:18:40. > :18:44.show even if the policy offer is limited, to show that he can go and
:18:45. > :18:47.negotiate and generate change, that could be significant. Are you not
:18:48. > :18:53.wasting your time at the moment and other people's money? The polls
:18:54. > :18:57.really don't tell us anything at the moment. People are not focused on
:18:58. > :19:02.this. They tell us nothing about how people really vote beyond the
:19:03. > :19:07.hard-core of we should always stay in whatever happens and we should
:19:08. > :19:10.leave whatever happens. But that is significant at the moment because we
:19:11. > :19:16.need to know where we are starting from and where the hard-core blocks
:19:17. > :19:19.are. The conservative voters are the ones who don't know and that finding
:19:20. > :19:24.is important for the Conservative Party to look out. Certainly
:19:25. > :19:31.important for the campaigns. Labour voters, I understand why in London,
:19:32. > :19:34.more metropolitan middle-class Labour voters would be strongly for
:19:35. > :19:38.staying in but is there any evidence about the attitude of working-class
:19:39. > :19:41.Labour voters in the Midlands or in the North? For example the people
:19:42. > :19:47.that gave Labour a strong pre-election majority in the
:19:48. > :19:51.by-election in Oldham. Yes, this will be interesting to look at as
:19:52. > :19:56.the campaign develops and progresses because I think it is this point
:19:57. > :20:00.about how engaged our people at this stage? At the moment as you say
:20:01. > :20:04.people are not engaged and this is a benchmark. This is where people are
:20:05. > :20:10.at the moment but as the campaign goes on certainly some of the groups
:20:11. > :20:14.will change. Unlike the Parliamentary party or even the
:20:15. > :20:18.Cabinet, the Conservatives are split on this issue. The bigger phenomenon
:20:19. > :20:25.among conservative voters is don't know rather than split? They are
:20:26. > :20:28.withholding judgment. The two things, certainly the common mantra
:20:29. > :20:33.in the media is that what Mr Cameron is looking for is neither here nor
:20:34. > :20:37.there. But it seems like what he comes back whether and how he sells
:20:38. > :20:41.it will be an important part of the campaign. There are different
:20:42. > :20:44.audiences, the Parliamentary party will be following the detail but
:20:45. > :20:49.would not be convinced by almost anything that is plausibly
:20:50. > :20:54.returnable. Then the general public are not particularly engaged but I
:20:55. > :20:57.think they are minded, if there is a deal, to stay in. They are
:20:58. > :21:03.completely different. My broader point is not just... We are not
:21:04. > :21:08.wasting money because I think it is interesting but we are less than a
:21:09. > :21:12.year away from one of the biggest polling disasters in the industry's
:21:13. > :21:20.history. I wasn't going to mention that in the presence of ComRes! Lets
:21:21. > :21:25.not obsess about this, find it interesting and get what we can, but
:21:26. > :21:32.let's not obsess. Let's not let it influence coverage like what
:21:33. > :21:35.happened in May. How is this big investigation going into the
:21:36. > :21:40.performance of the pollsters at the election? We did a lot of work after
:21:41. > :21:43.the election looking at what went wrong. We were the least inaccurate
:21:44. > :21:47.but fundamentally we were not close enough and we have done a lot of
:21:48. > :21:52.modelling on turnout and actual data to look at how we can model that. We
:21:53. > :21:58.actually published hours a month after. Isn't there an industrywide
:21:59. > :22:03.problem? The first meeting is going to be in January to look at initial
:22:04. > :22:06.findings and then it will follow in March. We are finding is actually a
:22:07. > :22:14.lot of what we have already looked at coming out in that. Get on with
:22:15. > :22:25.it, we need to know! Thank you for joining us. Communities Secretary
:22:26. > :22:26.Greg Clark has been outlining how much money local authorities can
:22:27. > :22:29.expect in the next financial year. But it comes in the context of a big
:22:30. > :22:32.change in way local authorities are funded, which was outlined
:22:33. > :22:37.in November's Spending Review. When George Osborne became
:22:38. > :22:42.chancellor back in 2010 60% of the money spent by local
:22:43. > :22:45.government was given to it in grants But in plans outlined
:22:46. > :22:50.by the Chancellor in last month's spending review, after 2020 councils
:22:51. > :22:52.will generate all the money they spend - though
:22:53. > :22:54.there will still be some This massive change has some
:22:55. > :23:02.councils complaining At the same time as coping
:23:03. > :23:09.with the increasing cost of providing care for
:23:10. > :23:13.an ageing population. That is the key role of local
:23:14. > :23:18.authorities. a new "precept" which can increase
:23:19. > :23:22.council tax by up to 2% each year, as long as the money raised
:23:23. > :23:31.is spent on social care. for the Better Care Fund,
:23:32. > :23:36.a joint NHS and local council pot to encourage integration
:23:37. > :23:43.in health and social care. of business rate revenues
:23:44. > :23:56.from new developments will be Big changes there in the financing
:23:57. > :23:58.of local authorities, more devolution of money but will it make
:23:59. > :24:02.for better local government? settlement by the chairman
:24:03. > :24:04.of the Local Government Association, and Conservative
:24:05. > :24:10.peer, Gary Porter... Welcome to the programme. What is
:24:11. > :24:13.your overall verdict? Better than it could have been, there are positives
:24:14. > :24:19.around the freedoms to raise more money. Lately we have been arguing
:24:20. > :24:22.for that for some time. The real benefit of a four year settlement
:24:23. > :24:26.will allow councils to balance the harder times and we can't lose sight
:24:27. > :24:32.of the fact that next year will be harder out of the whole settlement.
:24:33. > :24:35.Will it get worse before it gets better? Sometimes life does that but
:24:36. > :24:39.now we have the freedom to plan which we haven't had before, that is
:24:40. > :24:43.good. We can't lose sight of the fact that there will be significant
:24:44. > :24:49.pressures down the line as beings like the living wage and minimum
:24:50. > :24:53.wage increases. Councils will have do pay low paid workers more? Yes,
:24:54. > :24:57.and that will have an impact, some of these numbers are quite high, ?10
:24:58. > :25:04.billion over the life of the Parliament. You don't sound consumed
:25:05. > :25:10.with enthusiasm! Well, I'm massively more enthusiastic than if you'd have
:25:11. > :25:13.interviewed me for five years ago. Four or five years ago we were
:25:14. > :25:18.looking at a considerably worse situation and we had less freedom.
:25:19. > :25:23.We have the freedoms we have been asking for. The government got
:25:24. > :25:27.elected on the manifesto. You have freedom to raise council tax if you
:25:28. > :25:30.spend it on social care and every penny you raise will be quickly
:25:31. > :25:37.absorbed by the rising demands of social care. You haven't this side
:25:38. > :25:41.of 2020 got freedom to raise any more money? Business rate retention,
:25:42. > :25:47.as it rolls through we won't have too wait to see business rate
:25:48. > :25:51.retention. But you don't get any more money? Don't you get the money
:25:52. > :25:55.that did go to central government and then they handed it back and now
:25:56. > :26:02.you get to keep what is handed back? And now what we increase it by. You
:26:03. > :26:06.can increase rates? We can increase the number of businesses that are
:26:07. > :26:10.paying. In the old days if we encouraged businesses to come into
:26:11. > :26:14.the area most of that would be retained locally -- most of that
:26:15. > :26:20.would go to the government but it is now retained locally. Now we will
:26:21. > :26:24.have the ability to raise local money to pay for local services.
:26:25. > :26:35.This could just be the start and we will be making the case about why
:26:36. > :26:40.other things should be precepted. You said even if councils turn off
:26:41. > :26:43.every street light and close museums they will not save enough money to
:26:44. > :26:50.plug the financial black hole that they faced by 2020. This is the
:26:51. > :26:54.start of being able to do that. Is it not true? Clearly there will be
:26:55. > :26:58.funding pressures and we will be looking at a ?10 billion shortfall
:26:59. > :27:03.going forward but at least we have some freedoms to do something about
:27:04. > :27:09.it. We still need large scale public sector reform. We can't keep
:27:10. > :27:12.spending money in the way we do. The devolution deals in Manchester and
:27:13. > :27:18.other metropolitan cities, it will be the start of plugging the gaps in
:27:19. > :27:21.money, but we need to have access to this money because we keep spending
:27:22. > :27:27.it retrospectively fixing things that have been broken. But you
:27:28. > :27:30.aren't going to get access to national health spending? Manchester
:27:31. > :27:37.will be able to access some of it and prevent pressure being put on
:27:38. > :27:41.the NHS. How big is this change? It is quite big and local government is
:27:42. > :27:46.one of those things that does the hard graft, the unglamorous bits of
:27:47. > :27:50.politics. It has really suffered over the past five years, it was one
:27:51. > :27:54.of the easier targets for the coalition when they are looking at
:27:55. > :27:59.savings. I think you are right, the worst of the pain is still to come.
:28:00. > :28:06.Whether this will work, I am less convinced. Is there not a problem
:28:07. > :28:11.here in that the councils that are most able to attract businesses will
:28:12. > :28:16.get the most money from a 2% precept to pay for social care, and it will
:28:17. > :28:19.be inevitably in the more affluent areas of the country and those
:28:20. > :28:23.councils that are poorer and don't have the same revenue base will be
:28:24. > :28:28.struggling? But that was the point of winning the extra ?1.5 billion
:28:29. > :28:35.for the better care fund which will be targeted at those areas not able
:28:36. > :28:38.to raise as much money through the precepted council tax. The better
:28:39. > :28:45.care fund will not be evenly distributed? Yes, and they will have
:28:46. > :28:49.to be a conversation about what that means, but it is the same with
:28:50. > :28:51.business rates, local government doesn't think that keeping business
:28:52. > :28:55.rates means that every single council will keep every single pound
:28:56. > :29:00.they earn or Westminster will be having a nice life and somewhere out
:29:01. > :29:03.in the sticks will find it difficult. There will still need to
:29:04. > :29:08.be a conversation but our argument is rather than the government
:29:09. > :29:16.equalising, we should do it as a sector and we should work out how
:29:17. > :29:20.best to redistribute the pot. We have had quite a lot of influence
:29:21. > :29:26.with Greg and the Treasury team to try to influence how the cake was
:29:27. > :29:30.cut. We could not make the cake any bigger and that was beyond our
:29:31. > :29:33.ability, getting someone to put more yeast in there, but given the cake
:29:34. > :29:37.we have got we have a relatively good settlement for each type of
:29:38. > :29:41.counsel. Given the cuts that councils have already had to injure
:29:42. > :29:50.or with more on the way, and rising demand for social care, -- have had
:29:51. > :29:54.to endure. Hospitals are being courage to devolve stuff to social
:29:55. > :30:00.care that was currently being done in hospitals, it's a combination of
:30:01. > :30:05.the precept and social care fund, is that enough money? In the short term
:30:06. > :30:13.it will be, we anticipate ?3.5 billion of extra need and this is
:30:14. > :30:16.3.2, 3.3. It's not going to caterer for the increase. We should be
:30:17. > :30:19.celebrating the fact that we live longer but we are now promoting the
:30:20. > :30:23.fact it costs a lot and it's wrong. We need to spend the money in the
:30:24. > :30:28.system in a way that makes it not such a big problem and you have to
:30:29. > :30:32.start with the health spending and we have to do that as taxpayers,
:30:33. > :30:35.leaving the central government free to move around money. We should not
:30:36. > :30:41.have insisted on a ring fence for the NHS.
:30:42. > :30:46.Now, a new Labour leader who barely featured before his
:30:47. > :30:49.A relatively unknown as Shadow Chancellor.
:30:50. > :30:51.And so many Lib Dems no longer on the political scene.
:30:52. > :30:54.at these time of big political change.
:30:55. > :31:00.Here's impressionist, John Culshaw, with his review of the year.
:31:01. > :31:07.-- Here's impressionist, Jon Culshaw,
:31:08. > :31:15.Well, I suppose 2015 has been rather quiet politically, really.
:31:16. > :31:17.Although there was the general election, civil war
:31:18. > :31:19.within the Labour Party, the Lib Dems facing extinction,
:31:20. > :31:21.and One Direction going in several directions.
:31:22. > :31:23.It's hard to know where to start, really.
:31:24. > :31:25.IMPERSONATES ED MILIBAND: Look, I will leave 'not knowing
:31:26. > :31:32.Turn to camera but don't read out the bits in bold like last time
:31:33. > :31:45.I was the happy warrior simply wondering if there would be enough
:31:46. > :31:48.And we decided to capitalise on this by writing on a big
:31:49. > :31:52.Which turned out to be rather a good kitchen work surface actually.
:31:53. > :31:54.But whereas I said, hell yes, I'm tough enough.
:31:55. > :31:56.The hard-working British people just said hell.
:31:57. > :31:58.And now I'm disposable like a plastic carrier
:31:59. > :32:03.IMPERSONATES NIGEL FARAGE: Oh, shut up, Miliband.
:32:04. > :32:05.At least you are still in the Commons.
:32:06. > :32:07.Do you know what it's like as Ukip leader,
:32:08. > :32:12.I've been waiting for practically an entire Chilcot.
:32:13. > :32:15.I was going to install a minibar under the dispatch box.
:32:16. > :32:16.No wonder I resigned as leader of Ukip.
:32:17. > :32:29.IMPERSONATES TIM FARRON: No, no, it didn't go well
:32:30. > :32:33.for the Lib Dems but tiny Tim Farron is going to make it right.
:32:34. > :32:35.At least we have kept up one great Liberal party tradition.
:32:36. > :32:43.But we will need a roof rack for Cleggy.
:32:44. > :32:44.CHUCKLES IMPERSONATES DAVID CAMERON: Come on,
:32:45. > :32:47.everybody, in all my time as Prime Minister I've never felt
:32:48. > :32:52.Let's get this EU referendum thingy out of the way then I will be
:32:53. > :32:53.chillaxing in Tuscany with the best of them.
:32:54. > :32:57.I will be in pole position on the speaker circuit, Davey, baby.
:32:58. > :32:59.You can never do too many after-dinner speeches.
:33:00. > :33:01.Especially when you are Lord Hague of Richmond.
:33:02. > :33:25.Mr Palmerston. He's a madcat.
:33:26. > :33:35.Chancellarium retchedarius. Oxbridge and South Ruislip?
:33:36. > :33:41.Could there be a greater d-d-disaster?
:33:42. > :33:43.IMPERSONATES JEREMY CORBYN: Yes, Mr Speaker, I have a question
:33:44. > :33:54.Gladys says, Jeremy, why can't you think of any
:33:55. > :34:18.HIMSELF: Well, I shall close as all accomplished speakers do
:34:19. > :34:20.with the words of Chairman Mao, in fact, not Chairman Mao but Andrew
:34:21. > :34:30.IMPERSONATES ANDREW NEIL: That's it from us here at College Green.
:34:31. > :34:35.Only eight hours until Annabel's opens.
:34:36. > :35:01.half hours, but I think I was beginning to
:35:02. > :35:10.Well so much for last year, what does 2016 hold?
:35:11. > :35:33.It is a quarter of one per cent but it does set the trend,
:35:34. > :35:35.but not just there, here, too.
:35:36. > :35:38.Here to read the economic runes with me is the Economist,
:35:39. > :35:43.Danny Blanchflower flown in at Snow ex p to the BBC, because we didn't
:35:44. > :35:47.pay! LAUGHTER Welcome to the programme. Thank you
:35:48. > :35:53.very much. What is this mean for the global economy? If they are right,
:35:54. > :36:02.then it is picking up. -- flown in that no expense to the BBC -- at no
:36:03. > :36:06.expense. Every one of the forecasts has proven to be overly optimistic,
:36:07. > :36:11.the worry is going to be that this will generate all kinds of
:36:12. > :36:12.volatility in the world, big impact on emerging markets, just like the
:36:13. > :36:17.previous attempt, and so the on emerging markets, just like the
:36:18. > :36:21.question is, is the forecast that we have, and the hope that they have,
:36:22. > :36:25.that all will be well, and next year they can raise rates again, is that
:36:26. > :36:29.what is going to happen? The worry, just to start with, is that the
:36:30. > :36:33.markets do not believe it. So they say that eventually rates will go to
:36:34. > :36:38.three and a half percent and the market say, not on your life!
:36:39. > :36:42.Interestingly, the people who are responsible for setting the rates,
:36:43. > :36:46.they have a different view, to the markets. Think about the reality in
:36:47. > :36:50.the UK, Mark Carney has been saying for a long time, rate rises will
:36:51. > :36:54.come into focus towards the end of the year, and people like me have
:36:55. > :36:58.said, no wait, now he has had to backtrack. We have had eight years
:36:59. > :37:05.of this. The markets do not believe what the central bank says. That is
:37:06. > :37:10.a big worry if you lose your credibility. One more argument,
:37:11. > :37:14.about the economy, and then into the United Kingdom, this rate rise,
:37:15. > :37:22.taking place at a time when, when the global economy is pretty
:37:23. > :37:26.stagnant, too strong a word? Well, not full of effervescence, at least,
:37:27. > :37:32.the World Bank talking about growth of more than 3%, it is a drag on
:37:33. > :37:36.overall growth. Russia, today, Vladimir Putin is making a speech,
:37:37. > :37:40.talk about how it is performed less well than he had hoped, Argentina,
:37:41. > :37:46.freely floating the currency. There are those risks, the worry is from
:37:47. > :37:50.the fed, that Janet yelling, yesterday, put it in technical
:37:51. > :37:56.language: the risks are balance. -- Janet Yellin. They think the rough
:37:57. > :38:00.upside is balanced by the downside. Essentially it is pretty hard to
:38:01. > :38:03.argue that that is right, the downside risk, think about from
:38:04. > :38:10.China, Brazil, all sorts of other places. Why has there been a rapid
:38:11. > :38:15.fall in commodity prices, it is actually about demand being lower
:38:16. > :38:19.than you think, the markets are worried that the central banks say
:38:20. > :38:23.that things are fine, actually, they are not, in my view, what you have
:38:24. > :38:27.said is right, the downside risk on emerging markets especially is
:38:28. > :38:31.gathering pace. We used to have a situation where the global economy,
:38:32. > :38:36.even if the West was not doing so well, the emerging markets kept the
:38:37. > :38:39.overall pace going, led by China. Now the emerging markets are
:38:40. > :38:45.subdued... Are there more signs of life in the two biggest markets, the
:38:46. > :38:51.Eurozone and the United States? Not really, we have seen relatively slow
:38:52. > :38:56.growth in both the UK and the US, pretty bad growth in Europe, what we
:38:57. > :38:59.saw there was in globalisation, the shock in the advanced countries
:39:00. > :39:03.moved to the emerging markets. Now what we are seeing as some sort of
:39:04. > :39:07.shock, bad shocks coming in the emerging markets, we hope beyond
:39:08. > :39:11.hope that it does not spread in the other direction. To put the debate
:39:12. > :39:16.in context, the business cycle rolls. You would imagine, eight
:39:17. > :39:20.years into this cycle, sometime in the next five years, there is going
:39:21. > :39:27.to be another recession coming, hats from the emerging markets, perhaps
:39:28. > :39:31.from prices, and... -- perhaps from the emerging market. Perhaps from
:39:32. > :39:35.corporate drones in the energy markets, 60% are now distressed.
:39:36. > :39:39.Third Ave closed funds in the United States the other day, obviously that
:39:40. > :39:44.is a big worry. The biggest worry that we should think about is not
:39:45. > :39:47.that the shock is coming, but that presumably it is pretty likely to
:39:48. > :39:53.come and are you prepared? In general, the answer has got to be,
:39:54. > :39:58.probably not! Is it your view that we are likely to be closer to the
:39:59. > :40:07.next recession than we are from the recession that has just happened?
:40:08. > :40:11.You can do fancy metrics but you do not have to do that, the Bank of
:40:12. > :40:16.England has great data for business cycles, 300 years, all you have to
:40:17. > :40:21.do, you just have to see the shape. Essentially, what you will see is it
:40:22. > :40:24.goes up and down, up and down, the likelihood is... Unless we are
:40:25. > :40:28.completely different to what has happened in the last 300 years, it
:40:29. > :40:33.is absolutely certain that it is coming, it is just a question of
:40:34. > :40:38.when is it coming? You have got to be prepared for it and we are NOT.
:40:39. > :40:45.BECAUSE the central bank cannot cut rates again, in 2008, I could vote
:40:46. > :40:50.for rate cuts of 550, when I was on the monetary policy committee, from
:40:51. > :40:56.5.5 down to 0.0, tight fiscal policy, health price bubble, no
:40:57. > :41:00.movement to increase exports. -- house price bubble. Manufacturing is
:41:01. > :41:03.lower than it was before. With a shock coming, central bank cannot
:41:04. > :41:11.cut rates, does not sound great! Overall, it seems that you think the
:41:12. > :41:15.global framework is fluid. How will the British economy, which many
:41:16. > :41:21.people thought was outperforming the average, will it continue to do so
:41:22. > :41:27.in 2016? It might well, but most of the forecasts depend upon this
:41:28. > :41:32.so-called productivity puzzle, being solved. If it is not solved, these
:41:33. > :41:39.years are going to look like good years. This is the failure of
:41:40. > :41:44.productivity to rise. Yes, the OBR, the MPC, in their forecast they say
:41:45. > :41:48.things will be quite good, because the productivity puzzle is solved,
:41:49. > :41:52.and you say, why is that? They say they do not know, I have spoken with
:41:53. > :41:56.business, I said, has something changed? If we see decent growth
:41:57. > :42:02.coming, something has to have changed, at what they tell me is,
:42:03. > :42:07.same old same old. I am concerned that this is as good as it gets, we
:42:08. > :42:12.have a shock that is coming and are we ready? We do not have the tools
:42:13. > :42:19.that we had in 2007 and in 2008, it is logical. You are advising Jeremy
:42:20. > :42:23.Corbyn, what do you tell him? I'm advising a lot of people and I tell
:42:24. > :42:26.people that it is important to be prepared for the next shock, for
:42:27. > :42:29.example, I am carrying out the remit of the Bank of England, what you
:42:30. > :42:34.should ask yourself, could you come up with tools that would actually
:42:35. > :42:39.have prevented this crisis in 2007? Then you think of tools that would
:42:40. > :42:43.help us in a postrecession period? Can we make things better? The
:42:44. > :42:48.answer, it is really hard. We are a bit gloomy here, anything you can
:42:49. > :42:53.tell us to do cheer us up? It is great to be here in London today(!)
:42:54. > :42:58.LAUGHTER New York, London, both are blooming.
:42:59. > :43:04.House price bubble in New York, and here, the same thing. More cranes in
:43:05. > :43:10.London. If you go to the US, house prices, they have not risen as much
:43:11. > :43:14.as they have in the UK, but the two places, New York and San Francisco,
:43:15. > :43:18.you get that similarity. In the middle, in the north, things are
:43:19. > :43:22.pretty different. We will see, we have ridden out the storm, of the
:43:23. > :43:26.worry is that there is a set of shocks coming and we are not ready
:43:27. > :43:32.to deal with them. We shall see, thank you very much with joining us.
:43:33. > :43:41.Now, our guest of the day has a new book out.
:43:42. > :43:44.And that's how we got him for free on the programme!
:43:45. > :43:47."The British General Election 2015" does what it says on the cover.
:43:48. > :43:48.But it's not the only election-themed tome competing
:43:49. > :43:50.to fill polticos stockings this Christmas.
:43:51. > :43:55.VOICEOVER: Books about how elections were fought, won and lost may seem
:43:56. > :43:59.like the academic equivalent of shutting the stable door but in some
:44:00. > :44:04.cases and in some cases should be the playbook of how to or how not to
:44:05. > :44:07.do it again in the future. Few Conservatives were expecting to be
:44:08. > :44:11.handed victory by the voters, polls consistently said they were in a
:44:12. > :44:15.dead heat with Labour. One lesson might be, so much for polls, but
:44:16. > :44:22.regardless of numbers, the Conservatives had learned from the
:44:23. > :44:26.past. In 2010 it was a very disorganised campaign, no joined up
:44:27. > :44:29.strategy, this time around, in the Conservatives, Lynton Crosby was in
:44:30. > :44:33.total command, David Cameron, absolutely signed over control to
:44:34. > :44:38.him which is essential and that meant the buck stopped with Lynton
:44:39. > :44:42.Crosby. It was clear who was in charge, he made sure that the people
:44:43. > :44:46.who were putting those messages out, in addition, knew exactly what to
:44:47. > :44:50.say. Discounted in crucial seats like Nuneaton, once declared that
:44:51. > :44:55.the Conservatives, team Labour knew that they were beaten. There are
:44:56. > :45:00.lessons for the Tories, even in victory, a start might be answering
:45:01. > :45:05.this question. Given the fact the Conservatives could easily outspend
:45:06. > :45:09.and they had overwhelming press support, I am still amazed that
:45:10. > :45:14.Labour got over 30%, and that the Conservatives were less than 6%
:45:15. > :45:18.ahead. Labour have the hardest lessons to swallow, it is hard to
:45:19. > :45:21.dine at the top table in Downing Street if voters still think you
:45:22. > :45:25.back the economy and your leader is a bit of a wet fish. Also, if there
:45:26. > :45:29.is a a bit of a wet fish. Also, if there
:45:30. > :45:34.it was the failure to learn lessons last time around. One of Labour's
:45:35. > :45:38.mistakes was refighting the 2010 election, they got into a hung
:45:39. > :45:44.parliament, they thought that there would be this time. They thought in
:45:45. > :45:48.many otherwise as well, they had not yet got to grips with the question
:45:49. > :45:52.of how to make the economy and take responsibility for what went wrong
:45:53. > :45:56.in 2008, how to properly distance themselves from it. This was never a
:45:57. > :46:01.two horse race, one key aspect for the big parties was both their
:46:02. > :46:05.relations with the SNP, a party of the left but with what voters saw as
:46:06. > :46:10.a credible leader, who could eat in public(!) a direct threat to Labour
:46:11. > :46:14.and a handy stick for the Conservatives, the lesson for both,
:46:15. > :46:19.however, may be that all lessons are off for the future.
:46:20. > :46:26.There is no such thing as British politics, a British political
:46:27. > :46:31.pattern. Labour in Scotland were banking on that being the case
:46:32. > :46:37.still. They thought a UK wide shift to Labour could take them into power
:46:38. > :46:40.and prevent the SNP onslaught. There has been a distinctive Scottish
:46:41. > :46:47.political system to a degree since the 60s. What made it cements the
:46:48. > :46:51.Scottish political system was almost entirely separate, subject to almost
:46:52. > :46:56.entirely different dynamics and politics to the rest of the UK. In
:46:57. > :47:00.2020 these books might be dusty history but words of wisdom are only
:47:01. > :47:10.handy for politicians willing to read and learn from them.
:47:11. > :47:21.Philip is with us. Let me put this past you, Conservatives, Labour, Lib
:47:22. > :47:23.Dem, most of them are agreed that one of the real influences that
:47:24. > :47:30.decided the outcome was the Conservative pitch that if you vote
:47:31. > :47:33.Labour you will also get Nicola Sturgeon, a Labour Prime Minister
:47:34. > :47:38.you are not that keen on and he will be dragged even more to the left by
:47:39. > :47:43.the Scottish Nationalists. And that that frightened people back to
:47:44. > :47:50.voting Tory. Labour people tell me that, Lib Dems, Tories say it was
:47:51. > :47:54.their strategy. And Ukip. It also frightened people away from
:47:55. > :47:58.defecting. Is that by and large true? The simple answer is that we
:47:59. > :48:04.don't know, the empirical evidence doesn't find very much evidence of
:48:05. > :48:12.people concerned about Scotland, in quotes, shifting. A lot of this is
:48:13. > :48:15.not terribly reliable. On the other hand you have from every single
:48:16. > :48:21.strategist the view that it was significant and we take the view
:48:22. > :48:25.that on balance it probably was and it probably was the fact that means
:48:26. > :48:30.we have a majority Conservative government as opposed to a minority
:48:31. > :48:32.government. However, it's important, the bit that you mentioned is that
:48:33. > :48:39.it's not just "Scotland" or Nicola the bit that you mentioned is that
:48:40. > :48:46.Sturgeon but also a reflection of views about Ed Miliband and Labour.
:48:47. > :48:49.When they found that in the focus groups in late 2014 it wasn't
:48:50. > :48:56.Scotland but the fact that there would be by weak government and it
:48:57. > :49:01.wasn't the SNP but that they would be propped up by other parties, the
:49:02. > :49:05.SNP and the Greens and might be reliant on the Lib Dems. That is
:49:06. > :49:12.what changed the message. It is also a reflection of views of the Labour
:49:13. > :49:18.Party. Because of the polls, the context within which the election
:49:19. > :49:22.was fought in the media was that we proceeded on the basis of another
:49:23. > :49:28.hung parliament and we were moving from eight two and a half party
:49:29. > :49:32.system to a multiparty system. -- moving from a two and a half party
:49:33. > :49:36.system. The polls were wrong and we were wrong to be influenced by them?
:49:37. > :49:42.One of the lessons is not to be so influenced and that is easy to say
:49:43. > :49:45.but harder to do. A lot of people in the media complained that in
:49:46. > :49:50.retrospect they reported a false election. The polls have an even
:49:51. > :49:54.bigger impact on the election. We talk about the six-week short
:49:55. > :49:58.campaign or even the period from January. If the polls were that
:49:59. > :50:01.wrong throughout the five years, and we've no reason to think they
:50:02. > :50:07.weren't, Labour was only in the lead up to 2013. If you imagine a
:50:08. > :50:12.hypothetical scenario in which we had accurate information and the
:50:13. > :50:18.Conservatives pulled ahead in late 2013 and increased their lead in
:50:19. > :50:20.2014 we would have had a very different 2014 and 2015 and Ed
:50:21. > :50:26.Miliband would not have made it to the election. Labour would have
:50:27. > :50:29.changed its leader? Part of the reason he stayed on was that he
:50:30. > :50:34.seemed to be in with a chance right up to the last day. Labour think
:50:35. > :50:40.even as they are sat there waiting for the exit polls, they think they
:50:41. > :50:46.are going into government. One bit of detail, in the book you claimed
:50:47. > :50:50.that the Tory party chairman Andrew Feldman, subsequently famous for
:50:51. > :51:01.other things, revealed that the US pollster Jim Sina was sent to work
:51:02. > :51:04.on the Tory campaign having previously worked with President
:51:05. > :51:10.Obama and he was sent with the explicit approval of Obama. Yes, and
:51:11. > :51:16.Feldman claimed at the victory party that Obama said, go and stop that
:51:17. > :51:21.socialist Miliband. That is his claim but whether that happened is
:51:22. > :51:22.another matter. Maybe one day we will get a chance to interview him
:51:23. > :51:27.and see. Now - shops use it as an excuse
:51:28. > :51:31.to sell us things, we use it as an excuse to eat and drink too
:51:32. > :51:34.much and politicians - well they sometimes take advantage
:51:35. > :51:36.of Christmas to make Here's the then Shadow Chancellor
:51:37. > :51:40.Geoffrey Howe back in December 1977 with his rendition of
:51:41. > :51:50.the 12 Days of Christmas. # On the 12th day of Christmas my
:51:51. > :51:55.taxman sent to me... following in his footsteps
:51:56. > :52:32.tonight will be the Eurosceptic Conservative MP
:52:33. > :52:34.John Redwood who will be the star turn at the Bow Group's Christmas
:52:35. > :52:37.dinner, with a live reading Brexit is short for
:52:38. > :52:44.British Exit you know. Well, a ticket to that
:52:45. > :52:52.will set you back ?65 but, seeing as it's Christmas,
:52:53. > :52:56.we at the Daily Politics have decided to give
:52:57. > :52:58.you a sneak preview, for free. So here, live and exclusive,
:52:59. > :53:10.is an extract from Mr Redwood's It didn't take a grown-up red Riding
:53:11. > :53:14.Hood long to work out that the European Union had commandeered her
:53:15. > :53:19.grandmother 's house and was planning to run her home and life as
:53:20. > :53:23.well. Mr EU was dressed very unconvincingly as grandmother and he
:53:24. > :53:27.tried to reassure her telling her it was all inevitable and it would be
:53:28. > :53:31.fine. She could have a bit longer before they shared a bank account
:53:32. > :53:35.and a better if they liked. He realised it was a bit of a shock but
:53:36. > :53:43.it would be so much better for both of them when they sorted it out. He
:53:44. > :53:50.transferred her grandmother for her own safety as she wasn't safe there
:53:51. > :53:54.any more. He started to threaten her in a gentle way, saying they could
:53:55. > :53:58.make it tougher, all of that trade she wanted might not be so easy to
:53:59. > :54:07.come by after all. When she retorted she almost always seem to be paying
:54:08. > :54:14.out Mr EU began to change and became very cross. What did Britannia do
:54:15. > :54:19.next? There are two variations on how this ended. Some people say that
:54:20. > :54:26.Britannia turned the tables and left happily ever after. Others say that
:54:27. > :54:31.she timorous Lee gave in and was made to work even harder to meet his
:54:32. > :54:36.demands in their European home. I'm leaving it to you to make the choice
:54:37. > :54:42.because that's the way modern fairy tales work and I prefer the happy
:54:43. > :54:58.ending. Thank you, come over here and join me. That was an extract
:54:59. > :55:03.from the Bracks -- Brexit fairy tale. We thought we would write
:55:04. > :55:11.something else to persuade people to stay in. Brexit's last Christmas. It
:55:12. > :55:17.was the week before Christmas and somewhere in the house Brexit lay
:55:18. > :55:23.dreaming and scheming of out. The Gollum of the Commons, Iago of the
:55:24. > :55:28.Lords, it slithered and slathered and tried to cross the floor. It's
:55:29. > :55:33.not known for certain how Brexit came to be at large, some say
:55:34. > :55:43.Theresa May and mistletoe, a fumble with Nigel Farage. Others should at
:55:44. > :55:51.Duncan Smith, others side, perhaps in the worst case Michael Gove. No
:55:52. > :55:55.lovechild was quite so wretched. No monster was there anywhere as
:55:56. > :56:02.miserable as Brexit. It lied about the rebate and about immigration, it
:56:03. > :56:10.scowled one eyed upon the world and how old for isolation. Retreat,
:56:11. > :56:15.retreat was the Bracks -- was the Brexit. Let's pretend we are like
:56:16. > :56:20.Norway and not in Europe, let's kiss goodbye to Scotland, let's sunder
:56:21. > :56:28.this proud nation, let's wow the world with one great act of
:56:29. > :56:36.staggering self castration. Was the week before Christmas and all in the
:56:37. > :56:40.house excepted that Brexit that last be cast out, no more reasonable
:56:41. > :56:44.arguments, no more grievance or spin, for Britain is so much
:56:45. > :56:50.stronger, brighter and better off in. Thank you, Koeman join us for
:56:51. > :56:57.the final few seconds of the programme. Particularly you, John,
:56:58. > :57:04.there was nothing Christmassy at all. I could not find any mention.
:57:05. > :57:10.It was not as negative as his. I will come to that, don't worry. It's
:57:11. > :57:15.a happy ending. It is for you. For all of us. What is not to like?
:57:16. > :57:24.People might be asking for their money back. They will want a rebate!
:57:25. > :57:27.We will get that if we come out. You bowed in the direction of
:57:28. > :57:35.We will get that if we come out. You but self castration in a
:57:36. > :57:38.We will get that if we come out. You that is kind of what we
:57:39. > :57:43.We will get that if we come out. You leave the European Union. It is
:57:44. > :57:44.clearly the worst idea of all time. Do you think... That is a strong
:57:45. > :57:58.statement. This is a great one. Do you think... That is a strong
:57:59. > :58:02.next year? Yes. 2016 for sure. Yes. Probably in June. The government
:58:03. > :58:07.wants to get it out of the way. They are not offering much. We might as
:58:08. > :58:11.well get it out the way. Both of you don't really care what the Prime
:58:12. > :58:15.Minister comes back with? The renegotiation is important but
:58:16. > :58:19.not critical, it's an important renegotiation but we get what we
:58:20. > :58:29.get. We have asked for enough so we must get out.
:58:30. > :58:36.What was proposed to replace policeman outside Downing Street?
:58:37. > :58:43.I'm assuming it would be policeman outside Downing Street?
:58:44. > :58:52.might be D. It is Star troopers because the style was people wanted
:58:53. > :58:56.Thanks to all my guests, especially Philip.
:58:57. > :59:00.I'll be back this evening at eleven thirty five for a festive edition
:59:01. > :59:06.brings you some inspiring cultural treats.
:59:07. > :59:11.Let Darcey introduce us to her ballet heroes.
:59:12. > :59:21.Then we have more ballet, this time with love, espionage and betrayal