Browse content similar to 29/01/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.
David Cameron is said to be closing in on a deal
But will it wash with his MPs and the country at large?
The Prime Minister is in Brussels to meet Commission President
Jean-Claude Juncker amid reports that the UK may get an emergency
brake on in-work benefits for EU workers.
But one Eurosceptic Conservative MP says the idea is a sick joke.
Is the Government too cosy to multinationals like Google?
That's the accusation after a row about Google's ?130
We speak to one lobbyist who welcomes greater transparency
Donald Trump isn't exactly a shrinking violet but he stayed
away from a Fox News debate last night.
The last before Iowa votes in its Monday caucuses.
But even when he's not in the room, is he still making the running?
Journalist Matt Frei joins us to look at the Republican race.
And what does it take to be Foreign Secretary?
We have the latest in our series of films on the Great Offices of State.
I think in my first year in office, I was able to recall one day,
Christmas Eve, as it happens, when nothing happened.
Santa happens on Christmas Eve, of course!
All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole
of the programme today two giants of political commentary.
Or, at least, that's what we were aiming for but,
in the end, we had to settle for these two -
Julia Hartley-Brewer and Kevin Maguire.
Now, as we speak, David Cameron is arriving in Brussels
for a meeting with EU Commission President Jean-Claude
It comes amid reports that Britain is apparently closing in on a deal
that would allow it to deny in-work benefits to people from other parts
But the idea of a so-called emergency brake has met
with scepticism from - yep, you guessed it -
So what is on Mr Cameron's shopping list? He said he wants four things
for his shopping basket. First economic governance, the PM wants
safeguards to ensure countries like the UK but do not use the euro are
not disadvantaged, including not having to contribute to any future
Eurozone bailouts. Secondly, competitiveness. He wants to end...
Extend the single market, cut red tape and ease the burden of
excessive regulation. Third, sovereignty, greater powers for
national parliaments to block EU legislation and an opt out from the
founding ambition in the Treaty of Rome to forge ever closer union.
Fourth is the closest... Most specifically controversial, and
esters want to restrict in work and some out of work and fits that can
be claimed by EU migrants when they come here. Other EU countries say it
is discriminatory. But reports today say that Britain could be offered
emergency brake room, which could include curbing immigration by
denying benefits for four years. Former Tory Cabinet Minister John
Redwood has already called the suggestion, quote, a sick joke and
an insult to the UK. It is a reminder to the Prime Minister that
even if he can get a deal agreed in time for the EU Council meeting in
the middle of February, he still needs enough to satisfy Tory
Eurosceptics who will be waiting for him at the checkout. Let's get more
on this story with our Europe correspondence Gavin Lee.
on this story with our Europe when this idea of an emergency brake
was first used, the idea was an emergency brake to stop migration
into Britain, now it is being talked of as an emergency brake on welfare
benefits, is that right? Yeah. It is a counter proposal. David Cameron
has just come to know to face -- has just come to his Brussels lunch with
Jean-Claude Junker. This fourth area that David Cameron is demanding
change in Europe, the idea of curbing migrant benefits for up to
four years, in work benefits, this is what it is in regard to. There
has been deadlocked for weeks, neither side saying they would give
ground, other member states saying it is a central pillar of the EU,
freedom to live and work in any member state. The collision is
putting this forward, we understand from a senior source. -- the
commission is. It would mean that other member states get to look at
the British position, Britain can apply for this four-year cap, they
have to show that the welfare state simply cannot cope, and by a
majority vote, other member states can agree. But suddenly not only the
British upper special opt out, other member states can share the same
emergency brake if they needed. It will not require a treaty change,
that is another thing about how long it would take. It will be a lot more
legislation, and the source who explains how it would work to the
BBC says it is probably talking about more than a treaty would take
but it is a better way of doing it. That appears to be on paper. David
Cameron has arrived to start the very first of many talks with EU
commission and Parliament leaders. Just to clarify, before any British
governments can apply this emergency brake on welfare payments, they
would need a majority of European union members, their permission,
before this can be applied, not to the number of migrants coming in but
to the kind of welfare they get once they are in? Yeah. As it stands at
the moment it is not in the hands of Westminster, it is in the hands of
Westminster to apply, which could happen before the referendum. David
Cameron might have something in place in the boat was to stay in
Europe. It has to be a majority approval by other member states. At
the moment, it is a one-time only. If activated, it expires after four
years. There is room for negotiation. The commission are
proposing this as a counter proposal, we are told, the other
member states are not informed formally about this. The Polish
Foreign Minister has said in the last half hour that Poland thinks it
is not acceptable. On BBC radio this morning David Cameron said that what
seemed impossible now seems to be possible, but other member states
say that some would find it hard to compromise.
Thank you very much, let's see what happens over lunch, see of
Jean-Claude Junker has his usual brandy. Orders he have that the
breakfast?! -- or does he have that for breakfast?!
Joining me now is the Eurosceptic Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan,
and John Springford from the Centre for European Reform.
John, isn't the idea that a British government would need the position
of a majority of EU members to do anything on welfare payments for
migrants so ludicrous that it has to B -- has to be an aunt Sally, that
the government can say it has much more than that? The point of having
a single market labour is that workers can move around the single
market and not be discriminated against by their host state it makes
sense if you think about it that way that the European Union would decide
whether a welfare system was being overwhelmed or not. If we felt the
welfare system was being overwhelmed, what would stop us
under current European rules from going to ask a majority to change
the rules? There is no clear mechanism and AE you rules for them
to be able to stop migrants from coming -- under EU rules. But if we
went to the rest of the EU and got a majority vote allowing this to
change some of the welfare rules for migrant, I don't understand why we
couldn't do that at the moment? There are rules in the Treaty, which
underlies all the legislation which the EU creates, which makes that
type of unilateral action... It would not be unilateral if we got a
majority. The European Court of Justice defends the treaties. So
even if it was a majority agreement, it would breach the treaties? So
what is being proposed? We were talking about an emergency brake on
migration, the Eurocrats said no. Then a complete ban on benefits,
Eurocrats said no. Then we said, what about an emergency brake on
benefits? Even the PM last year said it was unacceptable. If this is how
we are being treated now, if the Eurocrats are those unable to make a
significant concession won their second largest economy is about to
hold a referendum on leaving, imagine how they would treat as the
day after we had voted to stay? -- treat us. I think that cuts in
another direction. If we vote to leave, and we have just try to
renegotiate our position, and Daniel is right, we have not necessarily
transformed our agreement with the EU, they are unlikely to give as
major concessions in the negotiations over Brexit and market
access. Over Brexit, we would make about world rules? Not necessarily,
Norway or Switzerland had to abide by free movement rules to have
market access in other areas. I am sure we would have sensible
bilateral and multinational deals. Nobody is talking about withdrawing
co-operation or involvement in the European continent. Post Brexit, the
UK would remain interested and involved in every continent,
including Europe. But I suspect the PM regrets ever going down this road
of renegotiation. I think he would have been better holding a snap
in-out referendum, because he is raising and dashing expectations. I
think a lot of people would say, my goodness, there is the leader of the
fifth-largest economy of the world touring foreign capitals, egging for
the right to tweak welfare changes and still being denied. -- begging
for the right. That is not the leader of an independent country. If
that is how we are being treated now, imagine if we had run up the
right flight, imagine what would come down the line? We know the
Eurocrats are proposing a social union, harmonisation of welfare and
social entitlements, we know we would be dragged into more bailouts,
there is a greater risk in voting to stay than in taking back control. If
you look at what is happening in Europe, the huge challenges Europe
faces, Schengen, that is now struggling to survive, border
controls even on the bridge between Copenhagen and Malmo, you can't get
more symbolic than that. Nothing the Prime Minister is proposing would
make a blind bit of difference to any of that Allbritton 's
relationship with it? There is some sense to just say happen in-out
referendum? I agree. It seems to me to make the referendum about whether
being in the EU is good for Britain's labour market, Britain 's
goods and services market, or whether leaving is better. Who said
that an emergency brake was, quote, some arcane mechanism which would
probably be triggered by the European Commission and not by us?
David Cameron! Correct! At the grand old Duke of Downing Street has
marched himself to the top of the hill, Martians held down, he is not
even halfway up. He has made a complete and utter hash of this. He
would have laughed this out of court not so long ago. That he is
desperate now, whatever he gets in the next few weeks, he will hail it
as the greatest deal ever. And they know that in Brussels, that is the
point. If you Angela Merkel or Jean-Claude Junker, why would you
make concessions now? As Dell bowed to leave, that is the real
bargaining. I am a Eurosceptic and would vote to go out purely on a
democratic basis, but it's David Cameron genuinely wanted reform, he
should have said he would campaign for out, and only if I get the
reforms... It is clear from the word go, there was never any scenario in
which he would campaign to go out. ANDREW: this referendum, like the
referendum in 1975 when Harold Wilson came back with potentially
even less than David Cameron will, potentially, I said, I was involved
in that referendum and it was not fought on what Harold Wilson had
brought back, this will not be fought on what David Cameron brings
back. On this one will not get a 2-1 majority, either side. It will be
closer. It will come down to whether you feel more prosperous and secure
within, or whether you want to be without. If that is the case, isn't
the danger for people who want to stay in, to remain part of the EU,
that it will be potentially a horrific backdrop to this
referendum, escalating out of control, a migration crisis, with
governments doing their own thing, Hungary putting up fences, the
bridge closing, Hollande and Merkel not able to agree policy, the quota
refugee policy in chaos, meant to cover 160,000, so far 415 have been
covered. That is the danger? The refugee and migrant crisis within
Schengen, which Britain is not a part, is a accident crisis. The
question that I hope that people put to the front of their minds when
voting is, would us leaving make any impact on that? I would argue that
it would not. This is a Schengen issue. The difference between 75 and
now, 75, people were voting about what they wanted going forward and
signing up to a free-trade agreement. This time around, it is
hopefully whether we agree with the handed over I have a democratically
elected representatives, powers handed over to a foreign body
without our permission or authorisation. I think it is utterly
absurd that our Prime Minister is going around with a begging bowl
asking if we can control our own borders.
Never mind the immigration issue, there's problems with the euro, we
could be dragged into that. We need to grab the steering wheel back
before we hit the car crash. They gave us guarantees in written form
in the clearest language lawyers could advise that we would not be
required to bail out the row. We were dragged in in June. That's why
there's a greater risk involved staying. There's a whole new world
out there, every continent is growing apart from Antarctica.
Viewers will be relishing the fact they have months of this left! I can
hear the sets clicking. Before we go, what's your best bet on when the
referendum will be? June, the opinion polls are moving towards
exit, and every day that passes, it's not just a worsening migration
crisis, there is another risk of spreading of the Eurozone crisis to
France and it would make Greece look like a sideshow. I think it will be
June as well. If we can get the deal in time. And it would be a lovely
time of year to celebrate Independence Day in the future! What
data put in my diary. It's the summer season. Every season is
summer season for you. Ask .com Wimbledon, Test matches, the
referendum. Parliament is falling apart -
I'm sure you knew this already- but it is, in fact, in need
of extensive refurbishment, so MPs are looking around
for somewhere to go whilst the work Richmond House, the current home
of the Department of Health, has been identified
as a possible location. It sits right in the centre of
Whitehall opposite Downing Street. However, according to press
reports there's a catch. And existential capture some of the
MPs. So our question today is,
what won't MPs be allowed At the end of the show Julia
and Kevin will give us the correct I think they might know what it is,
they have a vested interest. David Cameron and George Osborne
have been accused of being too close to Google amid growing anger
at the company's Former Business Secretary Vince
Cable said earlier this week that Google had a "great deal
of influence" in No 10 Even Rupert Murdoch got
in on the act, accusing the - and I quote - "posh boys
in Downing Street" of being Nobody in Downing Street, of course,
has ever been in awe of posh Steve Hilton, who used to be
David Cameron's strategy chief, says there needs to be much greater
scrutiny Do I appreciate the anger, yes, I
very much do. I think there is a growing sense that companies who are
so big and dominant, not just in the marketplace, but in the way they
relate to government and so on, that they are above the law. I think in
this particular case, I think they have made clear that they were
abiding by the law then when the arrangement caused anger, and now
they have the new arrangement. The truth is that those of us who really
believe in the power of business and capitalism to do good things for
society, and I am definitely one of those people, we have to make clear
to businesses that they have a responsibility to behave in a way
that earns public trust. Joining me now is Iain Anderson -
chairman of Cicero Group, He also chairs the Association of
Professional Political Consultants, Nothing new in the idea that big
companies get to lobby governments, and governments can often be too
close to big companies, so too for oppositions. But what will we do
about it? The government 's lobbying register is not the answer to where
we are now. It's a completely failed concept. In our view, it covers
about 1% of the actual lobbying that is taking place. Google don't like,
like me, don't actually have to be on the register, so the government
plans hatched up under the coalition don't solve any of this. What we
want to see is full disclosure of ministerial diaries. That gets rid
of any perceived problem. You could see big companies, small companies,
charities, trade unions, you can see the meetings. Surely we know
something of the diaries, that's why we know there have been 21 meetings
with Google, we just don't know what happened at them. We are calling for
a better and more robust disclosure. Looking department by department,
they are all at sixes and sevens as to who makes timely declarations
over who's having these meetings. It's never really the meeting with
the Minister that decides things, it's endless meetings, lunches,
breakfasts and parties between special advisers and other people
and big companies. That's where what you would call the Sherpa work is
done. Again, the government's lobbying register completely fails
because it doesn't require me or Google or any other company to
declare when it meets a special adviser. You only have to declare
when UA meet a minister or permanent secretary. I don think I met one
permanent secretary last year. I would like to challenge what Steve
Hilton said at the end of that package. No professional lobbyist I
know lobby is about a company's tax bill. That's the job of the people
not in this chair today, the accountants and tax advisers. I want
to clear up the idea that lobbyists are trying to change the tax rules
and bills themselves. It's not true. Don't you do that when you take HMRC
to lunch? I don't do that. You get my point. I don't think HMRC are
happy to be launched in that way. The current regime we have doesn't
work. Frankly, we need not just new lobbying rules, but we need new
corporate tax and personal tax rules because the system is far too copper
gated. Lobbying is a mess in this country. It is, but they lobbied
brilliantly on the register, so special advisers... I have read
menus in bars that are more detailed than this lobbying register. And
he's read a lot. You are never going to end it all together. I think
there's nothing wrong with ministers and special advisers meeting people,
but you want transparency and you want to know who they have met. It
will not solve everything, of course, we have to keep moving to
try to pin them down, but we could go further than we have already. I
think the issue, there is nothing intrinsically wrong, immoral or
dodgy about people lobbying, trade unionists and headteachers can
lobby. They have more legislation around them though. The key thing
is, the more you try to regulate this in this way, what will happen
is exactly what has happened since freedom of information laws, it's
like post-it notes. Ernest is don't have formal meetings in their office
with a lobbyist, they will be directed to chat to them at a
cocktail party and there will be no record. The key thing is taking
money out of politics. If people lobbying can't offer funds towards
political parties and campaigns because it's not allowed, you have a
better chance of clearing things up. Politicians and ministers of all
parties like to think they are with the zeitgeist. Cosying up to Google,
a Brave New World, Apple, Amazon, and they don't spend much time with
the widget company in West Birmingham. My hardest tasks are
working for new entrants. We work for lots of new entrants, people try
to get in to disrupt the market. At one point Google was a market
disrupter, at one point Facebook was a market disrupter. But not now. In
a way, this debate is a bit of a mirage from the bit that should be
taking place, which is, are the corporate tax rules in this country
fit for purpose? But they are less likely to go after these companies
when they are for ever having a glass of perceptual, and a nibble
around their offices. They are in and out of each other's restaurants
will stop that's why you want transparency. You also want to push
them away. We are all aware of the news of the settlement with Google.
We know there have been 20 odd meetings between Google and
ministers. People are making the connection, but it's still not shown
that these meetings had anything to do with Google's tax returns. You
are quite right on that. We have not seen the figures, and I understand
personal privity and tax affairs even though I don't believe it
should apply to big corporations will stop I would like to see the
ballpark figures. But it creates an app sphere where you become very
friendly. Ministers and opposition parties stop social mixing. HMRC
inspectors like to go after big avoiders, as they see it. It's like
red meat to them. They want to win the battle is. But they will not
feel they have ministers on their side if they are always being the
Pali Pali with companies like Google. One of the Prime Minister's
formal advertisers was working for Google. -- advisers. It also happens
at the Guardian as well! Wouldn't it lay a lot of suspicions? We don't
need to see the massive detail of a big corporation's tax return, but if
multinationals operating and making money in this country would be
forced to publish the revenues they generated in this country, the
profit generated in this country, as identified and agreed with HMRC, and
then the tax they paid. Three lines would give us a fair idea if things
were being fair or not. And that, and this is the ridiculous thing
about George Osborne heralding this as a great deal, he announced it as
a great deal, just as what we are talking about was agreed at
international level by the OECD. Country by country reporting of tax
deals. This Google tax, as we find out this morning, doesn't capture
Google, there is something wrong with the tax system and that's the
real story. A new national database to allow
seriously ill patients to volunteer for innovative treatments looks
set to get the go-ahead MPs are debating the Access
to Medical Treatments Bill, which is the latest incarnation
of legislation originally brought forward by the Conservative
peer Lord Saatchi. It only applies to England and
Wales, with Scottish health being a devolved subject.
Lord Saatchi campaigned on the issue after his wife Josephine Hart died
from ovarian cancer and was unable to volunteer to be treated
Our reporter Ellie Price has been in the Commons monitoring
This hill was first introduced in the last Parliament, first as a
private members bill, and then by Lord Saatchi in the upper house. It
rumbled on and was eventually blocked by the Liberal Democrats.
Today is the Bill's reincarnation in this Parliament. Many of the
controversial bits are likely to be watered down with amendments. That
will take away some of the objections, politically and in the
medical thinking in this. The life science Minister George Freeman
joins me, alongside Heidi Alexander. Did you agree with Lord Saatchi's
principals in the last Bill? We are today combining three different
bills in one. Lord Saatchi's original intention was to try to
promote innovative use of medicines by assuring doctors there was a
pathway they could be assured would not trigger negligence. It had the
opposite effect, it was a good intentioned but it concerned people
we were changing the law make widgets, which we were not doing.
Nick Thomas Simon's Bill promoting off label medicines, we wanted to
see that but we didn't agree with the mechanism. I think we have been
delighted to work with the opposition, the Lib Dems and SNP, a
wonderful and rare moment of joined up politics, the house at its best,
putting patients first, and I think the bill today will promote what
people want to see, access for innovative medicines, new medicines
and innovative uses for existing off label medicines. It has been watered
down. The main thrust being met a database has been created. I
wouldn't say watered down. We have taken out the negligence revisions
that were concerning doctors and patients groups. That is a price far
too high to pay. I was never going to approve those measures if they
were not supported by the clinical community. What we are doing here,
and what the bill does, is to say front-line doctors in a busy NHS
should have information of drugs on trials and new drugs at the click of
a mouse, so there patients get the access to the latest drugs
available. What is the problem, you all agree
on this? George is doing a very good job of spinning this. If the
amendments are made, the bill is vastly different from the one
originally proposed. The original bill would have change the law on
clinical negligence. It is a bill that people in the Department of
Health had worked on, we were clear it could not happen because it would
have been a risk to patient safety and undermined participation in
clinical trials, which is why charities like Cancer Research UK
and the Wellcome trust were very, very clearly opposed. George, if you
finish, if the amendments are made, this bill will amount to one
substantive clause setting up a database which the Secretary of
State for Health already has the power to do. Nobody is opposed to
sharing information about innovative medical treatments. The Government
got themselves into a Hull with this bill. I'm pleased it looks as if we
might be making some changes to it which will hopefully share some of
that best prep or so people can get treatments, access to treatments
which work. A U-turn? We genuinely have cross-party agreement. I know
Heidi has a job to do, she has to oppose, but we worked very hard, all
of us. I was always clear that we would never support a bill that
undermined patient and clinician confidence. This bill now, I
believe, will move us forward. I'm afraid I think that George is
reinventing history, to a certain extent, because this has been a bill
which has moved forward at various stages with the support and
involvement of Department of Health officials. I think if we can make
the changes today that are being proposed, I don't think there is a
problem with setting up a database, but I think the risks that were in
the original bill, to patient safety and the risk that it would have
undermined participation in clinical trials, that was something I could
not live with, and it was right we are posted at second reading and I
am hopeful that those amendments could be made. I will give you the
final word in ten seconds. It is a great thing but we have a secured,
cross-party agreement, and it is a shame, we have our clashes at the
dispatch box, but this is the time to celebrate cross-party working for
the good of patients. Heidi Alexander in George Freeman, thank
you both. This is the bill's second reading, so if it gets the go-ahead
today it is likely to pass, just not necessarily in the former Lord
Saatchi might have wanted it to. Donald Trump loomed large over
the final Republican debate ahead of the Iowa Causes on Monday
despite not even being on stage. Mr Trump decided to boycott
the Fox News debate after the channel refused
to drop its host Megyn Kelly, whom Mr Trump had accused
of bias towards him. We have the same problem with Shadow
Ministers and Cabinet ministers here!
Let's address the elephant not in the room tonight.
Donald Trump has chosen not to attend this evening's
I'm a maniac, and everyone on this stage is stupid,
Now we've got the Donald Trump portion out of
I kind of miss Donald Trump, he was a little teddy bear to me.
We always had such a loving relationship during these debates,
I kind of miss him, I wish he was here.
That is the last debate before the people of Iowa go to vote on Monday.
Well, Mr Trump held his own rally nearby in honour of war veterans.
And I didn't want to be here, I have to be honest.
I wanted to be about five minutes away.
And I've enjoyed that, I've enjoyed that.
All the online polls said I've done very well with this,
But you have to stick up for your rights.
When you are treated badly, you have to stick up
Is it for me, personally, a good thing, a bad thing?
But it's for our vets, and you're going to like it,
because we raised over $5 million in one day.
Joining me now is Matt Frei, formerly of this parish,
He's just done a documentary about Donald Trump which aired
Welcome to the programme. Is it not remarkable that Donald Trump has
gone from the man that had no chance to the man that the Republican
establishment is now needs to stop? It is extraordinary. He has taken
the Republican rule book and, as you know, Andrew, Republicans like
elections to be sort of organised, there is a corporate nurse, we will
give John McCain a chance but ultimately George W Bush is our
guide, this does not work any more. The first person to rip about rule
book was Sarah Palin. When she appeared in 2008 and basically
screamed out lots of white men in red tides, and the red tie is the
Republican tie, their faces blanched because they thought, oh my God, we
need this woman on our side but she will completely destroy our
assumptions. That was forgotten for eight years, now she is back with a
vengeance in the form of Donald Trump who basically, although he is
a billionaire and only ever flies into these events with his private
jet and flies out again to spend the night in his penthouse in Trump
Towers on fifth Ave, occurs he says that people are afraid to say,
because he embodies the American dream and because he is not a
politician, he is able to convince people that one day they could be
like him, or at least that he will kick sand into the face of the
establishment. Here's a consequence like, I would suggest, Bernie
Sanders on the Democrat side, probably the most left-wing
candidate for the Democratic nomination since Mr McGovern in
1972, of an anger on Main Street in America, of a feeling, particularly
among working-class whites, what the Americans call middle-class whites,
that they have not had a fair deal, that the world is passing them by,
the country is changing in ways they don't like? You hear this anger over
and over. You could argue, what is with the anger? Your country is
growing faster than any developed economy, unemployment has gone down
to 5.3%, you could have had a great depression but you only got a
slightly rate recession which has now gone. Feel angry, because even
though they have a job it is not paying great wages, they are almost
underwater with their wages. -- mortgage. Lots of people, especially
white, middle-class, lower middle-class, Americans, feel that
history has gone on a different track and they are being left
behind. Those are the people that Trump, despite his bombastic wealth,
is able to plug into. Every time he opens his mouth and say something
abrasive, something which crosses a political line that no other
candidate in history would dare to cross, his poll ratings go up. The
more we and others attack him, they go up further. I would suggest that
the problem the Republicans face is that, popular as Mr Trump may be,
with those in the caucuses and in the primaries, when you look at his
poll ratings in the wider American electorate that he needs come
November this year, his poll ratings are negative? They are. Americans
are caught with an albatross around their neck called Donald J Trump. It
is like a train crash, the train crashes, he becomes the nominee, we
cannot stop the wave of anger which comes into its own in the primaries,
he will be the nominee and then he will lose against Hillary Clinton.
The Democrats have a similar an albatross called Hillary Clinton.
She is perhaps a small albatross, but she is still an albatross. Some
Democrats have said that no Democratic frontrunner has gone into
the primary season with such negative ratings in modern times
than Hillary Clinton. This is not just an American phenomenon, I would
suggest. We have Marine Le Pen leading the polls in France, a hard
right government in power in Poland, we have the Swedish Democrats, not
the social Democrats, the Sweden Democrats, the third-largest party
now in Sweden. And Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour Party in
Britain. You could see that all as a revolt against the mainstream? And
the rise of Nigel Farage a few years ago. Western economies are changing.
There is a crisis in capitalism when wages are very low, yet a company
like Google can get away with making vast profits and paying very little
tax. I think people have good reason to be angry. They feel the system is
not working for them? Because it is not, but certainly with Donald Trump
I find it ironically that you have a billionaire who is not known for
paying high wages or having good employment conditions in his hotels
and the rest of his empire, he is presenting himself as the champion
of mainstream... And the presenting himself as the champion
of disbelief by American voters is extraordinary. That there
of disbelief by American voters is middle-class whites in America. In
of disbelief by American voters is this country we would be very
of disbelief by American voters is suspicious of a multimillionaire,
that he would be in June. In America, they take the view that he
that he would be in June. In cannot be bought. We are more
sensible! I think that point cannot be bought. We are more
been made on behalf of such goldsmiths. There is no evidence at
all that rich people can't be bought. -- on behalf of Zac
Goldsmith. This suspension disbelief and the willingness to believe that
anybody who says the right thing, shouts out, I hate Washington, they
will therefore help the little people, for want of a better phrase.
There is a well worn path in American
There is a well worn path in character is who rises up and then
flames, Randolph Charles Lindbergh. They have a lot
of money, they captured people's imaginations and then they flame. I
am not sure that'll work this around. Ultimately, this boat in the
general election, assuming that Trump will get the nomination, comes
down to one question, who is more likely to get voters off their
couches to vote? The Democrats, the Latinos, the Hispanic population,
which is enormous busted not tend to vote, but now they have every reason
because they are afraid of getting deported, or poor white men watching
daytime television because they don't have a job. But then there is
the possibility that the former mayor of New York, Michael
Bloomberg, might go in, another billionaire going in as the centre
ground. He only works if it is Trump versus Sanders. Mark our card on
Monday night, the Iowa caucuses don't really matter much, they are
rarely an indicator, but it gives momentum going into New Hampshire.
The big danger is Mr Trump conservative New Hampshire, down to
the south, with momentum. You call it a danger, it is an opportunity! I
mentor the establishment! The establishment seems to be putting
its hope on Marco Rubio, but Trump is 18 points ahead of him. Your
analysis is spot apart from one thing. Trump rises on the
assumption, on the aura that he is invincible, that he can say whatever
he likes and prevail. If he loses Iowa, even though the last two
candidates who have won Iowa have disappeared almost immediately...
Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee... Very interesting. Your documentary
has gone out already but it is available on the all four player?
Yes, the all four catch up they are, which I should know the exact... You
can watch it on the computer! And very good it was. I will be in
trouble now. I will be watching at this weekend. Good to see you.
David Cameron is busy working hard in Brussels as we speak,
but what about his foreign secretary?
Well, what with the creation of the European Union
and Prime Ministers wanting to hog the limelight,
it's a job that's undergone some fundamental changes,
as Giles Dilnot found out in the latest in his series on how
But could you travel the world being the face of the British
Government, and still be able to explain what you're doing
So, you want to be Foreign Secretary?
I think in my first year in office, I was able to recall one day,
Christmas Eve as it happens, when nothing happened in the world.
I was warned that there were people in the office,
perhaps at fairly senior level, who didn't necessarily think that
a woman ought to be Foreign Secretary.
Which was a bit of a surprise in this day and age.
I sometimes used to think, even when things are really
difficult, sitting round the table, thinking, what's going to happen
here, what do we do next, thinking, cripes, I'm being paid for this.
Nobody much likes the Foreign Office, I've found.
They are suspicious, they just want to get
Jill Rutter is a former civil servant, and now
For her, the role of Foreign Secretary is about sharing
the brief with the one person more important than you.
Foreign Secretary is still nominally one of the top jobs in government,
but it's quite interesting because it's being
First, most of the top diplomacy is done by the Prime Minister
at head of state level, whether it's at the European Council
or the G-7, or just through bilaterals.
Secondly, the whole area of Europe is increasingly done by the domestic
department, who go and negotiate directly.
Successful Foreign Secretarys need to have a very good relationship
with the Prime Minister, because people will listen to them
if they know they are speaking of behalf of the Prime Minister,
rather than running their own agenda.
It's not just that everything is done at Prime Ministerial
level, it's the fact that, and I hesitate to be too dogmatic
about it, but I think it's because Prime Ministers rather
like to take control of foreign affairs and defence and sometimes
it's rather a relief to get away from the nitty-gritty of domestic
politics and sweep yourself into the wider global conflicts.
There is a great temptation for Prime Ministers to do that.
Yes, I think you have to face it, that the Foreign Office is no longer
I mean, frankly, for the last 18 years, we've had only two
great offices of state - the Prime Minister and
However, not everyone who's been Foreign Secretary has had the PM
We have a Prime Minister now, and I have worked with him
as Foreign Secretary, who has very strong views about one
or two areas of foreign policy, but is quite happy to let
the Foreign Secretary lead on a vast range of other things.
David Cameron would have very strong views on handling
But he would look to me to determine how we are going to handle
everything in Latin America, or the approach to Africa and so on.
The Foreign Secretary sets the strategy with comments from him.
Actually, he was very good at not trying to be his own Foreign
On Iran, when Joschka Fischer and Dominique de Villepin,
the German and French foreign ministers,
with Iran, which have just completed, after 12 years,
it was very much our initiative, and Tony went along with it.
He effectively left that dossier to me.
He would have handled it differently, had
If you haven't got a good relationship with the Prime Minister
when you are Foreign Secretary, I'm not sure what happens.
Well, I do know what happens, because that's what happened under
Essentially, what happened is that Robin became marginalised,
and the Foreign Office officials were more reporting
across the street directly into Downing Street.
One old hand, in the job when he was young, has seen
First of all it was a very surprisingly appointment,
and secondly, I was young, but Callaghan went out of his way
to demonstrate to everybody that the Foreign Secretary
To some extent, after Peter Carrington, there was a shift.
Francis Pym didn't get on at all well with Margaret Thatcher,
and she became, post-Falklands, very dominant.
And never mind number ten, there's the department
Your department is not just the people sitting
Most of them are remote, around the world, and they are in 260
In the case of the Foreign Secretary,
Sometimes leaving Britain and coming back more than once in a day.
I visited more countries than any Foreign Secretary in history before,
partly because there are more countries now.
One of the things our doctor had said to me when I got the job
As it happened, a former colleague, a man called Derek Fatchett,
who had been a junior minister in the Foreign Office and had died
very young, of this thrombosis thing that one can get,
and pretty certainly as a result of the scale and nature
Our GP said to me, whatever you do, make sure you build in downtime
So we took the view that if I was on a programme that started
on Monday morning, I would rather lose part of my weekend,
go out over the weekend, do the adjustment, and then be
there for the meeting on Monday morning.
The problem is the endless travel abroad is not always seen by one's
The Foreign Office is often sneered at at home for not
having its patriotic priorites quite right.
I think the problem is when people look at what the Foreign Office
was doing, and they took the view, particularly if they didn't know
much about it, that the Foreign Office was actually just
This, then, is the key accusation levelled at the Foreign Office,
that it's more interested in giving into its foreign friends,
than standing up for its British compatriots.
Of course, what is often not realised, including by some
politicians and ministers, is that if you want to avoid
going to war and you want to resolve an international crisis
through diplomacy, then diplomacy means compromise.
There is no negotiation in the real world where one side gets 100%
of what they want, and the other side gets zero.
If you want total victory, then you don't use diplomats
or ambassadors, you use soldiers, sailors and airmen, and you hope
So because diplomacy requires compromise, that's why some people
who ought to know better, sometimes accuse the Foreign Office
of caving in, or surrendering British interests,
It's marvellous rhetoric, and it's grossly unfair.
In a complex, more integrated world, the Foreign Secretary,
however much the PM might like to step into the role from time
to time, is still a key figure, even if their colleagues can
consider your department a different country that speaks a different
What else has been going in Westminster over
Here's Giles with the week in 60 seconds.
The Government was frantically searching the Internet for tips
on how to get out of a crisis after declaring victory over
Google's decision to pay ?130 million in back taxes.
Jeremy Corbyn attempted to fling a couple of googlies
towards David Cameron at PMQs over Google's tax arrangements,
but it was the Prime Minister's comments on migrants that
They met with a bunch of migrants in Calais, they said
It was a better week for Mrs Cameron, though,
who was crowned star baker in the Sport Relief Bake Off,
wowing the judges with her showstopper cake
Lib Dem peer Shirley Williams, one of the gang of four,
I have to say that at least I've had the advantage of not actually having
to lose my capacities entirely before I departed
And meet Ukip councillor Denis Crawford, a public servant
so hard working his family reported him missing to the police.
Fortunately, the local constabulary found Councillor Crawford safe
and well in yet another council meeting.
Let's pick up on one of those stories.
The Ukip councillor in Norfolk who was working so hard his family
I'm delighted to say that Denis Crawford has found time
in his busy schedule and joins us now from Norwich.
Welcome to the programme, what exactly happened? Why did they think
you had gone missing? Thank you, Andrew. I had been busy in County
Hall in Norwich, I sit on a lot of the big committees there, the adult
social services and children's services, and I tend to leave at
7am. I have my first pre-meeting at 9am, going until ten. The councils
can take five or six hours to sit through a committee meeting. On that
particular Monday, I did that, and then returned to Thetford to go
straight to a resident's meeting, meaning I didn't get home until
about 9pm. The Tuesday was even worse. On Tuesday I had another 7am
leave, a big children's services meeting, came back to Thetford, we
had the local District Council meeting. I went to that. And then I
went straight on through to the town council meeting. That's where it set
off. I understand the police started to look for you. In the end, they
found you at a council meeting. Who was more embarrassed? You or the
police? I think it was me. We were getting quite a way through the
agenda, and there was a tap on the door, a head appeared around it, and
the officer said, are we found Denis Crawford. I said, do you want to
talk to me? He said yes, and I thought, I don't think I've done
anything wrong. He said everything was fine. You wonder whether
something has gone wrong with the family. I asked the chairman to step
out into the hall, and they explained to me that my neighbour
had reported me missing initially, because he hadn't seen me for three
days. It's really good you get neighbours like that. Are you under
some pressure now to resign and spend more time with your family?
No, but I have made a promise to my family that I will inform them more
about what I'm doing and where I'm at. We are grateful, we now know
exactly how busy your schedule is, so we are grateful you have taken
time to be on this show. Would you like to ask the counsellor a
question? This happens to Kevin Maguire's family, but they just turn
on the television to find out where he is! Thank you for your time and
for the work you're doing behalf are people you are doing in your area. A
story. It's great, but he's sitting on three councils. We complain about
productivity in this country! I commend his public service, somebody
from Ukip involved with the police, but nothing nefarious! Do what the
Queen does with the Privy Council, shorter meetings, make everybody
stand up and it's amazing how much less people have to say. It looks
like Europe will just move up the agenda now. It's about time it does,
it's a huge issue. It's inevitable there will be a seismic referendum,
we think June the 23rd. It will be huge for Britain and it will
dominate all politics. Just time before we go to find out the answer
to the question. The question was, Richmond House,
a potential temporary home for MPs, What won't MPs be
allowed to do there? Is it - a) use mobile
phones, b) play football, The correct answer is by alcohol,
you can't even consume, you can't even bring your own. It's in the
stipulations and it could be very healthy for MPs and journalists like
me who work in Westminster. It is the Department of Health. And here's
just guessing, it won't happen! You cynic! Thank you for being with us
today. Have a good weekend. Thank you to all the guests are today. The
one o'clock news is starting on BBC One. I will be back on Sunday on BBC
One with the Sunday Politics. We will have a line-up of politicians
to go through the issues and no doubt we will be talking about
Europe again. In particular, we will have a debate on how good or bad is
our membership of the EU for business in the United Kingdom.
That's from 11am on BBC One this Sunday. Goodbye.
As we'll be discussing, cosmologists are studying...
The way the French feel about Joan of Arc.
You sat on a windowsill and said... How old are you, Grandad?!
Shall we call the police? Obviously not.
I still carry that little caterpillar.
But then nobody wanted to eat the sushi.
It was like... The most amazingly evocative....
Complete and utter failure. There were ukuleles as well.