29/01/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

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.


Download Subtitles