12/02/2016 Daily Politics

17 nations broker a cessation of hostilities in Syria.

Certain military action is meant to stop by next weekend.

But the Russians reserve the right to carry on bombing

and allied air-strikes against ISIS will continue.

Equalities Minister Nicky Morgan announces plans to publish league

tables of the pay gap between men and women employed by

European stocks have rallied this morning, but after a week of global

What does it mean for the economy here and abroad?

And we continue our series profiling the great offices of states,

as Giles finds out what it takes to be the Secretary of State ...

No Prime Minister is going to forget the responsibilities of defence. And

no Defence Secretary should be naive enough to think that you are

operating out there on your own. All that in the next hour,

and with us for the duration former editor of the Sun, Kelvin MacKenzie

and Anne McElvoy of the Economist. First, the news that world powers

have agreed a nationwide "cessation of hostilities" in Syria to begin

next weekend, after The agreement allows for continued

allied air-strikes against islamic State fighters and Russia insists it

will still bomb terrorists. The Syrian government has said it's

still "cloudy" whether the agreement will trigger a new

round of peace talks. They stalled in Geneva earlier this

month. The Syrian army, backed

by Russian air strikes, is still advancing

in Aleppo province. Here's US Secretary of State,

a somewhat wary John Kerry. We have agreed to implement a

nationwide cessation of hostilities to begin in a target of one week's

time. That is ambitious, but everyone is determined to move as

rapidly as possible to try to achieve this. This will apply to any

and all parties in Syria, with the exception of the terrorist

organisations Daesh and Almers row. If you listen to what Mr Kerry said

and what Philip Hammond said, they are clearly tentative. They have

done a deal, but it is not clear that it will take off. I'm a bit

cynical about this deal. I think it is an attempt by John Kerry and the

British government to get back involved in a situation in Syria

where, frankly, they left the door open for the Russians to take the

leading role and we have already heard Moscow say today in clear

terms that they do not see this as an instruction to stop bombing. What

they describe as IS targets which seems to range widely for targeting

a terror group. They don't seem to be bombing IS at all. It is a

declaration of interest to get together around a table and that

hasn't happened seriously on Syria for a long time but the Russians

have the momentum there and it rather looks as though the West is

playing catch up. The interesting thing although the humanitarian aid

is meant to get in this weekend, the news is concentrating on Aleppo.

There are 12 towns under siege, but the ceasefire, or cessation of

hostilities does not begin until the following week giving the Russian

forces another week. The reality is we should welcome anything with the

word piece involved in it. Whether this turns out to be anything or not

is not the point, it's the beginning of something and, by the way there

will be no change in a week's time. Vladimir Putin doesn't care what

anybody thinks about anything and Iran doesn't care and Isis doesn't

care, however the majors of our world, they want peace there.

Cameron will be praying for peace because if there is peace then maybe

the migration issue doesn't get worse. I suspect it won't change

very much. I am even more bearish than Kelvin. This is not peace in

any meaningful sense. Peace in our time? It is Munich. The battle for

Aleppo is now crucial. And when the president Assad forces retake that,

that will show that a lot of it has been for nothing. He will still be

there and backed by the Russians and I think the migration crisis, there

are not that many more people to flood out of Syria who have not

gone. There are 600,000 in Aleppo. We will see an emptying of Aleppo

and the migration crisis has a way to go. The agreement does not

mention the status of Mr Assad at all. Philip Hammond is on the Andrew

Marr Show on Sunday and he will be talking about Syria and we will

follow up what he has to say on the Sunday politics.

It's all about a call by Lib Dem leader Tim Farron to

But what is it he'd like to be made legal?

b) Using a hoverboard on the pavement?

At the end of the show, Anne and Kelvin will give us

If they don't, because it is so easy, they will be fired.

The Women and Equalities Minister Nicky Morgan has announced plans

today for new league tables that will highlight the gender pay gap

in companies with more than 250 employees.

The new regulations are expected to affect about 8,000

employers across the UK, who will also have to publish

their company's gender pay gap on their website.

Businesses will have to start compiling the information about pay

differences from April 2017 - 12 months before the first

Here's Nicky Morgan talking about what effects the new

One is that companies will hopefully, and

we expect them from the response we have had, to think a lot harder

about where women are in their workforce, how

they are distributed and what they are being paid.

But I think it will also drive applications to work in certain

organisations, because I think that women will look and see,

what is the gender pay gap in this organisation?

We've been joined by Kate Andrews from the Adam Smith Institute.

And we did ask for an interview with Nicky Morgan or another

government minister on this issue, but none was available.

Instead, they suggested we talk to the Conservative backbencher

Mims Davies who is a member Women and Equalities Committee in

So we did, and she joins us from Southampton welcome

If it is such a good idea, why does it take so long to implement? Isn't

that complicated. I think it is complicated that the equality needs

to be what women are looking for. There are lots of factors affecting

women. I am asking why it will take so long to simply compile the data.

The companies already have the pay data of their employees. You could

do it in a month. There are some people trailblazing on this, but

some people are putting it in there too difficult box, so it's right

that the government holds their feet to the fire. You are not holding

their feet to the fire, you are saying you don't have to do it until

2018. Why don't you tell them to do it by September? Most companies have

a fair idea of where they are on this and it is right that we give

companies the time to look at their procedures. Certainly the women and

equality is select committee, there are some people who find it very

easy and they are attracting the right wing into the workforce. Some

people think it is not important to them -- the right women. As

government we have to explain why it's important for men and women and

the public sector and private sector to get this right. I am a mother of

two daughters and I want merit and ability to come through in people

succeeding. I know the case for doing it, I'm just trying to get you

to address the time it is taking. Is it an attempt to name and shame? On

the select committee which started this term in Parliament, we have

been highlighting areas where people feel they are not doing the right

work and bringing them into a Parliament and explaining it. There

are people who think it doesn't go far enough and there are people who

think there is no need to do it. Give us an example of a company that

does well in the area and a company doing badly? Off the top of my head

I can't think of anyone very bad, but there are certain sectors where

it is a little bit more shady to get in to see what they are doing. You

cannot give me a company doing badly in an area in which you specialise?

You cannot name a company that is not doing well? I would below is to

point out one person in this. I'm not asking for a person, I'm asking

for company. I would below is to do that directly, because it is

important we get everybody on the same page which is why the

government is giving time for people to consider it. You are going to be

able to make a public by 2018 anyway, so

able to make a public by 2018 identify them. If you have done some

work now, I'm asking for an example of where they are not doing so well.

In terms of trailblazers, I know understand young's name came up in

the committee when we heard from Nicky Morgan and this is the reason

that the government -- Ernst and Young. Some companies are doing it

and they are seeing the value. How annoyed are you with what companies

are doing on the gender pay gap? We want equality in the workplace. We

take that for granted. What is wrong with publishing a list? The problem

is the regulations the government set out have created manipulated

statistics that the businesses will put on their website. We submitted

to the consultation saying, if you want to look at the way companies

break down want to look at the way companies

have to have control jobs like for like, control people doing the same

job and control the hours worked. What the government has put forward

is the worst way one could possibly try to come up with the gender pay

gap issue. Just looking at the medium and mean of female employees

and male employees will compare the chief executive of the receptionist

and people working in marketing, to resources, to engineering. We have

no idea if the men and women in those sectors should be getting paid

the same because they have different jobs. What do you say to that? There

are arguments that this is not detailed enough and I understand it,

but the government acting on this is very important. Not if they will

come up with a bad number. It's not that it's not detailed enough, it's

that the numbers will produce very manipulated statistics that people

will take for granted and use all the time. It will further the idea

that week -- women are victimised in the workplace and it doesn't help

Sally in marketing find out if she's being paid unfairly compared to

mark. It doesn't help women being sexist Lee treated in the workplace.

We heard evidence in the committee that it was important that if you

were in marketing or leadership, you had the same opportunities to

progress in a company. If it is out there how much people are being paid

and how the company handles men and women, we will see real progress for

women and the parity. And the progress that the Prime Minister was

talking about at his conference speech. It is right we are doing it.

I understand some people feel it's not detailed enough but I think by

2018 people will be shining a light on this and this is what the

government wants. How bad is the gender pay gap? My apologies, I was

asking Kate Andrews but I will come to you as well. Here in the UK if

you are a woman between the ages of 22 and 40 you are earning equal or

slightly more. So it is actually against men in that group? Once you

hit 40 drops. It is no surprise that this normally has to do with taking

time off to raise children. There is no pay gap between men and women in

the UK, there is a mother would pay gap between mothers and non-mothers.

We should talk about that. We should be focusing on that, but forcing

employers to publish statistics like this is just attacking employers who

actually, on average, if women are as experienced as men and working

the same amount of hours, employers like to promote women and pay them

more, so the real issue is whether or not women take that time of work.

Maybe the husband should be staying home a bit more. These are the

conversations we should have. Kelvin MacKenzie, you are nodding in

agreement. I've been an employer for 35 years, and the idea that you give

somebody more less money based on the agenda is absolutely absurd.

Mind you, I've only been in the media, so perhaps that is a

different kind of industry from the norm. The truth about the matter

today, if I looked at my daughter, an English teacher, my stepdaughter

in the insurance business, the toughest and cleverest people I

know. The idea that a male manager would hold them back is ludicrous.

And honestly, I agree with your point, I actually do believe that

men actually want to promote women even at the expense of their male

employees. It has completely turned. Dream on, Kelvin, really! Actually,

the data we have tells a different story. Young women, yes, are doing

really well. There is a falloff just before 40 years of age. By the time

you get into your 40s, and certainly in your 50s, as a woman, the pay gap

has gone wider. To say this is just because women have taken time out,

for me, is not to look at the question is, how are women being

rewarded if they work part-time, and how do they get back up the tree

again? To take young women and say, this is going to continue on a line

going upwards is not what the data shows, not in America and not here.

If for instance you have a very modestly paid guest here, now, if I

were to be a presenter, or indeed Andrew's editor, a job to which

everyone aspires, when I have come back into the workplace, then

clearly I am not going to be in the gender pay gap in the same way. So

it is often about what women get the chance to do when they come back

into the workforce after motherhood. I completely agree. That is the

fundamental problem. It is lifestyle choices which many women want to

make, which mean they take time off for their career and do not have the

same opportunities when they come back. I think a lot of women are

pressured into making those choices and they do not feel they have the

flexibility. It is not an issue for the government. Let me give the

final word to Mims Davies. Absolutely we are looking at all of

that - part-time working, agile working and the fact that women over

40 are more penalised. So, this is a package of measures which the

government is taking and recognising. Absolutely, I do think

men want to promote women. Real equality would be the school run,

dads at the plays, dads able to take time off to look after children as

well. That is real equality. I am delighted that business is so much

behind this as well. There are some great examples out there. We can do

more! Big news has been breaking in the media world. The Independent and

the Independent on Sunday are to close as print titles. The baby

sister, i, is being bought by a big regional newspaper company, Johnson

press, which owns the Yorkshire Post in Leeds and The Scotsman in

Edinburgh. But as print publications, the Independent and

the Independent on Sunday are too close. Let me get the reaction of

two distinguished journalists with me now. Well, it will not be any sad

, to be honest. We have a fantastic array of print products every

morning. The i was not one of them. And the independent has not been one

of them for the last 10-15 years. Can they survive as digital

publications only? Definitely not. Can they survive as digital

It is very expensive actually to produce good digital news products.

It is not a good online offering, and there will be no users, and

therefore no advertisers. I'm afraid it is good night. I am a bit more

sympathetic, partly because I used to work for the independent. It is

all my fault! But it did feel a gap in terms of liberal thinking, which

was not as far to the left as the Guardian. More centre-left. It

became so, but actually, when it was founded, it was former City

journalists... Quite centrist. Something which is missing in our

debate, it is a kind of free-market liberalism. The further left it has

gone, the further it has collapsed. There may be some truth in that. The

i however was cheaper and aimed at young readers. It took the content

of The Independent. It did. Johnson press have not said they would do

that as a digital product. No, they are buying it as a paper. At how

will they fill it with content? Well, they have explained. They're

going to use their regional journalists, which is perfectly all

right, but there is no role for the i with a load of stories about

Walsall and Preston and various other places. I'm afraid I do not

agree with the CEO of Johnson press. I think there is a question mark

about whether he survives with that 24 million gone. It is the Russians

who own these papers. They have sold the i, they are closing the print

versions of the Independent and the Independent on Sunday. So what

happens to the London standard? They were spreading the costs all over.

Would that not make the it extended an economic? I would not have

thought so, although I should declare that I do write a column in

the Evening Standard. The problem is that they were spread bit too thin,

and they had also invested in this television station, London Live. I

would have thought they seem to be committed to the standard. They have

got the losses down. The problem was that the Independent was leeching

money. They now seem to have got what looks like a very good

financial deal for the Independent. So, breaking news there.

Global markets faced another difficult day yesterday as selloffs

in Asia, Europe and America pulled the world market

The turmoil has been sparked over investor fears surrounding the cost

to banks of negative borrowing rates imposed by central banks

as well as concerns over the market and currency volatility

This week has seen significant developments on the global economic

The US Federal Reserve warned of "increased volatility"

The FTSE lost 2.4% overnight, with the Nikkei in Japan

And Sweden joined Japan in cutting interest rates deeper

So, you pay the bank to take your money.

We're joined now by Linda Yueh from Oxford University.

She used to be the BBC's chief business correspondent, but now

she's respectable! Let me just get to what I think is the kernel of

this. It has been clear since the end of the last year, and

increasingly this year, but the markets have lost faith in the

central banks, that they know what they are doing? And I would add to

that, policymakers in emerging markets. You look at the two big

drivers, it is uncertainty over what the Federal Reserve is going to do

next, what major central banks are doing. And this is depressing bank

shares. The other big uncertainty is around what China and other emerging

markets are doing. Are they going to be able to manage a slowdown? That

is hitting commodities and minerals. If you luck at these of two sectors,

they are leading the decline. That is why the British stock market is

in a bear market, and globally, stock markets are also in a bear

market, down 20% from their peak. But I should also emphasise that

cheap money, since 2008, a lot of it has gone into equities. So the FTSE

had a record high last April. So even if it has topped by 20%, it is

still very high relative to what it was before the crisis. If you are

thinking, I'm not sure what is going to happen with interest rates or

global growth, then maybe you should take a little bit of your money out

of the market, what is called profit-taking, and see how it goes.

That is what people are doing, people are buying bills in America,

gilts in Britain, and buying gold. If not a huge amount. Are they right

to do that? I think if you wanted to diversify your portfolio, I would

say yes. By the way, the UK is not as bad as the United States. The

number of record highs which has been hit by the SNP, by the down

Jones, that market was always going to deflate. So taking some of your

money out and putting it into government bonds, as you mentioned,

you get low returns but the volatility will be less. That being

said, interest rates of course also affect government bonds, the

interest that government pays. And so there is I think quite a lot of

volatility and into all of these classes. The big question, of course

cash is a better thing to be in now if there is no inflation, because it

does not lose its value, even with derisory interest rates. But the big

question which I think a lot of our viewers would like to know is this -

these collapses of the stock exchanges, are they a harbinger of

another recession on the way this year or not? That is what we want to

know! Because we know the stock exchanges have predicted nine of the

last five recessions. Yes, five of the last nine. Absolutely. In the

US, a stock market is... Actually it is nine of the last five, because

they predicted a lot more than actually happened! That is a nice

way of putting it. In the US, they are known as a leading indicator.

But in Europe it has not had a similar track record. So I would not

necessarily say that... So are we heading for a recession? Not

necessarily because of the stock markets. Obviously, if things get

much worse in the stock market, you cannot divorce the two. But right

now if you look at the underlying health of the British economy, the

Eurozone, the American economy, it is not stellar but it is not clear

that there is any real economy drivers pushing them into recession

again. That being said, however, if the stock market plunges too far, or

if China has a hard landing, or if the emerging markets really have

problems, of course the two cannot be divorced for too long. The

reality was that we were printing money with no basis for it. Rupert

Murdoch, give him his credit, nine months ago forecast all of this. He

said, there is too much money splashing around. These shares are

miles too high in Wall Street and they are coming down. Businessmen

and women have got to get on with it. That is the truth about the

matter. Things go up and they go down. Mining has been ridiculous,

oil has been $113, it is now at $30. Who can tell? It is great news for

us, the consumer. It is not great news if you are a stockholder in

some big oil company. The collapse of oil prices is like a massive tax

cut but it is not having an impact on the growing economies. It affects

liquidity in lots of different areas, that is true. But the fact

is, we are not in bad shape in our country. The US is doing well. Doing

OK. Yes, but it is doing well. How well do we expect it to be? We do

not expect China to grow at 7-10% any more. They are becoming like us.

Truth is, we should not get too knocked out of bed by all of this.

Someone who might is George Osborne. He came in after the election

suggesting that if he simply held his course, the message was that

things were going a lot better. Then I noticed, when he spoke at the

World Economic Forum at Davos, the message had changed quite abruptly

to global gloom, which is the Chancellor or code for, it is not my

fault if the economy starts to falter. He has got a five year

parliament, he has got a majority. Labour is really nowhere on the

economy at the moment, for most people anyway. So he can do with it

at a time when things are bad and bumpy. But he does need to keep that

narrative going, that it has been worth it. That the cuts in public

spending are actually getting us somewhere, that our productivity is

improving. If he cannot make back argument at the very time when he

wants to run for the leadership, I suspect, then he could have a

slightly bumpy ride. The Chinese economy is slowing down, but even

more importantly, it is moving from a smokestack to a consumer driven

economy. The emerging markets are now part of the problem, not the

solution, unlike in 2008, when they were part of the solution. The

Eurozone is growing by 1%, confirmed by figures today. The British

economy is struggling to stay over 2%, so is the American economy. You

add all of that up and we are fragile. It would only take one

major shock to blow that fragility apart, is it not the case? I think

it is absolutely the case. That's why if you are worried that we could

be facing recession... The thing with crises is that they will never

be foreseen. Or we foresee the wrong one! But can policymakers do

anything about it? And the reason we keep talking about negative interest

rates is because interest rates are barely 0%. They are being cut

further to try to get growth up. If you have a big crisis, how much more

ammunition could central banks do, and the tools they have have really

fuelled, I think... Cheap cash has fuelled for instance equity markets.

So I think the answer is fiscal. Now, fiscal is all about politics.

Are you willing to use government spending to boost the economy,

should the economy go into recession? And that economy and

think will be no for major economies. This will be the real

problem. Very quickly, on the recession for the UK, I think the

indicator to watches actually interest rates, because the high

amount of household debt in Britain is more likely to be... The markets

do not think until 2019. Exactly. So what is the point of Mark Carney? I

don't know! Why has he spent three years telling us, you have got to

get your mortgage settled in and all of that? No point asking me! Why is

he still in a job? He has been wrong. Trying to predict markets is

a fool's game. You might as well go into the betting shop. The man has

been a disaster. I hope he goes back to Canada. On that friendly view of

the Governor of the Bank of England, we will thank Linda and move on!

Now, the row over whether Britain should remain in or leave the EU

was never going to be overly-friendly, and this week we've

seen accusations from both sides that the other has resorted

to scaremongering to make their case.

And earlier this week it turned out that even the prime minister,

the man who once proclaimed that sunshine could win the day,

wasn't above issuing a gloomy warning.

Here's what he had to say about what would happen to British

On the issue of Europe and our borders, look,

Yes, this is a bilateral agreement, it is a good agreement.

It is an agreement which means that our borders are effectively

in Calais, not in Dover.

I work very hard with my French counterparts, as does

the Home Secretary, to make sure we do keep that.

That is why we have helped with financing, why we have helped

with finances, with border guards and co-operation

But the fact is, there are an awful lot of opposition politicians

in France who would love an excuse to tear up that treaty,

and who would like the border not to be in France

I do not want to give people an excuse to do that.

And we're joined now by James McGrory, head

of communications for Britain Stronger in Europe,

and Richard Tice, founder and CEO of Leave.eu.

So after all these accusations and counter-accusations

of scaremongering we've devised a Daily Politics quiz,

loosely inspired by the Generation Game,

to try and get to the bottom of some of these stories.

James, Richard, you're going to see a series of images,

and as they pass by on the conveyor belt, I want you to identify

which scare stories have been pushed by which campaign.

Here we go. There we go. OK. 4% inflation. Biscuits, which one is

that? The NHS. These. One of hours I think. Mr Putin. One of yours. So

you did identify some of them. I think were mainly on the remaining

side. Got to be for each, it's the BBC. Which ones were the remaining

scare stories? This is tough, you have to remember what they are.

Football was ours. What was the point though? You couldn't buy

players any more. You were allowed to travel freely in the EU and

footballers, like Hector Bellerin at Arsenal, he would not be allowed to

play. Remember, they are scare stories. 4% were city banks saying

that inflation would go to 4% if we left. Who knows where Citibank got

that figure? The Bees, that was the remain campaign, something to do

with the European bees. Mr Putin was Remain because he would love us to

leave. The out stories were Turkey, that flag would be flying over

Downing Street. Biscuits, interfering with how we prepare

biscuits. The NHS would have to privatise unless we got out. And the

Eurozone. That is a perennial scare story. It's the most important one.

So, James, how many votes do you think there are in warning people

that it is bad for British bees? I don't think it's the be all and end

all. It's got nothing to do with our membership. The bee population will

decline across the world, and you have to take action whether you are

in or out. But the future of the country should not be determined on

the bee population? I think it will be about the economy and security.

How many votes are there in biscuits? There are no votes in

biscuits. Why make it an issue? The reality is people want to focus on

issues like sovereignty and security. So why are both sides

focusing on this? These are trivial issues. The big issues are

sovereignty and economics. Why is the Prime Minister scaremongering as

he was earlier, suggesting migrant camps are coming? The Prime Minister

implied that the reason we had the Calle arrangement was because of

membership of the EU and if we left the EU that would be ripped up and

the camps would move to Kent. We know none of that is true. The camps

RA result of the bilateral arrangement by France and Britain

and even if we did stay in the EU, France could rip the treaty up

tomorrow if it wanted to. It is not connected with EU membership. There

is a greater risk they would rip it up if we left the EU. The former

head of the UK border end and she -- agency said that. French politicians

are queueing up to say the same thing. Hold on, the French

politicians are queueing up to say that regardless of whether we are in

or out, Nicolas Sarkozy says he will rip up the agreement, regardless of

whether Britain is in or out of the EU, so the membership is not the

factor. He's already saying he would do it. The guy who ran the borders

in this country... He doesn't run France, and Mr Sarkozy could be the

next president. He says he will do it even if we stay in. It was a

deliberate attempt by the Prime Minister to scare the British

people. He is bullying his cabinet ministers and frightening his junior

ministers. And now he's trying to terrify the British public with

suggestions of tents all over Kent. And you are saying people will be

overrun by Turks if we stay in. We are not trying to terrify people.

It's a clear thing about whether we want to stay in or out. There is no

prospect of Turkey joining. You ask some people on the Remain side... We

have seen the transcript of the Turkish resident dealing with Mr

Task, and the biggest complaint was that in 30 years they have made no

progress. -- Mr Task. Why are you scaring people? I have not been

scaring people. Your side has. Others might have done. Are you

elevated by the debate on the future of the nation? Not particularly but

you expect a big scrap, and if you have a referendum, you have a big

punch-up. I'm not appalled either. It is interesting given Mr Cameron's

position on renegotiation I hadn't expected him to go into

scaremongering so early. I think he knows he has perhaps he has a bit

more to do, bit more worried than we anticipated and to respond quickly

to the fact that the renegotiation deal is broadly seen as pro-or

anti-as not much of a deal, so he has to move the argument elsewhere.

I agree with that. I was astonished. This is the kind of throw of the

dice I would expect with ten days to go, but four months in advance, I

reckon his own private polling is telling him that things look very

gloomy and the other aspect is, it gives the members of the league

campaign a push, because if they say that the Prime Minister is running

the race and migrants argument, I will run my own race and migrants

argument. Look at those 11 million people from Syria. Either way, they

are making their way the A2. I people from Syria. Either way, they

by him. He is flogging himself to death, seven days a week, and even

fronting up prison reform is right in the middle of these negotiations.

I think he is overworking. He is overstretched. He is scaring people

at a time when he gags his own ministers. We love the

scaremongering because the truth is that the British people will not be

bullied, we will not be scared or threatened and I am convinced we

will vote to leave. When will we move on, and in your case, when will

we start to hear the positive, uplifting case for remaining in the

European Union? I try to make it every day, the economic benefits

from being in the EU, the jobs linked to the membership, lower

prices in the shops and the huge amount of investment we get in the

country because big companies know they can trade to the world's

largest trading block on their doorstep. I'd rather talk about that

than biscuits or bees. When will we get a clear idea of what sort of

nation we would be if we are no longer in the EU? We make the

message all the time. Britain would be outward facing, globally facing.

Big businesses, when they address the issues, they realise, forget the

myths, there are no concerns about jobs and their investment and plans

for the UK. Take Toyota, Nissan, Vauxhall, they all said they would

make more. We have run out of time but you can see it is actually more

interesting that we get onto the important issues and then we will

come back and forget about the bees. Or the birds.

If you're an assiduous follower of the Daily Politics,

you'll know by now that Giles has recently been rubbing shoulders

with huge numbers of the great and good.

He's talked to handfuls of former home secretaries,

oodles of former health secretaries, and a smattering

Today, in the latest of our series, "So you want to be a Secretary

of State?", Giles has been getting to grips with the job of Defence

Whitehall, the heart of government, but could you be in charge of the

Army, Navy and air force and still be responsible for all the nuclear

weapons and the lives of all service personnel, so you want to be

Secretary of State for Defence. It's the only department where I can

remember even if I was walking down the corridor, even civil servant

would say good morning, sir. I walked down Downing Street as Shadow

Secretary of State for Scotland with a staff of three, and I walked back

down the Secretary of State for Defence with 383,000 employees.

Being dropped out of the helicopter onto the flat deck of a submarine

was not wholly fun. No Prime Minister will forget the

responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Defence and no Prime

Minister -- Secretary of State should think they are operating on

the right. I could not say anything about the fiancee of my friend being

killed. Without a shadow of a doubt, that was the low point. Jill Rutten

was a senior civil servant and is now at the Institute for local

government. She says being Defence Secretary is about being strategic.

To be a good Secretary of State for Defence you've basically got to

fight on three fronts. Get a grip of a big department, big budgets. By

watering numbers. Still, you have to be credible with the military and

the interesting thing about the military is they have direct access

very often to the Prime Minister and the media. And you also want to be a

player in the debates the government is having about national security,

and the best Secretary of State of defence are the people who can win

all those three fronts at the same time. General Guthrie, the first

chief of defence staff when I arrived in October 1999, described

the Ministry of Defence is a three legged install. I found that an

attractive description of the military, civil servants and

politicians. They all had to work together to keep this stool up

right. But in a sense they were struggling to argue their case.

In defence, the general rule is, know your enemy. But it isn't always

do you think. We often used to say when ministers of defence met

together that the common enemy was not an external enemy, it was the

ministries of finance. When you have a very big budget it's not just the

Treasury who are after your money, pretty well every other department

is as well. But the MoD has its ways of fighting back. The ministry are

very professional. They know the dangers and they have what I think

is called a long-term costing, I think, the next ten years every

penny has been spent. They will tell you exactly where it is going, and

they do that so they can say to the Treasury there is no money left.

Until they want something different, and then they change it. It is not

just the civil servants who have their ploys. Part of what the chief

of staff does is to give military advice, but they are also the trade

union representatives of the uniformed personnel that they are

ahead of. They are fighting for their own particular profession's

interest. That will often be in the public interest and easy to support,

but sometimes it will not necessarily be in the public

interest any more than the views of the British Medical Association as

to what doctors should have and receive and how they should be

treated. It's not always in the interest of the wider public. Liam

Fox came into the job in 2010 with a mission to cut budgets and Project

overspends, and that was going to -- upset both civil servants and the

military. Some of my colleagues spoke about

the difficulty of the relationship with the civil service. And I said,

times two, for what you get in defence. I generally found that at

the top, it was a fairly good relationship. But further down you

had enormous resistance to change. And we brought in a tsunami of

change with us in 2010. He is soon decided to scrap the improvement

project to the RAF's Nimrod aircraft. And he had to take action

to prove he meant it. I was met the next day with a little campaign

which said, there is going to be a campaign to save the Nimrod. Having

just been elected, I said, not if we cut the wings of it, there will not.

So we did cut the wings of them. Make it very clear, when this

government said it was going to do something, we had to make it clear

that it would do it. Liam Fox was a doctor, not a soldier. But once upon

a time the job was often taken by someone who had been in the

military. In my day, when I was the Secretary of State for Defence and

foreign secretary and so on, we had all really, or almost all of us, had

been in the Second World War. And so we understood a bit about it and

were concerned about it and knew a bit about defence. I think the more

remote the Second World War becomes, the more difficult it is for

ministers who know nothing whatever about it, who have never been in the

services, to adjust to it. But actually, today, some ministers

think that lack of military experience can be an advantage. I

have never been a soldier. I was a little bit nervous at first as to

how the chiefs of staff would react to a Secretary of State who had

never served in the Armed Forces. In fact I found they were relieved,

because a number of my predecessors had been captains, majors, thought

they knew it all, thought they could tell the generals how to run an

army, and did not have that degree of experience. I didn't have no

illusions of that kind. Of course, there is one area which does not

give room for illusions. It is a hard reality. What a lot happened on

my watch. And you never, ever do it lightly. You never, ever take a

casual view about sending people into what is known as harm's way.

Because you know the responsible at Eli is on your shoulders. -- the

responsibility lies. I established the idea of having repatriations

ceremonies, and rightly, I went to the first one, I went to a number of

them. And afterwards I went to see the families of those who had died,

in some cases only a matter of days after their loss. That was probably

the most difficult thing I have ever had to do in my life. The Prime

Minister is commander-in-chief and makes the decision whether to commit

troops. But if anyone doubted the importance of defence, one Labour

Secretary of State is clear - electorally, there are warnings from

history. You do not play politics unnecessarily in defence. In my

subsequent career, I used to tell a lot of countries, don't play

politics with defence. The Labour Party did and went out of power for

18 years. Whoever is in government, defence is an office which involves

great burdens, budgets and bureaucracy. And yet those who have

done it often say it is one of the most fascinating honours of their

career. Now in case you missed

it earlier this week, there was quite a result

in the New Hampshire primary over Both the Republican and Democrat

parties are in the process of choosing who their candidate

will be for the presidential And on Tuesday night Hilary Clinton

suffered a set-back, In the Republican race Donald Trump

exceeded expectations, Here are the two winners

from Tuesday night. We are going to make

America great again, but we're going to do it

the old-fashioned way. We're going to beat China,

Japan, we're going to We're going to beat all of these

countries that are taking so much of our money away from

us on a daily basis. Given the enormous

crises facing our country, it is just too

late for the same old, same old establishment

politics and establishment We've been joined in the studio

by Jan Halper, chairman of the UK branch of Republicans Overseas,

and in our Oxford studios by none other than the brother

of Bernie Sanders, who has this week just been made the Green Party's

health spokesman, Larry Sanders. That is the Green Party here in

Britain. Let's begin by looking at some

of the Republican Donald Trump, 69, is a billionaire

business mogul worth He leads the polls nationally

and in some key states. As Daily Politics viewers know,

his comments about muslims have caused some controversy,

though not with Katie Hopkins! Ted Cruz is a Texas Senator

who shot to fame in 2014 for speaking for 24

hours against Obamacare. He gained a surprise victory

in the Iowa caucuses last week. He came third in New Hampshire -

respectable. 44-year-old Macro Rubio

was born in Miami to He's been a Florida senator since

2011 during which time his part in a bipartisan immigration reform

package is thought to have cost him He has since changed his views on

that during the primaries. And now look at the Democratic Party

frontrunners, there is only two of them.

Hilary Clinton first came to the world's attention

She is seen as the Democrat's front runner and was President Obama's

in the New Hampshire primary shows, not least is Bernie Sanders

a self-defined democratic socialist and has been in Congress for more

So, these are the runners and riders on the Republican side. Let me come

to you first, Larry Sanders. New Hampshire is overwhelmingly white.

He did very well amongst the white liberals. The race now moves to

Carolina. He does not do so well among Hispanics or black voters -

why is that? Hello. I don't know and I'm not sure it will be true. That

is the reason for the campaign. He does not just do well among white

liberals. That I think it is very important, and the experts seem to

have missed it, what Bernard is doing, for the first time for a

left-wing politician in America for a long time, he is reaching to the

lower paid people, the people who have been called moderates. But I

think they are not moderates, they want a decent way of life. And the

way this economy has been stacked, they have not been getting at. So I

think something very new is happening. Well, that makes Nevada,

where there are lots of low paid Hispanic voters, and South Carolina,

where there are lots of low paid black voters, that makes it a real

test for him. He needs to get their votes to be the man who will carry

the Democratic nomination? Well, of course they are both very important

states. This nomination process I think will go on for a long time.

They are not the beginning and end of all things but they are very

important. What is worrying is that the Clinton camp now is trying to

suggest that Bernard is not really concerned with black voters. It is

not true. He cut his teeth as a very young man in the civil rights

movement. He played an important role, not a major role, but an

important role in Chicago, in desegregating the university housing

stock. His whole career is based on support for people who need more,

and in many areas, black people fit that bill. So if they succeed in

splitting that, the white working class off from the black working

class, there are bad times ahead. Stay with us. I want to bring in Jan

Halper now on the Republican side. Wasn't New Hampshire just about the

worst possible result for the Republican establishment? The one

they want to stop, Mr Trump, won by a large margin. Their favourite son,

Marco Rubio, came up poor fifth. And there are still about five or six

candidates in the race, which means that the anti-Trump forces still

cannot coalesce around a single candidate? Not at all. And you're

not going to see that. Because right now, they have nothing to lose and

they're going to stay in the race through Super-G was day. That is

what I mean, that is not what the party wanted? It is not, and Bush

has his brother campaigning with him in South Carolina, and I'm not sure

that is a good thing. Because the contrast of how folksy George is,

versus Jeb... Low-energy, Mr Trump has called him. Exactly. But Mr Bush

is well-organised in South Carolina. Ted Cruz is the most organised

throughout the South. Mr Trump did not win in Iowa, was not really

expecting to. He won the time in New Hampshire. What has he got to do in

South Carolina to remain the front runner? As he said in his acceptance

speech in new doctor, he has finally understood the ground game. And so

he has hired some of the best people to extend the ground game. He

realises it is not just these rallies of 10-15,000 people. And so

he is starting to balance traditional ways with

nontraditional. Mr Sanders, is your brother now thinking, I really could

be the Democratic nominee? Yes, I am sure he is. And not only that he can

be the Democratic nominee, that will be the hard part, but that he will

be the president. He must be aware that if that was to happen, almost

none of the things he wants to do could ever get through Congress?

Well, his view is that you do not win by giving up - first. First you

go and fight. And he will be a very formidable opponent. He is working

in a real situation. We have had 40 years in which the wealth and income

of the country has been flowing from the bulk of the population to the

very rich. There are millions of millions of people who know that.

That is where he is strong. Thank you for that. And Donald Trump has

gone from being almost like, oh, he will burn out by the autumn of 2015,

to, now, the Republican candidate who is the one to beat, the

favourite - will he get the nomination, in your view? The issue

is, our super delegates. And 168 of them are part of the Republican

National Committee. Which is more the establishment. Exactly. But I

was at the Charleston debate, and we had the committee meet, and every

night people were going around the table, if you had to vote today, who

would you vote for? And they said Trump. Well, we will see. It is

certainly the strangest American race I have ever covered, which also

makes it the most interesting, certainly since the days of the

Vietnam War. Thank you both for joining us. Is trump going to get

the nomination? Yes, definitely, it is going to be great. Clinton must

still be favourite but Sanders is doing well? I would still put big

money on Hillary Clinton, however. Can you remember what Tim Farron

called to be legalised? It is the quiz question. It is easy... Well,

he was following our cover this week in saying that cannabis should be

legalised, and here is how to do it. Yes. Thanks to all of my guests. I

will be back on Sunday with The Sunday Politics on BBC One at 11

o'clock. I will be speaking to Matt Hancock. We will be testing how many

promises the Tories have kept so far, and how many they have broken.

BBC One, Sunday morning. As Ireland head to France

in search of a first victory, As Ireland head to France

in search of a first victory, can Wales use home advantage

to beat a deflated Scotland? And jubilant England enter

the Stadio Olimpico