26/02/2016 Daily Politics

"a profound economic shock" on the UK.

So says George Osborne on a trip to China.

But is this just the latest episode of Project Fear?

Yesterday we were told just over 250,000 EU migrants came to the UK

So why did over twice that number register to work here?

You need to be good at sitting in small chairs and playing

on swings - but do education secretaries make any difference

How a new Labour Leader and a big decision on Trident has

re-invigorated the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

All that in the next hour and with us for the duration today,

two columnists united by their opposition to Trident -

but not much else - Zoe Williams of the Guardian

and Peter Hitchens of the Mail on Sunday.

First this afternoon - what's the true level of immigration

Yesterday the Office for National Statistics told us that

in the year to September last year 257,000 EU migrants entered

but over the same period more than twice as many EU migrants

630,000 in fact, registered to work in this country

by applying for National Insurance numbers.

There is a clear discrepancy and it is a discrepancy

numbers issued that's become increasingly visible over

So, are the official migration figures significantly

underestimating the real level of immigration?

We don't know because it is hard it get all the facts and figures.

Let's talk to Jonathan Portes of the National Institute

for Economic and Social Research who has been looking into this

Jonathan, let's begin - explain to us what is going on here? Well, the

office for national statistics measures the immigration figures by

a random sample of people coming into the country. He asks people who

are coming in - are you planning to stay here for more than a year?

That's the official international definition of what an immigrant is.

Those figures have by in large served us well for most of the past

few decades but what I noticed and you pointed out, it is an increasing

discrepancy between those numbers and the numbers of people who, once

they are here, register for a National Insurance number, which is

what you need to do if you want to take a job, pay tax, pay National

Insurance or claim benefits. Now there are good reasons for the

discrepancy. We have known about them for a long time, in particular,

if you are only here for a few months but still want to work work,

you would register for a National Insurance number but you wouldn't

officially be an immigrant but the discrepancy is large and has grown

by a huge amount over the past couple of years and particularly

apparent for European Union nationals. Something is going on and

we don't know why. Let's come on to the information we would need to get

to understand these figures in a minute. Let me put a general

principle to you first - would most people not think that issuing

National Insurance numbers - even broken down by nationality, which

local authority is giving them - wouldn't that be a more accurate

measure of people coming to this country, to works than a passenger

survey at airports, which we understand was underweighted for

airports like Stansted and Luton and others, where many were coming in

from Eastern Europe You can use the two surveys for different things. I

use the National Insurance data numbers myself to analyse the labour

market impact because it seems to me to be a good measure of people

coming here to work. But lots come here for reasons other than work.

They may not be picked up by the national Ince insurance

registration. In particular, children would be absent entirely

from that. Equally people who come here as students who might need a

National Insurance number for some reasons, for a few months or

seasonal workers, they are not immigrants and shupted be counted as

so, so are rightly excluded. Both measures tell us something useful.

-- they shouldn't be counted. We need to understand what the

differences are. And in particular, has the survey, which on the whole,

which has worked well in the past, has it suddenly stopped working

well. What information have you been trying - to be able to drill down

into this discrepancy, you have been trying 20 get some more information,

I think in particular from the HRMC. What is it you have been looking for

and have you managed to get it? Well, what happened was, of course,

the Prime Minister made some very dodgy, frankly assertions about the

number of EU migrants who claim benefits. He based that on this

data. People who register for National Insurance numbers and

subsequently went on to claim benefits. I asked HMRC and the DWC

-- if you know how many are claiming benefits, obviously you know, it is

the same computer system, how many are paying tax, how many are paying

National Insurance and so on, which of course would give us a much

better idea of how many people had stayed on in the country for any

length of time, how many of these National Insurance numbers were

still active as people in the labour market. First the HRMC on the orders

of the Treasury said we can't tell you that information because it

might prejudice the Prime Minister's renegotiation, somehow. Excuse me,

let me interpret you - the reason they gave was - if we knew the facts

it might prejudice the renegotiation? Yes, that is the

reason they gave. Were you not surprised by that? I was shocked.

Since the end of the renegotiation, I, of course, have asked again and

the reason now is - well, it would cost a few thousand, a couple of

thousand quid or so, and we think that's too much money to spend on

producing this sort of data. Before I bring our guests in, let me ask

you this, since you have not been able to get the data that would

allow you to do your job properly. What is your guess, if I can put it

that way, as to the best explanation for the discrepancy between the high

figure on National Insurance numbers, and the lower figure on

actual migrants being clocked as they come into the country? I

genuinely don't know. I have been ring round some of my other

colleagues in the research community over the last couple of days to see

if they have any good explanations. They don't know either. My guess,

for what it is worth, is the survey data probably is somewhat

understating recent levels of migration. On the other hand, it is

probably also true that possibly more people arecoming here from the

European Union on a short-term basis. So it is probably a bit of

both but I wouldn't want it put any numbers on t which is why we really

need the Government to release this data -- numbers on

need the Government to release this data, it is there on the computer

system. Whichever side you are on, on the Brexit debate or indeed on

free movement of workers and immigration, and as you know my

research show that is free movement and immigration has been very good

for the UK, I think it is a good thing, but whichever side of the

debate you are on, people outing to be properlily informed and the

Government ought to be forced to disclose this data. Stay with us, I

will bring the guests N if you are inclined to conspiracy theories,

this would give you a field day. -- -- guests N I look at it like

council tax. They know the British passenger research were low and they

have known it for a long time but a Government that says they will use a

different data set is the Government that gets hit with the negative

headlines. So why do you think the insurance numbers we are giving out

for people to work are twice as big as the numbers we are registering to

come in? Well I'm certainly not going to say, if Jonathan Portas

doesn't know, I know. There must be people the British passenger survey

results have been low. It has always been said. 2-1 is a big discrepancy.

As onthan was saying, ever since people looked at this there has been

some kind of discrepancy but it has been growing and growing and it is

now 2-1. Rather large. The figures I saw over a five-year period t comes

in, using EU 1 million coming n verses 2.5 million NI numbers. That

is crazy. Of course I'm interested but can I tell you why it is? No I

can't. I claim it is as Hitchens' law, all political statistics are

fiddled as a matter of course and the old bikini effect observed in

the Soviet Union, statistics are more interesting for what they

conceal than reveal and we obviously have a Government which has two

different agendas, one, to pretend to be doing something about mass

immigration and others who encourage it because economic policy relies on

T which it does it is creating a will he-page credit-funded economy.

That's what it wants to have. It wants large scale immigration but it

needs to manipulate us into believing it is against. Are you

claiming the Government knows a lot more people are coming in. Well you

do. The National Insurance figures are knowledge, which the airport

passenger figures are speculation. They are factual. The National

Insurance They are factual. The National

people who could be coming here to work for a short time. So they say.

While the official migration figures, of the year, is the

internationally recognised definition of a migrant. It is a bit

like a difference between the classic crime figures which we no

longer collect and the British Crime Survey which is an opinion poll. One

is soiled fact, the other is a mass of politically-influenced

speculation. It is easy to see why - why do we need it ask why the

Government doesn't want people to know how high the level of

immigration S Is it your contention that they have been deliberately

understating it by a huge margin, knowing all the time their figures

are wrong? Is that what you are saying Is South Karolina saying,

when you find a turtle on the fence post, you know it didn't get there

by accident, perhaps it is not deliberate. When did they last say

that there? Quite recently. Plenty of reasons to do so. Back to

Jonathan Portas. If we did a bit of crowd sourcing and could raise a

couple of thousands of pounds, could we give that to the Government to

give us the figures we need? I think they would say, you know, that's not

how it works. I mean, I think they will eventually have to release more

data, but unfortunately we are in this period when, you know, they

have been publishing bits and snipts of it. They published a few more

bits and snippets last Friday, at the same time the Government

released its white paper on the renegotiation. But we need to be

able to seat underlying data, the tables, all the rest which would

actually give us this information. -- see the underlying data. I think

Peter is exaggerating, I don't think it is a maligned conspiracy to

conceal things from the British public but I do think the Government

is deliberately holding back on releasing information that would

undermine the story. I didn't say the words "malign" or "conspiracy."

People do actually get together privately to pursue purposes they

wish to conceal from everybody else. You may call it a conspiracy in the

hope of dismissing it and make us think of hushed conversations by

people wearing Guy Fawkes' hats but people do that and this he do it in

Government. Whether it is malign or not, I would say it was, you may not

think so. But be careful with the language you use to dismiss honest

sceptical about Government obfuscation.

We are here at the Daily Politics, interested in the fact, they

intrigue us. It is the basis of the questions we ask. If there is

anything we can do to help in your pursuit of these important facts,

Now it's time for our daily quiz. today.

The question for today is: which of these political parties

has neither of our guests been a member of?

At the end of the show Peter and Zoe will give us the correct answer.

They'll fess up and tells us which ones they have been members of and

which one they haven't. I know the reason. -- I know the answer.

Now, we've seen some Johnny-come-latelies won

round to the cause but there's a party that's been

campaigning for a British exit from the EU for more than 20 years

So, as Britain decides how to vote in June's referendum,

UKIP are meeting in Llandudno this weekend to ready

But the party's Scottish MEP, David Coburn, already knows what big

issue he'll be campaigning on - toasters.

Yes, Mr Coburn has complained that EU rules meant his toaster

was under-powered: "Mine's on full boost and my bread's

(That was a Scottish expression for pale."

My old toaster seemed to be powered by the Torness nuclear reactor

and this one is powered by some kind of EU windmill."

Yes, Andrew, two old faces popped up in new jobs.

Diane James MEP for South East England and William Dartmouth MEP

for the South West were this week appointed as Deputy Chairmen,

replacing the former Conservative MP turned UKIP candidate Neil Hamilton

who earlier this year missed out on becoming UKIP's candidate

The theory is she got burnt because she's following in

the footsteps of UKIP's only Westminster MP, Douglas Carswell,

which is to support the Vote Leave campaign in the European referendum

rather than the Leave.EU campaign and Grassroots Out,

which are being bankrolled by UKIP's big donor,

Someone else who became toast this week is John Atkinson,

in Carmarthen West because of a long-running row about how

the party selects people to stand in the elections

Some other high-profile Eurosceptics have appeared.

Now that Boris Johnson and Michael Gove are campainging

have they taken a slice out of the attention usually

I hope for your sake that Jo Co was not watching! LAUGHTER

And we're joined now from Stoke by UKIP's deputy leader,

Why is it that Nigel Farage seemed to turn on anybody that he sees as a

threat? If you are referring to Suzanne

Evans and Neil Hamilton being removed, we may declare, they are

both standing in the elections, they will both have a huge role to play

after May the 6th. Hopefully from within those respective assemblies.

Neil from within the Welsh assembly, I believe that he will be elected,

and hopefully Suzanne will be elected to the London assembly. We

need people who are able to campaign full-time, Diane James and William

Dartmouth are taking over roles particularly to look at security and

deal with the issues of trade. Hold on, Ukip did not come into existence

to have people on the Welsh of the London assembly is, you came into

existence to take Britain out of the European Union. You have now got a

chance to do that, with a referendum. Why would assemblies

take precedence over your resonant that the? Ukip was created to take

on the European Union but we are no longer a pressure group that is

simply there to push other political parties and we are no longer single

issue. -- why would assemblies take precedence over your raison d'etre?

We have people elected in all four quarters of the kingdom, we are

unique in that way in political parties there. That matters more

whether you win or lose? No, listen, look, of course, the primary goal is

to get us out of the European Union, equally, as a fully fledged

political party, we will be concentrating on those elections as

well. You say that you seem to waste energy on personal score settling,

internal feuds, moving people around, joining organisations now

that are so complicated that even people like me, who are paid to keep

across it, cannot even keep track of all of the different names. You only

have 17 weeks, which one are you in? What you mean? Am I him

grassroots... Which one? Are you in the People's public of Judaea or the

Judaea and is People's front(!) Ukip MEPs have made it clear that we are

backing grassroots out but when the designation is given, then we will

support the same campaign. What I want to appeal, to full glee, is

this, but personalities aside, come together, let's have one unified

Leave campaign. Then why has your leader sacked... People who have

gone to the other side...? INAUDIBLE She has sacked... He does not like

vote leaves, that is the truth. The truth is, Suzanne is standing in the

London assembly election, writing the manifesto, and we need people

who can work full time to campaign on the referendum. Look, Andrew,

Andrew, Andrew, Suzanne... Let me finish, Suzanne and kneel,

hopefully, we'll be able to campaign on the referendum issue after Mavis

is, when they are both elected to their assemblies, they will have

huge part to play in the future of Ukip, beyond being elected to the

assemblies. -- Suzanne and Neil. Is there also talk of suspending

Douglas Carswell, you're only MP, over his support for votes leave?

That is the first I have heard of it. But it this way, it is something

I will certainly be opposing, and it is the first I have heard of it,

this will not be happening. Period. Now that Michael Gove and Boris

Johnson seem to have signed up for votes leave, doesn't that mean that

is likely to be the organisation that the electoral commission will

choose as the official voice, the group that gets the money to

campaign to leave the European Union? It is a big boost, but at the

same time, the electoral commission will look at which organisation is

most cross party, Grassroots Out has people from all walks, it has people

from Ukip, labour, like Kate Hoey, even George Galloway, from respect.

I think it is up in the air, but we want the same thing, all of us. We

all want to leave the European Union. Campaigns are not

contradictory, they are, entry. I hope that personalities can be put

aside. -- Bayard complimentary. -- they are, the mentoring. The Prime

Minister appears to put the case under half of all of those you want

to stay in the EU, he puts the case for remain. Who puts the case for

leave on that same programme? Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage? I would be

amazed if there is a head-to-head debate... I'm not even talking

head-to-head, I mean one after another. And Question Time audience,

David Dimbleby, David Cameron giving the case for staying; who will then

follow to give the case to leave? Boris Johnson, or Nigel Farage? I

think that is a decision that Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage will have

to look at. Who would you prefer? I would prefer to put it out to

internal polling, who is most popular with different parts of

society and communities. I do not know who can appeal to the most

white section of people, Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, I will take

you ever can be most popular. The Chancellor is on a trade mission,

this is what he had to say to the BBC buzz political editor, about the

economic danger of withdrawing from the EU. -- BBC's political editor.

I think the global economy is facing more risk and more uncertainty

at any point since the financial crisis in 2008.

So this would be the very worse time for Britain to take the enormous

economic gamble of leaving the European Union.

You have seen the value of the pound fall and it reminds us all that this

This is about people's jobs and their livelihoods

And in my judgment, as Chancellor, leaving the EU would represent

a profound economic shock for our country, for all of us

and I'm doing to do everything I can to prevent that happening.

The Chancellor, in China, does it not concern you, that's not a single

major economic partner to this country, of the biggest economies in

the world, wants us to leave the European Union? Not one of them. I

am more concerned about my own country, I am more concerned about

the kind of country that I will hand onto my child... They are our

trading partners. Who will we trade with? Actually, if we left the

European Union, we could sign free-trade deals with these

countries all over the world, we do not have a seat on the World Trade

Organisation, the EU signs things on our behalf, and it is not proven

very good. INAUDIBLE All of the other 19 to 20... Of

them, that we trade with and export, we import, they are our economic

partners, not one of them wants us to leave the EU, is that

significant... Are wasted testing that if we left

the European Union they would cease to trade with us, -- are we

suggesting. We the fifth largest economy in the world, I am more

interested by what the British people will say, them by what

leaders of other countries will say. This is about Britain and our

future, I believe we will be more free, more democratic, stronger, and

outside of the European Union. Angular joining us. Between now and

June 23, we will get the opportunity to speak several more times, I know

that you will look forward to that. Peter, does it matter that there is

all of these different out groups and they seem to be squabbling among

themselves? Is it just... Is it just inside the Beltway, that view of

things? Of course it matters, they will do each other damage, they have

already done each other damage, it is laughable, it makes people think

these people are not serious, it is a grave danger to the campaign that

they act like this, it is a sign that they do not have true unity, as

opposed out campaign has begun to include quite large numbers of

important people do do not believe that Britain should leave the

European Union, Dick Italy Boris Johnson and now Michael Howard.

Neither of them want that, they want to put themselves at the head of the

out campaign so they can turn it into a second referendum campaign.

-- particularly Boris Johnson and now Michael Howard. Semi-other

people, in economic terms, this has never been an economic question, --

so many other people. This is a political project, it own leaders

have always understood it has economic downside, particularly the

euro, it is always had political priorities, the only country in

Europe in which the European Union is discussed as an economic issue.

It is a political issue whether we are to be a self-governing country

or not. The division, the almost total inability of large numbers of

people to even see this makes a serious debate very nearly

impossible. In recent years, if you listened to the speeches of George

Osborne or David Cameron, you got a constant stream of Euroscepticism.

Sometimes quite virulent Euroscepticism. Doesn't that

undermine the credibility when it comes on to television now, and

suddenly he becomes the great Europhile? It does, there is a lot

of addiction coming on, surprising to hear a lot of people suddenly

saying we are the fifth largest economy in the world, when they have

spent five years saying how broke we are. -- there is a lot of

contradiction coming on. What is it, either we are a Goliath all we are

David. The other, they have kind of marshalled and levied this

Euroscepticism, it is a crowd pleasing thing. Just to prove how

plucky they are. With no real sense of following it through. Now they

are in the difficult position of making what is not even an economic

argument, it is a purely fiscal argument. We will be rich if we do

this, and poorer if we do that. That will not set on fire anybody's

heart. There is a very profound philosophical difference between the

kind of little Englander, wanting everything being back to the way

that it was, no immigration, a return to British greatness, which

is... Why do you call that little Englander, if it is a return to

greatness, surely it is the reverse of that...! Sorry, I did not mean to

be dismissive. No, I do get tired of that... That term... It is in a

talented, but I did not mean it is to be pejorative. In the hedge fund

vision, Lena, five eyes, allied with America. Free trade. Nothing about

going back to the way that things America. Free trade. Nothing about

work, nothing about putting the working man at the centre of

everything. -- leaner. All about rabbit free markets. Full. . --

raided free markets. -- rabid. You will still be under the control of

the WTO, and all others interfering, the European Union is an old

problem, to some extent, globalism has now taken over a lot of the

things it used to do. We will move on now, because it is also

springtime to the greens today. They're holding their shindig

in Harrogate from where we're joined Wildie Green Party the campaigning

strongly to keep us in the European Union? We will be calling for us to

remain in the EU. -- will the Green Party. We are really gearing up at

the conference in Harrogate but we also focusing the election campaign,

we saw membership more than treble, 1.1 million votes in the general

election, more votes in every general election we have had

previously added together! Now we are focusing on the referendum but

also focusing on turning the green surge into green seats in the London

assembly, the Wales assembly and the council elections up and down the

country. White is the party united behind you in wanting to stay in the

European Union, do you have your own Eurosceptic wing?

-- is the party united behind you in wanting to stay

in the European Union, do you have your own

In Bournemouth we had a call for a strong bold Remain campaign, about

95% supported that. Of course, like everybody, everybody has people who

have different views, in the Green Party it is easier to accommodate

that and understand it. We understand people can express their

own views honestly and faithfully, expressing their principled and

their values. And we do not have any problem with that. You have lost one

of your most prominent members to the other side, why is Jenny Jones

taking a different view from you? Jenny has taken a position for

decades, and as I said, I have no problem with that, but what we are

saying is the Green Party is, we breathe European air, it does not

stop at the borders! We have the waters, the seas... I thought that

most of the wind of this country comes in the Atlantic! It does not

blow in from France, it is North Atlantic air of! That is why it is

so fresh A We need to get clean air, clean

seas. We celebrate the free movement of people in the EU. And the free

movement of air apparently. Work cooperatively, freely. I think if

you look at the other side, they seem very keen it talk about fish

and seem to act like they think fish have passports and stop at borders.

They are not our fish. They are fish stocks that have to be managed

sustainably for the future for everybody and that's how we have to

work, cooperatively, internationally, for the good of the

future. Do you think anybody is going tloisen to you. Aren't you

losing members to Mr Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party now? - -- is going to

listen to you? Very much not. We are seeing retention. You are losing

members. Well members move around after elections. A number of your

members have moved to Mr Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party. Well, we are

seeing real success in elections. Two county councillors elected in

elections in Dorset and over in Shropshire. Other only 3% in the

poll. And just this morning... You are 3%. Well, I think what you will

see is, we got 1.1 million votes in the general election. That was then,

you are now down to 3% Accumulatively, together. We have a

situation now where up and down the country and in London and Wales,

these are, propartial ate election, like the Westminster elections

should be. These are ex-wills that we can win, grow, we can win our

first members on the Wales Assembly and grow the number of councillors

up and down the country. Looking for directiveness on this. We won a bye

election overnight. We are growing, developing in local communities

where people really want a new broom sweeping through. People are fed up,

particularly with one party states but also with councils where there

are real two-party dish, bash, Bosch politics. People want new ideas,

ideas for the future, initiatives. I'm not sure, Bishop, bash or bosch

are running in this referendum but if you are the new broom. We have

seen a lot of that already. Let me ask a question - why is it that the

BNP - a party I thought no longer existed - why did they manage it

raise more money in the last quarter of 2015 than the Green Party? I

think the Green Party, we don't have millionaire or multimillionaire

hedge funds towards us. Neither does the BNP. In the general election, a

huge amount of money was raised through crowdfunding. People giving

us ?5 or ?10. I'm seeing that starting up again. They didn't in

the last few months Where we can elect more grooeps on to councils

and our first Greens on the Welsh Assembly and grow our London

Assembly representation. Thank you for joining us.

You'll need to know your times tables, be good at sitting on small

chairs and make sure you're not caught out in a spelling test.

What other qualifications do you need if you want to be

Could you be responsible for the hopes and dreams of every

pupil and parent out there and still keep teachers happy?

So, you want to be Secretary of State for Education?

Local authorities ran education and universities very

So, the thought that a Secretary of State for Education,

in the early '90s was actually running education,

Well, traditional trade union antagonism to any forward change

in the education field was not unfamiliar to me, not least

because I had been a teacher but I was surprised

that they were not enthused, as clearly and as quickly

I had absolutely no idea what floor my office

was on and I had to go back to the security guard and say,

"I'm terribly sorry, I'm the new Secretary of State,

I have no idea where my office is, any chance you can come

None of us were macho women and all of us tried to run a more

conciliatory department and all of us knew that if we didn't

be careful, the word around Whitehall would be that the women

I view it as one of the best posts in Government

because you can do quite a lot and you can influence things

Jill Rutter is a former senior civil servant and now

She says Secretary of State for Education is a job that's

Secretary of State for Education is one of the roles that has changed

30 years ago, it was a pretty hands-off department,

operated by issuing circulars to local authorities

Since the invention of the National Curriculum

in the late '80s, things have really started to change.

We saw that and then we saw things like David Blunkett's literacy hour

and then from 2010 we have seen a mass move towards academies

Now the Department of Education has a direct relationship with large

numbers of schools and it is trying to get a grip

Lord Baker, who launched the National Curriculum,

says education hasn't always had far-sighted Secretaries of State.

There is a picture gallery in the Department of Education

of all the Secretaries of State for Education since the war

and there are two lines now and I've known all of them except two

and some of them have been birds of passage,

there for a few months, there for a couple of years,

having little interest or effect, making sure the boat doesn't sink

under them and protecting their backsides, as it,

And others have been very good, since.

One of those regarded as a big reformer says he was confident

I used to joke that I'd get some satisfaction in my dotage,

drinking a nice glass of red wine and reflecting back that

although people may not remember who it was that had done it,

there were things that were going to still be there,

working well, transforming the lives of young people and I'm looking

Reform is impossible for any Government,

Some of whom aren't your allies, but you need them.

The thing that I used to have to say to fellow ministers,

frankly, who used to say - well can't you do something about...

I mean the fact is, no minister can be in every classroom.

The person that is in every classroom is a teacher

and so you have to have a well-motivated, really well-trained

Alan Johnson agreed but found it wasn't the teachers

The biggest problem we had wasn't with that, it's what to teach.

Everyone tells you they want this in the curriculum,

they want that in the curriculum and particularly, you know

the nostalgaists, who want what was in their curriculum in

1944, "We should resuscitate it", and the school day would have

to last for 25 hours to get even half of what people wanted

Once you started that, you need schools, which you don't

We were saying that - here is what we are about,

here is why we have a common purpose and these are the things

which we think we can do together, to deliver what you want,

which is your school doing better and children in your school

achieving and that sense of hearts and minds and winning

If we had said - here's an injunction, they just weren't going

In Ken Clarke's day, the civil servants urged him

They didn't think I was getting into schools enough.

I won't say which of my predecessors...

Ted Short it was, they said, "Oh he used to go seven or eight

I wondered what on earth Ted thought he had been doing in seven or eight

I also strongly suspected that they wanted to get me out

of the office and stop me doing things.

And just send me around doing the pictures for the local paper

and the handshakes with the headteachers and,

But Ed Balls found he caused enough mischief when he was in schools.

I'm afraid I'm responsible for rather more extra school discos

I always use to say to the kids - do you think you need more discos?

Massive roars of approval and the headteacher would sit

there and think - my goodness, why did we invite this guy?

Charles Clarke liked being invited to do the job.

He didn't much like being asked to move on.

I had been President of the National Union of Students.

I had first come into working in national politics

for Neil Kinnock when he was Jim Callaghan's Shadow Secretary

I believed and believe that good education policy is the core

I was very sad when Tony Blair asked me to move.

In fact, I had an argument about it at that time when he was offering me

the role of Home Secretary because I felt it was such

Estelle Morris thought the same and famously stood down as Secretary

of State, having been a successful Schools Minister.

If I'm honest with myself, if I'm really honest with myself,

as much and I just don't think I'm as good at it

I'm not having second best in a post as important as this.

I wanted to spend much more time on the business in the department

And there are two bits of Secretary of State.

You have got to run your department, which I think I did quite -

I think I could do but there is another bit and it is crucial

and it doesn't exist in the Minister of State,

you have to manage politics across Whitehall.

Estelle Morris was excellent at the job and I was really sad

that - and this applies too often to really good people -

that her confidence was knocked when she was Secretary of State.

You do need enormous confidence which sometimes

If you can get the balance right without being an absolute prig

on the one hand and being afraid you are not doing a good job

on the other, that's the balance you are always trying to seek.

It seems a job ensuring the good teaching of lessons to children

can often teach those doing it lessons about politics.

Our Giles on the Secretary of State for Education. Who has been the most

effective in recent years, do you think? It infuriates me this

conversation, they talk about it as if they are making political

decisions. The current Secretary of State for Education has absolutely

changed the early years curriculum and made schools' lives a nightmare.

Morale is really low among teachers. Five-year-olds are being told they

are failures, routinely and we kind of have these object truce air diet

conversations about whether you want to be across Whitehall or across the

department. I asked you who was the most effective in recent years?

Clearly not the current one in your view. Effective sno sn who has had

the most effect. Tony Crossland in 1965 by abillionishing selection.

And another one and two vandals. All the rest have been failing to repair

the damage they Z Estelle Morris, terribly nice person and all the

rest, David Blunkett atrociously he set into law that you could open no

new selective schools in the state system, he should possibly join

them. They have all been effective. You don't like any of them. No,

education in this, state education in this country is a colossal dises

aer. We have had four sets of statistics in reports this week

showing the teachings of maths has declined. That children from poor

homes can get nowhere in our society. This is all the result of

the same thing, the destruction of selection. It is the result of

people being Secretary of State who have never been teachers. It is

particularly pronounced in recent years. They literally have no

expertise at all. They do not listen to any of the people who have done

the work on it and sprinkle in completely ignorant policies which

change peoples lives. They have too much control. Once you have got rid

of the principle that good schools could govern themselves, which was

quite possible in a selective system, and you have endless

interference of national curriculums and centralisation. Well... And

nationalisation which is what the academy system involves, total

central control of the schools, it's catastrophic, the meddling in

schools by ministers in Whitehall, will not put schools right. You have

to create conditions in which good schools can thrive and flourish and

that means academic selection. It is infuriating to agree with 50% of

what you say and disagree violently with the other 50% I absolutely

agree. The problem s the expertise is in the wrong hand. It is being

centralised. It is the arrogance of Government ministers thinking they

can run something they do not understand. Why would someone on the

left like you favour a system which supports the rich? I don't support

the current system. I have been complaining for it. Why are you in

favour of the fairer system? I'm in the? Why not, it was much better

than before. Actually it wasn't better for the poor. If you look at

counties where grammar schools are still in operation, pupils on free

school meals do worse. If you look kaent, it serves the poor very much

worse than neighbouring counties. That's bus they are a tiny besieged

rump. So, we have evidence of the system that you laud, and because

the evidence doesn't suit you. In Northern Ireland which retains a

selective system the prospect for poor children, particularly of

getting to University rch better than they are on the mainland I

don't understand why your data has to take precedence over mine. Better

data. Remember the days when the Campaign

for Nuclear Disarmament could get thousands and thousands

of people on to the streets? Well, it's happening

again this weekend. CND reckon their anti-trident march

planned for London tomorrow will be And it's back to the drawing board

for the artist who provided many of the period's

most striking images, I could have gone to an exhibition

about gardens at the Royal Academy, instead, I have come clean the real

War Museum, to see work of Paul Kennard, you may not know the name,

but surely you know his famous version of this eye Constable. This

is when cruise missiles were coming to Britain, the idea was that they

would circulate around the countryside, and as the Tories said,

in Parliament, don't worry about them, they will melt into the

countryside! Originally I had a lot more bits, skeletons hanging out the

window, but with montage, if you put into much, it reduces it. There was

a colour one done as a postcard, and it was in a lot of shops. I heard a

lot about Americans buying it and sending it back to Texas! In Peter's

eyes, he and I do the same thing. You going to a gallery these days,

you stop thinking, your art is about adoration, much more, that is

becoming more and more so with the art market, the mass prices, and so

I want to show that you can make art that talks to society. That is what

it did in the past, that is why did, and that is what a lot of arts did

in the past. People wanted to get the news from the art. You can still

do that, in this situation. -- that is what Goya did. This was make the

Labour Party in the early 1980s. People went to get the news,

almost from the art. You can still do that

in a gallery situation. So this picture was made

for the Labour Party in the early 1980s and they were

unilateral at the time. And they wanted to use a very strong

image to show that we could actually get rid of nuclear weapons

and that's what I came up with. You can see the Labour Party

logo there and then, hopefully, this has become relevant

again as we are talking about the possibility of getting

rid of nuclear weapons. Has Labour asked

you for a new poster? But the current

Labour Leader is fan. He does paint.

I don't know if you knew. No, I didn't.

He does do some painting himself. He is very into culture.

Is he any good? And Peter's been involved in picking

new images for the placards that are to be used at this weekend's

anti-Trident march which CND reckon is going to be the biggest

since the '80s. STUDIO: Joining us now, Labour MP,

former defence minister, John speller. Welcome to the programme.

Saturday is to be the national campaign day to support remaining in

the European Union, for Labour, Jeremy Corbyn... Is going to speak

at a CN deal... Does that suggest to you that abolishing nuclear weapons

is more important to him than staying in the EU? -- John Spellar.

The rally, where he is appearing, with the leaders of the SNP, Plaid

Cymru, and the greens, it is not necessarily the best use of time. --

CND. Apart from the EU, I would say that the issue of weekend deaths in

hospitals, where David Cameron this week put out some quite spurious

figures, that should be the main focus of political campaigning this

weekend, rather than trying to overturn a policy which was agreed

after a very full discussion in the Labour Party, we ran it in the

manifesto in the general election. Your party is now led by a man who

has been a unilateral nuclear disarmament board his entire life,

entirely convinced on this issue, it believes that increasing numbers of

people who have joined the Labour Party take that position as well. It

is only natural, surely, that he would want to campaign to make that

party policy. Actually, we do not just select one person and adopt all

of his views, otherwise we would abolish party conference! Is not

asking for that to happen, he believes there is a growing tide of

unilateral and nuclear disarmament in his own party, that he agrees

with and would like to encourage because he thinks he can make it

policy. I don't know if you saw the conference of the GMB, Major

affiliated union of the Labour Party, that took place this week,

there was a very strong feeling from the organised working class,

represented by that union, that very much we should stick with current

policy. Rankin, that David Cameron should get on with it and call a

vote in the House of Commons and we should be ordering the new

submarines. That was party policy hammered out. -- frankly, that David

Cameron should get on with it. I remember being involved in many of

them. Perhaps now you are a different party. On the programme

yesterday we looked at recent polling, on the attitudes of the

members of your party, a huge influx, only 40% of your members now

were members when Ed Miliband became leader in 2010. How money people?

This may well be a different and new party. Voters have not changed. New

party, new policy. Voters have not changed, the manifesto we presented

less than one year ago, has not changed. Labour members of

Parliament, Tom Watson, the deputy leader, he pointed it out, very

strongly, yesterday. They voted on that, and we will be, many of us

will be voting for that. When David Cameron finally puts it before the

House of Commons. Indeed, if anything, since the policy was drawn

up, international situation has become more precarious. The invasion

of Crimea, and also, Russia revamping its nuclear arsenal. Emily

Formby says that she would like a proper debate inside the party, when

she says that, on the future of Trident, you have already made up

your mind? The party has made up its mind, we had a debate, we have a

full and extensive debate will stop -- Emily Thornberry. That was

reaffirmed, by the way, at last year 's party conference, after the

election of Jeremy Corbyn. That Reay reaffirmed that we support the

maintenance of the continuous at sea deterrence. -- that reaffirmed. Why

is your Shadow Defence Secretary having a proper debate? -- full and

extensive debate. We had a full debate, perhaps she did not like the

outcome. The outcome... Firstly, it is the perfectly logical outcome in

defence terms, and also it is the outcome supported by the British

people, again, as you talk about opinion, as every opinion poll

shows, really. You said you would resign the Labour whip, if the party

came out against... I did not. What is your position? My position is as

it has been at times in your clips beginning earlier, you pointed out

there were times that Labour was a unilateralist party, and indeed that

did not do us much good with the electorate, with the era where the

public decisively rejected us. I fought my corner then, and indeed,

we turned around party policy, and not coincidentally, the public then

decided that if we were trusted with the security of the country, then

they would trust us. If they don't think that, then they want. Why

should I want to walk away from a party, that I had been a member of

for the best part of 50 years? Because you don't agree with

them...? Policies change, at one stage, one side is on top, another

stage, another side is on top. Now the other side is on top and you are

kvetching. I fought my corner in the party, and opinion in the party

turned around, and we won. The electorate followed that. I'm not

one of these people, on the fringe, Socialist workers party, now I am to

the right of politics... As you know, I have had the same position

all the way through. Yes, and here you are, belonging to a party which

became Blairite, and Blairism has gone now, the Blairite party in this

country now is the Tory party, and you and the rest of the people in

the Labour Party have been left behind by that. Now you are in a

party led by somebody like Jeremy Corbyn, you are still Blairite, you

have a choice, sit there and moan, or go and join the Tories. That is

where you plainly belong! Aditya Lily... Particularly... You sound

like a member of Momentum. You are using that as if it is an insult.

Socialist workers, and the Alliance for work as liberty and all of that.

We have been on that route, interestingly enough, the bite back

publication has just republished Jon Golding's book, which outlines those

battles. Winning those battles... The point, at some point, you have

got to stop talking about the membership of the party with this

scorn and disdain, whatever you think of them, whatever you, the

Parliamentary party think of them, they are your party, you cannot come

on television and talk about them as if they are lunatics! You are not

understanding what the party is. I do very much so, I remember the

Labour Party -- are you a member of the Labour Party? Yes, for three

months. I was a member when I was 15, and I left because of people

like you. -- was a member when I was 15 and I left because of people like

you. I have been a member for decades and decades. You could not

even join the party when Ed Miliband was the leader. In the Cold War,

which is now so long ago... Starting again... We were on the same side,

why do you continue to support their weapon designed for the Cold War and

design for a superpower when the Cold War is over and we are not a

superpower, there is a busy should between Trident and no Trident, a

modest nuclear deterrent, much smaller, it is the one that you

constantly seek to obscure the assistance of. In coalition, the Lib

Dems tried to come up with alternatives, they had the Trident

alternative review, and the most cost effective way, continuous at

sea deterrence for Trident. John Spellar, thank you very much

rejoining us. -- thank you very much for joining

us. Well, you haven't got

to wait until 23rd June. Here's Ellie with a round up

of the rest of the week's political Three strikes and you are a junior

doctor, there will be more industrial action and they announced

they are seeking a judicial view of government plans to impose new

contract on them. The 11th hour agreement was found in the fiscal

framework of the Scotland Bill, the next Scottish Government will have

full control of income tax. The number of people sleeping rough in

England has increased 30% in a year, rising to over 3500 people. The

Prime Minister address Jeremy Corbyn's appearance at PMQs,

advising him to: put on a proper suit, do up your tie, sing the

national anthem. He later told reporters that David Cameron was

jealous of his jacket(!) from one side Tory icon to Donald Trump, in

the race of the Republican presidential nomination. Winning a

third in a row. It is a lot of fun up here, I have got to tell you.

George Bush senior possibly was, but he was not giving anything away.

There are, I did not say EU referendum once. Wait a minute...!

Important debate in Texas last night, I stayed up to watch it. The

answer to the quiz, now, the question was, which of these

political parties has none of our guests been a member of? The answer

is... Women's equality party. I have not been a member of the women's

equality party. There was only 3000 of us, though socialists, we did not

call ourselves a party, as crazy as we were! No more time to walk down

memory lane. 1pm news beginning on BBC One, I will be back on BBC One,

on Sunday, with Sunday politics, Michael Howard will be joining us,

he is now campaigning to leave Europe. Former Conservative Party

head. I hope MUSIC: Close To You

by the Carpenters