10/05/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 10/05/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


Iain Duncan Smith turns up the volume in the referendum campaign -


laying into the European Union and saying the EU has become


After another primary school test is leaked,


the Department for Education says there's an active campaign


to undermine the Government's school reforms in England.


Almost 20 years after the Battle of Knutsford Heath, former


Conservative MP, Neil Hamilton, returns to elected office


with a seat in the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff.


And 75 years ago today, German planes bombed the Houses


of Parliament, destroying the House of Commons' Chamber,


in the Luftwaffe's biggest air raid on London during the Blitz.


All that in the next hour and with us for the whole


of the programme today, one of the Labour Party's big


beasts, David Blunkett, a former Home Secretary,


Work and Pensions Secretary and Education Secretary.


We'll look at Iain Duncan Smith's big speech on the EU


First, though, let's take a look at the problems facing


Yesterday the Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan, faced questions


in the House of Commons over her decision to scrap a plan


to force all schools in England to become academies.


And this morning the DfE said there is an "active


campaign" by people opposed to the Government's schools reforms


to undermine primary school testing, after another SATs exam


We'll get the latest on that in a moment.


First, here's Nick Morgan explaining the u-turn on academies yesterday.


Academies are the vehicle which allow schools and leaders


to innovate with the curriculum, have the flexibility to set the pay


and conditions for their staff and bring about greater


We still want every school to become an academy by 2022.


However, we understand the concerns that have been raised about a hard


deadline and legislating for blanket powers to issue academy orders.


That is why, Mr Speaker, I announced on Friday,


that we have decided it is not necessary to take blanket powers


to convert good schools in strong local authorities to academies


What she announced on Friday was a significant and


However she wants to dress it up, dropping her desire to force


all schools to become academies, by her arbitrary deadline of 2022,


School leaders should take it as a very clear signal


that the foot is off their throat and they shouldn't feel they need


That was the Shadow Education Secretary, Lucy Powell, in the House


This morning Ms Powell was on the attack again,


demanding an apology from Nicky Morgan over the latest


Ellie Price is across this story, and joins me now.


What has happened exactly? Well this is a spelling, punctuation and


grammar test aimed at 10 and 11-year-olds. 600,000 of them are


due to take the test this morning and it was leaked online. If all


this is sounding rather familiar it is because something similar


happened about three weeks ago. The Department for Education this


morning say they are blaming a rogue marker who leaked it online, someone


who would have had access to the tests for marking purposes. They say


it shows there is now clear evidence there is an active campaign by those


people "opposed to our reforms to undermine these tests." There are


people who are opposed to the tests. A number of teachers, the National


Union of Teachers, are saying the wrong tests at the wrong time and


should be scrapped this year. As you mentioned, Labour also suggesting


these tests are wrong and today's leak was a further body blow to


parents and teacher confidence in how the primary testing regime is


working. This morning the Schools Minister, Nick Gibb answered an


urgent question until the Commons, he insisted the culprit will be


found and the breach will be investigated but that the Government


testing regime is sound. Testing is a vatal part of teaching. It is the


most accurate way, bar none, that a teacher, school or parent, can know


whether a pupil has or has not understood vital subject content.


What is more, the process of taking a test actually improves pupil


knowledge and understanding. Now that was all in Parliament this


morning but there has been 50,000 parent who signed an online petition


against these tests. And you may remember, jo, you and I spoke about


it last week when there were a number of parents who took their


children out of school in protest against thoot tests all around the


country. -- against these tests. So unpopular with some parents around


the country. Now these tests have gone ahead this morning. The


Government insisting that the integrity of them hasn't been


breached, that actually only around 90 people would have had access to


them and that eessentially they wouldn't have been - it wouldn't be


too easy to cheat these online. As I say, the tests have gone ahead but


certainly plenty of a row surround everything and one does wonder


whether the words, debacle or sabotage will be in that test taken


by 10 and 11-year-olds this morning. Let's get your reaction, David


Blunkett, do you think it is Saab tong is blaming the educational


establishment for a rogue marker fair? I think in -- sabotage I think


in politics we are subject to paranoia and persecution complex. I


understand given the debacle that this particular regime should feel


that's the case with them. What has happened is different to last time.


Last time the actual exam papers had been put out and some of the


youngster has been able to see it and some of the tables able to teach


to it. This time, as I understand t we are talking about the marking


scheme. The marking scheme should have gone out after the exam papers,


not with the exam papers. Obviously the exam papers have to go out


before the test is set, but the marking scheme that has gone to the


markers, many of whom are teachers, who are teaching in the field, they


have to be, should have gone out afterwards. I don't know what has


happened with Pearsons or whether Ofqual, the regulator has a grip of


this or whether the department is going on, all I know it is one thing


after another after another. But you think it is cock-up rather than


conspiracy in that sense? I would work on that. I just caution Nicky


Morgan and Nick Gibb. Back in 2002, just after I ceased to be Education


Secretary, there was a problem over A-levels and the Conservative


Government demanded the head of the then Secretary of State for


Education. It was just one mess. This is what, two, three mess, if


you count the academies debacle as well, with George Osborne taking


charge of education and Nicky Morgan having to back off it. This mirrors


what has happened in health. It mirrors of course what happened with


wealth fair and Iain Duncan Smith's resignation. We will be coming to


him, I gather, shortly. We have problems with the leaks from Panama.


We have the tax credit debacle and the Budget. So it is one thing on


top of another. Do you have some sympathy with Nicky Morgan and Nick


Gibb? I should say we asked to speak to someone from the department, none


was available, partly because they are in the House. They are trying to


push through reforms. It would be easy to say the buck stops with the


Secretary of State or minister and their head should role and all the


rest of it. Actually I do have sympathy in the sense of what goes


on down the line is in the end your be responsibility but you are not


actually truly accountable and responsible for what has gone on but


somebody needs to. I would ask what were Ofqual doing? What oversight


did they have of the process. They were set up precisely to do that.


They are an arm of Government. They pretend they are not, but they are.


And very few people know about them, but they are very powerful. What


about the testing regime itself, the Government would argue it is pushing


through reforms, trying to intloe dues "a more rigorous testing and


exam regime" for whatever purpose they see fit but if parents are


prepared to actually strike, if you like and take their kids out of


school, this is a bigger problem than perhaps just a battle as they


would see it with the education establishment. Well, as they found


in 1996, I go back a long way, where parents were marching in market


towns from Shrewsbury and Truro. You cannot take on parents, teachers and


the world all the a once. I'm in favour of the tests. I'm not in


favour of the particular nature of the tests. I think Nick Gibb, who is


responsible forethis, has carried this too far. It is very much... You


mean the grammar test particularly? Well I'm in favour of grammar and of


children learning how to write in such a way that they can express


themselves clearly and be understood but actually learning some of the


terminology, rather than having - where you put the comma, where you


use an ex-clamation mark, how you construct a sentence, that's


different to some of the things that six and seven-year-olds are having


to know about the tech anicalities, which will turn them off. Let's take


a fall stop there. Time for the quiz. -- a full stop.


At the end of the show, David will give us the correct answer.


Today was Iain Duncan Smith's turn to take stroll stage in the EU


referendum debate. In a speech this morning, the former Work and


Pensions Secretary set out his case for why leaving the EU was in the


interests of social justice. Today, Iain Duncan Smith said


the package the Prime Minister had negotiated would be very complex


to implement, and would have limited


impact as most EU In November 2014, David Cameron gave


a flagship speech on immigration. According to former Work


and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith today,


he was planning to include a call of an "emergency break" to cap


the number of migrants That, says the former


Cabinet minister, was vetoed by the German Chancellor,


Angela Merkel, as it went against the principles


of freedom of movement. Fast forward to this


year when David Cameron announced his deal with the EU,


which instead included an emergency break on EU


migrant benefits - a measure that would act as a more


effective deterrent, according to Downing Street,


than a simple cap on numbers. Today, Iain Duncan Smith said


the package the Prime Minister had negotiated would be very complex


to implement, and would have limited


impact as most EU migrants come here to work,


not to claim benefits. But Downing Street still


insist the strategy ends the something-for-nothing


culture of migration. In his speech this morning, Mr Iain


Duncan Smith said the level of immigration from the European Union


was widening the gap between the haves and have o notes. Here he is


speaking earlier. We are at the point


in the development of the world economy, where, if we are not


careful, we are going to see a huge rise, even an explosion,


in the have nots. We are going to see increasing


divide between people who have a home of their own


and those who, to coin a phrase used rather recently,


"Are at the back of the queue." To even get on to the housing


ladder, people who have jobs that are threatened by automation


and people who live in the shadow of the impact of technological


innovation, people who benefit from the immigration of cheap


nannies and barristers and labourers and people who can't find work


because of uncontrolled immigration. There is a balance here


that needs to be reset. And we've been joined


by the Justice Minister and Leave I will come to you in a moment.


Picking up the thrust of what Iain Duncan Smith was saying, David


Blunkett, he talked about the pressures migration has put on


housing, on schools, on pay, this widening gap between the have and


have notes. Isn't it true that the only way to control migration in any


serious form is to leave the EU? No, it isn't but he has got a point. I


don't think there is any - if we are going to argue this sensibly, we


don't just say yaboo, like Boris Johnson does on every occasion, you


are an idiot. He is not an idiot and he has a be point because in


particular parts of the country, a at a particular moment in time, the


pressures that come as you get large scale inward migration, affect the


poor the most. And that is a truth. Therefore, you have to rationally


deal with that. You have to resource the community to be able to deal


with T you have to have better planning of how you support people


through it. -- deal with it. Having said that, I don't believe for a


minute brake would work. People come here on holiday from Europe. How


would we implement visas people have. How would we follow through on


people who came on holiday and stayed and managed to get a job and


would have had to have been sent back. It would have been a


constitutional and practical nightmare. Let's be real about it,


whatever the backward noise and whetherever he did or didn't say it


Angela Merkel, it wasn't going to work in the first place. Let's pick


up on the fist point because David Blunkett admits there are pressures


on low paid and people on lower incomes but there are ways through


it and to blame immigration for all the woes of all the country and


particularly Iain Duncan Smith who has been part of this Government for


six years, and yourself, it sounds like sour grapes. There can be


benefits but only if it is controlled. We can't control it from


inside the EU. David has talked about this sensibly. We need


controls but critically in the debate we need to answer a question


because there is pros and cons to staying in the EU and leaving, if we


stay in we cannot control immigration from the EU. That brings


pressure on housing, schools and the NHS. The question I think Iain has


asked today is - who pays the price and how much is the price or is this


just something they have to suck up? I think there is every reason to


think that these pressures will get worse. Look at the national living


wage, something we have introduced at ?7.20 an hour. Did you both


support the wage when it first came in?


I supported it. Iain Duncan Smith didn't. But it's all sounds very


cheery, but he wasn't prepared to support the minimum wage. He has a


huge pedigree and talking about social justice, but on the national


living wage at ?7 20, we have to be realistic. That is the minimum in


this country. If you are coming from Bulgaria or Romania, the average


wage is about ?3, so that is its huge pull factor. These pressures


will only get stronger. This may not matter if you can afford to have


private health insurance or afford to send your kids to private school,


but if you can't, it does. What the in campaign have to acknowledge is


that price and who pays it. Before they entered, the Eastern European


countries, entered the EU in 2004, we presume that they did not come


here and they did not work here? Well, they did, because 40% of those


who registered to work came out of the undergrowth, legally applied to


pay national insurance and tax, and they were already in the country.


The idea that you can protect yourself by putting barbed wire and


electric fences on British soil, because of the moment we have them


on French soil, but we wouldn't have if we came out of the European


Union, is a nonsense. There is something short of barbed wire. You


yourself said there was no obvious upper limit on immigration, but


would you agree that is now a mistake, and if we're going to have


a limited has to be done in a sensible way that eases the pressure


is on local services and the low paid? I was asked by Jeremy Paxman


at the time whether I could do this given that we had a labour market,


before the changes in 2004, by the way, whether I could dream up a


ceiling where we could send people back when we reached it and I said


we couldn't because net migration is about those who leave as well as


those who come, which is why the government target, which has fallen


by the wayside, was a nonsense to begin with. So what about


transitional controls? There were none. Wasn't that the problem? They


ran out in 2011 because the maximum was seven years. In retrospect, it


might have been more sensible. We did have them on Bulgaria and


Romania. Yes, but back came to light on the basis of the numbers of


Polish workers. Prior to 2008, the labour market, and Dominik believes


in markets, the labour market could take it before 2008 and it actually


helped the economy in a way that was beneficial when the collapse came


because we have done a lot better, and credit to the government


unemployment since 2010, a lot better than many other parts of


Europe. David, you are right, and you have to have a level playing


field. The point Iain Duncan Smith is pointing out is that it is fine


if you're affluent and middle-class and able to withstand the pressures,


but it's tough on the low paid and that those who rely on local


services. I am conceding that he has a point. But the point is not one


about coming out of the European Union, it's about how you deal with


those pressures. But if you are conceding that point, and Frank


Field, your colleague who is campaigning to come out, is saying


that Labour supporting to remain is actually acting against the


interests of the communities they purport to serve. I don't believe


that for a minute. The government out of luck, and good on them, the


habitual residence test that I was involved in strengthening when I was


in government. That means that if people come here and they are not


working and they pretend that they are not on holiday or visiting


family, we have the right to remove them, and what we don't do is do


that very well. The less there is, we should get better at it, and how


much more difficult if we were actually trying to remove literally


hundreds of thousands of people from the country. Let's come back to


David Blunkett's point about the net migration target. That was nonsense


by the target to introduce a net migration target because it hasn't


got anywhere near tens of thousands and we are talking about 330,000 or


thereabouts, so it was a nonsense and it still is. It is a good idea


but you need to be able to control the real numbers. You can have a


points -based system like in Australia. But you can't do that


with people coming from one part of the world and not others, so that


would be discrimination. What people want to restore confidence in the


immigration system is to say that people will only come here if they


are self-sufficient, we can have some real control over the overall


numbers and that you can remove people who are a security threat and


commit crimes. You can do none of those things if you stay in the EU.


That's talk about the raw numbers. Be honest, would you radically be


able to bring down the numbers of migrants coming to the UK outside of


the EU? Would you want to bring it down? Some members of the Leave


campaign have not wanted to talk about numbers or said that low


numbers of migrants would be desirable. The Conservatives went


into the last election pledging to reduce net migration to this country


to tens of thousands and you haven't got an ability, a capacity to do


that. I'm not talking about the ability, I'm saying is it desirable?


What number would you like to see? Tens of thousands is a rather


generic number, and I don't think you can decide that abstract way.


But you said in 2003 that I should have been able to do that. What I'm


saying is that what you want to do is take into account the economic


advantages, the gaps in the skills market, but also take into account


the pressure on local public services. That is an ongoing, fluid


balance that should be made year by year. But of course you can say,


with an annual limit, or a target... You would want that? Of course. We


need to control the raw numbers or we will never regain public


confidence and you can't do it inside the EU. Because you do accept


that there will be many people wanting to vote leave who decided to


vote leave who will be deeply disappointed if they then discover


that what some as of the campaign actually want is a different set of


migrants. They want to be able to pick them from different parts of


the EU but the numbers won't come down that much. It is for any


elected government elected by the people of the country, not faceless


bureaucrats, to decide this. But the truth is you have no control over


the overall volume unless we're outside of the EU and that is the


critical thing that the British public understood about this. David


Blunkett, what do you say to Trevor Phillips who was head of the


equality commission, who said we are sleepwalking into a catastrophe over


the impact of mass migration. Has he got a point? He has, worldwide, and


he was talking worldwide, which is why you need the European Union and


states across Europe to cooperate together. The idea that you allow


Italy and Greece and Spain to actually cope with the influx, and


that they won't flow across Europe, and the organised criminals behind


the trafficking won't be there if we pull out is a nonsense. We actually


do need to cooperate with each other to be able to stop it at source, to


be able to deal with the causes, to be able to manage it once it is


happening and we can only do that together if we don't have a flow of


illegal migrants into this country, as opposed to people earning their


living, paying their taxes, paying national insurance. That is the


choice. We can have visas, because we would have to have if we had a


fair 's system, where you didn't discriminate between Bulgaria and


France, you have to have visas. And to have visas would be a disaster.


There is a Visa waiver. Wouldn't it be a boundary or a block to business


and trade if you had a Visa system? This is silly. In terms of tourism,


whether it is short-stay or otherwise, in terms of people coming


to business trips there's all sorts of arrangements whether it is


automated visas or Visa waiver is, but you have the control, but


outside of the EU we would regain control and the British people want


to see that. Electronic controls four Mbyte cache and dashboard


embarkation, you can do it. How are you going to decide how


to vote in the EU referendum? And is it in fact possible


to predict how you're going to vote, based


on where you live, what you earn, and when you finished


your education? Norwich used be the second city


of medieval England, its prosperity It may have lost that lofty


status today, but with the EU referendum, the question of its


relation with the European Union, North and if I just walk a few


meters down towards Oak Street, I'm heading towards Norwich


South and there is no is just Norwich, but there are


constituency boundaries and a body of work has been done


that suggests the more of work has been done that suggests


the more that I walk this way, Why this might be true


is not an exact science,


but based on data from around Britain, a group


of academics are trying


to show who we are - our background and education -


is not insignificant in this to leave, more educated people


are more likely to want to stay, so if you're looking at some


of the constituency profiles


you can say yes, this be leaning towards remain


or leaning towards leave. That is all we are doing,


we are just giving a guide to which seats are more


or less Eurosceptic. Norwich North's Conservative MP


is for remain, but she is aware that the population of


her constituency is such that many Indeed, according to


the model, they are far It is a slightly older


constituency and that is there It is sad to say that they are


earning very slightly However, we have high unemployment


rates, so that starts to give picture of Norwich North


is compared to Norwich South, if you look at


the Later we caught up with two


self-employed men buying timber, having driven to a yard


on the constituency boundary. I can turn my hand to anything,


gardening, For Darren and Adrian,


the referendum choice is The EU has done nothing for anybody


in this country. I can't say that


anybody has benefited We can cross-ventilate,


because it will come In Norwich South, the University


has an enterprise zone and one business specialising


in low-energy house design, the graduate-educated founder wants


to remain for what she and long-term goals of EU


environmental policy. She accepts the theory,


though, that who you are People that have maybe


knowledge about something and that is affected, either


by in or out of the EU, they are better qualified,


or maybe it's easier for them to make a decision,


because it is clearer to them, because it is something really big


that matters to them that they can


base their decision on. Labour's MP in Norwich South is,


as the model suggests most of his constituency are,


for Remain and he thinks that deprived areas that are for Leave


are more antiestablishment than People who feel left behind


and that the system have failed them will identify with the arguments


coming out of the EU which for them is something that sucks lots


of money out of the country, does We can list all that,


but it is a visceral feeling. I read papers but I don't honestly


know what is going on. That visceral feeling


comes across on the shop floor at MillTec,


outside Norwich. I want to be British,


that is my main incentive to be British, I don't


want to be European. But the firm has


reasons to remain for what they see as economic reasons,


and that might be key. Work is probably the


biggest part of my life in terms of where I


spend most of my time, so that would probably be


the Indeed, whatever the


data trends, sometime the what's-best-for-you vote


is perhaps the only incentive that David Blunkett and Dominic Raab


are still with me, and we're now joined by Bert Bakker,


Assistant Professor at the University of Amsterdam,


who has been looking at what impact different types of personality have


on attitudes towards the EU. What is your research finding? My


researches about the question to what extent individual differences


in personality traits are associated with your beliefs about politics.


Perhaps it's best to briefly say what personality is, because you and


your viewers at home will be forming an opinion about me. They might say


he is shy or talkative. What we do when we study personality traits is


we see to what extent people different -- differ in these


descriptions. Some people are more open-minded, they are curious in


nature. Others are less open-minded and are more dogmatic and bit less


rich of fantasy and these differences are not good or bad,


people differ and they shape how you respond to the world and change your


behaviour in your work life balance or in your work. It at all show


shape sure belief about politics. In that sort of instance what sort of


person would vote to leave the EU? In the study we done, published


recently, we studied Dutch voters and their attitudes towards


different aspects on the EU. It is different from vote bug we see


people who are in favour of expanding the EU, by adding more


countries, such as ice land Turkey, Montenegro, are more open-minded and


curious, they are more agreeable, more trusting, caring,


tender-minded. These believes are not per se directly one on one,


leading to voting for in the UK case, staying in the EU, but they


are associated with it, so we have been looking Atajic tuds -- at


attitudes. If you are support expanding the EU if, extrapolating


my own research, there is probably a chance that open-minded, curious,


full of fancy people, are also a little bit more people to be in


favour of remaining in the EU. What about anti-EU sentiment? That's


then, the opposite. So, if the other end of the dimension, people who are


a bit more - and here not to make a value judgment - so these people are


a little bit more close-minded, more rigid, perhaps a little bit less


full of fantasy. A bit less likely to trust other people. Again, these


are co-racials, so we don't know where the one is causing the other


-- correlations. Stay with us. So, the obvious question, are you rigid,


less full of fantasy, Dominic Raab, as somebody less staying in the EU?


You know how open-minded I am. Which shows you how risky it is to


introduce stereotypes. I think particularly in relation to


undecided voters there are a mixture of head and heart. I took a


rationical, logical vote, I'm in the someone who was always in favour of


leaving the EU. It was the emotional heart aspect of t I want us to be in


control of our own destiny. In particular t seems to me that those


campaigning to leave, have the optimism and ambition, whereas those


campaigning to stay in the EU, frankly are engaged in a lot of


scaring mongering and doing down Britain. I think on the emotional


pull factor, that's quite an important thing we have got on our


side. Right, if we look at campaigning tactics, David Blunkett,


and if you look at what was said in the film by people there, one of the


contribute os said - I want to feel British again, and leaving the EU


will satisfy that, the employers of one of the companies there, keener


to stay in because of economics. Does this help in terms of targeting


areas of the country and grouse of people in terms of how they might


vote, because of their age or where they live. -- groups. We certainly


know more people are more favourable to staying in, partly because many


young people have travelled. Many young people have ambition for their


own future and they feel that they are engaged in global activity.


Whereas, for older people, whose travel experience may have been


less, not wholly but may have been less, where fear of difference,


where fear of the unknown, where somebody outside appears to be


imposing, it is not so you are prizing there is a greater


propensity to vote to come out. So here is the challenge - for the


stay-in campaign, of which I'm a part. How do we persuade young


people who don't usually vote, to vote and how do we persuade those


who do normally vote, older people, to switch their vote? And that's why


it is on a knife edge. Because that's the challenge. Well, Bert


Baaker do you have any advice for the campaigns. Where should they be


targeting the areas where they are not making an impact in terms of age


and demography So, this is moving beyond the study we have done and


extrapolating the findings a little bit but one could say that


politicians perhaps could benefit from speaking what we call the


psychological language of their constituency. So they might appeal


to certain people by, for instance, if you want to persuade perhaps


voters who are a bit more open-minded, curious, full of


fantasy, like to experience new things, you might point out that


staying within the EU offers them the opportunity to be involved in


rich culture life to engage with new cultures. To be a part of that. I


have not tested this. I have to be careful here. Thank you for


clarifying that, at least. Yes. Listen, thank you very much for


that. And do you Dominic. Now, what is the secret behind


the success of Donald Trump? How did the businessman and TV


personality go from rank outsider to presumptive nominee


in the race to become the Republican Party's


Presidential candidate? The American journalist


John Podhoretz is in London today And as a former speech writer


to not one but two former Republican Presidents,


Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior, he should


have a better idea than most. We'll talk to John in a moment


but first let's remind ourselves what Mr Trump has been saying


in the last few months. When Mexico sends its people,


they are not sending their best. I said - but I think we should go


much, much, much further. I'm going to build a wall and Mexico


is going to pay for it, right. He took the 50 terrorists


and he took 50 men and he dipped 50 Written by a nice reporter,


now the poor guy, you have got to see this guy,


"Oh, I don't know what I said, He is a war hero


because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured,


I hate to tell you. He is walking out, big high


fives, smiling, laughing, I would like to punch him


in the face, I tell you. Donald J Trump is calling


for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims


entering the United States, until our country's


representatives can figure out They must think we are


the dumbest and the weakest Memorable if anything else. And John


Podhoretz joins us. Be honest, at the start of the primaries did you


think Donald Trump would have a chance in No. When did you change


your mine? About October. A while ago. The thing is all the evidence


in front of one said he was going to win. He led in the poll. He joined


the race in June of 2015 and he led in the polls after two weeks. And


generally speaking, that's not a bad way to gauge whether someone is or


is not going to end up as the party's nominee but it was so wildly


improbably. I mean, I'm trying to think of the proper annalcy for a


British audience to who Trump is, who probably played this game a lot.


The best analogy I can think of is a kind of combination of the guy who


used to host your Big Car show, Top Gear. Jeremy Clarkson. And some rich


guy who builds buildings. So the notion that somebody like that, who


has dabbled and interfered in politics here and there, would, out


of nowhere, seize the major party nomination in a field of


extraordinarily impressive candidates, marks a real turningp


point for the American political system. What do you think was the


one factor behind his success? Well, I think there are two. There are


immediate factors and global, long-term civilisation factors. The


immediate factor is that no other candidate in the race had anything


like Trump's ability to command attention, which is one of the


things that we thought most of us political experts thought was going


it take him down. That the attention was all mostly negative. That he was


saying horrendous things. He was repeatedly lying, that he didn't


know anything about policy. But the sheer focus of attention on him, and


the fact that it only seemed to help, rather than hurt, that was a


big thing. But the global, the long-term thing is the collapse of


the trust of the American people in its political and social


institutions. Well, America isn't alone in suffering from that


problem. And that is true, David Blunkett, you can't write off the


support that Donald Trump has managed to gather during this race,


by just saying they are a load of crazy, angry people on the fringe.


No, you can see a resonance in terms of the crazy idea of building a wall


and what we were debating in terms of Britain's place in Europe, the


idea that you could cut yourself off. That you can do things that are


rationally unthinkable, but in terms of inp stint and emotion -- instinct


and emotion, capture people. He clearly has done that. I think the


last point made was important. I mean, the breakdown of trust in


traditional politics, in the ways of doing things that don't have


spectacular outcomes, that don't immediately solve problems


overnight, that can't actually wave a magic wand and put things right,


people have lost trust in that general, slow, but critical process


of democracy and when you have lost that, then you will get a Trump


coming forward. You will end up with - well, let's pray to - I will


anyway, as a methodist - I will pray that Donald Trump doesn't end up


being the President of the United States, with Vladimir Putin as the


President of Russia and Britain outside the European Union. Right,


well there is an image for you to contemplate. People feel


marginalised to such an extent that they are prepared to go out on a


limb and vote for somebody like Donald Trump? If it were that people


felt marginalised that would not be sufficient to explain the


phenomenon. It should also be said by the way, as of this point, that


2% of the American public has actually voted for Trump. We are


simply assuming that we will get to the point at which, you know, he


will gather at least 45% of the American vote. How many do you think


he will? Well, I'm not sure. I believe that Hillary Clinton will


win the election. I think his negatives, as we call them, are


sufficiently high among women, among minorities, that there is no way


that will he can cobble together a winning coalition but stranger


things have happened, I suppose. Not many in politics. But, the


institutional collapse I'm thinking of is the trust, not only in


political institutions but in cultural and social institutions


that often act adds a mediator between politicians and ordinary


people. I'm talking about the Catholic Church in the United States


which was a widely important force and a much-divorced guy, who is


giving money to proabortion groups, that sort of thing, could never have


prevailed in the Republican Party or indeed in American politics, 25


years ago, in part because of the strength of the church which has


collapsed. But we have had Bernie Sanders on the loaf, and socialist


Americas were gravitate to him -- on the left. And Hillary Clinton, we


are seeing it, to a lesser extent. This is the first election that is


on the reckoning of the financial meltdown of 2008. That meltdown


happened seven weeks before the election of Barack Obama. Then the


2012 election was a referendum on Barack Obama's presidency and what


we have here is a reckoning for what happened, the decline in home


values, you know of 35 to 40%, it has just gotten to par and all of


the consequences that fell from the worse recession in 70 years. And


here is the think, if you have time - the 2008 meltdown was something


that had to be saved by politics, old-fashioned politics, of people


joining in, counterweighting what the market had done and yet it is


politics and politicians who have got the blame for the aftermath and


the austerity and the difficulty that that has caused. Well, let's


see what happens over the coming months. Thank you very much for


coming in. One of the more remarkable stories


to come out of last week's 'Super Thursday' elections


was the political comeback The former Conservative MP was one


of seven UKIP politicians elected It's the first time UKIP has had any


Assembly Members in Wales. This comes 19 years


after Mr Hamilton lost his seat in the House of Commons


to the so-called "anti-corruption" candidate Martin Bell


in the 1997 general election. In that memorable campaign,


for the Cheshire seat of Tatton, the tension between the two men came


to a head in a confrontation that became known as "The Battle


of Knutsford Heath". And Martin Bell arrived without any


further prompting. I'd really like to know


from you what allegations of corruption you think


I'm guilty of? I don't actually intend


to talk about you at all. People are going


to ask me about you. I want you to run on your record or


against your record, whatever it is. Do you accept a man is innocent


unless proved guilty? Do you accept my


husband is innocent? Neil Hamilton joins us now


from the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff. Congratulations. How does it feel to


be back in elected office at almost 20 years? It's amazing, isn't it?


Especially at my advanced age. There is life after retirement. What are


your thoughts for the coming months? Ukip has never been represented in


the National Assembly of Wales before and there are seven of us out


of 60 members, so we will be a major presence. Labour doesn't have an


absolute majority, so we have the balance of power, so all sorts of


things could happen. It could happen if there is not an internal battle


in Ukip. Is it correct that this afternoon you will launch a


leadership challenge on Nathan Gill? Ukip would not be Ukip if there were


not internal challenges. It is not a case of mounting a challenge against


Nathan Gill. We have not had any assembly members in the past and we


have two former group and then elect a leader it. This is from ground


zero -- to form a group. But he has been the group leader. It's not a


challenge. He was appointed by Nigel Farage as the leader of Ukip in


Wales, and whatever decision we take today will not affect that. But are


you going to go for the leadership role? I'm going to be a candidate


for the leadership, and my colleagues will decide who they


want. I don't see this in terms of challenges or votes. I think what we


will do is sit around the table together and we will arrive at a


consensus view on who is the preferred leader of the group. Do


you not think it would be fair and right to allow Nathan Gill,


appointed by Nigel Farage, but as a result you have got assembly


members, so he should be the leader and stay the leader? Being the


leader of a group is a constitutional position in the


assembly and we are obliged by the standing orders of the assembly to


elect one. The qualities that you need to be successful in


Parliamentary debate are very specific. I have had 14 years as a


member of Parliament and I have been a government minister and even,


bizarrely, been a member of the EU Council of ministers. I have a


lifetime of experience in politics at the top end as well, as I'm sure


you would agree, a fair amount of media experience. So I think I have


a lot to offer and indeed that will be for my colleagues to decide. What


is your game plan if you become leader? What will you tackle first


of all? Well, we are not in charge of the business that will come


before the assembly, so of course, we have to respond to events to an


extent. And in the next few weeks, the referendum will be vitally


important, outside the assembly as well, but assembly members will pay


late -- play a significant role. Now we have this platform as assembly


members in Wales will be out on the stump as well as operating inside


the building. Nothing much will happen for several weeks anyway.


Let's talk about one issue which has been in the headlines, which is Port


Talbot and the steel industry. You mention the EU referendum and Ukip


says only a British exit could save the plant at Port Talbot. Even if


the UK did leave the EU, any impact on the industry would not be felt


for years, and Port Talbot is in crisis now. So what would you


suggest to help the industry? If we left the EU, we would be full


members of the World Trade Organisation in our own right and we


could propose our own anti-dumping duties on the low-cost Chinese


steel. That would take time. It certainly would, and in the short


term there is a problem because Tata wants to sell their assets and there


are several bids for them. It is not for politicians to make a choice


between the bidders. But certainly the politicians can help the process


along so that one bidder is successful and, in the short term,


there will be a reprieve, but what matters for the steel industry is


whether it is viable in the longer term and that means cutting energy


prices, getting rid of these crazy green taxes that make heavy industry


viable in the UK and exporting these jobs to the far east and elsewhere.


Only having an independent government, at Westminster or in


Cardiff, gives us the power to control our energy prices to the


extent that we need to take the best advantage of economic conditions in


the rest of the world. Neil Hamilton, thank you very much.


75 years ago tonight, the German Luftwaffe


launched its heaviest air raid on the capital during


The attack killed nearly 1,500 people and another


casualty of the raid was the Palace of Westminster.


The Commons Chamber was completely destroyed as the fire service


focussed on saving the 900-year-old Westminster Hall.


MPs spent the next nine years meeting in the Lords' Chamber,


while their Lordships sat in the Robing Room.


The new building was officially opened by King George VI,


NEWSREEL: Today the impressive Churchill Door, built


of the old Chamber, gives entrance to the new.


The House keeps the old intimate atmosphere.


For its furnishing, the dominions and colonies send gifts.


The Speakers' Chair is from Australia.


The galleries will now hold many more and loud speakers make


New Zealand gave two despatch boxes and from Jamaica came the bar


which is closed when the House is in session.


Now to the Great Hall of Westminster.


The Speaker of the House of Commons, Colonel Clifton-Brown,


enters as the higher court of parliament assembles


for the official opening of the new chamber.


On the right, facing the thrones, sit the Commons.


Behind the Speaker follow bearers of equal office or their deputies


In their presence, they pay tribute to the Mother of Parliaments,


from which their own government drew inspiration.


And we've been joined by the historian and Labour MP


Tristram Hunt and the Conservative MP Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.


Welcome to both of you. How much of the building was actually destroyed?


They had to make this great decision when you had the raid by the


Luftwaffe whether to save the great medieval hall or the Victorian


chamber. Quite rightly, they chose to save the medieval hall. So the


chamber was absolutely smashed. This was a really big hit by the


Luftwaffe. When you go into the chamber at the moment you still see


the image, not the image, but you still see those elements which


remained after the hit. It is almost like a grotto, that old stone as you


going. Is that because those were the only bits that were kept that


were not completely destroyed? So everything else is new? Churchill


wanted a reminder of what had been, after the terrible damage inflicted


by the bullets on this Day 75 years ago -- by the Blitz. He insisted


that that was kept rather than rebuild. What about the architect


engaged in the rebuilding? They chose the wonderful architect, Giles


Gilbert Scott, who designed the gorgeous Anglican Cathedral in


Liverpool and Battersea Power Station, and most famously of all,


the old telephone boxes with that lovely dome. He was the grandson of


the man who designed the wonderful hotel at Saint pancreas, the grand


Midland Hotel. Which is an amazing building. So he had got this is in


the blood, so the spirit of Scott, down to Giles Scott was there. So it


was very much a conscious recreation. The continuity? Yes,


continuity. We think of the Palace of Westminster as a celebration of


democracy, building dedicated to democracy, but when you look at the


care in the Palace, by far the greatest attention to detail and


wealth is where the Queen enters the other end, and then down to the


House of Lords where it is full of wonderful gold, and by the time you


get to the Commons it is pretty and minimal, actually. The celebration


of democracy, we are left right at the end. We will come to those


comments in the end. What about your family connections? My great uncle


was elected speaker in 1943 and one of the first things he had to do was


preside over setting up a special House of Commons and House of Lords


select committee to consider how to rebuild the chamber. Churchill made


that great speech on the day saying we had to rebuild it as a symbol of


Parliamentary continuity, and he said there must be no awkward gap,


no hiatus in Parliamentary life. And it was Julie rebuilt. The committee


was set up in 1943 and work started in 1944. By 1948 Churchill and my


great-uncle laid the foundation stone. And by the 26th of October


1950, they were all taking their seats in the new chamber, so in just


nine years they had gone from nothing, and for those were war


years, they had gone from a bombed chamber a brand-new chamber. Shows


what can be achieved when you had the will. Churchill had to fight


this battle because others say they wanted to do it after the war. He


said do it now, because as soon as you come after the war there will be


incredible demands on resources and there is always a time not to do it.


Get on with it now. What about the reconstruction now, David Blunkett?


That was then, and it has stood the test of time to a certain degree but


all we hear about now is how it is crumbling. Ironically, Tristram was


speaking at the University later this week, and the man who heads up


the centre is engaged with the Palace of Westminster authority in


terms of what comes after the restoration project. How should we


shape what goes on inside the new building? It won't be the Luftwaffe


at this time, it will be a massive multi-million pound renewal scheme.


And the question that wasn't asked in the Second World War needs to be


asked now, what sort of democracy and what sort of Parliament and what


sort of activity do we want going on in there? How can we reshape,


without losing all of the history, and of course the majesty of what


goes on? I'm in the glorious bit at the moment. You enjoy it while it


lasts. The old bed. -- the old bit. How do you envisage it? The


continuity was there in the fabric of the building, but what about


inside? We started talking about this in the beginning of the last


parliament in 2010 and by my calculations it will not be built


until 2028. That is a long, long time, much longer than they were


able to do just the Second World War. And the answer to David's


question, and he's absolutely right, we talked about the grand project


and these billions in costs, but we haven't really concentrated on what


we want to see inside. Should it be a modern looking building inside?


This was the conversation they had during World War II. Do you then go


to your semicircle, horseshoe shaped Parliament, to reshape how we do


democracy and again Churchill was absolutely clear. Part of the reason


we were at war with a continent was because we were against horseshoe


parliaments. He felt that the rigour of the Parliamentary process on the


British way was essential to the representative democracy and the


freedoms we had, and if we lost that part of the symbols of what we were


fighting for would be lost. There was inevitably an argument about


where we should put it. There was a strong argument for Potters bar in


1944. Two Labour MPs said, critically, there should be no


essential decorations of pink. No, we are going to cap it here, because


we're doing the answer to the quiz. who did Jeremy Corbyn


meet last night? Congratulations to Siddique Khan.


What about relationships between Jeremy Corbyn and him? Are they


going to improve? From when? From now. He didn't want him anywhere


near him during the campaign. Having nominated him, I thought it was


quite sensible in Bristol, and I thought the win in Bristol was


important, and you have to stop, as we sit it, being London centric all


the time. On that basis we won't be. Thanks to David Blunkett


and all my guests. The One o'clock News is starting


over on BBC One now. I'll be back at 11:30am tomorrow


with Andrew for live coverage Drinking small amounts of alcohol


isn't without risk. Eat more of this,


drink more of that - can we really eat and drink


our way to better health? Because my mother had dementia,


there's always that anxiety - is it genetic? Is it something


they've passed on to me?


Download Subtitles