17/05/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 17/05/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


Nigel Farage raises the prospect of a second EU referendum


if there's a close result on June 23rd -


Are saying there would be resentment from Conservatives that


David Cameron had not been playing fairly.


David Cameron launches another attack on Leave campaigners -


accusing them of being vague about the economic impact


We'll have all the latest from the referendum campaign.


The Queen travels to Westminster tomorrow to officially open


and outline the government's legislative plans.


And a new play celebrates the political life of


Screaming Lord Sutch - the founder and leader


We'll talk to the playwright and the party's current leader.


and with us for the whole of the programme today


the former leader of the Conservative Party, Michael Howard.


Let's kick off with Theresa May's speech


to the Police Federation this morning.


In the past the Home Secretary has had a rocky relationship


with the organisation that represents rank-and file officers


after being booed in 2012 and last year accusing them


and commended the police for "doing a fantastic job"


six years ago, I stood on this platform and address due for the


first time. On each occasion since then, I've talked about the


wide-ranging programme of reform I've put in place since becoming


Home Secretary. A programme which, let's face it, you haven't always


agreed with and at times have resisted. But, six years on, British


policing has changed substantially for the better. We've overhauled


inadequate institutions and systems, reduced excessive bureaucracy and


inadequate institutions and systems, replaced a centralised model of


inadequate institutions and systems, governance with democratic


accountability. That sounded governance with democratic


and calm. What happened to the usual confrontation? The Home Secretary


was right to talk about the progress that's been made over the last six


years. She and they have both done an extremely good job. As the police


forced changed since she became Home Secretary? She has been there a long


time. She has. And I think it has changed for the better. The


reputation of the police has been dented by Hillsborough, for example.


That's true, and it dented by Hillsborough, for example.


it is something that has to be addressed and is being addressed


either affirms the Home Secretary to about. Although the Police


Federation have talked about about. Although the Police


fact that Hillsborough doesn't make for good legislation. Do they have


fact that Hillsborough doesn't make point? It depends on what they are


talking about and what legislation you have in mind. I have


talking about and what legislation in the Home Secretary and don't


think she in the Home Secretary and don't


legislation that isn't extremely well considered. We will have to see


what she has. Plans like pensions being stripped from certain


officers. Do you think these are things that should be strengthened


if police are found to have behaved badly? I'm going to wait and see


what the Home Secretary comes up with and I will give you my view


them. After the event. The Police Federation of England and Wales


claimed a national shortage of armed police leaves Britain vulnerable to


terror attacks. Do use the pies with them? Of course. It is a serious


situation and I'm sure the Home Secretary will take it seriously. --


do you sympathise? In the time when the terror alert for, for example,


Irish Republican has been strengthened, does it make it a bad


time for that? She needs to look at some of the guidance which exists


which means that being a firearms officer is a perilous job to half


because of the outcry that often occurs when firearms have to be


used, sometimes justifiably but not always. I don't think it is just a


question of money. If we wanted more armed officers, there would have to


be more money spent. No. It is a question of how many police officers


want to become the offices that have the special training that enables


them to become armed officers. That is part of the problem. We will


leave it there. The spymasters at GCHQ


in Cheltenham are on a mission to open up to the public,


so our question for today is, what have they done to try


to improve their image? b) Enter Robert Hannigan,


the Director of GCHQ, as a contestent


on Strictly Come Dancing as their new director


of communications. At the end of the show, Michael


will give us the correct answer. It's been a busy morning


on the referendum campaign trail - with both sides taking


potshots at each other. First up, Nigel Farage -


who told BBC Breakfast he thought there might be calls for a second


referendum if the result puts Remain I think we are going win


this referendum. Because there's far more passion


on the Leave side of the argument. Leave voters are much more likely,


on June 23rd, to go down to the local


primary school and vote. If we were to lose, narrowly,


which I don't believe we will, if we were, then what I can see


is a large section, particularly in the Conservative Party,


who feel the Prime Minister is not playing fair,


that the Remain side are using way more money


than the Leave side and there would be, you know,


a resentment that would build up if that


was to be the result. Having said that, I still think


Leave is going to win. Next came the Shadow


Chancellor John McDonnell, whose speech had been billed


as the progressive case He defended immigration into the UK


and accused Brexit campaigners of It's the Tories who enacted a


top-down reorganisation of our NHS, It's the Tories cuts


to our schools budgets, It's not the fault of


Polish fruit pickers or Latvian care workers that


house-building is at its lowest in It's the Tory failure


to build more homes. We don't blame the people


who work in our public services and make


such a valuable contribution to our economy and society for the state


of those public services and we won't give an inch


to the anti-migrant rubbish of some of those


campaigning for Brexit. And in the last hour


the Prime Minister has also been making a set-piece speech -


arguing that a vote to leave the EU We heard it from the Bank


of England, from the OECD, from the IMF, the Treasury,


from the Office for Budget Responsibility


and many others besides. I think, when very respected


organisations are saying, as clearly as they are,


that output would be lower, growth would be less,


unemployment would be higher, prices would be higher, we would see


a hit to living standards, that there is a very clear consensus


that leaving the EU would have not just a short-term affect


on confidence and investment and growth, but actually would


have a longer-term affect as well. We've been joined by the leader


of the Liberal Democrats Tim Farron. We'll talk about this morning's


interventions in a moment, but first let's discuss the front


page of this morning's Daily Mail whose headline is "Exposed -


Cameron's EU Sham". Suggesting that David Cameron was


planning his campaign to remain in the EU even before he'd signed off


on his EU reform deal. Boris Johnson was asked about this as he left


number ten after attending the political Cabinet meeting where he


compared the stitch up to like the buyer tapestry, in typically


colourful language. David Cameron was choreographic elements of the


remain campaign when he was still negotiating with each new leaders,


so the story goes. So what? I don't know if there is any truth in the


story. The important thing that the renegotiation that the Prime


Minister wanted to achieve, fundamental and far-reaching reform


of the EU didn't happen. It's hardly mentioned now in the debate. No one


pretends that the reforms that he obtained in the renegotiation where


anything like what he wanted, anything like what he originally set


out to. Is that because you feel he was already committed to remain and


never thought about leaving? I don't know what was in his innermost


thoughts. He genuinely set out to achieve far-reaching reform. It's


not his fault he didn't achieve it. It is the blindness of European


leaders who didn't recognise the need for reform. But the story


claims that he was not out to get the best deal, he was already


setting out his campaign to remain. He was planning on that basis. That


was what the renegotiation was based on. I think he tried to get the


fundamental and far-reaching reform he wanted but he failed. So this


idea of being a stitch up isn't true? I don't want to get involved


in that argument. Objectively, what we can all do is look at the results


of the re-negotiation and, frankly, they didn't amount to very much. In


terms of the claims that it is a stitch up, it does feed the idea,


Tim Farren, that you and the others are lining up the establishment to


browbeat the public into remaining. I think this is a nonstory.


Britain's best interests are in remaining in the European Union. The


fact that businesses large and small are lining up saying that we would


be foolish to leave the European Union, a massive risk to our economy


would have been the case before the re-negotiation and clearly is now.


It is not browbeating anyone. If you're going to make the biggest


collective political decision in our lifetime, it is important to have


the facts. Those people who understand how the economy works and


who employ the bulk of people in this country, it is right that their


voices are heard. Doesn't it prove that the renegotiation was a


cosmetic exercise? That is for the Prime Minister to answer. I don't


think it matters too many people beyond the Westminster echo chamber.


Beyond there, people are thinking are we more secure, are we better


off, are we better off with our friends and neighbours in these


dangerous times or are we better off isolated? Isn't it true that your


side has lost the economic argument? Not at all. The only thing that you


can say is that the forecasts would be wrong. They are all right. I


can't say with any certainty that those who support our side of the


argument are going to be right. We don't know.


argument are going to be right. We wrong. What we do know is that many


of the large organisations that are urging us to stay,


of the large organisations that are like Tim, were the


of the large organisations that are cheerleaders for our joining the


euro. And they could not have been more wrong. Tim could not have been


the people who got it so wrong when there was the important issue to


decide of joining the euro? Has that damaged your credibility? When you


listen to people like the CBI, people who are often dismissed by


people on Michael's side of the argument, people who say it is a


great establishment conspiracy, all forecasts are approximations but we


do know that if we remain in the European Union we retain


do know that if we remain in the single market which is worth ?78


billion per year to our economy. 3 million jobs depend in large part on


the trade with that economy. If we go outside, all that is at risk. We


could still have access, though. That figure is rubbish. It is the


CBI figure. The CBI were wrong about the euro. There is a lot of money


and lots of jobs that depend on our continuing to trade with the


European Union. Inside or outside the European market?


European Union. Inside or outside outside we will be able to trade


with the European Union just as we trade with other countries in the


world, even if we are outside the single market. It is ridiculous to


suggest that the Germans are not going to want to sell as BMWs, the


French are not going to want to sell as cheese and wine, in order for


that to happen, we will have a perfectly sensible trading


relationship. At a cost. The economic argument has been difficult


to find institutions to line up and support your side, do you think an


immigration it is a stronger card? Let's emphasise the fact that we had


hundreds of businessmen writing to the Daily Telegraph yesterday saying


they could create more jobs if we leave the European Union. I don't


accept that we have lost the argument. What about immigration?


Referendum is not about the level of immigration. That is that's what


some people think it is B It is about who should decide the level.


The levels could be the same I think there are people in our country who


think the current levels are fine, there are people who don't. I think


we should be able to argue it out n this country and decide in this


country and at the moment, while we are in the European Union, we have


no control. We don't make the decisions. That message is cutting


through, isn't T even if you could argue that you maybe stronger on the


economic Melsage, immigration, which is important to many people, is


not... When you examine the issue, immigration does not work as an


argument for the leave side for two years, fist, there are roughly 2


million EU citizens working and living in the UK and there are #


million living and working elsewhere in the European Union. It is


neutral. The second thing is Dan Hammond, Conservative MEP leaver


pointed o ut this morning if you are part of the European free trade


area, we would still be subject to the EU's rules when it comes to


movement and border of labour. And if we leave the European Union and


have access to the single market as Michael wants us to do it. ' Cost us


probably as much as it does to be in the EU, we will have no more. If you


want to lose sovereignty, you leave the EU I'm not sure about


immigration being neutral, for the Leave campaign in terms of polling.


It is a reality. There are as many people in the EU here... That is


besides the point. And I don't believe, if we vote to leave, that


we will sign up to any arrangement or agreement which with continue to


deprive us of our right to dewho should come into this country and


who shouldn't. -- right to decide. What about nighing ale Farage's


comments, that there could be a second referendum. Do you support


that? No, I think it is a once in a lifetime time to decide the future


and we have to accept it. Even if it is really close, a whisker either


way? The result of the Welsh referendum on devolution was as


close as you could possibly get. Look at the Scottish independence


question. That has come around again. Well it hasn't. It hasn't and


it may well not. I don't believe it will, actually. So it hasn't come


around again. Well the discussion on it has. Well, you can have


discussions. They said it would be settled for a generation You can


have discussions for as long as it takes for the cows to come home. I


think we have to September result of the referendum. I hope everybody


will, however close. Well, Michael Howard says he hopes it will be


accepted by everybody but let's say it is only a Is withker for Remain,


wouldn't there be legitimate calls then for it to be run a second time


by, certainly Conservatives, perhaps not Michael Howard, but many of his


colleagues who wanted snout I'm sure it'll fester in the Conservative


Party, especially for many years to come. -- who wanted out? But as far


as the electorate is concerned, it is a once? A generation to express


our views r we getter off in, together with colleagues and


friends, protecting our security, jobs and economy or isolated and on


our own and less powerful. Once the decision is made we have to stick


with it. You say we have to stick with it. We ought to abide by it.


But if the accusations are that the Government hasn't set out a level


playing field, particularly with money spent on campaign leaflets,


would there be an argument to fuel calls for a second referendum.


Im'sure those in the Conservative Party won't shut up if we vote to


remain. What about Boris Johnson. Look carefully at what he says. I z


he talked about Napoleon. He was talking about the various attempts


over made over the centuries to unite the countries of Europe. It


was an entirely accurate historical annal sichls he is a great asset A


very -- analysis. He is a great asset. A popular figure and putting


the case in his own fashion. Even Donald tusk argues - when I hear the


EU being compared it the plans and projects of Adolf Hitler I can't


remain silent. It wasn't. He probably didn't read boys's speech.


I don't think it is a fair characterisation of the speech. --


Boris' speech. He is probably such a big character he is probably pulling


a lot of vote e if you look how well he polled, very difficult. I don't


want to get into a battle of personalities. I I share the


frustration, if the debate becomes a blue on blue, slug fest between two


guy who is went to the same school it'll not give people any idea of


the real issues for and against. It is why we need it xt issues, a tough


decision with huge risks. -- examine the issues. The British people want


those answers, not a schoolboy knock B


Thank you. -- knock about. The referendum campaign


has been pretty bruising for the Conservative Party -


with fellow Conservatives trading blows and at times using some


fruity language against each other. So it the issue tearing


the party apart? If we vote to Leave on 23rd June,


we will be voting for higher prices. It is a great grotesque


patronising and proposterous Peter


Mandelsonion conceit, that imagines that the people


of this country are mere children, capable of being frightened into


obedience by conjuring up new bogey The next thing we know the Leave


camp will be accusing us of faking the moon landings,


kidnapping Shergar and covering up the existence of the


Loch Ness Monster. There are certain problems that


are caused by EU membership but of Her arguments are enough to persuade


me to vote Leave and should be enough to persuade most


people to vote Leave. # Love, love will tear


us apart again # If we left the EU, we would face


more regulations and be in double whammy of EU regulations


and UK regulations. You see these kind of Downing Street


hostage videos, these people coming Knickers to the pessimists -


how about that? # Love, love will tear


us apart again...# Yet another example of that fraughty


language, courtesy of Boris Johnson. Let's talk post of EU referendum. 37


days to go. If only it was coming a little


quicker. The disappointment for the losing side, whichever side it is,


will have bred such resentment and bitterness. How will both sides of


the Conservative Party come together? Well we have to. We have


to get together because the Conservative Party has to form the


Government of our country, for at least the next four years and given


the current state of the Labour Party, probably for much longer than


that and so we have to come together and we will. Really? How do you


know? Let's look back in history, post Maastricht and John Major,


those sides never forgave each other,


those sides never forgave each resolved It was very different. Why


different? It was the same issue? It was different,


different? It was the same issue? It was still a lot of bitterness


different? It was the same issue? It the way in which Margaret Thatcher


was turned out of office and that really had a huge affect which ran


through to the post-Maastricht situation. We haven't got anything


like that? Haven't you, there will be bitterness about this


like that? Haven't you, there will playing field, accusations chucked


around. There are lots of accusations being thrown about on


both sides during the accusations being thrown about on


referendum debate. When it is over, on June 24th, we simply have to come


together. I would expect - whatever the result - - there is a lot of


talk about the Prime Minister having a Cabinet reshuffle. I would expect


him to have a new Cabinet which gave big jobs to people on the other side


of the argument, from him. So, big jobs to people on the other side


of the really key job, Chancellor? I don't know what. I will not get into


the game of constructing the Cabinet. We've go the time. But he


will recognise the need to unite the party and I think the Cabinet will


reflect the different strands of opinion within the country, as


indeed it does now. What about if Leave, if your side wins, do you


still hold to the belief that David Cameron can continue as Prime


Minister? Yes, I do. Look, we are going to have some challenges in


front of us, if we vote to Leave. I think that challenge we can easily


deal with. But the last thing we would want in that situation is the


distraction of a Tory leadership campaign. So, David Cameron has said


he will stay. I think he should stay and I think he will stay. But will


your colleagues, Conservative colleagues, who have campaigned so


vociferously, to Leave like Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, would they


really sit down and accept David Cameron as Prime Minister,


negotiating out? Well, I'm sure they would. And I what I imagine David


Cameron would do in that situation, I haven't discussed it with him, I


don't know what is in his mind but what I would imagine he would do is


select someone to conduct the negotiations, who had been arguing


to Leave. That would be a sensible thing to do. We have heard from


Boris Johnson, just today, he has accused the Prime Minister of a


stitch-up in terms of planning and choreographing the Remain side with


the big corporations as being the biggest stitch-up since the Bayu,


tapestry. Priti Patel, look likened them to the three wise monkeys, hear


no immigration, see no immigration, and speak no immigration And George


Osborne yesterday accused us of being fantacists. There will be a


coming together on June 24th. There has to be. You stha with fingers


crossed rather than belief in terms of what is possible. I say it with


total belief and confidence. I mean, divided parties, as you know, do not


inspire confidence with the electorate. What about the damage


being done, right now, with a divided party? Well, we will have


power years to put that right and to come together again and to govern


the country in the interests of the country. That's what the


Conservative Party is always good at.


Tomorrow is the State Opening of Parliament, which marks the start


The highlight the day will be the Queen's Speech.


It's the biggest of Parliamentary occasions and begins


with a Royal procession from Buckingham Palace to Westminster.


But what political hand luggage is the Queen tipped to be bringing


Although the Queen will read it out, her speech is actually written


by the Government and sets out the laws that the Government hopes


to get approved by Parliament over the coming year.


In it, she's expected to announce changes to the care system -


including greater support for young people leaving care and speeding


There'll also be changes to education in England -


to allow more schools to become academies,


encourage new non-profit and commercial companies to open


private universities, and allow some universities


Some of the big education ideas are being carried over to prisons - with


a plan to give powers for "reform prisons" to take over failing jails,


in a similar manner to school academy chains.


There'll be a crackdown on extremists - stopping them


working with children and the vulnerable by including


extremism offences on criminal record checks.


There could also be steps towards a new Bill of Rights,


which would replace the Human Rights Act.


The Queen will also announce changes to the powers of the Upper Chamber,


limiting the Lords' ability to block legislation and finally there'll be


some futuristic transport plans, with legislation on insuring


driverless cars and the creation of Britain's first spaceport.


And Daniel Thornton, from the Institute of Government,


joining us now to talk about the Government's


And the challenges of getting it through. Welcome. Is one of the


biggest problems the backdrop of the EU referendum? It is certainly


causing some problems. The other issues to bear in mind is the fact


that the Government has a working majority of 17 and no majority at


all in the House of Lords. It is trying to balance the budget by


2020, so there is pretedy significant public spending cuts


under way and there are far-reaching reforms in a number of public


services. So, all these three things together make for a pretty


challenging backdrop for the Government. Which legislative ideas


are going to be the priorities? Well, I think the headlines will be


probably taken by the extremism proposals, tackling terrorism and so


on. But, for the institute for Government, the most interesting


issue is the sort of intersection of the austerity in public services and


the far-reaching reforms that round way and some of the signs of strain


we are seeing. So, what we are saying, is that the Government


really needs to prioritise and recognise the zrients it faces and


be realistic about what it can achieve by when. This isn't just the


Institute that is saying this. The Government's employed a lot of


business people to help it run the Government. There is a lot of senior


business people brought in. They have a pretty consistent MissAge for


the Government. That is - prioritise F you are working in a big private


sector company, the Chief Executive focuses on a small of things and


make sure they are done properly. The Government is committed to a


wide range of changes, as well as reducing the budgets in a number of


services. Do you think it is just not workable. Their plans, as you


are putting t ambitious plans for further austerity or zrients on


public sector reform r they not workable? It will be challenging. --


austerity or restraints. It will be cuts, and it will be ut


can by 22% up to 2020. Much of the reductions will fall on the prisons.


And, you know, we have seen an increase in violence in prisons, as


a cross of had party committee was saying on Monday. So, there are


warning signs from so. Public services. If you try and do a big


reorganisation at the same time as the sfs is under strain, you are not


necessarily going to achieve your objectives. -- at the same time as


the service is under strain. It is welcome that Michael Gove has said


he will be publishing draft legislation on prison, to give


Parliament a chance to consider the proposals carefully. Thank you very


much. We have been joined by the shadow Leader of the House of


Commons, Chris Bryant. Welcome back. Those warning signs that our


previous guest has talked about, do you recognise those that the public


sector in certain areas will be put under too much strain - we'll


discuss prisons later, but actually what will happen is the situation


will get worse and people will be in Putting in place the programme to


put things back in shape and in order is full of challenges. So far,


the government has risen to those challenges and will continue to do


so. I'm a great supporter of publishing proposals in draft


legislation so Parliament has the opportunity to look at them and


consider them and I'm delighted to hear that Michael Gove is planning


to do that in relation to prisons. You say that the Tories have risen


to the challenge but there is a long list of legislation that are being


scrutinised or defeated because they haven't been thought through, so say


the opposition, also your own side, tax credit cards, child refugees,


trade union legislation, housing. They haven't risen to the challenge.


They've been trying to push through bad legislation. Most of the defeats


in the House of Lords have come from the fact that the Tories don't have


a majority in the house of Lords and have been outvoted. There have been


times when the government has been asked to think again and has fought


again. It is a listening government. The house of Lords


again. It is a listening government. happening in the Commons? First, I


don't think you should be able to read out a list of what's


don't think you should be able to Queens speech tomorrow. Parliament


should hear about it first tomorrow. This is just what has been in the


papers. Already announced in the papers and briefed out. That's


naughty. I don't think the government is dealing


naughty. I don't think the economic situation in this country.


They've missed every target in terms of debt, cutting the deficit. One of


the reasons is because often in their anti-austerity measures,


they've cut off our noses to spite our face. They have public services


which simply can't cope. One of the good things the government might


want to do tomorrow is around children in care. You can't do that


with local authorities that are pared back to the bone, in


particular in the toughest areas. I feel most angry about Tory MPs who


rebel getting more money to the richest authorities in the land


while the poorest get cut more. I don't think we should have a Queen


's speech tomorrow at all. It should be after the referendum. It will be


candy floss with a nasty taste afterwards. The key point is that


they are going to cut back the house of Lords because they are terrified


that they lose bad legislation all the time. Pick up on your main


point. The thrust of Chris Bryant's argument about whether austerity has


been counter-productive. You are pushing public services so hard that


you won't be able to do the things you want to do. It hasn't been


counter-productive. We had to do it. We had to bring the nation's


finances back into order. The debt hasn't disappeared yet. We haven't


achieved everything but we are making a huge amount of progress


towards achieving that difficult objective. Let's look for a point of


agreement between Chris and I. We think Wales is a good country. We


do. I absolutely agree about the importance of the measures to do


with children in care, young people in care. I think they are overdue.


It is something that should have been tackled a long time ago. I


think you will find that the proposals are such that they will be


Cape ball of being put in place without putting undue burdens on


local authorities. The undue burden is already there on local


authorities. That is my argument. One of the dangers in the economy at


the moment. Two major pressures, house prices. I suspect there will


be nothing that will help build more homes which we desperately need. For


instance, I'd like to see an end to the hoarding of land by big


developers. It is perfectly easy to legislate on that. Secondly,


productivity in this country is falling way behind other countries


in Europe. There should be measures in the Queens speech tomorrow to


enhance skills. There is a Digital economy Bill, hurrah, well overdue.


Let's talk about the EU backdrop, in terms of productivity, for example.


As a result of the referendum, everything is on hold. Businesses


aren't making decisions. Legislation is being tailored to wait for the


referendum. It has been an almighty destruction. If the government had


taken Chris's advice and postponed the Queens speech until after the


referendum, you would have said everything was on hold. That's not


the question. Wouldn't it have been a better idea to have it after the


referendum? The government has to get on with running the country and


that is why we are having a Queens speech. It is not true to say that


everything has been put on hold. Nice try. We are only sitting for 16


days in the next six weeks. We should be waiting until after them


to have proper Queens speech with a proper programme in it and say that


everything is on hold? On the house of lords, Chris Bryant talked about


proposals to clip the wings of the House of Lords, is that going to be


supported? There is a problem. The House of Lords has a very important


constitutional role to scrutinise legislation and send it back to the


House of Commons to think again. No one argues with that. But when the


House of Lords does it again, again and again. Even when the house has


considerable majorities and they have looked again and thought again


and they want to do it, the House of Lords is overstepping the mark if it


keeps sending things back. On manifesto commitments. If Labour


were in government, pushing through a radical programme of reform, being


stopped by the House of Lords every five minutes you'd be furious. I


respect Michael's position more if he had said this when the Tories had


a majority in the House of Lords under a Labour government and


smashed our legislation all over the place. We always respected manifesto


commitments. What about the commitment to get rid of all


hereditary peers? You did get rid of them. There are still 92 of them


with by-elections. It's bizarre. One thing that is dangerous is the


government using secondary legislation which only gets 90


minutes debates if the government allows it and is an amendable to


push through enormous changes like working tax credits last year. That


is what they are trying to stop the House of Lords doing. I think the


House of Lords is within its rights not to let those through. Secondly


to say we're never going to allow secondary legislation provisions in


primary legislation. I think the government is working in dangerous


territory. At the end, the House of Lords needs reform. It should be


elected. It is a nonsense. It is unsustainable. There will be as many


as the Chinese People's assembly soon. Thank you, Chris Bryant.


You may remember that last week the Welsh Assembly failed to choose


a new First Minister, after Plaid Cymru, UKIP


and the Welsh Conservatives joined forces to block the Labour Leader,


So are the parties any nearer to a deal?


Let's get the latest from the BBC Wales Political


So, tell ours. There have been talks between Labour and Plaid Cymru to


break the deadlock. By way of background, this time last week,


roughly this time last week, there was a vote to nominate the next


First Minister and we expected it to be a formality because Labour are by


far the biggest party in the assembly after the assembly


election. But what happened was that Plaid Cymru's leader Leanne Wood


challenged Carwyn Jones in that vote and she had the support of Ukip and


the Conservatives which meant she had the numbers to get to 29 and we


were left with a situation where Carwyn Jones the Labour leader and


Leanne Wood had 29 votes each and there was stalemate. The back of


that, and Plaid Cymru have had talks to break the deadlock. We had a


statement last night saying that the talks were over they have gone very


well. This morning, they have been putting whatever deal has been


agreed to their respected Labour and Plaid Cymru assembly members. The


Labour meeting has finished. We have not had any official feedback yet. I


met a couple of assembly members who had smiles on their faces saying


everything went fine. Whatever was presented to them, they clearly, the


ones I've been speaking to, don't have a problem with it. The Plaid


Cymru group meeting is still going on so we will have to wait to see


what has been put to them before we get an official response. Once we


get the response from the two parties, we will get a joint state


and and it will be all zest and scale. Is this on the First Minister


or an Coalition Government in Wales? -- all systems go. It will not be


for a Coalition Government. -- all systems go. It will not be


expect the nomination vote will be held again, this time without the


expect the nomination vote will be drama, we expect. We expect Carwyn


Jones to be officially drama, we expect. We expect Carwyn


First Minister. During the rest of the week he will be


First Minister. During the rest of cabinet together and by the weekend,


administration. These two cabinet together and by the weekend,


have been in coalition in the past, this time, it will be a minority


Administration. An attempt to get some degree of stability to get


budgets and legislation through. The issue of prisoner safety has


been looked at in two new major reports -


one by the Commons Justice Select Committee, another by the BBC -


which found that there is a 20% increase in assaults


in the last six six months drugs and weapons being smuggled


into jails has more than doubled Some even by drone or thrown over


prison walls, as you can The evidence shows the extremes


to which inmates are willing to go and authorities seem to be fighting


a losing battle over violence We've been joined


by Frances Crook from the Howard League for Penal Reform,


and of course Michael Howard - former Home Secretary -


is still with us. Michael Howard, can I get your


reaction to these pictures of drones flying in drugs or mobile phones and


packages going over walls. It's horrifying. It's not entirely new.


In my day, drugs were thrown over the walls of prisons and I


introduced for the first time, drug testing in prison. I was told it


couldn't be done, it would lead to riots and the unachievable. We did


put in place drug testing and what you describe is an extremely serious


situation and has to be dealt with. How would you deal with it? The


government has been increasing punishments for illicit items,


drugs, phones, any kind of misbehaviour. That's created a kind


of battle and make things much worse. They have upped the ante so


much. The extra imprisonment that has been given as a punishment has


amounted to 2000 years of extra imprisonment for misbehaviour. The


extra punishments are making things worse, not solving things. The drugs


and phones are a symptom of a real crisis in the prisons. It's


different to what it was a quarter of a century ago. Prisons are in


such a terrible state. Violence levels are so high. Drug-taking is a


symptom. Last week, another 18-year-old handedness of in prison.


I attended an inquest with the mother of an 18-year-old son who


took his own life, he was known to have mental health problems. There


are very serious problems that need addressing. It is a desperate


situation that is a result of the wrong sort of ways of running them.


It is a desperate situation for a young man to take his life in those


situations. Lessons must be learned from that event but we have no


reason to suppose, sitting here this morning, that had anything to do


with the punishments that are being imposed for people using drugs in


prisons. I think, using drugs in prison is wrong. I think you've got


to do everything you can to stop that happening and that includes


punishing the people who do it. Ask But if there is a policy of zero


tolerance and more drugs are getting n the policy is not working? . There


is no evidence to suggest that the krachdown of drugs is there with


extra violence. Extra violence is aed about thing, you need to take


whatever actions you need it take to deal with that. But you also have to


take firm action to deal with the abuse of drugs in prison. Surely


that is the right way to do it. The public wouldn't accept that


prisoners are allowed to get the sort of things that we saw in those


pictures into their prisons, and then go unpunished. The drugs are


extremely dangerous. We don't want people to take them. Particularly as


they are often taking a cocktail of drugs, prescription dru, illegal


drugs and legal drugs. It is extremely dangerous (it creates


gangs inside prison and adds to the violence. You have to punish them.


You have to deal with the problem. If you deal with it in the long way


you make it. You inflate the market. If you want to make a lot of money,


buy drugs in prisons. You have to deal with the problems, gross


overcrowding, inappropriate overuse of prisons. Far too few stwaf,


nothing happening all day for people. Young men locked up day


after day after day, in a stinking cell with rats and cockroaches, an


open toilet they have to defecate into, next to the person sleeping on


the bunk next to them. That's a reality. This is' unacceptable. This


as a result of a Government that says it'll have a campaign of zero


tolerance of prisoners who offend in prison on things like drugs and your


claim that prison works, seems to have been dashed by the wayside Not


Atul A first of all when I said "prison work requests" what I meant


which is incontrovertible, is that you have the professional, repeat


serious criminals in prison, they can't continue to commit crimes


against the public it is undenighable. They go out and


reoffend and come back in again. As prison population increased crime


has come down. The conditions that from sows be describes are


unacceptable and Michael Gove is putting in place some far-reaching


Myers it deal with those conditions. What is he doing to deal with


overcrowding? Build new prisons. He has said he will do that. Building


new prisons and closing... Let me finish. What has not been


established at all, is any link between the conditions which have


been described, which are unacceptable and the need it take if


you were action against the use and abuse of drugs in prison. How would


you, looking at it as an observer, how would people behave if they were


in conditions, if Frances Cook is correct you have vermin, and people


defecating next to you who. You have no room. Nothing to stimulate your


moneyed and nothing to do all day. How do you think they would react?


Look, not all prisoners by any means are in those conditions. The


majority are. Is that true? That sounds incredible. I'm sure you


don't have any evidence for that. I do. 20,000 men are forced to share


cells. That is a different matter. No, they are forced to share cells


designed for one person. The conditions - the report today on


Nottingham, report after report after report, and I visit prisons


all the time. But they are all are being punished, not there for


holiday. A lot are on remand awaiting trial. Most will not get a


prison sentence. Our prison conditions are a stain on the


nation, disgraceful. Causing more crime. Putting staff in danger,


putting lives at risks. Every four days somebody takes their own life


in prison. This is, as Michael Howard says, completely unacceptal.


We have to do something about it. I'm pleased that Michael Gove is


talking positively about the treasure within everyone. We need it


talking positively about the However, we need urgent action not


postponed. Michael Howard, this idea of having a Leaking table of


prisons, to have successful conditions, prisons that aren't in


the condition that Frances Cook describes taking over other prisons


or acting as a guide, do you support that? It seems a reasonable y.d I


support every effort made to improve the rehabilitation of people in


prison. It is a very difficult thing to do. Many ways have been tried to


do it. That's true, we agree on that. None have


do it. That's true, we agree on should certainly keep trying but we


also have it punish people when they do wrong, we have to be firm this


they abecause drugs in prison and we have to take action, I quite agree,


to reduce overcrowding. Frances Cook thank you very


There was probably more chance of a stage musical


of Screaming Lord Sutch being made than one on the life


of Jeremy Corbyn but then real life being more absurd than fiction


Transferring to the West End, the show about David Sutch's life


We'll talk to playwright in a moment.


NEWS REEL: The youngest contender of the five


the National Teenage candidate, is a 22-year-old pop


singer, who's latest disk is called Jack the Ripper.


The funny thing - and he was funny - about David Sutch -


was that for a man who became a Monster Raving Loony,


In 1966 he stood for the National Teenage Party in


For David Edward Sutch, 585 votes....


Promoting a lowering of the voting age from 21.


He wasn't just a novelty politician, though, but a '60s' wild


man on the music scene, he played alongside Keith Moon.


This is a rehearsal scene from a romp of a play


He might have stayed with music were it


at in America during a mugging and he came back in the 1980s


The Monster Raving Loony Party, an attempt to prick political


pomposity and have a laugh, which in the infamously


heated South Bermondsey by-election of that year,


COMMENTATOR: Official Monster Raving Loony Party.


Though, over time, not everyone saw the joke.


People like you, you are ruining this country, you.


Loonies contested by-elections and general elections,


often standing side-by-side with Prime Ministers and by 1997,


Lord Sutch was included in a novelty range of leaders chocolate heads.


But the party's ledgendary moment was in the first Bootle by-election


of 1990, where the Loonies upset an otherwise rather mundane


The other fragments of the shattered Alliance -


The Liberal at least avoiding the indignity suffered


suffered by the SDP, who were beaten by The Monster


Lord Sutch immediately offered an electoral back to the SBP.


David Sutch's suicide in 1998 did not mean Loonydom ended.


funny is that Loonydom's legacy includes absurd policies that


Legalisation of commercial radio, and the abolition


That things that were once considered utterly


is probably the best tribute to the Loonies and satirises


genuine policies that might actually be crazy,


but then in British politics, such is life.


The first Cabinet reshovele. Come on, shuffle along a bit.


That is a novel take on a Cabinet reshuffle. I do that at home quite a


lot. And the political playwright


James Graham is here, as is the current leader


of the Monster Raving Loony Party, James, where Creaming Lord such and


The Monster Raving Loony Party? It makes sense to mee, unlike other


party leaders, politicians have a shelf life, they represent a kind of


constance through modern British political history. I think the first


election that Screaming Lord Sutch stood for was 1953 and here they are


standing today so as at slightly comic but also important look at how


politics and democracy has changed I thought it was important. You have


been there since the 50s. What do you make of it? I isn't seen it.


Wonderful. I expect Screaming Lord Sutch is smiling down now. What


about the comedic side. They do provide great comedy for you to


right with, the characters. Yes but people can disagree on the


candidates now, that are imstating what Alan does and single oar u


candidates aren't always particularly serious but they


represent something moving, the mrinder that politics is not about


anyone having a investigate but also that anyone can stand. And if


Screaming Lord Sutch can stand and Howling Laud Hope can stand, then


anyone can, respectfully. Do you think party has changed, not you,


but the party? Noe what it is trying to do? Note really. We are still


there, doing what we do. Say we are still there, I am, we are actually


doing the Tooting by-election on June 16th. Are you? Which in actual


fact, June 16th is the exact day we started the party in 198 #. So a bit


of nostalga there for you. It is also my birth Dane the day that


Screaming Lord Sutch was no longer with us. -- my birthday. What about


the proposals from your party that have become law? I mean I have


always been inkreeged by the fact that quite a few have become law.


Anything else now on the table Yes, we are still want a 99 p coin.


And our position on the EU is that maybe we should come out and be like


humpty dumpty and put ourselves together in. In out, in out. Shake


it all about. They are on your side at the moment.


All support welcome. I'm sure it is at this stage. Have you had any


run-ins with the Monster Raving Loony Party? As far as I recall, I


always had an excellent relationship with the party. Didn't a former


member stand against you in 2005? Yes, it was all right. Did you get


to know him? A bit. It wasn't a problem but you shared a platform at


the time. We Z In terms ever of your writing, are you influenced by what


is going on in the current climate or have you been planning this for


ages? I have been planning it but you are listening. I sometimes think


it is not original Shakespeare, but if you want it comment on what is


happening now, it is useful to look back at the past equivalent. I did a


play This House in the 1970s... Which was great I thought it was a


helpful way to look at what coalition politics is like today and


equally, there are party fractions all across Westminster at the moment


and I think looking at that through monster raving loonies is quite fun.


You mentioned the Welsh Assembly early on, last Thursday. We got


5,742 votes. Is that a record? Yes. 5,742 people 234 Wales wanted us to


represent them in their party. The loony party they are voting for. Do


you think this play will kick-start more of a revival? Of course it


will. Where can we see the play? Opening tonight at the Soho Theatre.


We have been previewing, but we open tonight and run through to June


18th. There will be at least 20 Loonies there. Are you going


tonight? Not tonight. On 28th. There's just time before we go


to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was -


what has GCHQ done to try B) Enter Robert Hannigan, the


Director of GCHQ, as a contestent as their new Director


of Communications? So Michael what's


the correct answer? They have opened a Twitter account.


You are right. Reading all those, it wasn't the most difficult. What do


you think about that? Of them opening themselves up Why in the I


thought it was supposed to be secret I think they have said they are not


going to disclose everything. I think they have said they are not


wonder what they are going to say. It makes you wonder. Thank you for


being on the programme today. Instead there'll be live coverage


of the Queen's Speech But Andrew and I will be back


here on BBC Two on Thursday You look lovely, Mum.


Go on, do a twirl.


Download Subtitles