:00:00. > :00:36.Graham Brady Glitter. Graham Brady Glitter.
:00:37. > :00:38.Hello and welcome to The Daily Politics.
:00:39. > :00:43.Theresa May confirms she'd like to end the ban on new grammar
:00:44. > :00:45.schools in England - but can selection by ability really
:00:46. > :00:51.MPs and peers are being told they should move out of parliament
:00:52. > :00:54.for six years, so it can undergo a ?4 billion makeover -
:00:55. > :00:57.is it a price worth paying to preserve this
:00:58. > :01:05.Parliament's pooches battle it out to be crowned Westminster Dog
:01:06. > :01:08.of the Year - who will be top dog this year?
:01:09. > :01:16.He and his party were rejected by voters at last years general
:01:17. > :01:19.He and his party were rejected by voters at last year's general
:01:20. > :01:21.election - will Ed "Glitter" Balls have more appeal
:01:22. > :01:38.in the Strictly Ballroom - because he's been allowed
:01:39. > :01:42.to escape from his dancing partner Katya's grasp.
:01:43. > :01:45.With us for the next hour is Ed "Glitter" Balls.
:01:46. > :02:02.Show was one of your moves, quickly? We will have more of that later!
:02:03. > :02:06.Last night, Theresa May started her push for more
:02:07. > :02:08.grammar schools in England, after a civil servant
:02:09. > :02:10.was photographed outside Downing Street with papers proposing
:02:11. > :02:15.Talking to Conservative MPs, the Prime Minister said
:02:16. > :02:17.she would not "turn the clock back", but she insisted that there
:02:18. > :02:20.is already selection in the system based on the ability of parents
:02:21. > :02:22.afford the house prices close to good schools.
:02:23. > :02:25.The options are expected to be laid out in a Department for Education
:02:26. > :02:28.green paper next week, and Theresa May insisted last night
:02:29. > :02:30.the policy would create a "21st century education system"
:02:31. > :02:34.Among the options being considered is setting up new grammar schools
:02:35. > :02:36.in areas where there is demand for them.
:02:37. > :02:38.Existing grammar schools, such as those in Kent
:02:39. > :02:39.and Greater Manchester, could be expanded.
:02:40. > :02:43.And free schools could be allowed to introduce selection as part
:02:44. > :02:48.But the Prime Minister may face a rocky road if she wants
:02:49. > :02:51.to get her plans passed in Parliament, with opposition
:02:52. > :02:54.to grammar schools amongst her own MPs, and both Labour
:02:55. > :02:57.and the Liberal Democrats condemned such a move last night.
:02:58. > :03:00.And opponents in the House of Lords will be less inclined to let it
:03:01. > :03:02.pass, as increasing selection in education was not part
:03:03. > :03:05.of the last Conservative election manifesto.
:03:06. > :03:06.Well, earlier, the Education Secretary, Justine Greening,
:03:07. > :03:09.was called to answer an urgent question on grammar
:03:10. > :03:19.schools in the Commons - here's what she had to say.
:03:20. > :03:25.There will be no return to the simplistic, binary choice of the
:03:26. > :03:31.past, where schools separate children into winners and losers,
:03:32. > :03:35.successes or failures. We want to build on our success since 2010 and
:03:36. > :03:40.to create a truly 21st century schools system. But we want a system
:03:41. > :03:43.which can cater for the talent and abilities of every single child. To
:03:44. > :03:49.achieve that, we need a truly diverse range of schools and
:03:50. > :03:52.specialisms. This policy will not help social mobility, Mr Speaker. It
:03:53. > :03:57.will entrench inequality and disadvantage. It will be the lucky
:03:58. > :04:01.few who can afford the tuition, who will get ahead, and the
:04:02. > :04:05.disadvantaged who will be left behind. A policy for the few at the
:04:06. > :04:08.expense of the many. And we're joined now by the Chairman
:04:09. > :04:11.of the 1922 Committee of Conservative MPs,
:04:12. > :04:22.Graham Brady, who is a strong Ed Balls is a former Labour
:04:23. > :04:25.Education Secretary. What did to reason may tell you and your
:04:26. > :04:32.colleagues last night? I never two on what happens in those meetings.
:04:33. > :04:35.You go ahead. I think I can confirm that reports have been quite
:04:36. > :04:40.accurate. Essentially, what she said is that there are lots of different
:04:41. > :04:43.types of schools now, we have a diverse schools sector, which I
:04:44. > :04:48.strongly support and have always been behind. But it seems very odd
:04:49. > :04:52.that if somebody comes to government with a proposal for a new school
:04:53. > :04:55.which is select, even though we know that can work and it is very popular
:04:56. > :05:01.in communities, it is currently illegal to allow it. So, dropping
:05:02. > :05:07.that ban I think is really the key to opening up an even more diverse
:05:08. > :05:09.sector, and it will raise standards and it will improve social
:05:10. > :05:13.modernity. We will test that in a moment. Of what does an element of
:05:14. > :05:18.selection actually mean? If we are not going back to the binary choice,
:05:19. > :05:21.as Justine Greening said, with grammar schools and successes and
:05:22. > :05:26.failures, what is an element of selection? The crucial thing is that
:05:27. > :05:30.back in the 1960s, what went wrong was not the grammar schools, it was
:05:31. > :05:34.the secondary moderns. Typically they were not very good schools. So
:05:35. > :05:39.you would like to go back to that binary system, actually? In
:05:40. > :05:42.Manchester, we have a completely selective system. But it is not
:05:43. > :05:46.binary and it is certainly not a choice between success and failure.
:05:47. > :05:49.All of the schools in my constituency are outstanding
:05:50. > :05:53.schools. The high schools as well as the grammar schools. So what is the
:05:54. > :05:56.element of selection? It would be either allowing some completely
:05:57. > :06:01.selective schools, or allowing some partial selection. Right, so there
:06:02. > :06:06.would be some holy selective schools? I do not really understand
:06:07. > :06:10.what it means, partial selection, but it seems to me that you would
:06:11. > :06:14.make a certain number of places available for selection, let's say
:06:15. > :06:18.30%, and then there would be pupils getting tutored to get into those,
:06:19. > :06:21.and the rest would be in a catchment area, where people would buy
:06:22. > :06:25.themselves into that catchment area. In what way will that help
:06:26. > :06:30.disadvantaged people? You have already heard the news today, it is
:06:31. > :06:33.A2 billion pounds industry, tutoring people through secondary education.
:06:34. > :06:37.So something clearly is not going right. Something can be done better.
:06:38. > :06:40.There are some very good country hands of schools and areas. There
:06:41. > :06:44.are also things which can be delivered by selective schools. Why
:06:45. > :06:47.would you want to emulate that, if you're criticising the idea that in
:06:48. > :06:52.secondary education, people are being tutored? No, I'm saying,
:06:53. > :06:56.tutoring people throughout their secondary education. That is about
:06:57. > :07:00.standards not being good enough in those schools. But do you accept
:07:01. > :07:04.that is what would happen? If you had a new school where partial
:07:05. > :07:07.selection was in place, let's say in an area where there is a social
:07:08. > :07:11.amount of social deprivation, you would have 30% of places for which
:07:12. > :07:15.there would be unbelievably stiff competition, and everyone would be
:07:16. > :07:19.tutored, and it would only be those who could afford the expensive
:07:20. > :07:24.tuition? What happens in many companies in areas, you've got
:07:25. > :07:29.selection by house price. All the places are open to the catchment
:07:30. > :07:35.area... In selected areas, people can pass the exam and get into the
:07:36. > :07:38.school. Now, there is too much tutoring, far more than when I went
:07:39. > :07:41.to grammar school. But if we had more grammar schools, then the
:07:42. > :07:45.competition for those places would be less intense, and there will be
:07:46. > :07:50.less call for that kind of tutoring. Do you agree with this? I don't full
:07:51. > :07:54.stop there are mistakes in politics which you find out about afterwards,
:07:55. > :08:00.and mistakes which you see happening as they are happening. Theresa May
:08:01. > :08:02.is making a big mistake here. Graham Brady has consistently supported
:08:03. > :08:07.this policy and he has been ignored by past Conservative education
:08:08. > :08:11.secretaries and prime ministers, going back to Margaret Thatcher.
:08:12. > :08:13.Because it is both bad education policy and bad politics and. But
:08:14. > :08:18.they are good schools, aren't they? The issue is, what happens to the
:08:19. > :08:23.children of working class kids, and middle-class children, and get told
:08:24. > :08:28.at 11, you are second-best. What we know from the evidence, because I
:08:29. > :08:32.was Education Secretary, is that grammar schools tend to be
:08:33. > :08:36.disproportionately for more affluent children, but the kids who go to the
:08:37. > :08:39.secondary modern school underperform in those schools relative to other
:08:40. > :08:45.country hands of schools in other parts of the country, cause they
:08:46. > :08:48.have been told at 11 they are second-best. There are some
:08:49. > :08:52.brilliant secondary modern schools, fabulously lead, in challenging
:08:53. > :09:01.circumstances, because they've been told their children are going to
:09:02. > :09:04.underperform. Telling kids at 11, they're second-best, does not work
:09:05. > :09:08.for the majority of kids and parents in your constituency who are told
:09:09. > :09:11.they are second-best. First of all, that is not true. If you look at the
:09:12. > :09:15.high schools in traffic, they get better results than ordinary
:09:16. > :09:20.comprehensive schools in more affluent areas. Kids who go to
:09:21. > :09:25.secondary modern schools underperform military to those who
:09:26. > :09:30.don't. There are a great number of secondary modern schools who bought
:09:31. > :09:36.perform other schools. . I agree with that. There will be opposition
:09:37. > :09:39.on your own side as well, and there always has been, which is why you
:09:40. > :09:42.have struggled to get this back on the agenda. How are you going to
:09:43. > :09:48.deal with it? We have got Sir Michael Wilshaw, chief Inspector of
:09:49. > :09:52.Schools, who basically said, the notion that people will benefit from
:09:53. > :09:55.the return of grammar schools is, too! And nonsense and is clearly
:09:56. > :09:58.refuted by the London experience. He's talking about the state system
:09:59. > :10:02.in London which does rather well compared to the rest of the country.
:10:03. > :10:06.We also had the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg,
:10:07. > :10:11.saying that you are forcing your prejudices on people. What do you
:10:12. > :10:15.say to that? Quite the reserve. The important thing but it is not forced
:10:16. > :10:19.prejudice, it is not telling people what they must do. What we have had
:10:20. > :10:22.for 18 years is a law which says, even if a community wants a grammar
:10:23. > :10:26.school, it is not allowed to have it. Be opinion poll evidence
:10:27. > :10:31.suggests 75% of people in this country want more grammar schools.
:10:32. > :10:34.Last year I think it was ComRes which did poll and said that the
:10:35. > :10:36.supporters of every major political party would like more grammar
:10:37. > :10:42.schools. The majority of Labour Party members included. Which was
:10:43. > :10:47.interesting, and that was a statistic used earlier this week but
:10:48. > :10:54.I think it was 45%, actually, not a majority but still a high number.
:10:55. > :10:58.The point is, if people want them, and if they are in areas where there
:10:59. > :11:02.are not any other good schools, or maybe only one other, why shouldn't
:11:03. > :11:07.parents be given a choice? Why not let them decide? What you have to
:11:08. > :11:10.decide is, what is going to be the best for the most able children and
:11:11. > :11:14.for all children? Of course it's the case that if you start out thinking
:11:15. > :11:18.your child is going to get to the grammar school, and you think that
:11:19. > :11:22.may advantage them, fingers crossed, let's hope that will be great. The
:11:23. > :11:27.problem is, if it does not work out that way. There is a really good
:11:28. > :11:29.column by Simon Jenkins in the Guardian. A Conservative
:11:30. > :11:34.commentator, who said, there is a really good reason why Margaret
:11:35. > :11:38.Thatcher, who was probably somebody that Graham Brady revered, did not
:11:39. > :11:41.expand grammar schools. She knew in the end, middle-class parents who
:11:42. > :11:45.start out thinking it is a good idea before the 11 plus discover that it
:11:46. > :11:49.is a bad idea when their kids are told they're second-best at 11. They
:11:50. > :11:55.are some children who do really well at seven, some who really come on
:11:56. > :11:59.when they are 13 or 14. Why should they have three years being told
:12:00. > :12:02.they are second-best. How is that good education? Nobody will tell
:12:03. > :12:07.them they're second-best, absolutely not. If they go to one of the high
:12:08. > :12:12.schools in my constituency... Outside of your constituency...
:12:13. > :12:15.There is a case... Good for you. We should try to learn from that,
:12:16. > :12:22.surely. We certainly should not ban what works in one constituency. I
:12:23. > :12:24.have experience in Kent and in Gloucestershire, also selective
:12:25. > :12:28.areas, where you have some brilliantly led secondary modern
:12:29. > :12:33.schools, doing really good things in very challenging circumstances, but
:12:34. > :12:37.the reality was, they did not manage to deliver the results that were
:12:38. > :12:41.being delivered, as Jo was saying, by the best country hands if in
:12:42. > :12:47.areas like Hackney and Tower Hamlets, because they are tied to
:12:48. > :12:51.expectations, and what happens to teaching as a consequence? It is
:12:52. > :12:53.something for which these kids never recover. But it is not being
:12:54. > :12:57.imposed, is it? That's the difference. The ban was imposed,
:12:58. > :13:01.which is what Graham Brady is objecting. This is not imposing a
:13:02. > :13:07.system, this is allowing more choice, and more choice in areas
:13:08. > :13:10.where they do need more schools. The difficulty would be in areas of
:13:11. > :13:14.social deprivation, and it's always difficult to tailor a system to be
:13:15. > :13:18.perfect, but do you not think it would be a good idea to even look at
:13:19. > :13:22.the option Enyeama parent and I'm living in an area where things
:13:23. > :13:26.expand, or where it is introduced for the first time, and I don't want
:13:27. > :13:31.my child to be told, your second class at 11 if you fail the test.
:13:32. > :13:35.Where is my choice? If there are other good schools in the area,
:13:36. > :13:38.presumably greying is saying that the competition would improve all of
:13:39. > :13:42.the schools. The problem is, the statistics do not bear out what you
:13:43. > :13:45.say just if you look at the figures from the Institute for Fiscal
:13:46. > :13:53.Studies, about how many children there are at current grammar schools
:13:54. > :14:00.who are on free school meals... 3%, 7% in Sutton, 9% in boxing. That's a
:14:01. > :14:03.very perilous proportion. Disproportion in more affluent
:14:04. > :14:06.areas. If we spread them all, certainly if we get them into more
:14:07. > :14:11.deprived areas, those statistics will change. But do you accept, that
:14:12. > :14:14.is a failure? They have not actually allowed social mobility to any great
:14:15. > :14:19.extent, if you are looking at those percentages? I think they still do.
:14:20. > :14:22.I do not want to get hung up just on free school meals figures. If you
:14:23. > :14:25.look at average earnings, there are a lot of people doing really well
:14:26. > :14:30.and getting great opportunities through selective systems. One thing
:14:31. > :14:35.Ed is missing is that everywhere there is a selection at the moment,
:14:36. > :14:39.it is hugely ocular. People can get rid of it if they don't like it.
:14:40. > :14:42.Everywhere it exists, people love it and can see it working. And the
:14:43. > :14:46.other thing is, there is already selection. We pull our already
:14:47. > :14:49.tutoring their children, even if they are going through the state
:14:50. > :14:53.system. Or buying expensive properties to be in a catchment
:14:54. > :15:00.area. -- people are already tutoring. . I think you have to be
:15:01. > :15:03.careful and not to take a London centric view. In a large part of the
:15:04. > :15:07.country, people go to the local school and the majority of children
:15:08. > :15:10.go to the local school and they will not do that any more if you
:15:11. > :15:14.introduce selection. There's different ways in which you can
:15:15. > :15:16.solve this house price issue, other than going back to the nineteen
:15:17. > :15:21.fifties. There is one approach which is very unpopular, to do it through
:15:22. > :15:25.a lottery. The other way is to do branded admission, where you make
:15:26. > :15:28.sure that you have a mix of children, school by school, which in
:15:29. > :15:34.the area where we live, in Hackney, works very well, and makes sure that
:15:35. > :15:37.you have truly, hence of schools. Of course in the end it comes down to
:15:38. > :15:40.great teaching and leadership, and you need to have setting to make
:15:41. > :15:43.sure that kids are taught at the right level of ability. But we
:15:44. > :15:46.should not go back to a world where we tell kids at 11 they're
:15:47. > :15:51.second-class. So, MPs and Peers should be kicked
:15:52. > :15:54.out of the Palace of Westminster for 6 years whilst vital work takes
:15:55. > :15:57.place to restore the building. That's the recommendation
:15:58. > :15:59.from a committee of MPs and Peers who have spent months
:16:00. > :16:01.considering what to do about the crumbling building -
:16:02. > :16:04.the home to Parliament - but also a Unesco
:16:05. > :16:05.world heritage site. The full proposals are due to be
:16:06. > :16:09.made public in the next hour - but our reporter Mark Lobel has
:16:10. > :16:13.details of the proposed move. Beautiful outside, but not
:16:14. > :16:19.so inside, parts of the Palace of Westminster are dangerous to work
:16:20. > :16:23.in, and in desperate need of repair. The roof's leaking, the stonework
:16:24. > :16:27.is rotting, in effect. We need to do a great deal more
:16:28. > :16:30.in terms of fire The Victorians left us
:16:31. > :16:37.lots of pictures and drawings of statues and all the rest of it,
:16:38. > :16:40.but really good plans so that we know where the voids
:16:41. > :16:43.are, we don't have. But all the facilities,
:16:44. > :16:46.whether it's electricity, IT, comms, sewage, fresh water,
:16:47. > :16:50.high-pressure steam, central heating - all of that -
:16:51. > :16:53.have just been laid And I don't think I'm giving away
:16:54. > :17:02.any secrets if I say that there are lots of wires -
:17:03. > :17:06.nobody's quite sure where they go. To allow for extensive renovations,
:17:07. > :17:09.a parliamentary committee is recommending all MPs and peers
:17:10. > :17:11.should vacate Parliament for at least six years
:17:12. > :17:18.in the early 2020s. 650 MPs would all pack
:17:19. > :17:20.their bags from the House of Commons and move 350 yards
:17:21. > :17:28.across the road to Whitehall. The temporary Commons would be based
:17:29. > :17:31.here at Richmond House. At the moment, this
:17:32. > :17:32.is the headquarters At the back of this building
:17:33. > :17:40.is a courtyard which could be used as a temporary chamber for debates,
:17:41. > :17:42.statements and Prime This also benefits from being
:17:43. > :17:45.on the Parliamentary Estate, which makes it safer,
:17:46. > :17:48.and it's also within walking At the same time, all members
:17:49. > :17:51.of the House of Lords would also be rehoused,
:17:52. > :17:54.down the road to the QEII Conference Right now, this is a commercial
:17:55. > :18:00.conference venue, with an abundance But as it's owned by the Government,
:18:01. > :18:05.it wouldn't be difficult to turn this into a second chamber,
:18:06. > :18:07.to scrutinise laws and The PM's spokeswoman says she'll
:18:08. > :18:14.respond in due course. It's then up to members of both
:18:15. > :18:17.Houses of Parliament to scrutinise It's not just about the convenience
:18:18. > :18:30.of MPs or their lordships. It's important that this
:18:31. > :18:32.World Heritage Site, this mother of parliaments,
:18:33. > :18:34.is properly refurbished What we've got to look
:18:35. > :18:38.at is the scope of the programme - make sure that that is really well
:18:39. > :18:41.worked out from the beginning and there aren't any
:18:42. > :18:42.hidden surprises. We've got to watch that we keep it
:18:43. > :18:45.on time and on schedule - otherwise we will see
:18:46. > :18:47.these costs escalate. And I would take with a pinch
:18:48. > :18:50.of salt that 3.9 billion I don't think the detailed work has
:18:51. > :18:54.yet been done to prove what it's So, after years of studies, now,
:18:55. > :19:01.a concrete proposal that could lead to MPs and lords vacating Parliament
:19:02. > :19:03.for the first time since it was evacuated
:19:04. > :19:08.during the Second World War. And we're joined now
:19:09. > :19:10.by Labour MP and member of the Treasury Select Committee,
:19:11. > :19:23.John Mann. Welcome. Is it worth the ?4 billion
:19:24. > :19:26.price tag? It has got to be refurbished. I can see a lot of
:19:27. > :19:32.money being wasted. Huge opportunities being wasted to
:19:33. > :19:35.recreate exactly what is there. The shooting Gallery, the bathrooms
:19:36. > :19:39.downstairs nobody uses, as if nothing has changed in 200 years,
:19:40. > :19:44.rather than actually modernise the place and perhaps modernise it so
:19:45. > :19:47.much that we do not need all of those peers coming back. That would
:19:48. > :19:53.be another discussion on in terms of the number of peers, but you would
:19:54. > :19:57.favour the idea of moving out for the six-year period while they
:19:58. > :20:00.refurbished, even if it is not in a style you would like a then come
:20:01. > :20:07.back in? We could fit into Westminster. It might be better. The
:20:08. > :20:14.consultants reports, they are plucking figures around -- out of
:20:15. > :20:19.the air, rounded up to the nearest billion. They are saying there are
:20:20. > :20:22.dangerous levels of asbestos. I'm sure there are. It needs sorting
:20:23. > :20:28.out. There will need to be Cindy camping at some stage. But building
:20:29. > :20:33.a new parliament? -- there will need to be some revamping at some stage.
:20:34. > :20:41.What about the other buildings around the country? Such as? The
:20:42. > :20:46.Welbeck estate. Nothing to do with your constituency, of course. I'm
:20:47. > :20:48.prepared to go to places like Manchester, the Scottish Parliament,
:20:49. > :20:50.Edinburgh, we could move them along for a little bit.
:20:51. > :20:58.CHUCKLES Have you spoken to the SNP about
:20:59. > :21:02.that? What do you think? I think it's got to be done. It needs to be
:21:03. > :21:08.done in a cost-effective way. Change is always difficult. Parliament is
:21:09. > :21:13.actually about the speeches and the questions answered or not answered.
:21:14. > :21:19.Whatever happens, very quickly it will become Parliament again in this
:21:20. > :21:26.temporary period. It would be convenient to the BBC if it went...
:21:27. > :21:30.One change we could try, and I'm thinking of a prominent TV programme
:21:31. > :21:34.that could be hosted in the Royal Gallery. We could get some cameras,
:21:35. > :21:45.spectators, a bit of dancing. We will be coming to Strictly...
:21:46. > :21:50.Opening up Parliament is... Parliament is open. No, no, it is a
:21:51. > :21:55.mess, it is antiquated in the way the space is used. A lot of wasted
:21:56. > :22:01.space... If it was modernised within the current building you would be
:22:02. > :22:04.supportive of that? Yes, but we need to modernise things like the hours,
:22:05. > :22:08.which are important. The structure, the way the building is used, if all
:22:09. > :22:14.we do is repair the historic building as it is it is a hugely
:22:15. > :22:18.wasted opportunity for our democracy. Does there need to be a
:22:19. > :22:21.complete change inside to make it work in the modern age? Take the
:22:22. > :22:30.Scottish Parliament, which was designed from scratch, it ended up
:22:31. > :22:34.being more antagonistic than the Westminster Parliament. The banging
:22:35. > :22:37.of the desks, and all of that. And people complained from the beginning
:22:38. > :22:42.about there not being enough space. All of that. In reality, it is
:22:43. > :22:46.difficult to redesign a Parliament. John is probably right, there are
:22:47. > :22:50.some bits in there which are very outdated which don't need to be
:22:51. > :22:53.updated like the shooting Gallery. Although people in the shooting club
:22:54. > :23:01.might think it is unfair... Some of the characters inside of the 19th
:23:02. > :23:05.century. There could be a crash. As opposed to MPs?
:23:06. > :23:10.CHUCKLES In terms of moving out, would you be
:23:11. > :23:14.able to run things? You say people would get used to it. But would it
:23:15. > :23:16.be possible when they are so entrenched in the slightly
:23:17. > :23:22.antiquated building which is the houses of Parliament? I think the
:23:23. > :23:25.convention of the speaker in the chair, and the fact people speak
:23:26. > :23:30.through the speaker rather than to each other is really important. I
:23:31. > :23:34.think that is more important than the design of the building and all
:23:35. > :23:36.of those things. You could have a completely different physical
:23:37. > :23:41.setting. Quickly it would be like Parliament today. Do you think it
:23:42. > :23:46.would be people moving out in 2022? I think it will happen. But I
:23:47. > :23:49.suspect it will be done badly and in ten years' time there will be
:23:50. > :23:53.regrets about how we could actually change a lot more. Without costing
:23:54. > :23:57.more. Probably saving money. Make it more modern in how it works, but
:23:58. > :24:00.keep the beauty of the architecture. And that optimistic note, thank you.
:24:01. > :24:02.-- on that. Now - our guest of the day Ed Balls
:24:03. > :24:06.is obviously a twinkle toes on the dance floor -
:24:07. > :24:09.but he did have a career before That all came to an ungraceful
:24:10. > :24:12.end in May last year In his book, "Speaking Out",
:24:13. > :24:16.he considers his and Labour's defeat - and how the party
:24:17. > :24:19.might regain power. We'll be discussing that
:24:20. > :24:21.in a moment, but first a reminder of Ed's
:24:22. > :24:22.glittering political career. # The root of all
:24:23. > :24:30.evil to a lot of men # I'll take the money,
:24:31. > :24:35.you can have the chick # When you kick the bucket,
:24:36. > :25:04.it's just too bad # Life's too short,
:25:05. > :25:07.don't make it sad # Cos you sure don't
:25:08. > :25:37.know when you got to go # You can work and
:25:38. > :25:39.work and have no fun # You'll find out
:25:40. > :25:41.you're the crazy one # But there's one thing
:25:42. > :25:45.you can always do # Cos you sure don't
:25:46. > :25:53.know when you got to go # Cos you sure don't know
:25:54. > :26:06.when you got to go...# I'm sure the Labour Party
:26:07. > :26:09.will emerge in the coming weeks # Cos you sure don't know
:26:10. > :26:20.when you got to go!# And Iain Martin joins us
:26:21. > :26:33.in the studio with the journalist Welcome. First, Ed Balls, did Labour
:26:34. > :26:38.lose in 2015 because they were not radical enough, or perhaps they were
:26:39. > :26:42.not trusted enough on the economy? In the end I think what happened was
:26:43. > :26:47.that people saw the opinion polls being very close. They were worried
:26:48. > :26:53.that the SNP would hold the balance of power. And there was lots of
:26:54. > :26:56.speculation about how Ed Miliband and the SNP were deciding the
:26:57. > :27:00.Budget. There were lots of voters in my constituency and around the
:27:01. > :27:04.country who may have voted Liberal Democrat in 2010, thought about
:27:05. > :27:06.voting Ukip, then switched back to the Conservatives because they were
:27:07. > :27:11.fearful about a Labour government and the economy. So they were not
:27:12. > :27:14.trusted on the economy? The idea they were voting Conservative
:27:15. > :27:18.because they wanted Labour to be more left wing is nonsense. That is
:27:19. > :27:23.obviously for the birds, Paul Mason, the idea Labour wasn't radical
:27:24. > :27:34.enough is why they didn't win. Ed's because interesting. It was about
:27:35. > :27:38.the centre-left, essentially. The last minute clip of Lib Dem voters
:27:39. > :27:46.could be people solidifying around the Conservatives over Scotland is
:27:47. > :27:50.one thing. But there has been a long-term decline of Labour vote.
:27:51. > :27:54.Splitting to the right with Ukip, splitting to the left arguably with
:27:55. > :27:57.the Green party. Any Labour leader, whether it is Owen Smith, Jeremy
:27:58. > :28:03.Corbyn, or some future person, has to have a narrative. Observing as a
:28:04. > :28:07.journalist, covering it for ITN, it was the absence of a narrative. Any
:28:08. > :28:12.narrative is better for Labour. Are you saying they did not have any
:28:13. > :28:19.narrative at all? Well, they had a narrative... What was it, austerity
:28:20. > :28:22.might? Ed thought he would win elections through policy. And what I
:28:23. > :28:29.have been saying is that you win them by having a story to tell. --
:28:30. > :28:34.austerity light. A story to tell them about how their macrolides get
:28:35. > :28:37.better. Anybody who comes to labour with a story to tell, or to bring
:28:38. > :28:43.the fragments together, the Green party, the Ukip voters, the
:28:44. > :28:47.Conservative switches, that puts a camp of Labour back in power. You
:28:48. > :28:52.failed, in a way, to counter the Tories argument, that you had
:28:53. > :28:57.crashed the car and maxed out on the credit card, you admit that? The
:28:58. > :29:02.financial crisis was substantial. We debated for a long time how to deal
:29:03. > :29:07.with the economic argument... And you couldn't agree, could you? Ed
:29:08. > :29:11.and I agreed that matching the plans of the Conservatives would be
:29:12. > :29:16.ridiculous. But I also felt that to go out and do a big spend by
:29:17. > :29:23.borrowing with a deficit wasn't going to work. At the beginning of
:29:24. > :29:28.the election campaign, saying that our sums did not add up were not
:29:29. > :29:31.registering. But the SNP fear was powerful. It exposed cars and
:29:32. > :29:42.leadership and the economy and on vision. -- it exposed us. You cannot
:29:43. > :29:47.win unless you persuade people who might vote Conservative to switch to
:29:48. > :29:50.Labour. Where I disagree with Jeremy Corbyn and with Paul is that Paul
:29:51. > :29:54.thinks he can put together a rainbow coalition on the left and with the
:29:55. > :29:59.Green party. You have got to reach into the centre ground. You cannot
:30:00. > :30:02.simply be satisfied that you have got a cheering mob of your
:30:03. > :30:06.supporters at a public meeting and think that translate into votes in
:30:07. > :30:11.the ballot box. You have got to get into the centre ground. Is that what
:30:12. > :30:16.you are doing? Let's not call the Labour members a mob. I agree, the
:30:17. > :30:21.left alone... Well, Labour can never win other than being an alliance.
:30:22. > :30:26.The big problem with Scotland. That set that aside. Let's talk about
:30:27. > :30:32.England and Wales. I support Jeremy Corbyn. -- and that's set that
:30:33. > :30:37.aside. You support his style of politics and his policies, as well?
:30:38. > :30:41.Yes. But this is not central left any more. It is about what is the
:30:42. > :30:47.heartland of labour. Under new Labour, what began to happen, it was
:30:48. > :30:53.clear in 2015, the heartland is the urban voter. The swing vote is the
:30:54. > :30:57.working class voter, which we could no longer take for granted. The only
:30:58. > :31:03.thing you can offer them is economic radicalism. Well, it is left, isn't
:31:04. > :31:06.it? When you talk about the things you are talking about, you disagreed
:31:07. > :31:11.with the decisions that were made by Ed Miliband and Ed Balls at the
:31:12. > :31:18.time. No, actually. You would have liked to have seen more money spent.
:31:19. > :31:23.Believe it or not, the Corbyn movement is a coalition of people
:31:24. > :31:31.who radically disagreed with him, and people who just disagreed with
:31:32. > :31:35.him. Actually, that is kind of odd because I have never booked voted
:31:36. > :31:41.Tory. You did face a choice going into the 2015 election, and that was
:31:42. > :31:44.how you framed the austerity debate. Budget made it fairly clear that you
:31:45. > :31:48.could have gone into that election basically saying, no further
:31:49. > :31:53.austerity. And I think you almost did. But you are caged it as a kind
:31:54. > :31:59.of responsibility thing, fearing what happened in 2008, rightly,
:32:00. > :32:03.because... In the end, people would not trust us. Your words were, there
:32:04. > :32:07.is a hard left utopian fantasy, devoid of connection to the reality
:32:08. > :32:11.of people's lives, and we need to make decisions on tax, budgets,
:32:12. > :32:15.immigration and welfare. Will that win an election only what is amazing
:32:16. > :32:20.about being in the Labour Party at the moment, and I I hope you agree
:32:21. > :32:24.with this, Ed Balls, is that the influx of people we are having are
:32:25. > :32:27.exactly those people who we need to tell the story too. We are seeing
:32:28. > :32:31.mums on estates becoming activists in the Labour movement, which is an
:32:32. > :32:36.amazing thing. We could not fill a small hole in the 1980s. Now we are
:32:37. > :32:41.seeing tens, hundreds. But what about the wider electorate in an
:32:42. > :32:44.election? Well, they can be the ambassadors on the doorstep. Your
:32:45. > :32:48.book is full of examples about how bombarding working-class people with
:32:49. > :32:51.messages did not work. Above all, they can be listeners. I want to
:32:52. > :32:56.hear what they want us to do. But you just called them of? I do not
:32:57. > :33:00.mean mob in the sense of a political mob. Mob is the wrong word, I
:33:01. > :33:06.apologise for that. Do you think Jeremy Corbyn can win the next
:33:07. > :33:11.general election? Dury Colbon won the leadership election. He has
:33:12. > :33:14.brought in new members. If that translates into strength in the
:33:15. > :33:18.opinion polls, I will be the first to say I was wrong. Unfortunately
:33:19. > :33:22.that is not happening. In the end, to leave Nato may be popular at a
:33:23. > :33:27.public meeting but it is absolutely not whether centre-left voter is.
:33:28. > :33:31.I'm afraid they are just not going to vote for that. You did not win
:33:32. > :33:35.the... That was the suggestion. You did not win the election, either,
:33:36. > :33:41.did you? You're Ed Miliband's brand of politics did not win come either,
:33:42. > :33:46.so maybe this will work? If you take immigration, for example, talking
:33:47. > :33:49.about Morley and Leeds, one thing I said in the book was that
:33:50. > :33:54.globalisation brought big changes, which the left has found hard to
:33:55. > :33:58.deal with, what is the unexpected, huge movement of Labour. My view is
:33:59. > :34:01.that you cannot win in Morley unless you say, we are not going to shop
:34:02. > :34:06.the borders, we are going to manage and control this. Jeremy said before
:34:07. > :34:10.the referendum, we cannot have, it has got to be unlimited. That is not
:34:11. > :34:15.the way the voters of Morley will think. I actually agree with that,
:34:16. > :34:19.if you look at social media, I was supporting you on that. Do you think
:34:20. > :34:28.Jeremy Corbyn is doing a good job as leader? He has had a lot to deal
:34:29. > :34:32.with. Whose fault is that? Owen Smith stood, other people stood
:34:33. > :34:37.down. That is their right. What they have to bear in mind is, maybe not
:34:38. > :34:41.whole of the tanking in the polls. The tanking in the sand that is
:34:42. > :34:45.real. It is now happening. Some of that has to be down to the disunity.
:34:46. > :34:49.Some of it has to be down to Corbyn, he is the leader. But I would say
:34:50. > :34:53.that politics is sequential. There will be a vote. I understand that
:34:54. > :35:01.the polls are saying, it will be Corbyn. He is likely to win, as long
:35:02. > :35:04.as it is a democratic vote. After that, let's take it sequentially,
:35:05. > :35:10.like we did with Ed Miliband. Should there be selection of MPs who will
:35:11. > :35:14.not back him? I am into trade-offs at the moment. I think the shadow
:35:15. > :35:20.cabinet insists on being elected. That is what used to happen? Then we
:35:21. > :35:25.on the left can come forward without measures. But what I hope happens...
:35:26. > :35:30.Including compulsory reselection? Yes. But what I hope happens is that
:35:31. > :35:36.in the future, whoever wins, Corbyn or Smith, let's unite behind him and
:35:37. > :35:40.fight the Tories. Because you admit the polls are disastrous at the
:35:41. > :35:41.moment? Actually, there is a weird thing, the YouGov poll shows the
:35:42. > :35:56.Labour lead not bad among C-D photos. Do you think
:35:57. > :36:01.Labour could form the next government? I do, yes. . If there
:36:02. > :36:07.are elections to the Shadow Cabinet, and the moderates, let's call them
:36:08. > :36:11.that, are in need, and the first thing they say is, as can I do not
:36:12. > :36:17.have confidence in the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn? Every MP goes through
:36:18. > :36:21.a reselection process in their constituency anyway. I went through
:36:22. > :36:24.it twice when I was an MP. If a party wants to get rid of an MP,
:36:25. > :36:28.they can do that under the rules already. You have to ask this
:36:29. > :36:34.question - is the MP there simply to be the representative of the
:36:35. > :36:37.members, or do they have a responsibility to win voters across
:36:38. > :36:40.the constituency? Of course the members are also voters, but there's
:36:41. > :36:44.a small minority of voters in the constituency. What worries me is, I
:36:45. > :36:51.fear that are available moment is becoming a party around Jeremy
:36:52. > :36:54.Corbyn which thinks that having strength in opposition is
:36:55. > :36:57.sufficient. I don't think that in the end is good enough. We need an
:36:58. > :37:00.opposition which wants to be in government. The reason why many of
:37:01. > :37:04.the MPs are so worried is because they do not think at the moment
:37:05. > :37:08.that's even what axemen is trying to achieve. Paul will have to persuade
:37:09. > :37:14.us that Jeremy actually wants to be Prime Minister. I'm not sure he
:37:15. > :37:15.really wants it. Or even that that is the aim of the project at the
:37:16. > :37:20.moment. Big Bang was the dramatic moment
:37:21. > :37:23.thirty years ago in 1986 when the City of London embraced
:37:24. > :37:26.a new type of global finance. Like it or loathe it,
:37:27. > :37:28.the City now contributes almost 12% But what's next as -
:37:29. > :37:34.in the wake of Brexit - the square mile looks
:37:35. > :37:36.to a new, digital future? The journalist Iain Martin has
:37:37. > :37:39.written a book charting the history of the City and how it
:37:40. > :37:44.will face new challenges. In 1571, Queen Elizabeth I came
:37:45. > :37:50.here to this spot in the heart of the City of London to open
:37:51. > :37:54.the Royal Exchange. It was a new hub for trading
:37:55. > :37:57.and for deals to be done. It was a place in which fortunes
:37:58. > :38:06.would be made and lost. And out of it grew the modern City
:38:07. > :38:09.of London, with banking, Since then, the Royal Exchange has
:38:10. > :38:13.been burned down, rebuilt, and reinvented several times -
:38:14. > :38:16.much like the rest And the wider Square Mile has
:38:17. > :38:25.grown to become a global This autumn is the 30th anniversary
:38:26. > :38:33.of one of the biggest explosions, or revolutions,
:38:34. > :38:50.in the City's history. Big Bang, in 1986, when Margaret
:38:51. > :38:53.Thatcher turned the stock In came more Americans, yuppies,
:38:54. > :38:59.Porsches, red braces, up went bonuses, salaries,
:39:00. > :39:01.London house prices, Down, say critics, went
:39:02. > :39:11.standards and ethics. Now, 30 years later,
:39:12. > :39:14.the City finds itself on the verge It finds that it must reinvent
:39:15. > :39:20.itself once again. But the truth is that London
:39:21. > :39:32.and the rest of us are about to be hit by something much,
:39:33. > :39:34.much bigger than Brexit. Here at Silicon roundabout,
:39:35. > :39:36.just a stone's throw from the City of London,
:39:37. > :39:41.a revolution is sweeping It means new forms of trading,
:39:42. > :39:46.new digital currencies, new competition, new ways
:39:47. > :39:54.of doing business. Will the City be able
:39:55. > :40:00.to survive what's coming? Its history suggests
:40:01. > :40:08.it usually does. Not only does it enjoy a unique
:40:09. > :40:11.combination of advantages - time zone, law, language,
:40:12. > :40:14.history and experience - today, a new generation of coders,
:40:15. > :40:18.bankers, and financial tech wizards are remaking
:40:19. > :40:23.this extraordinary place. Iain Martin joins us
:40:24. > :40:26.here in the studio and Paul Mason and former City Minister Ed Balls
:40:27. > :40:39.are still with us. Iain Martin, what does Theresa May
:40:40. > :40:43.need to do to secure the City's interest in Brexit negotiations? The
:40:44. > :40:48.principal problem will be passport in, which is the arrangement by
:40:49. > :40:51.which big tanks here, foreign banks, can trade within the European Union.
:40:52. > :40:56.But I think even more important than that is clearance and settlement,
:40:57. > :41:02.which is basically what London does. It is the capital of the euro. That
:41:03. > :41:06.means that 70% of Forex trading and all sorts of other over-the-counter
:41:07. > :41:12.derivatives, all sorts of fancy stuff, gets done to London, although
:41:13. > :41:14.the UK is not in the euro. So there is a very difficult set of
:41:15. > :41:18.negotiations coming up. But I don't think we should get too hung up on
:41:19. > :41:23.that, which is part of the point I was trying to make in the book and
:41:24. > :41:27.in the film, which is dad in something bigger is coming, which is
:41:28. > :41:32.a digital revolution in finance. If we just look at the City as it is
:41:33. > :41:35.now, in terms of how crucial it is to the economy, financial services
:41:36. > :41:38.and the industry around it has to be protected, doesn't it? It has to be
:41:39. > :41:43.protect it often from itself from its own culture. Had this
:41:44. > :41:47.excoriating report from the government's social mobility
:41:48. > :41:51.commission last week about people in brown shoes being refused top jobs
:41:52. > :41:56.in the City, despite their first-class degrees. It has to be
:41:57. > :41:59.regulated. And I think to keep it in its global pre-eminent position, not
:42:00. > :42:06.just within the Eurozone but globally, it has to move both with
:42:07. > :42:11.these times of digital change, but it also has to understand that the
:42:12. > :42:16.model of the last 30 years, in which it was pre-eminent, will probably
:42:17. > :42:21.change. Finance has to find a new role in the wider economy. How is it
:42:22. > :42:28.going to do that, when you think about how much it contributes to the
:42:29. > :42:31.GDP and how prominent, the reason it is so prominent, financial services,
:42:32. > :42:36.because we do not do anything else quite as well, it does not make us
:42:37. > :42:40.quite as much money? We make excellent things, in factories,
:42:41. > :42:45.manufacturer, we don't just make financial services. But it has
:42:46. > :42:58.absolutely got to be nurtured. One of the red lines for John McDonnell
:42:59. > :43:01.is passporting. That is above free movement, which surprisingly for a
:43:02. > :43:07.lot of Labour people, has no red line. We have got to keep a global
:43:08. > :43:12.finance industry in London. If you turn it upside down the other way,
:43:13. > :43:18.it would be an act of vandalism for them to destroy London, attempt to
:43:19. > :43:22.destroy London and try and switch it to Frankfurt, which certainly does
:43:23. > :43:26.not have the capability. There is no way in which France with its
:43:27. > :43:31.neighbour laws would become the capital... They will try. Of course
:43:32. > :43:35.they will try. But the great lesson from London's financial history is
:43:36. > :43:41.that the key is always openness, and openness to outside influence, to
:43:42. > :43:46.immigration, to new ideas. And the one time in the City's history where
:43:47. > :43:50.it has come close to serious decline and collapse, which was the
:43:51. > :43:54.beginning of the First World War, right up to the 1960s, it was shot
:43:55. > :44:00.from the outside world by exchange controls. That liberation which in
:44:01. > :44:05.big bang tells us that openness is what matters. So not regulation. But
:44:06. > :44:09.for a lot of people, a lot of our viewers, they will say the banks
:44:10. > :44:14.were the ones who caused the financial crash. Well, they were the
:44:15. > :44:17.ones, they caused all the hardship of recession and the cuts which then
:44:18. > :44:24.came, and it was a financial crisis not of voters' making. That's true.
:44:25. > :44:27.And that was your fault, felt a lot of voters, because it was
:44:28. > :44:32.deregulatory, banks were allowed to do what they liked and they had not
:44:33. > :44:35.been monitored. Well, it started in America and the sub-prime market. I
:44:36. > :44:39.think it is absolutely true that some of our biggest banks became
:44:40. > :44:44.very exposed to very risky lending, and did so in a way which was
:44:45. > :44:48.concealed, and it happened in northern rock as well. The reality
:44:49. > :44:51.was... The reality was that the Governor of the Bank of England and
:44:52. > :44:55.the head of the Financial Services Authority and the heads of all of
:44:56. > :44:59.those banks, me, the City Minister and my counterparts all around the
:45:00. > :45:03.world, all of us failed to see that growing crisis. Inflation was low,
:45:04. > :45:06.we thought things were stable, and then when it was revealed, no but he
:45:07. > :45:12.knew exactly what was happening underneath. It was terrible. I say
:45:13. > :45:15.in my book, while you look around the world for risks, you've got to
:45:16. > :45:19.keep your eye on what's happening right in front of your nose. Nobody
:45:20. > :45:23.knew what was happening in NatWest RBS, it was terrible. And I know
:45:24. > :45:30.there were people who say they warned about it, but they say that a
:45:31. > :45:31.lot of it was done by Labour to pay for public services, which needed
:45:32. > :45:42.that money? Yes, via taxation and things like
:45:43. > :45:47.that. But you don't want to strangle the golden goose. It did that
:45:48. > :45:53.itself. The period you mentioned, World War I until the 70s happened
:45:54. > :45:57.because, first of all, financial markets collapsed in the late 1920s.
:45:58. > :46:02.A new economic model came along which suppressed global finance. I
:46:03. > :46:09.want to do financial eyes the world. And this country. That does not mean
:46:10. > :46:20.that there is no industry we just end speculative finance as much as
:46:21. > :46:24.we can. -- I want to definancialise. But it became too big. Because of
:46:25. > :46:34.cheap money policies, lent too much, and became too leveraged. And right
:46:35. > :46:38.back to 1720, they're always crashes in the history of the city and in
:46:39. > :46:43.the world of global finance. Don't presume it will not happen again.
:46:44. > :46:52.How damaging will it be for the city if the UK leads the single market
:46:53. > :46:56.altogether? -- leaves. Terrible. Gloom is overdone. Interviewed a lot
:46:57. > :47:01.of people from the city for this which predicted gloom and absolute
:47:02. > :47:06.disaster. -- I interviewed. But the city is full of clever, inventive
:47:07. > :47:09.people. After the referendum a few told me that they were thinking
:47:10. > :47:15.there might be opportunity. They might change their Mac reminds. And
:47:16. > :47:22.the old viewers on fixed regulatory block, which ran out at brussels. --
:47:23. > :47:27.their mines. They thought they might not be able to keep up with what is
:47:28. > :47:31.happening in digital development. It is about to be blown apart in a big
:47:32. > :47:38.way. London is well placed to benefit from it. -- Brussels. Jeremy
:47:39. > :47:46.Corbyn seemed to be fairly sanguine about the idea about not being part
:47:47. > :47:52.of the single market at all. Should the city try to be part of it?
:47:53. > :48:01.Absolutely. So it would be damaging? Yes. Jeremy Corbyn's position was
:48:02. > :48:08.that we need access. The problem with saying we will be in the EEA,
:48:09. > :48:12.Labour is no longer in control. You can have access at any level, can't
:48:13. > :48:17.you? But, membership, it is complete membership. Access, anybody can have
:48:18. > :48:22.access if you are prepared to pay. Tariff free access is different. You
:48:23. > :48:26.have to be a member. We don't know because Theresa May will not tell
:48:27. > :48:30.anybody what the terms of negotiation are. How can Labour
:48:31. > :48:34.commit to staying within the EEA when they do not know the terms? You
:48:35. > :48:39.are saying he is broadly in favour of staying in the single market, or
:48:40. > :48:44.having access. Yes. Why is it terrible? Paul is right about
:48:45. > :48:48.Theresa May. There is only so many times you can say Brexit before
:48:49. > :48:52.people get frustrated. You will find we already are. We are going to
:48:53. > :48:56.leave the EU, we are not on the single currency, but are we
:48:57. > :48:59.withdrawing from economic co-operation with our neighbours and
:49:00. > :49:05.going it alone, are we cutting ourselves off from the global
:49:06. > :49:11.economy, are we trying to find a new way to be part of this system? The
:49:12. > :49:15.city is one of our great strengths. Despite the mistakes of the
:49:16. > :49:19.financial crisis. Over the next 20, 30, 40 years we needed to play a
:49:20. > :49:30.more important role for us, not less. It is lawyers, accountants,
:49:31. > :49:40.people investing ordinary pension fund -- pension funders' savings.
:49:41. > :49:43.The strength has always been based on open, international, global
:49:44. > :49:45.Britain. If we retreat from that it would be a tragedy. Thanks very
:49:46. > :49:47.much. So much for politics,
:49:48. > :49:50.because Ed's left that all behind now, for a new career
:49:51. > :49:53.as a ballroom dancer. I have been waiting all day for
:49:54. > :49:59.this. The juxtaposition. He made his debut on Strictly Come
:50:00. > :50:01.Dancing on Saturday - The former Shadow
:50:02. > :50:06.Chancellor, Ed Balls! # Well I know that the
:50:07. > :50:17.boogaloo is out of sight # But the shingaling's
:50:18. > :50:20.the thing tonight # But if that was you
:50:21. > :50:23.and me now baby #. # Aaaaaaaaaah #.
:50:24. > :50:50.you shake your tailfeather We should all be in glitter and
:50:51. > :50:53.sequins. Joining us now,
:50:54. > :50:55.another ex-politician, but whose dancing
:50:56. > :50:56.pedigree is a little more Former Lib Dem Business
:50:57. > :51:06.Secretary Vince Cable - here What did you think of his first
:51:07. > :51:15.outing? Not bad. Well you pleasantly surprised? Yeah, he hasn't done it
:51:16. > :51:23.before. My first positive review. Hold onto it. The suit wasn't right,
:51:24. > :51:28.but the steps were OK. As you go through you will have to decide if
:51:29. > :51:38.you are going to be a hapless type, John Ann Widdecombe... What advice
:51:39. > :51:41.would you give me? -- John Sergeant, Ann Widdecombe. You do things well,
:51:42. > :51:50.you play football, you like playing the piano. I learnt something from
:51:51. > :51:54.doing it. Did you? We will show some pictures of you dancing. There was
:51:55. > :52:02.one thing where I was terrible, my posture was bad. And I heard you
:52:03. > :52:06.already knew how to dance. Yes. But my posture was terrible. Anton took
:52:07. > :52:10.me aside and said if you want to improve you need to get this sorted.
:52:11. > :52:16.You look very professional. I remember watching it at the time.
:52:17. > :52:23.Look at those spins. Ed, you were talking earlier about the training.
:52:24. > :52:26.What is it like? Totally exhausting. But not physically, it is actually
:52:27. > :52:32.more mentally exhausting. I did seven hours yesterday. That is a
:52:33. > :52:36.lot. You have to remember everything. And because of muscle
:52:37. > :52:45.memory. If I messed up, she makes me, Katya and she makes me stop and
:52:46. > :52:49.start again. I start from nothing. I am a novice. But on this show you
:52:50. > :52:55.have to try and learn. I don't want to be dragged on the floor and doing
:52:56. > :53:01.it as a joke. I want to get better. Let's all take to the dance floor
:53:02. > :53:05.and do a ballroom hold. Vince, since you are an expert ballroom dancer,
:53:06. > :53:11.and he does not know how to do ballroom, can you? I can't. The BBC
:53:12. > :53:20.are stopping me. I signed a contract. People more powerful than
:53:21. > :53:27.you and me will stop me. What is a good ballroom hold, Vince, then? It
:53:28. > :53:34.is a good stance. It is stretching. Stretch from the bottom. Yes. My
:53:35. > :53:37.teacher tells me you have to imagine somebody is pulling your head up.
:53:38. > :53:49.You are leaning back, you need to keep straight. Hand? Up. And a tiny
:53:50. > :53:57.bit out. It is getting there. More angled. And this? They did not say
:53:58. > :54:04.this was in my contract. Get in. I am! You have to get more physical.
:54:05. > :54:10.I'm so used to looking at the camera. How do we look? Much
:54:11. > :54:15.improved. Thanks very much. There is not enough room in the studio to go
:54:16. > :54:22.anywhere. That is the closest I will get Strictly. That was rather
:54:23. > :54:27.exciting. Do you think things would be a good teacher? He would be
:54:28. > :54:32.great. The thing about the strings. Your posture is naturally better
:54:33. > :54:38.than a lot of people. There you go, you can do that for the rest of the
:54:39. > :54:43.day. Katya Will be delighted. Problem is, as I start moving, I get
:54:44. > :54:51.hunched up. I look like a rugby player. I asked my children about
:54:52. > :54:53.it, and they said I looked like a camp rugby player.
:54:54. > :54:55.CHUCKLES Thank you for my lesson. The cheque
:54:56. > :54:57.is in the post. Now - from top dog
:54:58. > :55:00.on the dance floor - Yes, it's the Westminster Dog
:55:01. > :55:04.of the Year show and Ellie's been out to watch MPs and peers
:55:05. > :55:19.parading their canine friends. It is time for politicians to prove
:55:20. > :55:23.how in touch they are with normal people and normal dogs. A time for
:55:24. > :55:33.me to use terrible puns about man's best friend, it is the Westminster
:55:34. > :55:38.dog of the year. Let me pause you. I need to ask no leading questions.
:55:39. > :55:42.This is our family working cocker spaniel. She will be five in a
:55:43. > :55:47.couple of weeks. This is her first trip to London. She is bemused by
:55:48. > :55:52.the pigeons who move very slowly and all of the smell 's London office.
:55:53. > :55:56.This is the owner, she was bred in eastern Europe and she was smuggled
:55:57. > :56:00.here. It is important to raise the issue of poppy smuggling. We have
:56:01. > :56:08.had him for eight months. He is pretty much part of the family. He
:56:09. > :56:20.cants loudly. He comes from Scotland, we are not used the heat.
:56:21. > :56:27.-- pants loudly. Sit, now wait. There we go. They are like the Green
:56:28. > :56:39.party. Yes, joint leadership. This one is Clinton and this one is
:56:40. > :56:45.Kennedy. Paw. MPs always say they are worried about the paw. I think
:56:46. > :56:53.we should give a free rescued greyhound to every pensioner. Think
:56:54. > :57:05.you have seen enough of the ruff and tumble this year, this race just got
:57:06. > :57:11.pawsitively furocious, get it? Of course we do. And we are now
:57:12. > :57:21.joined by Clinton and Kennedy. I like the political names. What are
:57:22. > :57:25.they? They are labradoodles. Named after the presidents. But they could
:57:26. > :57:34.be Jackie and Hillary Clinton, as well. They are sisters, aren't they?
:57:35. > :57:38.They are. How do you win? You have to enter. Answers questions. They
:57:39. > :57:44.have been inspected. The judges have seen them. We did some embarrassing
:57:45. > :57:50.obstacles, as well. It is a public vote. And were outsiders. And the
:57:51. > :57:59.Labour side it is nice to win something. Cherish it. And this is
:58:00. > :58:05.what you won? Yes, and it even gets engraved. I'm very happy. As my four
:58:06. > :58:10.children will be extremely delighted. They are going to be so
:58:11. > :58:13.proud. To be on the winning side. They would have liked to have come
:58:14. > :58:18.along. They would have engaged. But they will be over the moon. They are
:58:19. > :58:26.a big part of family life. Was it fun? A lot of fun. It has mainly
:58:27. > :58:33.been won by Conservative MPs, so there was a competitive edge. We
:58:34. > :58:40.needed to wrestle it back. Labradoodle? Never heard of them.
:58:41. > :58:41.They are very popular. Well done, Clinton, well done, Kennedy, enjoy
:58:42. > :58:56.the win. Do the move, you need to keep
:58:57. > :59:02.practising before Saturday. That's it. Keep dancing. Goodbye.
:59:03. > :59:07.in a brand-new BBC Two quiz show, Debatable,
:59:08. > :59:11.where a team of celebrities put their debating skills to the test
:59:12. > :59:14.to try to win their contestants pots of cash.
:59:15. > :59:18.Will they help, or will they hinder? That's Debatable.