08/09/2016 Daily Politics

Graham Brady Glitter. Graham Brady Glitter.

Hello and welcome to The Daily Politics.

Theresa May confirms she'd like to end the ban on new grammar

schools in England - but can selection by ability really

MPs and peers are being told they should move out of parliament

for six years, so it can undergo a ?4 billion makeover -

is it a price worth paying to preserve this

Parliament's pooches battle it out to be crowned Westminster Dog

of the Year - who will be top dog this year?

He and his party were rejected by voters at last years general

He and his party were rejected by voters at last year's general

election - will Ed "Glitter" Balls have more appeal

in the Strictly Ballroom - because he's been allowed

to escape from his dancing partner Katya's grasp.

With us for the next hour is Ed "Glitter" Balls.

Show was one of your moves, quickly? We will have more of that later!

Last night, Theresa May started her push for more

grammar schools in England, after a civil servant

was photographed outside Downing Street with papers proposing

Talking to Conservative MPs, the Prime Minister said

she would not "turn the clock back", but she insisted that there

is already selection in the system based on the ability of parents

afford the house prices close to good schools.

The options are expected to be laid out in a Department for Education

green paper next week, and Theresa May insisted last night

the policy would create a "21st century education system"

Among the options being considered is setting up new grammar schools

in areas where there is demand for them.

Existing grammar schools, such as those in Kent

and Greater Manchester, could be expanded.

And free schools could be allowed to introduce selection as part

But the Prime Minister may face a rocky road if she wants

to get her plans passed in Parliament, with opposition

to grammar schools amongst her own MPs, and both Labour

and the Liberal Democrats condemned such a move last night.

And opponents in the House of Lords will be less inclined to let it

pass, as increasing selection in education was not part

of the last Conservative election manifesto.

Well, earlier, the Education Secretary, Justine Greening,

was called to answer an urgent question on grammar

schools in the Commons - here's what she had to say.

There will be no return to the simplistic, binary choice of the

past, where schools separate children into winners and losers,

successes or failures. We want to build on our success since 2010 and

to create a truly 21st century schools system. But we want a system

which can cater for the talent and abilities of every single child. To

achieve that, we need a truly diverse range of schools and

specialisms. This policy will not help social mobility, Mr Speaker. It

will entrench inequality and disadvantage. It will be the lucky

few who can afford the tuition, who will get ahead, and the

disadvantaged who will be left behind. A policy for the few at the

expense of the many. And we're joined now by the Chairman

of the 1922 Committee of Conservative MPs,

Graham Brady, who is a strong Ed Balls is a former Labour

Education Secretary. What did to reason may tell you and your

colleagues last night? I never two on what happens in those meetings.

You go ahead. I think I can confirm that reports have been quite

accurate. Essentially, what she said is that there are lots of different

types of schools now, we have a diverse schools sector, which I

strongly support and have always been behind. But it seems very odd

that if somebody comes to government with a proposal for a new school

which is select, even though we know that can work and it is very popular

in communities, it is currently illegal to allow it. So, dropping

that ban I think is really the key to opening up an even more diverse

sector, and it will raise standards and it will improve social

modernity. We will test that in a moment. Of what does an element of

selection actually mean? If we are not going back to the binary choice,

as Justine Greening said, with grammar schools and successes and

failures, what is an element of selection? The crucial thing is that

back in the 1960s, what went wrong was not the grammar schools, it was

the secondary moderns. Typically they were not very good schools. So

you would like to go back to that binary system, actually? In

Manchester, we have a completely selective system. But it is not

binary and it is certainly not a choice between success and failure.

All of the schools in my constituency are outstanding

schools. The high schools as well as the grammar schools. So what is the

element of selection? It would be either allowing some completely

selective schools, or allowing some partial selection. Right, so there

would be some holy selective schools? I do not really understand

what it means, partial selection, but it seems to me that you would

make a certain number of places available for selection, let's say

30%, and then there would be pupils getting tutored to get into those,

and the rest would be in a catchment area, where people would buy

themselves into that catchment area. In what way will that help

disadvantaged people? You have already heard the news today, it is

A2 billion pounds industry, tutoring people through secondary education.

So something clearly is not going right. Something can be done better.

There are some very good country hands of schools and areas. There

are also things which can be delivered by selective schools. Why

would you want to emulate that, if you're criticising the idea that in

secondary education, people are being tutored? No, I'm saying,

tutoring people throughout their secondary education. That is about

standards not being good enough in those schools. But do you accept

that is what would happen? If you had a new school where partial

selection was in place, let's say in an area where there is a social

amount of social deprivation, you would have 30% of places for which

there would be unbelievably stiff competition, and everyone would be

tutored, and it would only be those who could afford the expensive

tuition? What happens in many companies in areas, you've got

selection by house price. All the places are open to the catchment

area... In selected areas, people can pass the exam and get into the

school. Now, there is too much tutoring, far more than when I went

to grammar school. But if we had more grammar schools, then the

competition for those places would be less intense, and there will be

less call for that kind of tutoring. Do you agree with this? I don't full

stop there are mistakes in politics which you find out about afterwards,

and mistakes which you see happening as they are happening. Theresa May

is making a big mistake here. Graham Brady has consistently supported

this policy and he has been ignored by past Conservative education

secretaries and prime ministers, going back to Margaret Thatcher.

Because it is both bad education policy and bad politics and. But

they are good schools, aren't they? The issue is, what happens to the

children of working class kids, and middle-class children, and get told

at 11, you are second-best. What we know from the evidence, because I

was Education Secretary, is that grammar schools tend to be

disproportionately for more affluent children, but the kids who go to the

secondary modern school underperform in those schools relative to other

country hands of schools in other parts of the country, cause they

have been told at 11 they are second-best. There are some

brilliant secondary modern schools, fabulously lead, in challenging

circumstances, because they've been told their children are going to

underperform. Telling kids at 11, they're second-best, does not work

for the majority of kids and parents in your constituency who are told

they are second-best. First of all, that is not true. If you look at the

high schools in traffic, they get better results than ordinary

comprehensive schools in more affluent areas. Kids who go to

secondary modern schools underperform military to those who

don't. There are a great number of secondary modern schools who bought

perform other schools. . I agree with that. There will be opposition

on your own side as well, and there always has been, which is why you

have struggled to get this back on the agenda. How are you going to

deal with it? We have got Sir Michael Wilshaw, chief Inspector of

Schools, who basically said, the notion that people will benefit from

the return of grammar schools is, too! And nonsense and is clearly

refuted by the London experience. He's talking about the state system

in London which does rather well compared to the rest of the country.

We also had the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg,

saying that you are forcing your prejudices on people. What do you

say to that? Quite the reserve. The important thing but it is not forced

prejudice, it is not telling people what they must do. What we have had

for 18 years is a law which says, even if a community wants a grammar

school, it is not allowed to have it. Be opinion poll evidence

suggests 75% of people in this country want more grammar schools.

Last year I think it was ComRes which did poll and said that the

supporters of every major political party would like more grammar

schools. The majority of Labour Party members included. Which was

interesting, and that was a statistic used earlier this week but

I think it was 45%, actually, not a majority but still a high number.

The point is, if people want them, and if they are in areas where there

are not any other good schools, or maybe only one other, why shouldn't

parents be given a choice? Why not let them decide? What you have to

decide is, what is going to be the best for the most able children and

for all children? Of course it's the case that if you start out thinking

your child is going to get to the grammar school, and you think that

may advantage them, fingers crossed, let's hope that will be great. The

problem is, if it does not work out that way. There is a really good

column by Simon Jenkins in the Guardian. A Conservative

commentator, who said, there is a really good reason why Margaret

Thatcher, who was probably somebody that Graham Brady revered, did not

expand grammar schools. She knew in the end, middle-class parents who

start out thinking it is a good idea before the 11 plus discover that it

is a bad idea when their kids are told they're second-best at 11. They

are some children who do really well at seven, some who really come on

when they are 13 or 14. Why should they have three years being told

they are second-best. How is that good education? Nobody will tell

them they're second-best, absolutely not. If they go to one of the high

schools in my constituency... Outside of your constituency...

There is a case... Good for you. We should try to learn from that,

surely. We certainly should not ban what works in one constituency. I

have experience in Kent and in Gloucestershire, also selective

areas, where you have some brilliantly led secondary modern

schools, doing really good things in very challenging circumstances, but

the reality was, they did not manage to deliver the results that were

being delivered, as Jo was saying, by the best country hands if in

areas like Hackney and Tower Hamlets, because they are tied to

expectations, and what happens to teaching as a consequence? It is

something for which these kids never recover. But it is not being

imposed, is it? That's the difference. The ban was imposed,

which is what Graham Brady is objecting. This is not imposing a

system, this is allowing more choice, and more choice in areas

where they do need more schools. The difficulty would be in areas of

social deprivation, and it's always difficult to tailor a system to be

perfect, but do you not think it would be a good idea to even look at

the option Enyeama parent and I'm living in an area where things

expand, or where it is introduced for the first time, and I don't want

my child to be told, your second class at 11 if you fail the test.

Where is my choice? If there are other good schools in the area,

presumably greying is saying that the competition would improve all of

the schools. The problem is, the statistics do not bear out what you

say just if you look at the figures from the Institute for Fiscal

Studies, about how many children there are at current grammar schools

who are on free school meals... 3%, 7% in Sutton, 9% in boxing. That's a

very perilous proportion. Disproportion in more affluent

areas. If we spread them all, certainly if we get them into more

deprived areas, those statistics will change. But do you accept, that

is a failure? They have not actually allowed social mobility to any great

extent, if you are looking at those percentages? I think they still do.

I do not want to get hung up just on free school meals figures. If you

look at average earnings, there are a lot of people doing really well

and getting great opportunities through selective systems. One thing

Ed is missing is that everywhere there is a selection at the moment,

it is hugely ocular. People can get rid of it if they don't like it.

Everywhere it exists, people love it and can see it working. And the

other thing is, there is already selection. We pull our already

tutoring their children, even if they are going through the state

system. Or buying expensive properties to be in a catchment

area. -- people are already tutoring. . I think you have to be

careful and not to take a London centric view. In a large part of the

country, people go to the local school and the majority of children

go to the local school and they will not do that any more if you

introduce selection. There's different ways in which you can

solve this house price issue, other than going back to the nineteen

fifties. There is one approach which is very unpopular, to do it through

a lottery. The other way is to do branded admission, where you make

sure that you have a mix of children, school by school, which in

the area where we live, in Hackney, works very well, and makes sure that

you have truly, hence of schools. Of course in the end it comes down to

great teaching and leadership, and you need to have setting to make

sure that kids are taught at the right level of ability. But we

should not go back to a world where we tell kids at 11 they're

second-class. So, MPs and Peers should be kicked

out of the Palace of Westminster for 6 years whilst vital work takes

place to restore the building. That's the recommendation

from a committee of MPs and Peers who have spent months

considering what to do about the crumbling building -

the home to Parliament - but also a Unesco

world heritage site. The full proposals are due to be

made public in the next hour - but our reporter Mark Lobel has

details of the proposed move. Beautiful outside, but not

so inside, parts of the Palace of Westminster are dangerous to work

in, and in desperate need of repair. The roof's leaking, the stonework

is rotting, in effect. We need to do a great deal more

in terms of fire The Victorians left us

lots of pictures and drawings of statues and all the rest of it,

but really good plans so that we know where the voids

are, we don't have. But all the facilities,

whether it's electricity, IT, comms, sewage, fresh water,

high-pressure steam, central heating - all of that -

have just been laid And I don't think I'm giving away

any secrets if I say that there are lots of wires -

nobody's quite sure where they go. To allow for extensive renovations,

a parliamentary committee is recommending all MPs and peers

should vacate Parliament for at least six years

in the early 2020s. 650 MPs would all pack

their bags from the House of Commons and move 350 yards

across the road to Whitehall. The temporary Commons would be based

here at Richmond House. At the moment, this

is the headquarters At the back of this building

is a courtyard which could be used as a temporary chamber for debates,

statements and Prime This also benefits from being

on the Parliamentary Estate, which makes it safer,

and it's also within walking At the same time, all members

of the House of Lords would also be rehoused,

down the road to the QEII Conference Right now, this is a commercial

conference venue, with an abundance But as it's owned by the Government,

it wouldn't be difficult to turn this into a second chamber,

to scrutinise laws and The PM's spokeswoman says she'll

respond in due course. It's then up to members of both

Houses of Parliament to scrutinise It's not just about the convenience

of MPs or their lordships. It's important that this

World Heritage Site, this mother of parliaments,

is properly refurbished What we've got to look

at is the scope of the programme - make sure that that is really well

worked out from the beginning and there aren't any

hidden surprises. We've got to watch that we keep it

on time and on schedule - otherwise we will see

these costs escalate. And I would take with a pinch

of salt that 3.9 billion I don't think the detailed work has

yet been done to prove what it's So, after years of studies, now,

a concrete proposal that could lead to MPs and lords vacating Parliament

for the first time since it was evacuated

during the Second World War. And we're joined now

by Labour MP and member of the Treasury Select Committee,

John Mann. Welcome. Is it worth the ?4 billion

price tag? It has got to be refurbished. I can see a lot of

money being wasted. Huge opportunities being wasted to

recreate exactly what is there. The shooting Gallery, the bathrooms

downstairs nobody uses, as if nothing has changed in 200 years,

rather than actually modernise the place and perhaps modernise it so

much that we do not need all of those peers coming back. That would

be another discussion on in terms of the number of peers, but you would

favour the idea of moving out for the six-year period while they

refurbished, even if it is not in a style you would like a then come

back in? We could fit into Westminster. It might be better. The

consultants reports, they are plucking figures around -- out of

the air, rounded up to the nearest billion. They are saying there are

dangerous levels of asbestos. I'm sure there are. It needs sorting

out. There will need to be Cindy camping at some stage. But building

a new parliament? -- there will need to be some revamping at some stage.

What about the other buildings around the country? Such as? The

Welbeck estate. Nothing to do with your constituency, of course. I'm

prepared to go to places like Manchester, the Scottish Parliament,

Edinburgh, we could move them along for a little bit.

CHUCKLES Have you spoken to the SNP about

that? What do you think? I think it's got to be done. It needs to be

done in a cost-effective way. Change is always difficult. Parliament is

actually about the speeches and the questions answered or not answered.

Whatever happens, very quickly it will become Parliament again in this

temporary period. It would be convenient to the BBC if it went...

One change we could try, and I'm thinking of a prominent TV programme

that could be hosted in the Royal Gallery. We could get some cameras,

spectators, a bit of dancing. We will be coming to Strictly...

Opening up Parliament is... Parliament is open. No, no, it is a

mess, it is antiquated in the way the space is used. A lot of wasted

space... If it was modernised within the current building you would be

supportive of that? Yes, but we need to modernise things like the hours,

which are important. The structure, the way the building is used, if all

we do is repair the historic building as it is it is a hugely

wasted opportunity for our democracy. Does there need to be a

complete change inside to make it work in the modern age? Take the

Scottish Parliament, which was designed from scratch, it ended up

being more antagonistic than the Westminster Parliament. The banging

of the desks, and all of that. And people complained from the beginning

about there not being enough space. All of that. In reality, it is

difficult to redesign a Parliament. John is probably right, there are

some bits in there which are very outdated which don't need to be

updated like the shooting Gallery. Although people in the shooting club

might think it is unfair... Some of the characters inside of the 19th

century. There could be a crash. As opposed to MPs?

CHUCKLES In terms of moving out, would you be

able to run things? You say people would get used to it. But would it

be possible when they are so entrenched in the slightly

antiquated building which is the houses of Parliament? I think the

convention of the speaker in the chair, and the fact people speak

through the speaker rather than to each other is really important. I

think that is more important than the design of the building and all

of those things. You could have a completely different physical

setting. Quickly it would be like Parliament today. Do you think it

would be people moving out in 2022? I think it will happen. But I

suspect it will be done badly and in ten years' time there will be

regrets about how we could actually change a lot more. Without costing

more. Probably saving money. Make it more modern in how it works, but

keep the beauty of the architecture. And that optimistic note, thank you.

-- on that. Now - our guest of the day Ed Balls

is obviously a twinkle toes on the dance floor -

but he did have a career before That all came to an ungraceful

end in May last year In his book, "Speaking Out",

he considers his and Labour's defeat - and how the party

might regain power. We'll be discussing that

in a moment, but first a reminder of Ed's

glittering political career. # The root of all

evil to a lot of men # I'll take the money,

you can have the chick # When you kick the bucket,

it's just too bad # Life's too short,

don't make it sad # Cos you sure don't

know when you got to go # You can work and

work and have no fun # You'll find out

you're the crazy one # But there's one thing

you can always do # Cos you sure don't

know when you got to go # Cos you sure don't know

when you got to go...# I'm sure the Labour Party

will emerge in the coming weeks # Cos you sure don't know

when you got to go!# And Iain Martin joins us

in the studio with the journalist Welcome. First, Ed Balls, did Labour

lose in 2015 because they were not radical enough, or perhaps they were

not trusted enough on the economy? In the end I think what happened was

that people saw the opinion polls being very close. They were worried

that the SNP would hold the balance of power. And there was lots of

speculation about how Ed Miliband and the SNP were deciding the

Budget. There were lots of voters in my constituency and around the

country who may have voted Liberal Democrat in 2010, thought about

voting Ukip, then switched back to the Conservatives because they were

fearful about a Labour government and the economy. So they were not

trusted on the economy? The idea they were voting Conservative

because they wanted Labour to be more left wing is nonsense. That is

obviously for the birds, Paul Mason, the idea Labour wasn't radical

enough is why they didn't win. Ed's because interesting. It was about

the centre-left, essentially. The last minute clip of Lib Dem voters

could be people solidifying around the Conservatives over Scotland is

one thing. But there has been a long-term decline of Labour vote.

Splitting to the right with Ukip, splitting to the left arguably with

the Green party. Any Labour leader, whether it is Owen Smith, Jeremy

Corbyn, or some future person, has to have a narrative. Observing as a

journalist, covering it for ITN, it was the absence of a narrative. Any

narrative is better for Labour. Are you saying they did not have any

narrative at all? Well, they had a narrative... What was it, austerity

might? Ed thought he would win elections through policy. And what I

have been saying is that you win them by having a story to tell. --

austerity light. A story to tell them about how their macrolides get

better. Anybody who comes to labour with a story to tell, or to bring

the fragments together, the Green party, the Ukip voters, the

Conservative switches, that puts a camp of Labour back in power. You

failed, in a way, to counter the Tories argument, that you had

crashed the car and maxed out on the credit card, you admit that? The

financial crisis was substantial. We debated for a long time how to deal

with the economic argument... And you couldn't agree, could you? Ed

and I agreed that matching the plans of the Conservatives would be

ridiculous. But I also felt that to go out and do a big spend by

borrowing with a deficit wasn't going to work. At the beginning of

the election campaign, saying that our sums did not add up were not

registering. But the SNP fear was powerful. It exposed cars and

leadership and the economy and on vision. -- it exposed us. You cannot

win unless you persuade people who might vote Conservative to switch to

Labour. Where I disagree with Jeremy Corbyn and with Paul is that Paul

thinks he can put together a rainbow coalition on the left and with the

Green party. You have got to reach into the centre ground. You cannot

simply be satisfied that you have got a cheering mob of your

supporters at a public meeting and think that translate into votes in

the ballot box. You have got to get into the centre ground. Is that what

you are doing? Let's not call the Labour members a mob. I agree, the

left alone... Well, Labour can never win other than being an alliance.

The big problem with Scotland. That set that aside. Let's talk about

England and Wales. I support Jeremy Corbyn. -- and that's set that

aside. You support his style of politics and his policies, as well?

Yes. But this is not central left any more. It is about what is the

heartland of labour. Under new Labour, what began to happen, it was

clear in 2015, the heartland is the urban voter. The swing vote is the

working class voter, which we could no longer take for granted. The only

thing you can offer them is economic radicalism. Well, it is left, isn't

it? When you talk about the things you are talking about, you disagreed

with the decisions that were made by Ed Miliband and Ed Balls at the

time. No, actually. You would have liked to have seen more money spent.

Believe it or not, the Corbyn movement is a coalition of people

who radically disagreed with him, and people who just disagreed with

him. Actually, that is kind of odd because I have never booked voted

Tory. You did face a choice going into the 2015 election, and that was

how you framed the austerity debate. Budget made it fairly clear that you

could have gone into that election basically saying, no further

austerity. And I think you almost did. But you are caged it as a kind

of responsibility thing, fearing what happened in 2008, rightly,

because... In the end, people would not trust us. Your words were, there

is a hard left utopian fantasy, devoid of connection to the reality

of people's lives, and we need to make decisions on tax, budgets,

immigration and welfare. Will that win an election only what is amazing

about being in the Labour Party at the moment, and I I hope you agree

with this, Ed Balls, is that the influx of people we are having are

exactly those people who we need to tell the story too. We are seeing

mums on estates becoming activists in the Labour movement, which is an

amazing thing. We could not fill a small hole in the 1980s. Now we are

seeing tens, hundreds. But what about the wider electorate in an

election? Well, they can be the ambassadors on the doorstep. Your

book is full of examples about how bombarding working-class people with

messages did not work. Above all, they can be listeners. I want to

hear what they want us to do. But you just called them of? I do not

mean mob in the sense of a political mob. Mob is the wrong word, I

apologise for that. Do you think Jeremy Corbyn can win the next

general election? Dury Colbon won the leadership election. He has

brought in new members. If that translates into strength in the

opinion polls, I will be the first to say I was wrong. Unfortunately

that is not happening. In the end, to leave Nato may be popular at a

public meeting but it is absolutely not whether centre-left voter is.

I'm afraid they are just not going to vote for that. You did not win

the... That was the suggestion. You did not win the election, either,

did you? You're Ed Miliband's brand of politics did not win come either,

so maybe this will work? If you take immigration, for example, talking

about Morley and Leeds, one thing I said in the book was that

globalisation brought big changes, which the left has found hard to

deal with, what is the unexpected, huge movement of Labour. My view is

that you cannot win in Morley unless you say, we are not going to shop

the borders, we are going to manage and control this. Jeremy said before

the referendum, we cannot have, it has got to be unlimited. That is not

the way the voters of Morley will think. I actually agree with that,

if you look at social media, I was supporting you on that. Do you think

Jeremy Corbyn is doing a good job as leader? He has had a lot to deal

with. Whose fault is that? Owen Smith stood, other people stood

down. That is their right. What they have to bear in mind is, maybe not

whole of the tanking in the polls. The tanking in the sand that is

real. It is now happening. Some of that has to be down to the disunity.

Some of it has to be down to Corbyn, he is the leader. But I would say

that politics is sequential. There will be a vote. I understand that

the polls are saying, it will be Corbyn. He is likely to win, as long

as it is a democratic vote. After that, let's take it sequentially,

like we did with Ed Miliband. Should there be selection of MPs who will

not back him? I am into trade-offs at the moment. I think the shadow

cabinet insists on being elected. That is what used to happen? Then we

on the left can come forward without measures. But what I hope happens...

Including compulsory reselection? Yes. But what I hope happens is that

in the future, whoever wins, Corbyn or Smith, let's unite behind him and

fight the Tories. Because you admit the polls are disastrous at the

moment? Actually, there is a weird thing, the YouGov poll shows the

Labour lead not bad among C-D photos. Do you think

Labour could form the next government? I do, yes. . If there

are elections to the Shadow Cabinet, and the moderates, let's call them

that, are in need, and the first thing they say is, as can I do not

have confidence in the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn? Every MP goes through

a reselection process in their constituency anyway. I went through

it twice when I was an MP. If a party wants to get rid of an MP,

they can do that under the rules already. You have to ask this

question - is the MP there simply to be the representative of the

members, or do they have a responsibility to win voters across

the constituency? Of course the members are also voters, but there's

a small minority of voters in the constituency. What worries me is, I

fear that are available moment is becoming a party around Jeremy

Corbyn which thinks that having strength in opposition is

sufficient. I don't think that in the end is good enough. We need an

opposition which wants to be in government. The reason why many of

the MPs are so worried is because they do not think at the moment

that's even what axemen is trying to achieve. Paul will have to persuade

us that Jeremy actually wants to be Prime Minister. I'm not sure he

really wants it. Or even that that is the aim of the project at the

moment. Big Bang was the dramatic moment

thirty years ago in 1986 when the City of London embraced

a new type of global finance. Like it or loathe it,

the City now contributes almost 12% But what's next as -

in the wake of Brexit - the square mile looks

to a new, digital future? The journalist Iain Martin has

written a book charting the history of the City and how it

will face new challenges. In 1571, Queen Elizabeth I came

here to this spot in the heart of the City of London to open

the Royal Exchange. It was a new hub for trading

and for deals to be done. It was a place in which fortunes

would be made and lost. And out of it grew the modern City

of London, with banking, Since then, the Royal Exchange has

been burned down, rebuilt, and reinvented several times -

much like the rest And the wider Square Mile has

grown to become a global This autumn is the 30th anniversary

of one of the biggest explosions, or revolutions,

in the City's history. Big Bang, in 1986, when Margaret

Thatcher turned the stock In came more Americans, yuppies,

Porsches, red braces, up went bonuses, salaries,

London house prices, Down, say critics, went

standards and ethics. Now, 30 years later,

the City finds itself on the verge It finds that it must reinvent

itself once again. But the truth is that London

and the rest of us are about to be hit by something much,

much bigger than Brexit. Here at Silicon roundabout,

just a stone's throw from the City of London,

a revolution is sweeping It means new forms of trading,

new digital currencies, new competition, new ways

of doing business. Will the City be able

to survive what's coming? Its history suggests

it usually does. Not only does it enjoy a unique

combination of advantages - time zone, law, language,

history and experience - today, a new generation of coders,

bankers, and financial tech wizards are remaking

this extraordinary place. Iain Martin joins us

here in the studio and Paul Mason and former City Minister Ed Balls

are still with us. Iain Martin, what does Theresa May

need to do to secure the City's interest in Brexit negotiations? The

principal problem will be passport in, which is the arrangement by

which big tanks here, foreign banks, can trade within the European Union.

But I think even more important than that is clearance and settlement,

which is basically what London does. It is the capital of the euro. That

means that 70% of Forex trading and all sorts of other over-the-counter

derivatives, all sorts of fancy stuff, gets done to London, although

the UK is not in the euro. So there is a very difficult set of

negotiations coming up. But I don't think we should get too hung up on

that, which is part of the point I was trying to make in the book and

in the film, which is dad in something bigger is coming, which is

a digital revolution in finance. If we just look at the City as it is

now, in terms of how crucial it is to the economy, financial services

and the industry around it has to be protected, doesn't it? It has to be

protect it often from itself from its own culture. Had this

excoriating report from the government's social mobility

commission last week about people in brown shoes being refused top jobs

in the City, despite their first-class degrees. It has to be

regulated. And I think to keep it in its global pre-eminent position, not

just within the Eurozone but globally, it has to move both with

these times of digital change, but it also has to understand that the

model of the last 30 years, in which it was pre-eminent, will probably

change. Finance has to find a new role in the wider economy. How is it

going to do that, when you think about how much it contributes to the

GDP and how prominent, the reason it is so prominent, financial services,

because we do not do anything else quite as well, it does not make us

quite as much money? We make excellent things, in factories,

manufacturer, we don't just make financial services. But it has

absolutely got to be nurtured. One of the red lines for John McDonnell

is passporting. That is above free movement, which surprisingly for a

lot of Labour people, has no red line. We have got to keep a global

finance industry in London. If you turn it upside down the other way,

it would be an act of vandalism for them to destroy London, attempt to

destroy London and try and switch it to Frankfurt, which certainly does

not have the capability. There is no way in which France with its

neighbour laws would become the capital... They will try. Of course

they will try. But the great lesson from London's financial history is

that the key is always openness, and openness to outside influence, to

immigration, to new ideas. And the one time in the City's history where

it has come close to serious decline and collapse, which was the

beginning of the First World War, right up to the 1960s, it was shot

from the outside world by exchange controls. That liberation which in

big bang tells us that openness is what matters. So not regulation. But

for a lot of people, a lot of our viewers, they will say the banks

were the ones who caused the financial crash. Well, they were the

ones, they caused all the hardship of recession and the cuts which then

came, and it was a financial crisis not of voters' making. That's true.

And that was your fault, felt a lot of voters, because it was

deregulatory, banks were allowed to do what they liked and they had not

been monitored. Well, it started in America and the sub-prime market. I

think it is absolutely true that some of our biggest banks became

very exposed to very risky lending, and did so in a way which was

concealed, and it happened in northern rock as well. The reality

was... The reality was that the Governor of the Bank of England and

the head of the Financial Services Authority and the heads of all of

those banks, me, the City Minister and my counterparts all around the

world, all of us failed to see that growing crisis. Inflation was low,

we thought things were stable, and then when it was revealed, no but he

knew exactly what was happening underneath. It was terrible. I say

in my book, while you look around the world for risks, you've got to

keep your eye on what's happening right in front of your nose. Nobody

knew what was happening in NatWest RBS, it was terrible. And I know

there were people who say they warned about it, but they say that a

lot of it was done by Labour to pay for public services, which needed

that money? Yes, via taxation and things like

that. But you don't want to strangle the golden goose. It did that

itself. The period you mentioned, World War I until the 70s happened

because, first of all, financial markets collapsed in the late 1920s.

A new economic model came along which suppressed global finance. I

want to do financial eyes the world. And this country. That does not mean

that there is no industry we just end speculative finance as much as

we can. -- I want to definancialise. But it became too big. Because of

cheap money policies, lent too much, and became too leveraged. And right

back to 1720, they're always crashes in the history of the city and in

the world of global finance. Don't presume it will not happen again.

How damaging will it be for the city if the UK leads the single market

altogether? -- leaves. Terrible. Gloom is overdone. Interviewed a lot

of people from the city for this which predicted gloom and absolute

disaster. -- I interviewed. But the city is full of clever, inventive

people. After the referendum a few told me that they were thinking

there might be opportunity. They might change their Mac reminds. And

the old viewers on fixed regulatory block, which ran out at brussels. --

their mines. They thought they might not be able to keep up with what is

happening in digital development. It is about to be blown apart in a big

way. London is well placed to benefit from it. -- Brussels. Jeremy

Corbyn seemed to be fairly sanguine about the idea about not being part

of the single market at all. Should the city try to be part of it?

Absolutely. So it would be damaging? Yes. Jeremy Corbyn's position was

that we need access. The problem with saying we will be in the EEA,

Labour is no longer in control. You can have access at any level, can't

you? But, membership, it is complete membership. Access, anybody can have

access if you are prepared to pay. Tariff free access is different. You

have to be a member. We don't know because Theresa May will not tell

anybody what the terms of negotiation are. How can Labour

commit to staying within the EEA when they do not know the terms? You

are saying he is broadly in favour of staying in the single market, or

having access. Yes. Why is it terrible? Paul is right about

Theresa May. There is only so many times you can say Brexit before

people get frustrated. You will find we already are. We are going to

leave the EU, we are not on the single currency, but are we

withdrawing from economic co-operation with our neighbours and

going it alone, are we cutting ourselves off from the global

economy, are we trying to find a new way to be part of this system? The

city is one of our great strengths. Despite the mistakes of the

financial crisis. Over the next 20, 30, 40 years we needed to play a

more important role for us, not less. It is lawyers, accountants,

people investing ordinary pension fund -- pension funders' savings.

The strength has always been based on open, international, global

Britain. If we retreat from that it would be a tragedy. Thanks very

much. So much for politics,

because Ed's left that all behind now, for a new career

as a ballroom dancer. I have been waiting all day for

this. The juxtaposition. He made his debut on Strictly Come

Dancing on Saturday - The former Shadow

Chancellor, Ed Balls! # Well I know that the

boogaloo is out of sight # But the shingaling's

the thing tonight # But if that was you

and me now baby #. # Aaaaaaaaaah #.

you shake your tailfeather We should all be in glitter and

sequins. Joining us now,

another ex-politician, but whose dancing

pedigree is a little more Former Lib Dem Business

Secretary Vince Cable - here What did you think of his first

outing? Not bad. Well you pleasantly surprised? Yeah, he hasn't done it

before. My first positive review. Hold onto it. The suit wasn't right,

but the steps were OK. As you go through you will have to decide if

you are going to be a hapless type, John Ann Widdecombe... What advice

would you give me? -- John Sergeant, Ann Widdecombe. You do things well,

you play football, you like playing the piano. I learnt something from

doing it. Did you? We will show some pictures of you dancing. There was

one thing where I was terrible, my posture was bad. And I heard you

already knew how to dance. Yes. But my posture was terrible. Anton took

me aside and said if you want to improve you need to get this sorted.

You look very professional. I remember watching it at the time.

Look at those spins. Ed, you were talking earlier about the training.

What is it like? Totally exhausting. But not physically, it is actually

more mentally exhausting. I did seven hours yesterday. That is a

lot. You have to remember everything. And because of muscle

memory. If I messed up, she makes me, Katya and she makes me stop and

start again. I start from nothing. I am a novice. But on this show you

have to try and learn. I don't want to be dragged on the floor and doing

it as a joke. I want to get better. Let's all take to the dance floor

and do a ballroom hold. Vince, since you are an expert ballroom dancer,

and he does not know how to do ballroom, can you? I can't. The BBC

are stopping me. I signed a contract. People more powerful than

you and me will stop me. What is a good ballroom hold, Vince, then? It

is a good stance. It is stretching. Stretch from the bottom. Yes. My

teacher tells me you have to imagine somebody is pulling your head up.

You are leaning back, you need to keep straight. Hand? Up. And a tiny

bit out. It is getting there. More angled. And this? They did not say

this was in my contract. Get in. I am! You have to get more physical.

I'm so used to looking at the camera. How do we look? Much

improved. Thanks very much. There is not enough room in the studio to go

anywhere. That is the closest I will get Strictly. That was rather

exciting. Do you think things would be a good teacher? He would be

great. The thing about the strings. Your posture is naturally better

than a lot of people. There you go, you can do that for the rest of the

day. Katya Will be delighted. Problem is, as I start moving, I get

hunched up. I look like a rugby player. I asked my children about

it, and they said I looked like a camp rugby player.

CHUCKLES Thank you for my lesson. The cheque

is in the post. Now - from top dog

on the dance floor - Yes, it's the Westminster Dog

of the Year show and Ellie's been out to watch MPs and peers

parading their canine friends. It is time for politicians to prove

how in touch they are with normal people and normal dogs. A time for

me to use terrible puns about man's best friend, it is the Westminster

dog of the year. Let me pause you. I need to ask no leading questions.

This is our family working cocker spaniel. She will be five in a

couple of weeks. This is her first trip to London. She is bemused by

the pigeons who move very slowly and all of the smell 's London office.

This is the owner, she was bred in eastern Europe and she was smuggled

here. It is important to raise the issue of poppy smuggling. We have

had him for eight months. He is pretty much part of the family. He

cants loudly. He comes from Scotland, we are not used the heat.

-- pants loudly. Sit, now wait. There we go. They are like the Green

party. Yes, joint leadership. This one is Clinton and this one is

Kennedy. Paw. MPs always say they are worried about the paw. I think

we should give a free rescued greyhound to every pensioner. Think

you have seen enough of the ruff and tumble this year, this race just got

pawsitively furocious, get it? Of course we do. And we are now

joined by Clinton and Kennedy. I like the political names. What are

they? They are labradoodles. Named after the presidents. But they could

be Jackie and Hillary Clinton, as well. They are sisters, aren't they?

They are. How do you win? You have to enter. Answers questions. They

have been inspected. The judges have seen them. We did some embarrassing

obstacles, as well. It is a public vote. And were outsiders. And the

Labour side it is nice to win something. Cherish it. And this is

what you won? Yes, and it even gets engraved. I'm very happy. As my four

children will be extremely delighted. They are going to be so

proud. To be on the winning side. They would have liked to have come

along. They would have engaged. But they will be over the moon. They are

a big part of family life. Was it fun? A lot of fun. It has mainly

been won by Conservative MPs, so there was a competitive edge. We

needed to wrestle it back. Labradoodle? Never heard of them.

They are very popular. Well done, Clinton, well done, Kennedy, enjoy

the win. Do the move, you need to keep

practising before Saturday. That's it. Keep dancing. Goodbye.

in a brand-new BBC Two quiz show, Debatable,

where a team of celebrities put their debating skills to the test

to try to win their contestants pots of cash.

Will they help, or will they hinder? That's Debatable.