:00:37. > :00:44.Theresa May sets out major changes to the school system in England,
:00:45. > :00:48.with plans for a new wave of grammar schools.
:00:49. > :00:50.The Prime Minister wants existing grammar schools
:00:51. > :00:54.in England to expand, new ones to open and some existing
:00:55. > :01:03.This time next week we'll know who's taking over from Nigel Farage
:01:04. > :01:10.We take a look at the runners and riders.
:01:11. > :01:13.And Brexit banter, UB40 and Parliamentary Dog of the Year -
:01:14. > :01:22.we take a look back at the political week, in 60 seconds.
:01:23. > :01:27.All that in the next hour and with us for the duration,
:01:28. > :01:31.former Labour advisor turned stand-up comedian Matt Forde,
:01:32. > :01:43.She does the jokes at the Economists, not that there is many.
:01:44. > :01:47.First, Labour, and with two weeks to go until the result
:01:48. > :01:49.of the Labour leadership contest, the two candidates went head-to-head
:01:50. > :01:51.in a Question Time special on BBC One last night.
:01:52. > :01:53.Here's a quick taste of how the two men,
:01:54. > :01:58.Unless I misunderstood you, you said you would like to see
:01:59. > :02:00.Labour go into the next election saying - our party policy
:02:01. > :02:12.Because we need to find out what it is.
:02:13. > :02:15.Brexit vote set a direction, if you like, we don't know
:02:16. > :02:22.Jeremy, it is fine saying, you were there, debating Brexit
:02:23. > :02:24.during the referendum, but we didn't hear that
:02:25. > :02:37.We put the case to Remain and reform, we didn't win
:02:38. > :02:44.We have to work with the results of it.
:02:45. > :02:55.Owen, I don't fully understand what the problem is.
:02:56. > :02:57.You obviously have enormous talents, why can't we work together?
:02:58. > :03:00.Well, I've said it several times, Jeremy.
:03:01. > :03:05.If I felt you were going to lead Labour back to power, I would work
:03:06. > :03:08.with you in the Shadow Cabinet but I feel you are satisfied to lead
:03:09. > :03:21.There we go a flavour of what happened last night. Two weeks to G
:03:22. > :03:25.what did you make of it? I thought the first clip wags interesting. We
:03:26. > :03:28.saw Owen Smith being put under pressure on that commitment to
:03:29. > :03:32.effectively ignore the referendum result. I think it is odd
:03:33. > :03:36.positioning for him, in a party where one-third of Labour voters
:03:37. > :03:39.voted out in the referendum. I could see a strong pro-European tact that
:03:40. > :03:43.he should take. I thought Jeremy Corbyn, as we saw there, put him
:03:44. > :03:46.rather on the spot on that. You do have to work with the result,
:03:47. > :03:51.whether you are a Remainer or Brexiter. The problem then, I think
:03:52. > :03:54.for Owen Smith is that really, does he look like a credible candidate
:03:55. > :03:59.against Jeremy Corbyn? It perhaps looks as if he is the bravest. He is
:04:00. > :04:04.the one that has been prepared to stick his neck out. But I think it
:04:05. > :04:08.is a bit of a stretch to say - well, if we had this guy we would
:04:09. > :04:10.certainly be heading back to car, if we keep Jeremy Corbyn we wouldn't.
:04:11. > :04:15.That's the problem Labour voters will have with it. The consensus
:04:16. > :04:18.seemed to be last night. This was the big debate, BBC One, big
:04:19. > :04:23.audience, there are other debates, of course but this seemed to be the
:04:24. > :04:28.one where you had to perform to get cut through, Mr Corbyn did better
:04:29. > :04:32.than Mr Owen. He did all right. But he had the audience on his side,
:04:33. > :04:37.significantly. I think one of the most frustrating things as a viewer
:04:38. > :04:40.has been and it is an issue for the BBC and other broadcasters, how do
:04:41. > :04:46.you get an audience that's genuinely nonpartisan. If you are opening it
:04:47. > :04:50.up online, people pretend they are floating voters or not Corbynistas
:04:51. > :04:54.or not Remainers or Brexiters. From the moment that started last night,
:04:55. > :05:02.Owen Smith was facial a wall of noise. It was perfectly responsible
:05:03. > :05:07.for people to cheeks but if I didn't have to watch it for work, I would
:05:08. > :05:10.have turned it off. There is a level of political discourse that none of
:05:11. > :05:13.us should welcome. Some level of noise and cheering is fine but I
:05:14. > :05:16.felt last night there was a level of aggression in the audience that
:05:17. > :05:20.Corbyn at times faced, it wasn't all from his side but you got the sense
:05:21. > :05:23.from watching it, as neutrally as you can, that Owen Smith was up
:05:24. > :05:28.against it before he opened his mouth. Owen Smith didn't have a
:05:29. > :05:31.breakthrough last night. It wasn't a game changer for him. He was the
:05:32. > :05:35.challenger, you need game changers if you were the chal Enner. It would
:05:36. > :05:38.be possible to conclude, I would suggest, that it is therefore, all
:05:39. > :05:43.over. - the challenger. I should think it is. A sharp intake of
:05:44. > :05:48.breath to my right here. Briefly, I think it probably is all over. It
:05:49. > :05:52.feels like the momentum is with Corbyn. Let's be honest, the
:05:53. > :05:56.organisation is far better on the left of the Labour Party than what
:05:57. > :06:00.used to be right of the party or even the centre of the party. A lot
:06:01. > :06:06.of t never mind entryism but exitism going on. Exitism, is that just
:06:07. > :06:11.outside Exeter. I suppose the cynic would say last night was a squabble
:06:12. > :06:14.over who gets to lose in 2020? I don't think that deblight have have
:06:15. > :06:17.made any difference. People's minds were set at the start of the
:06:18. > :06:22.campaign, people joined either to support Corbyn or Smith and wherever
:06:23. > :06:26.you take the data from, and we have seen the polling, members of the
:06:27. > :06:29.party pre-Corbyn support Smith and those who joined to support Corbyn
:06:30. > :06:32.are still there. You could have had no debates in the contest and it
:06:33. > :06:38.probably wouldn't have affected the outcome. Well, the result will be on
:06:39. > :06:42.Saturday, the day before the Labour Conference begins on Liverpool on
:06:43. > :06:46.the Sunday. Now it is time for our daily quiz:
:06:47. > :06:56.Exsitentialism, what does it mean? No. That's for another day.
:06:57. > :07:00.the Chancellor Philip Hammond apparently dropped?
:07:01. > :07:03.B) fixing the roof while the sun shines?
:07:04. > :07:15.At the end of the show, Anne and Matt will give us
:07:16. > :07:28.We learned yesterday the Autumn Statement, Mr Hammond's first major
:07:29. > :07:34.act as Chancellor will be on November 23rd. Of course we will
:07:35. > :07:35.bring it all to you, here, live on the Daily Politics special on BBC
:07:36. > :07:40.Two. In her first major domestic policy
:07:41. > :07:43.speech this morning, the Prime Minister has set
:07:44. > :07:50.out her plans for education They are much more far-reaching,
:07:51. > :07:53.whether you agree or disagree is another matter. They are much more
:07:54. > :07:54.far-reaching than anybody thought. Including many of her Tory
:07:55. > :07:57.colleagues. Theresa May wants to end the ban
:07:58. > :08:05.on selective schools, introduced by Mr Blair in the last
:08:06. > :08:08.Labour Government and used to set out her vision for turning
:08:09. > :08:11.schools into "an engine Mrs May wants to allow new grammar
:08:12. > :08:16.schools to open and give the green light to existing grammar schools
:08:17. > :08:18.wanting to expand. In her speech she said she plans
:08:19. > :08:21.to make "this country a true meritocracy" and laid out
:08:22. > :08:26.a number of suggestions for how to achieve this,
:08:27. > :08:29.through more selection in schools. The Government will consult
:08:30. > :08:34.on proposals to require new or expanding grammar schools
:08:35. > :08:36.to take a proportion of pupils from lower income households,
:08:37. > :08:39.to establish new non-selective free schools, and to sponsor feeder
:08:40. > :08:42.schools in areas with a high density The Prime Minister also intends
:08:43. > :08:55.to change existing rules which mean religious groups opening free
:08:56. > :08:57.schools can only allocate 50% of places to children whose
:08:58. > :09:00.parents are of that faith. The rule has been seen
:09:01. > :09:05.as a particular barrier to the Catholic Church opening free
:09:06. > :09:07.schools because it didn't agree Downing Street say they will lift
:09:08. > :09:15.this cap, while also making faith schools do more to make
:09:16. > :09:18.sure their pupils integrate Theresa May made the case
:09:19. > :09:33.for her belief in the power of selective schools to raise
:09:34. > :09:35.standards in education - The debate over selective schools
:09:36. > :09:39.has raged for years but the only place it has got us to,
:09:40. > :09:42.is a place where selection exists if you are wealthy,
:09:43. > :09:45.if you can afford to go private We are effectively saying to poorer
:09:46. > :09:51.and some of the most disadvantaged children in our country
:09:52. > :09:53.that they can't have the kind of education their richer
:09:54. > :09:55.counterparts can enjoy. Where is the meritocracy
:09:56. > :10:01.in a system that advantages How can a meritocratic Britain let
:10:02. > :10:08.this position stand? We can talk now to our
:10:09. > :10:10.political correspondent, Alex Forsyth, who was watching
:10:11. > :10:22.the Prime Minister's speech earlier. Snr there was an expectation for
:10:23. > :10:25.when Mrs May became Prime Minister she would allow existing grammar
:10:26. > :10:31.schools to expand and maybe allow a few new ones. That has turned out to
:10:32. > :10:36.be far more wide-reaching than what we anticipated, isn't it? It has. It
:10:37. > :10:42.is radical, bold and bear in mind this is her first major domestic
:10:43. > :10:47.policy speech and she has gone out all guns blazing. I think her own
:10:48. > :10:50.opinion about grammar schools has been clear for a while, she has
:10:51. > :10:53.grammar schools in her constituency and wrote a blog a couple of years
:10:54. > :10:56.ago, encouraging the expansion of local grammar schools, so it is no
:10:57. > :10:59.big surprise she supports the concept of selective education and
:11:00. > :11:03.we have heard rumours about some sort of policy, about allowing
:11:04. > :11:09.existing grammar schools to ex-SPAD since she took office. On the
:11:10. > :11:12.grammar school front, yes, expansion of existing ones but also new ones,
:11:13. > :11:15.but it goes wider than that, encouraging new faith school places
:11:16. > :11:19.and new Catholic schools to open. About universities and independent
:11:20. > :11:23.schools having to get involved ape either set up or sponsor state
:11:24. > :11:27.schools as well. The real message from Theresa May today was directly
:11:28. > :11:30.counter--ing criticism about a return to the only binary system of
:11:31. > :11:33.the past, where you had grammar schools and then the secondary mod
:11:34. > :11:37.earns and very much felt that those who went to the grammar schools went
:11:38. > :11:41.on it to flourish and those who didn't were left behind it languish.
:11:42. > :11:45.What she was trying to say today was she wants to create a diverse school
:11:46. > :11:48.system where there is a range of options in every local area, so
:11:49. > :11:51.children can go to the best school for them, for their parents, for
:11:52. > :11:57.their skills, for their abilities. Of course that's not going to cancel
:11:58. > :12:01.all critty, we know the Labour Party and Lib Dems are opposed to this.
:12:02. > :12:06.Let me ask you this, where do we go from here? There is a will the that
:12:07. > :12:08.still has to be fleshed out, by no means, were all the questions
:12:09. > :12:13.answered this morning. There will have to be a long period of
:12:14. > :12:17.consultation I assume, as well, and will there have to be legislation,
:12:18. > :12:22.too? Do we have any idea of the timetable? We that we can expect
:12:23. > :12:25.further details on Monday when these proposals will be put before
:12:26. > :12:28.Parliament, so perhaps some more detail there. We also know that
:12:29. > :12:32.Theresa May's approach traditionally is a fairly cautious one. She
:12:33. > :12:36.welcomes the idea of consultation and I think what you are hearing is
:12:37. > :12:40.that this was a genuine consultation, this is her concept,
:12:41. > :12:44.her vision and ideas and then there will be a process of feedback and
:12:45. > :12:47.feeding into that before definitive proposals come forward. At some
:12:48. > :12:50.point this has to get through Parliament. We know because the
:12:51. > :12:53.opposition parties don't support the idea of selective education
:12:54. > :12:57.particularly, a number of Conservative MPs do like the idea of
:12:58. > :13:02.a return to grammar schools by by no mean always. Carmichael the Chair of
:13:03. > :13:04.the Education Select Committee, has expressed concerns about whether
:13:05. > :13:12.this really will help social mobility. The test is two-followed.
:13:13. > :13:14.Not just convincing those in the education establishment, and
:13:15. > :13:18.convincing parents, but she'll also have to get this through Parliament.
:13:19. > :13:21.Thank you very much for that. We'll keep across this big news story,
:13:22. > :13:27.hitting the British political system. In a moment we'll talks to
:13:28. > :13:32.the Schools Minister, Nick Gibb. But first, joining us is Lucy Powell,
:13:33. > :13:36.Labour's former Shadow Education Secretary. Well back. Is it your
:13:37. > :13:40.position, Labour's position to be against all selection by ability?
:13:41. > :13:45.Selection is not a good thing and that is what all the evidence shows
:13:46. > :13:48.us, that those who are most disadvantaged by a selective system
:13:49. > :13:52.are those from the poorest background. And that's why we will
:13:53. > :13:58.oppose this measure. We are opposed to selection. And we think this is a
:13:59. > :14:01.retro grade step. Because the biggest challenge that our schools
:14:02. > :14:06.system, our education system faces, it is the one it has faced for many,
:14:07. > :14:11.many years, is the long tale of underachievement. It's not what
:14:12. > :14:15.happens to the top 20% that do very well in our education system. It's
:14:16. > :14:19.the long tale of underachievement. And that gap was narrowing under the
:14:20. > :14:24.last Labour Government. It started to widen again under this
:14:25. > :14:28.Conservative Government and, introducing selection will take that
:14:29. > :14:33.gap wider still, because that's what all the evidence shows us, which is
:14:34. > :14:37.why the social mobilities tsar, the Government's own social mobility
:14:38. > :14:41.tsar, the Chief Inspector of Schools, the Chair of the Tory
:14:42. > :14:43.Education Select Committee, the Sutton Tru, the institution that
:14:44. > :14:48.looks most at social mobility are all against the measure. To be clear
:14:49. > :14:56.there, nothing in what Mrs May has said that you find appealing.
:14:57. > :15:00.Nothing? The only thing I liked in her speech today was that she
:15:01. > :15:04.rightly identified that free school meals is not the only measure of
:15:05. > :15:09.deprivation, and that there are many working poor families whose kids
:15:10. > :15:15.also need extra support at school. So if she wants to look at extending
:15:16. > :15:18.the pupil premium beyond those who are on free school meals to those
:15:19. > :15:25.that are the working poor families as well, I think that would be a
:15:26. > :15:30.very good thing to do indeed. So her analysis, in many ways, was right,
:15:31. > :15:34.the solution is totally wrong. But what is the principal objection to
:15:35. > :15:41.an element of selection by ability in a school system, which is famous,
:15:42. > :15:46.both in the private and in the state sector, for having selection by
:15:47. > :15:50.wealth? Why do we tolerate selection by wealth, and yet you are so
:15:51. > :15:56.against selection by ability, regardless of wealth? I am not for
:15:57. > :16:00.selection by wealth either, but that is what happens especially with
:16:01. > :16:04.grammar schools, where private Jewish in an spending extra money on
:16:05. > :16:13.going to a private prep school or having private Jewish and is the
:16:14. > :16:20.single biggest... It is not just -- private cherishing. You take the top
:16:21. > :16:25.500, and since in Britain, only 6% of pupils going to these state
:16:26. > :16:29.schools are on free school meals, which is a decent enough proxy of
:16:30. > :16:35.poor background, whereas the national averages over 16%, so even
:16:36. > :16:41.the copperheads of system is selecting on wealth. -- the
:16:42. > :16:46.comprehensive system. Why would a bit of selection on ability not be
:16:47. > :16:54.preferable? Firstly what we need to aim towards, there is an outstanding
:16:55. > :16:58.school in every community. These are figures after 13 years. Let me
:16:59. > :17:02.finish, the other thing we should be looking at is how we measure what a
:17:03. > :17:07.good school is. It is not simply about what results you get at the
:17:08. > :17:10.end of that school experience. Because if you come from an
:17:11. > :17:15.advantaged background where you are well supported, and you are able,
:17:16. > :17:21.you would do well at those schools, which is why those schools get the
:17:22. > :17:27.results. But the progress measure is what we should be judging a score
:17:28. > :17:30.by. My point to you, Lucy Powell, which I would like you to address
:17:31. > :17:37.because it is a really important issue is this, that we have
:17:38. > :17:40.substantial selection by wealth in our state system, in the state
:17:41. > :17:47.system. What are we going to do about that? We need to support for
:17:48. > :17:51.schools to improve. That's meaningless. I would say to you for
:17:52. > :17:54.example there is an outstanding school in the middle of Manchester
:17:55. > :18:00.that serves my constituency that just recently had an Ofsted
:18:01. > :18:07.outstanding in every single category. A deprived white working
:18:08. > :18:19.class community, they got outstanding results. Where they take
:18:20. > :18:25.their children from and where they get them to is significantly better
:18:26. > :18:28.than some of the middle-class competence of schools, certainly
:18:29. > :18:32.than many of the grammar schools, and actually in many cases many of
:18:33. > :18:37.the private schools as well. So I think if you flip out how you look
:18:38. > :18:40.at these things, middle-class parents choose middle-class schools
:18:41. > :18:44.combat what we need outstanding schools that are showing progress.
:18:45. > :18:49.All right, I am going to have to stop you there. But I am grateful
:18:50. > :18:54.for it, and I hope in the weeks ahead we will have plenty more time
:18:55. > :18:58.to talk. I notice your pet subject editors minus well. We will both go
:18:59. > :19:08.through it together, thank you, Lucy Powell. The schools Minister joins
:19:09. > :19:11.us from outside the rather splendid premises where Mrs May made her
:19:12. > :19:17.speech. What is your electoral mandate to do this? In the manifesto
:19:18. > :19:23.we said we wanted to increase the number of good school places,
:19:24. > :19:26.whether that is a grammar school. What the speech today was all about
:19:27. > :19:30.was creating more good school places. That is why we want the
:19:31. > :19:32.university 's help us establish good schools, we want the independent
:19:33. > :19:34.sector tout is why we want the universities to help us establish
:19:35. > :19:37.good schools, we want the independent sector tout us establish
:19:38. > :19:39.them to establish more good school places, whether that is by expanding
:19:40. > :19:43.or by establishing new grammar schools or buy them establishing
:19:44. > :19:49.primary schools or nonselective schools. The manifesto actually said
:19:50. > :19:54.we will allow all good schools to expand. They didn't say you are
:19:55. > :19:59.going to create new grammar schools. It didn't say you were going to
:20:00. > :20:05.allow selection of existing state schools to take place, or to create
:20:06. > :20:10.new grammar schools in areas where there are already combines its.
:20:11. > :20:15.That's not in the manifesto. So again, where is your electoral
:20:16. > :20:19.mandate? We want more good school places throughout the country, and
:20:20. > :20:23.over the last six years we have reformed our education system,
:20:24. > :20:26.bringing about improvements in schools that have historically
:20:27. > :20:29.underperformed. So now there are 1.4 million more pupils in schools that
:20:30. > :20:34.are good and outstanding, and we want to build on that. We want to
:20:35. > :20:39.build on those good school places and create more. We want to build on
:20:40. > :20:43.the diversity of our school system and allow people, young people from
:20:44. > :20:48.poor backgrounds, to have the same access to the kind of education that
:20:49. > :20:53.has historically only been available to those who can pay school fees or
:20:54. > :20:57.who can afford to move to areas that have outstanding schools. Already
:20:58. > :21:01.183 grammar schools left, why didn't they help for students? Why have
:21:02. > :21:12.they been largely irrelevant in helping poor students? They help
:21:13. > :21:21.those who attend them. What is the percentage? They are not perform...
:21:22. > :21:25.What is the percentage? It is 3% of children on free school meals,
:21:26. > :21:30.again, a good proxy or poverty, get into the existing grammar schools.
:21:31. > :21:36.The national average is 16%, so the existing grammar schools are doing
:21:37. > :21:42.very little for social mobility. I absolutely agree with that. When you
:21:43. > :21:45.see the details that we published on Monday, you will see there are
:21:46. > :21:49.conditions attached. We want grammar schools to be doing more to work
:21:50. > :21:52.with their feeder grammar schools. A lot of children from poorer families
:21:53. > :21:56.are not applying the grammar schools. Some of the feeder grammar
:21:57. > :22:00.schools are not giving their children the prior operations they
:22:01. > :22:04.need to get into those grammar schools. We want those issues
:22:05. > :22:09.addressed and actually you can find grammar schools around the country
:22:10. > :22:12.that are working very hard to reach out to children from poorer
:22:13. > :22:15.families, and they are delivering that objective and getting more poor
:22:16. > :22:23.children into those grammar schools, and that is what want to see
:22:24. > :22:31.throughout the school system. Let's ask you about some details. Who will
:22:32. > :22:37.decide to form a new grammar school? That can be as now, the Free School
:22:38. > :22:42.programme is all about encouraging groups of teachers or parents or a
:22:43. > :22:46.charitable foundation, or existing outstanding or good schools. We do
:22:47. > :22:52.encourage them now. So Free schools can become grammar schools, is that
:22:53. > :22:55.right? Existing ones and new free schools can become grammar schools?
:22:56. > :23:01.Yes, what this is about is about taking away a barrier to
:23:02. > :23:05.establishing good news schools. We are not talking about going back to
:23:06. > :23:09.the binary system of the 1950s and 60s. We have a very diverse
:23:10. > :23:12.education system now, where 85% of schools are good or outstanding, and
:23:13. > :23:18.we want to add an element of diversity so that we can be sure
:23:19. > :23:22.that poor children, bright, poor children, are being given the same
:23:23. > :23:26.opportunities, no matter where they live in the country, children who
:23:27. > :23:30.live in Kent for Bucks, or who can afford private education, we want
:23:31. > :23:36.poor children to have those same opportunities. That is what this is
:23:37. > :23:44.about. Let me ask you this. If an existing comprehensive desired --
:23:45. > :23:49.decides a percentage of its intake will be selected on ability, does
:23:50. > :23:56.that make it a grammar school? That would make it what is called a
:23:57. > :24:02.bilateral school. A what? A partially selective school or a
:24:03. > :24:06.bilateral school. They have already been selecting 35%, for example
:24:07. > :24:10.Watford Grammar boys school, and Watford Grammar school for girls,
:24:11. > :24:16.they are partially selective, 75% of the pupils are of comprehensive
:24:17. > :24:20.intake. There are other schools around the country like that. We
:24:21. > :24:27.want to have a diverse system, so that an academy can decide to select
:24:28. > :24:32.a smaller percentage of pupils. What sort of percentage are we looking
:24:33. > :24:38.at? You are saying some schools, existing conferences may be to do
:24:39. > :24:48.some selection by ability, what sort of percentage are looking at? Like
:24:49. > :24:52.Watford, like as Sean school. They select 12 .5, 15% of their pupils,
:24:53. > :24:56.up to 35% already do so. There aren't that many of them but it is
:24:57. > :25:00.an existing, historical type of school that that exist now. What we
:25:01. > :25:06.are saying in the White Paper, the green paper that we will publish on
:25:07. > :25:10.Monday, is that we want there to be more diversity in our school system,
:25:11. > :25:16.so we can make sure that every child from whatever background... I
:25:17. > :25:23.understand, you have made that point, everybody has that aim, the
:25:24. > :25:26.question is always the means. Is it your intention, as selection
:25:27. > :25:31.spreads, with extending existing grammar schools, new grammar schools
:25:32. > :25:35.and existing comprehensives allowed to do an element of selection, isn't
:25:36. > :25:39.still your intention that selection will still be done primarily by the
:25:40. > :25:46.11 plus and the spread of the 11 plus? These are the kinds of details
:25:47. > :25:50.that we will be consulting on. Pretty big detail. After Monday,
:25:51. > :25:53.when we publish the green paper. This is a government that wants to
:25:54. > :26:00.consult widely on policy objectives, and those are the kinds of details.
:26:01. > :26:06.The 11 plus surely is not fit for purpose? Sorry to interrupt, the 11
:26:07. > :26:11.plus is surely not fit for purpose, as something that can determine
:26:12. > :26:17.pupils future is at the age of 11, with a one winner takes all type
:26:18. > :26:21.test? What the Prime Minister spoke about today was allowing flexibility
:26:22. > :26:26.for new grammar schools, so pupils can enter later at 14 or 16, as well
:26:27. > :26:32.as at age 11. We also want a process that doesn't allow pupils to cheated
:26:33. > :26:35.to get through that selection process and there are grammar
:26:36. > :26:39.schools already, particularly in Kent, that by working on Jupiter
:26:40. > :26:43.probe selection processes in those schools. Good luck with that. We are
:26:44. > :26:46.actually over time, but I have one more question for you it is such an
:26:47. > :26:52.important issue. Isn't the danger you face of the desire for more
:26:53. > :26:59.social mobility that the new grammar schools, the extension of existing
:27:00. > :27:02.grammar schools, introducing more selection on ability into
:27:03. > :27:07.comprehensives, that that is all more likely to happen if it happens
:27:08. > :27:11.at all in already existing middle-class, Tory areas, and that
:27:12. > :27:18.it will simply make the educational divide even wider? No, because we're
:27:19. > :27:23.not going back to a binary system. We have a school system now where
:27:24. > :27:27.schools have improved unrecognisably over the last exteriors, and even
:27:28. > :27:32.beyond that. So we now have a system where 80 to 85% of all schools are
:27:33. > :27:36.graded good and outstanding, 1.4 million more pupils today in good
:27:37. > :27:39.and outstanding schools than in 2010. The whole reform programme
:27:40. > :27:44.over the last six years has been about school improvement and it has
:27:45. > :27:47.been working. But it is a very diverse education system, so what
:27:48. > :27:51.this is about is about making sure that that diversity and genuine
:27:52. > :27:55.choice for parents isn't just confined to those middle-class areas
:27:56. > :27:59.you are talking about. We want it to spread the part of the country where
:28:00. > :28:03.the 1.25 million pupils who don't have access to a good or outstanding
:28:04. > :28:07.school, where they live. That is the objective, to spread it right across
:28:08. > :28:14.the country. We will be hoping to talk to you a lot more on this
:28:15. > :28:17.subject, Nick did. You have been in and out of the sun and shadows while
:28:18. > :28:19.you have been doing this and I know it is not easy, even more difficult
:28:20. > :28:29.for the cameraman to keep the lighting proper, so we thank you. --
:28:30. > :28:33.Nick Gibb, the schools minister. This is a massive reform of the
:28:34. > :28:37.school system, you almost feel as if it was being done on the back of a
:28:38. > :28:43.fag packet. There is that, and I think the context matters, this is
:28:44. > :28:50.what Theresa May has set herself different from her predecessor, to
:28:51. > :28:54.rise above the Brexit debate and set herself as a traditional Tory. But
:28:55. > :28:57.in her defence, I would say in education where state schools are
:28:58. > :29:02.failing, you do need to be radical about tackling a lack of attainment,
:29:03. > :29:04.and if I lived in an area and I had children and there was a good
:29:05. > :29:08.grammar school there, whatever I thought of it I will try to get my
:29:09. > :29:11.child into it. Now education has changed, thanks to academies and
:29:12. > :29:21.free schools, I hate to agree with Nick did, but it is not a binary
:29:22. > :29:28.system any more. -- I hate to agree with Nick Gibb. So you were a bit
:29:29. > :29:34.disappointed in Lucy Powell's reaction, which was a traditional
:29:35. > :29:37.Labour Party reaction? It was. Labour has entrenched itself in a
:29:38. > :29:41.pro combines a system where actually a lot of the people who espouse it
:29:42. > :29:46.did not go to comprehensives themselves. There is a scene in the
:29:47. > :29:50.original Batman movie with a joker sister Batman, where does he get all
:29:51. > :29:55.of his wonderful prose? Where did Theresa May get all of these ideas?
:29:56. > :29:58.She was Home Secretary, she has only been Prime Minister for a couple of
:29:59. > :30:03.months. Part of that time was walking the hills of Switzerland.
:30:04. > :30:08.Has she been secretly cooking all this up, or has she got an
:30:09. > :30:11.educational guru? I think I can answer your Batman question, it is
:30:12. > :30:15.what she has thought of her life, she didn't need to cook it up. That
:30:16. > :30:22.is the DNA of much of the Tory party, also Nick Webb, who until
:30:23. > :30:27.today was out there promoting academies and they would we did not
:30:28. > :30:31.hear once, possibly in passing -- Nick Gibb. The focus has turned to a
:30:32. > :30:36.return to grammar schools. I don't think it is back up the fag packet
:30:37. > :30:40.territory, Andrew, but there are so much complexity that you drew out in
:30:41. > :30:46.that interview with Nick Gibb, what is the age of selection? What is the
:30:47. > :30:50.manner of selection? What is the impact, and it was not addressed at
:30:51. > :30:54.all to the academies programme. We heard that school improvement was
:30:55. > :30:57.all going very well but if it was, why not simply tweak that, have
:30:58. > :31:03.greater selection perhaps within the academies programme, 20% roughly is
:31:04. > :31:06.what a lot of them get away with at the moment, move that upwards, why
:31:07. > :31:09.say you are going to bring back a grammar school, which as you pointed
:31:10. > :31:12.out seems to require a moment when you saw the sheep from the goats?
:31:13. > :31:14.That would be the very divisive thing. Questions, questions,
:31:15. > :31:17.questions. Earlier this week a group of British
:31:18. > :31:19.peers and Christian leaders travelled to Syria to meet the
:31:20. > :31:22.Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, and appeal for him to protect
:31:23. > :31:24.the lives of Christians The visit was criticised
:31:25. > :31:27.by MPs, for strengthening Soon afterwards, footage emerged
:31:28. > :31:30.showing what appeared to be the aftermath of a chlorine gas
:31:31. > :31:34.attack in Syria's On Wednesday, the Foreign Secretary,
:31:35. > :31:41.Boris Johnson, met Syrian opposition leaders in London to push
:31:42. > :31:43.for a resumption of peace talks It is obviously critical
:31:44. > :31:52.that the world, and all the interlocutors in Geneva,
:31:53. > :31:54.should be able to see that there is a future for Syria
:31:55. > :32:03.that goes beyond the Assad regime, and think that was one of the big
:32:04. > :32:06.questions that for years, frankly, we've been unable
:32:07. > :32:11.to answer satisfactory. What happens when
:32:12. > :32:15.Assad finally goes? And of course there is widespread
:32:16. > :32:18.agreement across the world that he must go, including
:32:19. > :32:24.with the Russians. There has been less clarity about
:32:25. > :32:29.the post-Assad vision for Syria. We've been joined by Caroline Cox,
:32:30. > :32:33.who was one of the group of British peers and Christian leaders who met
:32:34. > :32:47.Bashar Al-Assad this week. What did you hope to achieve by
:32:48. > :32:51.meeting the Syrian dictator? We have been heavily criticised for that. I
:32:52. > :32:55.have three quick answers. One if if you don't meet someone you can't
:32:56. > :33:00.raise criticism. Secondly we were invited by Muslim and Christian
:33:01. > :33:04.leaders. We spent two hours with Assad, we spent five days, listening
:33:05. > :33:07.to the local people. It was a tiny part of the visit but there is
:33:08. > :33:11.double standards in the crit civil. I work in Sudan, the Government is
:33:12. > :33:14.bombing its people there. Nobody makes the criticism. I understand
:33:15. > :33:17.that. But my question is - what did you hope to achieve? We raised our
:33:18. > :33:21.concerns with the President but we really went to hear the people and
:33:22. > :33:25.to hear their points. I understand that but I am anticipate talking
:33:26. > :33:28.about the meeting with Assad. We were able to raise our concerns and
:33:29. > :33:32.they are serious concerns. He had a chance to respond. We still have
:33:33. > :33:36.those concerns. But we have been seen to hear, it is important. You
:33:37. > :33:40.can't judge from a distance, you have to meet someone to hear
:33:41. > :33:44.criticisms. Did you come away, did you believe him, if he said he
:33:45. > :33:49.understood and would act on your concerns? He said he was perfectly
:33:50. > :33:52.prepared to have internationally supervised elections. One of the
:33:53. > :33:56.concerns we had from the people, the Syrian people have a right to choose
:33:57. > :33:59.their own leadership. They have to right to elections. They are very
:34:00. > :34:04.worried... Did you believe him? I do. Why? He has never had them
:34:05. > :34:08.before, except ones he has fixed? He said international observers but in
:34:09. > :34:11.the meantime the Syrian people have two concerns: The first is they have
:34:12. > :34:14.a right to choose their own leader and secondly they are very worried
:34:15. > :34:19.about the Government's approximately sieve forced regime change. The
:34:20. > :34:23.British Government's policy? Yes. These are all Assad talking points.
:34:24. > :34:27.I mean you have come away from it, we have this picture of you all
:34:28. > :34:32.meeting him there, this is the man that drops barrel bombs on people,
:34:33. > :34:37.and chemical weapons and chlorine is now being used and you come away and
:34:38. > :34:43.in your statement there, essentially is a mouth piece for this regime.
:34:44. > :34:47.You talk about the Syrian people must choose their own leader. That's
:34:48. > :34:52.right. It is unexceptional that he says that for a particular reason.
:34:53. > :34:57.You even quote the senior doctor's council. There are 4,000 doctors in
:34:58. > :35:01.Aleppo. The medical needs of the vast majority are impacted by the
:35:02. > :35:05.refusal of the international community to engage with the
:35:06. > :35:09.government. That's another Assad propaganda talking point. And you
:35:10. > :35:15.attack the Western media narrative, which is at the core of Assad's
:35:16. > :35:21.anti-Western talking points. You have become a mouth piece of this
:35:22. > :35:26.dictator. No, spokesmen, people who were there, heard the people, saw
:35:27. > :35:32.what happened on the day when they were criticisms. But the militant
:35:33. > :35:38.opposition groups also use chemical weapons, it is not reported. It was
:35:39. > :35:41.not reported. On one of the days we were there, when reported Assad on
:35:42. > :35:44.chemical weaponsical weapons there were four attacks on civilians by
:35:45. > :35:48.opposition groups, many who were burnt alive. It wasn't reported.
:35:49. > :35:52.There were four missiles on Aleppo on the day we were there, it is not
:35:53. > :35:57.reported. As you will understand, operating in Syria is very difficult
:35:58. > :36:00.for the media but I would suggest, where there are atrocities, the
:36:01. > :36:05.media has reported atrocities on both sides and for you to come in,
:36:06. > :36:10.many people, with whom we met, ie, Mr Assad's supporters, believe that
:36:11. > :36:16.the partisanship of many Western media narratives, that's an exact
:36:17. > :36:19.propaganda phrase coming out of the Syrian regime, Western media
:36:20. > :36:23.narratives. The Western media is reporting barrel bombs and it is
:36:24. > :36:26.reporting the beheading of Isis, where it can. And with great
:36:27. > :36:32.difficulty and many journalists have lost their lives in Syria. Agree. I
:36:33. > :36:35.have lost a colleague in Syria and you come back, spouting propaganda
:36:36. > :36:39.lines from a dictator? With great respect. We risked our lives to
:36:40. > :36:45.listen to the people. To hear the people. We met two of the ministers
:36:46. > :36:49.in opposition, not just President Assad. We met two opposition
:36:50. > :36:51.ministers and they are deeply concerned about the British
:36:52. > :36:57.Government's commitment to regime change. It'll be another Iraq. It is
:36:58. > :37:01.already. It'll be another one without re cystence. It is worse. It
:37:02. > :37:05.is worse for the people as it is now. They want a peaceful
:37:06. > :37:10.resolution. We tried to be their voices, we risked our lives to
:37:11. > :37:15.listen to their voices. You had seen Mr Assad. I shouldn't think your
:37:16. > :37:19.life is as much at risk than the people you are talking B it seems to
:37:20. > :37:25.come close to the ter trif useful idiots -- territory of. We didn't
:37:26. > :37:30.need to send an all-party group to listen to their concerns. Didn't it
:37:31. > :37:34.occur to you that this image, or indeed the Russian story which I
:37:35. > :37:39.notice isn't pryer advertised in your support. It seems an extremely
:37:40. > :37:42.foolhardy mission. With great respect, there is some security but
:37:43. > :37:48.anyone could be hilt by a missile. We responded to invitations from the
:37:49. > :37:51.grand mufti, and the Christian leaders to go and hear their
:37:52. > :38:00.interpretation of events. We went to listen. It is about how you go and
:38:01. > :38:05.what you bring back. Allowing an photo, in official gargs, there is
:38:06. > :38:09.nothing wrong with talking to empoo, Tony Benn met Saddam Hussein, and
:38:10. > :38:14.opening up a diplomatic route is useful however allowing a photocall
:38:15. > :38:20.which looks like Western religious leaders support Assad is a major
:38:21. > :38:25.propaganda own goal and secondly to come back and talk about Assad as a
:38:26. > :38:29.way of partnering solution, there is no solution that is meanfulful will
:38:30. > :38:34.that involves him. He has to g first helping to move Isis, and a
:38:35. > :38:39.transition period but there is know way Syria can survive with Assad. He
:38:40. > :38:44.has to go. I'll hold auto out, I was quite tough with the Baroness in my
:38:45. > :38:48.interview, and of course both of you don't agree, so it is only fair that
:38:49. > :38:52.I give Caroline the final word on this. We wanted to meet the people
:38:53. > :38:54.of Syria. We were invited by our own leaders, civilian leaders. We spent
:38:55. > :38:58.five days in very dangerous places, with the people on the ground, and
:38:59. > :39:02.we were in Aleppo when a university was bombed. We met the "ordinary"
:39:03. > :39:06.people. We want to be their Is vo. What comes through, as you said it
:39:07. > :39:09.is difficult for the media to get there and meet the people. It is
:39:10. > :39:13.very dangerous. We did risk our lifts but we were prepared to do
:39:14. > :39:16.that to be the voice of the people who invited us. I wish more people
:39:17. > :39:20.would go and be their voice. Everyone hears what Assad says. We
:39:21. > :39:24.want it hear what the people say and the people's concern is they do not
:39:25. > :39:28.be want regime change brought by the outside world. They want to develop
:39:29. > :39:36.and vote for their own future, their freedom. Thank you for letting me be
:39:37. > :39:37.their voice. We are glad you made it back.
:39:38. > :39:40.In Scotland the SNP government has run into trouble with its plans
:39:41. > :39:42.for a "named person" scheme, which would assign a specific person
:39:43. > :39:45.who isn't their parent to every child under the age of 18
:39:46. > :39:47.who would have responsibility for their welfare.
:39:48. > :39:52.The idea behind the scheme is to protect vulnerable children
:39:53. > :39:54.from abuse and neglect but critics say it's an intrusion
:39:55. > :40:00.Earlier in the summer, implementation of the scheme
:40:01. > :40:04.was halted when the Supreme Court ruled that plans for data
:40:05. > :40:15.-- the Supreme Court fted United Kingdom. Or at least not compliant
:40:16. > :40:16.with the European Court of Human Rights.
:40:17. > :40:17.Yesterday Scotland's Deputy First Minister, John Swinney,
:40:18. > :40:20.confirmed the SNP is still committed to the scheme but wants to delay
:40:21. > :40:23.That was met with criticism from opposition politicians.
:40:24. > :40:31.For the avoidance of any doubt, the government remains
:40:32. > :40:35.absolutely committed to the Named Persons service.
:40:36. > :40:37.For that reason, the Scottish government will undertake
:40:38. > :40:42.a three-month period of intense engagement in Scotland.
:40:43. > :40:45.We will take input from practitioners, as well as parents,
:40:46. > :40:48.charities, as well as young people, those who support the Named Persons
:40:49. > :40:53.policy, and those who have concerns about it.
:40:54. > :40:55.The court stated that, even after the information sharing
:40:56. > :40:57.provisions are sorted out, the Named Persons scheme
:40:58. > :40:59.is still in danger of constituting a disproportionate, and therefore
:41:00. > :41:04.an unlawful, interference with family life.
:41:05. > :41:06.It seems absurd, given that a 16-year-old can vote, marry,
:41:07. > :41:12.To remove them would be a strong signal that, while the government
:41:13. > :41:17.is not surrendering the Named Persons policy,
:41:18. > :41:27.it is listening, and not only to the Supreme Court.
:41:28. > :41:31.We did ask the SNP for an interview, but no one from the Scottish
:41:32. > :41:35.We've been joined from Glasgow by the Scottish Conservatives'
:41:36. > :41:46.Welcome to the Daily Politics. Now, the Supreme Court ruled in certain
:41:47. > :41:51.areas that if they want to proceed this had to be changed. John Swinney
:41:52. > :41:55.is now making the changes to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. He's
:41:56. > :41:58.listening to concerns. He has delayed the introduction and's not
:41:59. > :42:04.going to do it before the summer. Isn't that how you would expect a
:42:05. > :42:08.responsible government to act? No, actually, because he hasn't been
:42:09. > :42:13.listening at all previously and the real problem from yesterday was that
:42:14. > :42:17.he told councils to continue developing and implementing the
:42:18. > :42:22.policy at the same time as there are clear problems about its
:42:23. > :42:26.implementation. So we have grave concerns, specifically for those
:42:27. > :42:31.councils that have been piloting this scheme before, and who have
:42:32. > :42:34.been sharing data with the professionals, sometimes against the
:42:35. > :42:38.consent of parents, and that is something that has been ruled
:42:39. > :42:44.unlawful by the Supreme Court. So there is a major issue here. But,
:42:45. > :42:50.less than two miles to the east, behind you, in Glasgow, is some of
:42:51. > :42:59.the worst deprivation and child deprivation in Europe. Not just in
:43:00. > :43:05.Britain. In Europe. What is wrong with the state of appointing someone
:43:06. > :43:10.to try to keep these kids who often have inadequate parents, patients
:43:11. > :43:14.who have never had a job, often been on drugs. What is wrong with the
:43:15. > :43:18.state trying to appoint someone to look after these kids a bit better
:43:19. > :43:21.and maybe even give them a hand up? Well there are two problems wrong
:43:22. > :43:24.with the policy. Of course the intention is to try to help those
:43:25. > :43:28.families who particularly need it, and great problem with this policy
:43:29. > :43:33.is that it has been rolled out on a universal basis. Thereby taking away
:43:34. > :43:37.a lot of the resources which are greatly needed for the families that
:43:38. > :43:41.you have just mentioned and, you know, I think to spend a lot of
:43:42. > :43:44.money on families where there weren't problems, I don't think
:43:45. > :43:48.that's responsible government. But the second issue about this is that
:43:49. > :43:52.we are in a situation where the implication is that the state knows
:43:53. > :43:56.better than the parent how to bring up the child. That is what has got
:43:57. > :44:01.this policy. In some cases that may be true, of course. I don't accept
:44:02. > :44:05.that, Andrew. I think one of the reasons why the Scottish public has
:44:06. > :44:10.turned so firmly against this policy is for that very reason. It has had
:44:11. > :44:15.this undertone that the state knows better than the family. There are
:44:16. > :44:18.very good laws already, about how we conduct child protection, for
:44:19. > :44:28.example, the data protection laws seem to be relatively satisfactory
:44:29. > :44:31.in this country. Barnardo's, a famous children'ser charity that
:44:32. > :44:35.everyone has respect for, they are in favour of this. They think
:44:36. > :44:41.helicopter' help and they accuse opponents like you - the charity not
:44:42. > :44:44.the Scottish Government - of inadequate and unjustified
:44:45. > :44:48.statement. They, the people who have to deal with the vulnerable
:44:49. > :44:53.children, think this will help. Precisely because it is the
:44:54. > :44:56.vulnerable children that these charnts and many other beyond
:44:57. > :44:59.Barnardo's, gave favourable responses to the policy. The
:45:00. > :45:04.difficulty is that the vast majority of parents and many practitioners,
:45:05. > :45:07.in fact an increasing number of practitioners across Scotland, their
:45:08. > :45:10.caseload has increased because it is a universal policy and therefore,
:45:11. > :45:16.they feel they are letting down many of the children that we most need to
:45:17. > :45:18.help. I'll bring in Matt Forde. I understand that you quite like this
:45:19. > :45:31.policy. I think it is a good idea completely
:45:32. > :45:34.disagree. We know that there are cases that the state doesn't know
:45:35. > :45:42.any better what to do the job than the parent. Poor children, through
:45:43. > :45:48.no open but only -- brought up not only in poverty but with
:45:49. > :45:52.dysfunctional families. The state is operating on the behalf of society
:45:53. > :45:56.as it is when the police or an alert is called. It reminds me of Gordon
:45:57. > :46:00.Brown idea that never came to a fruition, which is if those centres
:46:01. > :46:05.for young parents. They were seen as truck only on and I had issues with
:46:06. > :46:08.them but on some level, if we as a society continue to allow children
:46:09. > :46:12.to be brought up not only in poverty but in chaos with no help
:46:13. > :46:18.whatsoever, not effective how, then we are all failing. I will come back
:46:19. > :46:22.to you, but what is your take on this? It is a perfectly sensible,
:46:23. > :46:27.thoughtful policy, it should have been a nudge policy, one that people
:46:28. > :46:32.will nudge towards doing. The attempt to make it legally binding,
:46:33. > :46:36.and the argument in Scotland is the problem, why do you have a policy
:46:37. > :46:40.clearly targeted on families who are in some trouble, which is then
:46:41. > :46:44.imposed on absolutely everyone? You can sue them why there is a push
:46:45. > :46:47.back that says the state is too active here, and indeed what would
:46:48. > :46:55.be the liabilities, what are the clear responsibilities of this
:46:56. > :46:59.person? It all gets a bit vague. A final point to you, from the
:47:00. > :47:05.Highlands, from Mr Alexander, who is head of learning and care at the
:47:06. > :47:10.Highland Council, they have been implementing this policy I
:47:11. > :47:15.understand from 2009. He says we have fewer children being reported
:47:16. > :47:24.to the children's reporter, we have fewer children offending, what is
:47:25. > :47:27.wrong with that? That is good, but the policy that Mr Alexander has
:47:28. > :47:31.implemented very successfully is largely to do with the way in which
:47:32. > :47:34.the services in the Highland are structured, different from many
:47:35. > :47:39.other local authorities, and I think his only to ship has been very
:47:40. > :47:42.successful. But the actual policy that has been implemented was not
:47:43. > :47:45.ecstatically what the Scottish Government was my policy was going
:47:46. > :47:49.to be, had it been introduced on the 31st of August. There are serious
:47:50. > :47:54.differences between that, and the real problem for many people in
:47:55. > :47:58.Scotland is that this policy does not have the trust of the public. It
:47:59. > :48:01.does not have the trust of many of the practitioners, and that is
:48:02. > :48:05.Scottish Government has got itself into difficulty. Thank you for
:48:06. > :48:08.joining us. Today would have been the day
:48:09. > :48:13.we found out who was the new leader of Conservative Party, if only
:48:14. > :48:16.Andrea Leadsom hadn't pulled out. We would have had more leadership
:48:17. > :48:20.races. If you're disappointed you missed
:48:21. > :48:23.out on a leadership battle, fear not, because Ukip are also
:48:24. > :48:25.balloting for a new leader. The front runner Diane James seems
:48:26. > :48:28.so confident, she hasn't been taking part in any of the hustings
:48:29. > :48:32.organised over the summer. Our Ellie has been
:48:33. > :48:47.meeting the candidates. Hello and welcome to this Daily
:48:48. > :48:53.Politics who is going to be the next leader of Ukip special. We meet the
:48:54. > :48:56.candidates wanting to follow in those very big footsteps of Nigel
:48:57. > :48:59.Farage. Now we could have come to the various hustings events that
:49:00. > :49:03.were being held over the summer, but where's the fun in that, plus we
:49:04. > :49:12.miss them, so instead the leadership hopefuls had finally come to us.
:49:13. > :49:24.Please welcome Lisa Duffy. Bill Etheridge. Lewis Jones. Philip
:49:25. > :49:34.Walton. And Diane James. And Diane James. This really is like a Ukip
:49:35. > :49:43.hustings. First question to all the candidates, who are you? I am Lisa
:49:44. > :49:49.Duffy, I have been a part of Ukip at. I am somebody that really
:49:50. > :49:57.champions the people, I have built the high election is up to our party
:49:58. > :50:01.and put Ukip on the map from a by-election and Weekley I am a
:50:02. > :50:06.long-standing member of Ukip. I have contested about 11 elections and
:50:07. > :50:11.been involved in a number of campaigns, ranging from female
:50:12. > :50:21.circumcision to saving a local art deco cinema. I did 20 years in the
:50:22. > :50:25.still trade before losing my job in Gordon Brown's recession, I have
:50:26. > :50:36.strong opinions, strong views, pretty radical but also done to her.
:50:37. > :50:41.I am Philip Broughton. I work in a supermarket. I have real life
:50:42. > :50:46.experience as well as political experience. What is your vision to
:50:47. > :50:56.Ukip in three words? Friendship, unity success. Three words, team,
:50:57. > :51:00.challenge, leadership. Radical, alternative, political movement. I
:51:01. > :51:05.believe this party has to stand for freedom, fairness and opportunity.
:51:06. > :51:09.Who is your political hero? Ronald Reagan, a great communicator who do
:51:10. > :51:14.things with a sense of humour but was also revolutionary and strong.
:51:15. > :51:17.In this leadership campaign I am determined to win one to him. That
:51:18. > :51:23.would be Boudicca, for having the courage to take on the Roman
:51:24. > :51:29.Imperial Army three times, and when to stop fantastic. My other would be
:51:30. > :51:34.the former leader of Singapore. Winston Churchill for defeating the
:51:35. > :51:38.Nazis, one of the worst evils ever seen, and Nigel Farage forgetting
:51:39. > :51:42.this country's freedom back in the referendum. Probably Winston
:51:43. > :51:45.Churchill. A man of many talents, who had his own personal challenges
:51:46. > :51:49.but he made a difference. He was not afraid to speak his mind and that is
:51:50. > :51:55.what you will get from Lisa Duffy. If Ukip are a drink, what would it
:51:56. > :52:01.be? Deceptively seductive but get you drunk. Ruby mild would be my
:52:02. > :52:05.favourite, strong and powerful, lovely taste, smooth and make you
:52:06. > :52:11.feel great. A very exciting fizzy drink. I think it is a fine red
:52:12. > :52:15.wine, one that is maturing over time. We are a political party that
:52:16. > :52:21.is 23 years old now and that bottle is ready to open an tekkers to the
:52:22. > :52:25.next level. Still alcoholic, though? It is still alcoholic but I am not
:52:26. > :52:29.an alcoholic drink to be fair expect that concludes this special. We will
:52:30. > :52:32.find out the result at conference on Friday 16 September. To all the
:52:33. > :52:39.candidates, thank you. We should say we invited Diane James
:52:40. > :52:45.to take part, but she declined. We've been joined by Owen Bennett,
:52:46. > :52:47.political reporter at the Huffington Post and author
:52:48. > :52:56.of the book 'Following Farage'. The candidates, find people putting
:52:57. > :53:02.up a great case, the one we have heard of of course was not there.
:53:03. > :53:08.Two others we have heard of, Paul Nuttall and Steven Woolfe are not
:53:09. > :53:11.even running. What is going on? Very good question. Paul Nuttall didn't
:53:12. > :53:14.want to stand for family reasons, he has a young family and I think he
:53:15. > :53:22.looked at all the work that was needed into going in to make Ukip
:53:23. > :53:26.bedpost Brexit party and thought it was not him. Steven Woolfe did want
:53:27. > :53:29.it but through a series of calamities and other errors he did
:53:30. > :53:34.not manage to get his application in on time. Not a great job
:53:35. > :53:39.application. If you are trying to run on a platform of competence, and
:53:40. > :53:50.can't apply on time, it is not a good look. Diane James managed to
:53:51. > :53:54.avoid all of the hustings, thank you for the exclusive Huffington Post
:53:55. > :54:00.story we got. She is going to run it like a coronation. Because she think
:54:01. > :54:04.she has got it? The Ukip voters who are voting will go to the hustings,
:54:05. > :54:09.and all of the other candidates are there, just to keep bashing her
:54:10. > :54:12.every time. There is a lot of Ukip people that think their future lies,
:54:13. > :54:17.they have more opportunities now in the north of inland than they have
:54:18. > :54:20.in the South. In other words, that Labour is more vulnerable to Ukip in
:54:21. > :54:25.the north, voted heavily for Brexit, than the South, where there was some
:54:26. > :54:30.evidence that previous Ukip voters have gone back to the Tories. But
:54:31. > :54:35.Diane James is very southern, isn't she, do they not need a northern
:54:36. > :54:41.candidate for this? Absolutely, one of her nicknames is queen of the
:54:42. > :54:45.South, because she is seen as not going north of the Watford gap. When
:54:46. > :54:48.the campaign kicked off she was in France. She had to get someone to
:54:49. > :54:53.send in her application on her other half so there is the suggestion she
:54:54. > :54:55.doesn't even want this job. If you go on her website and look for
:54:56. > :55:00.reasons why she wants to stands, the first two are reason she doesn't
:55:01. > :55:05.want to. I think you are completely right, it needed a strong Northern
:55:06. > :55:07.voice to really take it on in those Labour heartland areas. Just
:55:08. > :55:15.remember the membership was mainly in the south. What you get with a
:55:16. > :55:19.lot of parties, the membership and the electorate, they are two
:55:20. > :55:22.slightly different beasts. In a way it is quite amazing what is
:55:23. > :55:27.happening to them, if it hadn't been to Ukip, there would not have been a
:55:28. > :55:32.referendum, that is fair to say. There could still be post-referendum
:55:33. > :55:36.opportunities for a party like Ukip, to kill early given the state of the
:55:37. > :55:39.Labour Party and how well they did in the referendum in the north. They
:55:40. > :55:43.did pretty well in the general election in the North too. But it
:55:44. > :55:46.doesn't look like they are moving in a way that will capitalise on that,
:55:47. > :55:50.it could be a big missed opportunity. It could be, but if you
:55:51. > :55:57.look at that range of candidates, and we are all having a bit of fun.
:55:58. > :56:02.It is a dream. Couple of years ago, these were grumpy men from the
:56:03. > :56:12.south. Gin and tonics. In fairness to Ukip, you have the likely lad
:56:13. > :56:17.from the north-east, we have quite a strong, feisty panel, a professional
:56:18. > :56:22.woman, two quite strong women. If you put up a lot of other candidates
:56:23. > :56:25.who run in other parties on the first time out, they don't look too
:56:26. > :56:30.professional either. The Diane James thing I can't comment on. I think
:56:31. > :56:32.they have got strength in depth but they need a figurehead whose
:56:33. > :56:36.national and I would be very surprised if one day it is not
:56:37. > :56:40.passed back to dear Rod Nigel Farage. Surely not? He has only
:56:41. > :56:48.changed his mind three times. That was on the night of the referendum!
:56:49. > :56:52.What is the future the Ukip? I agree that this is a missed opportunity.
:56:53. > :56:57.What we are seeing is something that affects all parties, people look to
:56:58. > :57:01.leaders and see how exhausting it is, the personal sacrifices
:57:02. > :57:04.required, not just a lack of family life and friendship that the abuse
:57:05. > :57:06.you get regardless of your political persuasion. What we are seeing is
:57:07. > :57:11.the manifestation of what we're seeing elsewhere, the fact that Paul
:57:12. > :57:15.Nuttall did not want it, Diane James effectually saying we do not want
:57:16. > :57:19.it, and Nigel Farage, the exceptional level of energy he has,
:57:20. > :57:23.it was all down to the fact that firstly he rebranded Ukip early
:57:24. > :57:27.doors. People saw it as BNP like and his personality allowed him to
:57:28. > :57:32.overcome that. His relentless bags of energy that very few people have.
:57:33. > :57:38.Even when he falls out of a plane. Indy. It was an horrific injury.
:57:39. > :57:45.Owen, roughly what you think the future of Ukip is? Positioning
:57:46. > :57:49.itself as a patriotic working-class party in the north. It needs to find
:57:50. > :57:55.another way of representing those northern class -- working-class
:57:56. > :58:00.northern voters. Did you bring me a copy of the book? Yes, I thought you
:58:01. > :58:03.had about five already. But they were all signed! Just time for the
:58:04. > :58:05.quiz. The question was what George Osborne
:58:06. > :58:08.policy has the Chancellor Philip c) Wearing a hi-viz
:58:09. > :58:13.jacket everyday? So, Anne and Matt, what's
:58:14. > :58:26.the correct answer? Northern powerhouse? Wrong. Wants
:58:27. > :58:32.them to wear Hi-Vis jackets. That is not a policy! That was the policy to
:58:33. > :58:37.make Mr Osborne Prime Minister, it didn't quite work in the end, so
:58:38. > :58:45.there we have it. Can we see him up on the screen? There he is, Bob the
:58:46. > :58:49.builder. Know we can't! UNC Mr Hammond like that. Special
:58:50. > :58:53.Thanks to Matt, Anne and all my guests.
:58:54. > :58:55.The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.
:58:56. > :58:58.Jo Co will be back here on BBC Two on Monday with more
:58:59. > :59:15.in a brand-new BBC Two quiz show, Debatable,
:59:16. > :59:19.where a team of celebrities put their debating skills to the test
:59:20. > :59:22.to try to win their contestants pots of cash.