09/09/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 09/09/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Theresa May sets out major changes to the school system in England,


with plans for a new wave of grammar schools.


The Prime Minister wants existing grammar schools


in England to expand, new ones to open and some existing


This time next week we'll know who's taking over from Nigel Farage


We take a look at the runners and riders.


And Brexit banter, UB40 and Parliamentary Dog of the Year -


we take a look back at the political week, in 60 seconds.


All that in the next hour and with us for the duration,


former Labour advisor turned stand-up comedian Matt Forde,


She does the jokes at the Economists, not that there is many.


First, Labour, and with two weeks to go until the result


of the Labour leadership contest, the two candidates went head-to-head


in a Question Time special on BBC One last night.


Here's a quick taste of how the two men,


Unless I misunderstood you, you said you would like to see


Labour go into the next election saying - our party policy


Because we need to find out what it is.


Brexit vote set a direction, if you like, we don't know


Jeremy, it is fine saying, you were there, debating Brexit


during the referendum, but we didn't hear that


We put the case to Remain and reform, we didn't win


We have to work with the results of it.


Owen, I don't fully understand what the problem is.


You obviously have enormous talents, why can't we work together?


Well, I've said it several times, Jeremy.


If I felt you were going to lead Labour back to power, I would work


with you in the Shadow Cabinet but I feel you are satisfied to lead


There we go a flavour of what happened last night. Two weeks to G


what did you make of it? I thought the first clip wags interesting. We


saw Owen Smith being put under pressure on that commitment to


effectively ignore the referendum result. I think it is odd


positioning for him, in a party where one-third of Labour voters


voted out in the referendum. I could see a strong pro-European tact that


he should take. I thought Jeremy Corbyn, as we saw there, put him


rather on the spot on that. You do have to work with the result,


whether you are a Remainer or Brexiter. The problem then, I think


for Owen Smith is that really, does he look like a credible candidate


against Jeremy Corbyn? It perhaps looks as if he is the bravest. He is


the one that has been prepared to stick his neck out. But I think it


is a bit of a stretch to say - well, if we had this guy we would


certainly be heading back to car, if we keep Jeremy Corbyn we wouldn't.


That's the problem Labour voters will have with it. The consensus


seemed to be last night. This was the big debate, BBC One, big


audience, there are other debates, of course but this seemed to be the


one where you had to perform to get cut through, Mr Corbyn did better


than Mr Owen. He did all right. But he had the audience on his side,


significantly. I think one of the most frustrating things as a viewer


has been and it is an issue for the BBC and other broadcasters, how do


you get an audience that's genuinely nonpartisan. If you are opening it


up online, people pretend they are floating voters or not Corbynistas


or not Remainers or Brexiters. From the moment that started last night,


Owen Smith was facial a wall of noise. It was perfectly responsible


for people to cheeks but if I didn't have to watch it for work, I would


have turned it off. There is a level of political discourse that none of


us should welcome. Some level of noise and cheering is fine but I


felt last night there was a level of aggression in the audience that


Corbyn at times faced, it wasn't all from his side but you got the sense


from watching it, as neutrally as you can, that Owen Smith was up


against it before he opened his mouth. Owen Smith didn't have a


breakthrough last night. It wasn't a game changer for him. He was the


challenger, you need game changers if you were the chal Enner. It would


be possible to conclude, I would suggest, that it is therefore, all


over. - the challenger. I should think it is. A sharp intake of


breath to my right here. Briefly, I think it probably is all over. It


feels like the momentum is with Corbyn. Let's be honest, the


organisation is far better on the left of the Labour Party than what


used to be right of the party or even the centre of the party. A lot


of t never mind entryism but exitism going on. Exitism, is that just


outside Exeter. I suppose the cynic would say last night was a squabble


over who gets to lose in 2020? I don't think that deblight have have


made any difference. People's minds were set at the start of the


campaign, people joined either to support Corbyn or Smith and wherever


you take the data from, and we have seen the polling, members of the


party pre-Corbyn support Smith and those who joined to support Corbyn


are still there. You could have had no debates in the contest and it


probably wouldn't have affected the outcome. Well, the result will be on


Saturday, the day before the Labour Conference begins on Liverpool on


the Sunday. Now it is time for our daily quiz:


Exsitentialism, what does it mean? No. That's for another day.


the Chancellor Philip Hammond apparently dropped?


B) fixing the roof while the sun shines?


At the end of the show, Anne and Matt will give us


We learned yesterday the Autumn Statement, Mr Hammond's first major


act as Chancellor will be on November 23rd. Of course we will


bring it all to you, here, live on the Daily Politics special on BBC


Two. In her first major domestic policy


speech this morning, the Prime Minister has set


out her plans for education They are much more far-reaching,


whether you agree or disagree is another matter. They are much more


far-reaching than anybody thought. Including many of her Tory


colleagues. Theresa May wants to end the ban


on selective schools, introduced by Mr Blair in the last


Labour Government and used to set out her vision for turning


schools into "an engine Mrs May wants to allow new grammar


schools to open and give the green light to existing grammar schools


wanting to expand. In her speech she said she plans


to make "this country a true meritocracy" and laid out


a number of suggestions for how to achieve this,


through more selection in schools. The Government will consult


on proposals to require new or expanding grammar schools


to take a proportion of pupils from lower income households,


to establish new non-selective free schools, and to sponsor feeder


schools in areas with a high density The Prime Minister also intends


to change existing rules which mean religious groups opening free


schools can only allocate 50% of places to children whose


parents are of that faith. The rule has been seen


as a particular barrier to the Catholic Church opening free


schools because it didn't agree Downing Street say they will lift


this cap, while also making faith schools do more to make


sure their pupils integrate Theresa May made the case


for her belief in the power of selective schools to raise


standards in education - The debate over selective schools


has raged for years but the only place it has got us to,


is a place where selection exists if you are wealthy,


if you can afford to go private We are effectively saying to poorer


and some of the most disadvantaged children in our country


that they can't have the kind of education their richer


counterparts can enjoy. Where is the meritocracy


in a system that advantages How can a meritocratic Britain let


this position stand? We can talk now to our


political correspondent, Alex Forsyth, who was watching


the Prime Minister's speech earlier. Snr there was an expectation for


when Mrs May became Prime Minister she would allow existing grammar


schools to expand and maybe allow a few new ones. That has turned out to


be far more wide-reaching than what we anticipated, isn't it? It has. It


is radical, bold and bear in mind this is her first major domestic


policy speech and she has gone out all guns blazing. I think her own


opinion about grammar schools has been clear for a while, she has


grammar schools in her constituency and wrote a blog a couple of years


ago, encouraging the expansion of local grammar schools, so it is no


big surprise she supports the concept of selective education and


we have heard rumours about some sort of policy, about allowing


existing grammar schools to ex-SPAD since she took office. On the


grammar school front, yes, expansion of existing ones but also new ones,


but it goes wider than that, encouraging new faith school places


and new Catholic schools to open. About universities and independent


schools having to get involved ape either set up or sponsor state


schools as well. The real message from Theresa May today was directly


counter--ing criticism about a return to the only binary system of


the past, where you had grammar schools and then the secondary mod


earns and very much felt that those who went to the grammar schools went


on it to flourish and those who didn't were left behind it languish.


What she was trying to say today was she wants to create a diverse school


system where there is a range of options in every local area, so


children can go to the best school for them, for their parents, for


their skills, for their abilities. Of course that's not going to cancel


all critty, we know the Labour Party and Lib Dems are opposed to this.


Let me ask you this, where do we go from here? There is a will the that


still has to be fleshed out, by no means, were all the questions


answered this morning. There will have to be a long period of


consultation I assume, as well, and will there have to be legislation,


too? Do we have any idea of the timetable? We that we can expect


further details on Monday when these proposals will be put before


Parliament, so perhaps some more detail there. We also know that


Theresa May's approach traditionally is a fairly cautious one. She


welcomes the idea of consultation and I think what you are hearing is


that this was a genuine consultation, this is her concept,


her vision and ideas and then there will be a process of feedback and


feeding into that before definitive proposals come forward. At some


point this has to get through Parliament. We know because the


opposition parties don't support the idea of selective education


particularly, a number of Conservative MPs do like the idea of


a return to grammar schools by by no mean always. Carmichael the Chair of


the Education Select Committee, has expressed concerns about whether


this really will help social mobility. The test is two-followed.


Not just convincing those in the education establishment, and


convincing parents, but she'll also have to get this through Parliament.


Thank you very much for that. We'll keep across this big news story,


hitting the British political system. In a moment we'll talks to


the Schools Minister, Nick Gibb. But first, joining us is Lucy Powell,


Labour's former Shadow Education Secretary. Well back. Is it your


position, Labour's position to be against all selection by ability?


Selection is not a good thing and that is what all the evidence shows


us, that those who are most disadvantaged by a selective system


are those from the poorest background. And that's why we will


oppose this measure. We are opposed to selection. And we think this is a


retro grade step. Because the biggest challenge that our schools


system, our education system faces, it is the one it has faced for many,


many years, is the long tale of underachievement. It's not what


happens to the top 20% that do very well in our education system. It's


the long tale of underachievement. And that gap was narrowing under the


last Labour Government. It started to widen again under this


Conservative Government and, introducing selection will take that


gap wider still, because that's what all the evidence shows us, which is


why the social mobilities tsar, the Government's own social mobility


tsar, the Chief Inspector of Schools, the Chair of the Tory


Education Select Committee, the Sutton Tru, the institution that


looks most at social mobility are all against the measure. To be clear


there, nothing in what Mrs May has said that you find appealing.


Nothing? The only thing I liked in her speech today was that she


rightly identified that free school meals is not the only measure of


deprivation, and that there are many working poor families whose kids


also need extra support at school. So if she wants to look at extending


the pupil premium beyond those who are on free school meals to those


that are the working poor families as well, I think that would be a


very good thing to do indeed. So her analysis, in many ways, was right,


the solution is totally wrong. But what is the principal objection to


an element of selection by ability in a school system, which is famous,


both in the private and in the state sector, for having selection by


wealth? Why do we tolerate selection by wealth, and yet you are so


against selection by ability, regardless of wealth? I am not for


selection by wealth either, but that is what happens especially with


grammar schools, where private Jewish in an spending extra money on


going to a private prep school or having private Jewish and is the


single biggest... It is not just -- private cherishing. You take the top


500, and since in Britain, only 6% of pupils going to these state


schools are on free school meals, which is a decent enough proxy of


poor background, whereas the national averages over 16%, so even


the copperheads of system is selecting on wealth. -- the


comprehensive system. Why would a bit of selection on ability not be


preferable? Firstly what we need to aim towards, there is an outstanding


school in every community. These are figures after 13 years. Let me


finish, the other thing we should be looking at is how we measure what a


good school is. It is not simply about what results you get at the


end of that school experience. Because if you come from an


advantaged background where you are well supported, and you are able,


you would do well at those schools, which is why those schools get the


results. But the progress measure is what we should be judging a score


by. My point to you, Lucy Powell, which I would like you to address


because it is a really important issue is this, that we have


substantial selection by wealth in our state system, in the state


system. What are we going to do about that? We need to support for


schools to improve. That's meaningless. I would say to you for


example there is an outstanding school in the middle of Manchester


that serves my constituency that just recently had an Ofsted


outstanding in every single category. A deprived white working


class community, they got outstanding results. Where they take


their children from and where they get them to is significantly better


than some of the middle-class competence of schools, certainly


than many of the grammar schools, and actually in many cases many of


the private schools as well. So I think if you flip out how you look


at these things, middle-class parents choose middle-class schools


combat what we need outstanding schools that are showing progress.


All right, I am going to have to stop you there. But I am grateful


for it, and I hope in the weeks ahead we will have plenty more time


to talk. I notice your pet subject editors minus well. We will both go


through it together, thank you, Lucy Powell. The schools Minister joins


us from outside the rather splendid premises where Mrs May made her


speech. What is your electoral mandate to do this? In the manifesto


we said we wanted to increase the number of good school places,


whether that is a grammar school. What the speech today was all about


was creating more good school places. That is why we want the


university 's help us establish good schools, we want the independent


sector tout is why we want the universities to help us establish


good schools, we want the independent sector tout us establish


them to establish more good school places, whether that is by expanding


or by establishing new grammar schools or buy them establishing


primary schools or nonselective schools. The manifesto actually said


we will allow all good schools to expand. They didn't say you are


going to create new grammar schools. It didn't say you were going to


allow selection of existing state schools to take place, or to create


new grammar schools in areas where there are already combines its.


That's not in the manifesto. So again, where is your electoral


mandate? We want more good school places throughout the country, and


over the last six years we have reformed our education system,


bringing about improvements in schools that have historically


underperformed. So now there are 1.4 million more pupils in schools that


are good and outstanding, and we want to build on that. We want to


build on those good school places and create more. We want to build on


the diversity of our school system and allow people, young people from


poor backgrounds, to have the same access to the kind of education that


has historically only been available to those who can pay school fees or


who can afford to move to areas that have outstanding schools. Already


183 grammar schools left, why didn't they help for students? Why have


they been largely irrelevant in helping poor students? They help


those who attend them. What is the percentage? They are not perform...


What is the percentage? It is 3% of children on free school meals,


again, a good proxy or poverty, get into the existing grammar schools.


The national average is 16%, so the existing grammar schools are doing


very little for social mobility. I absolutely agree with that. When you


see the details that we published on Monday, you will see there are


conditions attached. We want grammar schools to be doing more to work


with their feeder grammar schools. A lot of children from poorer families


are not applying the grammar schools. Some of the feeder grammar


schools are not giving their children the prior operations they


need to get into those grammar schools. We want those issues


addressed and actually you can find grammar schools around the country


that are working very hard to reach out to children from poorer


families, and they are delivering that objective and getting more poor


children into those grammar schools, and that is what want to see


throughout the school system. Let's ask you about some details. Who will


decide to form a new grammar school? That can be as now, the Free School


programme is all about encouraging groups of teachers or parents or a


charitable foundation, or existing outstanding or good schools. We do


encourage them now. So Free schools can become grammar schools, is that


right? Existing ones and new free schools can become grammar schools?


Yes, what this is about is about taking away a barrier to


establishing good news schools. We are not talking about going back to


the binary system of the 1950s and 60s. We have a very diverse


education system now, where 85% of schools are good or outstanding, and


we want to add an element of diversity so that we can be sure


that poor children, bright, poor children, are being given the same


opportunities, no matter where they live in the country, children who


live in Kent for Bucks, or who can afford private education, we want


poor children to have those same opportunities. That is what this is


about. Let me ask you this. If an existing comprehensive desired --


decides a percentage of its intake will be selected on ability, does


that make it a grammar school? That would make it what is called a


bilateral school. A what? A partially selective school or a


bilateral school. They have already been selecting 35%, for example


Watford Grammar boys school, and Watford Grammar school for girls,


they are partially selective, 75% of the pupils are of comprehensive


intake. There are other schools around the country like that. We


want to have a diverse system, so that an academy can decide to select


a smaller percentage of pupils. What sort of percentage are we looking


at? You are saying some schools, existing conferences may be to do


some selection by ability, what sort of percentage are looking at? Like


Watford, like as Sean school. They select 12 .5, 15% of their pupils,


up to 35% already do so. There aren't that many of them but it is


an existing, historical type of school that that exist now. What we


are saying in the White Paper, the green paper that we will publish on


Monday, is that we want there to be more diversity in our school system,


so we can make sure that every child from whatever background... I


understand, you have made that point, everybody has that aim, the


question is always the means. Is it your intention, as selection


spreads, with extending existing grammar schools, new grammar schools


and existing comprehensives allowed to do an element of selection, isn't


still your intention that selection will still be done primarily by the


11 plus and the spread of the 11 plus? These are the kinds of details


that we will be consulting on. Pretty big detail. After Monday,


when we publish the green paper. This is a government that wants to


consult widely on policy objectives, and those are the kinds of details.


The 11 plus surely is not fit for purpose? Sorry to interrupt, the 11


plus is surely not fit for purpose, as something that can determine


pupils future is at the age of 11, with a one winner takes all type


test? What the Prime Minister spoke about today was allowing flexibility


for new grammar schools, so pupils can enter later at 14 or 16, as well


as at age 11. We also want a process that doesn't allow pupils to cheated


to get through that selection process and there are grammar


schools already, particularly in Kent, that by working on Jupiter


probe selection processes in those schools. Good luck with that. We are


actually over time, but I have one more question for you it is such an


important issue. Isn't the danger you face of the desire for more


social mobility that the new grammar schools, the extension of existing


grammar schools, introducing more selection on ability into


comprehensives, that that is all more likely to happen if it happens


at all in already existing middle-class, Tory areas, and that


it will simply make the educational divide even wider? No, because we're


not going back to a binary system. We have a school system now where


schools have improved unrecognisably over the last exteriors, and even


beyond that. So we now have a system where 80 to 85% of all schools are


graded good and outstanding, 1.4 million more pupils today in good


and outstanding schools than in 2010. The whole reform programme


over the last six years has been about school improvement and it has


been working. But it is a very diverse education system, so what


this is about is about making sure that that diversity and genuine


choice for parents isn't just confined to those middle-class areas


you are talking about. We want it to spread the part of the country where


the 1.25 million pupils who don't have access to a good or outstanding


school, where they live. That is the objective, to spread it right across


the country. We will be hoping to talk to you a lot more on this


subject, Nick did. You have been in and out of the sun and shadows while


you have been doing this and I know it is not easy, even more difficult


for the cameraman to keep the lighting proper, so we thank you. --


Nick Gibb, the schools minister. This is a massive reform of the


school system, you almost feel as if it was being done on the back of a


fag packet. There is that, and I think the context matters, this is


what Theresa May has set herself different from her predecessor, to


rise above the Brexit debate and set herself as a traditional Tory. But


in her defence, I would say in education where state schools are


failing, you do need to be radical about tackling a lack of attainment,


and if I lived in an area and I had children and there was a good


grammar school there, whatever I thought of it I will try to get my


child into it. Now education has changed, thanks to academies and


free schools, I hate to agree with Nick did, but it is not a binary


system any more. -- I hate to agree with Nick Gibb. So you were a bit


disappointed in Lucy Powell's reaction, which was a traditional


Labour Party reaction? It was. Labour has entrenched itself in a


pro combines a system where actually a lot of the people who espouse it


did not go to comprehensives themselves. There is a scene in the


original Batman movie with a joker sister Batman, where does he get all


of his wonderful prose? Where did Theresa May get all of these ideas?


She was Home Secretary, she has only been Prime Minister for a couple of


months. Part of that time was walking the hills of Switzerland.


Has she been secretly cooking all this up, or has she got an


educational guru? I think I can answer your Batman question, it is


what she has thought of her life, she didn't need to cook it up. That


is the DNA of much of the Tory party, also Nick Webb, who until


today was out there promoting academies and they would we did not


hear once, possibly in passing -- Nick Gibb. The focus has turned to a


return to grammar schools. I don't think it is back up the fag packet


territory, Andrew, but there are so much complexity that you drew out in


that interview with Nick Gibb, what is the age of selection? What is the


manner of selection? What is the impact, and it was not addressed at


all to the academies programme. We heard that school improvement was


all going very well but if it was, why not simply tweak that, have


greater selection perhaps within the academies programme, 20% roughly is


what a lot of them get away with at the moment, move that upwards, why


say you are going to bring back a grammar school, which as you pointed


out seems to require a moment when you saw the sheep from the goats?


That would be the very divisive thing. Questions, questions,


questions. Earlier this week a group of British


peers and Christian leaders travelled to Syria to meet the


Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, and appeal for him to protect


the lives of Christians The visit was criticised


by MPs, for strengthening Soon afterwards, footage emerged


showing what appeared to be the aftermath of a chlorine gas


attack in Syria's On Wednesday, the Foreign Secretary,


Boris Johnson, met Syrian opposition leaders in London to push


for a resumption of peace talks It is obviously critical


that the world, and all the interlocutors in Geneva,


should be able to see that there is a future for Syria


that goes beyond the Assad regime, and think that was one of the big


questions that for years, frankly, we've been unable


to answer satisfactory. What happens when


Assad finally goes? And of course there is widespread


agreement across the world that he must go, including


with the Russians. There has been less clarity about


the post-Assad vision for Syria. We've been joined by Caroline Cox,


who was one of the group of British peers and Christian leaders who met


Bashar Al-Assad this week. What did you hope to achieve by


meeting the Syrian dictator? We have been heavily criticised for that. I


have three quick answers. One if if you don't meet someone you can't


raise criticism. Secondly we were invited by Muslim and Christian


leaders. We spent two hours with Assad, we spent five days, listening


to the local people. It was a tiny part of the visit but there is


double standards in the crit civil. I work in Sudan, the Government is


bombing its people there. Nobody makes the criticism. I understand


that. But my question is - what did you hope to achieve? We raised our


concerns with the President but we really went to hear the people and


to hear their points. I understand that but I am anticipate talking


about the meeting with Assad. We were able to raise our concerns and


they are serious concerns. He had a chance to respond. We still have


those concerns. But we have been seen to hear, it is important. You


can't judge from a distance, you have to meet someone to hear


criticisms. Did you come away, did you believe him, if he said he


understood and would act on your concerns? He said he was perfectly


prepared to have internationally supervised elections. One of the


concerns we had from the people, the Syrian people have a right to choose


their own leadership. They have to right to elections. They are very


worried... Did you believe him? I do. Why? He has never had them


before, except ones he has fixed? He said international observers but in


the meantime the Syrian people have two concerns: The first is they have


a right to choose their own leader and secondly they are very worried


about the Government's approximately sieve forced regime change. The


British Government's policy? Yes. These are all Assad talking points.


I mean you have come away from it, we have this picture of you all


meeting him there, this is the man that drops barrel bombs on people,


and chemical weapons and chlorine is now being used and you come away and


in your statement there, essentially is a mouth piece for this regime.


You talk about the Syrian people must choose their own leader. That's


right. It is unexceptional that he says that for a particular reason.


You even quote the senior doctor's council. There are 4,000 doctors in


Aleppo. The medical needs of the vast majority are impacted by the


refusal of the international community to engage with the


government. That's another Assad propaganda talking point. And you


attack the Western media narrative, which is at the core of Assad's


anti-Western talking points. You have become a mouth piece of this


dictator. No, spokesmen, people who were there, heard the people, saw


what happened on the day when they were criticisms. But the militant


opposition groups also use chemical weapons, it is not reported. It was


not reported. On one of the days we were there, when reported Assad on


chemical weaponsical weapons there were four attacks on civilians by


opposition groups, many who were burnt alive. It wasn't reported.


There were four missiles on Aleppo on the day we were there, it is not


reported. As you will understand, operating in Syria is very difficult


for the media but I would suggest, where there are atrocities, the


media has reported atrocities on both sides and for you to come in,


many people, with whom we met, ie, Mr Assad's supporters, believe that


the partisanship of many Western media narratives, that's an exact


propaganda phrase coming out of the Syrian regime, Western media


narratives. The Western media is reporting barrel bombs and it is


reporting the beheading of Isis, where it can. And with great


difficulty and many journalists have lost their lives in Syria. Agree. I


have lost a colleague in Syria and you come back, spouting propaganda


lines from a dictator? With great respect. We risked our lives to


listen to the people. To hear the people. We met two of the ministers


in opposition, not just President Assad. We met two opposition


ministers and they are deeply concerned about the British


Government's commitment to regime change. It'll be another Iraq. It is


already. It'll be another one without re cystence. It is worse. It


is worse for the people as it is now. They want a peaceful


resolution. We tried to be their voices, we risked our lives to


listen to their voices. You had seen Mr Assad. I shouldn't think your


life is as much at risk than the people you are talking B it seems to


come close to the ter trif useful idiots -- territory of. We didn't


need to send an all-party group to listen to their concerns. Didn't it


occur to you that this image, or indeed the Russian story which I


notice isn't pryer advertised in your support. It seems an extremely


foolhardy mission. With great respect, there is some security but


anyone could be hilt by a missile. We responded to invitations from the


grand mufti, and the Christian leaders to go and hear their


interpretation of events. We went to listen. It is about how you go and


what you bring back. Allowing an photo, in official gargs, there is


nothing wrong with talking to empoo, Tony Benn met Saddam Hussein, and


opening up a diplomatic route is useful however allowing a photocall


which looks like Western religious leaders support Assad is a major


propaganda own goal and secondly to come back and talk about Assad as a


way of partnering solution, there is no solution that is meanfulful will


that involves him. He has to g first helping to move Isis, and a


transition period but there is know way Syria can survive with Assad. He


has to go. I'll hold auto out, I was quite tough with the Baroness in my


interview, and of course both of you don't agree, so it is only fair that


I give Caroline the final word on this. We wanted to meet the people


of Syria. We were invited by our own leaders, civilian leaders. We spent


five days in very dangerous places, with the people on the ground, and


we were in Aleppo when a university was bombed. We met the "ordinary"


people. We want to be their Is vo. What comes through, as you said it


is difficult for the media to get there and meet the people. It is


very dangerous. We did risk our lifts but we were prepared to do


that to be the voice of the people who invited us. I wish more people


would go and be their voice. Everyone hears what Assad says. We


want it hear what the people say and the people's concern is they do not


be want regime change brought by the outside world. They want to develop


and vote for their own future, their freedom. Thank you for letting me be


their voice. We are glad you made it back.


In Scotland the SNP government has run into trouble with its plans


for a "named person" scheme, which would assign a specific person


who isn't their parent to every child under the age of 18


who would have responsibility for their welfare.


The idea behind the scheme is to protect vulnerable children


from abuse and neglect but critics say it's an intrusion


Earlier in the summer, implementation of the scheme


was halted when the Supreme Court ruled that plans for data


-- the Supreme Court fted United Kingdom. Or at least not compliant


with the European Court of Human Rights.


Yesterday Scotland's Deputy First Minister, John Swinney,


confirmed the SNP is still committed to the scheme but wants to delay


That was met with criticism from opposition politicians.


For the avoidance of any doubt, the government remains


absolutely committed to the Named Persons service.


For that reason, the Scottish government will undertake


a three-month period of intense engagement in Scotland.


We will take input from practitioners, as well as parents,


charities, as well as young people, those who support the Named Persons


policy, and those who have concerns about it.


The court stated that, even after the information sharing


provisions are sorted out, the Named Persons scheme


is still in danger of constituting a disproportionate, and therefore


an unlawful, interference with family life.


It seems absurd, given that a 16-year-old can vote, marry,


To remove them would be a strong signal that, while the government


is not surrendering the Named Persons policy,


it is listening, and not only to the Supreme Court.


We did ask the SNP for an interview, but no one from the Scottish


We've been joined from Glasgow by the Scottish Conservatives'


Welcome to the Daily Politics. Now, the Supreme Court ruled in certain


areas that if they want to proceed this had to be changed. John Swinney


is now making the changes to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. He's


listening to concerns. He has delayed the introduction and's not


going to do it before the summer. Isn't that how you would expect a


responsible government to act? No, actually, because he hasn't been


listening at all previously and the real problem from yesterday was that


he told councils to continue developing and implementing the


policy at the same time as there are clear problems about its


implementation. So we have grave concerns, specifically for those


councils that have been piloting this scheme before, and who have


been sharing data with the professionals, sometimes against the


consent of parents, and that is something that has been ruled


unlawful by the Supreme Court. So there is a major issue here. But,


less than two miles to the east, behind you, in Glasgow, is some of


the worst deprivation and child deprivation in Europe. Not just in


Britain. In Europe. What is wrong with the state of appointing someone


to try to keep these kids who often have inadequate parents, patients


who have never had a job, often been on drugs. What is wrong with the


state trying to appoint someone to look after these kids a bit better


and maybe even give them a hand up? Well there are two problems wrong


with the policy. Of course the intention is to try to help those


families who particularly need it, and great problem with this policy


is that it has been rolled out on a universal basis. Thereby taking away


a lot of the resources which are greatly needed for the families that


you have just mentioned and, you know, I think to spend a lot of


money on families where there weren't problems, I don't think


that's responsible government. But the second issue about this is that


we are in a situation where the implication is that the state knows


better than the parent how to bring up the child. That is what has got


this policy. In some cases that may be true, of course. I don't accept


that, Andrew. I think one of the reasons why the Scottish public has


turned so firmly against this policy is for that very reason. It has had


this undertone that the state knows better than the family. There are


very good laws already, about how we conduct child protection, for


example, the data protection laws seem to be relatively satisfactory


in this country. Barnardo's, a famous children'ser charity that


everyone has respect for, they are in favour of this. They think


helicopter' help and they accuse opponents like you - the charity not


the Scottish Government - of inadequate and unjustified


statement. They, the people who have to deal with the vulnerable


children, think this will help. Precisely because it is the


vulnerable children that these charnts and many other beyond


Barnardo's, gave favourable responses to the policy. The


difficulty is that the vast majority of parents and many practitioners,


in fact an increasing number of practitioners across Scotland, their


caseload has increased because it is a universal policy and therefore,


they feel they are letting down many of the children that we most need to


help. I'll bring in Matt Forde. I understand that you quite like this


policy. I think it is a good idea completely


disagree. We know that there are cases that the state doesn't know


any better what to do the job than the parent. Poor children, through


no open but only -- brought up not only in poverty but with


dysfunctional families. The state is operating on the behalf of society


as it is when the police or an alert is called. It reminds me of Gordon


Brown idea that never came to a fruition, which is if those centres


for young parents. They were seen as truck only on and I had issues with


them but on some level, if we as a society continue to allow children


to be brought up not only in poverty but in chaos with no help


whatsoever, not effective how, then we are all failing. I will come back


to you, but what is your take on this? It is a perfectly sensible,


thoughtful policy, it should have been a nudge policy, one that people


will nudge towards doing. The attempt to make it legally binding,


and the argument in Scotland is the problem, why do you have a policy


clearly targeted on families who are in some trouble, which is then


imposed on absolutely everyone? You can sue them why there is a push


back that says the state is too active here, and indeed what would


be the liabilities, what are the clear responsibilities of this


person? It all gets a bit vague. A final point to you, from the


Highlands, from Mr Alexander, who is head of learning and care at the


Highland Council, they have been implementing this policy I


understand from 2009. He says we have fewer children being reported


to the children's reporter, we have fewer children offending, what is


wrong with that? That is good, but the policy that Mr Alexander has


implemented very successfully is largely to do with the way in which


the services in the Highland are structured, different from many


other local authorities, and I think his only to ship has been very


successful. But the actual policy that has been implemented was not


ecstatically what the Scottish Government was my policy was going


to be, had it been introduced on the 31st of August. There are serious


differences between that, and the real problem for many people in


Scotland is that this policy does not have the trust of the public. It


does not have the trust of many of the practitioners, and that is


Scottish Government has got itself into difficulty. Thank you for


joining us. Today would have been the day


we found out who was the new leader of Conservative Party, if only


Andrea Leadsom hadn't pulled out. We would have had more leadership


races. If you're disappointed you missed


out on a leadership battle, fear not, because Ukip are also


balloting for a new leader. The front runner Diane James seems


so confident, she hasn't been taking part in any of the hustings


organised over the summer. Our Ellie has been


meeting the candidates. Hello and welcome to this Daily


Politics who is going to be the next leader of Ukip special. We meet the


candidates wanting to follow in those very big footsteps of Nigel


Farage. Now we could have come to the various hustings events that


were being held over the summer, but where's the fun in that, plus we


miss them, so instead the leadership hopefuls had finally come to us.


Please welcome Lisa Duffy. Bill Etheridge. Lewis Jones. Philip


Walton. And Diane James. And Diane James. This really is like a Ukip


hustings. First question to all the candidates, who are you? I am Lisa


Duffy, I have been a part of Ukip at. I am somebody that really


champions the people, I have built the high election is up to our party


and put Ukip on the map from a by-election and Weekley I am a


long-standing member of Ukip. I have contested about 11 elections and


been involved in a number of campaigns, ranging from female


circumcision to saving a local art deco cinema. I did 20 years in the


still trade before losing my job in Gordon Brown's recession, I have


strong opinions, strong views, pretty radical but also done to her.


I am Philip Broughton. I work in a supermarket. I have real life


experience as well as political experience. What is your vision to


Ukip in three words? Friendship, unity success. Three words, team,


challenge, leadership. Radical, alternative, political movement. I


believe this party has to stand for freedom, fairness and opportunity.


Who is your political hero? Ronald Reagan, a great communicator who do


things with a sense of humour but was also revolutionary and strong.


In this leadership campaign I am determined to win one to him. That


would be Boudicca, for having the courage to take on the Roman


Imperial Army three times, and when to stop fantastic. My other would be


the former leader of Singapore. Winston Churchill for defeating the


Nazis, one of the worst evils ever seen, and Nigel Farage forgetting


this country's freedom back in the referendum. Probably Winston


Churchill. A man of many talents, who had his own personal challenges


but he made a difference. He was not afraid to speak his mind and that is


what you will get from Lisa Duffy. If Ukip are a drink, what would it


be? Deceptively seductive but get you drunk. Ruby mild would be my


favourite, strong and powerful, lovely taste, smooth and make you


feel great. A very exciting fizzy drink. I think it is a fine red


wine, one that is maturing over time. We are a political party that


is 23 years old now and that bottle is ready to open an tekkers to the


next level. Still alcoholic, though? It is still alcoholic but I am not


an alcoholic drink to be fair expect that concludes this special. We will


find out the result at conference on Friday 16 September. To all the


candidates, thank you. We should say we invited Diane James


to take part, but she declined. We've been joined by Owen Bennett,


political reporter at the Huffington Post and author


of the book 'Following Farage'. The candidates, find people putting


up a great case, the one we have heard of of course was not there.


Two others we have heard of, Paul Nuttall and Steven Woolfe are not


even running. What is going on? Very good question. Paul Nuttall didn't


want to stand for family reasons, he has a young family and I think he


looked at all the work that was needed into going in to make Ukip


bedpost Brexit party and thought it was not him. Steven Woolfe did want


it but through a series of calamities and other errors he did


not manage to get his application in on time. Not a great job


application. If you are trying to run on a platform of competence, and


can't apply on time, it is not a good look. Diane James managed to


avoid all of the hustings, thank you for the exclusive Huffington Post


story we got. She is going to run it like a coronation. Because she think


she has got it? The Ukip voters who are voting will go to the hustings,


and all of the other candidates are there, just to keep bashing her


every time. There is a lot of Ukip people that think their future lies,


they have more opportunities now in the north of inland than they have


in the South. In other words, that Labour is more vulnerable to Ukip in


the north, voted heavily for Brexit, than the South, where there was some


evidence that previous Ukip voters have gone back to the Tories. But


Diane James is very southern, isn't she, do they not need a northern


candidate for this? Absolutely, one of her nicknames is queen of the


South, because she is seen as not going north of the Watford gap. When


the campaign kicked off she was in France. She had to get someone to


send in her application on her other half so there is the suggestion she


doesn't even want this job. If you go on her website and look for


reasons why she wants to stands, the first two are reason she doesn't


want to. I think you are completely right, it needed a strong Northern


voice to really take it on in those Labour heartland areas. Just


remember the membership was mainly in the south. What you get with a


lot of parties, the membership and the electorate, they are two


slightly different beasts. In a way it is quite amazing what is


happening to them, if it hadn't been to Ukip, there would not have been a


referendum, that is fair to say. There could still be post-referendum


opportunities for a party like Ukip, to kill early given the state of the


Labour Party and how well they did in the referendum in the north. They


did pretty well in the general election in the North too. But it


doesn't look like they are moving in a way that will capitalise on that,


it could be a big missed opportunity. It could be, but if you


look at that range of candidates, and we are all having a bit of fun.


It is a dream. Couple of years ago, these were grumpy men from the


south. Gin and tonics. In fairness to Ukip, you have the likely lad


from the north-east, we have quite a strong, feisty panel, a professional


woman, two quite strong women. If you put up a lot of other candidates


who run in other parties on the first time out, they don't look too


professional either. The Diane James thing I can't comment on. I think


they have got strength in depth but they need a figurehead whose


national and I would be very surprised if one day it is not


passed back to dear Rod Nigel Farage. Surely not? He has only


changed his mind three times. That was on the night of the referendum!


What is the future the Ukip? I agree that this is a missed opportunity.


What we are seeing is something that affects all parties, people look to


leaders and see how exhausting it is, the personal sacrifices


required, not just a lack of family life and friendship that the abuse


you get regardless of your political persuasion. What we are seeing is


the manifestation of what we're seeing elsewhere, the fact that Paul


Nuttall did not want it, Diane James effectually saying we do not want


it, and Nigel Farage, the exceptional level of energy he has,


it was all down to the fact that firstly he rebranded Ukip early


doors. People saw it as BNP like and his personality allowed him to


overcome that. His relentless bags of energy that very few people have.


Even when he falls out of a plane. Indy. It was an horrific injury.


Owen, roughly what you think the future of Ukip is? Positioning


itself as a patriotic working-class party in the north. It needs to find


another way of representing those northern class -- working-class


northern voters. Did you bring me a copy of the book? Yes, I thought you


had about five already. But they were all signed! Just time for the


quiz. The question was what George Osborne


policy has the Chancellor Philip c) Wearing a hi-viz


jacket everyday? So, Anne and Matt, what's


the correct answer? Northern powerhouse? Wrong. Wants


them to wear Hi-Vis jackets. That is not a policy! That was the policy to


make Mr Osborne Prime Minister, it didn't quite work in the end, so


there we have it. Can we see him up on the screen? There he is, Bob the


builder. Know we can't! UNC Mr Hammond like that. Special


Thanks to Matt, Anne and all my guests.


The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.


Jo Co will be back here on BBC Two on Monday with more


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.


Download Subtitles