11/10/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 11/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


Should UK war planes be deployed to Syria to enforce no-fly zones?


MPs hold an emergency debate on the humanitarian


After her whistle-stop tour review appeared in capitals, Theresa May


continues a European charm offensive, meeting the Croatian


Prime Minister in Downing Street. He's been Home Secretary,


Justice Secretary and Conservative big beast Ken Clarke


joins me to look back And could self-build houses


help solve the housing We report from Holland,


where cheap flat-pack This house was built in a factory.


They built it, they put it on a big truck, set it up in one day. It took


one day? It took one day. And with us for the whole


of the programme today the former Conservative Chancellor,


Home Secretary and Lord We never have time to list them all


in one go! God no, don't go through my tedious CV, it is very long!


In the next hour, MPs will discuss the situation in Syria


after the former International Development Secretary Andrew


Mitchell secured a debate in the House of Commons.


Speaking to the BBC earlier, Mr Mitchell argued that a no-fly


zone should now be enforced over Syria to protect civilians.


And that British planes could be involved. No one wants to see a


firefight with Russia, no one wants to shoot down a Russian plane, that


the international community has on about responsibility to protect,


which must be exerted. If that means confronting Russian ab power,


defensively, on behalf of the innocents on the ground, we are


trying to protect, we should do that. If it meant British planes


being involved, so be it? I think Britain should explore with lights


out force a no-fly zone. It is clearly not something we could do


alone, but as part of the coalition of the willing to confront this


awful catastrophe, we should do that if we are able to do so.


Ken Clarke, how practical is that suggestion of a no-fly zone, that we


the British would help in force? Obviously we cannot do it alone. The


question is what we would do if, which is unlikely, I think, the


American smooth to do that. We have been rejecting that for years


because the risk of direct conflict with Russians is very considerable,


there are lots of Russian Out to ground and ground to air missile


systems which are very modern and effective. It would be a very high


risk strategy. What is happening in Aleppo is one of the several major


crises in the world, the British alone will not be able to do


anything. He said it would not be Britain


alone but he wanted Britain to take the central role because they that


because he says they still have a strong diplomatic position, which we


could argue about. Andrea Mitchell likens Russia to the Nazis in 1930s


Spain in terms of breaking international law, they are


destroying United Nations in its ability to act in the way that the


Germans and Italians to strike the league of Nations in the 1930s. He


is trying to make it so serious that there is a call to action, if you


like? These historic comparisons... He is right to dramatise it. Here's


a friend of mine, but the attitude to warfare in the Second World War


was very different to now. Strongly support the idea that we now have a


rule of international law. The Russians are breaking it? Certainly.


They say they are sovereign and all that. They are binding on a lot


about sovereignty. I think we should all abide by international law, we


should put pressure on them. It has not worked. Angie says we should


discuss with allies. -- Andrew says. With our allies, we have declined to


do this for several years, one can only hope that worldwide pressure,


the shock, horror at the scale of civilian losses just likely in


Aleppo might get the Russians and the Syrians to modify what they are


doing. What do you think Theresa May's instinct would be, and will


be, over this situation? Andrew Mitchell says he has spoken to her,


and like any person would be, it is sympathetic. But beyond that, what


would her instincts be? I don't know. As a guess? I think her


reaction to the humanitarian tragedy would be the same as any other


civilised person. When you are Prime Minister you have a key role with


the Foreign Secretary in deciding how far you will escalate this. The


most important thing is what view she takes with President Obama if,


which I doubt, President Obama starts contemplating doing this. Is


there any point in having this debate? Well, I think it will give


rise to almost universal agreement on all sides that this is an


outrage. The shock and horror at the likely scale and more civilian


casualties to the ones we have already had. The British are slow to


come to terms with that diminishing role in the world and are viewed by


the rest of the world, I may say so, particularly since the Brexit vote,


as America's most faithful satellite. Russians, I have met


Russians who have told me that if we want to know what British foreign


policy is, we ring up Washington. So I hope the speeches this afternoon


do not start imagining that any of this can happen without Washington


agreeing to do this. Let's leave it there.


The question for today is, "What is Theresa May


reported to have banned from Cabinet meetings?"


At the end of the show, Ken will give us the correct answer.


The Government is adamant there will be no running


But MPs on all sides of the House are arguing that Parliament


should have a final say on the UK's negotiating terms.


Number Ten says these MPs are trying to thwart


Yesterday the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU defended


the Government's right to proceed without Parliament's


Let's take a look at some of the exchanges.


The referendum was backed by 6-1 in this House


and on all sides of the argument, Leave and Remain, we have a duty


to respect and carry out the people's instructions.


As I said, the mandate is clear and we'll reject any attempt to undo


the referendum result, any attempt to hold up the process


unduly or any attempt to keep Britain in the EU by the back door


by those who didn't like the answer they were given on June 23rd.


During the referendum campaign, much was made on the Leave


side about parliamentary sovereignty.


In his statement, the Secretary of State says, "We will return


sovereignty to the institutions of this United Kingdom."


Yet it seems the Government wants to draw up negotiating terms,


negotiate and reach a deal without any parliamentary approval.


That is not making Parliament sovereign.


Can I point out to him that if he is to advise his opposite


number, he might remind him that the repeal of the 72


European Communities Act, will give many, many opportunities


to amend and debate every single aspect of the discussions around


And just in case they haven't noticed, they always have the device


of Opposition Days when they can debate absolutely anything


they choose, even the whole issue of the European Union.


So may I urge him to get on with the process and don't listen


to those who really want to bog it down and never let it happen.


Three days before he was appointed, the Secretary of State published


an article saying it was very important to publish


Can he tell us when is he going to publish that white paper?


And as someone who, for many years, railed about the importance


of the powers of backbenchers and Parliament against


the executive, can he give us, now, with a straight face,


an answer to the question - where is the Government's mandate


for its negotiations, either from this House


I've been a great admirer of the Secretary of State


for his staunch defence of civil liberties and his staunch defence


I was a great admirer when he moved the bill on parliamentary control


of the executive in 1999, where he stirringly told us that


executive decisions by the Government should be


subject to the scrutiny and approval of Parliament.


So, could he tell us, on the basis of what constitutional


principle, can he believe now that the Prime Minister can now


arregate for herself, the exclusive right to interpret


what Brexit means, impose it upon the country,


rather than respect the rightful role of scrutiny


My right honourable friend will be aware that sometimes it is very


important to pay attention to the Liberal elite


and he will be aware that on referendum night we were told,


"I will forgive no-one who does not respect the sovereign


voice of the British people once it has spoken,


When the British people have spoken, you do what they command,


either you believe in democracy or you do not."


Those were the words of Lord Ashdown on Norton-sub-Hamdon in the district


of Somerset, who is the most elitist Liberal I know.


Can I, therefore, urge my right honourable friend to be true


to the views of Lord Ashdown, to the principles of Liberalism


and the traditions of this House and give affect to the


17 million votes were cast on June 23rd for Britain to leave


the European Union and attempts by anti-democratic and ill-liberal


voices on the opposition benches, to thwart the British


people's will, will rightly, be treated with disdain.


We're joined now by the Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, who campaigned


Welcome to the programme. Ken Clarke, would you support the call


from Labour and the Liberal Democrats for a vote on the


Government's initial negotiating position? Yes, I will. The problem


with the referendum was that nobody voted for anything, no two


Brexiteers entirely agreed with each other on exactly what you would do


in the event of them winning it. We are now deeply immersed, because it


is the most urgent problem, in trade arrangements with Europe and a lot


of other countries in the rest of the world which were the subject


matter of the referendum -- which were not the subject matter of the


referendum in the faintest detail. First shows the overriding


constitutional situation. We have a Parliamentary democracy, Government


is made better when made accountable of the details of what it does to a


representative. Jacob Rees-Mogg, the opening remark, no two Brexiteers


had the same vision. So there has to be a vote on that initial


negotiating stance? I think this is wrong, it is fascinating but none of


the pro-Remainers asked for a debate on David Cameron's negotiating terms


before he did his wee negotiation. That was deemed to be a perfectly


normal exercise by the Government of its powers. It is unknown to have


this type of vote on what a Government may negotiate. Parliament


scrutinises what has been done rather than authorised. It may be


unknown, but is it wrong to have some sort of vote by Parliament,


bearing in mind sovereignty was such a cornerstone of your whole


campaign? Why deny parliament that sovereignty? Parliament is not


denied any God at all. It is having a vote tomorrow on an opposition Day


motion... That is not binding in any way. Legislation comes at the end of


the process, not be beginning. The constitution is very


straightforward, it has separation of powers between the executive, the


legislature and the judiciary. The executive links the day-to-day


decisions, they require legislative approval for which they had to go to


Parliament, Parliament provides redress of grievances. As yet there


is no grievance because there is no decision. Your concern and your call


for a vote at this opening stage will just feel the argument that you


just want to thwart the referendum result? That is a way of getting out


of debating what we are going for. The Government does not know what it


is going for, although at Conference they are effectively announced we


are leaving the single market and the customs union, the very reverse


of what was argued in the referendum, because everyone was in


favour of free trade and remaining are trading links. The idea that you


can interpret Parliamentary sovereignty in the constitution,


which Jacob and I are both ardent supporters of, Parliament never


discusses policy. Parliament cannot vote on policy. It can only wait to


see whatever the Government wants to do and allow it to happen, only then


can it a vote when the Government has committed the country to all


these decisions. That is a startling diminution of the role of


Parliament. Even in the face of a referendum. Just before I come back


to you, Jacob Rees-Mogg, when you say that the vote to Leave did not


automatically mean leaving the single market, what does it mean to


leave the EU if it is not to leave the single market? Different voters


had different views on both sides. A lot of it is interpreted as wanting


fewer foreigners. But there were many intelligence and perfectly


civilised people on the Leave side with different arguments. One thing


all the Leave people agreed on was the virtue of free trade. For 40


years I have been an party divided over Europe, the one thing we all


agree on is how marvellous free traders. Liam Fox still makes the


case. Now we are going protection is.


That's the wrong. The sippingle market is not free trade much it is


protectionism on a European scale of the outside the single market and


customs union we can have genuine free trade and people voted to leave


the European Union. The single market and customs union are the


main stay of the European Union. If we remain in those, we have not left


the European Union. Do you accept that? We ruled out staying in.


The key thing, for the benefit of our children and grandchildren, if


we possible can, stay in the single market and customs union and Jacob


agrees with me. I think Jacob mees mog is saying the single mark set


San intrinsic part of being in the EU. If you leave the EU, you do


leave the single market. It is It is the biggest free trade area the in


world. 500 million. It is a free trade area, you don't want to be


part of it. It is a regulated ynchts all markets are regulated. It brings


ne. U regulation, EU courts and EU law. If we remain until the single


market, we remain until the European Union, we have to leave it and we


also have, crucially, customs barriers against the rest of the


world which in some cases are very high. It is not free trade if we


remain in the single market. Do you accept it wasn't explicit in the


vote leave campaign, that actually it was left vague enough that


somehow there was a reluctance to state very clearly, at that point,


that voting to Leave the EU, would automatically, in the minds of the


vote Leave campaign, mean leaving the single market? I think that was


obvious. It wasn't stated clearly. It might have been obvious to you.


Within the campaign it was stated very clearly that once we left, we


would need to negotiate a free trade agreement with the European Union.


There would have been no need to do that if we remained in the single


market and the vote was about leaving the European Union. Yet the


single market is the heart, the beating heart of the European Union.


If we were still part of, that our blood circulation would be caused by


the European Union. Forgive me with the medical analogy. You do accept


that leaving the EU meant not being part of the European part, European


Commission, not being part of the key EU institutions, including the


single market. No, no. Different breaks etteers argued different


things during the referendum dch - Brexiteers. But the majority argued


that leaving the European Union need have no effect on our economic


relationships. People said - this is our biggest single market, the only


set of countries with whom we have negotiated, completely free entry


for most of our goods and quite a lot of our services, we previously


were trying to get more. When we argue that it is very important to


our future economics position, Brexiteers said - oh that's all


right, they'll give us that because we are so important to them we'll


carry on as before. First thing we are doing now, is withdrawing from


it all. On that basis, if you say it was obvious to everybody who voted


Leave that Britain would then leave the single market because, as you


say, it is the beating heart of the EU, does that mean the Government


has a mandate it take us out of anything that has EU fingerprints on


it? We have a mandate to leave the European Union. Sure. The European


aviation safety agency? We don't have to be part - we cannot remaybe


part of any European body that is exclusively members of the European


Union and has the European Court of Justice as its ultimate arbiter, but


on the point of the single market, the EU is in the midst of


negotiations with the United States and with Canada to increase access


to its market by those countries. It hasn't been ratified the Canadians


said and has taken a long time. But it would be bizarre for the European


Union to put up trade barriers on a country, which on the day we leave,


meets all its regulatory requirements. If they wish to do


they'll harm their own economy. They may chose to do that but it would be


an eccentric thing for them to do. What do you say about this, that


there would be an almost of self-harm to punish Britain, if you


like, by leaving the EU, and trying to associate some sort of trade deal


which Boris Johnson said, we can have our cake and eat it which for


many meant staying part of the single market. Is Jacob Rees-Mogg


right, that they won't harm themselves or risking tariffs being


put on goods that they would like to import from Britain in these


negotiations? Well, there will be some harm to the continental


economy, that is right. The things we are asking of them are things


they can't possibly concede, that every other country they have any


trade relationship with - and some of the weaker Member States,


demanding exactly the same. Once you say - we are going to stop free


movement of labour, your nationals are going to require work visas if


they come in our bit of the single market, once we say we are not going


to obey the rules of the market, we are going to make them all British


first, but when we can think of one we want to repeal and at the moment


the Brexiteers can't, we'll change or we will look for some that we


want it change to make them British and we are not going to accept the


European Court. Because the European Court. The reason the EU works is


the European Court enforces the treaty obligations on 28 governments


who wouldn't otherwise agree. The last big case we had there was a


triumph because we were able to get into eurozone financial markets. I


think Mr Clarke in that answer which shows which remaining in the single


market remains leaving in the European Union. Hep doesn't want to


leave the European Union, he regrets the vote and staying under the


auspices of the European Court of Justice in anyway... Which case have


we lost? It is a superior law So is the international court in The


Hague. Are we pulling out of them all? No, it applies law that we


apply via Parliament which ECJ law is our law amount and doesn't


require approval. Give us some example of laws you have been


unhappy about or you would appeal? Into well things that affect my


farmers, the three crop ru. The ban on neonicotine ooids. The 40-working


week when we had a opt-out under the social charter that. 'S the point of


it. That the European Court has been a politicising court pushing


ever-closer to the European Union. Are there key Ken Clarke decisions


One we lost, I was around when it happened, we went there, contrary to


our own legal advice, arguing that the working time corrective, the


48-hour rule was not a health regulation. The reason Victorians


prere stricted hours of work was for health. We lost that. Theresa made


it quite clear, one thing we are not going to do is start tightening up


on labour regulations, so we are not going take advantage of leaving so


people are obliged to work more than 48 hours if they don't want to. A


law you would appeal, the minute we have subsupered all that of European


law into British law, and then you keep t which would you get rid of


it. I would get rid of the three crop rule straightaway. There are


hundreds of rules. You say that. Ban chemicals and pesticides, if you


think about agriculture. I represent a rural constituency Is and Friends


of the Earth there? It would give us freedom to set our own fishing


quotas that would benefit our fishermen. We would be able to have


light bulb that work so people can see in the dark. There are all sorts


of useful issues. People would argue it is not intrinsic for life. We can


have all these German car that is are poisoning us and people are


trigger the figurers, we wouldn't have to have them. Well, there have


been a dramatic fall in the value of sterling, we had already had aer if


cast saying there would be a 4% hit to GDP in Brexit and a cathedral the


aic drop in tax revenues and today on the front page of the Times


leaked papers say that Brexit can cost ?66 billion a year R they all


scare stories or are they the bumps in the road It is not a he can laked


paper. It is a bad paper it put together, a dishonest Pape ter


putted together during the Brexit campaign which said if we left the


European Union and imposed tariffs on everybody who sells to us, we


would have a bad economic time. It is a completely stupid paper and the


Treasury is undermining the Government's own negotiating


position and it is really serious that the Treasury is behaving like


this Or Or is there any truth? It is an abuse of its position. It is a


bogus report. I accept your point that there should be an inquiry.


Just on sterling. Well on sterling and reports there could be 5 p a


litre on petrol by the end of the week, are they the bumps in the


road? Well the oil price has gone up, it always has an faevenlingt


well, devaluation, the last two devaluations in this country, 1992,


before you took over as Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1931 when we


went for gold standard, led to enormous increases in the prosperity


of the country. This is nothing to do with Brexit? No, Brexit has


brought forward the devaluation of the knot pound which was considered


by the OMF and EOCD to be overvalued. What about that? Well,


that is being too technical, the tariffs, that was all settled by the


referendum, apparently. But what about devaluation? Since 2006 when


we had the financial crash, we have devalued by 40%. We now have the


worst current account deficit, usually most people call it the


balance of payment, that we have had in our history. The eurosceptic


argument that junking your own currency is somehow a marvellous


advantage, which they have pedalled for years is, I fear, an illusion,


an absolute illusion. The markets did collapse, I agree, given the


state of affairs we have, it was probably slightly overvalue bud they


collapsed because their judgment was the long-term outlook of the British


economy was bad. I mean we are no longer the nift biggest economy in


the world, we are the sixth now. Already. And we are going to go


further if we are not careful. Briefly and finally, Jacob


Rees-Mogg. If being poorer as a nation for a short period of time,


you may not believe we are going to be poorer as a nation at all. But if


it is the price to pay for what you see as controlling borders and a


return of sovereignty, is that worth it? We will be richer we will be


outside the dead-handed control of the European Union. We can set our


own tariffs, have cheaper goods coming N It ridiculous report from


some lobby group yesterday saying the price of goodwill go up. It'll


go down. Why? We can reduce tariffs against the rest of the world, which


in the EU we can't do. All the scaremongering put to one side and


look beautifully, behind you, the picture of broad, sunny uplands.


Thank you. Cast your mind back


to the Labour party conference and the speech given


by Labour's London Mayor, His message - Labour needs to win


election to wield real power. Labour out of power will never,


ever be good enough. We can only improve lives


with Labour in power, by winning elections,


by putting Labour values Real Labour values -


equality, social justice It's only with Labour in power


that we can create a fairer, And when Labour is not in power,


we fail the very people Well, today, a left-of-centre think


tank, the New Economics Foundation, has published its plan for pursuing


policies outside of government, with ideas such as locally produced


energy, childcare co-operatives All aimed at giving people more


control over their lives. The NEF's Chief Executive,


a former speechwriter Welcome to the programme S this


added mission that the left are going to be out of power for a


generation? No, it begins with the assumption, the truth that we are in


a terrible state as a country, that the economy doesn't work for


millions of people. That Leave voters, we know they felt they


didn't have control and this is' why they voted to leave the European


Union but we have polled Remain voters too and found the same


output. 25%, just 25% of Remain voters say their voices count in


politics. So we are in a mess. We need real change and we can't wait


for any general election, whenever that might be. Do you agree with


Sadiq Khan, the best way to affect change is to win an election? Where


we find ourselves now, is there are new opportunities for change than


there have ever been before. Sad evening Khan, as devolved mayor has


an opportunity to do things in London which his predecessors


couldn't have town down and that will be true in Manchester. There


are innovative businesses starting all over the country. Trade unions,


interested in create sowing enterprise communities. We live in a


time when politics, and general elections matter but there are a


different ways of doing things than we have in the past It sounds like


you have given up on the mainstream process because it doesn't get


things done that people actually want and isn't from your side of the


spectrum, if you like. Is there some truth in that, you will be lobbying


for power and effective change rather than running the show? Some


of my best friends are politicians. You admit That they are important


people but all politician, even Ken would acknowledge, we are in a


situation where the public has moved away from thinking about mainstream,


Westminster, Whitehall politics, as the primary solution to the


challenges we face They are looking, people of all parties and none, are


looking for new ways, fresh ways of getting things done now, rather than


having to wait for a general election.


Do you agree with that assessment? I don't. I agree with the analysis


of the unsatisfactory state of public opinion whether political


class is held with contempt, lots of young people switch off from


politics altogether and a lot of old people feel let down by the


consequences of automation and change under more complicated world


and so on. But in the middle of it all, the real politics, for most


mainstream people, concerns the better governance of the country. In


the end, you require a government. Government policies affect these


things, all our lives, therefore, in the end, holding political power and


the ability to put what you believe are issues in the national interest


in effect, that is what most politicians had to be about. I have


not read this paper, to be fair, but the extracts sent to me rather nice,


rather naive, probably, perhaps worth trying, one two, but local


experiments that might be tried to see if they have an effect in one or


two parts of the country is not governing Britain in a very


difficult, dangerous and changing world. It reminded me a little bit


of David Cameron's Big Society, locally produced energy, childcare


cooperatives, taxi apps run by the drivers. This is small scale


solutions run by local people? I just left an event that we are


running at The New Economic Foundation, we heard from one career


driver paid the London living wage whose every move is tracked by


headquarter at head office, who feels as their life has got totally


out of control, they can't earn enough to feed their families but


their workplace experience is really dire. We have tabbed solutions to


those problems. The Government has a big challenge ahead, we have talked


about that throughout the programme, the Brexit debate will not go away,


Parliamentary time will be sucked up thinking about our relationship with


the European Union, but I can't stand there and look in the face of


people living with the real troubles of our economy and say, well, we


will not do anything because that sounds like Big Society or too


small-scale. It is the job of people like as in the think tank world to


think about solutions to put in place tomorrow which would change


people's lives for the better. Is that a worthwhile cause if, as the


accusation goes, the Government will be consumed by Brexit negotiations?


There is a real danger that it will be, and we have important things to


handle. Obviously I am a former Chancellor and all that, the key to


these problems is proper management of the economy, recovering growth,


lowering inflation and sustaining it. I quite agree that we have to


address how to spread the benefits of our better. Capitalists,


free-market enthusiasts, the too long have overlooked the fact that


there is a whole section of the population, particularly in the


change industrial North and North Midlands, left behind. Start with


the good governance of the country, having the right Chancellor, not Mr


McDonnell, then look at all these things that might spread the


benefits better and make sure people don't fall through the gaps. Thank


you very much becoming in, Mark. -- for coming in.


My guest of the day - Ken Clarke - has enjoyed a political


He served as Health Secretary, Education Secretary,


Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer in


He was then called back into frontline politics by David Cameron,


joining the Cabinet as Justice Secretary in 2010.


He's just published his memoirs, "Kind of Blue", and we'll talk


a bit about Ken's life in politics in just a moment.


# Seas would rise when I gave the word.


MUSIC PLAYS: Viva La Vida by Coldplay.


Apologies for presenting this first Budget rather like a lion tamer


trying out his act for the first time, but I've decided


to tackle the difficulties I face in a direct way.


Go away, lie down in a dark room, keep taking the tablets


and think very carefully whether the Liberal Democrats


have a single opinion one way or the other on the merits of any


We're searching for a leader who will be seen by the public


Well, oh, boy, have you kept me waiting!


Theresa's a bloody difficult woman, but you and I worked


Ken Clarke, you were enjoying that? I haven't seen some of those clips


for ages, did not know they existed. You have been in politics for a very


long time, as we can see from Buzz archive clips. How has it changed in


your view, and has changed for the better? In some ways are probably


has. It was deferential and class divided when I started, there was a


huge difference between the tweedy nights on the shires on the


Conservative benches on the very working class guys on the Labour


benches, it was tribal. Most families voted the same way all the


time. Do you not think it is tribal? An awful lot of people under the age


of 50 decide who they will vote for two or three days before polling


day, which makes it so exciting but uncertain. In other ways it has


diminished, because Parliament was more powerful when I started.


Everything was rooted in Parliament. Although things were a bit too


deferential, Government was properly accountable, very collective.


Cabinet ministers had to agree things. The Parliament and the Prime


Minister was a powerful first among equals. Sensible debate took place


in the media, who were a bit too deferential but reported serious


issues. Now it is all celebrity culture, public relations, can we


get something about simply's sex life all money? If not, what


exciting thing can we hang the news on two? Has that grabs your style,


this practice of modern politics about message discipline, sticking


to the line, media grids and so on? Have you find that difficult? I have


totally ignored it! But has not escaped a goodness, thank -- that is


not escaped our notice, thank goodness. David was very kind, I


went football years without going along with this stuff. I think there


was a Ken Clarke rule. I think it has damaged politics, the talking


clock type of politics and the slogan eyes is not the main thing


but is one of the things that has fed a low level of regard for


politicians. Good god you say that David Cameron and his acolytes gave


you free rein or just accepted that Ken Clarke was Ken Clarke, but you


said you felt plotted against an deceived when he discovered in 2014,


and I remember this happening, that Downing Street advisers were trying


to stop you from appearing on Question Time. Why? Because they


were not sure what I would say and I would not use the slogan. It was a


silly, childish incident. The way they went about it, which I will


discuss if you want me to come in time, it was lying to me and the


producer and trying to slip in the more, in their opinion, conformist


advocate. How did they explain it to you? Said the programme had made a


mistake and book two conservatives, so unfortunately they were sticking


with the other one, that they would have me on some time in future. The


producer was called by the same people and told I was very ill, and


this was not being made public because it was a personal health


matter, I was not able to go, and they, very helpfully, could provide


simply to take my place at very short notice. It never occurred to


them but I would ring the producer and said, I thought we had fixed


this ages ago, what went wrong? They miscalculated. You served three


Conservative prime ministers, how did they compared? They were all


quite remarkable people, completely and utterly different personalities.


Ted and Margaret were two of the most one of personalities I have


ever met, unlike each other, chalk and cheese. John Major was the


ultimate nice guy being battered hopelessly. Cameron was the classic


purveyor of the Blair style of Government. Very successful at


first. He will not be given credit for it but Cameron and Osborne


rescued the country from financial catastrophe. Thereafter, they got


into... Back to the old politics, although Thatcher was a bloody


difficult woman... You need to be careful with that phrase! And I had


a very robust relationship with her, she was the best Prime Minister, I


had to concede. The Thatcher Government was the one that


transformed the country for the better. The Major Government


consolidated and continued it in the same way, presented slightly more


gently, but Thatcher was the remarkable one to work for.


Do you think you changed yourself for the perception of how you were


viewed by other politicians? Chewing the coalition, Nick Clegg voted --


joked that he counted you as one of the Lib Dems, the Spectator called


you yellow can. Did you acquire a more cuddly image? I said to Nick


Clegg, you are a one nation Conservative. You only joined the


Lib Dems because we were so fanatically anti-European at that


time. Leaving that to one side, politics


has moved. I am a believer in free market economic is with the social


consequence -- conscience, I am an economic and social liberal. UR a


diminishing breed on the Conservative benches? The Europeans


remain in the majority on the Conservative benches, as in every


other political party in the House of Commons, apart from the


Democratic Unionists, but we are all slightly isolated. Being one of the


stronger pro-Europeans who never agreed with the idea of a referendum


anyway, with a constituency that voted to Remain, I am probably a bit


on my own, but that happens to most bedroom politicians. And does not


bother you? Not at all. We will have to do your addiction to standing for


the leadership another time. Jeremy Corbyn took part


in the regular Monday night meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party


last night - his first MPs had a chance to raise concerns


ranging from the recent reshuffle The Labour Leader was also asked why


he had attended an anti-racism rally over the weekend that was allegedly


linked to the far-left group the Socialist Workers'


Party, which critics say It was founded as the Socialist


Review Group in 1950. It describes itself as a rational --


revolutionary socialist group. They have been involved in various


campaigns over the years, for example former leading members of


the SWP helped to set up the Stop The War Coalition to campaign


against the invasion of Iraq in 2003. In 2013, the SWP was mired in


controversy because, it was claimed, they mishandled sexual assault


allegations against an individual who was at the time one of their


members. We invited the SWP onto the


programme, but they declined. They also said that Standard To Racism is


not a front organisation for the is to be be. So Steve Hart, the


vice-chair of Standard To Racism joins us, along with a Labour


supporting journalist, James Bloodworth. Steve, you helped to


organise this event on Saturday, what was it about and were Socialist


workers involved? First of all, I am Labour supporting, I am the chair of


the biggest constituency Labour Party in the country. It was an


event about confronting anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and


racism. It was particularly focusing around issues of refugees and,


indeed, the racist atmosphere that had begun to develop in some places


after Brexit. It was 1400 people. And the Socialist Workers' Party's


involvement is what? They were involved, as they have been in many


things, fighting fascism over the years. Are they a dominant force in


Standard To Racism? One of their leading figures is co-convenor? That


is right. They are not a dominant force, they are participants in


Stand Up To Racism, along with many, many others. Alf Dubs was one of the


speakers on Saturday. And he has campaigned for child refugees to be


taken in. He has been a participant all the way through. The Muslim


Council of Britain has been involved. What was the problem? With


Jeremy Corbyn attending this rally? I wroo call them a front group for


far left groups. The socialist Workers' Party is not a very -


Trotskyism isn't popular so they form front groups around issues


which are more pop larks anti-racism, anti--er with a and use


it to try to recruit members. In case of the socialist Workers'


Party, it is an organisation which many of us believe isn't safe for


women. There was a scandal around 2013. We objected to the leader of


the Labour Party giving it kind of - making this organisation credible


where you have someone like Weyman Bennett who is at the top of this


organisation Do you accept that criticism. Associating yourself with


this organisation and the Labour MP, Jeff Phillips certainly said there


shouldn't be a connection in what will you are trying to do in Stand


Up to Racism, and the Socialist Workers' Party because of the way


they mishandled sexual assault allegations. Well, I think she is


fantastic in what she does. Jess Phillips spoke at one of our rallies


in April 2015. She obviously didn't, at that point, see that as an issue.


The SWP, as you have said, had serious issues around this. But


then, so did the BBC, so did the Catholic Church. I'm here today, I'm


not boycotting the BBC. The police have investigated those allegations.


The problem with the SDW, they persuaded women who were victims of


sexual assault not to go to the police. And there are groups who


persuade their members not to go to the rally. There is an extensive


list of people, are they all wrong? I saw a call for boycotting last


Tuesday. 1500 people from up and down the country, from groups


supporting refugees in Calais, and other groups that had already signed


up to this. They are people who want to come. We are well aware of the


situation. - who are well aware of the situation. For me, what really


matters is let's try and find what unites us. I think we should be


doing more, Government made some moves yesterday but we really need


to get the children fromical clay. Sure Tonight I'm going to a vigil in


Tottenham because a woman had her hijab torn off her. A lot of people


are coming together, Stand Up to To Racism is organising that. People


uniting against racism is a good thing. That's my politics. The


socialist Workers' Party are not serious on the issue of


anti-Semitism. This is an organisation that believes in the


objectlies of the state of Israel. For most people it is an


anti-Semitic place it start N I don't think they should be involved


in an anti-racist campaign. If you are not serious about anti-Semitism,


you cannot be serious about anti-racism across the board I'm the


vice chair and I'm extremely serious about anti-Semitism and I'm


extremely - regard it as extremely important that our organisation will


stand up to racism. How do you feel about the People in the Socialist


Workers Party that don't? Every time they have spoken about t it is


clear, anti-Semitism is a problem. They along with others, have been


campaigning around Irishes of anti-Semitism, recently. Do you


think you are diminishing the value of your protests n terms of


anti-racism, in terms of campaigning on behalf of child refugees, by


association with the Socialist Workers Party when you come up with


criticism by people like James Bloodworth and Jess Phillips? Well


my opinion and I'm not on the far left, I actually voted for Owen


Smith. I want to bring people together. Where there are issues


around racism, I want to bring everybody together. I would like to


see Mrs Varsi, we had had Tim Farron taking place in our rallies. I have


huge respect for the anti-racism campaign but I would say they are


being used by the SWP by group to recruit to their party. Similar Stop


the War. It is a supporter of the regime in North Korea. These are


regimes that people of left or right should be wanting to distance


themselves from. You don't want to see Jeremy Corbyn attending these?


Absolutely not. It lends credibility to them of which there should be


none. Could self-build homes be the answer


to England's housing shortage? From later this month,


councils in England will be obliged to sell plots of land to anyone


wanting to build their own home, and supporters of the idea reckon it


will help increase the supply Mark Lobel has been


to the Netherlands to see how A great place for boats,


tulips and museums. If you want to go house hunting


here, what better way I've


joined a delegation of British MPs, planners, and industry


insiders in search of well, not a standard build


but a self-build or custom-built house on a piece of land


with all the utilities I feel like I'm on the set


of Grand Designs. First stop is Europe's biggest


experiment in affordable I'm just asking because there are no


windows on the front of your house. People are thinking that


I love my privacy and I do, but it has nothing to do


with my neighbours. And when it's dark, you can't


see anything outside. Can I join you on your building


site? They build it, put it on a big truck


and they set it up in one day. There is an equivalent city


of custom-built houses Gravenhill in Oxfordshire


will accommodate almost 2,000 homes. Visiting Holland, these Cherwell


district councillors are on the board of Gravenhill


Village Development Company, a commercial operation


owned by the council. What Gravenhill provides


is the land, the plot, a significant We are also looking at things


like planning and This isn't a big grand design,


you need to have cash in the bank. This is about how can


you build your dream home at different levels of your life


and spending different But at the moment the UK


lags behind its European neighbours and America,


with only one-tenth of its housing stock from self


or custom-built houses. Government land is sold


through an agency called the Homes and Communities Agency


and their legal documents You need to sit down with mortgage


providers and persuade them it's going to be worth their while to


adjust their computer systems to providing staged payment


mortgages for custom builds. A senior figure in the mortgage


industry on the visit told me self-build mortgages require


a 20% larger deposit than conventional builds,


that available land Well, I wrote the Self Build and


Custom House Building Act and got it That's now been strengthened


by the Government in this year's So, there's a further obligation


on local councils to actually provide serviced plots of land,


enough planning permission with serviced plots of land to deal


with the demand as evidenced The Ministry of Defence's head


of accommodation policy was also investigating custom


house-building here. The MoD wants more staff


on the housing ladder and is considering self-build


for service personnel. The ministry of the defence has more


than 2% of the land in the UK. They need quite a lot


of that for training. They don't need all of it


and they are looking at selling it I'm saying they should be a bit more


imaginative about how they do that So maybe one day more land could be


available for custom housing and members of the Armed Forces


could be able to design We've been joined in the studio


by Michael Holmes, chair of the National Custom


Self Build Association. Welcome to the programme. Do you


really think they could actually help solve the housing shortage?


This could be a significant part of house building. You have seen the


figures where it is provided elsewhere in Europe, America, Japan,


Australia, New Zealand. Developed economies have a major owner


commissioned sector in which the people who live in the houses get


involved in the design and construction. It is in their


interests to do so. But the problem is still available land. The problem


we face here and the planning law that is go along with T how do you


go over that? Right-to-build edge legislation which commences on


October 31st will be a game change. Land at the moment comes to market


as major strategic building sites that only the major house builders


can access and land for the smaller sector is more or less dried up. It


is an issue with the planning system. Right-to-build legislation


places a duty on local authorities to build forward sites that are


broken up to access plots. They'll become available for individuals who


would like to buy and commission and build their own homes, it could be


DIY. But most likely an SME. DIY that could take me ten years. Isn't


it for people who have some money, rather than affordable Currently,


you need a substantial deposit to be able it self-build. Only large plots


come to market. 20% higher we heard in the film. However that may not be


the case. Elsewhere in Europe they have a scheme called, I Builds


Affordal where the local authority owns or you lease the land for them.


You only have the cost of the build. Land is 60 to # 0%. If you take that


component out and lease it on a fair rent you only have the cost of


building t makes it much more affordable. What about the look. One


of the biggest complaints from neighbours when their neighbours are


building a house s what it'll look like. Yes, dove he sign codes, if


you are Conservative and you would like to make sure your neighbour


looks similar to yours, you choose a plot with a restricted design code


which tells you, within this glass box, the space you can fill. If you


are more avanlt guard you can chose an area where there is more freedom.


Do you think this'll go down well in your constituency? Interesting. I


think would be great rows about the ate peerns of them in my


constituency is the honest assessment. I'm not sure my


constituency is the kind of place that Michael is aiming at anyway. It


can be apartments. My DIY is limited to changing a light bulb. I find it


interesting. Nothing puts me off. I think it can make a contribution. I


think the bigger problems in housing should keep trying it tackle, go


beyond this, we have big problems of speeding up the planning system


which is slowly happening and then the delays between planning consent


and building and housing finance and the fact it is all dominated by big


developers, who have no incentive whatever to get on with building and


there aren't enough small plots. Other countries don't have to do t


this DIY, many other countries a lot of homes are one-off which the


owners have commissioned themselves from a small builder Precisely. And


they have, you know, proper housing - a house that takes longer to


build. That's custom build and that's what we think should be


happening. It is owner commissioned housing, not DIY. A small proportion


to the market, 10%, the big growth proposition is small SME builders


and packaged companies that can build off plans and kit, helping


people to have their own individual design quickly, it is a whole area


of housing that appeals to the market that don't want to buy the


new builds of major house builders. Can you built one? I have built my


own home. The DIY proportion was small. I left it to the


professionals. Most people do. Time to find out the answer to our quiz.


The question was, "What is Theresa May reported to have banned


So, Ken, what is the correct answer?


It's Apple watches. Do you have one? No, I have a mobile


phone. It is switched off. If anybody wanted to intercept our


conversation for the last hour, they should do. So you shouldn't take


this into account. I'm in the banning anything from our studio


today. That's it. Thank you to Ken Clarke for


Download Subtitles