13/10/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 13/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello A and welcome to the Daily Politics.


As a potential shortage of one of life's essentials, Marmite,


is being blamed on Brexit thanks to the fall in the pound,


there are continued calls for Parliament to have a vote


Today the campaign by Remain supporters has even reached


the courts - but are these legitimate attempts to hold


the government to account and give parliament its proper role,


or just sour grapes on the part of a losing side that won't give


The SNP is holding its annual conference in Glasgow,


and Nicola Sturgeon has signalled she intends to press


ahead with legislating for a second


We'll be speaking to the party's new, freshly elected, deputy leader.


A new report says that Britain's cities have all the money,


but because it's not shared around you might be better off


We'll discuss it with one urban and one rural MP.


And according to a group of university academics,


David Cameron has joined the hall of shame of Britain's worst


We'll be asking if that's harsh, or fair.


Perspective. That was the motto of the Daleks. -- could be harsh but


they are, depending on your perspective.


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


She was an adviser to former Work and Pensions Secretary


Iain Duncan Smith, and she's now head of something called


Jo tells me Legatum is a Latin word, meaning legacy.


We haven't yet worked out the meaning of Institute.


Apparently its job is to spread prosperity.


Let's hope she can spread a bit around the studio while she's here.


Have you? It is about social as well as economic prosperity.


First today you'll be staggered to hear we're going to be


It continues to be the issue dominating politics at Westminster,


cutting across nearly every other area of national debate,


and dividing parties in some surprising ways.


Yesterday saw MPs demanding more of a say on Brexit in the Commons.


Today, that challenge has moved to the courts.


Yes, today's challenge is to do with whether the Government can


exercise the Royal perogative to take Britain out


of the EU without seeking Parliamentary approval.


The case, which has been brought by a group of people including


an investment manager and a London hairdresser, could have major


Well, our legal correspondent, Clive Coleman, is at the High Court.


What chance does it have success? Sorry, there is an extremely loud


ambulance going by. What chance does it have of success? Reasonable is


the short answer. This is a perfectly respectable legal argument


that is being brought and it goes like this. It says that the


government, the executive, cannot lawfully, under our Constitution,


use royal prerogative powers. These are a collection of executive powers


derived from the crowd and then go back to medieval times when monarchs


could pretty much do whatever they liked. The government cannot


lawfully use prerogative powers to trigger Article 50, and what they


need is the authority of an act of Parliament to do so. The government


to take a different view. They say they are perfectly and lawfully and


constitutionally entitled to use prerogative powers because


essentially what we are doing is extricating ourselves from an


international treaty and that is a prime example of where prerogative


powers are preserved. But there is a battle royal going on in the Lord


Chief Justice's caught behind me. 20 or so barristers appearing in this


case. Lord Paddick at QC for the businesswoman bringing this


challenge has said that the case raised issues of fundamental concert


usual importance and the real nitty-gritty of this is that if the


government use the royal prerogative to trigger Article 50, they will be


obliterating rights enshrined in the 1972 European Community is act, and


he said that it is no answer for the government to say they will restore


rights later with an appeal bill. This is a rates will fall away and


they cannot do that. What about the timing? We know that Theresa May


intends to invoke Article 50 by March, so could that frustrate the


timing? I don't think this will stop Brexit but it could frustrate the


timing. Whichever side losers, inevitably they will take this to


the Supreme Court. And we don't know quite how long that will take but it


could be well into the New Year. It could have a serious effect on the


timing of all this, and the manner in which we Brexit. A break from


Brexit, some breaking news. Bob Dylan has won the Nobel literature


prize 2016 for creating new poetic expressions within the great


American song book. Bob Dylan wins the Nobel Prize for literature. Who


saw that coming? And now, let's go back to Brexit.


The question of Parliamentary scrutiny of the Brexit vote


was debated at length in the Commons yesterday.


The Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, David Davis,


faced hostile questioning from the opposition benches and some


remain-supporting Conservatives over the role Parliament should play


We are debating a fundamental question, and that is whether the


basic plans for exiting, for the negotiating position are going to be


put before the house or not. That really matters. Of course there is a


degree of detail that cannot be gone into, and of course there is


flexibility that has to be there and of course the starting position may


not be the end position. We all accept that and we are all grown up.


So, we can make sure the decision people made on June 23rd


We need to be explicit that while we commend and welcome


parliamentary scrutiny, it must not be used as a vehicle


to undermine the Government's negotiating position or thwart


We're joined now by the Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin, he was a Leave


supporter, and by the Labour MP Emma Reynold - she supported remain.


Welcome to you both. When the government triggers Article 50 to


begin the negotiating process, do you want Parliament to vote on that


before it triggers? I want Parliament to vote on the terms but


I am seeking that not to block the triggering of Article 50, but so


that we can have a proper discussion from representatives of all


different corners of the United Kingdom in an attempt to bring our


country back together again on what kind of Brexit we want. Because


people voted Leave for so many different reasons and there are so


many different forms that leaving the EU could take that I think


Parliament should have a role in scrutinising the government's


negotiating strategy and helping to make sure we get the best outcome.


So you think the government should publish its negotiating strategy,


put it before Parliament and then have a vote? I think the government


should make clear what its principal objectives are. That does not mean


necessarily publishing the negotiating strategy but certainly I


would like the government to prioritise the best possible access


to the single market, because I think business is getting very


jittery about that. Equally there are other considerations that needs


to be taken into account. But should Parliament vote on it? I think


Parliament should. But seven out of ten Labour MPs are like me. They


campaigned to remain but they have constituencies, and the majority of


constituents voted to leave. Therefore we do not want to thwart


the will of the people. I understand that. What would be wrong with that?


Well, the only reason some people are trying to get tabled in


Parliament on Article 50 is presumably so they can vote it. Why


do you say that? It is simply not true. What is the point of having a


vote on something if we are all going to vote for it. Last night


your party put down a motion where there was a huge row, which turned


out not to be a row about anything because we voted in the same way.


But you are someone who has always stood up for Parliamentary scrutiny


of the executive but on this point you were saying there should not be


scrutiny. It is a separate issue. I think that is perfectly legitimate


and that is why we supported the motion yesterday. So, should the


government publish the broad outlines of how it will approach the


negotiations? I am certain that is what the government is going to do.


And should it seek Parliamentary approval for that broad outline? If


the government does not maintain the confidence of the House of Commons


in its negotiating position, it will finish up losing a vote. So why not


have a vote? The opposition had the opportunity to put down a motion


yesterday about what they wanted in the withdrawal agreement and they


did not put anything down. But the opposition does not run the country,


the government does. They wanted a row about procedure. But I am not.


What would be wrong, and I perfectly understand the point that you do not


lay out your negotiating position, that would be absurd, you would tell


the other side, but we lay out as a country the broad objectives, and we


put these before Parliament and Parliament has a vote to say, yes,


that is the broad outline and then you go forward. What would be wrong


with that? One of the questions that people keep asking me, is the


government going to be inside or outside the single market? Now, that


is an issue that might be traded with a lot of other issues. And that


could be covered by the government seeking to have the broadest


possible access to the single market. Personally, I would argue


that what the Prime Minister has said makes it quite clear. We are


not going to be in the single market. I think if that is going to


be the policy, the government needs to make the case. But they need to


be clear about that because they have not been. David Davis said


precisely nothing about that. What would happen if a vote to trigger


Article 50 was put before Parliament and Parliament voted against it?


Firstly, I do not think that will happen. How would you vote? I will


not be voting against the triggering of Article 50. Unless they come up


with a very, very hard Brexit plan and put that before Parliament. I


think it would be a question, and I think it will be very unlikely,


because the majority of MPs voted to remain on your side and our side,


and we now accept the result because we are Democrats. But I do think


that some of these issues, particularly access to the single


market, is so important and actually business is crying out for clarity


on this as well. Let me come back to that issue. It is one that you have


mentioned several times. Philippa, you have written the Parliament


house to deliver an Brexit or we will face a constitutional crisis of


the highest order. What do you mean by that? What we meant was we have


recently published a report looking at what was underneath the vote, and


why people voted the way that they did. And what became very obvious


was that the people expect, the 52% who voted to leave absolutely expect


their vote to be delivered upon. Were that not to be the case, as


Emma has outlined, if Parliament voted against the government's


proposal, the would be a constitutional crisis. That would be


extreme. I don't think that will happen. Maybe not in the Commons but


the Lords is 6-1 against Brexit. Is there a mood in there to thwart the


referendum result. Like there is in the Commons, there are numbers of


members of the House of Lords who are very uncomfortable about Brexit.


I am not sure that they would actually push it to thwarting the


democratic will of the nation. I don't think they would do that


although there was a lot of manoeuvring going on. I will come


back to this issue but I want to play a short clip from the Foreign


Secretary. He is called Boris Johnson and he was being quizzed in


parliament, in the committee yesterday, about it. Let's hear what


he had to say this morning. Nobody appears to have


a Scooby, if you like, I tell you what, I will


do it one last time. Is it even your objective to retain


membership of the Single Market? Well, we are leaving


the European Union. Let me try - you seem


to think the Single Market is sort of like, you know,


the Groucho Club or something. We will continue to have


access for trade in goods I think we'll do a deal that will be


to the benefit of both sides. That was Boris Johnson, telling us


that membership of the single market is not like membership of the


Groucho Club. Don't tell me there is no parliamentary scrutiny going on.


It is a major development that we probably didn't know, that there was


a difference between the Groucho Club and the European Union. On this


business of the single market, surely the Government will say no


more than that we are going to go for as much access to the single


market, as is consistent with leaving the EU. Isn't that all it


can say, surely? Well, if they had said that clearly at their


conference, perhaps we wouldn't have had the jitters in the market and


business we have seen. Unfortunately at their conference they put


immigration above all else. I do think we need it tackle people's


concerns about immigration, by the way but if they'd said - we want the


best-possible access... Exactly what they said I didn't hear them say


that loud and clear. I heard the Home Secretary about naming and


shaming companies that employ... They did, I was in Birmingham. I


heard them talk about immigration for about four days. They want the


best access. The issue is that no-one can tell us what the best


access means. We won't know that. But if you take the position, as the


Government does, that we should no longer be justiceable by the


European Court of Justice, if you take the position, as the Government


does, that our borders should be controlled, including from the EU


and migration and if you take the position, as the Government does,


that we should have the freedom to make our own free trade agreements,


it surely follow, that although we could still have quite wide access


to the single market, we could not be a member on any one of these


conditions? Well, I think that's right but then I don't understand


why the Foreign Secretary doesn't answer that question. Obviously,


there is still the EEA, which is slightly different but still has


some of the same issues that you outline. They don't have the ECJ,


they have a different court. Where you study court, it is jurisprudence


on ECJ law. I think it is clear from what the Government has said they


don't want access to the single market. Quite why they don't say it,


I don't know. If that is conceded, before you have started your


negotiation, you are making a concession which you don't need to


make at this stage. Isn't it clear that is what they mean. Personally


that's my view. So why are they so hesitant to say it. The other


reason, of course s that David Cameron forbade Whitehall to make


any preparations for Brexit, and, therefore, a great many officials


and ministers are still getting their brains around the whole


business of what Brexit means and how it is going to work. One of your


MPs from the backbenches yesterday contradicted that and said there had


actually been some work asome preparation. All that happened was -


I'm Chairman of the committee she was referring to. The Constitutional


Affairs Committee. The Cabinet Secretary told us that he had had an


away day with Permanent Secretaries a few weeks before the referendum


without the knowledge of the Prime Minister and wouted the knowledge of


the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Was it the Groucho Club? I don't know


where it was held, the location has not been disclosed. It was.


My guess, is that although everything that is said, the logic


is that we can no longer be a member of the single market, it doesn't


want to admit that at the moment because it is going to put in a max


mallist negotiating position and it is going to say - well, we would


still like to be a member but we are not going to be in the ECJ and all


the rest and then it'll get knocked back from that max mallist position.


I think we are seeing an emerging of a negotiating position. So you have


the strongest line that came out at conference, of the Britain's


position and then at that weekend... What was the strongest line? Which


was that, the triggering of Article 50, the Great Repeal Bill. Don't you


mean the great incorporation bill, that incorporates the EU law into


domestic legislation. The Great Consolidation Bill. In order to


smooth transition and have security on transition but then you have the


European Union response, that it damages businesses. Well they are


putting their maximist position. ! Briefly Can I make one point. If we


are going to leave the single market, and that's going to be the


outcome, the Government has to make the case and reassure about that


because a lot of people have legitimate concerns about what they


don't know. But when does the Government start doing, that at the


moment, as you say even from the clip of Boris Johnson being


interviewed, I had Chris Grayling of the Tory conference telling me, that


there was no such thing as membership of the single market


Well, it is absolutely true. It is not There is something the EU calls


the internal market and you can be in the internal market if you


subscribe to either membership of the European economic area, or


membership of the European... For all intents and purposes you are a


member. What business are worried about is falling back on WTO member


sh. That's why Nissan has said they'll make no further investment


in Sunderland. This is the real discussion. It is. I don't think we


should fall back on that membership. Is that the problem about not having


a running commentary that it is being filled by... We need to be


able to reassure people. There will be huge advantages of being outside


the single market. I disagree with that. We should debate I'm glad to


have that debate. We will have that debate - to. Put down a Megs for


Opposition Day. Put down a motion.


So is she Reynolds with an S? I'll jump in. They will never go.


Yesterday as MPs debated Brexit in the Commons chamber -


and more on that in a moment - speaker John Bercow had to give one


MP, the SNP's Angus MacNeill, a bit of a ticking off for what he


So, what had Mr MacNeill done wrong?


At the end of the show Philippa will give us the correct answer.


Although I image she has absolutely no clue whatsoever.


Now, our Guest of the Day, Philippa Stroud, used to be


an adviser to the former Work and Pensions Secretary,


Iain Duncan Smith, and she played a big part in shaping the last


Coalition Government's welfare reforms such as the introduction


But just this week a report from the Office for Budget Responsibility


concluded that the big headline-grabbing reforms have not


been very good at saving money - a problem faced by governments


My company was one of the first to sign up to the New Deal.


It's about giving young people the opportunity to go to work.


Despite New Labour's desire to encourage benefit recipients


to pull their weight in work, welfare spending grew 40%


The subsequent Coalition Government pledged to cut the large


deficit they inherited and decrease welfare spending.


If you go back to before the financial crisis,


we were spending about 10% of national income


During the course of the financial crisis, that bounced


That's basically because a lot of benefits were being raised


in line with inflation at a time that the economy was shrinking.


So, essentially, what has happened over the last Parliament,


and is continuing to happen over this one, is that the Government


is getting that number back to 10% again.


The rate of spending on welfare was decreased over the last six


years when the Coalition Government cut benefits for high earnersp


But the real savings, the big savings were achieved


when the former Chancellor, George Osborne, increased


the benefits that most people got, at a lower rate


Uprating benefits at 1% means people get more cash but less


than the rate of inflation and, taken together, we will save ?3.7


billion in 2015-16 and deliver permanent savings each and every


year from our country's welfare bill.


But there were setbacks for the Chancellor,


A so-called bedroom tax in unoccupied space in council homes


would have decreased housing benefit, were it not


Also, a year ago, the Government was dealt a major blow


after the House of Lords voted twice to delay cuts in tax credits,


and earlier this month, the retesting for eligibility


for disability benefit was dropped for recipients with severe


conditions and no prospect of getting better.


So, what is the secret to cutting welfare spending effectively?


The experience has been that those structural reforms have not gone


as quickly as Government had hoped and haven't saved as much money


They are a very complicated thing to do and it's turned out to be that


simply making benefits less generous has been a much more reliable way


to get the total amount of spending down.


So, on that basis, we shouldn't be surprised that merging six benefits


into one and moving seven million people on to a new Universal Credit


It was originally launched three years ago by the then Work


and Pensions Secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, but it's been


You said in September the system was working,


We are now also looking at Universal Credit as something


that is designed to save money, relative to the benefits it's


replacing, rather than the earlier vision that it should be


So that change and the current four-year freeze to many benefits,


means the rate of welfare spending continues to fall.


And we're joined now by Torsten Bell, who used to be


Labour's Director of Policy, but now he's directing


the think-tank Resolution Foundation.


Welcome back to the programme. Philippa Stroud, you were an advisor


to Duncan Smith in the last Parliament. Do you think Theresa


May's Government is as committed to his welfare reforms? I do think


Theresa May - well, is committed to his welfare reforms, particularly to


Universal Credit. Some of the other reforms, because she wants to go for


the group who are just managing - and we have seen already on


disability there that she had long-term conditions - that people


who have long-term conditions, she has eased up a little on. But I do


think she is committed to actual welfare reform, not necessarily all


the saving but actual welfare reform that leads to a making work pay


agenda. To the structural changes we heard in the film are happening


slightly more slowly than anticipated and they are not making


the savings. Is she right? I do think she is right, yes. So was Iain


Duncan Smith, were you wrong at that time for pushing too hard for just


cost-cutting? We were not pushing for just cost-cutting. We were doing


the major reforms at a time of austerity. That is really


challenging. When we - at the Centre for Social Justice - designed


Universal Credit, we had not envisaged having to do it in the


economic climate T would be amazing, always to do welfare reform, not in


a difficult economic climate but we didn't have that luxury. You are


looking sceptical. It is how I look in general. It is a feature. I take


that on board. But do you accept Philippa's claim that these big


reforms, Universal Credit, did become more difficult during a time


of austerity As a statement of fact as is harder to deliver large


structural reforms when there is less money around, yes. On Theresa


May and her plans now, what appears to be clear is she is committed to


delivering Universal Credit, although I would say as a


approximately policy rather than a religious fervour that it may have


been for the past Government. What is not clear yet and this'll have to


make a decision in the Autumn Statement - are they committed to


so. Changes made to the Universal Credit towards the end of George


Osborne's time as Chancellor that do seriously limit the benefits that


the Universal Credit is meant to bring. If she isn't committed to


those, it is very sensible because that is what will make Universal


Credit able to tackle some of the big problems we face in the 21st


century not the 1990s or 1980s. You said you weren't committed to just


cost cutting but it was structural reforms but Iain Duncan Smith said


he was resigned because there was too much cost-cutting by the


Treasury. Did you experience that? Yes, I mean, yes, course he resigned


because of that. There was always a tension between a reforming agenda


and what is Chancellor has to do to bring budgets under control. I mean


that is going to be written into the anles of history that there was that


tension. I can agree, we saw at the back end - just before everything


changed and the change of Chancellor, we saw the tax credit


cuts reinstated. I would agree that, actually, if Theresa May wants to be


the Prime Minister focussed on those who are just managing, that money


now needs to be reinvested back into Universal Credit. Right. I would


agree with that. On that basis, you say that was the right decision at


the time to reinstate those tax credit reversals, although in a way


they are just moving money along, aren't they? It is not going to make


that much ditches over a period of time? It'll make a lot of difference


to people right now who would have been ?3,000 worse off and they are


now not. The issue underpinning this is what is the welfare changes that


this new, the new Government, Theresa May inherited and what do


they want to do? Those are basically to make Universal Credit a


cost-saving advice, rather than welfare reform, saving ?3 billion by


2020. That brings with it a serious problem - the problem that we as a


country face now, low-pay, poverty, in-work Poff Tyne a lack of


progression in work and the changes that are being made to Universal


Credit, make it as a welfare tool, much peerer at dealing with those


problems. He was if you agree with that, what


is your view that seems to be discussed in government, an


increasing work allowances? If you are talking about the people that


Theresa May would like to help, people who are struggling, how much


can people learn before they start to lose benefits, would you be in


favour of that even though it costs money? There are lots of different


ways in which you give money to those who are doing the right thing


and in work, even at low pay. One of the ways in which George did it was


that he raised the tax threshold. It is a very expensive way. And also


everyone benefits. You and I benefit, everyone benefits. But some


people earn below the threshold. But the ones who are paying taxes... And


if you want that sends of, I am in work, so it makes a difference... So


that seems to be the discussion that is going on. Would you be in favour


of that? It is a good idea and it towards people that are working. It


encourages them that if they earn an extra pound, they do not lose 76% of


it in Universal Credit. The government has spoken about tax


rises and they are committed to ?2 billion worth of tax cuts over the


next to my dears. Simply not doing that would give them enough money to


reverse all the cuts. What do you think about that? -- the next two


years. I would invest that money into Universal Credit. Damian Green


scrapped at the repeat medical assessment benefits for claimants


with long-term sickness. It did cause a lot of pain and suffering


for a significant number of people. Why was this not introduced while


you were working in the department? It is actually something we were


already looking at. But you did not introduce it? Reforms have to be


done steadily. A green paper had already been announced which was


going to bleed to a white Paper looking at precisely this issue, and


a whole range of issues, like how do you support disabled people who want


to work? They have managed to do at relatively quickly. One feels that


either there was a reluctance by Iain Duncan Smith or he was


overruled? Well, as I said before, there were always battles between


the Treasury, it was always very tight. But he was genuinely


committed to it? To reversing it? Yes.


The Scottish National Party conference has opened


First Minster and party leader Nicola Sturgeon has been talking


about how she'll respond to the Brexit vote, but the other


big question looming over the party is when it might begin a serious


drive for a second referendum on Scottish independence.


Our Adam's been to Dundee to find out more.


Captin Scott's old ship, the Discovery.


It's also one of the few places that voted yes to independence


So let's put the two things together and discover if there is appetite


Former SNP candidate, Tony, wants to get things moving


And he's proposing a vote on another referendum at the party's


The resolution is saying that the people of Scotland voted


And if Theresa May will not respect that vote,


we will be left with no choice but to move forward to a second


independence referendum and start preparing for a second


But the SNP leadership here in Dundee and the First Minister,


Nicola Sturegon, reckon another referendum is probably a bit further


Nicola has already said it's the Scottish


people who will decide when there is a referendum


and that is something which I think politicians and indeed journalists


south of the border find very hard to understand.


They see a future dominated by party politics, by politicians.


I think she's perfectly correct to say that when the people


are showing a demand for a referendum, that is


Come along if you have the evening free.


Out of everyone, the Scottish Socialists are the keenest


So keen, they are handing out leaflets about it in the rain.


I think the SNP are being very caution about it.


They have to balance all their interests as a party


whereas the grassroots movement has more leeway, they can go out


and have the conversations that need to be had.


Whereas the SNP, they have local elections next year


and their own party advantage to think about,


are itching to get back to talking the vote.


The opinion polls show that the Scottish people aren't any


more or less ready to sail away from the rest of the UK,


and it is the Government in London at the helm because only


they have the power to offer a legally binding second vote.


Well, as Adam said, a second independence referendum needs to be


agreed by the UK Government, and it's not clear when the SNP


But First Minister Nicola Sturgeon made a serious statement


of intent this morning, as she announced plans to publish


a draft referendum bill as early as next week.


On the morning after the referendum, I said I would protect Scotland's


In our programme for government, I committed to publishing


I am determined that Scotland will have the ability to reconsider


the question of independence, and to do so before the UK leaves


the EU, if that is necessary to protect our country's interests.


So, I can confirm today that the independence referendum


bill will be published for consultation next week.


Well, the other big news from the SNP conference this morning


is that the party has elected a new Deputy Leader -


or Depute as they say in Scotland - it's Angus Robertson and I'm


pleased to say we're joined by him now.


Welcome back. He launched the lemur gloss the Scottish referendum in


2014 but you want another one. You lost the Brexit referendum this year


but you want to try to thwart the Brexit process. Do you need to take


remedial classes in democracy? You missed out the key important fact in


there which was that 62% of people in Scotland voted to remain in the


European Union as Democrats, and we believe that if the people voted


that way, they should remain. But we voted as the United Kingdom, we did


not vote in Scotland, Wales or England. If you would be so kind as


to let me finish answering your first question, it would also be


fair to point out that in 2014 many people who voted no to Scottish


independence did so because they were told that unless they did we


would find ourselves out of the European Union. Things have been


turned on their head. We are facing the prospect of being taken out of


the European Union against the wish of the majority of people in


Scotland and that is why it behoves all Scottish leaders to work


together to find ways of protecting our place in Europe and that is why


we have signalled that we are prepared to work with the UK


Government to ensure that happens. The only problem with that is that


it takes a UK Government to respect the wishes of the people of Scotland


who wants to remain in Europe and to work with the government to deliver


that. There is no sign whatsoever that the UK Government is prepared


to do that. What would trigger a second Scottish referendum? For


viewers down so that is important to understand that there is a process


underway in Scotland. The Scottish Government has experts advising on


the different potential routes through which we could protect


Scotland's place in Europe. For example, is the way of Scotland is


staying in the single market while the rest of the UK leads? Are there


ways of protecting citizenship rights while the UK takes another


course? We need to understand the answers to those questions. But we


all know that there is a way in which Scotland can remain within the


European Union and that is as a member state. And that is why the


First Minister announced that the route to doing that, through a


referendum, given that we live in a democracy, is the best way to do


that and we will prepare the ground work in case there are no other ways


in which we can protect Scotland's place in Europe. Let me try again.


What would trigger a second Scottish referendum? I think of Scotland is


taken out of the European Union against the wishes of the people of


Scotland and the only way of protecting our place in Europe is to


be a sovereign state, that is what will trigger a referendum. A poll


this morning suggests that 55% of people in Scotland are in favour of


another referendum if we face the prospect of a hard Tory Brexit and


that is what we are heading towards. It is not only about the choices we


make, it is about the choices that the UK Government makes an Theresa


May should have heard by now if she has not yet that the Scottish


Government and the SNP is deadly serious when we say that we expect


the borders of Scotland is to be respected and the UK Government to


take their wishes seriously. But that rather depends on the Prime


Minister and the Tory Party respecting Scotland. We were told


that Scotland was an equal partner in the UK. There has not been a


single iota... I am hoping to help... I am trying to get some


clarity, I am trying to get through the rhetoric and get some clarity.


On the government's current timetable we are scheduled to leave


the EU at the beginning of 2019. If that timetable is adhered to, when


will there be a second Scottish referendum? Well, I am surprised you


think you are having answers from the UK Government on anything to do


with Brexit because we sat in Parliament... Why don't you answer


my question? I don't think we know for certain when the UK is planning


to leave the EU. I don't think we know the conditions of the exit. I


don't think we know whether they want to remain within the single


market and I don't think we know whether they are prepared... Let me


try to help you to answer the question. If it is clear that we


will not be a member of the single market, we will have access to it


but we will not be a member of the way we are now, would that trigger a


second referendum? I don't think there is any ambiguity about this


whatsoever. Let me say this. I do not want Scotland to leave the


European Union. Four. Not now and not in the future. Can you answer my


question? The answer to the question is I do not want us to leave the EU


so if it becomes clear that there is a timetable that takes us out on


hard Brexit terms, detrimental to our economy, then I will support a


Scottish independence of random and if that needs to take place within


the years before 2019, I am in favour. And what if we go out on the


soft Brexit terms? Would that mean you would not trigger the


referendum? You are making the point yourself, whatever that means. You


used the words hard Brexit, what does that mean to you? It means


taking us out of the single market, it means having tariffs. So Scottish


business, the Scotch whiskey industry, for example, they sing


tariffs to sell to other European countries. You have made the point


that I am trying to undermine the Li Na underline. We have is that the


point I am trying to underline. What we have started is a process that is


seeking to... If we have another referendum that will determine the


identity of an independent Scotland within the European Union within a


number of years, I am in favour of that. Scotland runs the largest


fiscal deficit in the Western world. The price of oil has collapsed. The


oil industry is on its knees and your financial sector is in poor


shape. You have very slow growth and you could not tell us what the


currency will be in an independent Scotland. Other than that, what is


the economic case for independence today? This week we have learned


that the UK is facing losing ?66 billion in revenue and the pound is


heading through the floor. That was a Project Fear report and you know


that. It is dated to April. What is the case for Scotland? The UK


economy is heading in a direction where we cannot even buy certain


products on high streets supermarkets. We did not choose the


circumstances in which we have found ourselves. We voted to remain within


the European Union. The timetable that is being forced by the UK


Government is one that is forcing people in Scotland to a choice. Have


we chosen all of the circumstances? No. We'll all be economic


circumstances be ideal? No. Are they for the UK? No. These are tough


circumstances for everyone who was involved but the difference is that


we have a democratic mandate in this country to remain within the


European Union and as Democrats, it behoves us to support the wishes of


this country. Wearing your hat as Deputy, I asked you the economic


case but we will probably come back to that and I will try to get an


answer. But with your new role as deputy leader this time last year


the SNP was dining out on how it was going to be the real opposition in


the Westminster Parliament. Now a year later, we see that you have


wasted ?230,000 on frivolous early day motions, celebrating a


constituent getting into the final 13 of missed Scotland. The 50th


anniversary of Star Trek. And the unavailing of a Christmas tree will


stop that is your members putting these things down. It costs money.


How is that being the real opposition?


A political party asks questions turns up at committees, takes part


in debates and somehow it is condemned. I know other


commentators, perhaps less partisan has said the SNP is the effective


Opposition at Westminster and week in and week out I hold Theresa May


and previously David Cameron to account, asking the difficult


questions that the Labour Party riddled by internal division is


unable to do. Most neutral observers believe the SNP is doing a good job


at Westminster and my plan is to continue doing this, so long as


Scotland is part of the UK. At least as part of one of your early day


motions, I did know it was the 50th anniversary of Star Trek. Thank you


for joining us. Well, the answer to that


will depend on a lot of things, but according to the think-tank run


by our Guest of the Day Philippa Stroud it could have a lot to do


with where you live. And they've come up with their own


league table to underline what they say is a failure to spread


opportunity across the country. The UK Prosperity Index


maps how well 389 local It's not just about wealth -


but also economic opportunity, the business environment,


health and education, safety and security -


what they call "social capital", Waverley in Surrey


comes top of the list, followed by Mole Valley,


also in Surrey, and Winchester. The least prosperous region


in the UK is said to be Hull, followed by Blackpool and


Middlesborough. The index claims to show


that the wealth in many cities is not translating into better lives


for citizens, while rural areas are more prosperous


despite being poorer. It also reveals that areas that


voted to leave the EU were far more Well, to discuss this we're joined


by two MPs representing areas near the top and bottom


of the index. Paul Beresford is the MP


for Mole Valley in Surrey, and Lilian Greenwood is the MP


for Nottingham South. Welcome, both of you. So Surrey


scored twice, two places in Surrey. What is so great about the area? It


is run by Conservativep councils, as simple as that. All of the Surrey


constituencies or councils in the top 100, but if you really want it


tell you move a little further away and move into London, you see


Wandsworth was ranked 125, control controlled, its neighbour, Lambeth,


Labour-controlled has been for donkeys years, poor, down on 279.


And those are like-for-like on paper but not in reality. So you are not


to do as an MP, your surge ploys be empty. No-one will have any issue or


problems, to come to see you That I wish were so but as I discussed with


others, the more you solve the problems, the more others bring up


minor problems but it has been successful. Were you surprised. Paul


makes a partisan point about Conservative councils means


prosperous areas. In your case, were you are surprised you were so down


the list? In a sense I wasn't. The boundaries are incredibly tightly


drawn, you see Nottingham come 381, RushClough comes 394th. We know


people come and work in noting ha. There are parts of that that are


closer to Nottingham city centre than parts of my constituency which


skews the results but there is no doubt there are huge challenges to


be faced in the cities, if I had a response to Paul's rather partisan


point is that whereas a lot of the authorities in the top 20 have seen


cutses of around 10% in their spending, places like Nottingham and


other deprived cities over the past five years have seen cuts in their


spending power of 30% or more. So if the Government were serious about


tackling the impacts of deprivation, they shouldn't be actually making


them worse by cutting local authorities like ours. So, Philippa


Stroud is it all about Government spending, fetedering the nests of


Conservative councils and not giving money where it needed? Actually the


report says almost the opposite to that. This is definitely a report


defining prosperity as economic stepping and taking hold of the


economic opportunities and driving those forward but also about social


capital, about whether or not you feel like you have a family member


who you could call on in times of trouble or whether or not you had


friends in the community or whether or not there was volunteering going


on in your community. It was about the strength of your community as


well as the economic strength. And we've definitely seen that in rurl


areas, even if they are less economically prosperous, actually


the social cohesion and the way they work together, supporting one


another, is much stronger than in some of our cities. Right. I mean


they are very different places, clearly, cities and rural areas, we


talking about villages compared to big city centres, but can't thereby


cohesion in city centres or some other major metropolises?


Absolutely. I mean this is a static snapshot, where I look at where


Nottingham is going, there is lots of improvement. For example we are


seeing high employment levels, going faster than other core cities. We


have the lowest level of young people not in employment, education


and training. There are challenges, I wouldn't deny that for a moment


but it is ridiculous to suggest that funding levels don't matter, because


libraries are a really important part of creating a social capital,


hubs for local areas. I absolutely disagree. And the ability to invest


in things that matter and actually in Nottingham there is investment


going on. For For 20 to 25 years, since Wandsworth has been


Conservative-controlled on a like-for-like basis it has received


the lowest Government grant, regardless of the nature of the


Government. Yet it has gone forward and up. If you go into Wandsworth


now they have been building or planning more properties over the


next five years than the rest of London put together. You have a lot


of expertise in Wandsworth. Absolutely because I used to be the


council... I wondered if there was any knowledge But I drive through it


every day. I can see the difference. But Paul, it is no surprise, is t


when you actually look at the list of the most prosperous authorities,


they are in the south-east, broadly, excludeing London but they are in


the south-east. Why is there still such a great divide between those


areas and some of the #20u7b towns and cities, one of which Lilian


represents - and the towns and cities. It depends on the local


authority. One surprise I got was Manchester. I know a lot about


Manchester. When I was a minister I was working with Manchester. To us


Labour-controlled it is much lower down the scale than I thought it


ought to be. It is go-ahead. I know it is Labour-controlled but it is


go-ahead and moving forward and I think when we see Manchester in two,


three, four years you will see it is a will the further up the scale. Do


you not think Philippa, when you look at places like Hull and


mid-brels yu, these are places in the UK that have suffered decades of


structural problems because of the industries that were dominant there.


-- Middlesbrough. They still haven't caught up. That must be Government


that have not done enough to help? What was really interesting, we


showcased Hull in the report. And you can see the devastation of the


fishing industry and the impact that that has had. Inane you see the next


- and you see the next generation coming through, uncertain about


where they are going to go in terms of employment and skills but what is


interesting is that the schools in Hull now are getting hold of that


and are really beginning to talk about self-employment,


entrepreneurialism. These are the ways of lifting the heads of these


young people and saying - there are opportunities out there for you. So


it wouldn't surprise me if, in a few years' time, we see Hull beginning


to move up, but it is about empowering these individuals. Well


come back next time and let's see if they have gone in reverse, Paul? ?


Mole Valley and Nottingham? Is the area rich P because it is Tory or is


it Tory because it is rich? That's today's existential question. Well,


we'll leave that. Now, David Cameron this week


revealed his first new job since he stepped down


as Prime Minister and as an MP. It wasn't signing up


for a lucrative lecture tour or a lucrative directorship -


although of course those to expand the National Citizens


Service, a kind of non-military But he needs to act fast


to save his reputation if one survey It says that university academics


specialising in politics believe he is among Britain's


worst post-war PMs. I bet they wouldn't say that


to his face. Let's look at the winners and loser


in this particular Prime Minister hall of fame or shame and failure.


survey, Labour's Clement Attlee, whose government created the NHS,


He was followed by Margaret Thatcher,


who - as the PM who declared victory over Argentina in the Falklands -


scored highly for "shaping Britain's role in the world".


Coming after the so-called "Iron Lady" was Tony Blair,


who led Labour to a historic three terms in office -


and, more controversially - took the UK to war in


Sir Anthony Eden, whose term in office was overshadowed


by the Suez crisis, was ranked last.


Just above him was Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who was seen as out of


touch and whose tenure as PM lasted only a year.


He was ridiculed for saying that he used matchsticks to help him


with 9 in 10 of those polled pointing to this year's EU


One academic said it was the greatest defeat of any PM


"since Lord North lost America".


The academics were asked to rank his two terms separately.


When in Coalition with the Lib Dems, his score put him in


But after taking into account his second term -


as leader of the Conservative majority government -


his overall score dropped.


Joining us now is Kevin Theakston, Professor of British Politics


at Leeds University, who carried out the survey.


He is in our Leeds' studio. Welcome. You really think David Cameron


deserves to be down there with Alec Douglas Hume who was only leader for


about a year and Anthony Eden who took us into the disastrous Suez


expedition? Well, David Cameron did look a pretty successful Prime


Minister in 20 #15, as we have just seen and, you know - the 2015,


running the Coalition Government success flan tackling the economy.


That put him pretty much in the middle of our league table but I


think the academics we polled see Brexit as a major disaster, a


crisis, a self-inflicted one and that's put him down there at the


bottom of our poll. To what extent is it that the academics that you


polled are overwhelmingly in favour of Remain and just resent that Mr


Cameron made it possible for us to leave? Well, I think it is true that


a lot of university opinion is Remain. And there are understandable


reasons for that. But I think the poll does say more about the Prime


Ministers than about the professors, as it were. And it makes us think


about what is behind successful leadership, and what the less


successful Prime Ministers have in common, like losing elections, or


facing major foreign policy disasters, or being drummed rather


human I will latingly out of office. Well speaking of major foreign


policy disasters, where is Tony Blair at number 3? It is an


interesting score. The legacy of Iraq will loom large in the


historical record. Still is. But Tony Blair did win three general


elections in a rewith big majorities. He left a big record of


domestic achievement. He changed the country in pretty fundamental ways


and all of those things do help cement his reputation as a high


achieving Prime Minister, overall. And why is Clem Attlee rated above


Margaret Thatcher? Although you have Mrs Thatcher at 2 and Mr Attlee at


1? Yes, I think those two Prime Ministers, Attlee and Thatcher, they


are the great weather-makers of post-war Britain. They have major


domestic legacies and they changed the political landscape. They


affected politics for decades after them and all their successors had to


respond to their agendas and their achievements. So they are pretty


neck-and-neck but it looks like Attlee was just slightly ahead of


thatch. A professor, a fascinating survey. Thank you for being with us


today. Very briefly, would you place Mr Cameron down with Alex Douglas


Hume and Anthony Eden I suspect he was placed there because he was most


recent. I think Gordon Brown was the last one placed there. He was more


in the middle. There's just time before we go


to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was why was the SNP's


Angus MacNeill ticked off for "unstatesmanlike behaviour"


by the speaker John Bercow I don't think she knows.


I'm sure Andrew can help? Or maybe not. Did he a, have his shirt


untucked, was he picking his nose, chewing gum or, playing games on his


mobile? Picking hi nose. Wrong. Chewing gum.


The One O'Clock News is starting over on BBC One now.


I'll be on This Week with Katie Hopkins, Miranda Green,


Katie Melua, Michael Portillo and Michael Dugher


Download Subtitles