14/10/2016 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks, and welcome to the Daily Politics.

The Foreign Secretary has called for more "kinetic" action to stop

But do increasing tensions between Russia and the West mean

an end to the bloodshed is further away than ever?

The President of the European Council, Donald Tusk,

says the UK can't have its cake and eat it.

Is he right that the only alternative to hard

Theresa May would like to end the ban on new selective

But - even if she gets them through the Commons -

could her plans be scuppered in the Lords?

Nicola Sturgeon says that if she doesn't like the look

of Theresa May's Brexit deal, she'll call a second

So which union do delegates at the SNP conference prefer -

The fact I voted Brexit I would still vote the EU over the UK. You

voted to leave? You are in the SNP. I thought they did not exist!

All that in the next hour, and who better to react to those

stories than the editor of the website

And the journalist Rosa Prince, whose biography of Theresa May

And we'll start with Theresa May because she's meeting a gaggle,

or whatever the collective term is, of British Ambassadors

Britain in the other EU member states.

for strong relations with our European partners to pave

the way for smooth Brexit negotiations.

Theresa May herself has been on a tour of European capitals this

week where she emphasised that the decision to leave

the EU did not mean the UK retreating into isolationism.

Last night the President of the European Council,

that's the body that represents heads of government of the EU,

warned that Britain could not have its cake and eat it.

The brutal truth is that Brexit will be a loss for all of us.

There will be no cakes on the table for anyone.

If you ask me if there is any alternative to this bad scenario,

I would like to tell you that yes, there is.

And I think it is useless to speculate about soft Brexit,

because of all the reasons I've mentioned.

This would be purely theoretical speculation.

In my opinion, the only real alternative to a hard

That was Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council. Has he cuts

through a lot of nonsense spoken in this country? It is quite clear, if

we are not going to be in the single market as a member, which is the

implication of everything the government tells us, then it is what

we are calling a hard Brexit, we are out the single market? I so. I am

not sure where the idea came from it could be any other way. One thing

that came through loud and clear during the referendum was people

were unhappy about levels of immigration and migration from the

EU, which means no freedom of movement and no membership of the

single market. There were food metaphors flying around, and I think

that is the nub of the issue. What the government will have to try to

do is somehow forge, perhaps that is why ambassadors are there, forge

relationships separately with these countries. George Osborne, David

Cameron made it clear, saying during the referendum campaign that a vote

to leave is a vote to leave the single market. Why is this still an

issue? I disagree slightly on the Donald Tusk speech. To me it is

standard diplomacy and business negotiation. He is laying out a hard

position on behalf of the government 's who will decide, rather than the

commission and European Parliament. That is how negotiations work. I

think you are right, Andrew, but there are various ways to leave it

and there is the possibility of a soft -ish Brexit, a compromise on

quotas and immigration, some copper wires on the City of London, is

certainly feasible. We are focused on the British angle but the biggest

obstacle is European politics, the 27 are not speaking as one, despite

what Donald Tusk indicated. Europe is extremely fragile. You look at

how the Hungarians are attempting to bully the Germans. The French

elections coming up, Austria, the Italian banks, Deutsche Bank. Donald

Tusk is saying what he has to say, it is the beginning of a

negotiation, but I think hopefully there is at some point room for

compromise. When Mrs May trigger 's Article 50 to begin the Brexit

process sometime in the first quarter of next year, for all the

reasons he has given, German and French elections, the turmoil, not

much will happen until we see the new face of Europe. One asked how

they could do negotiations until they know who they are negotiating

with. Francois Hollande might not be there. Angela Merkel could be the

walking wounded after an election. This one, I think that is right. We

can have a clearer picture in March, I think that is a fallacy. It will

take a couple of years at the very least. There is a tendency in

debilitating to see every story through the prism of Brexit, or from

the agenda of the Remain and Leave people. The Marmite story would not

have been touched had it not been for Brexit. People decided to pursue

it for their own agenda. It is difficult and I speak as someone who

is a moderate lever. It applies on both sides, people leap on stories

that appear to confirm the position they were attached to four months

ago. The media is complicit, keeping on looking for a Brexit angle.

Unilever and Tesco constantly have negotiations which we never cover

but because there might be a Brexit angle, suddenly it is leading every

newscast and is on the front page of every paper. It took us a while to

catch up that Unilever had also asked, all told the Irish

supermarkets, it was putting up prices there and the last time I

looked island is not leaving and uses the euro. The head of PR for

Tesco deserves a bonus! It applies to the pound and the way the

fluctuations of the pound are reported. Of course there are

downsides but there are upsides with a tourist boom under way in the UK

and exports should flourish. Prices will rise, there is no doubt about

that, but we have a long way to go. I am glad we have you here today.

Let's have a quits. The question for today

is all about the United Nations, which yesterday appointed

Antonio Guterres as its At the end of the show we'll

see if Rosa and Iain Now, yesterday, Nicola Sturgeon

surprised the SNP conference in Glasgow by announcing right

from its start that she would next week publish a consultation

on a bill for a second independence She has said she wants Theresa May

to negotiate a Brexit deal that would enable Scotland to remain

in the single market after the UK leaves the EU,

and Scotland would have the right to hold a second independence

referendum if that isn't achieved. Here's what she had to say

on Breakfast this morning. I think the UK right now

is potentially about to take a step off the edge of a cliff by coming

out of the single market, and I don't want that

to happen to Scotland. I actually don't want that

to happen to the UK. I respect the fact that England

and Wales voted to leave the EU, but I don't think the Prime Minister

has a mandate to take the UK out I want to explore every option

to protect Scotland's vital economic interests,

and I set out very clearly yesterday how I will try to do that,

and try to do that in discussion But ultimately, if the Prime

Minister and the UK Government doesn't listen, if they are intent

on ignoring Scotland's voice, then I think Scotland should

have the option to consider again So that's what the first Minister

thinks - but what about her party? Our Adam's been out with his balls

in Glasgow to find out which Union Well, let's test the mood

of SNP activists here in Glasgow with this question -

which union do you prefer, Well, some of the rules I don't

like, some of the rules I Its openness and inclusiveness,

definitely compared to the UK we are

seeing at present. Has the UK got anything

good going for it? I just feel that the way the EU

is run, with everybody being equal. You know, different countries

all coming together. Do you think Malta has

as much power as Germany? No, I don't mean that,

I think it's the outlook. Despite the fact I voted Brexit,

I'd still pick the EU over the UK. Grab a ball, the Daily

Politics, grab a ball. I think it's time, sooner rather

than later, that we get When would you ideally

like to have the next referendum? Has Nicola Sturgeon got the power

to have another referendum? I think it's Westminster has

the power. Scotland's voice is being heard,

and will continue to do so. And the vessel at the moment

is Nicola Sturgeon. She is the vessel for

the people of Scotland. Which union do

Because I am a European citizen, and I don't want my human rights

"I'm with Nicola", well, you're with Nicola.

He did actually, and it was a surprise this morning.

"The Scottish lion has roared, Alex Salmond, 8th of May 2015."

Are you proud to have Alex Salmond on your chest?

What do you think about the five people that have put balls in there?

I don't know who they are, are they journalists?

No, they were people at the conference, apart from one

guy who was just walking through the conference venue.

It's interesting, and they are voices we should listen

to as we take discussions forward in the future.

You're not going to hunt them down and kick them out?

Absolutely not, we're not that kind of party.

Which union do you prefer, the UK or the EU?

Well, it doesn't get much more conclusive than that.

It would be even more so if it wasn't for the impostor just walking

through the conference centre, who put that one in.

We're joined now by the SNP's Mike Russell, who is

the Scottish Minister for UK Negotiations on Scotland's

If as Britain heads for the door it is clear that that will involve no

longer having membership of the single market, will that trigger an

independence referendum in Scotland? Well, I think Nicola was clear. We

are at the stage of looking at the options that we have. One of those

options is independence, is right to prepare for those options, and

that's what we are starting to do. My job is to discuss those options

with those who are formulating them, including a la cancelled advisers to

negotiate on those options. Independence is of course an option.

Just to be clear, is membership of the single market a red line? If it

is clear in coming out the United Kingdom will not be a member, it

will have access but not have membership of the single market, you

would want a second referendum? Membership of the single market is

extremely important to us. Free movement of labour is important. 9%

of our doctors, 12% of our care staff come from the EU. It is of

great importance. There are no negotiations yet with the UK

Government that had been slow in starting. There aren't red

would you want a referendum before Britain left the EQ or would you

wait until afterwards? We haven't even started those discussions yet.

It would be premature of me to talk about timing. There is opinion and

advice on both sides of that. You are always well read in these

matters. The important stage we are in is to consider the options to

negotiate with the UK Government. They've been slow on that and some

of the noises are not at all helpful. To have those negotiations

and to come to the conclusion. The Scottish Parliament asked the

Scottish Government to do that. We are fulfilling that mandate. We also

have a mandate from the Scottish people. 62% voted not to leave.

That's a very important issue in this nation. They did indeed but

there is no polling to suggest their demand for another referendum has

got any higher despite they didn't get their way in the Brexit

referendum. You only had a referendum a couple of years ago and

here you are talking about another one because you did that time round.

There has been a material change in the circumstances and that is a

phrase we used in our manifesto. There has been a material change. We

were promised in the referendum voting no would mean staying in the

EU. It did not turn out that way. We have an opportunity to look at our

national future and look at all the options. It may be a deal-breaker,

it may be a watershed event for you and those behind you in the SNP but

I struggle to find evidence it is a watershed event for people in

Scotland. The latest polling is 47% of people do not want a second

referendum as against 38% to do. Again, a clear majority. A clear

lead of people who don't want one. You do. You are not necessarily in

tune with the Scottish people on this. I would advise you to the cook

the detail of the poll more carefully. Look at the question

asked about hard Brexit. What we are seeing from the UK Government. In

those circumstances people want a second referendum. We are seeing the

hardest of Brexits and we are seeing the reaction from Brussels. Which is

if that is what the UK Government say they want to Donald Tusk is

saying you can have it. We are in difficult times and we need to apply

rationality which is looking we consider the options, decide on the

options and move forward. That is what we are going to do and is what

we are engaged on. It is the default position. You harp on about a

referendum until you win one. I don't harp on about anything. We

have known each other for years and we have a rational conversation. The

circumstances in Scotland require us to consider that question again as

part of a range of options. That is what Nicholas said, that is what I

said today, that is what the party is saying. We will look at the

options, come to a conclusion, and we should be ready for all options,

including independence. You will be familiar with the fact that the

Quebec generational obsession with independence cost the Quebec economy

dear. It was an advantage to Toronto and a loss to Montreal during these

years, because of the constitutional issue that created uncertainty. Do

you not fear the same for the Scottish economy?

The plunge in the pound to its lowest level, the way in which

businesses are looking at investing elsewhere, the warning from the

Japanese government, as a result of a Tory obsession with Europe that is

costing us dear. The options we consider will have to be the options

that get us out of that position and that includes independence. Your

country has a massive fiscal deficit and the oil industry a key part of

the economy is in decline and the financial services, the second part

of your economy are seriously depleted and your girth rate is

lacklustre. Should you concentrate on these -- growth rate. Should you

concentrate on these issues that matter to Scottish people rather

than the referendum. We should be concentrating on the way in which we

improve our economy, we improve our democracy and social cohesion. The

options we are looking at our options

we are considering under Brexit. The decline in Scotland would become

much worse, precipitous, would we to go along with what the Tories want

with Brexit. That is a disaster. You talk about the financial sector,

thousands of jobs would be lost with no single market. That is the

reality of where the union has taken Scotland and I think the people of

Scotland will want to look at options. My job is to consider the

options and negotiate on them. There is no decision about which option is

needed but the portrait you paint a Scotland is not only inaccurate now,

but it could become true if Brexit has its way. I am not sure anything

I said is factually inaccurate. John Swinney, a collie, said it would be

the intention, even in a second independence referendum, with

England out of the EU but Scotland in, that you would want to use the

pound sterling. By what stretch of the imagination would you think

Brussels would allow you to join the EU and use a currency of a country

not in the EU? It would be a kindness to use the pound given its

lack of strength at the moment. We might be doing the rest of the UK a

favour. Those negotiations for another time. The present situation

is looking for options we had and taking them forward. That is what we

are determined to do and that is what we are going to do. Thanks for

joining us. Iain Martin, to what extent is this talk of a second

referendum, and she came right onto the stage, at the start of the

conference, she even surprised her own delegates by bringing it up so

quickly, but to what extent is this positioning for a second referendum

or party management? It is a bit of both but I think it should be taken

seriously. I think she will take that option if the polls are aligned

and if Brexit goes badly and if for example the UK was in recession. The

biggest advantage the SNP have and it is shown by the scale of their

conference, is this incredible organisation and this amazing

membership. Activists on the ground, digital operation. The question for

Unionists, who just about got away with it last time, better together,

the old Labour generation that helped to win the referendum last

time are gone. Who will be the force is arguing for the union? Certainly

Ruth Davidson. Will it be Theresa May, is that a plus? I think they

are setting it up so that if circumstances align, she will go for

it. She says she is keeping her options open. In some ways the bar

for independence is higher than in 2014. It is possible Scotland could

vote for independence, or indeed it will probably have to vote for

independence without knowing if it is going to be allowed to join the

EU, and given the size of the deficit and the currency, I find it

inconceivable Brussels would allow a member country joining to use the

pound. It would almost certainly have to go for the euro. If Scotland

found itself out of the UK and then out of the EU. You spoke about

newspapers tying everything onto Brexit, I think the SNP is guilty of

that, trying to say now is the time for another referendum because of

Brexit. I can see the logic but it seems a stretch. The Scottish people

have referendum fatigue, it does not seem to be the time while everything

is in the air for it to happen. I kind of see the SNP leadership would

not want it, with the polls. The SNP has a powerful point when they say

in the last Scottish referendum, the Unionists, it was argued that

Scotland could seamlessly joined the EU. The union said the only sure way

of Scotland remaining a member of the EU was to stay in the UK. How

did that work out? It did not work out. A load of nonsense.

It is a question to which no one can know the answer. The lesson they

draw from the EU referendum is people are prepared to take an

economic gamble for self-government taking back control. They studied

the referendum carefully. Their gamble is Project Fear, or something

like it, or a warning about the size of the deficit, the oil industry,

all of that somehow will not apply if there is a second referendum. And

as the SNP point out they are starting from a higher base with the

activist network. And they are closer in the polls, although they

are behind, closer to when the first referendum started.

Now, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has called a meeting with US

Secretary of State John Kerry and other foreign ministers

this weekend to consider a new way forward to resolve

But with tensions rising between Russia and the United States

following an attack on a UN aid convoy in Aleppo last month,

Last night, the new UN Secretary-General called

on the international community to broker a solution to a conflict

that has already claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.

Antonio Guterres said ending the conflict in Syria

He was one of many world leaders who spoke out on the ongoing

On Monday, France's President Hollande suggested Russian officials

could face war crimes charges over the ongoing bombardment of Aleppo.

Russian leader Vladimir Putin dismissed the suggestions,

telling French media the accusations were rhetoric

that did not take into account the realities in Syria.

Meanwhile, Boris Johnson said Russia was in danger of becoming a pariah

nation, during an emergency debate held in Parliament on Tuesday.

The Foreign Secretary also called for demonstrations outside

Moscow hit back by accusing him of Russophobic hysteria,

while Russian officials in London criticised his comments on Twitter.

Some MPs have called for a no-fly zone over Aleppo,

which would involve Western powers being prepared to destroy Russian

and Syrian war planes and air defences.

Others have urged for so-called no-bombing zones to create safe

areas and protect civilians. Those military options seemed a step

closer yesterday when Boris Johnson told MPs it was time to consider

more "kinetic" action to stop Aleppo being "pulverised".

You might puzzle over what kinetic means. Do not do that too much.

Because within hours, his comments were played

spokesman, who said, "There are no plans

As mentioned, that statement from the Prime Minister's

office was in response to Boris Johnson's comments

to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

Let's hear more of what he had to say.

Most people, I think, are now changing their minds

about this and thinking, we can't let this go on for ever,

we can't just see Aleppo pulverised in this way, we have

And I thought the mood of the House of Commons the other

Whether that means we can get a coalition together for more

kinetic action now, I cannot prophesy, but certainly

what most people want to see is a new set of options.

Here with me to discuss this further are Dr Karin von

Hippel, Director-General of the Royal United

Doctor, there is a lot of hand-wringing, a lot of something

must be done. Are we any clearer what could be done? At this stage it

is difficult. The only real option I think to get the Russians to change

behaviour is using force in some capacity, whether it is a no-fly

zone, no bombing zone, but both would require shooting down Russian

jets and I'm not sure the Obama administration is ready to do that.

At this stage in the American election cycle, looking at a

president who has tried to withdraw his country from the Middle East,

over the eight years in power, is it conceivable he would want to get

dragged in in the final two months of his presidency? He has said many

times force is not an option and that has put secretary Kerry in a

bad position because he can only do so much finger wagging with the

Russians with nothing in his back pocket. I do not think Obama will do

anything. Potentially some sort of escalation after the results are in

from the election because it is possible that any negative happening

security wise would only benefit Donald Trump's candidacy. John

Woodcock, if there is no stomach in the White House for a no-fly zone,

or a no bombing zone, I'm not sure of the difference, but if there is

no stomach for that, it is not going to happen? It is very difficult if

the US does not want to be part of the coalition but there are options.

Let me quickly say what I think is the difference between a no-fly zone

and no bombing zone. I agreed with so much with what my colleague said

just then. The no bombing zone option would not entail shooting

down Russian planes. I understand why, for many, that would be an

aggravation. How would you enforce it? What the Syrians suggest and I

was in Istanbul last week, talking to the exiled opposition leadership,

they are saying there would be a response for every time there was a

strike by Russia or Syria deliberately on civilians. They

would be a response from the coalition to target Assad's military

infrastructure so we would not be shooting down planes in the air and

we would not target Russia, we would target the regime of Assad,

primarily using naval assets, missiles rather than the potential

for getting involved in any dogfight over Syrian airspace. And what if

the Russians decide to put Russian forces to protect this

infrastructure? I don't think Russia is wanting a conflict with the west.

It has nothing like the capacity to do that. Its economy is in very

severe recession. There is a place for Russia as a constructive

partner, but the need for us to step up the degree of firmness where we

are putting military options on the table is because Vladimir Putin has

sensed the weakness from the west from 2013, that vote, and before

that. He cares nothing for the humanitarian consequences of what he

is doing. He does not care about being a pariah state in the UN. He

will push and push as long as he feels there is a weakness in the

rest of the international community that will letting get away with it.

Let me pin you down. There is a lot of something must be done rhetoric,

but it is important to work out what it means. Supposing in the no

bombing zone, the Russians put anti-missile batteries around the

Syrian infrastructure that you might want to bomb and in the process of

bombing you take out Russian antimissile batteries? What will

happen? Russia will only end up being part

of this confrontation if it makes itself. If it wants actively to be

so. I do not think when push comes to shove, Russia wants to do that.

You don't know, do you? Undoubtedly there will be a ramping up of the

rhetoric from President Putin. The alternative has been to effectively

to protest, to say Russia don't do this. But to do nothing while it

does more and more, it has unilaterally invaded another

European country, in the Ukraine... We know all that. There seems to be

no public appetite. How many people would be outside the American

embassy if it was the Americans dropping barrel bombs on Aleppo? The

point that was made... Thousands, thousands. How many Labour

colleagues have been outside the Russian Embassy, given that Russia

has been complicit in barrel bombing? It was an important point

made about the strained double standards of the stop the War

coalition run by the Socialist workers party, in hock with Seumas

Milne the spokesman for Jeremy Corbyn, in relentlessly targeting

America and the West. Which undoubtedly have made severe

mistakes. Allowing Russia and President Putin to get away with

these horrific atrocities where civilians are being very

deliberately targeted, as every single hospital in Syria has been

bombed. People are being killed every day by the regime. We do not

have two months or three months to wait which is why I am pushing for

more action now. People see the atrocities on their screens, they

would like to do something but not what. But they must also think if

dropping bombs was a solution in Syria, Syria would have been

resolved a long while ago. Don't forget the US is already bombing in

Syria with the UK and others, targeting Isil. Is rushed -- is

Russia bombing Isil? No. The real challenge for the Russians if

nothing happens is they will need some sort of ground offensive. I

don't think it will go over very well having Christian troops inside

on the ground. Sometimes the horse has just bolted. And it's been a

consequence of American foreign policy, and to a lesser extent,

European foreign policy as well, that a vacuum was created in the

Syrian zone, Russia has filled it. In a way, despite the terrible

pictures, the reality may be was that we lost our opportunity. Russia

has filled that vacuum and there's not much we can do about it now.

Russia has filled the vacuum but if Aleppo is depopulated, the Syrian

regime doesn't have the strength to hold it so there will be another

vacuum filled by more terrorist groups. If Russia is worried about

Aleppo being a terrorist magnet now, guess what it'll be later. I'm happy

that Boris and the MPs are putting this on the table. The more

attention that is paid to Aleppo, the more policymakers are forced to

discuss this and come up with some option. Whether it's a no-fly or no

bomb, there's got to be something in between that can be done. We're

putting it on the table, Rosa, but there seems to me to be no stomach

in Downing Street or the White House to do more than look at options.

That's quite right. It was very interesting the speed with which

Downing Street pretty much slapped down Boris Johnson. His was perhaps

an admirable statement. It was an emotional response, he obviously

feels strongly about the refugee situation,

about eight months old and in charge of ways. She's Brexit, she's got to

live up to her rhetoric at the conference. She's got Heathrow

expansion coming around the corner next week. She's a Middle East

entanglements like a hole in the head. Not a shortage of sophistry.

She's practical and hothouses of outfit. It seems to me this is the

ultimate in point of Fifa mussels worldview. After Afghanistan and the

Rock you get a swing away from interventionism and America

withdraws. When America decides not to lead from the front or take a

serious interest in the Middle East, the Russians fill a vacuum. All that

Putin wants, dreadful though he John Woodcock, hadn't you and your

party being complicit in helping to create the vacuum. We had drawn a

red line under the Syrian chemical weapons and backed away several

years ago as did President Obama. You voted for air strikes against

so-called Islamic State in Syria last December but by then it was

probably too late, the Russians were on the ground and increasingly

ensconced in the region. I regretted deeply the decision not to take

action once we had drawn a red line against that. But we cannot do

foreign affairs and intervention on the basis of not wanting to have

started from here and wishing things had gone differently. It has been

made hugely more difficult by the intervention of Russia, but the

consequences of standing back over the last years have been civilians

dying in horrific numbers and a member of the permanent Security

Council not simply being too careless in the way it has been

bombing but deliberately targeting civilians in an open war crimes of

the whole of the rest of the international community to see, on a

daily basis, while we do nothing. Of course government is difficult and

the Prime Minister has a lot of things on her to-do list. But I

think the world cannot really afford to pay a heavy price if we don't act

now to put President Putin back into the sense of needing to act within

the international framework which the UN sets out rather than this

rogue state which is appearing to be now. At times heart-rending issues.

I am grateful to you for joining us today and going through them with

us. Now, Theresa May wants to lift

the ban on new grammar But the policy was not

in the Conservative manifesto They did say they were prepared to

expand existing grammar schools. So what peers think

matters and yesterday There is a diversity

of education in this country And no one's going to have a grammar

school forced upon them We all should believe in choice

and nor should any of us seek to deprive others of what we

ourselves have benefited from. It was a German Chancellor who once

said the problem with some on the political right

is that they promise to the many what they know they will only be

able to deliver to the few. If one is imposed into an area,

or a transfer takes place to make an existing school selective,

the parents, the children who would have expected

to go to that school, who would have had expectation

of high-quality education for themselves or their child,

will find themselves excluded It's morally wrong, it's

philosophically wrong, it's practically impossible to implement,

and I do pray that the government will think again and place emphasis

on raising standards for all, The very notion that

by reintroducing selection, the people that this policy

is intended to attract will suddenly find their children -

let's say the traditional white working-class - would find

their children surging into new and better grammar schools

is a fantasy. What will actually happen,

and I really admire and salute this, is that migrant and first-generation

kids from Asia - we know already the highest performing children

in Britain are Bangladeshi girls - from Asia and Eastern Europe,

will sweep into those But the small problem

that the disgruntled and now a disconnected white working class

who believed they were going to get I can think of no other tinderbox

that you could strike on the hard-pressed and already

divided communities. Now there is a body of evidence

which shows that teaching pupils in mixed ability settings does

indeed lift the attainment of those However, the corollary is that those

who would have achieved the very The most able are having

their wings clipped. The reasons for inequality

in selective settings are many - poorer teachers in charge

of less able classes, a lack of confidence,

sometimes, in less able children, and a lack of positive

peer group role models. But rather than throwing the baby

out with the bath water and saying that all selection by

ability is always bad, perhaps we should mitigate

the impact and to look as you said, so that

our most able can fly. We're joined now by the Labour

peer Michael Cashman, Welcome back to the programme. Are

you against any kind of selection by ability or aptitude? Not at all. My

biggest problem is that there is an age picked, at the moment it is

11-13, and I don't believe everyone develops at the same time and

therefore selection at an imposed age actually mitigates against a

majority of children and as I said in a debate I want to make sure the

educational service serves the needs of every child throughout their

learning years and more importantly, especially with my experience beyond

your schooling years, recognise that we have unique potentials that can

be developed at different times. The old Grammar school system had the 11

plus will stop it was a brutal watershed. I know I suffered because

of it. You have not suffered too badly, you are in the House of

Lords. I did, because it has an incredible impact. You have overcome

it. I overcame it because. You have a CBE. You are a famous actor! I was

lucky, a drama teacher saw in this rebel at the secondary modern where

I did not feel I fitted, or belonged, he spotted something and

because my parents got into debt and I hack to work as a child actor, I

went to a stage school that developed my talent and it was only

when I was 25 when I wanted to do O-levels and A-levels, I thought I

could actually do it. I don't want that to happen to another child. You

were selected on the basis of ability? On the basis of talent by a

talent scout. My point is, we develop at different ages. Which

brings me back to the question I was going to ask you. I began by saying

the old grammar school secondary modern system had a brutal watershed

at 11 and there were sometimes when you could get back in but by and

large that was it, it decided your future education. What if there was

a more flexible selective system, that there was not an 11 plus, it

was later, and there were multiple opportunities and a variety of

schools for aptitudes and abilities that took that into account? Of

course I would look at that and will commit but I rely on experts. So

Michael Walsh, the chief inspector of education, said increasing

academic selections would be a profoundly retrograde step. The

institute of education, the national association of school and College

leaders, when I read the library briefing from the House of Lords, it

is clear the consensus is this does not help social mobility and does

not improve school performance overall. Iain Martin, you take a big

interest in this. I think you are right about the sharp division at 11

and the government has got itself into a mess partly because of the

way the story leaked. It was supposed to be the big announcement

at conference but it leaked and it is presented that they want a return

to the 11 plus and the secondary modern system, which was unfair and

divisive, but working back, they are trying to get to somewhere

interesting which is if you look at university technical colleges that

Ken Baker and others have been behind, there are more than 50 now.

There are 39 working towards 50. They take kids at 13-14, so the

point is the division is not sharp at 11. Out of that it would be

interesting to see if the government as well as creating technical

schools, could you create liberal arts colleges? Schools in poor areas

for very bright kids. There is a performing... I was meaning

humanities. How can we ensure in a country in which we have a delete

that is so stratified? How can we ensure it? In the debate, who spoke

who did not go to a grammar school? Three. How can we ensure bright kids

from poor areas get an elite education of the kind many members

of the Cabinet had? For me it is simple. Choice. Patrick Cormack used

the word choice. Often we get into a stream and let's take me as an

example. A young actor I got into the arts and suddenly decided I

wanted to study medicine. There was no method by which at the age of

205I could get A-levels and A-levels to do that, therefore I want choice

either when someone goes to a specialist college. A lifetime

choice? They change their mind. One's talent and potential develops

according to our experience of the world. If you looked at our school

system and you would find many weaknesses, and a huge diversity of

performance between various types of school, but if you looked from the

outside, rather than saying more grammar schools would be a priority,

you may want to say they should be more, but would it be a priority

that the glaring thing we lack is a wide range of high-quality

technology schools? I think what most parents want is just a really

good school that is not worse than the school that someone else is

going to. I went to what Alastair Campbell called a bog-standard

comprehensive and I did OK. Now I am a parent and always believed in

comprehensive education. Now as a parent, you begin to think, I don't

know whether I want to send my little treasure to the comprehensive

when others are going to the grammar school. I think there needs to be,

for a one nation Conservative, Theresa May is introducing a system

which is about differences and degradation, and even having the

humanities College, technical College, that is fine if you live in

a concentrated urban area where you can go to different schools for

different aptitudes, but in a rural area, even a suburb, you want the

school up the road to be good and cater to all pupils. The logic of

the Tony Blair, Lord Adonis, Michael Gove reforms needs to be followed

through and unwonted selection although I think everyone involved

went to selective schools. The key is variety. The too long we have had

a top-down national model. Let 1000 flowers bloom, try different

schools, introduce some selection. There will be some new full-scale

grammar schools where people want it but we have to get away from the

idea of enforcing one rigid national model. Michael, the final word. This

is hopefully what the House of Lords will ask the government to do dash

to think again and think of any proposals. There isn't a manifesto

commitment. There is not even widespread support on the government

benches but hopefully the debate yesterday which Baroness Andrews

managed to get will say to the government, if you proceed down this

route, it will be very difficult. Think differently, think more

widely, think imaginatively. And then there might be a proposal that

would emerge that would have the support of the Lord's? I hope so

because the Lord's works on the basis of achieving compromise from

all parties. It is like my experience of the 15 years in the

European Parliament. You have to work with others to achieve the best

and that is what I hoped for. Michael Cashman, good to see you

again. Time now to see what else has been

happening in the world of politics Here's Ellie with the

week in 60 seconds. With early voting already underway

in the US, Donald Trump's presidential campaign faltered

after numerous allegations about his inappropriate

behaviour towards women. One suggesting he was

like "an octopus." Debating the war in Syria,

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson made this rather

undiplomatic suggestion... I'd certainly like to see

demonstrations outside But not wanting to be outdone,

Jeremy Corbyn's top aide Seumas Milne later suggested that

people should protest outside the American Embassy

in London instead. Iain Duncan Smith apologised

to Labour's shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer,

a QC no less, after calling him It was clumsy, it was not meant

about him, it was And I don't doubt for one

moment his capabilities as a lawyer. Boris Johnson, yes him again,

told the Foreign Affairs Select You seem to think the single

market is sort of like To paraphrase, it was Groucho

himself who once said he'd never be a member of any club would have him

as a member, whatever that means. month to go until the US election,

November the 8th. Results will be live on BBC One. And BBC World and

BBC News. It looks like the past ten days have been a watershed in a

campaign. It was pretty nip and tuck but Mrs Clinton seems to be pulling

away but not dramatically. Many are surprised she has not pulled away by

morbid it is clearly hers to lose? I spend a lot of time in the States

and Hillary Clinton is surprisingly unpopular. I do not think people

here quite realise. Some try to make an equivalence between her and

Donald Trump and her challenge will be to get people to turn out.

Probably Donald Trump has been so unappealing people will do that, but

it is not a done deal. She needs young people to come out and a

massive mobilisation of the black and Hispanic vote. The Republican

leadership, which a lot of it has disowned Mr Trump. Their worry is

they have written off the White House in their minds, they are

trying to hold onto the Senate. This is such a crazy scramble. I spent a

lot of time in the US in the past year and the Republican

establishment, the part of the establishment that did not do enough

to stop him, is now pretty much getting what it deserves. You are

right, the polls might be wrong, but the Clinton campaign have played the

last few weeks absolutely brilliantly. He walked into it. They

suckered him in that first debate and he was ranting and being rude to

women, dropped the famous tape, force him to deny that he had ever

done this and them produce via the media... It had been a stuttering

campaign until then. We will see if you can get his campaign together

now. There is all to play for. Before we go, the answer to our

quiz. Who is going to be the new women's

champion for the UN? I do not know. I will guess wonder

woman. Wonder woman. You are both right. She does not even exist!

Really? Apparently it is a studio tie-up that makes it, anyway. There

you go. The one o'clock news is starting

over on BBC One now. I'll be back on Sunday

with the Sunday Politics, We will look at airport expansion

and inevitably the latest on Brexit. Join me at 11am, BBC One, Sunday

morning. ..and builds worlds,

not just characters.