27/10/2016 Daily Politics

Welcome to the Daily Politics. still driver England and Wales.

Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has accused the Government of planning

And we head to Richmond to ask people there whether Heathrow

expansion or Brexit will be more important to them when casting

The reason I chose Brexit is, it's going to have an immediate effect on

me, whereas Heathrow I don't think will ever happen.

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

of the programme today is the Labour peer Baroness Prosser.

Margaret is a former Deputy General Secretary at the Transport

and General Workers Union and she now sits on the Joint

Committee on Human Rights Committee in Parliament.

Now, this morning, we've heard that Nissan has confirmed it will build

both the new Qashqai and the X-Trail SUV at its Sunderland plant

in the first major development for the car industry

The Japanese company's commitment to Britain's biggest car plant had

been in doubt following the referendum.

And with GDP figures out today which show the British economy

bucking expectations of substantial slowdown, it looks as if Brexiteers

The Office for National Statistics showed that between July

and September, the economy grew by 0.5%.

The Chancellor, Philip Hammond, said he was pleased by the figures.

The economy has proved to be very resilient.

We went into the referendum, I think the figures now

show, stronger than we thought at the time.

And the economy has held up very well since.

But we are going to have a period of uncertainty ahead,

as business waits to see the outcome of the European Union negotiations.

And we have to make sure that we are prepared and ready

to support the economy during that period, to make sure that we get

a successful outcome to the negotiations and successfully

support the economy through that period.

Before the European referendum, predictions were being made

of an immediate and significant impact on the UK economy

David Cameron said it would put a bomb under the UK economy.

George Osborne warned of a DIY recession.

But so far, these predictions have not come to pass.

So, how has the economy been faring since the 23rd of June?

The star bakers in the economic kitchen have been producing

As we've been hearing, GDP grew by 0.5% between July

That's better than expected - the Bank of England had predicted

The employment rate is currently 74.5% -

that's the joint highest it's been since records began in the '70s.

And consumer confidence has also been looking tasty -

in September, the retail sales figure was up over 4%

But it hasn't all been sugar-coated - there have been some

The pound has been falling pretty steadily against the dollar.

It reached a 31-year low earlier this month, although it has

Inflation jumped to 1% in September and that's bitter

The CPI index is the highest it's been for nearly two years.

And at the weekend, the British Bankers' Association

warned that there could be an exodus from the City early next year.

According to the lobbying group, banks are poised to hit

Joining me now are Baroness Patience Wheatcroft and Liam Halligan.

Welcome to you both. Most of these short-term predictions haven't come

true, have they? Things have not got bad yet but they will. But we were

told that they would be bad by now, that it was going to be an immediate

effect, a vote to leave said the Treasury "Would cause an immediate

and profound economic shock". The Treasury was slightly exaggerating.

Any decision that was taken ahead of Brexit would take some time to

impact. It wasn't just the Treasury, it was David Cameron, George

Osborne, the Bank of England, the IMF, the OECD and the World Bank.

They all said the impact would be immediate and they were wrong. They

were wrong, the impact hasn't been immediate, but it is already

impacting on banks that are having their finger poised on the trigger.

We don't know that to be true, could you name a bank that has its finger

poised on the trigger? I certainly could. HSBC is thinking about what

to do. HSBC has ruled out leaving, it spent 18 months relocating its

headquarters to Hong Kong and decided it would stay here. They are

not going to move everybody out but they will move people, and they are

going to move people. They going to move people? I did think so. This is

a lot of bluster and hot air. Nissan said in 2002 if we didn't join the

euro they would leave the UK, they said if we voted for Brexit they

would leave the UK. They've just confirmed they are going to increase

their investment. It's part of a CEO's drop to occasionally hold a

gun to the government's head. But we don't know what Nissan has been

promised... I agree, I think the government should have called their

bluff. I think they took advantage of an inexperienced government. We

don't know what the government has done yet but is probably no more

than the French government would have done. Nevertheless it's a deal

that has obviously been done behind closed doors. What does it matter if

it results in the production of cars in Sunderland, for which there was a

question over it, is going to go from 475,000 a year to 600,000 a

year. Over 7000 jobs secured. It will become a super plant in

Sunderland. Not one but two new cars will be produced. It depends how

much you are paying for it, and we don't know how much we are paying

for it. It would have to be a lot for it not to be worth it. It

probably would be a lot and it would be a lot that would have to be paid

to other car manufacturers. What about other jobs in manufacturing? I

share your reticence on this. I think governments have to face down

big powerful manufacturers and other companies and the financial services

industry too. We've got to show confidence. There is a case to

invest in the UK on its own merits. We've just been voted one of the

best places in the world to do business. It's not all good news.

Even in the short term the 0.5% third-quarter figure is much

stronger than project fear forecasted. But, the only sector to

grow was services. Every other sector, construction, manufacturing,

industrial production, all down. I agree. I've written two years my

concerns about the imbalances in the UK economy. I think, yes, we have a

hard GDP number now for a post-Brexit vote quarter but it's a

preliminary number. I'm not crowing about this number as a Brexiteer.

There's still a lot of imbalances, I'm concerned about the amount of Q

E we are still talking about, the fact we've just cut interest rates.

I'm not completely happy but it's clear that the Treasury and other

fear mongers need to take a bow. The issue with, if they got the forecast

of the last three months wrong, if they couldn't even tell us what was

going to happen in July, August and September, why would you trust them

to tell us what's happening in 3-5 years' time? I didn't think you

should trust economists to tell you what's going to happen at any stage.

It was used during the referendum campaign. I would rather wait and

see what happens. Brexit was the vote taken in June. Any decisions

taken after that will not have taken effect yet. These are long-term

decisions. Wait until next year when you see inflation kicking in at 6-7%

in food prices, maybe even more. The British consumer will then have to

lock down. We don't know by how much, but it's there to wish you as

Patience Wheatcroft says, inflation will rise. There are two dangers

here. One is there's a danger that prices will rise faster than wages.

That will cripple consumers spending which is almost 70% of the economy.

The second is because of the inevitable uncertainty, both

domestic business investment and foreign direct investment are likely

to go on pause. Both of these could slow the economy next year. I

completely agree. I said before the referendum and have said since,

clearly however Brexit is done there's going to be an impact on the

long-term decisions of businessmen and women who make real moves with

money rather than sitting in TV studios aren't talking about it.

That's why I don't want a long, drawn-out row with the rest of the

European Union that will make us look very business unfriendly.

That's why I want a clean Brexit. That will minimise the inevitable

business uncertainty. I'm afraid the truth is we don't know what we are

doing the country. We've got three Brexiteers who are complaining that

people in Europe and being very nice to them. Who's complaining? Liam

Fox. Had he said that. I paraphrase. He was upset by the reception he was

getting and he thought we should get a more positive reception. I thought

he had been mainly going to Canada, Australia... I think we should kick

this Eurocrats into touch. The news for Sunderland is fantastic this

morning, isn't it? It is very good. I hope also that the government will

recognise that all the eggs in the basket of Nissan went to be healthy

for the area. There needs to be infrastructure and jobs down the

line based in that area, so that everybody benefits. It looks like

the plant itself is going to expand and that will have both direct and

indirect impact in the north-east. It will. It has among the highest

productivity of any car plant in the world. People in the north-east,

despite the fact many of them have had jobs at Nissan for a long time,

voted in big numbers to come out of Europe. They must have felt

dissatisfied with how the economy was treating them. So I do think

account has got to be taken of all of that. What's the knock-on effect

for people in the north-east and many of them it's going to be good,

but don't leave out those on the periphery. I surprised a lot of the

short-term forecasts have turned out to be far more gloomy than the

reality? No, I'm not surprised. I thought it would be gloomy. It's

been far less gloomy. The forecasts were more gloomy than the reality.

The Treasury was forecasting with enter recession. The reality for

some people is pretty gloomy, isn't it? What goes on at a macro level is

one thing. What happens when you go out and you change your pound notes

into euros and you find you don't get as many year rose as you would

have liked. You were talking a moment ago about immediate effects.

Between June and September, three months, that's pretty quick in the

great scheme of things. People going on holiday, lots of people on what

you might call ordinary wages go to European countries on holiday

because traditionally that has been a good bargain. They find that

actually was much more expensive than they thought. What's more

important to the future of the country, the ability for people to

go abroad on holiday cheaply or the ability of Nissan and Jaguar and

Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace to sell their goods abroad more

competitively? Why does that have to be an either or? Because the

currency makes it an either or. The country would go round in a much

more happy and beneficial way if more people had more money in their

pockets to put into the economy to spend so it comes back. That's

what's been going wrong... Which may be a difficulty next year if

installation starts rising. There are reports you are part of a

group of peers plotting to undo the referendum result. What is the

truth? There was certainly no plot. I think there are a number of

people, both in and out of the House of Lords, who very much regret the

decision that was taken... But what are you trying to do? We feel there

should be a vote in parliament. This is all about sovereignty of

Parliament, sovereignty of the country. The sovereignty of

Parliament demands that this should not be a decision pressing the

button on Article 50 just for the Prime Minister. It is too much for

any individual to take. But the country voted on June 23, over 17

million people, to do just this. What gives you, as an unelected

peer, any democratic legitimacy in this? The country voted not by an

overwhelming majority, but nevertheless, the country voted in

favour of Brexit not knowing what Brexit means and we are still told

that Brexit means Brexit. We don't know what it means. But who elected

you? I'm not elected. So what gives you any democratic legitimacy on

this? I don't have a right to overturn the will of the people at

all. But you would vote against triggering article 50. Until we are

clear on what lies ahead. So you would interfere with the will of the

people. As an unelected peer, you would vote against the wishes of

17.4 million people on June 23. It might be in the House of Lords that

we vote against what you call the will of the people, it may well be.

The House of Lords has a duty to say to the Commons, just think about

this, make sure before you do it. It is not a right to overturn but it is

a duty. But what is the point of voting against it if you don't

overturn it? To let more detail come through so that we know what it is

we are voting for. If we reverse this, I'm afraid a lot of the

public's faith in mainstream politics will be severely dented in

this country. I think a lot of people are feeling deeply

uncomfortable by the rising tide of nationalism. But the majority voted.

It was a clear majority. The Government were handing out leaflets

to people's home is saying, the Government will input your decision.

I'd only the kid is possible to vote against the will of the people. That

would cause mayhem. Thank you both for being with us.

The question for today is, who did the Queen mistake Vladimir Putin

You had to be named Andrew before you were mistaken, clearly!

At the end of the show, Margaret will give us

I have very bad form on quizzes on this answer! Fortunately, I know the

answer. You will have to whisper it to me!

So, the announcement about Nissan has rather overshadowed

the speech this morning which the Shadow Chancellor

In it, he warned the Government against carrying out a "bankers'

Brexit" at the expense of the rest of the overall economy,

urging it not to ignore the needs of small businesses.

Already, Tory Cabinet members are looking to cook up special

deals for their friends in the City of London.

They want a bankers' Brexit in the interests of the elite

They'll be willing to cut a deal for finance but ignore

our small businesses and many of our manufacturers.

Let me be clear - those who have voted Conservative in 2015 are not

Like me, you have friends who voted Conservative.

They don't want a bankers' Brexit any more than I do.

The simple truth is that the Tory establishment cannot be trusted

And we're joined now by the Shadow City Minister Jonathan Reynolds,

who is also a member of Labour's Brexit team.

jobs for the price of one! Welcome to the programme. What is the

evidence that the Government wants to, quote, cut a deal for finance

and ignore small businesses and manufacturers? John is referring to

the story in the Financial Times last week about the possibility of a

specific deal for financial services cut before the rest of the deal is

ready. What John said today was that when we get this Brexit deal in

place, which only has to cover all of the economy, it can't be done

piece by piece. This was based on unsourced story in the Financial

Times, but as I can find no government minister on record saying

that that's what they want to do. John is putting a the league

position, which is that it must cover all of the economy. Given that

we can't find anybody saying that we need to cut a deal just for finance,

what is the evidence that the Government doesn't want to take into

account manufacturers, given the news from Nissan this morning? We

don't know what the Government wants to take into account because it

won't tell us, it won't tell us the negotiating strategy or bring that

to Parliament. In relation to Nissan, I grew up close to that

factory and it is fantastic news that those models will be made there

but you can't do a deal like this factory by factory, shop floor to

shop floor. It is not factory by factory, it is

with one of the biggest companies in the world. One of the other biggest

car companies is jaguar and Tata. Are you saying we couldn't do a deal

with them? Since the Shadow Chancellor said, the Government is

ignoring manufacturers, the evidence from Nissan today and other talks

would suggest there is no evidence for that. I'd say the evidence is

that what we have is chaos. We don't know the position from the

Government. You can't do it company by company. If there was chaos, why

would Nissan, which could go anywhere in the world, make this

massive investment in a chaotic country? It can make the investment

because it has had support and assurances. So that's not chaos. But

you can't do that company by company. You've said that. If there

was chaos in this country, Nissan wouldn't come near it. The

Government's approach is chaotic and I think it's been

counter-productive. They should be frank with the British people as to

our negotiating strategy. John McDonell said in July that he

wouldn't support any exit deal that didn't involve our sporting for the

financial sector, which allows them to operate throughout Europe. --

past sporting. You wouldn't get that unless you offer some privileged

position for finance as well, so what is the difference? You need to

achieve some sort of agreement which has come parable access, something

that isn't a's at it as useful as. You would need to cut a deal for

finance. You are complaining that the Government is trying to cut a

deal for finance, which we have no evidence for. It can't just before

that one sector at that time. There is no evidence that the is doing

that. We don't have that evidence. So it is an aunt Sally. It is a very

clear problem. If the Government can tell Nissan its strategy, why can't

it tell the House of Commons? Why would you not want to cut a deal for

finance, given how important it is for the British economy? Because to

get the best deal, you need to get all the interests of the economy

lined up together. You've got to tie in German exporting goods to our

need to get access to financial services and that's how we'll get

the best deal. It is not just about which parts of our economy should

get favourable treatment. I come again to, what evidence do you have

but the government is not proceeding in that way, that its intention is

to do it that way, with manufacturing, small businesses and

finance? It won't tell us. Always had so far is, we want lists of

foreign workers, damaging our reputation abroad. They won't

confirm the status of EU nationals, what terms financial services will

have. We have Tory MPs attacking the Bank of England. At the Labour

conference, Mr Corbyn put your body on an election footing, where he

said he thought there would be a snap election early next year so it

is important we know what your party stands for, since we might be only a

couple of months from an election. Is it Labour policy to remain a

member of the single market? No, it is the policy to try to achieve the

fullest possible access to the single market. We recognise and

respect the vote and that has got to be on the basis which we proceed.

I'm grateful for that because that is a clear answer but it is not what

we've had from other Labour politicians, including your boss.

John McDonell said last month that single market membership would be

preferable, Emily Thornberry described it as very important and

your shadow chief secretary described it as a red line. So are

you this morning restating Labour policy more accurately and clearer,

that membership is not the policy? I'm confident that what I've just

told you is the view of the Shadow Cabinet. So it has changed from what

John McDonell, Emily Thornberry and but she secretary said recently? The

policy is to try to achieve the fullest possible access. Which is

the government policy, to, isn't it? Perhaps they will tell us. What is

your policy on immigration from Europe? There is no doubt that

immigration played a significant part in the referendum, as anyone

who was out canvassing will have experience. We are seeking the means

to address those concerns, in terms of mitigating the impact on public

services, addressing wages. We will prioritise the economy first. When

we leave the European Union, at the moment we know because of the free

movement that people can come here as they see fit and, of course, we

can go there as well. That is part of the whole free movement of

European Union. When we leave, though, we will need a policy to

determine who can come here and who won't. What will that policy be? It

will be about making sure our industries can still recruit skilled

labour, which is huge part of it. There will clearly be to be some

element of unskilled labour that still comes to this country but we

won't scapegoat migrants, as we've seen in some parts of the right in

this country. I wouldn't expect you to do that at all but will you put a

limit on numbers? At the moment, the net migration from the EU is about

180,000, I think, in the latest figures. Would you seek to reduce

that, keep at the same, increase it? In terms of a wide economic plans,

you would see a reduction of immigration just because of the

types of investment on priorities we want to make but we're not going to

put numbers on it. The numbers in terms of... One final question,

because you are speaking generalities, in what way would your

policy following our membership be different from now? In terms of

immigration? Yes. It would be, I think, something which is better

able to respond to the impact on public services and better able to

prevent wage rates declining. The British public are not so worried

about immigration in terms of what it means for the city, it is about

the impact on the labour market and public services. Do you accept that

given that it is the Government's position that we don't want to be

under the European court's jurisdiction, that we want some

control on movement, so not total free movement, and we want to be

able to make our own free trade deals, that you add these three

things together, we can still have access to the single market but we

can't be a member of the single market. Do you accept that? I don't

see the other 27 countries in Europe being happy about that. Why would

they agree that we should have terms which are, some would say, much more

favourable than the terms they have? Germany... If you look at not just

the movement of labour around Europe but the refugee problem etc, other

countries in Europe have taken far more people than us. Why would you,

if you were a leader, Angela Merkel, for example, or anybody in Germany,

say, OK, UK, you go over there and is in completely different and we're

still happy... The game is now full access, as much access as you can

get? Absolutely. Thank you. Now, while French officials say

that they have successfully cleared the Calais camp known as the Jungle,

charities claim that dozens of children spent

the night sleeping rough. More than 5,500 people have

been moved from the camp to reception centres across France

since Monday, when the This includes about 1500

unaccompanied minors being housed in a temporary camp on-site.

We can talk now to BBC reporter Simon Jones, who's in Calais.

Bring us up-to-date with what's happening this morning. Well,

another day in Calais and another day of confusion. In the past few

moments, we've just seen some smoke coming from the camp, which may

suggest there could be more fires being started. Fire ripped through

the camp yesterday, causing so many problems. People had to leave the

camp and there were real concerns about some of the children involved

in this, because the charities have been telling us that last night,

towards the end of the evening, some 70 children had actually nowhere to

sleep so they had to step in, finding places for them at a nearby

hangar and also at a nearby school. The authorities here are saying, job

done, effectively. The migrants have been moved from the camp. But if we

walk over here, you can see, there are still a large number of people

here who haven't left Calais and are still on the outskirts of the camp.

The authorities have been telling us today that they believe some of

these people have actually come from other parts of France because they

had the operation was going so successfully, to try to get to

centres elsewhere in France. There was also an issue with the children.

We're told by the association is that the children have been asked to

come here around now, possibly to get a bus to centres in other parts

of France. But real concern particularly for the vulnerable

children who yesterday were inside the camp, and they saw a lot of the

place that they call their home going up in flames. We saw these

quite horrendous pictures on television and we see some of

clearly children behind you there as well. If you take into account the

people behind you, the unaccompanied minors, others who are still there,

how many people are still in the Jungle or the vicinity of it, and

what is the French authorities' plan to do with them?

There's probably a few hundred people still here in Calais, despite

the fact more than 5000 have been moved. When we spoke to the prefect,

one of the top officials in Calais earlier today, she told us that

effectively everyone in the Jungle had been dealt with. And people who

had come from other parts of France had to simply move somewhere else.

Whether that's going to happen remains to be seen. With some of the

children we are told they will be offered safety. It's a question of

trying to determine who the children are. Despite the fact there has been

chaos and confusion, I think politicians in France and the

president will be quite satisfied that after day four of this

operation, a large number of people have been moved elsewhere in France

and we haven't seen a great outbreak of violence or disorder. Thank you.

Simon reporting from the camp in Calais. His words and pictures

showing it is clearly a problem that hasn't yet been resolved. President

Hollande will regard it as a plus but he needs all the pluses he can

get. His approval rating is currently at 4%. And British

politicians think they're unpopular! The prominent Leave campaigner

and former Cabinet minister Michael Gove has been elected to sit

on a powerful new Brexit He will join a cross-party committee

of MPs which will scrutinise the Government as it negotiates

Britain's exit from The former Justice Secretary has

also joined forces with Lord Glasman to come up with a proposal

for a new immigration Welcome back. Lovely to see you,

Andrew. Good to see you're out of hiding! Back from holiday. I've been

in the Times. I see you are gainfully employed again! Mark the

government's Brexit performance to date. How is it doing? I think I'd

give it an capital a but not a capital a star. There's detail still

to be fleshed out but it's important to recognise the Prime Minister has

been clear about triggering Article 50. She has spelled-out we will take

all existing EU law, get it into the law and decide which bits we want to

keep, amend or ditch. I also think a great deal of work has gone on

behind the scenes in the new Department for exiting European

Union and the Department for International trade. One of the

things I'm looking forward to doing is probing a bit deeper. When you

launched the campaign to become Tory leader you said "I will end free

movement, introduce a points type system for immigration". The

government has ruled out a points-based system for EU migrants.

No, the Prime Minister has been very clear migration is going to come

down. The referendum vote was clearly a boat for controlling the

number to come here. The Australian points-based system is merely one

way of achieving it. You wouldn't go to the wall on that? Parliament

should decide. There's a principle that Maurice Glasman and I are

outlining today which is we think there should be a fair migration

system which doesn't discriminate between countries. At the moment if

you from Bulgaria you've got an advantage over someone who comes

from Bangladesh, even if you've got skills from Bangladesh and you're an

unskilled worker from Bulgaria. But if the government were to meet its

target on immigration in the tens of thousands, fewer people from all

over the world would have to come. Fewer people from outside the EU by

a huge number and fewer people from within the EU by a huge number.

There are two questions there. The first is the absolute level, the

numbers. I think the important thing is that whatever the figure,

Parliament should decide not an outside body. The second thing is

the basis on which we operate. I think the right thing to do is to

have a fair policy that doesn't discriminate. You also said the new

immigration policy should be based on "The brightest and. Most

countries would always want the brightest and the best. Do you

accept in a growing economy there is also a need for and skilled

migrants? At certain times there can be a requirement for unskilled

migrants. As a result of freedom of movement we had far too many people

coming here, dispersing the wages of working people. One thing Maurice

Glasman and I want to do is talk to working-class communities. There has

been a caricature of the view many people have an immigration. The

caricature is people want to pull up the drawbridge. They don't. They do

want to see the numbers of unskilled people coming here more firmly

controlled. But if you want the best and brightest and you still want an

element of unskilled migration, I don't understand how you're ever

going to hit net migration of 100,000 if that still your target.

It's the government 's target. One of the reasons for having this

commission, we can ask the public the question where did they think

that figure should be pitched. You fought to elections with that in

your manifesto. Absolutely. I didn't strongly disagree with it but I do

think there was a problem with it. The problem was we could not hit

that figure while we were in the European Union. Migration has to

come down from the current level it is that if people are going to have

confidence that in the future we are making the right decisions about who

we let in. But isn't it clear that even outside the EU, given that the

total net migration is about 330000 and its split almost even Stevens

between EU and non-EU, even outside the EU you're not going to hit

100,000. Does not undermine public confidence in our political elite

that you've outlined targets you know you're not going to meet, as

your government didn't meet for six years. Absolutely. I agree with

every word. So the government should not have reiterated 100,000 of the

target? No, you cannot meet it while we are in the European Union. You

could if we are out. The Prime Minister wants to try to hit that

target. I think bringing migration down is a good thing. I also think

it's important we listen to the public before arriving at what that

target should be. You're going to be on this committee chaired by Hilary

Benn, scrutinising the work of the government in the Brexit process.

Throughout the referendum campaign, you made it clear that to leave the

European Union was also a vote to leave the single market in terms of

membership. Not that you wouldn't have access but to leave in terms of

being a member. That seems clear to me in everything the government has

said. Why won't the government admitted? Why doesn't the government

admit we won't be a member of the single market? I made it clear, the

remain camp made it clear, everybody made it clear that leaving the EU

meant leaving the single market. One of the things about the government's

negotiating position is I'm not part of that team, I'm going to be asking

those questions and that's one question be putting to David Davis.

I've asked them again and again and I can't get an answer. Once Chris

Grayling denied to me on the Sunday politics that there was such a thing

as membership of the single market. I can't imagine I'll be as good an

interrogator as you but I'll try to get to the bottom of it! If you talk

about leaving the single market as though it's a punishment, actually

it's a liberation. Even in the knowledge that we are almost

inevitably going to be leaving the single market, we've had the best

news that Sunderland have had since Paolo Di Canio was sacked... Who is

he? He was Sunderland's football manager. Sunderland has a football

team?! It has a great football team! One other thing about that fate of

confidence in Sunderland is that it's taken in the full knowledge

will be outside the single market. Given the government's emphasis on

having an ability to do our own free trade deals, does not follow

automatically that we cannot remain inside the European Customs Union? I

think that is, I don't have the same degree of certainty, I think it's

pretty clear we should be outside the Customs Union as well, yes. Why

doesn't the government guarantee the status of EU citizens already here

and their families? Of people from the EU who have come here to work,

they brought their families. They could be in the NHS, some of them

could be in the Nissan car plant in Sunderland. They are in our fields,

factories, helping provide our public services. Instead of making

them a bargaining card, why doesn't the government say if you're here,

you within the law, you and your family are welcome to stay here for

as long as you want. Why doesn't the government do that? I agree with

you. That was a question. I'm just making it clear I'm not challenging

the proposition or disagreeing. I made that case during my brief

ill-fated leadership bid. Why isn't the government saying that? I think

the government wants to keep its cards close to its chest. One of the

things that I can do as a backbencher is outlined my own

views, but I wouldn't want to second-guess every decision the

government is going to have to take during the course of these

negotiations. It's all very well to save keep the cards close to the

chest, People's lives are hanging on this and it's shameful. It really

is. They have uncertainty. They don't know what they are doing. They

are settled and married. It is just shameful, Michael. I take your

point. Do you agree with that? I think it's important to dial down

the rhetoric but I agree... The rhetoric gets dialled up because

they really frightened. Fed. Angry. I entirely accept there is a range

of feelings on this issue. I want to say to the government, when

ministers appear in front of the committee, I will ask those

questions as well. But my view is similar to yours. I haven't

expressed a view, I've asked a question. My view is similar to the

one you articulated in the body of the question. Implicit in the

question. Finally on this point, isn't it just wrong, not just from a

practical point of view but the implication in Margaret's question,

from a moral position. It's wrong to make these people who are our

friends and neighbours and allies in this country, to make them a

bargaining card. Why don't we just do it? Whatever the Europeans do to

our expats we can deal with it. Why have these decent hard-working

people been made a bargaining card? I can only say that I am in

agreement with you on this issue, and indeed have said so. But the

government has taken a slightly different position and will have a

chance to cross examine them in due course. When you're on this Brexit

committee, one of the ministers who will come before it to be

interrogated is Boris Johnson, are you looking forward to interviewing

him? I always look forward to any encounter with Boris. So that's a

yes? It's a yes. I know you've given other interviews on the events of

the summer. But as you look back, you must have huge regrets do you

not about the course of action you took. I made mistakes. I hope I've

been open in acknowledging I've made mistakes. I can look back at each of

the individual decisions I made and it seems to me they were right at

the time. These mistakes I can learn from. Ultimately, Theresa May is

Prime Minister, I think the Conservative Party made the right

choice. Boris Johnson is a senior Cabinet minister and I his ability

easily entitle him to that job. And I have a job to think, write and

operate from the backbenches and I'm enjoying that at the moment. Do you

regard joining the Brexit committee, working with Maurice Glasman the

Labour peer, being on programmes like this, is this a long march back

to re-establishment? No, it's standing up for the things I believe

in. In particular, I played a part in the Leave Campaign. I think

there's a responsibility on those of who played a big part in that

campaign to see it through. I'm not running away from that. I celebrate

that decision and I want to make sure it is implemented properly. I'm

not in government, that gives me the freedom to make arguments to the

government and to the country about how it should be done. I shall watch

with interest how you and Maurice go along together. I can't for the life

of me see a more odd couple. It strikes me as really strange. The

odd couple was a very successful TV show! We make it back to front line

politics again? -- will you make it back to front line politics again? I

don't know. If Theresa May remains as Prime Minister, I think probably

not. All I want to say is it's a privilege to work with Maurice. He

is one of the smartest, nicest people in politics. He's one of the

few Labour politicians who argued we should leave, and he did so great

clarity. I think of it as salt and vinegar, we go well together. Not

Marmite and Bovril! Michael, thank you for coming, I hope we'll see you

again. It was announced this morning

that the by-election in Richmond That means aid this week by election

special through the night! Get the coffee on already!

It was triggered when Zac Goldsmith quit the Tories to stand

as an independent in protest over Heathrow expansion.

It looks like it will be a straight fight between Mr Goldsmith

and the Lib Dems, as the Tories aren't fielding

But it's not just Heathrow that's important in Richmond,

nearly 70% of voters in the area voted to stay in the EU.

Unlike Zac Goldsmith who voted to leave.

So what will the good people of Richmond be voting on -

Zac Goldsmith has quit as a Conservative MP

here in Richmond to run as an independent MP,

furious at the Government's plans to expand Heathrow Airport.

He wants the by-election here to be a referendum on that issue,

but the Liberal Democrats, who also oppose Heathrow expansion,

want the by-election to be about sending a powerful message

Don't forget, Zac campaigned to leave the EU.

What matters more to you - Heathrow or Brexit -

when you come to decide who you're going to vote for?

Right now, I would say Brexit.

Can you put a ball in my box, please?

Otherwise, I'll get a parking ticket.

I voted out on Brexit anyway, so it'd be Heathrow.

I can't vote but if I could, I certainly would vote for no

Breaking news - it's Trevor McDonald.

Well, we're not the favourites at the moment but we've only had

the by-election announced for less than, or fewer, rather,

than 24 hours, so there's still plenty of time.

Do you think it's a good time for another election?

The reason I chose Brexit is, it's going to have an immediate effect

on me, whereas Heathrow I don't think will ever happen.

Well, cos I live here and the planes drive me

Right now, it seems like Brexit is creeping ahead.

Everyone said it's difficult.

What was the question - what do I think's more

As an individual, yeah, Brexit, definitely.

And after a lot of chin scratching here on the streets of Richmond,

concern about Heathrow expansion is outweighed

And we're joined now by the Conservative peer

Nicholas True, who is also the Leader of Richmond Council.

Welcome to the programme. Zac Goldsmith says he wants this

by-election to be a referendum on Heathrow expansion. Buttoned his

main opponent is also going to be against Heathrow expansion, how can

it be a referendum? Well, it's a referendum on whether we want to

keep our word and the fundamental point is, Zac Goldsmith gave a

commitment, a rare thing in a politician, that he would do what

he's done, he's kept his promise and we wish to keep him as our MP. But

if you have a referendum, as we had on June 23, or in Scotland in

September 2014, you get a choice of who you are going to vote for. The

two front runners, if they are both in favour of no Heathrow expansion,

and you are in favour of it, who do you vote for? You vote for the far

more effective, competent unproven spokesman against Heathrow, Zac

Goldsmith. But if you are also, as a 70 descent of those in Richmond are,

against Brexit, why would you vote for a notorious Euro-sceptic? Zac

Goldsmith has been MP since 2010. The question was asked was, what is

more important the country? I personally think Brexit is hugely

important the country, rather than a mistaken airport decision. The fact

is, everybody in Richmond knows and has known for a long time where

Goldsmith stands. He's been returned repeatedly. He has a very strong

majority, even though it is well known that he's been against the EU.

But the issue has become germane now because we voted to leave but your

area did not vote to leave, so if you've got two front runners, both

of them against Heathrow, which is the mood of the constituency, but

one against how we voted on June the 23rd, which is the Lib Dems, which

is the mood of your constituency, we've seen from the report, isn't

there a danger that he loses? I don't think so. Obviously, he is

taking risks. He doesn't need to do this. He's doing this because he

thinks he has to a promise. But the real point here is whether this is

an election for an MP to go to Westminster. Do you return a proven,

well liked, successful MP or send an unknown quantity? We've actually

just have a referendum in this country, as you pointed out earlier.

35 million people voted and whether it is an unelected peers sitting in

this chair or whether it is the leader of the Liberal Democrats

saying we could rerun this, the fact is that this by-election would not

have any effect on the policy of the country. What is the point of the

by-election? Mr Goldsmith was elected twice. He was first elected

in 2010, then re-elected in 2015. On both occasions, he made clear his

opposition to Heathrow expansion. There was no doubt about that and

last time I looked, he is still opposed to it. So what is the

point... You've already been elected twice on opposing it, so what's the

point of being elected a third time on opposing it? The point is, I'm

sure he regrets having made the commitment, part of him, deep down,

but he said when he was first adopted as an MP, when he was first

elected, the second time he was elected, that if any government took

the decision to expand Heathrow, he would force a by-election to enable

local people to express their view. It may seem odd and old-fashioned

but here is a politician who is keeping a promise he made to his

electors and instead of falling down on his head and saying, isn't it

ridiculous, for once a politician keeps his promise and one might

actually praise that. You seem to imply it is maybe a promise he

shouldn't have made since it is clear where he stands and he's been

elected twice on it. Do you think he regrets it? I'm sure part of him

dusted up who likes fighting an election? Here is a man with a safe

seat in Westminster until 2020 but he made a promise and feels he has

to do this and I think he should be respected for that. Are the local

Tory activist in Richmond happy that there won't be a Tory candidate?

Yes. I went to the Executive association yesterday and it was a

very clear feeling that we have been delighted with Zac Goldsmith is our

MP... So the constituency will be behind Mr Goldsmith? Unquestionably,

there will be many Conservatives working for Zac Goldsmith and, I

hope, people of other parties. I think it is regrettable that the Lib

Dems are dividing the community which needs to be united against

immensely powerful interests behind Heathrow. They were hardly going to

give you a free one, where they? They used to have that seat and the

one next to it so they weren't going to give you a free run. Principle is

not the strongest point, I'll give you that. I'm sure in their

situation, you would do exactly the same. Lets see what happens on

December the 1st. It certainly means a late night for us. Thank you very

much. Theresa May's arrival at Number 10

was heralded as an end to spin and a return

to old-fashioned plain-speaking. But efforts to find out what that

means in practice have floundered with the Prime Minister

demonstrating a flair for not But she's certainly not the first

and surely not the last leader to give evasive responses

to specific questions. I was entitled to express my views,

I was entitled to be consulted. Did you threaten to overrule him? I did

not instruct. Did you believe in old Labour? I believed in the values of

the Labour Party. Did you believe in what they stood for? CND, union

power not being curtailed? Nationalisation, no privatisation?

Did you threaten to overrule him? I did not overrule him. Did you

threaten to overrule him? I took advice on what I should do and I

acted scrupulously in accordance with bad advice. I want to make sure

children have those opportunities, that all schools offer a good

education for children. But is not quite an answer about my question on

grammar schools. You are not answering the question.

Probably important aspect on this, which it is important to bear in

mind... I'm going to seem rude, I'm sorry... There is no point in

looking at different words. We're not going to give a running

commentary. I'm not asking for a running commentary, I'm asking you a

rather simple and basic question. That is not a web of an answer to

the question of whether you threaten to overrule him.

And I'm joined now by Dr Peter Bull from the University of York, who has

dug into the science of Theresa May and other leading politicians

Welcome to the programme. I understand you've come up with the

fact that there are 35 different techniques politicians use to avoid

answering the questions. Is that right. Can you give some examples?

Yes, I have identified at least 35 different ways of not replying to

the question. Common forms include attacking the question, there are

lots of ways to do that. It is based on a British you've taken out of

context, the quotation is mistaken, it is based on a false

presupposition, it is a hypothetical question. I've had all of those,

particularly the hypothetical one, because the key question people like

me ask is hypothetical - if you do this, what will this follow? But I

understand Theresa May has a whole new category of nonspecific

responses to specific questions. I think we saw some of that that PMQs

yesterday. We certainly did. Most of her none replies to the two

interviews with Andrew Marr include this nonspecific response to a

specific question. The question, for example, about, would she stop the

Scots having a second referendum? When asked that, she actually says,

"Well, it's not a question of whether they should have another

referendum, but there should be another referendum," which is an

interesting technique in that it doesn't answer the question but

rephrase the question in a way in which she wants to answer it.

Liebrich, I know what you are talking about and live with it on a

daily basis. Do you have any advice to help me? One of the interesting

things to the interviewers is the way they follow evasion and in your

opening sequence, you quoted the celebrated sequence where Jeremy

Paxman poses the question 16 times but the extent to which you can

follow up, draw attention to the evasion and keep following it up,

how many times do you follow it up and not get a reply?

Thank you for joining us. Fascinating stuff. Good to talk to

you. There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz. Who did the Queen mistake

Vladimir Putin for during I hope it wasn't Prince Andrew, her

son! Hopefully she would recognise her son! She doesn't see him a lot!

It wasn't Prince Andrew. I'm going to hazard a guess at your good self.

Andrew Marr! That it is. The one o'clock news is starting

over on BBC One now. I will be joined by Michael

Portillo, Alan Johnson, Digby Jones, Helen Lewis

an the Rev Richard Coles