27/10/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 27/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Download Subtitles