05/12/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

It's a big day at the Supreme Court, where judges are deciding

whether Parliament's consent is required before ministers can

The four-day hearing is being broadcast live,

It's auf Wiedersehen to him, and arrivederci to him,

as the far right challenger for the Austrian presidency

is defeated and the Italian Prime Minister bows out

A report raises the alarm over social integration in the UK today.

We've been talking to its author Louise Casey and she isn't

We can't expect, with the high levels of immigration we've been

having, for integration just to take care of itself.

And from shouts of "lock her up" to the Brexit debate at its most

heated, has 2016 seen politicians be even ruder and more insulting

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

of the programme today, two MPs who would never hurl

insults at each other on national television.

Although you should have heard them just before we came on air!

It's the Conservative MP and now author Nadine Dorries,

and Labour's Shadow International Trade Secretary, Barry Gardiner.

First today, let's talk about the results from yesterday's

Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has said he will resign

after losing the vote, which he called over his plans

for constitutional reform but which came to be seen as a chance

to register discontent with Mr Renzi and establishment politics.

The result is being seen by some as a blow to the European Union

because several of the leading opposition parties are opposed

to Italy's continuing membership of the single currency although not

In the short term there are also serious concerns over the financial

Here's Matteo Renzi speaking earlier.

TRANSLATION: Today's Italian democracy is based

When we asked a confidence vote, we proposed to simplify the system,

eliminate separate assemblies, reduce the cost of politics

and broaden the areas of direct democracy.

This is the reform that we brought to a referendum.

I'm sorry, but I go away without regrets.

Because if democracy wins, and "No" wins, it is also true

that we have fought the good fight with passion and determination.

What was obvious and evident from day one,

It backfired for Matteo Renzi. Some would say that political absurdity

in Italy is business as usual. They have had 63 governments since 1945.

How significant is the vote for the rest of Europe? It is significant

because it was a referendum and it was on a constitutional matter. It

is quite indicative of what is happening across the European Union.

We knew the EU wasn't working. David Cameron tried to reorganise it. He

tried to change things and they were not playing ball with him and we

ended up with our own referendum. We were probably first to go but I

think we will see ricochets across the European Union, where people are

actually using their democratic mandate and their voice to express

their dissatisfaction with what is happening in their own country. It

is Italy now. I wouldn't be surprised if it is Holland or

somebody else next. What we are seeing is the people, the

electorate, standing up and letting their dissatisfaction be very

well-known. This was a constitutional reform referendum. He

made it about himself, Matteo Renzi. Do you agree that this is also a

chance to kick the EU even though the movement which has increased in

recent years is against the single currency and not the EU per se? I am

not sure that this is specifically about the EU. I do think it has much

wider ramifications for the rest of us in the EU and those of us who

will soon be out of it. Why? Because I think what is happening here is we

are seeing a disaffection with the way in which politics as usual is

conducted. For us specifically in the UK, I think what we are looking

at here is even greater difficulty in going into a negotiating period.

We have already seen that we have the German, the French and the Dutch

elections next year. Now to have the Italian elections means actually

doing the negotiating that we need to do to come out of the EU about

our new relationship with the EU is going to be that much more

difficult. Do you agree? Will it be harder to negotiate Brexit for

Theresa May at her government rather than easier as a result of this? No.

I don't know the answer to that and I don't think Barry does. I do know

that Theresa May has a very clear set of objectives and I don't think

it matters who is in power, whichever European state it is. We

have our objectives and she will go to negotiate those and hopefully

achieve them. Don't you think there could be a domino effect as Nadine

Dorries said first of all? There could be a momentum building,

whether it is about the EU or domestic politics. When you look at

France and the possibility of Marine Le Pen being President, there is a

broadly anti-EU movement on the right. I think it is an anti

business as usual feeling. That is anti-EU for many people. That is

right and it expresses itself in many ways. Stephen Hawking has been

very interesting when he writes about this. Last week he penned an

incredibly fascinating article going right into the politics and saying,

look, all around the world, people are able to see what each other is

doing, and they find that actually the inequalities in the world need

to be addressed. He is saying that more people have access to a mobile

phone in Africa than clean water, and that means that they can see the

inequalities, they can see the financial markets, and exactly what

is going on. That is the failure of successive governments including the

current one. I don't think your average voter in Sunderland does the

inequalities across the world. I think they just do what is happening

on their doorstep and how the EU impact on them and their particular

family. And that is why they went and cast their votes in the way that

they did. I understand exactly what you are saying. It is a much more a

writing intellectual argument to make. I am not sure that it actually

distilled down and applies to the British people that voted in the EU

referendum. Let's stick to the situation in Italy and ask our

little correspondent Gavin Lee what happens next. They are trying to

move as quickly as possible. The current President of Italy, for the

past few hours we believe he has been meeting with Matteo Renzi, but

he has not yet offered his full resignation, and he will do that

this afternoon. Because the democratic party has still got the

majority of government, if there is another interim leader, who can

drive the support car through, given the worries and the volatility of

the financial markets. We believe the man in the front line for that

job at the moment is the finance minister, a technocrat, Mario Monti

figure of time gone by, not known for his charisma but a man used to

dealing with the banks of Italy and the vulnerability of the banks as

well. That could be a possibility. Somebody the Italian media is

talking about. We expect that to happen fairly quickly because of the

unpredictability factor. The talk of a real crisis, I think this has been

caused by a popular movement. If you talk to Italians and officials here,

they say it is under control. This place has seen 63 governments in 70

years. We have had the populism of Brexit and Donald Trump, but they

think if they move quickly they can avoid panic. You are talking about a

caretaker government, which would not be for the first time in Italy.

When would elections be? Would they have to be new elections and if

there were new elections, how well would 5-star Movement do? There are

some ifs and buts there. At the moment nothing would be set to

change. 2018 is when the elections are due. Matteo Renzi, if he can

find a counterpart, let's say the finance minister, it depends on the

ceiling. -- the feeling. Our people happy? The chameleon who became the

leader of this party, he is calling for an early election and he

believes his party is strong enough to take on the mantle. He compares

himself in terms of popularity to the likes of Ukip in the UK and

Donald Trump at that is as far as it goes. It is not an anti-immigration

party, not a Eurosceptic. He wants to see changes on the Euro but he is

distancing himself. There are factors affecting this. Initially

everybody is worried about the financial situation in this place

and potential contagion for the rest of the eurozone. Thank you.

Let's talk now to the financial analyst Louise Cooper who's been

looking at how the markets have been reacting to the referendum vote.

As Gavin says, the political crisis to some extent could be described as

business as usual. The real issue is the financial pressure now on Italy.

And the reaction from the market has been very muted today. It has been

factored in? Essentially. Italian stock market is actually up, which

is extraordinary. It opens down about 2% but now it is up about

4.5%. But the Italian -- 0.5%. At the Italian stock market is one of

the worst performing. And if you look at Italian bikes, that is a big

issue. The oldest bank in the world, their share price, and other bank

share prices, down something like 85% year to date. In middle of

capital raising, they are desperately trying to convert into

equity. We have the Italian stock market, Italian banking shares,

Italian bond markets. They thought this was going to happen. They had

sold off before this. Right. But what is the risk of contagion or

some kind of banking crisis like the one we saw a few years ago when

there was a deep recession across Europe? Is a big difference right

now is that we have central banks giving banks money, essentially.

Will they bail out the Italian banks in trouble? There are two questions.

First of all, are they facing a liquidity crisis? No. On Thursday we

have the European Central Bank meeting and they are likely to

announce more quantitative easing, which is quite important. Mario

Draghi, the boss of the ECB, will be asked a lot about how many Italian

bonds he has bought today. One of the key thing is you have political

risk. What happens with political risk? Investors demand a higher

interest rate for taking on the risk of lending to the Italian

government. That has already happened. The Italian government for

the first time in five years has got to pay more than Spain to borrow,

and that shows you... Not something to boast about! But that has already

happened. What is interesting is they are probably not paying as high

interest as they really would, because you have got the European

Central Bank in there doing quantitative easing, buying Italian

bonds. In a way we can't really see the markets and what they think of

this financial crisis because the central banks are distorting the

market and that is the problem. What about the fate of the Euro in this?

It has obviously fallen. People could be thinking this is a good

time to go and buy Euros is, people here, that is. People talk about the

collapse of sterling. It has recovered the worst of its loss. ?1

used to buy 1 euro and now it is 1 euro so we have recovered about half

of the losses. -- 1 euro and 20 cents. We have four big players

having elections coming up. But the problem with currencies as they are

relative. If you don't like the Euro, what do you buy? The yen?

There are lots of problems globally. Do you buy sterling? But will there

be pressure on the Euro? I don't see how there can't be. The European

Central Bank is still printing money and when you print it that tends to

devalue your currency. We will see what they say on Thursday but there

is no sign of that coming to an end yet. The Italians were not the only

ones to go to the polls over the weekend. Yesterday Austrian voters

decided not to elect the far right candidate. Do you see that as good

news for EU leaders? Yes, I think most EU leaders are very relieved.

This would have been the first time there would have been a far right

head of state in any European country. I think there is a relief

that. We want the democratic will to be able to assert itself. Popular

democracy is a good thing but when it spills into populism and spills

into right-wing fascism, that is something that you're a pretty dusty

to be very careful about India. Can I pick -- something that Europe does

need to be careful about indeed. Can I pick up on the way that the ECB is

printing money? In buying those bonds from Europe, they are going

against their founding principles. That is why there is real concern

about the stability of the eurozone as a currency. On that basis, one

may argue they don't have an alternative if you want to keep some

of these banks going in a big economy like Italy. That kind of

financial instability could still destabilise here down the line. Can

I make a point because what you have just said is fascinating? You

explained it so easily! That is why we get her on! I feel very sorry for

Italian people in this situation. They are paying more for their money

and huge amounts of quantitative easing to this extent surely brings

inflation. Am I right in saying that? It didn't here for quite a

long period of time is I am the problem is that it didn't. That is

the bizarre thing. It is opposed to bring in inflation and it never has.

Also very peculiar. It is reminiscent of the old days in Italy

when you could buy 1 million lire for the equivalent of ?1. That

financial mixture put them in this situation and this seems startlingly

like going back to those days again of political instability. We will

find out how it unfolds over the next few months. Lots to talk about

in 2017 as well. We thought 2016 was busy!

The question for today is all about one of a number of government

memos which were leaked to yesterday's newspapers.

One was a note telling ministers to, well, stop leaking to the papers.

Another instructed ministers to stop calling Boris Johnson

So what are they, according to the Mail on Sunday,

a) Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson.

At the end of the show, Nadine and Barry will give

Now, in the last hour, we've seen the opening of a landmark legal

Over the next four days, the 11 justices at the Supreme Court

will decide whether Parliament's consent is required before ministers

That's the mechanism that means official Brexit negotiations can

begin ahead of the UK's departure from the European Union.

At the beginning of November, the High Court in England ruled

that the Government does not have power under the Crown's prerogative

to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw

In other words, it took an Act of Parliament to get us

into the Common Market in 1972 and it will take an Act

This led to criticism of the high court judges by some parts

of the press and some politicians, while the Government said it

That appeal starts today and is expected to last most of the week.

The original parties to the court case, investment manager

Gina Miller and hairdresser Deir Tozetti Dos Santos, have been

joined by lawyers for the Scottish and Welsh devolved administrations,

The ten male and one female judges are expected to deliver

If, as some commentators expect, the government loses,

ministers will then bring forward a bill, possibly just 16 words long,

which will then have to pass through both Houses of Parliament.

So, the court began sitting just over an hour ago in Westminster,

where, unusually in the British legal system, the hearing

It began with the Government's top legal officer and Cabinet minister

Jeremy Wright telling the court why they believed it was ministers,

and not Parliament, who should start the UK's withdrawal from the EU.

There is nothing in the wording of the European Communities Act or

indeed in later legislation to inhibit withdrawal from the European

Union treaties or subject it to a requirement of prior legislative

authority. That therefore remains to be done by the Government in an

exercise of well established prerogative powers. It is not as

though Parliament has been short of opportunities to impose such

restrictions if it wanted to. There has been legislation in 1978, 2002

and 2008 and 2011 and 2015 where it could have done so and did not.

Secondly, nowhere in the three acts that followed the Lisbon Treaty in

2008, 2011 and 2015 is there any basis for inferring a restriction on

the prerogative in relation to Article 50 to begin negotiations for

withdrawal. On the contrary, we say close to the respective roles of

government and legislature in this context has been given in each of

these acts and the Government roll on Article 50 has been consciously

served. That was some of the Government legal case.

Our correspondent Rob Watson is at the Supreme Court now.

Rob, we certainly heard outside the court earlier a fairly highly

charged atmosphere and there is no doubt the Supreme Court is under the

spotlight in every way. How do you assess it? It's interesting. If it

was highly charged outside, inside, OJ Simpson it is not! It is pretty

dry legal stuff. I hesitate to do this with all of those clever

lawyers in there, but essentially we are at the point where the

Government is making three points. Number one, when Parliament

authorised the referendum, they didn't say that somehow they would

have to come back to Parliament. They knew all along that it would be

the Government that implemented the result of the referendum, which was

clear, therefore the Government should just get on and do it. The

second point being made by the Government is, look, if you go back

a long time but also right up to modern times, prerogative, in other

words the Government's ability to make foreign policy and treaties and

unmake treaties is pretty clear, and that should apply now. And third,

Parliament should not worry, it is still sovereign and will have a role

in the unfolding of the Brexit process. Just not in triggering

Article 50. Is that clear? Yes, end it now, tell them not to bother to

sit for the rest of the week! On the other side, the critical issue that

rights are embedded in the legislation that took us in and only

Parliament can remove those rights. That is still holding for this case

too, isn't it? That's certainly what is going to be put by the

respondents, as they are known. They will repeat that, but the

Government's lawyers are saying, hang on a minute, all that stuff is

secondary, because the referendum made it clear, Parliament knew what

it was doing when it passed the Bill authorising the referendum, and

there was nothing in that bill saying, by the way, because the

lights are going to be handed over, you need to come back to Parliament.

We will hear later in the week from those saying no, hang on a minute,

there are rights involved and therefore Parliament is sovereign.

Thank you. Nadine Dorries, why shouldn't Parliament have a say? I

think Parliament is going to have a say. Do you think that is right? I

agree with the first point the Government is making in court, that

we have the right to do this. This court case is almost academic,

knowing that Labour are going to support Article 50 and vote for it.

Of course they are going to, because if we don't, Paul Nuttall leading

Ukip is going to take the charge into the labour heartlands in the

north of England. Any Labour MP in the north, with the turnout and the

vote they had to leave who would dare to vote against Article 50,

given the resurgence we are about to see of Ukip, targeting those

particular heartlands, would be a very brave and probably a very

foolish MP. Given that Labour are going to support Article 50, this is

almost academic. Parliament is going to vote it through anyway. Let Barry

respond. Has Nadine Dorries summed it up correctly, that that is how

Labour is going to react, and the reason why? What I find fascinating,

Nadine seems to think this court case is about politics. It is not.

This is a very important constitutional principle, which is

simply this... Does the Prime Minister have the right to overturn

a law passed by the sovereign Parliament, using the arbitrary

power of the monarch? The High Court found that the Prime Minister did

not have that right. They said the law created by Parliament can only

be overturned by Parliament. That's A constitutional matter and actually

it needs to be clarified irrespective of Brexit. Hang on...

Two points to answer. You say it is academic, but do you agree that

Parliament should have a say? No... You don't? This court case is being

brought by a millionaire, Gina Miller, and 11 other millionaires.

For every millionaire who has brought this court case, there are

millions of Gerald Millers out there, who went into the booth in

good faith and ticked the box to leave the European Union. They don't

have millions of pounds to bring a court case and to argue a

constitutional point. People are clear democratically about what they

wanted, they won a democratic vote to leave the European Union and that

is all that should matter. Is this just an attempt to frustrate them?

This is absolutely spurious. The Labour Party, as Nadine well

knows... Are you paying for that court case? Could you allow me the

courtesy to reply to your extended diatribe? I and the whole of the

Labour Party are very clear, our official position is clear, the vote

took place, Remain lost the vote, we will leave the European Union. The

debate in Parliament, the vote in Parliament must be about what the

shape of leaving looks like, and there must be clarity on that. The

Government is continually, and what Nadine is trying to do, is trying to

confuse the issue, because the Government are confused and they

have not decided what the shape of Leave looks like. If they have, they

need to come to Parliament and say, this is what we propose to do. If

that is consistent with all the things we were promised in the

referendum, although we have heard from both Boris and... I can't

remember. Liam Fox? David Davis? That's the one. Three of the things,

they have now said, we may row back on paying money to the European

Union... They haven't... There is a disagreement over whether or not

having Paris free access to the single market might be worth paying

for. -- tariff free access. Boris at the weekend... He just didn't rule

anything out. Are you saying the Government has a clear and agreed

strategy? Of course it dies. I would like to make the point that I do not

expect Theresa made to put her cards on the table so that 27 member

states... David Davis did not suggest it, he just didn't rule it

out. But it is a red line for some people. Why didn't he rule it out?

If it's a red line, and you believe it is, why didn't he rule it out?

Some Tory MPs, Stuart Jackson said it would be a red line. Michael Gove

stood in front of the five principles and said, these are the

red lines. What people very clearly voted for was exiting the European

Union, control of our borders come and access to the single market.

That's what people voted for. It was very clear. When you say we don't

know what Leave is going to look like... It's difficult not to talk

over Nadine Muller because she never stops. -- Nadine because she never

stops. People put their trust in the Government when they put their

tick... The arguments were made very clearly during the referendum

campaign, this is what it's going to look like. We will control our

borders, control immigration and have access to the single market.

People absolutely knew what they were voting for and that's what we

are going to deliver. Jeremy Corbyn has said you are not going to vote

against Article 50 being triggered under any circumstances. Does that

mean you won't seek to amend the very short bill? Absolutely not. So

you could delay...? Let him answer. We will have to see what bill the

Government comes forward with, what shape it looks like. If it looks as

though the Government is heading for a hard Brexit, which is not in the

interests of British companies, workforce, it's going to take away

jobs, reduce our economic benefits in this country... If those other

things the Government is looking to do, we would look to amend that and

there would be a vote in Parliament. What does that mean in practice? If

you amended it, let's say because you wanted... It doesn't stop

triggering Article 50. It would say Article 50 should be triggered on

this basis rather than the basis of the Government has brought forward.

That's why it is absolutely wrong of Nadine to continue to say that this

is trying in some way to confound people who want to leave the

European Union. I believe we should now leave the European Union,

because that is what the public voted for, and that is also the

official Labour Party position. But the Government, on that ballot

paper, did not give people the right to determine what the shape of it

would be, what it would look like when we came out. To take away jobs

and reduce the economy... The Government was entrusted with the

implementation of it, broadly speaking. Parliament was entrusted.

Let's talk about the Lords. If they are difficult, as you stated let's

say Labour votes for Article 50 to be triggered in the end of March

timetable looks like it is being added to, what if there are problems

in the Lord's? What should Theresa may do them? I don't like to high

that he -- I don't like to hypothesise, if I were in the

Lords... Everything changes on a daily basis. I think they are more

worried about reform and the fact that if they go against a democratic

decision of the British people, their position in the Lords would

become even more tenuous in terms of their seats. They are not elected,

of course. The former has failed by successive governments. If they

choose to go against the will of the British people... Do you think the

judges have strayed into political territory with this case? First in

the High Court and now the Supreme Court? I go back to my substantive

point. I don't believe this court case should be taking place, because

I don't believe a group of millionaires... What about my

question about judges? Do they have a right to rule on what is a legal

case that has been put before them? Or are enemies of the people, as

some of the press...? That's a very binary question which is quite

extreme. We are where we are. These multimillionaires have challenged

the British people and taken it to the courts, we have to abide by what

the judges said. It is ironic that Nadine is talking about

multimillionaires given that Ukip was backed by multi-millionaires...

They are not challenging the decision. This court case, in the

Supreme Court, is about a constitutional issue. It is

politicians who have tried to politicise it, who put those

articles into the press criticising, personally, the judges and trying to

delve into their private lives. Is this the first time you have

supported bankers, Barry, because they are paying for it? The judges

have a job to do, which is a legal job about our Constitution. They

should be allowed to get on with it without politicians trying to

politicise it. We have a few more days of it to go.

Louise Casey has been at the centre of government attempts to tackle

some of the toughest social issues including inequality,

worklessness and homelessness for more than a decade.

Today she's published a long-awaited report into integration

She says the authorities have sanctioned discrimination

and harmful behaviour in the name of tolerance and multi-culturalism,

while political leaders have been frightened to intervene for fear

Ahead of the report's publication Louise Casey has

been filming exclusively for the Daily Politics,

For the past year, I've been travelling around the country coming

to places just like this in south Manchester, talking to people,

listening to people, about community cohesion and how

we can look at integration in a different way, and particularly

And what I've found is overall, as a population, we are becoming

older, we are becoming less religious, we are becoming more

liberal with a small L about things like gay rights

And at the same time we are much more diverse than we used to be

But the report that I'm releasing today shows that those in the Muslim

communities are actually somewhat of an exception to that.

On the whole, Muslim communities are younger,

more devoutly religious and the fastest growing.

And most worryingly, some women in those Muslim

communities continue to suffer discrimination and outdated

And in some northern towns like this, Muslim communities

are becoming more concentrated, not less segregated.

I was really struck by this street when I came to it.

Down this side of the road there are five mosques,

all built in incredibly close proximity to each other.

On this side of the road you've still got a formerly

Both communities living cheek by jowl, and sometimes that can

I don't really blame either of the groups for that.

It is entirely understandable and natural for people

to want to live near others that are like themselves,

but it is time for politicians, community leaders, public servants,

religious leaders, to start to have honest conversations

about the difficult issues that these raise.

We can't expect with the high levels of immigration that we've been

having for integration just to take care of itself.

We've got to be better at managing that integration so that we live

together as one community and not two.

In one school I visited, the children in that school thought

that up to 90% of the British population was Asian.

That is simply no preparation for those children in terms

of bringing them up in a Britain where eight out of ten

And especially as they go out into a world where

they still will face discrimination and disadvantage.

So I'm worried about these kind of them-and-us divides,

which is why I'm calling for today a bold new integration strategy,

one that has significantly more English-language classes,

more help for Muslim women and other women from ethnic minority groups,

more mixing opportunities for all young people,

no matter who they are, and greater expectations

on all migrants that live here in the United Kingdom.

In the current febrile atmosphere in this country,

and to celebrate everything that is good about British

diversity, we've got to focus much more and do much more on what brings

us together as one community, one set of values, one

set of institutions, and not focus on what

And a failure to do so only leaves the ground open for on the one hand

Islamist extremists and on the other the extreme far right.

The report was commissioned by David Cameron, the former Prime Minister.

How much support have you had from Theresa May? It was actually jointly

commissioned. The report was going into David Cameron and Theresa May

and now it will go into the new Prime Minister. She is as alive to

these issues as David Cameron was. There have been reports that Number

10 try to delay or block the publication. Any truth in that? I

don't think so. Politics is politics. Over the summer, fairly

rapid amount of change has happened in terms of political advisers and

all of that, and basically I think they needed a few weeks to get their

heads around a series of big issues, including the European referendum,

amongst many other things. My report, I gave it to her the week

before last and we are today, so in the scheme of things that is fine.

And no, I haven't doctored it or watered it down. The report today, I

am happy with it. It is my report, they are my words, I thought about

what I wanted to put in and what I didn't want to put in and that is

the report I have published this morning. For you have said the

unsayable, being pretty direct in your observations and judgments, and

observations from politicians across the political spectrum. Are you

surprised by the reaction? No. I think when you say things that are

difficult people find it difficult. I find them difficult to say, if

truth be told. You don't always want to find problems and when you find

problems and talk about them, they can be incredibly awkward. I think

the report is very complicated. There are lots of things in it. If

you just pick out a couple of things, you can make hay with them.

It presents a picture that basically says the pace of immigration is too

much in certain communities. It has been too quick, too difficult, too

much change. Over the last ten years or so we haven't really been as an

integration as I think we should be. I think that is a perfectly

reasonable position for the British public to take. Do you accept that

position? I think it is a courageous report. But do you accept that

immigration has been too fast and furious for integration and there

are problems to date as a result of immigration that perhaps started in

Tony Blair. Louise said that in a particular way. She said in certain

communities and I am glad you are nodding. That is really important.

It is the impact it has made an certain communities that has just

lacked any real thought on any real understanding both about the needs

of the incoming community but also the community that was pre-existing.

In my own area in North West London, in Wembley, in Brent, I am the first

constituency with more people voting in a general election who were born

outside the UK than born in it. Right, but some of the communities

that Louise was talking about were not necessarily like Brent but I

accept your point that it is a very diverse community. Reaction from

Sayeeda Warsi, the former Tory Cabinet minister, saying it has

focused too much on the Muslim community and the Muslim community

in terms of women. You could talk about white working class

communities as being marginalised and held back is yellow do you

accept that? The shame is that she started tweeting before the report

was published. Technically that is not the way I would have wanted the

debate to start. If you read the whole report, let's be honest. I

don't let anybody off the hook when it comes to qualities in that

chapter. If one looks around the BBC, that is the starting point, and

the civil service and other institutions, equality leaves a

little to be desired. I don't suggest for a moment that we have

left behind poor kids on white working class estates in this

country. The fact that kids on free school meals are still doing badly

in terms of attainment. And if you are young and black and between the

ages of 18 and 25, you are 35% likely to be unemployed. All of

those things are appalling. However, I don't want to write another report

that says they are appalling and I will duck another issue that is

called, as the country has become more diverse and London is a

fantastic example of that, we do however have pockets of this country

that without a doubt much more concentrated in terms of Pakistani

heritage, Bangladeshi heritage and Muslim communities, which are from

lots of different areas of the world but they define themselves as

Muslim. I will put my cards on the table and my hands up. I am not

going to duck and issue on your programme that says that within some

of those communities I have seen male misogyny and patriarchy in ways

that I just do not feel we should accept in this country. How can you

change that within a community? The starting point is to talk about it

and call it for what it is. Don't dance around it and say it is a

because it is religion. It is not locate to say that if you are gay

you should be beheaded or if you are woman you should walk 50 steps

behind somebody else. -- it is not locate. OK. For one person it is

arranged marriage and for another it is forced marriage. I hope you find

me a husband or a wife turns into your community forcing you down a

route. We have got to have those discussions. You cannot tell people

where to live and who to be friends with. You cannot tell them which

school to go to, so how do you break up communities which want to live

together and be segregated? Nobody wants to break up communities. How

do you stop segregation happening? The fundamental problem here is that

some of these community is began to establish a long time ago, in the

late 1950s. And they have increased since. But as a society we have

changed and we are much more liberal. We are in a society where

gay marriage is enshrined in law. And we have progressed quite a lot

over the last 50 or 60 years. And left behind large swathes of people?

We have not just left them behind. We have diverged. It is enshrined in

their religion and culture. Many of those communities, we can talk about

it and try and educate and particularly educate women, I think,

but many other people within those communities would find it offensive

and fundamentally against everything they believe in in terms of the

patriarch and the misogyny, because it is part of who they are. Let

Louise come in. I am not saying that is how it should be. Is Lembit Opik

is full religion. Islam is a religion that can be interpreted in

a myriad of different ways. -- Islam is a peaceful religion. There are

plenty of Muslims living the life that I live, still practising their

religion in their own way. I have no problem with that and nobody should

have a problem with that. My problem isn't educating women. It is

educating men. It is actually speaking to the Imams, the so-called

community leaders, standing beside teachers in schools who are day in

and day out in some of these high concentration areas having to walk

the tightrope between can somebody go on a theatre trip? Can somebody

play music? All of those things. We are not standing behind them are

saying, yes, of course you can, and we are not getting that message out

to so many people in the Muslim community who are on the other hand

pulling in the opposite direction. The sense of it being a leftover of

the last 50 years and eventually they will integrate is not what I

have seen. My problem is that there are some people who are friendly

more British than I am, their heritage is longer living in this

country than my own family, yet frankly in some circumstances they

have more regressive views towards women and other people than perhaps

those that came from Pakistan for 40 years ago with that type of

attitude. Do you think little greatness has been a barrier in

terms of talking about these issues? -- political correctness. I am

talking about the rather issue. Many of the perpetrators grooming young

girls were men of Pakistani origin. It was accused of political

correctness at the time. Without a doubt, sometimes it is incredibly

well-intentioned people, they think they can't speak out loud about this

and it will be terribly awkward. We want to embrace differences in terms

of culture, religions and behaviours. My problem is that

sometimes we have gone too far. The worst aspect of that is when you

wake up one day and you realise that the social work or police officer is

ignoring something deliberately, to texting out the word Pakistani from

a children's care file. You realise that the care has gone so far on the

other direction that actually they are doing wrong. It is all sorts of

smaller examples. My most important cry is that this should be talked

about and debated fairly and properly and that every local

authority in a country can start the bracing the issues. Do you think the

government will take action on this? Yes, they will have to.

Now, last week gave us plenty of disagreement over Brexit,

another new leader for Ukip and a surprise by-election

On Monday, the Liberal Democrat Sarah Olney,

fresh from overturning Zac Goldsmith's 23,000

majority in last week's Richmond Park by-election,

takes her place in the House of Commons.

On Tuesday, the main debate in the Commons is the Health Service

Medical Supplies Bill, where Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt

aims to reduce the ?15.2 billion the NHS in England

On Wednesday, the leader of the Commons David Lidington

stands in for Theresa May at Prime Minister's Questions

The PM herself is away on a foreign trip.

We don't yet know who will be speaking for Labour.

If you're a fan of by-elections, your luck's in.

There's another this Thursday, when voters in Sleaford

and North Hykeham choose a new MP after Conservative Stephen Phillips

And on Friday, we'll get the political result

Yes, can Jeremy Corbyn win Parliamentary Beard of the Year

Now, to discuss all of that, although not the bit

about the beards, we're joined by Stephen Bush

from the New Statesman and Alison Little from The Express.

Wrapped up warm, I see. Allison, different types of Brexit. Are

beginning to emerge? Are the Cabinet split is very reel over where to go

with Brexit? I think they are very real, how much they matter at the

moment is a moot point. Theresa may says we are not going to give a

running commentary. Ministers are not going to be able to roll things

out, that is why David Davis got into a situation last week. --

ruling label things out. Paying for access to a single market, he said,

well, there is a possibility. Boris Johnson insisted yesterday that it

is a clear picture of what we want for Brexit. I don't know if it is,

but it gives us something to write about. That is always important.

Some of the papers were writing at the weekend that David Davis is

being allowed to state an opinion, particularly when he didn't rule out

contributions to the EU for preferential access to the single

market. Others, like Liam Fox and Boris, are not being given the same

sort of freedom to speak their mind. There is definitely a scepticism

about Liam Fox among senior people. Clearly a concerted effort from some

quarters to get Boris, as it were. Whether that is anything more than

jockeying for power within the Conservative Party is a more open

question. Alison, do you think the Government is heading for a harder

or softer Brexit? A grey Brexit, whatever we are talking about now. I

don't know. I really don't. The signals from Boris Johnson is that

we are going to be out of the single market and the customs union, but it

is a one-time thing, nobody has done it before, so we will have our own

deal. The David Davis point is interesting. I spoke to an MP who

thought he should have been better prepared for the question, it was a

convoluted answer. He hasn't been on the front bench for a very long

time. For him and Boris and Liam Fox, partly it is that they are not

used to the day-to-day demands of the House of Commons any more. That

is sometimes an issue, so they can set hares running when perhaps they

don't mean to. On immigration, there seems to be some disagreement on

whether the numbers should come down, or whether it should be a

reasonable and managed immigration or not. Which is it, Labour Party

policy? To be honest, if you ask three different members of the

Labour front bench, you would get six different answers. If you ask a

backbencher, you would get another four. They are badly split on the

issue. Half of their seats have people who don't like the EU and

immigration, the other half like the EU and immigration. It's not clear

who will win the tussle. Diane Abbott is hugely influential on

Jeremy Corbyn's thinking, she thinks you have to stay in the civil market

and accept free movement. Keir Starmer is not in a seat but is

under threat from the potential surge from Ukip. He is trying to

speak to those concerns, a middle path. And people like Clive Lewis

suggesting that maybe only members of the trade union... It is a bit of

a mess, in truth. I will leave you two to pursue the varying shades of

Brexit and immigration. Thank you. Has this been an unusually rude year

in politics both here and abroad? Well, not on the Daily Politics,

where we're just as rude But that's the view of the columnist

and former MP Matthew Parris, who may just occasionally have been

guilty of the odd In his very own tribute

to Top of the Pops, here's Matthew with the worst -

or should that be best? - Hello there, rude boys.

I'm Matthew Parris. And what a year it's been

for political upsets, And because it's been an annus

in which politicians have been especially horribili to each other,

here's my Daily Politics top five The EU referendum dominated

the first half of the year, and tempers were fraying,

not least in the debates Who could forget Amber Rudd's

take-down of Boris Johnson? He's the life and soul of the party,

but he's not the man you want driving you home

at the end of the evening. For some reason, Michael Gove stung

people into some rather graphic language among users

of that bastion of common sense and moderation,

Twitter. @pulpketchup described the former

Chief Whip and Education Secretary While @invaderXan was even crueller,

describing him as a reprehensible Then, for a short while,

all Conservatives seemed One Tory MP was quoted

anonymously saying... Although that was all rather vanilla

compared with what was happening Her obituary in the Richmond

Times dispatch said... One man who saw Donald Trump with

more enthusiasm was Nigel Farage, who's finally bowed out of the UK

leadership with this endorsement from journalist Camilla Long

ringing in his ears... So, 2016 has been catty, sometimes

witty, but often downright brutal. Next year, if I promise to be a bit

nicer, can't we all? And Matthew Parris, who's just

published his book called Scorn, about history's worst insults,

just in time for Christmas, has left the Top of the Pops

studio and joins us now. I don't know if they were your

personal dancers. We couldn't think of a rude enough introduction that

would be acceptable on daytime telly. Plenty, but none of them are

repeatable. Has it been a vintage year for political scorn? I'm not

sure of the word vintage in terms of quality. In terms of quantity, a

huge amount. A lot of it pretty brutal. More the sledgehammer than

the stiletto, and I regret that. Oh, you do? I like the stiletto! The top

five were pretty scathing, particularly for poor old Michael

Gove. What brought out such vitriol? He said something mild, like I want

to stay friends with the EU, I think people were just cross with him. His

erstwhile friend Boris Johnson has not fared so well. I don't think

they are friends! I did say erstwhile! The journalist Marina

Hyde described Michael Gove as having faced a tragic conflict of

disloyalty. Everybody had their own version of that. What do you think

relations are like around the Cabinet table, when you think of

Amber Rudd, Boris Johnson that collision during one of the debates?

How does that work out? I think it works out as it would in our own

lives. When people have had a huge row and really insulted each other

in the most personal terms, it is hard to imagine they are never

completely friends again. But of course they have to have ways of

working. You yourself were not exactly flattering about Boris

Johnson. Lacklustre, cynical, vacuous? Yes, I had a bit of a go at

Boris Johnson some time ago. You did. And what triggered that? I was

invited to the Foreign Office Christmas party, but I am terrified

of bumping into him on a social occasion, because he has never been

anything but pleasant to me. There you go! You are not exactly shy in

coming forward with political insults? No. You are in the book!

The Sox! Remind us. It was Tim Montgomery. He told me very quickly

what it meant, so I deleted the tweet very quickly. I am pretty

naive, to be honest. She says! I'm afraid I don't believe a word. I

have been accused of starting this posh boy 's comment about David

Cameron and George Osborne. It was on this programme, I think. You

first aired the comment. It went viral. Since then, people have been

not quite as afraid to say what they really wanted. Matthew knows as well

as I do that there is no such thing as a friend in politics. If you want

a friend, get a dog! You said you are not rude to people, but are you,

Barry? Would you like to be rude to Nadine? He has been today already! I

think the worst thing I have ever said about anyone was the last

Chancellor. I used the phrase that he showed all the economic foresight

of a myopic fruit bat. That is very mild! Tony Banks described Mrs

Thatcher as Baha'i thing like a six starved boa constrictor! -- behaving

like. There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was: According

to reports in the press, what name is the Government

trying to stop ministers It was Boris. He should be called

Foreign Secretary, because everyone always is and always has him, so he

deserves the respect of the position. -- has been.

That's all for today. Thanks to our guests.