05/12/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 05/12/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


Download Subtitles