30/01/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 30/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


Donald Trump's new policy of banning refugees and suspending the entry


of foreign nationals from seven countries has caused


We'll look at what the changes mean, and how political


Should Mr Trump's state visit to the UK to be


but Downing Street says it's going ahead and the President


With the Brexit bill about to come out of the starting


blocks in the Commons, we'll be sizing up the hurdles


in the way of Britain's departure from the EU.


And, as Desert Island Discs turns 75, we'll be looking back at some


of the most famous political castaways who've shared


their memories, along with their favourite records.


And with us for the whole of the programme today,


two MPs who've been castaway in the studio here with me


for the next hour - you've no hope of being rescued,


It's the Conservative Mims Davies and Labour's Dan Jarvis.


First today, let's talk about the clampdown


on immigration announced by US President Donald Trump


that's been causing controversy around the world.


On Friday, Mr Trump signed an executive order halting the US


refugee programme for 120 days, indefinitely banning all Syrian


refugees and suspending the entry of all nationals from seven


Moves to implement the measure triggered anger


The British Government's response has also come under fire,


with opponents claiming the Prime Minister was


The Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, is due to make


a statement on the President's new policy later today,


and the planned state visit by Mr Trump scheduled for later this


A petition on Parliament's website asking for the visit to be cancelled


to avoid causing embarrassment to the Queen has passed


one million signatures, making it among the most popular


since the service started, and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has


called for the event to be postponed.


Among all of this there's been a certain amount of confusion


about the real impact of Mr Trump's executive order.


So who exactly is affected, and for how long will


Friday's executive order introduced a 90-day suspension on visas


for all nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries -


Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.


Initially, dual nationals appeared to be subject to the ban.


Over the weekend British Olympian Sir Mo Farah,


who was born in Somalia, and the British-Iraqi Conservative


MP Nadhim Zahawi spoke of their fear of being unable to travel to the US.


Last night, after Boris Johnson sought clarification from US


officials, the Foreign Office confirmed UK citizens with dual


nationality would only be subject to extra checks


if they were travelling to the US from one of


White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said US


green-card holders - legal residents -


would not be affected, although agencies say people


returning from overseas will be assessed on a case-by-case basis


before being allowed back into the US.


Friday's executive order also brought in a 120-day suspension


of the US refugee programme, with an indefinite ban


Finally, the order introduces a cap of 50,000 refugees


to be accepted in 2017, against a limit of 110,000 set


We'll be joined by the Ukip MEP Patrick O'Flynn,


For now, isn't he just enacting something he said he would do during


the campaign? I think there will burn a fallout, the select committee


would have found this unpalatable, and I certainly think we should be


doing everything we can to make sure that our national scan travel and


that ultimately we are making sure that America knows what it is doing.


It is going to affect things globally and what the Prime Minister


and Foreign Office are doing behind the scenes is as important is what


happens in front of the camera as well. We have got questions and a


statement in the house today and I am pleased with the clarifications


we had yesterday evening. Why didn't the Prime Minister Theresa May


answer the question directly in the way you have just done at the press


conference when she had the opportunity to condemn this


executive order? Everyone is in a difficult place here. When you are


on foreign soil it is probably hard for the Prime Minister today, excuse


me, can I just have a word? That is when we use our softer powers behind


the scenes. I think it is a very good visit by the Prime Minister


overwrought... It has been overshadowed by this, committee was


asked pointedly three times, it was not a question of saying, can I have


a word about immigration policy, Stewart asked directly about members


of the press, did she support or want to criticise the executive


order that I have just outlined by President Trump and she did not


answer the question. Eventually, when she did, rightly or wrongly,


she said it was a matter in terms of immigration for the president and


not for her. As a former Foreign Secretary, she has been on the other


side of this argument, it is a tricky place to be. You said it is a


dangerous thing and can have terrible unforeseen, already is


having terrible consequences. It absolutely good, this is 90 days, it


is related, I have heard that it is a Muslim ban, it is about the


country's America has decided... Is that right or wrong? We could all


pick other countries that we feel could be included if this measure


was appropriate anyway. Which countries would you be including if


you were extending the list? I would not be extended it or signing up to


it, and Mo Farah summed up a lot of what my constituents have been


saying, and I will be prepared to say that in the House of Commons


later today. In a way, Dan Jarvis, wasn't Theresa May write the first


anthology cannot affect the immigration policies of the


president of the United States? She might


not be to affect them but it does not mean she cannot take of you. I


suspect Number Ten is probably privately sleeping. They're right


and number of items discussed that were useful, around Nato, some of


the comments Donald Trump made regarding torture, and all of that


has been overshadowed by this announcement, which I think lacks


logic and decency. People have to make difficult judgments about the


extent to which they feel able to speak out against things they


disagree with, we have a special relationship with America, it is


important to maintain that, but I think, given the strength of feeling


that exists, it would be the right thing for the Prime Minister to be


clear about the fact that she does not agree with this, that she


condemns this and does not think it is the way to proceed and I hope we


will see that, in the next day or two. Do you agree with Jeremy Corbyn


that the state visit by Donald Trump to be postponed or cancelled until


the ban is lifted? I personally would feel uncomfortable with


President Trump coming here under state visit. I do think we have to


make difficult judgments with regard to foreign policy, we need to


maintain our special relationship with the United States... Would you


cancel it or not, if you had the power to do so? I'm not sure I would


have arranged it in the first place because this is very early days for


President Trump, I would have waited to see how had gone first. That is


Jeremy Corbyn right to ask for it to be cancelled or postponed? It is


right but I think it needs to be done in the most diplomatic way


possible. We are joined now by Patrick O'Flynn in our Stoke studio.


Would you like to see a similar Visa ban bought it in here in the UK? I


think every country is in charge of its own immigration policy, is the


first thing to say, so while what Donald Trump has Voges arbitrary and


is temporarily, I take the view that a lot of people are rightly very


worried about the Islamist threat and would on the site of Draconian


is rather than laxity like Mrs Merkel... So you do see it as


Draconian? I think Crispin Blunt said yesterday it seems to be the


hallmark of an immature administration, not particularly


fully thought through, perhaps a bit arbitrary, but it is a 90 day


breathing space and we will see what the Administration comes up with...


But my question was, would you like to see a similar ban here? Again,


I'm not sure it is a ban, it is not a comprehensive ban... It is a Visa


suspension, would you like to see that here? Not a blanket suspension,


but I do think it is very important that, with our migration policy, we


not only look at people's aptitude and what they can bring to British


society in terms of their skills, but also their attitude, do they


accept call British principles such as gender equality, freedom of


expression, parochialism in our society. Right, but the White House


has denied it, but don't these measures, in your mind, in terms of


the executive order, amount to a ban on Muslim immigration in all but


name? Certainly the countries listed are predominantly Muslim population


countries, and it has to be said Donald Trump, in his campaign, did


talk about the Islamist threat to American society as well as the West


in general, and pretty much signposted this type of very tough


action. So you see it as anti-Muslim? I don't see it as


anti-Muslim. I hope the intention is to help protect a free Western


country against the threat of radical Islamist militant terrorism


and all the rest of it. I think, the way the liberal left over year has


overreacted and the hysteria, to me, shows a chasm between ordinary


common-sense people and the things that they worry about, including the


Islamist threat to all Western countries including the United


Kingdom... So you would support a ban? To keep the country safe? You


said you don't think it is anti-Muslim but you accept that it


is about seven countries on a list which are predominantly Muslim


countries and Donald Trump said he was calling for a total shutdown of


Muslims entering the United States, so how could it be anything but


anti-Muslim? I criticised Donald Trump for the way he conducted his


campaign, some of the over the top things he said. In terms of the


United Kingdom policy, I think ministers will be informed by


security briefings and expert assessments, but all I'm saying is I


think rigorous vetting is appropriate, and we criticised


Donald Trump but the mess Angela Merkel has plunged most of the


European continental mainland into by a very lax policy. Are you part


of a liberal metropolitan elite bubble of hysteria by condemning


what Donald Trump has done? I think anyone would struggle to fit to be


in that -- to fit me in that particular category. If we are going


to talk about common sense, that people like Mo Farah and others are


not going to be able to travel back to the place where they are living


to be reunited with their family, it seems the execution of his policy,


whether you agree with it or not, has been very poorly done, it has


not been thought through and all of the relevant government department


in the United States have not been consulted, so I hope real lessons


will be learned by the American Administration as to how this has


been done. And what about the protests? Patrick O'Flynn says there


has been left-wing hysteria, is that how you see it? No, there is genuine


concern with the fact that well over 1 million people have already signed


a petition, many of my constituents have been in touch to express their


concerns. This is people standing up for what they believe in, it is a


perfectly healthy thing. When it comes to logic, no fatal attacks on


US soil have been committed by nationals from those seven countries


on the blacklist, so is this about terrorism and keeping America safe,


wife or instance is Saudi Arabia not on the list? Most of the 9/11


conspirators came from Saudi Arabia. If I can keep some logic in reply,


just because recent attacks on American soil have been carried out


by American citizens doesn't mean there is no international Islamist


threat, as indeed we experience in many other countries. No one has


told me who the guest in the studio is... It is Dan Jarvis and Mims


Davies. Well, I would not accuse him of necessarily being part of a


metropolitan liberal elite, but I do find it amusing when he says that


the President's state visit, who has been invited, should be postponed in


the most diplomatic way. I think that is a tall order. While people


who are signing up to the petition think it sends a strong symbol or at


least an indication to Donald Trump about strength of feeling here. But


let's stick to the policy substance, let's talk about the vetting of


refugees, extreme vetting. Nigel Barrage, former leader of Ukip, said


that he would like to see that apply to the UK. What


You will have to ask Nigel what he means. Would you back it? It depends


what it means by extreme vetting, I think we need to be less led by the


intelligence, immigration services, the people getting the intelligence


from our friends and neighbours, as well. So certainly, look, we're


living in a very dangerous era, where I believe the threat from


Islamist terror is one of the biggest threats to our way of life.


We are living in a high migration climate. The British Dutch system


has been completely out of control. It seems to me perfectly reasonable


to be thinking about new protections for law-abiding citizens. You talk


about the threat from Islamic terrorists, but none of the recent


attacks, over quite a number of years, have been Front National is


from those countries. The policy and executive order was unclear, which


meant thousands were left stranded, many American citizens all those who


held dual nationality. There will be and have already been court cases


being brought against Donald Trump as to whether it was legal in the


first place. So there is no indication at this moment in time it


will make America safer than it currently is, is there? Ice Inc I


acknowledged earlier it's in the hallmark of an immature


administration. -- I think I acknowledged earlier. A bit half


baked in its implementation. If you look at some other countries where


terror attacks have happened, they have been carried out from people


coming from some of the countries listed reporting to be refugees.


Particularly in Europe, in Germany and France, for instance.


In the case of the extreme vetting as you talks about, it takes between


18-24 months for refugees to be vetted under the US system of


immigration. How much more extreme could it be?


Well, I don't know what they spend two years doing, but it doesn't


necessarily have to be a longer time frame. All I'm saying is if there


are more checks that can be made, it seems perfectly reasonable to me


that they should be made. In general the point I would like to make is


there is no inalienable right for a citizen of one country to go on


travel all live in another country. We have sovereign nation states and


I'm very glad since EU referendum in Britain is on the road to becoming


one of those countries again and will be able to set up own


immigration controls. Do you see the dangers of hugging the president a


bit too close in terms of Theresa May's visit? You are judged on the


company you keep? I think the Prime Minister was


rightly the first person to go and speak to president Tromp, in


relation to the special relationship. Moving on to the


visit, I've had people writing to me, the committee will look at that


tomorrow and rightly because people are concerned. A ban for the ban I


am really comfortable with and I think it leaves us in a difficult


position long. I'd be rather working on that relationship, as we saw the


Prime Minister doing. This is overshadowing that and for me that


is a problem. Before we move on, the German Chancellor had an open door


policy toward Syrian refugees. Do you think that policy worked on was


the right one? I'm not sure it was the


right or if it worked. If the intention of this policy, this


announcement, is making the United States safer, I'm not sure it has


achieved that goal. All the serious people who understand the complex


nature of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism would say if you're trying


to make the country safer by restricting access from people in


the countries that have been identified, you have picked the


wrong countries. There are some obvious omissions in that list which


I think undermines it. Thank you. The question for today


is all about Donald Trump's visit According to the Sunday Times,


the White House is concerned about the possibility of an awkward


moment when the president meets a) Because of the prince's


view on GM foods? b) Because of his view


on climate change? c) Because they disagree over


modern architecture? d) Because Mr Trump has


a phobia of royalty? At the end of the show Dan and Mims


will give us the correct answer. The Prime Minister is in Cardiff


this morning, to meet with the First Ministers of Scotland


and Wales, and the first and only Theresa May says she wants


to continue "constructive discussions" with the leaders


of the devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland


about Britain's future relationship However, she's made it clear


she is in the driving seat, and the Scottish and Welsh


governments say they have not seen any signs that Mrs May


is taking their proposals seriously. Our chief political correspondent


Vicki Young is in Cardiff. What have you found out from the


meeting so far? It is interesting because Theresa May said the Nicola


Sturgeon, when she became Prime Minister, she wanted the devolved


nations to be fully involved in discussions in the run-up to Brexit.


The clock is ticking now, with Article 50 due to be probably


triggered by the end of March. Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland


all want to have their say. Really now it's about what type of Brexit


Theresa May wants. I think I'm making that speech when she said she


thought the UK would leave the single market, that has really riled


particularly the SNP. It is not what they want, they say it is not what


their people want and they don't think the UK Government is in any


way listening. They think they are coming to these meetings but it's


not having any impact. Just before this meeting Nicola Sturgeon said


time is running out for the Prime Minister to heed the voice of


Scotland. So today there is a paper on the table about how Scotland


feels it could stay in the single market, even if the UK were to


leave. How that might work, no one is particularly sure. I think there


are people in the Commons as well, we have heard from Labour MPs and


the SNP, they feel the same, that Theresa May is dictating what they


would call a hard Tory Brexit and they don't feel they are having any


input. Thank you. Now let's stick with Brexit,


as MPs will tomorrow start debating the Bill which will trigger


Britain's departure from the EU. Most commentators are predicting


that it will pass its early Commons stages without too much problem,


but there are still plenty of other potential obstacles to come before


we reach the Brexit finishing line. Mark Lobel has been


to the Lee Valley Athletics Centre In the run-up to triggering Article


50 and keeping our EU negotiations on track,


what hurdles lie ahead The EU divorce bill will be debated


in the Commons this week, with several Parliamentary


hurdles to overcome. The first second reading


will be a vote on the main principles of the bill,


which will most likely be followed by a vote


on the Government's preferred timetable of triggering Article 50


by the end of March, which could also limit the time


available for the next hurdle, amendments put forward by MPs deemed


appropriate by the Deputy Speaker. This really interesting thing


about these votes is that the vast majority of MPs are going to end up


voting for something with which they passionately


disagree, and with which they feel will have disastrous


consequences for the country. That's why tensions are so high


within the parties, and why you have this quite remarkable situation


of Labour whips potentially not But I think when people


talk about this in terms of whether Parliament


is going to block it or not, What matters, however,


is how long it takes to go through and whether it's amended


on its way through. It's the amendments that


I think are crucial here. The Liberal Democrats


said they will only vote for the bill if a referendum


on the deal is promised. I think one of the amendments


that probably won't have much chance of passing,


because I don't think there's much appetite within Parliament for it,


is the idea of a second referendum. I think it's some of the other


amendments, on things like reporting to Parliament or the role of EU


nationals already living in this country, those strike me


as potentially more difficult There's no control over


their timetable and no amendment can be ruled out of order,


so anything could happen, but large delays would be a risky


move from an unelected chamber. Once Article 50 is triggered


and those Parliamentary hurdles Leading them on behalf of EU heads


of state and government will be the former French minister


Michel Barnier, who wants a draft It will then be put to a vote


in the European Parliament, where just over half its members


will need to support The agreement also needs to clear


the European Council, with support from 72% of the 27


member states, representing at least 65% of the total


population of those countries. Once that's all done,


it's back to Westminster. Theresa May has said there will be


a final vote in Parliament, Another hurdle could


spring up along the way. If MPs thought the deal was running


into trouble they could call a no-confidence vote


in the Government. Ten hurdles over 110 metres,


except some politicians argue Revoking Article 50, thus reversing


the decision to leave. That's right, pretend we never shot


the firing gun in the first place. It's not clear that


that is something that Westminster can do on its own and it


would require the agreement of the other EU nation states,


but there's no doubt that some MPs To leave the EU, the UK has to clear


at least ten hurdles. Now begins that journey,


which is set to dominate So it is a marathon and not a


sprint, to carry on that analogy. To Nicola Sturgeon things Theresa May


isn't listening to her, taking seriously what the Scottish and


Welsh governments are proposing an Brexit and she's right. This is a


typical Nicola Sturgeon line of I'm not getting what I want on this. We


have had a decision by the of the bright British people to leave the


European Union. I think for UK plc, the jobs, security, for what we need


to be doing as a government, we need to get on with this. I'm really


pleased with the timetable. Theresa May is not listening, that's true,


isn't it? The Prime Minister is there today and listening. And


ignoring. Unless it is the argument she wants to hear she says not


listening, potentially on both sides. What is the point of Theresa


May think she will have this meeting -- these meetings because she would


take into account the views of those devolved governments if she's not


listening? I'm sure there is something that can be taken back


this. I think peeling back the layers, Scotland is getting what


they want will be difficult. Wales is a different issue. They voted to


go and I think you are going to see... The Labour administration


wants to stay in the single market. I think people are going to end up


being realistic about, actually, do we want to be navel-gazing on this


get on with things? There are companies, global companies, British


companies making decisions based on what they need to keep people in


jobs, which pays mortgages and keeps people in homes. You say you think


there will be something that will be given to the devolved


administrations, that these meetings are not a waste of time. Can you


give me an example, however small, of where Theresa May has moved in


the direction of what the Scottish and Welsh Government would like? I


think if the Prime Minister thinks all we think it's not right to


concede, because it's going to mess up the rest of the deal, then I


don't think we should do that either. I don't think anyone should


be held to ransom. She's not going to concede anything? Listen and find


out what's practical, but ultimately if it's about a Saughton Nicola


Sturgeon I don't think anyone in the UK... What about the idea of staying


in the single market? To be fair, that is not Labour's policy either.


If you wearing charge Nicola Sturgeon wouldn't get that either?


It's pin maker that won't happen. Labour to secure the best policy


deal. This has been a challenging time for us as a party. Many of us


campaigned to stay within the European Union but we have decided,


rightly in my view, given this is such a big strategical political


decision for the country, its right to come together on a cohesive view.


Is it right for Jeremy Corbyn to party manage MPs? Wouldn't it have


been better to have a free vote on the Labour side? I don't think it


would have been better to have a free vote. This is such an important


issue for the future of our country and the Labour Party to say we were


not able to bring people together... That you can't, it's clear you


can't. There are about 100 Labour MPs and some in the Shadow Cabinet


and some of them are supposed to be party whips you impose party


discipline. It is not a consensus at all. We will see if it is a


consensus or not, in terms of the number of people who vote with us or


not. You think it will be less? I think there are a number of good


colleagues who have difficult decisions to make. From the point of


view of our party, given this is such a big issue for the country, I


don't think it would have been the right thing to have a free vote. I


think it's the right thing for Jeremy to say this is our view and


he expects his members of Parliament, particularly those on


the front bench, to support that view. If you're trying to enforce,


as you say, a party line, to have a formed view, was it the right


strategy for the deputy leader Tom Watson to say Shadow Cabinet members


to resign can get their jobs back in a couple of months? Just because you


stand down from the front bench over a particular issue, even if it is an


important one might Brexit, doesn't mean you couldn't go back and serve


at some point. If you're trying to persuade people to come on-board and


present a united within Labour rather than a divided one, surely


the sanctions have to be at least relatively strong?


I'm not sure that would be helpful in the current climate where people


have to make difficult judgment about whether to represent the views


of their constituents or what they believe to be the right thing to do,


we all wrestle with those decisions. Brexit is the defining issue of our


generation... If you are a Labour MP and you had a strong Ukip vote and a


strong Remain boat, it is a difficult position for anyone. What


the Labour Party is trying to do is laudable. It is the Liberal Democrat


position, hardly turning up at the debates, chuntering on the sidelines


about wanting to change things, wanting to make the best of it... It


is a unified message in terms of what they are saying? Many


colleagues in all parties will find this difficult. I find it very easy


but for other colleagues this is a difficult balance. There are


by-elections as a result. Is this going to be the case in every


decision that the Labour Party have to make? You say this is the


defining issue, there are many coming down the line, is this how


the Labour Party will act with 100 or so MPs defied the whip? It is for


the leader to decide but it is right in this case on this issue that we


reach a formed view and colleagues are strongly encouraged to support


it, I think that is the right decision. Let's see what the next


few days brings. It is difficult for some colleagues but we have to come


together with a view on how to proceed. One of the amendments


Labour will put forward is guaranteeing the right of EU


nationals already living here. There has been an ongoing row about


whether they are being used as bargaining chips. Did you think you


could support that amendment? For me it is one of the issues as a


constituency MP that I see problems with this, I have people that live


and work abroad, for example in my area in the marine industry a lot to


work... Were due back the amendment? I don't think we need an amendment,


I think it needs to be part of the negotiating process. We are not


going to forget about this, it is an important issue, but at the moment


it is one of a number of matters... Do you think it should still be part


of negotiations rather than guaranteed ahead of negotiations?


There is no reason why it cannot be both of those things, negotiation


and as part of an amendment. The purpose of putting it forward is to


provide the opportunities for MPs to express their concerns about it and


I think there was a benefit in doing that. Are there any other amendments


of substance? We will see, but I think it is important they are seen


in a constructive way. There is abuse among some colleagues on the


other side of the house that these amendments slow down the triggering


of article 50, I don't see it that way, I think it is about adding


value to the process. Now, Unite is the biggest


union in the country, with 1.4 million members,


and we often end up talking about it on this programme because,


as well as being a powerful voice for its members,


it's also given millions to Labour and has an influential role


in the running of the party. The current general secretary


is Len McCluskey, he's been in the job since 2011 and has been


a key supporter of Jeremy Corbyn. Well he's up for re-election, but


he's not going to go unchallenged. Here's one of those hoping to win,


Unite regional secretary for the West Midlands Gerard Coyne,


launching his campaign. I think the time is right for some


change, and I think the time It's not about the leadership


that we've had thus far, although I do think that Unite has


become too much of a political commentator, and not actually


focusing on the concerns, the direct concerns


of our membership. Because I do know that for you,


actually, the difficulties you face in the world of work have got more


and more intense. You said you want to get away from


the political game playing in Westminster, what did you mean by


that? I think it is very clear, I want to focus on the job that is


critical for our members in the Times ahead, making sure they are


protected, that they are supported in the workplace and their terms and


conditions are improved, rather than focusing on Westminster politics.


But you are happy to campaign on broader political issues, for


example before Theresa May's Lancaster house speech you called


for her to take a firm stance on freedom of movement, why is that


important for your members? The next two years will be arguably the most


difficult for our members since the Second World War, the implication of


Brexit, we have to face up to it now and prepare our membership for those


challenges that will be very in terms of adjusting to the world post


Brexit. What does that mean in terms of freedom of movement, what would


you like to see? We have to make sure we are investing in skills in


the UK because employers for a long time have taken skills down off the


shelf when they have faced deficit in their workforce rather than


investing in the long-term unemployed or people in their


existing workforce. There is an media to focus on critical issues,


including investment as well. But you have not answered the question


about freedom of movement do you support the target


set by Theresa May, by the Government, in bringing net


migration down to tens of thousands? The reality is we have to face up to


what the British public voted for in the referendum and they have said


clearly that migration is an issue. If that means as a result of the


process we are going through that we will no longer be in the single


market, then we have to p repare for your view on transport strikes?


There have been a number of strikes across industries but let's take the


example of the strikes on the southern rail network, would you


condemn or support them? I am a trade union leader, I support those


strikes, I believe in the right of people to take industrial action, it


is a fundamental right and I would support them. And you would continue


to do so even if, as the management claims, they have answered some of


the concerns raised by the trade unions what about your view on


transport strikes? There have been a number of strikes across industries


but let's take the example of the strikes on the southern rail


network, would you condemn or support them? I am a trade union


leader, I support those strikes, I believe in the right of people to


take industrial action, it is a fundamental right and I would


support them. And you would continue to do so even if, as the management


claims, they have answered some of the concerns raised by the trade


unions? It is interesting in that example, the management has been


described as. In my view, workers don't take strike think long and


hard about because it means losing pay. The reality of trying to solve


a dispute, unfortunately strike action really is a last resort, so


to be in this, it is a decision they have to think long and hard about


because it means losing pay. The reality of trying to solve the


dispute, unfortunately strike action really is the last resort, so to be


in proposed nuclear power plant in Cumbria in terms of the action they


have taken, it is clear the responsibility rests with the


management. What about nuclear power, what did you think when you


saw Jeremy Corbyn last week unable to give support to a proposed


nuclear power plant in Cumbria. What did you think about Jeremy Corbyn's


response, when he was unable to give his backing? I'm clear, I I


absolutely support our membership in the energy sector, we need a


balanced energy respond including nuclear. I think some of the issues


we have been talking about around Hinkley Point, one of the critical


issues there is the skills infrastructure to support the


development. What did you think about Jeremy Corbyn's response, when


he was unable to give his backing? I'm clear, the vision... So his


position concerns you? What concerns me feel the work they are members


need to feel the work they are doing is that is the most important thing


for me, not the position of the leader of the Labour Party. Except


there is a close connection between the union and the Labour Party. In


this case, why is it that your campaign is being seen as a proxy


war between the centrist Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn's side. I


don't that is the most important thing for me, not the position of


the leader of the Labour Party. Except there is a close connection


between the union and the Labour Party. In this case, why is it that


your campaign is being seen as a proxy war between the centrist


Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn's side. I don't believe sure that we


are fit for the. But why do you think it is being seen that way? You


would probably be better asking that question to Len McCluskey in terms


of the political arena that Unite has operated. I want to move away


from that, I am more West Midlands than Westminster and I want our


members to get the service they deserve and make sure that we are


fit for the 21st you see it as a proxy war between two side in the


Labour Party? I don't, I see it as a do you see it as a proxy war between


two side in the Labour Party? I don't, I see it as the union at a


difficult time. Why is Momentum, the grass roots group that has grown up


supporting Jeremy Corbyn, putting so much effort into supporting Len


McCluskey? I don't know, you would have to ask them, but none of the


should underestimate the importance of the job of leading a trade union


like Unite. It is a tough time for Labour and people need to make a


choice about who they think is the best person to lead Unite in the


future. I think it is an important relationship between the Labour


Party and the trade union movement, I am proud of that link, I think it


has served us well over many years. There have been a few ups and downs


over the years but I think the trade union movement in provide an


incredibly important voice, and it might not be as close as it has been


but it is an important relationships are members of Unite should be


mindful of that in any decision they make. There is a close relationship,


you cannot get away from Westminster in that sense, the Labour Party,


outlined by Dan Jarvis, has a close relationship with Unite. I don't


doubt for one minute that working people and Unite members do better


under a Labour Government, but this is about the leadership. I am not a


puppet Master for the leader of the Labour Party, I want to get on with


the priority of focusing on our members in what will be a turbulent


time ahead. And the way to do that is by some sort of relationship and


support in the Labour Party. Unite. We affiliated to the Labour Party if


you win the election, you would still have delegates,


representatives of the National Executive Committee? Of course. So


the links are still there, rightly or wrongly, you cannot get away from


that. You cannot get away from it but the focus, what I want to do as


leader of the biggest trade union in Britain, is making sure every day


that one I focus on that it is not about parliamentary politics, it is


about what is better for my members and better for working people. In


the end, you are not going to win, looking at the figures, 15% of


members voted last time, total, and two


thirds of those voted for Len McCluskey. One in ten voted for Len


McCluskey, so I do believe I can win. The reality is this is wide


open as an election, there is a clear message about the focus I will


bring to the job and the difference I will provide so yes, I do believe


I can win. How would you get on with Jeremy Corbyn? He is the leader of


the Labour Party, simple as that. But how would you build relations


with Jeremy Corbyn? My job is not to be focused on the leader of the


Labour Party, that is exactly why I am standing. My job is to be focused


on the 4 million members that pay my wages. Gerard Coyne, good luck.


Well, it's set to be a busy week here in Westminster.


Let's take a look at what's coming up in the next few days.


Tomorrow, as we've been hearing, MPs begin two days of debate


on the European Union Notification of Withdrawal Bill, which will allow


the Prime Minister to trigger Article 50 and begin the process


The debates could last late into the night,


and you can expect them to be heated.


Sticking with Brexit, on Wednesday Ivan Rogers


You may remember he resigned as the UK's man in Brussels


earlier this month and took a swipe at the Government as he went.


On Thursday the Bank of England will publish


its quarterly inflation report, setting out predictions


The bank's governor Mark Carney has already indicated that he's


likely to revise up this year's growth forecast.


On Friday EU leaders meet in Malta to discuss life after Brexit,


it's not clear yet if Theresa May will be going too.


And private members' bills being considered by MPs will include


Dan Jarvis's attempt to set a new target for the reduction


We're joined now by two journalists who like nothing more than a late


night Commons sitting and a row about a foreign visit -


it's Jason Groves of the Daily Mail, and Holly Watt of the Guardian.


Jason, first of all, is Donald Trump's state visit going to go


ahead. Yes, I think that is pretty clear. Number Ten have said today it


will be a gesture to populism to scrap it. Of course critics think


the visit in the first place was a gesture to a populist, but they are


pretty clear that this visit is important and that it rather


transcends the current row. When it does go ahead I think we should be


set for some pretty extraordinary protests, the like of which we


really haven't seen for very many years. There is lots to talk about


whether this is embarrassing for the Queen, I'm not convinced by that, I


think she has put up with some pretty difficult people in the past,


Emperor Hirohito, I think she and Philip can cope. She is pretty


resilient! Holly, how does Downing Street get a grip on this story in


terms of the petition, for example, which will continue no doubt to go


up and up? It has been a complicated bidets, a week used to be a long


time in politics, now it is 48 hours, faced with new realities all


over the place. Theresa May had her trip to Washington, DC which seemed


to go off quite smoothly apart from some strange handholding, then they


went to Turkey and by the time they had arrived it was all strange and


-- all change and they were scrambling to catch up. I see the


two of you are not holding hands, that is something! You are clearly


on level ground! Let's look at Brexit and the week ahead, we just


looked at some of the hurdles in terms of legislation and the pathway


through Parliament, how do you see it?


There will be lots of debates and votes in parliament tomorrow about


how long they have to debate it, if there should be a White Paper and


when they report back. I think on Wednesday evening the vast majority


will vote for Article 50, because I think to do so would be so


anti-democratic that most of them can't stomach doing it. There will


be a rebellion, certainly by the SNP, they won't vote for it, the Lib


Dems won't vote for and I think you'll see 50 or 60 Labour MPs not


vote for it, which is a problem for the Labour Party. But I think the


legislation itself will get through. Looking at the Labour Party, does it


matter there is this divide in the Labour ranks, Holly? People have


resigned already and six or seven who are not clear if they will vote


along with Jeremy Corbyn's three line whip. Then you have Tom Watson


saying quietly that in the old days if you resigned from the Shadow


Cabinet, that was a very, very long time in the wilderness. Now it's


more like a rugby sin bin ten minutes on the sidelines thinking


about what you've done. Not so quiet now, everyone seems to know about


it. Back in the shadow could have -- cabinet in a couple of months. In


the next few days if Article 50 is triggered, what happens in the


Lords? I think it will take a bit longer to get it through the Lords.


Something like 80% of peers are opposed to Brexit. I think leaders


of the main groups have been pretty clear that... Turkeys voting for


Christmas if they voted against. Unelected politicians overturning


the democratic will as expressed in the referendum is not really a


runner. I suspect it will get through there as well but it will


take a lot longer, and there will be more debates to come. Thank you


both. Now, we mentioned Dan's


private members bill coming to the Commons this week,


it's seeking to enshrine in law Does putting a pledge into law


achieve anything? I hope that it would, clearly. In 2010 this was


agreed on a cross-party basis. The then leader of the Conservative


Party, David Cameron, thought it would be a good thing to do. Given


that we have 4 million children currently growing up in poverty and


the Institute for Fiscal Studies say that number will increase by 50%,


actually it would be a very powerful show of unity if across the House of


Commons we could agree to work together to say we need to reduce


those numbers, we will do something about it. I think having a target


focuses the mind of the decision-makers in government. Does


it? Labour drops the figure to drop child poverty by specific date in


its manifesto. In the end it doesn't bring you any closer to the goal you


have set out by just saying there is a target? I don't agree with that.


Government sets lots of targets. The immigration target they continually


failed to meet? Across governments there are lots of specific targets.


I think in life, if you want to achieve something, it's useful to


set a target so you can measure your progress against it. If you are not


prepared to set a target, I'm afraid what I conclude from that if you are


not seriously committed to reduce the number of children growing up in


poverty. Is another point, if you don't say, you are not making a


priority, if you don't pledge it, you're not putting your money where


your mouth is. The ISS says there will be a 50% increase by 2020. That


is a massive failure by the government. This government and


under David Cameron from 2010 the commitment was to tackle the


problems causing the poverty issue. I have a 10%, by one measure, in my


constituency and I can think of particular states and areas where


people's life chances are clearly not the life chances we would hope


for them to be having. So you have failed. By that measure, the old


target based on the percentage of households with below average


income, you are going to have seen an increase of 50%, according to the


Institute for Fiscal Studies. This depends on the measurement you are


looking at. Going back to life chances are making a difference, I


agree with Dan. Let's set a target, but we have been making changes.


Universal credit is coming in, people premium, the national living


wage, we are taking more people out of tax than ever. The trainee and


apprenticeships we are offering and 2 million more people in jobs, we


need to set aspirations. Is that enough? The previous Labour


government lifted 1 million children out of poverty. Theresa May said she


would fight injustices, I think it is an injustice so many children are


growing up in poverty in this Friday we have an opportunity to do


something about it and I hope we do. Now, it may shock you to learn


that there are some BBC programmes even better known than the Daily


Politics. And if you were listening


to the radio yesterday, you might have heard one of them,


as Desert Island Discs marked its 75th anniversary


with an interview with David The format has hardly


changed since 1942 - a bit like this programme,


then - and over the decades some of the biggest names in politics


have been 'cast away', and perhaps revealed more


than they bargained for. We've chosen some of the highlights,


let's have a listen. There is some flash photography in


this film. Mrs Thatcher, how


important to you is music? It's what I go to when I want


to take refuge in something completely different,


when I really want to get away from worries and go from the very


logical life that I've lived and I've always been trained


to live, really to a different I couldn't identify


with the Conservatives, who I'd fought all my life,


but I couldn't really increasingly identify with the Labour Party,


and I think one of the early seeds of the SDP, one which has been very


little noticed in the press, was the strong support that those


of us who later formed the SDP had The people who have sacrificed


their view in order to get to the top, have very often


really left no footprints I really think I have chosen quite


consciously to give people confidence in themselves and not


confidence in me. You were calling for the immediate


reduction in numbers of immigrants coming into Britain


and for the repatriation of those, That was official policy of


the Conservative Party at the time. Then why were you sacked


by Ted Heath for saying it? Because he didn't like the fact


that it had been heard. It almost brings tears to my eyes,


with the pride I have in doing that job, and the faith that people have


in me, and therefore I don't want stardom,


I just want to be known as a jolly good Speaker,


and a nice girl, and somebody who has been very fair


and just all round. The true emotional attachment


to the Labour Party is not to cling onto something long past its sell-by


date, it is actually to say, "Well, what is this party


about, what do we feel? Well, why did I join


the Labour Party? I thought, when I was preparing this


list, that I'd actually quite like something to perhaps jig up


and down to or dance to a bit on this desert island,


and my husband Philip and I are sort of the Abba generation,


so it is a piece of Abba, We're joined now by the Telegraph's


radio critic, Gillian Reynolds. Welcome to the daily politics. Why


do politicians love doing it so much? It gives them that moment


where they can turn into real people. Does it turn them into real


people? They try very hard. It depends if they have chosen their


own things or an adviser has chosen for them. Do you think, for


instance, Mrs Thatcher will really chose those songs? She says in the


great book about Desert Island discs, I couldn't do with comedy --


do without comedy... That's the thing, when you've listened to all


these politicians, you give those examples, is it not always credible


that these people could have picked those particular tracks? I love to


think of David Cameron dancing tomorrow see and the Smiths. That's


the thing, is it done by committee? There were rumours certain prime


ministers or leaders of parties about the committee they're saying


we have to have an even spread of classical, pop, is that...? The


little giveaways are delicious. When Tony Blair chose his favourite


object it was a guitar lent to him and one of his favourite records was


Johnson's singing crossroad blues. I love to think of that, the devil 's


music, he was singing about being buried at the crossroads. It's a


thrilling concept. Politicians love it, because for that brief moment


they are in the same league as David Attenborough, and great lords, great


thinkers of our time. I think it is a wonderful piece of entertainment.


No wonder it survived. I was going to say, that is why it has endured.


Simple, adaptable, fits all sizes, what more can I say? Would you be


sitting never discs if you were going on Desert Islands, thinking


about the tracks that work best for you? I think it is a national


treasure, if I were I wouldn't approach it in that way I think I


would just make a short list of those musical moments that bring


back memories. Do you believe him, do you think that's what would


happen? I think he'd be got at. Would you be got at? Not for a


moment, a true pop girl and the theme of Black beauty. I could do it


in about ten minutes. What is your one luxury? My children! You can't


have people. I'm sorry, it's basic, moisturiser. A lot of people, Joan


Collins took moisturiser. I love Joan Collins. I don't think you are


as old as Joan Collins! Dan Jarvis, what would your one book be? Would


you be like Enoch Powell and choose the old Testament in Hebrew and


Greek? You really do know this off by heart! I didn't realise you


couldn't take a person. Perhaps a bit hard to take your kids, I


thought maybe I should take Donald Trump, because sometimes you have to


take one for the team! LAUGHTER Spend the rest of your life with


Donald Trump. I have a couple of records. The thing that brings back


so many memories for me is sitting with my kids, listening to In The


Night Garden. A wonderful, emotive soundtrack. I would definitely take


that. That's the one thing my husband used to turn up as soon as


my children went to sleep. Is it important politicians show they have


a hinterland outside of politics when they do this? I think it's nice


for people to see another side, as well as the angry barking must. Not


that we've had any of that today, you've been wonderful! More 's the


pity. I know you worked very hard for that. A favourite? My favourite?


Well, I don't really have a favourite, but I do think if I was


singing along on a log and ended up on a desert island, whose record is


I bear listening to? Mo Mowlam's were pretty good. They are not in


the book but she ended up with the Jackson five and Blame It On The


Boogie. I Didn't Listen Yesterday Because I Was At Church Yesterday


Praying For The Future Of The World. I Will Catch The Repeat On Friday.


Thank you for coming on and sharing that even if they went your personal


records. There's just time before we go


to find out the answer to our quiz. The question is why is Donald Trump


reported to be worrying about meeting Prince Charles


during his state visit? c) His views on architecture,


or d) Because Mr Trump


has a fear of princes? So, Dan and Mims, what's


the correct answer? Frankly, I think all of them could


be. They could but I need one. I'm thinking climate change. Climate


change, what about you? Hazard climate change. That is correct.


That's all for today, thanks to our guests.


The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.


I'll be here at noon tomorrow, with all the big political


To be in the Lords, you have to be punctual...


Sometimes you really do literally have to slam the door


Download Subtitles