07/02/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 07/02/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics


Commons speaker John Bercow has sharply divided opinion, again,


by banning Donald Trump from Parliament over


The government's publishing plans to fix what ministers say


is a broken housing market in England,


with "failures at every point in the system",


MPs are gearing up for another day debating the bill that will steer


So far the government has seen off all challenges,


but will it survive crucial challenges


And we'll take you inside Theresa May's


Ten Downing Street, well sort of, with our guide


to the people who work behind the most famous front door


All that in the next hour and I'm joined for all of it


by Camilla Cavendish, she's a journalist who went


on to work for David Cameron at Number ten, and she now sits


Last year she was, according to the Telegraph, the 31st most


My nomination papers must have got lost in the post again.


First today, let's talk about the statement by House


of Commons speaker John Bercow that's causing a bit of a stir.


Mr Bercow was asked about a parliamentary motion


which has so far been signed by 189 opposition Mps deploring, it says,


the actions of US president Donald Trump and asking that he be


barred from addressing Parliament when he makes his state visit


Government sources quoted in this morning's papers say the White House


has given no indication that Mr Trump wants to address


Parliament, but Mr Bercow has made it clear that isn't going to happen.


We value our relationship with the United States, if a state visit


takes place, that is way beyond and above the pay grade of the speaker.


However, as far as this place is concerned, I feel very strongly that


our opposition to racism and to sexism and our support for equality


before the law and an independent judiciary are hugely important


considerations in the House of Commons. John Bercow finishing with


a hard stare at the Tory benches, where he once sat.


the Conservative MP Alec Shelbrooke, and by the co-leader


You the idea that Parliament is there to be able to pimp out buy the


Prime Minister to whomever they would like. This is premature. The


opportunity to speak in the hall has not been clarified by potentially, I


think absolutely sends out all the wrong signs. Theresa May primping


out Parliament in terms of the state visit and the offer of Donald Trump


addressing parliament, is that how you see it? Not at all, let me say


at the start, I don't support some of the policies of Donald Trump and


I personally feel that his attitude to women is unacceptable, there is


many world leaders whose politics I find to be unacceptable, as I


understand it, an invitation has not even been requested, it is a


hypothetical argument and at this stage slightly unnecessary. What I


find... What I don't quite understand is that the speaker said


it was an honour to introduce the mayor of Kuwait, a country that


jails people for seven years for being gay, a country that represses


women, a country that bans is rabies from entering. I would have thought


that the comments against racism and sexism would fit that as well, where


is the consistency? -- a country that bands due is -- bans Jewish


people from entering. We will have a listen in a moment, not exactly


known for not being oppressive offer their human rights freedoms.


Certainly not, I am not here as an apologist for John Bercow's previous


decisions but I'm talking about the decision made yesterday, with the


president of China he did raise human rights concerns, I don't know


if that is true, but we are talking about a particular honour of


Westminster Hall, which has with it all the trappings of a state visit


and it is envy not appropriate, not just Parliament saying that, due to


numbers out of the country say that well. John Bercow did that, he


bestowed the honour on the two leaders I have mentioned, let's have


a look. You'll visit here today, Mr president, reinforces the links


between the United Kingdom and China. -- your visit. Those links


are social. As well as economic and political. And they are all the


stronger for that. This trip should provide the means for both sides to


come to understand one another better. You are in many ways the


personification and the very welcome personification at that of a


changing country in changing times. We are very pleased indeed that you


are with us here today. A fact I hope the nature and enthusiasm of


your gathering make very clear. How is it justifiable to deny the


democratically elected leader of our closest ally the same sort of


honour? First of all, it is a detail, but that is not the same


location we are talking about, second of all, I don't want to


apologise for what John Bercow is doing, I don't think the language


used was particularly inappropriate... If you were trying


to make an argument you would say that with the Chinese, what he is


trying to do is make stronger links with a country that for many decades


has been very repressive. With the US, what we are trying to do is send


a signal to our closest ally, whom we have worked with on so many


issues from climate change through to trying to tackle the war on


terror and so on, what we are trying to do is try to send a different


signal. The reason we invite these people from very important nations


and give them chances to address the house is that we want to have


influence. We can all find things to criticise about Donald Trump but the


fact is we have a very good relationship with the US and need to


maintain it and need to have the influence on the things that matter.


I think there is a lot of areas where we would all want our country


to be able to influence him and his country. To be quite honest, given


that is the position we have taken with China, John Bercow is


grandstanding. Is he overstepping the mark? It says that he should act


with authority and with impartiality, is this impartial? No


it is not, this is the crux of the matter, what people's opinions of


Donald Trump are, they are a side issue, I think at that time, when


Donald Trump is building walls, it is better to build bridges, we are


putting balls up around Westminster. He has not acted in partially.


Therefore, it is difficult to command the respect, because the


speaker should not have got involved in this. I want to remove the issue


of Donald Trump and take this as well, I don't understand why he did


what he did, along with many other colleagues, very angry that he has


undermined the chair. He was asked a question by a Labour MP, he replied,


he stood up in a way that many of us wish our Prime Minister had done to


somebody that is essentially a racist bigot. He said those words.


The Tories have been trying to get rid of John Bercow for years and


years, you cannot believe your luck. He has not acted impartially, he has


brought the chair into disrepute, and the issues you mention, I don't


disagree with you, there are real problems, he is a man who openly


says that his advantage is that he has never been in politics and is


not a politician and at this stage it is more important than ever that


countries like Britain, proud record in talking to people around the


world, actually bring them along... Build bridges, don't build walls...


Hold hands...? Isn't he supposed to be a referee, somebody who oversees


and is above the sort of statement that he made yesterday...? In


domestic politics, absolutely right, when there is such controversy,


personally right for entries eked out for parliament. He could have


chosen to argue that it is much too early, Barack Obama did not have a


state visit to the first six months, he did not choose to argue that, he


went on racism and sexism to get headlines, that is unfortunate. Much


more legitimate argument that he could have made. Is it important he


makes a stand, he feels passionately about it, MPs like Caroline Lucas


are applauded him for it, isn't it brave of him to stand up and say


things that many MPs feel? That is not his role, I think his role is to


chair independently and he has not represented the views of those of us


who do not agree with the policies of Donald Trump and you'll love the


way to tackle those is to act by persuasion, to be an honest friend


and... Let's take an example, ten days before the Prime Minister met


him, he said he felt later was obsolete, after the meeting with the


Prime Minister, he said he had 100% support for Nato, discussions took


place, merits put forward. There are many issues from a man who says he


has never been in politics, that we have to work with... That is about


mature, responsible politics. Isn't it true, you say the Tories have


wanted to get rid of John Bercow and you want to put pressure on Theresa


May as the Prime Minister, to try to embarrass, following the with Donald


Trump and this plays into it? This is about Parliament flexing its


muscles, what we have seen over the last few days and weeks is a Prime


Minister refusing Parliament any right to have a say over the


"Brexit" process. The amendment going through at the moment being


rolled over, so... You are using this as a stick to beat the


government. I think it is right that Parliament stands up. My greatest


concern is that this is against the democratically elected leader of the


United States, a democratic process in the house, and when a Democratic


process doesn't give you the results you want, you want to ignore it. We


have talked about the tiny 's premier, and also the leader in


Indonesia, but people who have addressed Parliament have been


Nelson Mandela, Ang sank Su Chi, does... The Pope... Does President


Trump really merit the same as some people? They have addressed


Westminster Hall, and an invitation has not been suggested. John Bercow


was acting on a hypothetical situation. -- Aung San Suu Kyi. I do


not agree with the premise of the question, he has been invited on a


state visit, as I understand it, the address to parliamentarians... The


palace... This is about the office of the President of the United


States. The Prime Minister rushing to the United States to try to make


a wick fix, because she is without friends after "Brexit". Should


reconsider his position? Absolutely, news not acting independently, the


very fact we are having this conversation today on a political


issue brought about by the speaker shows that he is no longer able to


independently chaired and have support and respect across the whole


of the House of Commons, it is important but -- unfortunate but his


position is untenable. The question for today is also


about Commons speaker John Bercow. As well as barring Donald Trump,


yesterday he also announced the end of what he called a "stuffy"


parliamentary tradition. a) The ceremonial mace


b) bowing to the Speaker c) The snuff box for MPs,


or d) the wigs worn by clerks? At the end of the show Camilla


will give us the correct answer. Now let's turn to yesterday's


Commons debate on the Article 50 bill, the legislation


which will allow Theresa May to begin the process of taking


the UK out of the European Union. It was the first day of the bill's


committee stage and opposition politicians tabled a series


of amendments, defeated with a fairly robust


government majority. Here's Theresa May addressing Mps


at the start of the day. message is clear to all, this house


has spoken, and now is not the time to obstruct the democratically


expressed wishes of the British people.


Well so far the Prime Minister is getting her way,


because the Commons has, so far, rejected all


of the proposed amendments to the Article 50 bill.


There were four votes last night: New Clause three


was a Labour amendement, backed by Lib Dems nationalists


and the Green MP, which would have forced the PM to make regular


It was opposed by the vast majority of Tories, Ulster unionists and four


New Clause four was another proposal by Labour that that ministers seek


to reach a consensus with the devolved administrations


to reach a consensus with the devolved administrations


New Clause 26 was an SNP amendment requiring ministers


from the devolved administrations to agree a joint approach to Brexit


negotiations before Article 50 could be triggered.


Only 62 MPs supported this with 332 against.


New Clause 158 was the Plaid Cymru amendment calling for a report


on the financial effect on Wales of Brexit.


and today MPs will turn to the all-important issue


of when parliament will get to vote on the Brexit deal.


We're joined now by one MP who's tabled an amendment on the subject,


and the Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg.


Chris Leslie, what is your amendment? I have quite a few but


one in particular that may have some interest from what you may call not


just Labour or SNP and the Lib Dems but more moderate conservatives who


are concerned about saving some of our access to the single market and


so one, 110, new clause, I hope that people are keeping track...


Basically making sure that Parliament has a meaningful vote on


the final deal, before the end of the negotiations. Not just in


advance of the European Parliament or the European Commission but also


on the new relationship. Not just a new treaty, but whatever the


relationship may be. If there is no deal, Parliament should still get a


say, and it is important to make sure that we can have a role and a


say, in the negotiations as they proceed. It does not look good so


far, if you look at last night, four votes for, and four votes for the


opposition. What do you think will get through? It is up to the


Conservative MPs, predominantly to make up the numbers. We do not have


enough on opposition benches alone. But there are signs that there are


concerns about Parliament's role here. I think that it would be quite


strange for the Supreme Court to have said, yes, Parliament holds the


key and has sovereignty here to have it snapped back to the Prime


Minister's hands alone without a Parliamentary oversight properly


over the negotiation process. You are a great believer in


Parliamentary sovereignty, why shouldn't Parliament, you and your


colleagues in the House of Commons, have a say on the deal before the


end? New clause 110 is constitutionally flawed. The


judgment from the Supreme Court made it clear that the courts can only


understand from Parliament legislation that votes in parliament


on motions have no legal standing, because proceedings in parliament


cannot be presented in any court. New clause 110 only asks for a vote


in parliament, that has no legal effect or standing. It is


constitutionally a failed amendment and what it needs to do to achieve


its objective is require agriculture choir primary legislation or a


statutory instrument to be passed to get that objective. It would be


foolish to vote for it. In terms of scrutiny we have a simple system


where the executive needs to maintain the confidence of the


legislator, the House of Commons primarily, if it is to remain in


office. The executive needs to report back to Parliament and the


Prime Minister answers questions every week. That will go on


throughout the process. It's not the same as the scrutiny that Chris


Leslie is talking about, and your colleagues would like to see given


to Parliament, like Anna Soubry, they would like to have the chance


to affect the deal put in front of them. If they spent any time looking


at Parliamentary scrutiny in recent years, they would be aware the


European scrutiny committee sends documents to be scrutinised, in the


floor of the house or in the committee, it will continue with all


documents launched with the EU. You have already had ample opportunity


to debate the Brexit bill and what will happen. Again, isn't this an


attempt to frustrate the passage of Article 50? In the end, for someone


like you, Chris Leslie, unashamedly voting for Remain committee want to


do things like keep the UK in the single market Russia yes, we have to


accept a referendum -- in the single market? This is about not just


accepting a sheepish consultative pat on the head, but distinguishing


between consultation and consent of Parliament. We need agreement from


Parliament to make sure that if there is a draft deal, we are not


just watching it on the screens where MEPs get a vote on it. British


MPs need to go back to constituents and see what the final arrangement


should be, Deal or no Deal. But it is quite telling that people talking


about Parliamentary scrutiny cannot even draft an amendment that meets


basic constitutional norms... Let Chris answer on that technical


basis. If Parliament chooses to put in an act of Parliament that it


wants to have the express approval of Parliament through a motion in


both houses, as it has done on other occasions, it is perfectly lawful to


do so. It contradicts the bill of rights which is a fundamental act of


hours. Will it have the chance of getting through? Let me ask, I


wonder if people watching would wonder, what happens if the


amendment is passed? Joe suggested that a lot of people remaining would


like to derail the process, that is not what you want but you want to


say on the final deal. Can you talk us through what it would mean


practically? Let's say that Theresa May gets a bad deal and decides that


she would rather go with the World Trade Organisation, and Parliament


has a vote on it, are using that you would go back to your constituents


and say the WTO is not that great, what happens? Would we be in a


Brexit Purgatory from that point? I think this is an amendment that is


helpful to the government. In her 12 points, Theresa May set 12


objectives in the White Paper, she said that there would be no cliff


edge, we would not fall out, that is the policy of the government. If


Parliament do not have a final say there would be no way of holding her


properly to account and negotiate that good deal, go and do that. So


we get to the end of 18 months, sorry to interrupt... Parliament


should be able to say, please, Theresa May, go back and... That and


you trying to rerun the referendum? Absolutely not, we are trying to get


the best deal for Britain, we cannot redo it. We are trying to leave but


we have to bring Parliament with us because they are sovereign in the


Constitution, we are accountable to constituents and this was not on the


ballot paper. It was yes or no, leave the EU. I am very sympathetic


to that, but we also need to be smart about how negotiations happen.


Sure. And the other 27 over there who do not want to give us anything,


they may see it as a get out clause? What will they offer us if they know


perfectly well the majority of Parliament for rerunning it? It's


quite useful for the lead negotiator, the Prime Minister, to


say, look over my shoulder, Parliament is there, they want a


better deal! A lot of businesses do that.


Let's move on to the fate of EU nationals. That is something that a


lot of your Brexiteer colleagues working that they would be


guaranteed, and they have not been. Do you still think it is right to


use the fate of EU nationals here as bargaining chips? I've always been


in favour of EU nationals being told that they can stay, that is


important in the position. The Great Repeal Bill will maintain all of the


current rights of EU nationals, and it would require a new act of


Parliament to take any of those away, and I do not think it is


possible to get through an act of Parliament that would take it away.


But it is not the same as guaranteeing it, is it, Jacob


Rees-Mogg? If you are an EU national you are worried about your future...


New governments can always change what previous government have done,


that is the basic principle of our democratic system. So there can be


deported? That is inconceivable but the law proposed by the current


government is that the Great Repeal Bill will maintain all of the rights


they currently have, and there will be further legislation on


immigration from the EU. There is no threat to EU nationals at this


point. Isn't that true? That is the reality, even if, as Jacob Rees-Mogg


says, that technically you could have a position where they roll back


on rights of EU nationals and they could be deported but it would


happen, will it? Let's hope not, you are probably right, it's difficult


to see those circumstances but the uncertainty hanging over the heads


of not just tens of thousands but hundreds of thousands of people


here, it is stressful and debilitating, and unnecessary. We


should not have to wait for the Great Repeal Bill which could be six


months, one year away. We have a bill before Parliament now, possibly


going through in a matter of weeks. A simple amendment, a simple clause,


making it clear. What is the harm in doing that now? And what is the


harm? It would play into Theresa May's claim of being a unifying


Prime Minister. It is a shame that Angela Merkel is refusing and


immediate deal. And what about Theresa May standing up and doing


it? I am in favour, everybody should stay and not worry, the Home Office


can barely deport five criminals at the end of their sentences, the idea


that they can deport 3 million people is bonkers and people should


know that will not happen. In terms of unifying the issue that she wants


to bring two sides together, if she wants to steam-roll Parliament over


an issue like giving a meaningful vote, to use the phrase that Chris


Leslie used, in the end, it is going to play against exactly what she is


trying to achieve, to bring a country together? The meaningful


vote was on the 23rd of June last year, Saint adult birds day, that


will go down in history. -- Saint . A lot of people who voted for


remain want the ability implemented. Your character formers would be


charming if it was not such a serious issue. What we do have to do


is to make sure that Parliament has an ability to express its view and


yes, if it is inconvenient, sent the Prime Minister back and say, get a


better deal, if possible. And not be worried about sparing her blushes! I


shall let you to continue this discussion outside! -- I shall let


you two. Communities Secretary Sajid Javid


is about to publish the government's white paper on housing in England,


with plans to get developers building and tackle the historic


shortage of new housing. Andy Slaughter of labour is in the


Central lobby now. What is your response to the White Paper in


general? It is an extraordinarily feeble document, it lets down people


who want to own their own homes, private sector tenants, and people


in the council housing association, the government has a terrible record


on housing, where a number of homeowners has fallen by 200,000 and


council tenants has fallen by 150,000 which will make the


situation worse for those groups of people. Really, this has been


delayed by months, we have waited a long time and had so much promise.


It is such a let down and it's a big issue for people around the country,


the biggest issue in my constituency. I've come from a


meeting with BA cabin crew staff in my constituency who start on ?12,000


per year. The average house price last year was ?944,000, nothing in


the White Paper will help those people at all the young couple who


came to see me in surgery yesterday, with steady jobs and they can access


no forms of housing. Grant Shapps, the former Housing Minister, joined


us here in the studio. You may have heard what Andy Slaughter was


saying, it is feeble and has been delayed for months, the number of


homeowners has fallen and people feel let down, what do you say?


There is not a simple solution, I'm interested to hear what Andy thinks


it would be, I was housing minister and over the years, Housing


ministers have come up with documents and bills and the truth


is, none of them will make much difference. I do not suppose this


will make much difference either. Is it possible to be radical? The


reason is, unless you literally build two or 3 million more homes.


About why can it not be done? You won't solve the problem. Take Andy's


constituency, a great example. Its urban, in Hammersmith and pretty


urban, there is no space to build hundreds of thousands of new homes,


what you have to do, if we are genuinely to solve the problem, is


building parts of the country that much, much less dense in terms of


housing at the moment, you probably need to build ten or 15 brand-new


towns of 100,000, unless we do that, we won't solve it. Do you agree,


that in the end, because of successive governments, because they


have not built enough homes, and that has been Labour and


Conservative, we are in a position where it is impossible to do what is


necessary to radically change the outcome is for the housing market? I


agree that this might help, I agree with Grant on that! But take my


constituency, there are plans to build 50,000 new homes over the next


20-30 years, 24,000 are on the HS2 site, and in West Kensington. The


problem is, they are things like starter homes which need an income


of ?90,000, or there is no affordable housing at all.


It is not just numbers, we can actually build in London and


elsewhere. I agree it is not only a London issue but we need to build


houses that people can afford. That is terrible to say it is not


possible. We will come onto the issue of affordable housing but


let's follow with Grant Shapps's theme that you cannot build a number


of homes quickly enough to radically altered the situation for thousands


of people. As a result of that, do you think it is then true that the


Tory government is abandoning, if not completely in practice, but


certainly from a rhetorical point of view, the home not cover -- home


owning democracy? I do think actually we have been


slipping the wrong way with this one, I was housing minister,


possibly my fault, the truth is, over many years, over decades, we


have not had the foresight to do what's required and what's required


is, I represent a new town but also a garden City, whirlwind garden


city, if you want to solve the housing crisis, you have got to go


out and build new garden cities, not... We had an announcement of


2000 3000 homes, not that scale, a proper, hundreds out and people. --


2000, 3000 homes. We need hundreds of thousands, places that are not


housing at all. -- Welwyn Garden City. Unless we get serious, we will


not solve it by sourcing a few extra homes in converted former industrial


estates. It would make a start. We need something far more radical.


House prices are eight times the average earnings in the UK, even if


you built a large number of houses, 50,000, articulate inexpensive areas


like London and the south-east, Andy is right, what is needed is social


housing, or affordable housing, that really is affordable. We need our


whole lot of different things, one thing we need to do, which we have


failed to do in London, is stop foreign buyers who do not live in


these houses buying up swathes of London, getting worse with the


exchange rate, that seems to me to be ridiculous, we have empty


building sitting there. That is something the Treasury should be


doing tomorrow. We can also speed up. I am more confident about being


able to speed up the process, we have developers sitting on large


swathes of land, as I and down it, the White Paper will say that


planning permission will lapse after two years if they don't get on with


it. You will be support for smaller builders to come in and do something


more innovative. Perhaps they will be filling in the sights. Enormous


amounts of public sector land that we are not using properly which for


various reasons within... I can see this being nodded at, within


government departments, for various reasons, we can release them, basic


things in the system. Both these things can help but let me put


numbers on them, if we dealt with every single empty home in the


country, 200,000, every bit of government land, that is reasonably


available, 100,000, another 200,000 maybe. What we need do is to solve


and ring down house prices, we need to 3 million homes built, and all


these measures are welcome, and in Andy's consistency, more building on


Brown field sites. -- constituency. There is a fundamental problem, not


the extent to which you subsidise and help one group and the rest pay


more because then you have to pay more. That is what has happened, the


government... What you have to do instead of that is solve the supply


and demand issue and you don't do that with little measures...


Inevitably... We have smaller measures... Grant Shapps has


admitted it will have a smaller impact, what would you do, would you


intervene, if you were in government, would you intervene


dramatically to bring down house prices, to boost supplies, so that


builders and developers don't get quite the profits they get at the


moment? This is a huge missed opportunity, this is what should be


in the White Paper: council should be able to spend some of the


receipts they get from right to buy, they should be able to borrow so


they can build genuinely affordable houses within housing associations.


In private renting we should have three year tenancies, so that people


have security, and can cut down on homelessness and profiteering. What


we should do, which is what the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is


doing, access to home ownership by having what he calls London living


rent, so that rent is only a third of incomes, so they have some


ability to save towards deposits. You were housing minister, why


didn't you do some of this, why have you only come to this conclusion


now, do you have to be in the job to realise you cannot do anything about


it, or, as Andy Slaughter says, you don't want to do? Hundreds of people


on the airwaves over the last two days talking about how insecurities


in the private renting sector, they cannot get secure tenancy, moving


dozens of times over a period of years, landlords making huge


profits, with developers are the ones making money, small


landlords... Why didn't you tackle these things? There is an advantage


into perspective, looking back, you see some of the same ideas coming


back. The ideas in the White Paper and the ideas presented by Andy


there, some of them may help, there is no reason why you cannot have


three year tenancies at the moment but what I have come to realise is


none of these things individually are actually going to relieve the


real pressure. Do nothing? No, do much more, that is my argument. An


argument that we need, as will the Garden City has produced. Take a new


area, decide to build a new community. -- Welwyn Garden City.


Get to the kind of numbers that will create a big difference. The ideas


in the paper are fine, Andy's ideas are fine, but in five years we will


be sat here having the same argument again, it will not bring down prices


to a point at which this incredible commodity, so important, your house,


is actually affordable. We will have to leave it there, come back in five


years, if not before(!) Our guest of the day,


Camilla Cavendish, was head of the Number 10 Policy Unit


under David Cameron. Well since Theresa May's team moved


into Downing Street last July, pretty much all her predecessor's


advisors were given Renewing our award-seeking series


Westminster Village, here's Mark Lobel with a look


inside that famous door. VOICEOVER: Last year, British


politics was shaken up by a lot of things, as a result, new residents


right here in Downing Street, barely a day has gone by without Theresa


May in the news, we in Westminster are just as fascinated by the people


who write her speeches, brief her, and craft her image. Who are they,


what do they look like, how influential have they been? Two


people dominate Theresa May's world, her two joint chiefs of staff, Nick


Timothy and Fiona Hill, Fiona Hill worked vociferously on anti-slavery


anti-trafficking laws while Theresa May's aid at the Home Office, she


once told the Sunday politics are boss's view of focus groups. I think


she would have a scepticism about them. And how her party needed to


sell itself better. Talking about compassion and communities, values,


the Conservatives have all of those, but they need to tell people that


they do. Hugely influential Nick Timothy has but the just about


managing centre stage as a pro leave voice, he has helped to shape the


type of "Brexit" that the prime and estate is advocating and put grammar


schools on the number ten timetable, after one is getting a similar


message across on BBC London. We think there will be enough free


schools opening in the next few years to meet the demand. Joanna


Penn, affectionately known as JoJo is said to be a trusted link between


the PM's office and the rest of the building. Adding the number ten


policy unit, John Godfrey, formerly of investment bankers Niemann


brothers and insurers legal and general, he is examining how people


on low incomes can use insurers to guard against problems. His deputy,


will Tanner, focuses on improving mental health support and public


services. He hit the airwaves including prisons were better run


privately after the government has signalled a move away from


privatisation. -- Will Tanner. Fundamentally what we found is that


the government's own figures show that that is not right. Time for the


odd one out round now, is it the big speech on "Brexit" at Lancaster


house? Foreign relations, Philadelphia? Nasty party speech?


Juanfran speech? That's right, despite reports to the contrary, the


nasty party speech is the only one from the PM that her director of


strategy, Chris Wilkins, did not right, he was by the way Nick


Timothy's boss once, he had a hand in some of those speeches. Who is in


charge of keeping this lot fed? Theresa May's director of the mean


occasions was Boris Johnson's top spin doctor during the first run for


Mayor of London of setting up our own PR agency, and she has been on


the box with an Robinson after campaigning for Waitrose, also a


favourite of Theresa May's to be built in Sidcup. -- Katie Perrior.


We didn't want another pound shop, we wanted something that would raise


the tone. The PM's press secretary, on an ideological cross-country


journey since working for the Lib Dems, then Iain Duncan Smith, then


the Leave campaign, she is now by the PM's site for all of the press


appearances and interviews, and coming soon, as the Daily Mail might


put it, poacher turned gamekeeper currently on a FastTrack civil


service course, he once had the home affairs brief when you got to know


the PM, and should be ASBOs person within weeks. Those that can't wait,


there is a sneak preview from the old edition of the week in


Westminster on how good he think she is. If there were to be a crisis, a


terrorist attack or something else, she would be the one, the Prime


Minister, who the country would look to. -- and should be her


spokesperson within weeks. It is not going to be Theresa May. Political


director Alex Dawson, preps Theresa May ahead of PMQs, the half brother


of Gabby Vert, you may remember her from a previous edition, David


Cameron's press secretary. Don't forget political secretary Stephen


Parkinson, who keeps Conservative HQ in check, and all selections and did


rather well as head of ground operations for vote to leave, as he


told Newsnight. In some of our best areas, we have leafleted every


household in that Parliamentary constituency more than once, and we


didn't even happen in the new election. A pattern emerges, Theresa


May has swept up much of the top team, from the former residence, the


Home Office. And from here, the Conservative Party headquarters, and


in particular, the Conservative research Department. And one more


activist scene working here made his way into number ten, and investment


guru, pictured phone banking during a recent by-election campaign.


Otherwise known as Philip Wamae, Theresa May's husband. -- otherwise


known as Philip May. STUDIO: We're joined now by a man


who often goes behind usually when the PM is holding


a drinks party(!), you get other skills from the


Whitehall full timers. You are a part of David Cameron's team in


everybody needs to have a body close circle of advisers. David Cameron


did the same. Another breadth in the team that you are getting different


points of view being put forward. You have to trust them that they


will not go to Kevin and leaked the information that they need to leak.


Sometimes people let slip things, other times, they are telling you


deliberately, it is a game, poacher and gamekeeper. Most cabinet


ministers have only two special advisers, they have many more, there


is an argument for more. In a public sector, 800 billion, 2 trillion


plus. The fact we spent just 8 million on special advisers, a


million more than under Labour, I remember David Cameron talking


about... There were many more. Cheap political point, more effective


government, if ministers had more advisers around them who they trust.


You mentioned breadth of advice and advisers, do you think there is a


problem, if Theresa May has sourced many of their advisers, taken from


the Home Office, Office, that that is still the prism through which she


is looking at running the country? Not necessarily, this is clearly a


theme at the moment, just because you worked in the Home Office does


not mean you see it through the prism, there is excellent civil


servants, one of them running the "Brexit" unit. Civil servants are


very versatile. The fact they have been in the Home Office for some of


their career does not make it impossible. It is important that you


source, actively seek, to be told the truth from a number of different


sources, the danger of being Prime Minister is that people tell you


what you want to hear. Gordon Brown it was said that the advice from the


last person that he spoke to, can you get too much advice, and in the


end, you are not making decisions, because Theresa May has been


compared, rightly or wrongly, to Gordon Brown, by being cautious and


slow about decisions? That was Gordon Brown in Downing Street as


Prime Minister, spoke because of the election that never was and collapse


economy, in the Treasury, he was much more effective as a Chancellor,


this means you Ed Balls, Damien McBride, Charlie Wi and, you have to


listen to your advisers, you have to be bred there to take advice that


you do not like. -- Charlie Whelan. -- you have to be prepared to take


advice. You figure out quickly who is good


and who is not, you delegate to them when possible, but for your own


political survival, you need to keep an eye on everything and know where


all of the bodies are buried and you are taking ten or 20 decisions a


day. Sometimes, you do not have time to get all of the advice. That comes


down to instinct and judgment which is one of the characteristics a good


Prime Minister has. Does she take too much advice from Nick Timothy


and Fiona Hill, the two year prize is that we saw at the beginning from


grammar schools, to the speech on the steps of Downing Street. I don't


know, I'm not inside, I only know what I read in the papers and some


nuggets of information but there is a danger on relying too much on a


few people but she has had them a long time. They are very loyal to


her and know her mind, I do not think it is brand-new, I don't think


she invented ideas overnight but they've taken a long time to come


into fruition and she is delivering -- they are delivering them for her.


Advisers can come famous in their own right, like Alistair Campbell,


is it a danger to avoid at all costs? It can happen in a crisis,


when everything is going OK, it's fine, Alistair Campbell then having


a profile. Around Iraq and before that, it became a problem. When it


becomes a negative story, that is when you need to move them on. It is


very hard, you build up an emotional relationship. They have been through


so much together. The Prime Minister does not like to lose a special


adviser, but they would rather that than lose their own jobs. When is


the next Tring 's party at Downing Street? -- drinking party. Thank


you. Kevin Maguire. Let's turn to Labour now,


because the Shadow Cabinet has been meeting this morning to decide how


the party should vote on the Article 50 bill when it


has its third reading tomorrow. Here's what Shadow Foreign Secretary


Emily Thornberry had to say For the Labour Party, this is a very


hard choice. We campaigned to remain in the EU and fierce


internationalists, and we believe in the EU. However, more important than


anything else, we are Democrats and campaigned to remain in the EU but


the British public said that they wanted to leave. We have our


instructions. We're joined now by our deputy


political editor John Pienaar. So, and pick exactly what Labour


will do with the Brexit vote? What has been decided by the Shadow


Cabinet is that Labour MPs and Shadow ministers will be under


strict orders to vote in favour of the Brexit bill, to send this piece


of law, which gets Brexit started on its way with their votes behind it.


That means, you could say with certainty, that the rebellion that


we saw when this piece of law first appeared only a few days ago, next


time will get even bigger. Do you think it will be bigger than the 47


MPs? 60 Labour MPs either voted against or abstained. I think that


it will grow. You see more big figures leaving Jeremy Corbyn's


front bench team, I'm thinking of Clive Lewis, Shadow Business


Secretary, he has had doubts about it for a while. Jeremy Corbyn said


that he was "A lenient man", I think those were the words he used, are


you surprised that they've gone with a three line whip, an instruction to


vote the way that the leadership says? I do not think there was a


happy option available, he is something of a Eurosceptic himself,


he campaigned to remain without a great show with enthusiasm. They


cannot be seen to stand in the way of the Brexit Bill, but for some it


is a step too far and they will rebel. Jeremy Corbyn may have to see


some of those ministers off the front bench, there is no avoiding


it. And Diane Abbott, a close ally, Shadow Home Secretary. She was ill


for the key vote before, and some of her colleagues felt that she was


crying off because she could not bring herself to vote for triggering


Article 50. As far as we can see, she seems to have recovered over


whatever it was that failed her and kept it away... Brexit flu? I think


it is a harsh and in charitable way of describing her that way. You


would never do that. Absolutely not. I think that you will see her voting


for the bill, however unhappily, because in her constituency they


voted overwhelmingly to remain. As it up to Jeremy Corbyn to fill the


gaps in his team, who are vacated in their positions? It was tough enough


last time, we saw a wave of vacancies, and filling them was


difficult. We may have the same problem again but he may hope that


in getting rid of these people, he can do as soon as is. They are left


with a divided party, bit by elections coming up in Stoke and


Copeland, they could become near impossible. It is ironic that the


Conservative Party is virtually united! You always thought of the


Tory party as the party with the walking split, the San Andreas sized


rift in it over Europe but now it is Labour. And the little Democrats!


They know where they are and they are united, they will stick to it at


least. If they can appeal to their core vote, they will think that it


is a job well done. John Pienaar, thank you.


Time now to find out the answer to our quiz.


The question was, what parliamentary tradition did Speaker Bercow


yesterday announce would be abolished? Was it...


The ceremonial mace, bowing to the Speaker, the snuff box for MPs, or


the Woakes warn by the clerks? -- the wigs. I wish that it was the


snuffbox but it is wigs. Yes, the speaker made more than one


controversial statement yesterday, because he irked some MPs -


yes, more of them - with his announcement


that the Commons clerks, who advise him on conduct


and constitutional issues, Colleagues will be pleased to learn


that this change will, in the longer term, save money. It will, I


believe, be welcomed by those clerks who serve all of forward to serving


at the table, and it will, moreover in my view, which I recognise may


not be universally shared, conveyed to the public a marginally less


stuffy and forbidding image of this chamber at work. The new regime


colleagues will start soon after we return from the short February


recess. So that was John Bercow


announcing the end of wigs Well we're joined now by one man


who's likes as much speaker-related controversy as possible -


because it gives him plenty to write about -


it's the Times sketchwriter Welcome to the Daily Politics, what


is wrong with him banning their wigs? The clerks apparently asked


him for this, they find them itchy and scratchy, but it is the


definition of Parliament, they see the wigs and realise that there is


authority and 200 odd years of tradition. Jacob Rees-Mogg quite


rightly spoke up for horsehair and said without it, it looks like the


office. Isn't it stuffy and out of place, isn't it part of John


Bercow's modernisation which has been popular with MPs? I look


forward to a lot of things from him, like the speaker having his


procession through central lobby and people being told to take off our


hats when he walks past I'm looking forward to getting rid of all of


those! Are you wedded to the wig? I think that the speaker should have


won, John Bercow said it is not him, but it makes you anonymous. And


Parliament and changing. Does it add a level of authority and gravitas?


That it is hundreds of years of tradition? You are doing a brilliant


job in defending it but it is hopeless, the clerks want to get rid


of the wigs, it is a bit of a throwback and looks ridiculous. They


will keep their gowns, but we are spending a lot of money on horsehair


and I honestly think that sometimes we need to make small changes to


move forward. What austerity has brought us to! John Bercow has been


a busy bee, dealing with various points of order. And also one from


Emily Thornbury, Shadow Foreign Secretary, who protested to the


speaker John Bercow after the Prime Minister's mocking of her married


name and title. The Shadow Foreign Secretary is


shouting at you Balmy, yes, Lady Nucci, by me. Is it in order for the


Prime Minister to refer to a member of this house not by her name but


the name of her husband. I have never been a lady, and it will take


a great deal more than being married to a night of the realm in order for


me to become one. I did not in any way attempt to be


disorderly in this house, and I have to say... If the honourable lady is


concerned about the reference I made to her, then of course I will


apologise for that. I have to say that for the last 36 years, I've


been referred to by my husband's name.


That was an interesting and polite -ish spat, was she right to make it


a point of order with Theresa May? She trades as Emily Thornbury, I


don't know if she has booked a restaurant and her different name,


but she is right to complain, but what is interesting is it festered


for 20 minutes, it was not an immediate point of order. Emily


Thornbury went to see John Bercow, she clearly sat stewing and decided


to make it an issue. You do not address anyone by name, but Theresa


May made her point and apologised, she got a mild slap. Isn't it


embarrassing that she was forced to apologise Britton you saw Ben


Bradshaw's reaction there. But was it mocking for her to refer to her


in that way? Slightly, but that is the nature of the chamber. When you


see two highly able women able to have a bit of a go at each other


with a reasonable sense of humour, that is a good thing. Good-humoured?


And I'm sure that lady Nugee will let it. She felt that she wanted to


make a point of it. It gets to her, in a certain way, but everyone


should have a sense of humour about it. I think that they were all


laughing in the end. What about John Bercow, and his fate? At the


beginning of the programme we talked about whether he overstepped the


mark. Alec Shelbrooke said that he should consider his position, how do


you consider it? There are people saying it, there has been an


anti-John Bercow faction for a while, before the general election,


they tried to force him out. He may try to get a few things off his


chest, but I understand in the housing bill statement before we


came on, Sajid Javid said he hoped he would be the big news today, to


which John Bercow said, he was glad that he made his announcement first.


There may be complaints, if there is a complaint from the palace about


it, it becomes serious. When you miss him if he were to go? What


would the sketch writers had to write about all the time? Possibly


Lindsay Hoyle with his voice as rich as black pudding, or crisp Bryant,


or Jacob Rees-Mogg, a win-win. Donald Trump is making a fall of


himself, I do not think John Bercow needs to do the same! I think that


John Bercow keeps doing it, making a fool of himself, we are debating


whether clerks should get rid of them accurately because of the


sanctity of Parliament, and this guy who is great for the sketch writers,


but he keeps making a fool of himself. He will lose support from


even those who have been fans? He has support from the Labour Party


because they love having that with Donald Trump. There was cross-party


support for getting rid of him in 2009, but now it is just the Tories.


Thank you, Camilla, for being our guest of the day.


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


I'll be back at 11:30 tomorrow with Andrew for live coverage


of Prime Minister's Questions, do join us then.


Oh, my goodness me, I don't like the look of that.


The Robshaws are going back in time again...


Download Subtitles