07/02/2017 Daily Politics

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...