28/02/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Civil War breaks out in Ukip as Nigel Farage calls

for their only MP to be kicked out for undermining him and the party.

After failing to win in Stoke, is it all unravelling for Ukip?

John Major says Britons are being offered an "unreal

and over-optimistic" vision of what Brexit will deliver,

but were these just the pronouncements of a bitter

And it's the annual parliamentary pancake race.

Who will flip themselves to victory - the press,

It's Downton Abbey meets Yesterday in Parliament -

the House of Lords opens its doors to a BBC documentary crew.

Has it revealed itself as a charming old relic that's

A bit tight at the moment, as you can see.

And with us for the whole of the programme today

is the former editor-in-chief of the Wall Street Journal and now

a Conservative peer, Patience Wheatcroft.

First this morning, Brexit may have blown austerity off the front pages,

but a reminder today that Britain is still living with a substantial

deficit which the Government has pledged to eliminate.

Government departments have been asked to find further

budget cuts of up to 6%, to begin taking effect

The Treasury has written to every department in Whitehall as part

of its plan to find ?3.5 billion of savings in the year before

Here's the Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, earlier today.

Only five months ago, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister were telling

us, or indicating, that austerity was virtually coming to an end.

What this means is deeper cuts and for longer.

The Government has said actually schools and hospitals

The NHS is suffering the biggest crisis since its foundation,

with patients being treated on trolleys.

Schools having the first budget cuts per head since the 1970s.

Does this continuation of austerity showed the policies of the last

seven years have failed to repair the economy? No, it shows there is

still further to go. We did not have all that much austerity which was

the right recipe, given what was going on in the world and the

difficulties facing the economy. But there is no scope not to continue

looking for cuts. Philip Hammond has been sensible. He knows any business

can always find more efficiencies. Can they? Looking at local councils,

they say they have been stripped to the bone and we have seen stories

week after week about the crisis, as they would see it, in social care.

Some of the savings they make will be given back to them to fund social

care, as I understand it. There is a need. We are seeing what really

needs to be done is melding the health service with social care and

where it really works, it makes big improvements and savings. You say

austerity needs to continue and there was not enough austerity

though it was right at the time, we still have a substantial deficit and

the Conservatives promised it would have gone by now. Their policies

must have failed, they did not achieve what they have set out to

do? Circumstances changed, the environment was far more difficult

than anyone imagined when they came into power. The financial crisis and

its ramifications lasted for a lot longer than people had expected. I

do not think you can blame the previous administration for not

getting Warrington Town, as they would have wished. Philip Hammond

has said he would push back the target -- getting Warrington Town.

-- borrowing down. The announcement was not done publicly. Is that

really the right way to deal with these sorts of important decisions?

I think it is a fairly usual way and I do not think we should spend too

long thinking about what Labour's reaction is because we know all John

McDonnell wants to do is borrow and that is not the answer to anybody's

problems. Philip Hammond has said ?1 billion of the savings, up to that,

will be reinvested rather than being used to reduce the deficit.

Absolutely the right thing to do. We will be feeling some pain but I

think the Chancellor is right to say there are some areas where we need

to continue investing. Infrastructure is another. The

Government will continue to invest. That is the right thing to do for

the long-term. The question for today is,

who has been spying on the BBC? Was it Donald Trump,

Sky News, the German intelligence agency,

the BND, or North Korea? At the end of the show,

Patience will give us Now, just days after the disastrous

result for Ukip in the Stoke by-election, this morning,

the ongoing row within the party has exploded onto the front page

of the Daily Telegraph. The former leader, Nigel Farage,

has written an article calling for the resignation of the party's

only MP, Douglas Carswell. Douglas Carswell became Ukip's

first MP when he defected from the Conservatives at the end

of August, 2014. But things turned sour

when Douglas Carswell criticised Ukip's 2015

general election campaign. Nigel Farage suggested in a TV

debate that foreigners with HIV It was part of a strategy

dubbed "shock and awful". Mr Carswell said the comments

were "mean-spirited and wrong". Then, during the EU referendum

campaign, Nigel Farage was part of the unofficial Leave.EU campaign,

whereas Douglas Carswell opted to support the official

Vote Leave campaign. And today, writing in

the Daily Telegraph, Nigel Farage has said,

"There is little future for Ukip with him staying inside the party.

The time for him to go is now." Mr Farage claims that

Douglas Carswell tried to thwart his chances

of being awarded a knighthood. In leaked emails, Mr Carswell

appears to mock Mr Farage's chances of receiving an honour,

suggesting he could get one instead Earlier this morning, Ellie caught

up with Ukip's former leader. Quick question - Aaron Banks

or Douglas Carswell in Clacton, Oh, that doesn't take much

working out, doesn't it? No, but what is your message

to Douglas Carswell? He's tried to undermine

everything we've stood for, for a very long time,

in terms of policy, in terms of campaigns,

and we should have dealt with this But look, it's not up

to me, it's up to them. But I do not think that to have

somebody representing you in the House of Commons who has

a different policy agenda Do you think you deserve

a knighthood or...? What's of interest is,

when I try and do my job as Ukip leader and get undermined the whole

time and then when Paul Nuttall tries to do his job and gets

undermined, that's what matters. I'm joined now from Cardiff

by the Ukip Assembly Member and economic spokesperson,

Mark Reckless. You have just heard Nigel Farage

calling for Douglas Carswell to be sacked as the party's MP. What is

your reaction? We have to support our new leader Paul Nuttall.

Ex-leaders will always have a voice through the media. We heard from

John Major yesterday. I do not think any honour could reflect the

enormity of Nigel's achievements. The new leader cannot give way to

ultimatums that so and so should be chairman or someone should be thrown

out, he has to lead the party in his own way and I want to get behind

him. The UK party chairman is said to be meeting with Douglas Carswell

this afternoon to discuss it. What do you think that means? I hope it

is a productive meeting. Our only MP should meet with our party Chairman

of course. Is it as the result of Nigel Farage calling for him to go?

I have no idea what the meeting will be about but I do not think there is

any exceptional about our chairmen meeting our MP. We should, this

down. We should not have personal attacks. It is not fair for you to

say our performance in Stoke was disastrous. We had a quarter of the

vote. Before the by-elections, it would have been inconceivable for

Ukip to get that. We sought at that time of our by-elections, at the

time of the by-election, I hope we would widen our appeal, yes, talking

about immigration, but also widening our appeal to talk about the NHS and

one of the things I'm doing at the moment is trying to cut VAT on some

of the key essentials. Perhaps what is preventing you talking about the

things you have just outlined is what is going on between Nigel

Farage and Douglas Carswell. Is your former leader conducting himself in

a way that you deem acceptable and appropriate? It is for Nigel to

judge what he wants to say and he will always have a voice in the

media but I think Ukip is about more than whether one person, even the

ex-leader such as Nigel, should have a knighthood. Douglas has pushed

hard but Ukip should have its fair share of peerages. It is disgraceful

we have two chambers and one of those... Why is Nigel Farage

accusing Douglas Carswell of not doing enough to secure the

knighthood and asking for him to go? I think Douglas's focus and I know

he met the Chief Whip and others and he has campaigned for a long time

publicly and in private is that Ukip should be given fair representation

in our legislature. So Nigel is wrong? It is outrageous we do not

have peers in the House of Lords. We need to focus on our core message,

not just controlling and reducing immigration, but improving the NHS

and pushing forward on the economy. When we spoke to Nigel Farage just

now, he is convinced Douglas Carswell is bent on a campaign of

undermining him and dividing the party. Why? Nigel is the ex-leader,

we have had a referendum, we won the referendum and Nigel paid tribute to

Douglas in his article saying that Douglas had single-handedly got the

nomination for the referendum... Why is he calling for him to go? We're

leaving the EU, hopefully within a few weeks, we will trigger Article

50, fantastic news. What Paul Nuttall will do is stake out the

domestic agenda, make sure Brexit happens and it happens properly, but

also, what will we do to improve the NHS? You have said he is the

ex-leader and will always have a voice in the media, in other words,

you do not think he should be speaking on behalf of the party.

Should Paul Nuttall just ignore Nigel Farage? The gauntlet has been

laid down and at some point Paul will speak to the party and he will

do interviews and he needs to decide his priorities and where he wants to

lead us. I cannot see how he can possibly give way to an ultimatum he

should purge a certain list of people or put a particular person as

German... You cannot run a party in that way. I know Paul Nuttall

respects our members and activists and leads a Democratic party and I

believe he is a strong leader who will focus on the key issues such as

the NHS and the economy as well as immigration, and making sure Brexit

does mean proper Brexit where we once again govern ourselves. Thank

you very much. And I'm joined now by

Michael Heaver, Nigel Farage's Why should Douglas Carswell go? When

he first joined Ukip, there was mass of excitement in the party and it

quickly disappeared. I will give you one example, December the 18th,

2015, David Cameron had been at the EU summit we wanted to get on the

front foot, Douglas Carswell that they chose to save Ukip needed to

have a new leader. What we have seen is a concerted sustained effort to

infiltrate Ukip from within. We have had people coming into the party to

deliberately trying to take Ukip and Nigel Farage out of the referendum

campaign because they deem them to be toxic. We know it is not true. We

know that it was the immigration issue that won the day. These people

viewed Ukip and Nigel Farage as something to be dealt with and it

was... You think it is a conspiracy akin to the KGB that has been led by

Douglas Carswell? This is on record. He is Ukip's only MP. It is in Owen

Bennett... Are you becoming a conspiracy theorist? It is fact.

There are people on the Tories party and the side who saw Nigel Farage as

a threat, they saw the immigration issue as a link to be avoided. They

have not shut him up. They never will. The evidence can you say, is

clear. Isn't it just a spat between two grown men who hold different

views within the same party, end of? No, this is about the future of Ukip

and Paul Nuttall has come in, we had the Stoke by-election, disappointing

performance for the party, no denying that. Whose fault was that?

Allan McGregor party was on the back foot a bit too much. -- the party.

Aaron Banks has said this, they need to start pushing policy, come up

with new ideas. English Parliament, proportional representation. As well

as owning the immigration issue. Is it still just about immigration? We

have heard successive Ukip politicians say that Ukip is broader

than immigration but if you listen to Nigel Farage, that does not seem

to be the case, he disagrees with Douglas Carswell's views on

immigration. It is still very high up the agenda and the Tory party has

wrote back saying post Brexit we may have to continue mass immigration.

The party has to establish is off on a wider range of issues and overall

it has to stay radical and get on the front foot. Do you think Nigel

Farage himself, the ex-leader, is he just undermining Paul Nuttall's

leadership and the party by the escalation of the war of words? He

has devoted most of his adult life to Ukip. It is something he cares

deeply about. If you contribute to it -- is he contributing to it now?

He is pointing out the things he thinks are wrong with the party. Of

course he is going to want to see it progress in an effective way.

This is the e-mail exchange. This is about making a plea for a knighthood

for Nigel Farage. The e-mail shows clearly Carswell did make a plea to

Gavin Williamson at the time in the Government and that he makes a joke

admittedly, afterwards. Is Nigel Farage being thin-skinned? I don't

think so. Lord Pearson, no one has a bad word to say about the guy, he

even says to The Telegraph today that he feels Carswell didn't give

his backing to this. I think it's a shame. The potential for Douglas to

have been a positive contribution to the party was there. It's been

squandered and it was squandered because this is about personality,

people want to stop Nigel and weaken Ukip's voice in the referendum. It

thankfully failed but we are still seeing the fallout. Ukip have

achieved their goal of the referendum and got the result they

wanted. What do you think the future holds for the party now? They're now

a party without a purpose. That's why you can see they are

degenerating into this sort of trivial playground infighting. There

isn't a role for Ukip any longer. The Conservative Party have been

saying ten, 20 years there is no role for Ukip. I have also heard at

every by-election and European by-election and general election

that Ukip's job is over and it's never going to progress from where

it is now. I don't think the establishment's record on calling

the prospects of the future of Ukip are strong. I think for Ukip to have

a future and it is at a cross-roads, it must be radical and must talk

about things like English parliament, proportional

representation and getting rid of the House of Lords. You are trying

to come up with policies out of thin -- thin air. We had a full manifesto

at the last general election. We will end it there, thank you very

much. There are currently 650 seats

in the House of Commons. By the next election,

that number will be reduced to 600. In a giant game of musical chairs,

the Boundary Commission for England and Wales is deciding which seats

will disappear and what the new constituency

boundaries will look like. Labour have accused

the government of gerrymandering. Well, Sam Hartley joins us now,

he's from the Boundary Commission for England, who are today

launching their second consultation What are you hoping to achieve, Sam?

Well, thank you, Jo, today marks the start of the second stage of the

boundary commission for England's review. And the boundary review

across the UK as a whole. In September I told you all about the

first cut, the first set of boundaries we proposed and we

consulted on those for 12 weeks until December. We had an incredible

amount of response from the general public, nearly 20,000

representations put in to us and really impassioned, well-argued,

well-evidenced representations put to us in those 12-week periods and

we travelled the country and heard from people direct at public events

everywhere. Today is all about publishing what people have said and

asking the public to look at that and look at the different and

individual submissions people made to us and tell us where they agree

and where they don't agree. All of that evidence will take into account

before we come up with any revisions to proposals. When will we know

exactly which seats are going to be taken off the electoral map? Well,

our final recommendations will go to parliament in September 2018. A

little bit more to go through this stage. What happens after today, for

four weeks we are consulting on those 20,000-odd representations

that I told you about. We will then take all of the evidence that we

received back in the autumn of last year and also in the next four weeks

and our commissioners will work and drill into the detail of the

community-based arguments people have put to us. If we then want to

revise our proposals we will consult on those later in 2017 before we

will report to parliament in September 2018. What do you say to

criticism that you are using an outdated electoral register, the one

from 2015 and not the updated one post the EU referendum? It's a

technical answer I am afraid, it's the law. The commission doesn't have

scope to change that set of data. There has to be a cut somewhere so

there has to be a point where we say that's the data we are using so

everyone knows exactly what data they're working from. The law

dictates to us and it's that September 2015 register. Thank you

investment. And we're joined now

by the Labour MP Stephen Kinnock and the Conservative MP,

John Penrose, who as a minister was the architect of

some of these changes. Welcome to the programme. You used

to be the Government Minister responsible for precisely these

changes, what do you say to the charge that you have used this as a

mechanism for the convenience of the Conservative Party and

Jerrymannedering? It's hard to argue it is that if you are making the

constituencies all the same size so each individual vote has the same

weight no matter where you are in the country. It's making the system

a great deal fairer. It is really important that we don't delay longer

because you mentioned that the electoral registers used were done

in 2015. At the moment the existing boundaries are done on the basis of

electoral registers from 2001. They're out of date. By the time of

the next general election they're going to be almost 20 years old. We

have to get on with this. We can do it more frequently in future. We

probably need to do it every five years, that's what's planned so

there won't be long gaps but we have to keep this more up to date. What's

wrong with making constituencies roughly the same size The

Conservatives know there is a disproportionate number of Labour

seats which are relatively small and that's why this is a jerrymander.

It's about eliminating those seats. They've set a marrow margin of plus

or minus 5%. That could have been set at plus or minus 10% in order to

have more flexibility when you set the seats and also to give - to

avoid these bizarre situations where, for example, in my

constituency, a constituency line is going through the middle of the

shopping centre with one, the high street in one constituency, and the

shopping centre in another. Presumably they're consulting on

that? They're consulting but the proposals - it's disrespectful to

local communities. Looking at the figures and work that's been done,

Labour are going to lose 13% of their seats and the Tories are going

to lose 4. 5% of theirs. Are you saying there is no political

motivation behind this? Well, I am not going to make apology for

getting equal votes... It just so happen it is will benefit the

Conservatives? I think with all due respect to Stephen he is giving the

game away. Labour has had an inbuilt advantage under the old system

because it is out of date. They want to preserve that inbuilt unfair

advantage. Hanging on to an unfair advantage is not right. It has been

an unfair advantage, hasn't it, because if you look at the different

sizes of constituency constitutes, if Labour has more seats that are

below the average size then that is unfair too, in exactly the same way

you are accusing John of being? Well, I think you have to adjust the

system in a way which doesn't make it look like a gerrymander. Do you

think there was an advantage The demographics of the country have led

to larger numbers of Labour constituencies having smaller

numbers. The way you adjust that is not by having a tight margin around

the electoral quota, make it more than 5%. What I think it also

reflects is a worrying trend of this Government towards moving towards an

elective dictatorship. They've done the trade union legislation which is

massively undermining the Labour Party. They had to be dragged

kicking and screaming by the courts to come and talk about Brexit. And

now we see these boundary reviews. I think there is a pattern emerging

here, which is Theresa May's Downing Street is about control freakery and

steam-rollering the opposition out of the way. Or the opposition hasn't

been strong enough until now to challenge that? That's probably a

subject for another interview, Jo. Right. Just, but answer the charge

that Theresa May is, you know, adopting control freakery at Number

10 and steam-rollering the opposition and putting through

undemocratic proposals? Normally if you get that sort of charge it's not

directed against a Government that has a majority of 12. It's finely

balanced in parliament at the moment. It isn't that we have 100

vote majority, 100 more MPs than anybody else like Tony Blair had and

we can ram through whatever we like F we get this wrong there is scope

for difficulties in parliament. One might say that with the position in

Scotland for the Labour Party, your loss in Copeland, is this the sort

of last-ditch attempt of a desperate party? No, I think it's pointing out

that we have got to have a fair way of doing things and the vast number

of additional registrations that came from the referendum should be

taken into account. There is also this argument about the cost. But

with Brexit we are losing our MEPs and a huge number of powers and

responsibilities are coming back to the British parliament. The great

repeal bill is going to be a huge undertaking. This Government is

looking to steam-roler it through with statutory instruments and other

tools and it's worrying for the future of our democracy. On the

issue of gerrymanderring and the boundaries, if it looks as if the

Government is being unfair that will not help them in their plea to reset

constitutionally how we elect MPs. There will always be winners and

loses in any boundary changes. It's not surprising that Stephen is

looking at that and conflating all sorts of other complaints about the

Government into this issue when it's a very separate one. It's been

running for a long time and the boundary commission is independent.

There have been extensive consultations and now another

consultation T needs to be done. What can be unfair about having

equal constitutes? Except, although I take the point about it being the

law, should you have not have changed the law before conducting

this massive constitutional reform so that you didn't ex-included two

million voters from this process by using an old register? Well, as I

said, the register that's being used for the existing boundaries is even

older, it's back from... That's not a justification. Two wrongs don't

make a right. It means in future we need to not let the gap be so wide.

That's still not answering the question about the problem now.

Well, we can't unpick that now and go back. You take primary

legislation and effectively what people who are suggesting this mean

is they need a primary - an act of partment which would mean that the

boundaries wouldn't happen until after the next general election, I

am sure they don't mean that to happen. If you delay it any further

it will be even more outdated When the facts change, I change my mind,

what do you do? There is a huge fact on the ground which is there are two

million extra voters, the benchmark being used for this exercise is

wrong and it's being used because there is a hidden agenda. There are

suggestions that supporters of Jeremy Corbyn within the Labour

Party could use this as an excuse to get rid of some of the more send

terrorist Labour MPs. -- centrist MPs. We take our chances and we are

there to fight our corner. We fight for our constituents and that's what

I am doing here. This, I am trying to be here the voice of my

constitutes who have been deeply disrespected by a boundary review

which is ramming on the basis of a maths formula, a boundary line

across hundreds of years of history of our community. It's completely

unacceptable. I have some sympathy with Stephen on the particular case

specific point, that's what the independent boundary commission will

need to listen to from anybody around the country who has that

concern about their specific boundaries and they will want to

take that into account, that's perfectly legitimate. Thank you both

very much. Now, you may remember that

recently Tony Blair urged the British people to rise up

and change their mind about Brexit. Well, last night his predecessor

John Major joined the fray, using a speech at the think-tank

Chatham House to offer what he called a reality check

on the difficulties ahead. The former Prime Minister said

the costs of leaving would be substantial and unpalatable,

with little chance we could replicate the advantages of single

market access after Brexit. The British people have been led

to expect a future that seems to be Obstacles are brushed aside

as if of no consequence, whilst opportunities are inflated

beyond any reasonable A little more charm and a lot less

cheap rhetoric would do much to protect the interests

of the United Kingdom. Well, to discuss this we're joined

by the Conservative MP and leading Patience Wheatcroft,

who is a remain supporter and the only Conservative peer

to vote for Britain to stay in the single market in the House

of Lords last night, What did you make of his speech? I

rather agree with him about a couple of points which were buried in the

thunder of lightning -- thunder and lightning. We need to be mindful of

the risks and we need to talk with a generosity of spirit with our

European friends. I wrote a column in the Daily Telegraph this morning.

I said both of those points. With great respect to supporters of

remainer and John Major, the way it was done, it felt like a full

frontal assault on the Government strategy, we note he disagrees with

Brexit, but on ministers and the government, weeks before the

triggering of Article 50. I respect that arguments on the substance but

the man was not just unhelpful but responsible. We need to make sure it

does not eclipse the sensible and positive arguments people want to

contribute and I sat in the Commons among a lot of the remain MPs and

listened carefully to the likes of Dominic Grieve and we need to

continue to do that. What do you say in response to that, the timing,

just ahead of Article 50 being triggered and extremely personal?

For those of us who voted remain and still believed it would have been

the right thing for the country to do, we are being silenced by the

levers and the Government is really being intimidating in its approach.

When Theresa May came and sat down in the Lords, there was a message,

behave yourselves, or else. It was quite right John Major, former Prime

Minister, should say what he believes, and I think he is

absolutely right that we are being sold, as we were in the lead up to

the referendum, an entirely false picture of what life will be like

when we leave the EU and in particular when we leave the single

market, hence I did go through the lobby last night in favour of

remaining in the single market. I think we will all be poorer without

it. What do you think of that come him saying what he genuinely

believes? It felt like a bit of a re-heating of the arguments of the

referendum campaign and we need to move on. We have looked at the

single market issue on the Brexit committee. From the experts we have

heard from, Chatham House, others, no one thinks we can leave the EU

and by the back door go back into single market realistically. I do

not think it is particularly a credible option. The key thing about

John Major's speech is that we weeks away from negotiations and we need

unity of and spirit. Why? I am not sure how this helps. If we all want

to avoid the risk, which their undoubtedly is, of no deal at the

end, how did this help? I want our EU friends to realise we have moved

on, the country has moved on, by four to one according to a poll, the

country wants us to get on. It strengthens our chance of getting

the very best deal that everyone wants to see. Do you think it was an

patriotic -- unpatriotic? I am not getting into that. I do not want to

attack him. I do not agree with personal attacks. I went through the

referendum campaign, never speak ill of your fellow Conservative. I want

the best deal. My only concern is that some of those trying to trip up

Theresa May, I am not pointing fingers, they are making the

prospect of getting no deal more likely. Do you agree with that? Your

view last night, the way you voted in terms of wanting Britain to stay

in the single market, that is precisely what Dominic Raab is

talking about, undermining it and making it harder for Britain to get

a deal? It is not. What was important in what John Major said is

he was suggesting that home we adopt in negotiations should be a lot more

friendly and subtle than so far -- the tone. Cheap rhetoric, he said,

she needs to inject more charm. Quite right. Talking about a red,

white and blue Brexit, it was never going to be helpful. We want to do a

deal with Europe, we want them to be on our side and I think John Major

was right in saying we need the right tone. She has a very positive

vision for Britain and the EU, Theresa May set it out in the

Lancaster House speech. You said you need the EU leaders on board and if

you paint Brexit in such a way it alienates them... I do not accept

the picture of what Theresa May has done, I do not think it is a fair

resemblance of the text of the speech. But I do accept a wider

argument, without pointing fingers, that we need to look for win- win.

With the greatest of respect to John Major or Patience, I am not sure how

his contribution helped. How did it help, if not just to undermine the

process? That is what Tony Blair's speech was about too. They were very

different. We have had a lot of respect from my opponent this

morning but actually what John Major was talking about was helpful hints

on how we should conduct the negotiations and I hope that the

Government will be listening. My opponent in this? I thought we might

be linking arms. We share similar values. I wrote widely for the

Telegraph when you were at its helm. I am wary when people say with

respect because it often means the opposite. Part of the concern of

John Major was a concern way less regulated, lower tax economy. It

would see the NHS suffer if we do not get a good deal. A lot of people

will still be waiting on the ?350 million going into the NHS. What do

you say to the substance of what he said? The NHS in lots of ways can be

strengthened. But the truth is we have got control of our public

services now, there is an impact from immigration on the NHS, some of

it is positive because we have European staff, but some of the

strain we debated at length in the referendum... But we need to move

forward. There are risks of leaving the EU. I have written about them

today. I am not going to say with the greatest of respect... With the

greatest of deference. You must have said that 300 times! I would like

unity of spirit. I agree the way we talk to our European partners is

critically important. We are hearing positive noises that of the EU, the

German Foreign Minister and finance minister, but it does not help the

positive voices there if it looks like we are divided at home. They do

not understand our attitude. They think we want the benefits of being

in the club without paying the conscription. We need to frame this

about why it is, for example, barrier free trade, in both sides'

interests. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, we will continue

to support them... Dominic Raab, if you do not keep them onside, the

former Chancellor George Osborne has issued a stark warning to the

British economy, if Theresa May fails to secure a trade deal, it

would be the biggest act of protectionism in British history. Do

you agree with him on that? No. I want to be respectful to George

Osborne as well even if I get in trouble with Patience! If we go into

the negotiations say we want to be a global leader... Global leader in

free trade, we have these other potential free trade deals, we are

saying to our EU friends, barrier free trade is in your interests and

our interests, how is it us engaging in protectionism if the EU does not

give us that deal? We have a strong opportunity to get a good deal for

Britain and the EU. Even Sir Ivan Rogers who gave evidence to the

Brexit committee said he thought the prospects of a positive deal were

very strong. There is an issue around timing. Let us go in with

ambition and confidence. It is not just Dominic Raab who once unity of

spirit, your colleague in the House of Lords, Dominic Lawson, he

criticised your stance last week on this programme. What do you say

about your Tory colleague Baroness Patience Wheatcroft who has written

that if he is applied the brakes to Brexit, they will be doing their

job? She is silly. The people have spoken, the House of Commons has

accepted this, I am -- overwhelming majority, and for one eccentric

peeress to complain about it is neither here nor there. You and --

you are an eccentric peeress customer I feel very strongly about

this. People have spoken and indeed they have by a narrow majority. But

in a general election, five years later, they can change their mind,

when they know what they voted for may not have delivered what they

expected. What people voted for in the referendum varied hugely. Yes,

they voted to come out of the EU, but on what terms? I maintain that

when we know what the terms are, we should give people the chance to

speak again. Very respectfully, Dominic Raab, thank you for coming

on the Daily Politics. Now, Britain's famous for its

world-class academic institutions, but we've long been criticised

for failing on vocational education. They were the brainchild of former

Education Secretary, Lord Baker - But as Jenny Kumah explains,

the project is running into trouble. The first UTCs opened in 2010 under

the coalition, with cross-party They offer 14 to 19-year-olds

hands-on, practical learning in specialisms like science,

engineering and health care. Universities and local employers

back the schools and play a key role A typical day starts at 8:30am

and finishes at 5:30pm. Students have access to modern,

industry-standard equipment. The idea is that they gain

workplace skills, alongside a broad academic education,

moving on to university or further But performance of these

schools has been mixed. Five have already closed down,

like this one in Burnley, Three more are due

to close this August. Now, former Education

Secretary Michael Gove has criticised the schools,

some of which were Writing in the Times,

he said that... And we're joined now

by Kenneth Baker. You thought it was all rubbish, what

Michael Gove has said about UTCs, but can you explain their track

record in closing down a number because of low pupil numbers? Last

year, we had 1300 leavers in July at 18, only five joined the ranks of

the unemployed. Why have they closed down? The unemployment rate is the

lowest in the country, 0.5%. The schools Michael Gove is praising had

a rate of 11.5%. We are providing engineers and they would not get to

university unless they were well-educated. 30% become

apprentices. The national standard for apprentices is a percent. We

exceed the general standard for going to university. What do you say

to Michael Gove when he was looking at the number that have closed, not

enough people is going to them in the first place? He never supported

them. He was totally opposed to them. I had the support of George

Osborne and David Cameron. They wanted them. The reason foreclosures

is very difficult. Schools are hostile to us because they lose

students. Justine Greening likes them and she has changed the law to

allow our heads to go into local schools to explain what UTCs do

which will increase recruitment dramatically. Does it raise the

question that 14 is the wrong age to take children from the schools they

are in into the technical colleges? I think so. It is too young to make

these sorts of life determining choices. I think it is really

important that up to the age of at least 16 children have a rigorous

academic education because in today's society they need to be as

good as they possibly can be at the basics before they decide what to

specialise in. I am opposed to selection at 14. I struggle now to

see how on earth are we allowed schools that start at 14 to be

called university technical colleges. The University backs each

one and it is backed by local employers, they control the board.

All improvements in education have failed. We want to ensure it does

not fail and it will not because we are doing what the economy needs.

Michael Gove boys opposed them and try to stop them. What about raising

the age? If the poor got GCSEs at 16 and then went to the UTC? -- if

pupils got. I am sure 14 is right. In 1945, they tried to do it, they

believed 13 14, that is what the private sector does, Europe is going

to do this. If I was designing the national curriculum today as I did

in the 1980s, I would stop it at 14, that is what Austria does and they

have to lowest rate of youth unemployment in Europe. There is

selection at 11 if people go for exams for private education. If

there is selection at 11, why isn't 14 OK? I have come to the view

selection is dangerous. I go into a lot of schools in Kent and the

grammar schools are siphoning off the talent. The answer is to have

the best possible comprehensive system and although the private

sector does have entrance exams, actually, it -- to one takes

children with a broad spectrum of academic achievements. Starting at

13, 14. You think Theresa May's pushing of the grammar schools

business guided? I do. Looking at the academic rigour, isn't that one

of the issues that parents might think there will not be enough

rigour on the academic side in the technical colleges at that age which

means we will be getting a less good education? We teach GCSEs and

A-levels. Only this morning I was at a seminar of UTC students, we had

former alum and I working for companies and they are doing degree

apprenticeships. They would never have done that if they stayed at

conferences. They are going to get a degree paid for by computer

companies in this instance. They will have no debt and get a degree.

They could not have done that if they were... At 18, they also had a

technical diploma. They had made things with their hands. It made

them highly employable. Let's talk about the report. The

importance of the stem subjects. If we don't improve stem subjects in

our country economic combroet is going to decline. What do you say to

that I concur. I think it's important that children have a

rounded education. And stem is obviously part of that. Life is very

technical these days and I applaud the fact that so many of the

graduates from these schools are going into apprenticeships, I am a

huge believer in apprenticeships. Absolutely. And far better to do an

apprenticeship and get a degree than come out of a degree course with a

lot of debt and probably not the best job prospects. Will you be

supporting the UTCs... Visit one with me. I would love to do that.

You got something out of the interview. We will have a visit.

Now the House of Lords has opened its doors

The first part of "Meet the Lords" aired on BBC two last night.

Let's have a look at the clip of the crossbench hereditary peer,

Lord Palmer, as he shows the cameras around what one of his

colleagues called the best daycare centre in london.

colleagues called the best daycare centre for the elderly in london.

Lord Palmer is doing some lobbying of his own.

This used to be our television room which had the most lovely

comfortable chairs in it and to watch big sporting

events like Wimbledon or Cheltenham races or whatever.

And I came in here the other day and was amazed to find that it had

As you know, we're very, very short of space and a lot

of the new members do want a desk but I have never ever seen these

desks occupied, which does seem really rather extraordinary.

I actually put down a written question about this.

Why has the television room closed down and will there be

And I was told in no uncertain terms, no, there will not be

And we're joined now by the Green peer who also appeared

in last night's documentary, Jenny Jones.

Can you answer Lord Palmer's question, why has the T V Room been

turned into an office no one uses? I would imagine the shortage of space

is the reason for that. But, do we use a T V Room? I couldn't even tell

you where it is. He obviously use it is. Did you ever see it? I don't

know. If I am in the Palace of Westminster I have other things to

do than watch television. What struck you most about the

documentary? I am afraid I haven't watched the whole thing. I suppose

the suggestion that a lot of peers don't pull their weight, don't do

the work and take the money, that's quite upsetting statement really

because... This was from the former Speaker, do you think she was right?

She obviously saw somebody leave a taxi and run in. It's one anecdote

and it's hard to draw real conclusions from it. I would imagine

of course there is abuse, there is abuse in every system. But my

impression is people seem to work quite hard. Right. She said there

was only a hard core of people who work hard to justify the daily

allowance which is about ?300 a day. And that many, many peers, she said,

don't do very much at all. Well, the House is too big. There are moves

afoot to slim it down. The most one gets in a vote is around 550. There

are more than 800 peers, so, clearly not everybody is turning up all the

time. But if they're not there to vote they're not probably claiming

the allowance as well, so I don't think the criticisms are entirely

fair. If the Baroness did see somebody really abusing the system

like that she was in a good position to do something about it. Right. You

think some action should have been taken? It showed the rarified world

of the House of Lords and the trappings that go with it. It also

showed the workings of the place in terms of what they do as far as

legislation is concerned. Do you still think the upper chamber has an

important role to play in refining the laws that come from the House of

Commons? I definitely do. I would say it ought to be different. I

would like to see a fully elected chamber. I think that we could then

reduce the number of pierce to a reasonable level. But the fact is we

take a lot of what is technically called rubbish from the Commons and

do turn it into better legislation. There are some brilliant minds in

the House of Lords. Some people with real expertise, I don't include

myself necessarily, but I think democracyising it is the way

forward. Why did you take up a peerage in an unelected House if you

want it to be elected? Because as a Green you take every single

opportunity you can to fight the Government. I sit in the House of

Lords, I argue against the Government, I vote against the

Government, I speak, it's fantastic. A fantastic opportunity. Do you

think some of what was shown will undermine the case for the House of

Lords remaining as an unelected House? I feel some of it won't help.

Nevertheless there was evidence of the work that goes on. Oona King was

talking about committee work and Jenny is right there is a huge

amount of legislation that arrives from the -- arrives from the Commons

barely scrutinised at all and in the Lords it gets looked at. There are

experts there. There are people with medical backgrounds, scientific

backgrounds, a share of judges and people with legal backgrounds. They

can bring their intellect to work on what really does need improvement,

there is just too much legislation coming our way, I think. How

sustainable do you think the House of Lords is in its current form at

the moment? You proposed an elected chamber but the problem is it would

then be very competitive with the House of Commons. And many people

believe that should be the body that proposes and pushes laws through.

There are checks and balances. You can make the terms of office

shorter, for example, and make sure people don't stand again and things

like that. It could be a challenge, but not an undermining of the

Commons. The fact is at the moment the House of Lords is often more

liberal, more generous, I would say, than the Commons and I think in

general a good job is done, although a lot of changes are needed. Would

you be frightened of an elected House of Lords? No, but I think it

wouldn't be as effective as the House of Lords that we have at the

moment. I think the Commons certainly would be frightened of it.

They don't like the idea of having an elected second chamber. Then, at

the moment the Lords is aware that it is the elected chamber, which

actually has the final say. We have the right, indeed the duty if we

think it is required to say to them, look, take another look at this,

think again. In the end, we are absolutely clear that the Commons is

paramount because it is a democratically elected chamber. Are

you clear on that as far as Brexit is concerned? Yes. You are. Despite

the fact you voted against the Government last night and voted for

Britain to remain in the single market which Dominic Raab and others

would say is not in the spirit of supporting Article 50, why did you

vote against? To send a message to the Commons that we think and those

of us who voted that way, do share the view, we think they should look

again at the options for leaving. Right. Do you think the way Patience

behaves on Brexit will eventually be a challenge to the House of Lords

and its existence? I think everybody in the House of Lords understands

they have to vote with their conscience and last night a lot of

peers voted to stay in the single market. My main concern is about the

environmental and social protections that I see as potentially being

scrapped and we have two years to put in place all sorts of

regulation, this is nothing to do with a deal with the EU, this is all

about setting up procedures within the UK so that we can actually

effectively police environmental issues and social issues of equality

and work. Much more to watch of course on the House of Lords. You

can watch it, not behind your sofa next time.

Now, it's Shrove Tuesday, which can only mean one thing -

Commentary on this gladitorial contest between peers,

MPs and the press is from the Daily Politics'

Spring has sprung and everyone is here.

there is the editor of this very programme...

..and some MPs with varying degrees of enthusiasm for the whole

Oh, God, I hadn't even thought about it.

Most people just say chocolate or booze.

Very good skills from Catherine McKinnell.

There is nimble Nigel Nelson, political editor

David Burrowes is slipping all over the place.

He's sound as a pound, as Stephen Pound, that is.

And it was the MPs who surged to victory.

All of this is for the charity Rehab which helps people

with disabilities, but politics is never far away.

Clive, are there any other contests you're thinking of entering?

Too much fun. At least it was in the sunshine. We are joined now by David

Burrowes and the Conservative peer Ros Altman. I don't see flour or

pancakes over you! You weren't out of breath at all. Did you win? We

did. We always win. You do, I think. We didn't win. I sort of worked that

out. Why not? Well, first of all, there were only five of us. We each

had to go twice. It was a slight disadvantage. Usually you have too

many Lords, now too few. We did try and toss the pancakes, we were good

tossers but not good winners. Did you cheat, did you run around

without flipping the pancake? Well, the spirit of the competition, we

always complain about when we have the defence of sticking to the

rules, but there was a broad interpretation of the rules. We are

the law-makers and we are entitled perhaps to... It was not about

winning, but also about supporting the charity. We need to scrutinise

this. Tell us about the charity. It's Rehab, it's all about

supporting independence for disabled people of all backgrounds trying to

ensure they get into work. 20,000 childrenen and adult people, they do

great work up and down the country. We are having fun. Great to flip

pancakes and support a charity. Is this the first time you have done it

It is. There were - it was fun and there were members of the public.

You raised a crowd. I always try and support charity. I have done it, I

have done it myself. I wasn't very good. I was very slow. I was trying

to flip the pancakes too often as everybody else ran past me. Yeah,

what were the press like this year? The press lost. They're very

competitive. They struggled with a bit of the balance issue sometimes.

You thought about this script haven't you! Have you not taken

part, your excuse today was that you are on the show. Exactly. But I am

good with pancakes. I must have a good next year. How did they choose

who does it? They didn't actually choose. They sent e-mails out to

everybody. I think the mugs that replied, the people that replied...

I am happy to volunteer for something like this. It's really

good. Maybe something about Brexit at the moment, 11 of us doing

pancakes. That's your last money. Thank you very much.

There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was who has been spying on the BBC?

(C) The German intelligence agency the BND?

It was the German intelligence agency. Don't you bank on it. All of

them! 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 Good morning, this is BBC Breakfast.

Morning, Dan. In the sports news, we have

the latest on the Welsh rugby team, Poppy's sports day,

and news on Andy Murray. The headlines coming up, but our

next guest is really quite special. Jack, the toast's burning.

Welcome, Daniel Radcliffe. We've been hearing how

changes to petrol prices