28/02/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 28/02/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Download Subtitles