20/06/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

The Chancellor Philip Hammond says Britain is 'weary' of austerity

and promises he will pursue stronger economic growth to pay

David Davis promises he'll deliver a Brexit deal "like no other

in history" after his first formal meeting with the EU's chief

Ahead of the state opening of parliament tomorrow,

Theresa May continues to negotiate a deal with the DUP to get her plans

We'll take a look at what's likely to make the cut

It's Ed Miliband, I'm sitting in for Jeremy Vine.

And Ed Miliband moonlights as a DJ on Radio 2 -

we'll review the former leader of the Labour Party's

We are joined by a radio critic and fellow broadcaster Nigel Farage.

and with us for the whole of the programme today

the businessman and former minister in Gordon Brown's

So, this morning the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, has been

giving his assessment of the economic picture

Mr Hammond made it clear he wants to put the economy at the heart

of the Brexit negotiations but he also talked of the need

for his government to convince the public that they should trust

the Conservatives with the nation's finances ...

Stronger growth is the only sustainable way to deliver

better public services, higher real wages and

I thought we'd won that argument, but I learned in the general

But we must make anew the case for a market economy

And we need to explain again how stronger growth must be delivered

Do you agree with Philip Hammond that the Tories failed to make a

case for a rising economy, hence the support for the Labour Party.

Absolutely right, I was amazed at the appalling campaign, how they

didn't start saying, we can't be trusted with the economy, they

cannot and it's the old classic way of campaigning and they ignored it

completely. -- we can. If you don't have businesses investing in its

people and its kit we -- you will not achieve productivity

enhancement, you will not compete in the world, you will not make money

and if you don't make money you don't pay tax, if you don't pay taxi

don't have a public sector. People are fed up with austerity,

campaigning on what many people felt was league outlook for more

austerity was wrong. If that were end you have people saying I'm going

to keep this group down and make life difficult for you and on the

other hand you have Marxists with their mates in the cookie jar at

saying you can't have everything, prizes every day... But isn't that

what the Conservatives are going to do now? This is not a zero-sum game

of austerity or no austerity, you can have a well-managed economy

without giving everything away when you haven't got it, Robert, go bust,

call in the IMF. There is a happy medium, I thought Philip Hammond was

spot-on. He said we have to have growth -- growth, you said you need

tax receipts, Odrick services to a good quality standard of the

prospects for growth don't look strong. The CBI prediction thinks

the British economy will slow in the coming years, they say it's because

of political uncertainty because of the result of the election, partly

because of Brexit and they said the economy going to 1.6% in 2018 will

be rather subdued. I think they are wrong and by the way, I used to be a

trade journal of the CBI so it's not personal to them but a lot of these

forecasts turn out to be wrong. What I do think and they haven't added,

business doesn't like uncertainty, and we've got two years of

uncertainty coming down the line. I think more about Brexit, while this

is happening it's not going to be easy. But... So for the economy has

confounded all the critics, not just Brexit but in terms, two years ago

and this year, it's doing better and one thing we must do, must do, is

keep the door open with the welcome mat to international investment

coming in, running businesses here, generating welfare and paying tax,

therefore you need low taxes and you need government help to build your

infrastructure, that's how you get it done. Including things like

housing and transport but one of the problems... And education. But one

of the problems for the voting public is rising inflation, wages

remaining low because real incomes are being cut and that's a

problem... It's not a consequence. But wages haven't gone up... For

jihad is a feeling that the economy is going here and I am not going

with it, let's look an alternative but the challenge will be to hammer

down on inflation, that's for certain. You can afford wage

increases if you match with productivity, productivity comes

from better skills, better investment in kid, those two things

will lead due to having better real wage rises and it will also curb

inflation. The question for today is,

what present did Michel Barnier - the EU's Chief Brexit negotiator -

give to David Davis, at the start of the Brexit

negotiations yesterday? b) A pair of binoculars

themed hot air balloon c) A vinyl

copy of the EU anthem, Ode to Joy At the end of the show

Digby will hopefully give So right on schedule David Davis

formally opened negotiations Following a lunch with his opposite

number, Michel Barnier, the two men gave a press

conference in Brussels. They both said the talks had got off

to a constructive start... I've been encouraged by the

constructive approach that both sides have taken. We've laid a solid

foundation for future discussions with an ambitious but eminently

achievable timetable. And it's clear from the opening that both of us

want to achieve the best possible outcome and the strongest support

partnership. One that works for the UK and for the youth. Our objective

is to agree on the main principles on the key challenges for the UK's

withdrawal as soon as possible. This includes citizens rights, the single

financial settlement and the question of orders, in particular in

Ireland. This morning Michel Barnier

travelled to Luxembourg for a meeting of the EU's

General Affairs Council to brief Europe Ministers

on the start of the brexit We can talk now to our

Europe Reporter, Adam Fleming ... You are there in the sunshine.

Michel Barnier telling all the member states what he and David

Davis talked about, what happens next? Greetings from an absolute the

scorching Luxembourg, who knew it could get some hot? Michel Barnier

will meet Europe ministers from the other 27 EU countries in about an

hour's time to update them on what happened yesterday, the talks with

David Davis. The ministers will have a discussion in the margins of this

meeting about the process for relocating two of the EU agencies

that look after banking and pharmaceuticals based in London.

What will happen to them after Brexit, a big competition from other

countries to host them. On the issue of citizens rights Iwobi movement

soon on that whole thing about what happens to EU nationals living in

the UK and UK nationals living on the continent, there's going to be

an EU summit of leaders on Thursday in Brussels, Theresa May will update

her counterparts and the UK's proposals on that issue and in the

UK on Monday document will be published with much more detail

about the UK's pitch on that particular subject. Going forward

for the Brexit talks as a whole, we got the terms of reference

yesterday, there will be a week of talks every month until October.

There will be a mixture of plenary sessions which is where well said

Michel Barnier on one side of the table, David Davis on the other like

we saw yesterday in Brussels and there will be a series of smaller

negotiating groups dedicated to three main topics, citizens rights,

the issue of how much money the UK should pay to leave the EU and

thumping euphemistically called other withdrawal issues. Then the

big issue of what happens to the border between Northern Ireland and

Ireland, will be the subject of something called a continuing

dialogue which will be done by the Sherpas, David Davis and Michel

Barnier's deputies will discuss that and we heard that might take right

up until the end of the Brexit process to sort out. It will be a

long, hot and busy summer for you and the other EU countries but will

we get updates from all those meetings, will there be regular

press conferences, will we know the content of those meetings and what's

decided? That's actually very interesting, Michel Barnier's people

says he wants to do press conferences throughout this process

of the thing we saw yesterday with him and David Davis, talking about

what they had done, that's going to be a regular feature. Part of the

terms of reference yesterday, released, about transparency and the

line there is that both sides will be as transparent as default, they

are keen to get as much paperwork and facts and figures and

negotiating positions out there as possible, however there is a caveat

in the terms of reference, each side can specify that wants documents to

be held back from public consumption or to be passed around by everyone

else. I think that's a sort of note leaking clause then of course the EU

requires lots of meetings with people different countries are

updated like what's happening today. My big hope for today is that I will

be able to corners of Europe ministers on their way out of here

and they will give me some gossip about what happened yesterday. Adam,

happy hunting. Bebe Jones, the meeting was presented yesterday by

Michel Barnier as a win for them with David Davis, the Brexit

negotiator for the UK linking first in terms of the phase negotiations

to the talks. Do I care? I negotiated 20 years as a corporate

lawyer, don't go and waste ammunition on stuff that doesn't

matter, if you want to talk about divorce costs first trade

afterwards, by all means, avid, I don't care. What I really hope she

does on Thursday as I hope she makes a big announcement in public that

says if you are in EU citizen, you are in work in Britain you are not

only safe but welcome. It looks as if that might happen. I don't want

anything in return in other words, a unilateral... That change the EU and

puts them into a position that says how about you. I'm far more

interested in ensuring we stop and ensure that this is seen to be no's

interests because we mattered to them and they matter to us.

You'd think just after a general election you could look

at the winning party's manifesto and that would be a good guide

to what's going to be in the Queen's Speech.

However with no majority in the Commons, the deal

with the DUP yet to be agreed and some of Theresa May's

own backbenchers in a rebellious mood it's harder to predict.

Brexit is of course likely to be the central theme,

and I predict we'll see a Great Repeal Bill,

which will turn all EU laws currently have affecting us

which will turn all EU laws currently affecting

During the election campaign Theresa May promised legislation

to tackle terrorism, that could mean a change in human

rights laws so that tougher restrictions could be

Trailed this morning are plans for a series of transport

infrastructure bills, including allowing the extension

of the HS2 rail line as well as more charging points for electric cars.

Plans to put a cap on household energy bills could also appear,

especially as it may well be supported by Labour MPs.

We could also see a new housing bill that will free up land

for more houses to be built, and I expect proposed legislation

However now the visions become less clear, the Conservatives

did have a number of controversial proposals including dropping

the pensions triple lock and making people to fund their social

care with their homes, with a lack of support there's

a strong chance these won't make it into the speech.

Finally the Conservatives were keen

but with no overall majority, and many dissenting backbenchers,

that could disappear in a puff of smoke.

We can talk now to our deputy political

editor John Pienaar, who's in Downing Street ...

John, this agreement to deal with the DUP in order to give Theresa May

and the Conservatives a working majority, is it going to happen?

stop I think it is a matter of when, not if, both sides wanted to happen.

The Prime Minister does not talk about strength any more for obvious

reasons, she talks about stability and certainty. There are no

certainty that all left in British politics at the moment, but a deal

with the Democratic Unionists, signed and sealed, so the DUP say in

advance that they will back the Government on those make or break

votes, that would at least give Theresa May's Lovemark more

stability than otherwise. I think we will see that unveiled within the

next few days. There some uncomfortable choreography. On we

go. With the Government still living a precarious situation and Theresa

May's situation still more precarious. Could she have called

the bluff of the DUP? She did not need any formal arrangement ordeal

and as commentators have said it is unlikely that the DUP would support

Labour, so why has she bothered to spend so much time on this? I don't

think there was any real likelihood of the Democratic Unionist Party

being put in a position where they could then be Government's arms

behind their back. Hostility to Jeremy Corbyn is well and real. The

Government would not have had the DUP lined up against them in the

Queen's Speech, but to have a formal deal in the eyes of those behind me

gives you that extra bit of stability. The talks leading up to a

deal, when unveiled, will give the Government something of a heads up

of what they can and cannot do as they marched through the coming

parliamentary session. The DUP will not want them to carry on with their

plans to water down the guarantee to pensioners or change universal

rights to benefits for those getting the winter allowance just at the

moment. There are other things. We will have those clearly mapped out,

they might have suspected them. They will carry on but it does not mean

life will be secure from now on, certainly not Theresa May's, because

it is not. We know there will be a Lib Dem

leadership contest, he was standing? Said Vince Cable has thrown his hat

into the ring. Vince Cable, the great sage of the Liberal Democrat

party, joined the battle. Norman Lammers ready and waiting, Ed Davey,

a former Cabinet minister like Vince Cable and Norman Lamb. Now that Jo

Swinson has said that she is not doing it, the way is clear for Ed

Davey, I expected to say he is in. Maybe some more horses will also

join the race. Thank you, John Pienaar.

We've been joined by Labour's shadow trade secretary

Barry Gardiner, and by the former Conservative Chief

Do my prediction is that right? Not too far away. I don't know, as far

as I can see the speech will be dominated to some extent by Brexit,

the conversation you just had with Digby, the bill is necessary to

deliver us leaving the EU and some very important domestic matters. You

mention transport infrastructure, that is really important to make

sure the economy fires on all cylinders. And also issues like

updating mental health legislation to make sure that the country works

for everybody, those are really important things that will bring the

country together. Do you accept broadly, as your colleague David

Davis has said, that because of the election result your Queen's Speech

will be pruned somewhat? We need to listen, the Prime Minister was very

clear, the result is not what we would have wanted, in a democratic

country you need to listen to the election result and the Prime

Minister will reflect on our manifesto commitments and what we

should put in the Queen's Speech. We have had a big decision last year on

leaving the European Union, we have had a general election and I think

the public wants us to deal with a hand we have, the Government should

get on with governing in the national interest, that is what the

Prime Minister is doing. Barry Gardiner, will you let them go than

with the Queen's Speech that we made some suggestions? The interesting

thing about Mark referred to in how Brexit will dominate things in the

future is if you listen to what Philip Hammond said this morning,

the Mansion House speech, he has swallowed entirely the Labour

playbook. And our Labour manifesto came out loud and clear. It was fair

and managed migration, it was about a jobs first Brexit, it was about no

deal being a very, very bad deal for the UK. The nationalisation of

water, electricity and railways?! You are a wonderful commentator but

you are on the sidelines. Are we talking about Brexit? About Brexit,

absolutely. He has even said today that he would look at remaining in

the customs union. I take your point that you are saying that he has, in

your mind, taken on board some of the recommendations you made, but

she said that freedom of movement should end in terms of Brexit, you

said that in you're manifesto? We said that when you leave the

European Union you leave the internal market, meaning that all

four freedoms end. That is the same as the Government? That is just the

mechanics. That is what Labour has said, that is what the Conservatives

say. We would put in plays fair and manage... Sure... The result is the

same. On the customs union the Labour manifesto says the UK will be

the customs union and not remain in it, has that change? We said we

would focus on the outcomes and the structures are secondary. What we

want are the benefits without all the additional bureaucratic burdens

at the Borders, all the benefits of that, we said that whether that is

done in a new bilateral relationship with the European Union, a bespoke

deal, or whether it is done through some modifications... Have you

swallowed the entire Labour manifesto, as Barry Gardner puts it,

regarding Brexit? I read Philip Hammond's speech that he delivered

this morning, it is completely consistent with the Prime Minister's

Lancaster house speech. If you go through her 12 negotiations, it is

what we said. We want a special partnership with the EU, we want a

free trade deal, we want frictionless borders, that has been

the position from the beginning, particularly making sure we have a

frictionless border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern

Ireland. That is very important for both countries and the peace

process. It is one of the great virtues that that would

facilitate... There are plenty of other ways of dealing with it and we

are clear that you have to leave the single market when you leave the EU

otherwise you are bound by freedom of movement, the court and playing

in huge contributions. I think if you stayed in the single market the

public would not think you have left the EU. It is getting a good deal...

The Chancellor made the case for a new form of customs agreement with

the current border arrangement which presumably means agreeing to some

form of the EU oversight for some years following Britain's exit from

the union? The Prime Minister was clear in Lancaster Harwich speech

that she wanted to see a phased implementation Brexit, which is exec

another chance is that this morning -- in the Lancaster house speech. We

want a smooth exit, we want to make sure we get a good deal for British

business to consider being successful. Digby Jones, do you not

think there has been a change, at least in tone and in terms of trying

to reach out to the EU partners? Philip Hammond has said the economy

must be at the centre, ahead of immigration concerns? Is he right?

As I listen to these gentlemen I was thinking that the average person

watching would say this is precisely why we hate

politicians. Labour said this, Tories want this... Why don't you

think, this is in the national interest that you bury your party

differences, you had your scrap at the general election and the nation

once the deal to be done. There is so much common ground between you, I

actually don't care if Philip Hammond spoke out if your playbook.

It is irrelevant whether you are delighted. It is irrelevant whether

he did not. What is important is that the bulk of the country are

looking for you guys to show a bit of maturity and blessed tribalism.

Let slip that the arithmetic, you have to get a Queen's Speech through

-- let's look at the arithmetic. You know what this is about, if we are

looking ahead to important votes like the Great Repeal Bill, and I

will ask Barry on the Labour position on that, will you reach out

to pro-Brexit Labour MPs to come on board, not you personally, but the

Tories, in order to get through this important legislation without a

majority? Responding to Digby, in answer to your first question I said

that the whole point about Theresa May forming a Government was to go

than in the national interest, implementing the Brexit decision and

the result of the election. The interpretation of that decision has

been reopened because she did not get a decisive victory. So my

question about the party arithmetic... We put the Queen's

Speech forward. On the Great Repeal Bill, essentially taking existing EU

legislation, putting it in British legislation so that when we leave

the EU business the public know what the deal is, we will not be changing

policy, we will copy across what we have. I don't think there is a

massive difference between us and Labour. Arguing about what we change

that too is for subsequent political debate, copying across to protect

workers' rights, protect the environment, I don't think there

would be a massive difference and we would expect to get their support.

Labour will support the Government in the Queen's Speech? What we said

about the repeal Bill is that we entirely accept that on day one the

Government has repeatedly said it, on day one the rights and

protections currently existing in EU law will be transposed into UK law.

The difference is that they will be transposed into UK law and they will

not have the protection of primary UK law. Would you support it? We

will promote your reservations, but in order for these things to pass,

will Labour support it or not? There is a better way of doing it, that is

what we will put forward. We do not think it is right to have those

protections at the whim of a Secretary of State who through

secondary legislation could abolish... You will seek to amend

it? We will seek to do what they say they are doing, to take them with

the same strength as they have in Europe and the same force, because

of the umbrella of protection in Europe provides, into UK law and

ensure they are embedded their... This is a potential problem. Barry

Gardiner is part of the opposition, that is what oppositions do, they

oppose things that they say are still in the national interest. We

oppose them in the national interest because we believe... They say the

national interest, you may say they are not being responsible, but it

leaves you with a problem? It will be an interesting test for Labour

whether they meant what they said about respecting the result of the

reprimand on implementing Brexit. If every time we bring forward

legislation we are simply putting the rules in legislation and we will

be setting out why we are doing that to give business a clear steer when

we read so everyone knows the rules, if Labour opposes those sort of

things then the public will conclude they are not in favour of delivering

Brexit at all. You will be painted as an irresponsible opposition?

There are rights and protections currently existing in Europe which

we know for a fact senior government ministers have opposed. We are

talking about the clean-air act, for example. The clean air directive

which repeatedly this Government has failed to act upon in the interests

of this country. We are talking about the habitats directive which

Government ministers... The new Secretary of State for the

environment has previously gone on the record as saying that he is

against it. These are precisely the very important environmental and

social protections... Barry, you arrogantly say that people like me

sit on the sidelines. We, the business community, pay your wages.

We create the wealth that pays the tax that build schools and

hospitals. We don't sit on the sidelines, my friend. Do they not

have a right to oppose...? ALL TALK AT ONCE Barry, wait a

moment. The question was would you get the

Great Repeal Bill through so business can say we are starting? I

don't want a conversation about whether you approve of the Habitat

directive for the so-and-so directive, it was a simple question,

can business think we are on our way? If all I get is a political

answer it is not quite what we on the sidelines want to hear. The

first response is that neither Digby or I have been actually businessmen

for about 20 years. As we speak I chair six companies, I think that

qualifies me. Let's not compete, answer the question. The whole point

about what Digby says is he is very happy to see certain protections

that exist in European legislation done away with and the whole

argument that Mark is putting forward is that on day one all these

rights and protections will be the same, what we do thereafter is a

matter for them, but it is not. It is a slippery slope and without the

solid protections of being in primary legislation, all the social

protections, the Labour protections will be deregulated away, that is

the signal... Let Mark reply. Can you guarantee that these protections

will be saved? We and the Prime Minister have been very clear both

in the Lancaster house speech at the manifesto that as far as workers'

rights, environmental protection, all of that legislation is being

copied from European legislation into UK legislation so that when we

leave, all of those things... Let him finish. For future debates,

clearly we can all debate about what should employment law and

environmental law look like, but when we beat everything will be the

same so that business has the certainty to plan and continue to be

successful. I think Barry is not being straight with people when he

suggests that somehow we will change all these things.

If you are saying you are sticking broadly to the commitments that you

make, why is Theresa May still locked in talks with the DUP, it's

pretty clear they would not support the Labour Party and of labour were

going to form a government in terms of numbers come off she continuing

with the DUP, why doesn't she just called their bluff and said support

the Queen's speech. I am not involved in the discussions, I am a

backbencher but my guess is she is trying to go through, work out what

we can deliver, maximise what we can deliver from the manifesto and have

that conversation with the DUP. They broadly share our views on things

like defence and security and things like that, they've been clear about

the overall position but we want to make sure we can maximise what we

can deliver. Taking a Digby's point on the national interest. Barry, I

am going to have to leave it there, you have both had a good crack at

this, Barry, yes you have! Tomorrow will be the Queen's

64th Queen's Speech. But it might look at bit different

to normal as our Ellie For the second time since he came to

the throne, His Majesty The King... The sovereign leads Buckingham

Palace, escorted by the household cab, that's just under 120 horses,

just the same for well under a century, since 1852, before they'd

even invented the Daily Politics. The king or for the best part of the

last seven decades, the Queen arrives at Parliament in order to

deliver his or her speech, the list written by ministers of the law is

the government hopes to get approved by parliament over the coming

session. But this time things will be a little different. This year

they are scaling things back, the Queen will turn up your two

sovereigns gate in a posh car rather than her gold carriage, there won't

be a horse inside. The dress code is different too. The Queen won't be in

her ceremonial garb, it will be day dress rather than robes, that also

means she won't mean any page boys to help her with all that material.

She won for her crime either but don't worry, it was ill be there,

having arrived in its own car and placed on a table next to her. And

the peers watching will still wear their ermine, perfectly for the 34

degrees forecast for tomorrow. Last time there was a scaled back Queen's

Speech was in 1974 following Ted Heath's snap election. Buckingham

Palace, the government and parliamentary parties agreed to do

the same this year because there wasn't enough time to rehearse with

the horses hangs to trooping the colour last weekend. So the goings

on in Parliament may be less flashy than normal, a temporary studios

belonging to the broadcasters certainly are not, this year's

Queen's Speech may be less of the pomp of the circumstances mean it

will be as closely scrutinised as ever.

We've been joined by the royal historian Kate Williams.

Are you disappointed it's not going to be the full regalia? We have seen

this before, we soared in 1974 after Edward Heath called a snap election.

I'm more disappointed we are not having a Queen's Speech next year,

because the principle is it's going to be dressed down this year because

of trooping the colour, the Crown is going in a car, not on the Queen's

head, but the Palace says we will have a dressed down setup and next

year we are back to the full regalia but that's not going to happen.

Because we have to Magarira your session based on Brexit but critics

might say it is because they are worried they might get through

another Queen's Speech. We gave you the broad outline, will it be

totally different? It will be totally different, we won't see the

horse and carriage, we won't see what we expect to see the tourists

lined up to see, she will be in a car, dressed down, no page boys and

the Crown will be carried in as opposed to being actually worn. In

1974 we had the cap of maintenance and the sword and Crown weren't even

carried in, at least we get the crown even though it's not on her

head. There are other traditions that will carry on this time, an MP

is always taken hostage if you like in the Palace, explain the

background. The MP is taken hostage in the Palace, usually one of the

backbenchers and this is because the monarch is not allowed to enter

Parliament, dating back to the time of Charles and at the monarch was to

stay was to cause chaos then that MP is a hostage. They are hostage to

fortune, sitting in Buckingham Palace, watching the television over

there. Amazing that tradition continues. And the great tradition,

searching the Palace of Westminster for the gunpowder plot bombs, I

mean, the tradition that we have dates back to Edward VII, he was the

one who bought in to all the pomp and ceremony, Queen Dettori opened

Parliament, less so after Prince Albert died but the pomp and

ceremony and circumstance was brought in by Edward VII, it's quite

an old tradition. Yes, it is. One of the other things that struck me,

debate about when it was going to happen, and the date hadn't been

clarified that was an argument put forward that's because it takes a

long time for the Inc to dry on the goatskin parchment? But it's not

actually goatskin. It's not made of gold, it's a special parchment, a

vegan parchment made specially to last 500 years, I don't know how

they can guarantee that, I don't know how we can test that or take it

back if it didn't but this is a special parchment made of paper that

is called goatskin. It's supposed to last 500 years so? That's correct,

I've been where they have the rules, it lasts just as well as those ones

from the 17th century. Are you going to miss it? Not really, I am quite a

pomp and ceremony sort of person but sitting in 34 degrees of heat in

this massive cloak, I have to say, if we are going to do it for obvious

reasons, let's do it all, let's have a day when none of this happens, I

get that, although I quite like the pomp and circumstance, I quite enjoy

it. You would like some fashion, summer and winter uniform? For two

or three reasons you mention, we are dressing down, that stressed I'm

completely this time but then... Shorts and T-shirts? Trainers? Why

not? Put your shades on. It's a bit half baked, hip but not there, I

would do the whole thing for good reasons or not. Personally I would

carry on as Edward VII intended but if not, the Crown is not there, yet

it is, it's coming in a car. You can imagine some newspaper carrying some

satire about the crime's day, I got picked up in a car, I sat next to

Her Majesty. And it will be very hot. It is, you saw guards men

fainting at trooping the colour, Her Majesty is the strongest of all is

all but she's still is in her 90s. But I do think it's rather a shame,

increasingly we are seeing her handing more of her duties and this

is a key duty for her, it is vital, she is head of state and it is vital

duty but still, as we start to move towards thinking that we may begin

to see some of her final state openings because she may get the job

to Prince Charles eventually, it is rather a shame that we are seeing

rather fewer but there have been times before then they dressed down.

Queen Victoria complained in 1880 some of the ladies were not dressed

correctly and children were allowed in. God forbid, never worked with

children and animals. That's because we are getting old, Kate Williams,

thank you. Now, following the terror attack

on a mosque in London yesterday, we spoke to Miqdaad Versi

from the Muslim Council of Britain. While Mr Versi praised

the response to the attack, he was critical of anti-Muslim

sentiment which, he said, could lead to this kind

of violent Islamophobia. We've talked very much about hate

speakers being unacceptable, And now we know that the BBC

and many others will not have Anjem Choudary and others on the TV,

despite having had them in the past. What about the same

people on the right? What about the people

like Douglas Murray, who just last week came on the show

and said less Islam That kind of attitude

within even the BBC, within a show like this,

giving a platform to people like that to spread their

hate is unacceptable. Well, nobody from the Henry Jackson

Society was with us for that discussion yesterday,

but we are joined now by Tom Wilson, who is a Fellow

at the Henry Jackson Society Centre for the Response to

Radicalisation and Terrorism. Welcome to the Daily Politics, you

heard the comments made, what was your comments to what was said? I

think it's an accept the ball that people like Douglas Murray and those

of us in the Henry Jackson Society who had been focused on countering

extremism and extremist ideology, of defending liberal values and Chrissy

should be equated with extremists like Anjem Choudary. It undermines

the attire effort to undermine extremism. Except Douglas Murray

said Les Islam in general is obviously a good thing, he was

drawing parallels a few weeks ago on Sunday Politics when I interviewed

him between the number of Muslims in the country and the rate of

terrorist attacks. Is that not hate speech? No, I think as you know from

that programme he was talking about extremists and radicals, he said how

much he acts the Liberals, the moderates... He said they are in a

minority and he didn't think they would succeed and therefore he

didn't think more Islam was a good thing which in some people's minds

sounds like some set of closing process. Not at all, at the Henry

Jackson Society we've been quite clear about combating a whole range

of extremism on the far right as well as among Islamist and that's

why we support the government's prevent programme focusing on

tackling far right but the goal is Asian as well as within the Islamic

community as well. Do you accept that Douglas Murray's comments about

having less Islam is inflammatory? I don't think it was inflammatory

because I think what he was saying, if we look at this country work we

have a large Muslim community and a wide spectrum of different police,

on the far end, the most extreme ends there are problematic views and

we would want a lot less of that kind of Islam, I think that's what

Douglas has always focused his career on, seeking to combat.

Except, B Jones, let me read you the quality made in the original

interview, he said Eastern Europe doesn't have an Islamic terrorism

problem because it doesn't have much Islam. France has the worst problem

because it has the most Islam. Now he doesn't say it's all to do with

extremism, he is talking about Islam, are we ever he says going to

draw any lessons from this, apparently not? Douglas Murray, is

he right? I am not saying he intentionally or didn't

intentionally forget, what this country needs less fundamental

Islam. If he was talking about it generically I think he's completely

wrong because you can't... You don't want less or more of Judaism, less

or more Catholicism, less or more of any... Buddhism or Hindu... What it

is, I think the Islamic community house two sort itself out better to

deal with its own problem of fundamentalism and statistically, if

you have a large Muslim community, almost statistically by definition

you will have more extremism simply because there will be a percentage

of the population, of the community but it's not a function, it's a

statement of fact, if you have more of a certain type you will have more

of the extreme of that certain type but I don't think it's on to say

that a nation needs more or less of a belief. What it was need is less

of a damaging... End of it which is fundamentalism and as you say, that

could be the far right as much as it could be Islam. Do you agree? I

think what was specifically so problematic about these comments was

the equation with Anjem Choudary, who is a hate preacher, who supports

Islamic State Anderson prison, comparing somebody like that to

Douglas who tries to counter extremism is it that macro

concerning, the Muslim Council of Britain haphazard that Racal has had

its problems in the past, and they are trying to defame and silence

those who are trying to combat the problem. Do you think right-wing

extremism is dealt with equally to Islamic fundamentalism? Certainly in

the government's counter extremism strategy it is, they seek to combat

that two ideologies but the National conversation hasn't focused as much

as it could do on the far right as it needs to, particularly as we've

seen a rise in hate crimes against Muslims as well as recently with

this attack on Jo Cox, it's a serious problem. It's a problem

which critics might argue and maybe the Muslim Council of Britain would

say the government has taken its eye off the ball because of the focus

rightly on Islamic extremism and fundamentalism. You think the Henry

Jackson Society has played a role in that perhaps focusing too much on

one side of extremism and not the other? We've produced research on

countering the far right on campus and we've been supportive of the

government strategy prevent which focuses on far right referrals as

well as Islamist ones and we say it's correct to do both of those. Do

you think America -- in your mind they are treated both equally in the

pub in mind? No, I was thinking this this morning, there are many

reasons, one is more global than the other, I think it's fur to say, one

has a bigger infrastructure than the other and one is more in the public

mind because there have been more incidents of terrorism caused more

by one than the other and that's factual. The terrorism response

tends to be guided to one because statistically there is more of it

but I don't think the public mind sees it in the same way and I

thought this morning, I forget his name, the guy in Norway... And are

spearing braided. That had nothing to do... That had to do with far

right extremism and socialism, and that was evil and disgusting and had

nothing to do with Islam and he murdered 60... War, I think,

actually. But was just so utterly disgraceful and was nothing to do

with Islam. So we have got to understand there is this and the

more you have won the more you have the other and I think our society

needs to understand that more and I think France probably has the same

problem, for all the obvious political reasons. I keep very much

for coming in from the Henry Jackson Society. We are getting the ports

that the deal, the agreement with the DUP, this would be ahead of the

Queen's Speech tomorrow is beginning to take for Maurice almost agreed

and will bring you confirmation of that as and when it happens.

Ed Miliband's career took a surprising turn yesterday -

the former Labour leader made his debut as a radio

presenter, standing in for Jeremy Vine on Radio 2.

Next week the former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith will take

Let's hear how Ed Miliband got on yesterday afternoon.

It's Ed Miliband, I'm sitting in for Jeremy Vine.

A year after the referendum, today is the day Brexit

Are you someone who is optimistic about the outcome and says people

We've got some comments from our listeners.

Liam e-mails with a particularly personal one for me.

I met you in the Mallard in Cusworth..."

- I can recommend it - "..the other week while you

I'm a Labour voter but voted Leave on the back of all

Alistair from Isla Island in Scotland joins,

I think that's just Isla, actually, in Scotland.

Mr Vine's made the odd mistake as well, so don't worry.

Because this is so important, Ed, that my mum is not

a prejudiced person, and that's why I find Brexit

and talking to my mum about Brexit so difficult.

Andy, we are incredibly grateful to you both

for sharing your story and your emotion.

And we've been joined by the Telegraph's radio

critic Gillian Reynolds, and the presenter of

The Nigel Farage Show on LBC - he may also be familiar to some

of you from his former career in politics...

Or maybe not so former, but we will ask that later! Is somebody

experienced as a radio presenter, how did he get on? Not bad.

Politicians should be good at this in one way because we are used to

dealing with arguments, we are used to one side of an argument, a

counterargument, whenever you do an interview with devious like you you

think, what will be that argument be? The problem a lot of politicians

have is that they are so scripted. They stand up, read from an autocue,

it is all a bit... Politics these days is a bit wooden. To make the

transition from being a party leader to present you have to lose that and

listen up. You did not think he was natural

enough? It was his birthday. I will not be unkind... You can be, there

are no rules. Let judge him on Friday. I have been doing it for six

months, I am very inexperienced, but I feel I give it best when I am very

laid back and relaxed and it is almost like you are chatting to a

friend at home. Radio presenting has to be conversational? They are very

different shows, Mr Farage's shows are the one-man band, constantly

talking, the Jeremy Vine show is very structured and largely run by

the editor, he will be on his years saying go to the music, or whatever,

he has to play records, take the calls, run to time. It is very

tightly structured with a very experienced editor, it is quite

different. What did you think? He was not bad at all, I think he

exceeded expectations. He was better than I thought he would be in terms

of the sounds of it. He ran a tremendous risk, because like yours,

Mr Farage, he has a voice that impressionists love! Is that a bad

thing? Is it the real thing?! You did not think it was him? I think

introducing records is quite hard, having done it myself along with the

current affairs programme. I was hopeless at doing the music. Of

course there are the records, when you are a BBC presenter you are not

allowed to have an opinion. Now, what I do with LBC, I am allowed an

opinion. And off, rules I can say pretty much what I want but I had to

invite the other side of it. -- under off rules. It makes a big

difference if you are free to speak your mind, especially with the type

of show you are doing. I do not think I would last very long on the

BBC. I am not sure you will ever find out! Is it a good idea for

former and current politicians to do this? Ed Miliband is yesterday,

politically, so he has the freedom... And Iain Duncan Smith is

tomorrow?! You ought to be a politician! Nigel, your politics

career is over so it gives you bigger freedom. I am not sure

Edwards taking a risk because he is yesterday... He has nothing to use.

-- nothing to lose. But Nigel, you made a good point that politics

these days, it is so scripted, you must do this and bad. That is why

Macron, Trump, Farage, Corbyn appeal. You and Corbyn could not be

further apart but you appeal to the public because you are not the

traditional scripted politician. Ed Miliband was. Are the listeners

being well served by Nigel and Ed? Yes, I think so, except Nigel, I am

sure he will not mind me saying, is a bit of a one trick pony here

because he has one issue and he goes on and on about it. Everyone tells

me I have the best job in the world and then I point out to them but I

have to listen to you at least once a week. And then they quail. Because

when people bring up and say you were wrong about this and that you

say that was very interesting, next call. Are you cutting people off who

do not agree with you?! There are other presenters on that show who

demean people who have an alternative opinion. The only time I

would cut somebody off... You are mercilessly polite. I am. What about

this former political career, is it definitely former? Lord Jones has

written me off, that is the end of it! Don't get out of it that way,

would you stand for leader? Will you get back into politics? I am leading

a group in the European Parliament, I am still in politics. That is

where the re-negotiations of the British Steel will take place. I am

in a very good position to oversee it. Will you stand for Ukip leader

again? I have not decided. It is not ruled out. There is a fabulous wine

cellar at brussels, we should make a part of the renegotiation, you said?

Could you advise? One final piece of advice, the British public who voted

Ukip actually voted away to make sure this deal was done, and I think

you have a moral as well as possibly representational obligation to those

who voted Ukip to ensure that we come out holding the feet to the

fire, you would be very good. Far fewer people voted for Ukip... I was

trying to take it away from party politics. You are seen as Brexit.

Which is why I will see this thing through 42-macro years in the

European Parliament. As far as Ukip is concerned, I am still thinking.

Tellers when you have made up mind, thank you both.

So, in the run up to this month's general election the opinion polls

were divided on what would be the likely outcome, but most

were predicting an outright win for the Conservatives and suggesting

a significant Parliamentary majority for Theresa May.

That, as we now know, wasn't correct.

The polling company Ipsos MORI has been looking at how different groups

of voters actually voted when faced with a ballot box.

While Labour targeted young people in this campaign,

the stark contrast between young and old was the biggest

since the 1970s, with the swing to Labour coming from those under

the age of 44, whereas the swing to the Conservatives

Perhaps less expected was the class divisions,

with more middle class voters favouring Labour and working

class voters moving towards the Conservatives.

Theresa May's party also had a large lead amongst those with no

education qualifications, while graduates favoured Labour.

But Labour took the lead amongst those who voted Remain in last

year's Brexit referendum, with a majority of Leave voters

From the other parties, the Lib Dems vote share remained steady,

although only half of their voters had also backed them

in 2015, compared to Labour and the Conservatives who held

on to nine out of ten of their voters from the last election.

And we've been joined by Gideon Skinner from Ipsos MORI.

You still predicted a win for the Conservatives. Did you get your

calculations wrong on the number of young people who turned out to vote?

We think that was one of the things that made this underestimate Labour,

we got most of the other parties pretty much correct but we

underestimated Labour is one of the things we think we may have made a

mistake is that we adjusted for turnout, in previous elections we

had always seen young people were much less likely to turn out, but

latest data suggests they did and that was an increase. It was not

just the 18 to 24, it was the under 35s? Yes, the eye-catching rise is

among 18 to 24, Labour always does better among the very youngest.

There was a swing to Labour among the 25 to 34 age group and the 34 to

44. I mentioned the class divide, did that stick out? Certainly. We

have produced these estimates since 1979 and have never seen Labour get

as high a score among middle classes as in 2017, never seen the

Conservatives get as high score amongst the working classes as we

have seen these estimates. Both parties increased their bowled

share, it was not just one side or the other, but they did well among

the class they are perhaps traditionally not associated with.

It was interpreted by some as a protest election and revenge of the

Remainers, did you see it like that? There is a difference by Remain and

Leave vote, Remain war more likely to vote Labour and Leave

Conservative. And graduates more -- were more likely to vote Labour and

people without qualification is more likely to vote Conservative.

Although Brexit was one of the most important issues it was not the only

one, we saw concerns about NHS rise to one of the highest we have seen,

concern about education being the third most important, it was not

just Brexit. What about a shift in voter

alignment? There was a move, middle-class voters going to Labour,

working-class in some parts of the country to the Conservatives. Has

that been a permanent shift, do you think? Has there been a realignment

in support? There has been a long-term pattern of class being

less of a predictable and in the 70s or 80s, that has changed over the

years. Tony Blair did very well among the middle classes. It is not

new but it seems to accelerate and when you say middle class and

working class they are -- there are very different groups, the

metropolitan elites and the older Conservative groups. Doesn't that

make it more difficult to predict? You can't say middle class and

working class, it is rural, metropolitan and all sorts of other

factors? One of the big problems unions have had in the private

sector is that lots of the battles have been won and the idea of the

TUC, Labour, it is not what it was because you get so much more

aspirational behaviour. I have welcomed and relished the day that I

can look at you, I was asked so many times in various things that I do,

call it. I said I do not go with a landslide but I will go with 58. And

that is because people like you said it would be a 20 or 22% lead. If you

said it was 5% or 6% I would not have done that. Why did you get it

so badly wrong? I am afraid we will have to leave it, saved by the Bell.

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

The question was what present did Michel Barnier -

the EU's Chief Brexit negotiator - give to David Davis

at the start of the Brexit negotiations yesterday?

A, a ride in an EU-themed hot air balloon?

C, a vinyl copy of the EU anthem, Ode to Joy?

It is B or deed, I will go with the wooden hiking stick. You would be

right, well done. Maybe he was trying to say take a hide in the

most polite way! Thanks to all our guests,

especially Digby Jones. The one o'clock news is starting

over on BBC One now. We won't be here tomorrow as it's

the State Opening of Parliament - you can watch all the coverage live

on BBC One from 10:30am. MUSIC: Power

by Kanye West