Former welfare secretary Iain Duncan Smith is with Jo Coburn throughout the programme. Journalists Lucy Fisher and Isabel Oakeshott give their thoughts on the morning's headlines.
Browse content similar to 07/11/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Hello and welcome to
the Daily Politics.
International Development Secretary,
Priti Patel, admits that she did
have secret meetings
with the Israeli government and -
despite what she said last week -
the Foreign Office didn't
know about it.
Is she fit to be a cabinet minister?
Boris Johnson speaks
to the Iranian Foreign Minister
after commenting on the case
of a British Citizen who's
been detained in Iran.
Has his gaffe landed her another
five years in jail?
It's twelve months since
the American public did what most
pundits had thought impossible
in electing a billionaire reality TV
star, but has Donald Trump lived up
to their low expectations
of his Presidency?
And could chimps make better
politicians than human beings?
All that coming up in the next hour.
First today, let's look
at the trouble piling up
for Theresa May as threats
to her Government emerge
from all directions.
The Prime Minister had to remind
International Development Secretary
Priti Patel of the "ministerial
code" yesterday after it was
revealed that Patel held secret
meetings with Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
without the PM or the Foreign
Boris Johnson's latest verbal
blunder has been used by the Iranian
authorities to justify potentially
doubling a British
woman's prison sentence.
And Theresa May's de facto deputy,
Damian Green, has denied allegations
he had "extreme" pornography
on an office computer -
the Cabinet Office is investigating.
To, add to the PM's woes, things
aren't much better in the Commons.
The Speaker has set the Government
a deadline of tonight to publish
the Brexit impact assessments -
a series of 58 official reports
on the impact of Brexit
on Britain's economy,
which the Government had
sought to keep secret.
Amid mounting sexual harassment
claims, Commons Leader,
Andrea Leadsom is now under fire
after being accused
of failing to act on a rape
allegation by a Tory aide.
Last night the Prime Minister
announced an independent grievance
procedure for MPs' staff.
If all parties agree that should be
in place by next year.
We're joined now by the journalists
Isabel Oakeshott and Lucy
Fisher of the Times.
Welcome to both of you. Let's start
with the International Development
Secretary, Priti Patel. How much
trouble is she in 1234
in What she
has done is serious. She has been
carrying out a parallel foreign
diplomacy mission, but she has been
less than truthful with her account
of what happened. She finally
admitted that the Foreign Office
didn't know before she went off on
her holiday that she was going to
have multiple meetings with Israeli
officials. She was less than
truthful about how many of those
meetings took place and this had to
be Whittled out of her. I think her
position is tenuous at the moment.
The Foreign Secretary has obviously
been put in a difficult position by
this. She is at the moment being
saved by the fact that Theresa May
has so many other crisis going on.
Is it enough, having listened to
what Isabelle has said, is it enough
to remind the International
Development Secretary of the
ministerial code. You would have
thought that would have been
blindingly obvious in terms of this,
having 12 meetings that no one knew
about. Should she resign or be
There will be more pressure
on her today. It is a an enormous
humiliation for the Prime Minister.
Because she met the Israeli Prime
Minister last week and didn't know
her minister has been conducting
secret meetings with him. There are
questions about the ministerial
code, if it can't be shown, said to
be the case that Priti Patel broke
it by going abroad and having these
meetings, but an MP Mark Garnier has
been accused of breaking it over
asking his Secretary to buy sex toys
when he was a backbencher.
moment she is still in post. Now the
foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson and
his comments he made, because he
claims that humour is important in
diplomacy, but this is serious,
concerning a British citizen who is
at the moment in jail in Iran,
accused of spreading propaganda.
Have impact have his comments made.
It is a sense of humour failure on
the part of voters that he had such
a poor grasp of detail that he made
comments that meant this poor woman
who has been incarcerated in Iran on
a flimsy basis, he said she had been
training journalists. That is not
what he said or her employers argued
and now she could have her sentence
doubled. It is a travesty she is in
jail and I'm amazed there has not
been more fuss about it. When you
look at the details as I have, I
thought it was incredible that the
Government wasn't making more of a
song and dance of it and now the
Foreign Secretary has made her
He is going to be
standing up in Parliament in a few
hours, Boris Johnson, and he has
already said that he doesn't want
his comments to a Commons committee
to provide any basis for further
legal action against Nazanin
Zaghari-Ratcliffe. He accepts he
could have been clearer when he made
the comments about her teaching
journalism in the Foreign Affairs
Committee. Will that be enough?
don't think so. The woman's husband
has made clear he should retract the
comments. We know there are serve
MPs who have stayed back --
Conservative MPs who have stayed
back. So far people have been
concerned that the case could turn
into more of a political football
and they don't want to put this
woman on further risk. She is on
hunger strike and suicidal and
Boris's comments saying he could
have been clearer, that is not good
enough. What does it say about the
state of Theresa May's Government.
You asked if chimps could make
better politicians, what a shower! I
have never seen anything like what
we are witnessing at the moment. We
have multiple scandals going on,
some more serious than others. But
all in parallel at the same time as
this government ought to be
completely focussed on its main
task, which is delivering Brexit,
which is quite enough to be getting
on with without these cock ups.
it now impossible for Theresa May to
sack leading members of her cabinet,
because of the fragile situation
that the Government finds itself n
because it is a minority government
and Michael Fallon resigned and
stood down and one of her other
allies is being investigated, that
is the reason?
I think that probably
is the reason. If she can't sack
Priti Patel and Boris Johnson, it is
difficult to see in what other
position, whales it would take for
her to move. As one of her key
lieutenants, Michael Fallon,
quitting the cabinet, Damian Green
being investigated, I think next on
the sleaze allegations there will be
questions for Gavin Williamson about
what he knew when he was Chief Whip.
And finally on that, yesterday's
announcement of an independent
grievance procedure for staff, will
that be sufficient to deal with this
I think it is enough for
now. It is difficult to regular this
and many of the allegations we have
seen haven't concerned the
relationship between MPs and their
staff, they have been about MPs
interance with journalists and it is
a good start and we have to see how
Thank you both very
much. Not much for you chew over for
the next few days.
Now, the Government has
published its trade bill -
it's one of nine pieces
of new legislation in the pipeline
to prepare the ground for Brexit.
Ministers say it includes provisions
for the UK to implement existing EU
trade agreements and help ensure
firms can still access
£1.3 trillion worth
of foreign government contracts.
Let's speak to the International
Trade Minister, Greg Hands.
Welcome to the programme. The
legislation is to allow the
replication of EU trade deals into
UK law. Can you guarantee those
countries would agree to trade with
the UK on the same terms as the EU.
We are talking about two things.
First the existing EU free trade
agreements, that the UK is seeking
to transition to become UK free
trade agreements and a debate about
what future UK free trade agreements
may look like. With the first set,
what we have done is we have spoken
with all the leading counter parties
of those agreements, they're keep
for us to do this and make sure
there is continuity for businesses
in the UK and those key trading
partners. There is others there,
important trading partners. It is
about ensuring continuity for
I understand that. Which
is why we have set it out. But can
you guarantee it. When Liam Fox
appeared before the committee, the
select committee, he said he has
hadn't received any indication that
the country want to change the
agreement, but he said we haven't
got an agreement. So you can't
We have spoken with
all the counter parties. All of them
are keen to do this.
It is in our
interests and their interest to do
this process. I'm travelling and
meeting these different countries,
Liam Fox is, Mark Price did, meeting
the countries, making sure we have
You can't negotiate
these deals and sign up to them
until after the UK leaves the EU?
These are deals the UK are already
party to, it is about transitions
them from EU deals to UK deals and
the power that is in the trade bill.
The Commons Secretary said
continuing passporting of financial
services and GM standards and
chlorine-washed chicks could be
problems. Will the Government give
way on these?
He said the US and UK
trade deal is important. But nothing
in any free trade agreement
preventing any country from having
the right to regulate the right to
make provisions in its own domestic
market as would affect all of those
things, financial services,
agricultural goods and so on. The UK
has the best standards on financial
service and animal welfare and some
of the best standards on food
safety. The UK, those standards
won't be weakened by any agreements.
Now issues in the cabinet, Boris
Johnson, the Foreign Secretary,
accepts he could have been clearer
when he told the Foreign Affairs
Committee that the British woman,
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, had been
training journalists in Iran at the
time of her arrest. Those comments
may risk her sentence being doubled
from five to ten years. Does he need
to come to Parliament, stand up and
say he made a mistake and apologise?
The most important thing is to get
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe released.
This won't help.
Boris Johnson has been on the phone
to hissist Iranian counter part,
talk about that. That is...
of the comments that could risk her
staying in jail longer.
He is trying
to make sure that she is released.
That is the most important thing for
the UK Government do.
disputes that, should he apologise
and retract the comments.
appear at the House of Commons and
we will have to see what he will
Would you like him to say?
would like him to say things about
the progress in getting Nazanin
Zaghari-Ratcliffe released. That is
the most important thing is in this
The most helpful thing and I will
say it again is to engage with the
Arabian authorities, in this case
Boris Johnson with uranium Foreign
Minister am talking about how we're
going to get Mrs Ratcliffe released.
That's the most important thing.
We're joined now for the rest
of the programme by the former Work
and Pensions Secretary,
Iain Duncan Smith.
Welcome to the programme.
Welcome to the programme.
Also here is the Shadow
International Trade Secretary,
Welcome to you two. We are going to
talk about trade and then I will
talk to about some of the issues in
the let's talk about the trade deal
I talked about at the beginning.
Doesn't this bill do what you want?
You get to keep the trade deals
through EU membership whilst also
leaving the EU?
Obviously, if we are
going to be leaving the EU, which we
are, and taking back control of our
trade policy, we need to ensure that
Parliament has the capacity to
properly scrutinise any trade
agreements that we enter into. Now,
our concerns about this bill are
around that scrutiny. I have said
that we will judge the bill on the
basis of whether it insists upon a
full parliamentary debate and vote
on the terms of any trade agreement,
whether there is a mandate set by
Parliament for those negotiations,
whether there is full transparency
about the text of the negotiations
and of the agreement. This is a
Government which has a reputation,
not just a reputation but actually
has actively tried to ensure that
Parliament does not have access and
does not have full time is barren
sea to trade negotiations.
have a problem with any of that,
Iain Duncan Smith?
are very happy for Parliament to
have a vote but first of all that
love an arrangement with EU to bring
before Parliament to say this is
what we have agreed, them and us.
The EU also asked to go through a
process of Parliament and about 27
other parliaments, so we got to get
this done in time. What we can't
have, however, and I understand the
opposition want to be in the
negotiations as well, but...
your own side as well.
you can't have 600 MPs basically at
the negotiation table. The
Government has to get the best
arrangement possible, come back to
the House of Commons, and Parliament
can say whether they agree it's a
good deal or not. If they don't, you
know, the EU could turn around and
say that's all that's on the table,
He has misunderstood
what the trade bill is doing. The
trade bill is not simply about the
negotiations with the EU, about...
was only talking about that.
trade bill which is what Joel asked
about is about how Parliament should
be scrutinised going forward with
all its trade and investment
agreements. There we have some
really significant concerns about
the level of consultation, the level
of mandate and the scrutiny
available to Parliament. At the
moment, we have an EU scrutiny
committee which Ian, as someone who
has previously championed
Parliamentary democracy, will want
to see that scrutiny committee
powers transferred to a new
committee to oversee all
international trade agreements.
you happy for each and every trade
deal the UK does once it has left
the EU, that that should be
scrutinised by Parliament?
Absolutely right. That's what the
role of Parliament is and the
structures are there already for it
to be done. I don't think there has
to be a separate group. Is already a
select committee which looks at
trade and I think the key thing is
to make sure that what happens is
Parliament gets a chance to look in
detail what is happening... Each
trade deal? Yes Parliament to have a
I'm delighted he agrees. The
problem is in the trade policy White
Paper the Government has set out, if
you look at the bottom of page 28 on
that, it says we want to make
provision for a legislative
framework to enable future trade
agreements to move quickly from
signing to implementation and
ratification, which would appear to
want to bypass Parliament, as the
Government did with the agreement
where I had to assist for ten months
before we got a special secret room
set up for MPs to look at the text.
You are being a bit overly harsh on
this. I understand why.
have to go to court to get Article
This issue is about what
the Government wants. Jamaica trade
arrangement, you want to get that
ratified as speedily as possible but
the question is, how you get it done
is important that you make a trade
agreement. The former Parliament
should be, the certain assumption
they also need to go about it as
quickly as possible. Not
deliberately dragged their feet.
That's the point of the whole bill,
which makes provision for that and
you should not over read the idea
about speed. It's not a bad thing
Should those 58
assessments on the effects of Brexit
on British industry be released
I've never had a problem with
the details of this being released
at all because my general view is
almost everything in there is
already in the public domain.
can look forward to those later on?
They have to share with a select
Jo, that would be
wonderful but the Government has
refused to allow those impact
assessments on the different
sectors, how they will be affected
by Brexit, four months. We had to
introduce a motion to Parliament
last Wednesday which had an arcane
parliamentary procedure in it to
force the Government to reveal their
hand. David Davis should release
those today. He should have done it.
The way to do it is to
work out how the select committee
can share that information.
is to go to Hilary Benn for this.
Now let's move onto the other
story we've been talking
about this morning -
that's the rebuke for
International Development Secretary,
Priti Patel, over meetings
with the Israeli government,
including Prime Minister,
whilst on holiday in the summer.
Last night her department was forced
to issue a clarification
of comments she made last week.
On Friday 3rd November,
Priti Patel was quoted
in the Guardian newspaper
However, in yesterday's statement,
the department conceeded:
In the Guardian article,
Ms Patel went on to say:
But the statement from
the department said:
Should she still be a Secretary of
State and a member of the British
Government, Iain Duncan Smith?
but the lesson to learn here is that
if she has gone out and had these
other meetings, of course, the
Foreign Office should have known
about them. It would have been
useful for her to be accompanied on
them but the reality now is, instead
of dealing with one little bit of
it, a clearer statement should be
made at the time but I don't think,
let's get this in perspective, this
is a friendly nation. We are not
meeting in secret over something.
What is the point of the ministerial
What do you mean?
there should not be a conflict of
interest between business and
pleasure in this regard, that you
have to inform the relevant
authorities and any meetings with a
foreign power, Israel falling into
that category, and the Prime
Minister and the Foreign Secretary
didn't know that the International
Development Secretary was going to
meet the Prime Minister of Israel
and held a series of meetings to
which she has then had to clarify.
Did she lie when she put out her
No, she's had these
meetings, I assume not meetings
originally scheduled and, having had
these meetings, she is then
informing Boris Johnson what
Is that in breach of the
The code should be
interpreted as informing them in
advance but that's the whole point
of having yourself accompanied, but
they may not been planned as and
came later on. Most importantly,
though, the content of those
meetings is passed back to the
Foreign Office and the Government so
they are clear and aware of what was
But they were not, and
this is about breaching important
protocol. She said Boris knew about
the visit. The Foreign Office did
know about this, Boris knew about
the trip. Why has she had to clarify
Clearly he did not know in
But she said he did. Has
I don't know what was in
her mind when she said it. As I
understand it, he was made aware of
it and what actually took place in
those meetings but not in advance.
Are you satisfied with that?
Government has a problem with
transparency and clarity. It is
clear she should have inform the
Foreign Secretary before she went
but you did not. There would appear
to be a breach of the ministerial
code and she has now misled the
Prime Minister and the Foreign
Secretary and the public. Of course
this must now be investigated. Iain
Duncan Smith says maybe they were
arranged while she was out there,
these visits, but the idea the Prime
Minister of any country just here to
happen to be visiting on holiday on
some beach somewhere and says why
not pop along frock off the? You
really do need to take this
seriously -- why not pop in for a
copy? Don't pretend to the public
that this is anything other than a
Secretary will have looked at this
and decided as a result of the Prime
Minister's request as to whether or
not there has been a breach and
whether or not it create any
The Cabinet Secretary
needs to be asked to do that by the
Prime Minister. Excuse me. Let me
I did not interrupt you.
You are playing silly
games. What is ready important is
what was discussed at those meetings
and that information is passed to
the Government and the Government
therefore knows any obligations that
were made if they were official. The
answer is the Government knows about
this. It quite clear therefore, if
she had not informed them before,
that was incorrect. It's been
admitted and accepted and the Prime
Minister has reprimanded therefore
You feel that is enough?
because it's not a deliberate
attempt to subvert Government
Deliberately misusing the
code. We don't know yet, do we?
That's why we need an investigation.
You think Priti Patel is not done
enough to result in their
resignation or her sacking by the
Prime Minister although an
investigation will be taking place
into whether she has bridged the
ministerial code. Let's talk about
Boris Johnson. Do you think his
behaviour as Foreign Secretary is
acceptable when he makes mistakes
over the future of a British citizen
who was imprisoned in Iran by saying
she was out there doing something
she was not?
It's a complete error
as I understand it. I don't know why
he would've said that. I wasn't at
the meeting, and I've only read the
transcript of it. My genuine sense
is he recognises now that that was
an error of judgment.
He hasn't said
that. He said he would clarify his
comments and has not said it was a
He's been clear he did not
intend to say what he said. I don't
know why you said it. Sometimes
briefings you get, which are
confused etc, may be he got
Is he up to the job if he
can make that sort of error when it
comes to the future of a British
citizen? This is a woman in jail who
went to visit her family, has been
imprisoned by the rainy authorities,
the story has had north a lot of
coverage, it's not as if Boris
Johnson wouldn't have known about
the detail. Should he have been
across the detail, otherwise he may
made comments which could result in
her imprisonment being doubled to
ten years -- it rainier in?
never excuse not getting something
right. -- Iranians are.
His wife is being held and we want
are released fourth of the most
important feature of this is the
Government puts its resources behind
getting her released and not having
a sentence increased.
yourself, it's an error, these
things have not helped the situation
of this woman. Can he as Foreign
Yes, new speaking
directly to the Iranian
counterparts, and he wants to make
it clear to them that the UK
Government believes that she was out
of their not for any particular
purpose other than a holiday to see
family and that is why she should be
released right now. They have no
right to hold her.
colleagues in the Cabinet seem to be
struggling with their positions.
more than anybody else. I do think
Brexit is anything to do with it,
only the fact that when Boris
Johnson made a statement about this,
he is very clear that this was not a
correct statement and he has tried
to get the Iranian 's, which he has
done, to explain that is not what
the Government's position is and he
has explained we want her released.
The most important thing is to get
released at once.
Foreign Secretary should have the
confidence and competence and
capacity to way their remarks
carefully judiciously. Boris Johnson
clearly does not. He should publicly
retract the remarks. He should
apologise for them. And I know very
well, as does Ian, what Lord
Carrington would've done in such
circumstances. He should resign.
Should he resign?
he should resign. What do you say.
Labour call for even to resign. They
want to cause mayhem.
Do you accept
Boris Johnson has form for this. Is
this the man you want running our
There is a lot of
good things that Boris is doing and
a lot of good stuff about going
around the world getting a higher
profile for the UK and presenting
our case for leaving the EU. A lot
of Foreign Office officials say it
puts a new dimension into the job.
It is not as though in the last
Labour governments and Foreign
Secretaries and others haven't made
a mistake or said something they
They retract it at the
dispatch box. He should do the same.
You called for him to resign
regardless of what he does. You need
to get your act together. If you
constantly call for someone to
resign every time, its you who loses
credibility, because you play games
over this lady's life. Her life is
very important and getting her back
is really important. That is the
focus of the Foreign Office and of
the Foreign Secretary. But calling
for him to resign just compounds the
issue in the eyes of Iranians. That
is a big mistake.
The best way to
help Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is
for him to retract these remarks
publicly. A private telephone
conversation to an Iranian minister,
this is a judicial process. A
private telephone conversation
cannot overturn that. He must
correct the record...
stand... Hang on he will stand up in
Parliament in the next hour or so.
Now it's time for our daily quiz.
It turns out our guest of the day
has a rather unusual collection.
So our question for
today is, what is it?
At the end of the show Iain
will give us the correct answer.
Now, beyond Boris Johnson's current
woes, his leadership
of the Foreign Office has come under
fire, including from
many in his own party.
The flamboyant Foreign Secretary's
tenure comes as Britain's foreign
policy is under increased scrutiny
as Brexit approaches
and he and Prime Minister
try to define Britain's place
in the world outside
the European Union.
This film contains some flash
This is called
It is going well. It is
going well, John, thank you. I would
like to see demonstrations outside
the Russian Embassy against... Where
it the stop Stop the War coalition
at the moment? Where are they? The
relationship based on family,
kinship and common interests. In a
further sign of the importance of
that relationship I have been able
to convey the Queen's hope that
President Trump and the first lady
will visit the UK and the president
has accepted that invitation.
Good diplomacy involves talking to
all sorts of people...
Sounds like a
I'm not going to...
The defining purpose of the UN
charter is to maintain peace and
security and develop friendly
relationships among nations and
maintain co-operation in solving
And we're joined now by the man
who was the most senior civil
servant in the Foreign Office,
He's now with the business advisors,
Flint Global and he's making
a speech today about Britain's place
in the world after Brexit.
Welcome to the programme. Do you
think Britain's foreign influence is
already diminished due to Brexit?
Yes, I think Brexit in the
short-term has created uncertainty
and has weakened our voice and there
are a number of examples. But the
real issue is that in the long-term
Brexit will affect I think our
structural position in the world and
I don't think we are thinking
seriously enough about that, our
relationships with Europe, with the
United States, how we are going to
operate in international
How worried are you?
I'm worried in the sense that I
think the Government should focus on
it and it is important that we have
sort of well thought through,
realistic and not simplistic
Do you agree Britain's
position in the world has already
been diminished? ?
No, I'm more
optimistic about this. Some people
can be pessimistic. I think it opens
us up to be able to make
arrangements and hold much closer
ties with various other important
count rips around the world. We will
be able to hold closer ties with
Japan and some of our common wealth
nations who welt we had left them
behind. What I do agree is, it is
important to review carefully who we
believe are our allies and friends
around the world and make it very
clear that we will establish strong
links with those and with the
European Union too. It is not about
leaving Europe. It is just leaving
You say in your speech it is
of importance that we remain
committed to a co-operation of a
world. Why can't we do that outside
Of course we can. I'm not
pessimistic, I'm realistic and I am
worried that people are being
simplistic. The important
relationships are with our fellow
western democracies in Europe and
United States and Japan and it is
important we don't weaken those
ties. Particularly given everything
else gone on such as the power of
China. We need to understand where
our core relationships lie.
Britain has been poorly led and
those who argued for departure
offered naive visions of the future.
That will be you. Are you
No, I think the UK's
role has been diminished over the
years as a result of our membership
of the EU. I think that too often
much of the things we wanted to
We would have taken
a harder line on Russia and the EU
has wanted to do.
The question is
what would we have achieved.
debate that, but we didn't pursue
what was in our interest.
mobilised the whole of the EU.
result is Russia had a conversation
with Germany and France, because
they would be easier on him. My
sense of this is we take to take
this in a different view. We have
been too Euro-centric and not
interested in other emerging
markets. I think our interests now
lie in establishing very strong
links with the developing nations,
particularly in the far east and
among the common wealth where, the
real markets lie and our influence
But the markets, if I may,
the amount to 10% of our trade. The
EU and the country they have FTAs
are about 60% of our trade. We have
to keep the balance. And the other
point is about foreign policy. Those
are important relationships, but
they don't share our values and
approach to the world in the way the
countries I have mentioned do. I
don't know how keen you are on
socialism with Chinese
characteristics. My commitment to it
has its limits.
In terms of looking
ahead, do you think there is a case
of staying in the EU.
That has been
my view and I supported Remain. I
accepted the result of referendum,
we should pursue the best outcome F
the British people were to change
its mind, that is a matter for the
people. Now taking Russia and Syria,
what do you think we did being part
of EU that was better than if we had
been on our own? The point is and I
fully accept Iain Duncan Smith's
points that if you're free you can
say what you want and have a clear
position and have more freedom. But
the question is what effect can you
have in the world? When we adopt
sanctions on Syria or Russia, with
the EU, we are mobilising the
biggest market in the world. And
when we align that with the United
States we have a tremendous impact.
The UK alone would be less able to
leverage either of those powers.
you accept that?
No, because that
assumes that pause we are leaving
the EU all of a sudden our
relationships with them in terms of
But it is part of a
The answer is that we are part
of that process. But we are not
dictated to by it. I think the same
goes with the United States. I think
that our involve Westminster the
United States could have been
stronger, I think when we look at
the Russia situation, rush is Russia
is a threat and it is a growing
threat and then it is emboldened in
Syria and defying what was meant to
be a European and American policy,
we have been made to look foolish as
a collective group. I don't hold a
massive amount of strength of view
that somehow being part of the EU
made us stronger in foreign policy.
I think the key thing is for us to
get them in the right direction, but
I think we can do better.
We will be
less able to do that if we're not in
the meetings. The idea we should
have permanent observer status in
the meetings of EU, won't give us
the ability to influence. We be more
We will be in a
position to say no.
How do you feel
as head of for office, if you were
if the International Development
Secretary has free lanced in
Israeli, including a meeting with
Prime Minister without telling you.
I wouldn't be happy. I think it is
important there is coherence and a
joined up approach, particularly
with countries like Israel. I share
the view that this was not the
correct way toff going about it.
big a breach is it?
I'm not an
expert on the ministerial code. From
my perspective I think is not a good
way of conducting diplomacy.
with the case of Boris Johnson and
the case of Nazanin
Zaghari-Ratcliffe, do you think it
is enough for him to say he has
clarified his comments?
I think what
this incident shows is the
importance in diplomacy of prosigs
and attention -- precision and
attention to detail. That is true
with a country like Iran, where
every word is scrutiny ised and
individuals can be caught up. It is
a shame that this lapse happened. It
needs to be clarified and effort put
into rectifying any consequences.
Tomorrow is the first anniversary
of Donald Trump's election
as President of the United States
and it's been quite a year for both
America's friends and enemies alike.
Mr Trump is currently on a tour
of Asia and is in Seoul
in South Korea visiting his
counterpart Moon Jae-in.
North Korea's nuclear programme
is understandably top of the list
of their discussions,
and this is what the President had
to say a few hours ago.
I believe it makes sense
for North Korea to do the right
thing, not only for North Korea
but for humanity all over the world,
so there is lots of reason,
a lot of good reason behind it.
With that, yes, I think we're
making a lot of progress.
I think we're showing
I think they understand we have
There has never been
strength like it.
You know, we sent three
of the largest aircraft
carriers in the world
and they are right now positioned.
We have a nuclear
submarine also positioned.
We have many things happening
that we hope, we hope,
in fact I go a step further,
we hope to God,
we never have to use.
With that being said,
I really believe that it makes sense
for North Korea to come to the table
and to make a deal that's good
for the people of North Korea
and the people of the world.
We're joined now by James Fallows,
the London Bureau Chief
of the Atlantic magazine.
How has Donald Trump done in his
first year? He's done pretty much
what you'd expect from this campaign
which is he's been out of scale of
any previous office. He's invented
new things. The people who like him
still like him, but in terms of
support he is off the scale, lower
approval ratings than anybody else.
We always held politicians account
what they stated in their
manifestos. In that sense, you
broadly think he has succeeded?
think he has been a logical
extrapolation of the personality he
was on the campaign platform. I
distinguish that the programmes
where every day there's a new policy
position but the person he was at
those big rallies is the person he
is throughout the world.
achievements would you pick out?
That is a tough question.
Republicans refused to confirm
Barack Obama's nomination. That's
the biggest thing.
I don't think I
can never remember such a big clear
out of staff from the administration
as we have seen under Donald Trump.
I think most of the ambassadorships
around the world are vacant. The
assistant secretaries of State, the
real action people to get things
done, there's not even a nominee for
them. It's not that Trump has had
fewer people confirmed, he has
nominated fewer people, so there has
been a clearing out as they normally
is but no refreshing with new Apple
In terms of the staff lost,
the scandals, that has been quite a
turnover. -- new applicants. How is
the Republican party dealing with
Donald Trump because that was so
much talk at the beginning that they
were going to go along with this and
didn't have any choice, but as time
had gone on, there was more shock
from their site about some of the
things he was doing. Is that really
Yes it's hard to appreciate. I
once worked for Jimmy Carter as his
speech writer for two years ago.
There's never been an experience
when members of his own party will
speak about him in such contemptuous
and dismissive ways as long as you
don't quote me, and as long as they
still plan to run for office, so
they are torn between the
recognition they have the kind of
person he is, but there is awareness
of how we can mobilise against them.
You won't be quoting them in future?
No, when they decide not to run,
suddenly they say this is a big
problem but until then, not.
Something close to your heart is
Brexit. Of course, there's great
hope there will be a trade deal and
a trade deal done quickly, certainly
on the Government's side. What is
your view on that?
I think it is
remarkable how much difficulty
Donald Trump has had getting any of
his agenda done. The health care
repeal for example, you didn't get
through. The tax cuts probably won't
go through. He requires positive
action rather than blocking
something Barack Obama did, the odds
would be against him.
It does not
bode well, does it?
I was over in
Washington about April May, and I
had meetings with a very large
number of senators, including the
Speaker of the House, and what I
found from all of them was every one
of them wanted to ensure that we
moved swiftly to a trade arrangement
and more than that there's been
three or four pieces of legislation
already gone through both houses
paving the way for that, so it isn't
actually down to him alone. The
truth is, the mood is to do this and
from Democrats as well, so the
reality is, whether or not Mr Trump
is for or against it,... Some of the
things you try to do have been his
own pet project and he's not have
the support around him.
People want to
get this through. The problem is
there's a hundred things Congress
should do and their minds are
concentrated now on the tax bill and
if they can have vote on this, can
it ever come up for consideration?
What about that trip by Donald Trump
to the UK?
Well, good luck to us
And on that note, do come on a game.
Thank you very much.
Just an update on those
Brexit Impact statements
we were talking about.
While we have been on air Brexit
minister Steve Baker has told
the Commons that it will take
government some time to collate
and bring together this information
in a way that is accessible
and informative to the committee.
We will provide this information
to the committee as soon
as it is possible.
We currently expect this to be no
more than three weeks.
So briefly, a delay.
acceptance they will do it and I was
one of those that said just get on
and do it and I think this is what
is happening so it's the right thing
to do. I think we are in the best
Now, it's not been a great few
weeks for politicians,
of the human species at least.
So could chimpanzees and other
primates do a better job?
We ask all the big questions on this
We ask all the big questions
on this programme.
In a moment I'll be talking
to a professor of politics
who reckons chimps demonstrate
many of the same political
instincts as we do.
First here's primatologist,
Frans de Waal, on the chimp
equivalent of kissing babies.
They are literally kissing babies,
a bit like the human politicians
who hold up babies high in the air
and the male chimpanzees,
they go around tickling babies
and making clear to the females
that they are good with
babies and they can be
trusted in that regard.
Another thing that they do
is they try to collect food
and share it with everyone.
For example, Arnhem Zoo
where I used to work,
the males would try to get
into the live oak trees,
which is very difficult
because they are surrounded
by electric wire, and if they would
get in there they would break off
a lot of branches and spread them
around and everyone
would have food to eat.
In the wild, they may
try to appropriate meat that has
been hunted by other males and then
divide it and give it
to their supporters.
We're joined now by the Political
scientist, James Tilley,
who presented that programme,
on Radio 4 last night.
Welcome to the Daily Politics. The
conclusion of your rather
fascinating programme is our
political systems are similar to
that of our ape cousins?
extent, yes. Chimpanzees live in
these big social groups, 50-100
individuals. There is a hierarchy,
leaders, drawn from a small pool of
chimpanzees and they change every
few years, so in the basic sense
there's politics happening there.
What's interesting is how we see it
in human society to an extent so the
politics of chimpanzee groups is
about manoeuvrings and a few
chimpanzees within these groups, in
order to become leader, there's two
ways to do that, they form
coalitions with one another, to try
to get the top job, and of course
that's very much like politicians
within parties getting together to
assume power. They also tried to
appeal to other chimpanzees within
the group which is very similar to
getting support from voters for your
So can you see
the similarity, Iain Duncan Smith,?
We are social animals. If you looked
at gorillas, it would be the same
thing for form social groups, have
leaders, and I think we are social
animals and I thought some of the
pictures thrashing around with a
stick, looked a bit like my
colleagues. Anyone in particular?
Do they do it better than our
The social intelligence
of chimpanzees are better than
humans, some would argue, and they
spend more time putting together
coalitions and perceiving one
another, so in some senses, as
politicians within groups, they are
better at it than humans.
of redistribution as part of human
and eight political organisations,
It is the standard, how do you
get support? You can be liked or you
can buy it and chimpanzees tried to
do both, so being liked, they go
around kissing babies, and proving
that they are likeable characters,
just like human politicians do, but
they are also very keen on buying
support. The way you do that is
essentially you tax everybody and
redistribute those resources to the
people you want support from.
Chimpanzees do the same thing. This
chimpanzee leader in the clip
managed to sustain his leadership
for an enormous amounts of time and
what he did was they would go out
and hunt, he would steal all the
meat from the other hunters and give
it out only to his supporters which
is essentially what politicians do.
They give them back their own money.
That is what you do, Iain Duncan
The kissing babies thing has
stop because of health and safety.
They don't have health and safety in
the chimpanzee world.
Not yet. I
wonder who was imitating whom?
hope they don't go down that road.
There is a system of patronage and
Yes, you also see other
Machiavellian strategies, divide and
rule, a common strategy, powers
behind the throne are very common,
so you often see a kind of older
male chimpanzee pushing forward a
younger leader, but really he's
pulling the strings on what actually
going on which is also what you
often see in Parliamentary
democracies with leaders who are
sometimes not actually powerful
themselves, but there are big
characters behind them.
should spend time with chimpanzees
in the wild and see what could be
Listen, my colleagues spend
enough time with each other. The
editing which frightens me now is
the Planet Of The Apes story, coming
Now we are moving into fiction,
political ambition in male apes?
same kind of drive for dominance you
see in humans. It's not a
realisation you are going to get
success and more food, it's just you
want to be in charge just like some
humans want to be in charge and they
pretend to be the kind of people to
Thank you so much for
coming in. Fascinating.
And if want to hear the whole
of James's programme,
Primate Politics, it's available
on the BBC iPlayer and is repeated
on Radio 4 on Sunday at 9.30pm.
I know Iain Duncan Smith will put
this in his diary.
There's just time before we go
to find out the answer to our quiz.
The question was, what does our
guest of the day collect?
Was it: Stamps?
The correct answer is? The wallpaper
samples in my office.
Here's Ellie to explain.
Now we all know that things
in the House of Commons are not
always what they seem.
Hello, Iain Duncan Smith.
Now these aren't
cupboards, are they?
Well, they're cupboards,
but they're not what they seem,
exactly, so why don't I show you?
They are really false cupboards
but false cupboards for a reason.
For example, here we have
inside here what I suppose
are the swatches I think you might
call them for the wallpaper
around various parts
of the Lords and of the Commons.
And that all rather
begs the question why?
This office used to be a thing
called the clerk of Works Office
and these walls were obviously
slightly fuller and they have
all these wallpaper patterns
with numbers and the numbers
were the reference numbers so that
if they needed more wallpaper
they could go and get it done.
And all of these wallpapers,
I'm told, I'm no expert on this,
have to be hand blocked.
These aren't rolls of wallpaper
you can go and buy at Homebase then?
You know what, you can search
but I don't think you'll ever find
this in Homebase at all.
The reality is it's very,
very expensive wallpaper
because it's all one-off,
so this would be one room.
And do you show off to people
when they come into your offices?
It depends who they are.
If I think it's necessary for me
to smooth them over a wee bit,
and they are looking a little bit
uneasy, I say.
"Would you like to see
something really unusual?"
There's often a hesitation
at that point as I reveal,
but the reveal is the cupboards
and that's exactly what happens.
It always tends to work actually
because it immediately brings, "Oh,
my God, what's that all about?"
Iain Duncan Smith, are you really an
expert on wallpaper?
No. The office
I occupied was many years ago a
thing called the clerk of works, one
of these titles which have
disappeared in the mists of times
and they kept their wallpaper
samples there and they would check
the number on it and then shut it
down for that I think it is all now
on computer. I don't think they are
ever really used. They are a talking
So it's not your personal
I know nothing
about wallpaper at all but I just
happen to know these are in my room.
Thank you for clarifying that.
The One O'Clock Mews is starting
over on BBC One now.
Thanks to our guests.
That's all for today.
For these children,
life can be challenging.
Jo Coburn with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Former welfare secretary Iain Duncan Smith is with Jo throughout the programme.
Journalists Lucy Fisher and Isabel Oakeshott give their thoughts on the morning's headlines and look at the government's newly published Brexit Trade Bill with trade minister Greg Hands.