05/12/2017 Daily Politics

Hello, and welcome

to the Daily Politics.

The Government says it's confident

a deal on Brexit can be reached,

despite hopes of a breakthrough

on the question of the Irish border

being dashed yesterday.

But can the Prime Minister

find a solution that's

acceptable to her supporters

in the Democratic Unionist Party?

Under Vince Cable,

the Liberal Democrats

are still firmly opposed to Brexit,

but with little support

to show for it so far,

is it time for the party

to change tack?

We'll be taking a look

at one of the most famous

views of Parliament,

after six paintings of Westminster

by the French impessionist

Claude Monet have gone on show

in London for the first time.

And it's been an exciting morning

for England in the Ashes -

we'll be talking to cricketing

legend Henry Blofeld

about a campaign to get sports

like this shown on TV for free.

All that in the next hour

and with us for the whole

of the programme today,

the leader of the Liberal Democrats,

economist and author of a book that

apparently only narrowly missed out

on recognition at this year's

Bad Sex in Fiction Awards -

it's Vince Cable.

Welcome to the show.

It was considered to be too good!

It was considered to be too good!

First today, let's talk about Brexit

and the latest on those attempts

to reach a deal ahead of next week's

summit of EU leaders in Brussels.

The post-mortem for just

what went wrong yesterday,

when many had predicted

a breakthrough on the first part

of the negotiations including

the tricky question of what to do

about the Irish border,

is in full swing.

Blame has been spread widely

to include the British Government,

the DUP, the Irish Government

and the EU for leaking the whole

thing and talking up the chances

of a deal in the first place.

Earlier this morning,

the Chancellor Philip Hammond

was asked what exactly had happened.

We've been involved in a very

complex negotiation that's been

going on for some time.

We have made a lot of progress

over the last weeks,

we've made tremendous steps forward.

We are very close but

we're not there yet.

As the Prime Minister

said yesterday,

we will have to go

for some further consultations,

some further discussion today

and she expects to come back

to Brussels later in the week.

But in the meantime,

we've got work to do.

Well, we're joined now by someone

who's been watching all of this

in more detail than is probably

healthy - it's the BBC's

Laura Kuenssberg.

Welcome back from Brussels. What

went wrong?

Well, there is a wide

variety of interpretations in terms

of what went wrong, in terms of the

choreography, what went wrong is

clearly the DUP, who Theresa May

needs to get her Brexit legislation

through the common, she relies on

them, had not been consulted enough

in order to be completely happy with

the draft agreement that was

changed, tweaked, worked on over the

weekend, so when Theresa May was

sitting in her meeting with

Jean-Claude Juncker, pictured

happily there behind you, at that

point, over in Belfast Arlene foster

and her colleagues came down the

stairs and said they weren't happy

with it. At which point Theresa May

had to leave her meeting with

Jean-Claude Juncker, to have a

private one or one phone call with

Arlene Foster during the course of

which Miss Foster said we can't put

up with this. Theresa May had to say

to Jean-Claude Juncker, it was off.

Off. How we got to that point there

are lots of different versions of

events and we can talk about those

in a moment.

We will talk about why

they are not happy. It is

extraordinary that Theresa May had

to come out of that meeting to talk

to the DUP, as you say, who prop up

Theresa May in this instance, whose

fault was that that the DUP had not

been properly consultanted.

Fingers

have been pointed. It has been

suggested the newish Chief Whip

assured the Prime Minister the DUP

had been squared off. It has been

put to me it is the fault officials

in Number Ten Olly robins, one does

wonder what the Prime Minister

herself was making of it and why she

thought it might be politically

acceptable and her critics suggested

she is too much of a manager not in

fact somebody with real political

nous. Of course there are fingers

being pointed at the European Union

for pushing Ireland too hard and

Ireland pushing the UK too hard to a

solution where they were making

demands on these assurances, that

were never going to be acceptable to

their cousins ace co-the the Irish

border in the north. In terms of who

is officially to blame, Moeen, the

talks go on. -- no-one. It will be

fine by Friday.

Let us talk about

why the DUP ended up so unhappy.

This is about regulatory alignment.

It means probably very little to a

lot of us, but it means Northern

Ireland being treated the same as

the Regs of the UK, they don't want

to be treated any differently,

except there are things they do in

common with Ireland, issues that

have been agreed in the Good Friday

Agreement. What is it they were so

unhappy about.

It is a principle for

the DUP. They do not want Brexit to

mean that Northern Ireland looks

less British than the rest of the

United Kingdom, that is their reason

for being. It they are a unionist

party. There are issues on which

they have cooperation, there is a

lot of cooperation there. When they

were unhappy about was the extend to

which this proposed deal implied

really that in future, Northern

Ireland would be more closely tied

to temperature EU in some areas than

it would to the UK. As the UK

strikes out on its own, Northern

Ireland wouldn't be able to do that

and therefore the paths of the two

parts of the United Kingdom would be

splitting. But why this is so neural

jibbing, so toxic is because this is

in some ways a proxy for the debate

happening inside the Tory party.

What kind of Brexit are we going to

end up with, the vision that Philip

Hammond would like to see, to make

things easy, we stick closely to the

European Union, we mirror what is

happening or will we end up with the

kind of Brexit where we strike out

on our own, we are much more able to

make changes as we see fit. It It's

a principle for the Unionistings but

difficult here because it pressed on

bruise of the fight that has been

going on for months now. It has been

suggested to me it may get to the

point there the pressure on her to

walk. If the EU is not prepared to

bury this for now, to postpone the

Irish issue, Theresa May ought to

walk out. Is

Vince Cable,

negotiations like these, despite

what some people said were going to

be complicated. You have to get sow

many people on side. Isn't this part

and parcel of what happen and a deal

is still possible.

We are not

talking about a final deal. From the

foothills to the real mountains, you

have a party that accounts for 1% of

the British public which doesn't

represent the majority in Northern

Ireland,

there is a lot of sheer

incompetence, the one way the

British public mood is change, their

overall assessment of Brexit hadn't

changed, but the one way is to feel

the Government is handling this

badly.

They not changing their mind

on Brexit are they?

Not yet but we

haven't seen what the outcome is,

the one thing that is very striking,

and the poll in the Mail on Sunday

made it clear, is we have a

significant margin, about 16% of

those people who think there ought

to be a referendum on the final

deal. That was not the case before.

We put that case in June in the

election and didn't win the

argument.

You have improved your

position in the polls as a result.

Can I come back to this issue about

parts of the Tory party that have

jumped to some extent on the band

wagon. You have Ruth Davidson saying

why don't we do the same for the

whole of the UK? Terms or aliving

ourselves more closely to the EU.

You can see, there could be more

pressure and an attempt to have what

we used to call, a soft Brexit.

That

is right. The one solution, one

former minister said to me in

Europe, technically it would be easy

to fix all of this. Your say fine,

we stay in the customs union,

Theresa May has ruled that out and

maybe half, two thirds of the 1922

of the Tory backbenchers wouldn't

accept that, so there is a solution

but that would have consequences

about how we could strike free trade

agreements and undermine

opportunities that come after we

leave the European Union. So it is

difficult but in a sense we are

seeing the red line, so many have

faded to pink but her political box

means that rather being able to make

bold offers she is very much hemmed

in. But I think someone was pulling

the their hair out saying she won't

be able to please everybody.

Will

there a deal?

It is still possible.

This is what I was going to say it

it is all sides want there to be a

deal. It is also the case while it

would be politically inconvenient

and not what Number Ten want,

December isn't the last chance. It

is feasible it could go on till

match. Some people think why not?

What is the rush because part of the

problem is the time pressure.

Business groups ofs are worried

ain't vestment decisions being

delayed. It is possible and if the

DUP come back onboard by the end of

the week, the policies would have a

completely different complexion

again.

We look forward to that. Let

us pause fourth for our daily quiz.

The question for today

is which party leader has taken part

in a charity Christmas song,

singing the Mariah Carey classic

All I want for Christmas?

At the end of the show,

Vince will hopefully give us

the correct answer.

Can I tell you?

No, you can wait to

the end of the show!

No, you can wait to

the end of the show!

We knew there would be plenty

of shuttle diplomacy needed

during the Brexit negotiations,

and Theresa May has plenty more

people to try and get onside

in the coming weeks.

This morning, she held a meeting

of the Cabinet, where she will have

had to explain why a deal hasn't

yet been agreed.

Convention is that the Prime

Minister addresses Parliament

after any significant EU meeting,

but she won't be

speaking to MPs today.

The Prime Minister will instead hold

talks with DUP leader Arlene Foster

as she attempts to ease

Unionist concerns

that Northern Ireland

could have a separate status

within Britain under a future deal.

She could then skip

Prime Minister's Questions

to head back to Brussels

as early as tomorrow,

to resume talks with

European Commission President

Jean Claude Juncker.

The PM is under pressure to get

an agreement on EU divorce issues

before European leaders meet next

Thursday to decide if enough

progress has been made to start

talks on post-Brexit trade.

And, of course, that doesn't just

include the tricky question

of the Irish border,

but also whether the European Court

of Justice will have jurisdiction

over EU citizens in the UK

after Brexit, and for how long.

Both sides say they're optimistic

a deal can still be reached,

but it has to be agreed

by the EU, including Ireland,

the Democratic Unionist Party's ten

MPs who Theresa May relies on

for her majority

and the rest of

the Conservative Party.

And to help us make sense of why

yesterday's talks failed to break

the impasse on the status

of the Irish border,

I'm joined now by Allie Renison,

head of Trade and Brexit Policy

at the Institute of Directors.

Delayed. It is possible and if the

DUP come back onboard by the end of

the week, the policies would have a

completely different complexion

again. We look forward to that. Let

us pause fourth for our daily quiz.

Can I tell you?

No, you can wait to

the end of the show!

Thank you for joining us here. We

talked briefly a moment ago about

regulatory divergence and continued

regulatory alignment, what is the

difference?

The tendency is to look

at this, this is a discussion about

is man Tibbs although if you were to

peel back some of the layers, I

think that allows, lead you down the

path of ensuring this was the UK is

more in step with EU rules governing

stingle market. Along the lines of

Norway and regulatory alignment

althoughs you more.

-- allows you more. More. Do you

think this is an attempt to fudge it

by changing the language and

semantics of the text?

It was'

request how much you would would get

to are lating to the Irish border in

phase one, you know, the concern

from businesses now and while those

who deal in policy are following

day-by-day what is going on, most

businesses are saying as long as we

get over the line next week that is

all that matter, it is important for

all parties to remember if we don't

get sufficient progress next week,

the noise for walking off without a

deal becomes very loud. So that is

the most important thing people are

looking at. I am optimistic when

ehear people like Jean-Claude

Juncker and Donald Tusk saying they

feel confident about getting a deal.

In the past they have said that.

Was

it too optimistic to expect an

agreement yesterday.

We are not

privvy to the different ins and

outs. It is not clear to what extent

all parties involved were being

consulteded in advance so that is a

question we saw people on the

Commission saying today the show is

in London, so that is obviousibly

reflected, where is it the UK wants

to head sequencely, what the last

24, 48-hours shown that discussion

about what the UK wants as a whole

is suddenly being brought forward.

How much detail, as you said, can be

done at this stage? Or are we

expecting the individual parties,

whether it is the Irish Government

or the DUP or the Conservative

Party, to take on trust the broad

outline at this stage before you can

move on?

You often hear when you are

in Brussels discussion about the

importance of the UK Government

conveying that trust and goodwill

that has happened in the past

through the speeches that Theresa

May has made, in Florence, you saw

the money issue move after that and

so I think what the Irish Government

is probably looking for is a road

map showing that no matter what

happens, the Good Friday Agreement,

the Belfast agreement, the North -

South cooperation that exists will

be protected and as long as there is

another trust to show that that is

what the UK intends to do, perhaps

we can leave a lot of the practical

discussions for phase two, because

it feels like we are dancing around

issues that cannot be separated from

future arrangements overall.

Thank

you very much.

We're joined now by the Conservative

MP Kwazi Kwarteng, he's also an aide

to Chancellor Philip Hammond,

for Labour, the Shadow Brexit

spokesperson, Jenny Chapman,

and of course Vince Cable

is our guest of the day.

Should the DUP have been properly

consulted and informed about the

deal the Prime Minister was about to

sign up to yesterday?

I think the

whole point of negotiation and the

Prime Minister's conversation was it

was only at the end of that process

that they came up a formula of words

and you can't inform people of the

formula of word your going to come

up with before you start the

negotiation. I think there was a

misunderstanding and I understand

that from various blogs, one

journalist from Ireland made a tweet

about what the nature of the deal

was the DUP essentially reacted to

that. But it is clear to me that we

can definitely get a deal. The

Chancellor said this morning he is

very confident of the deal and as

you're into the Kuta said just now,

both Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker

are very optimistic about getting a

deal -- as your intolerant Kuta

said.

But Kwasi Kwarteng, Theresa

May was having lunch with Donald

Jean-Claude Juncker and the DUP has

said there could be a withdrawal of

support for the Government, why

didn't I know what was being agreed?

As I understand, there was a leak

from the lunch, from the statement

they were going to make, which had

come out and they reacted in the way

they did.

Should there have been an

exchange papers? Your colleague Owen

Paterson has said it was

extraordinary that there wasn't an

exchange of official papers between

the DUP the Government.

I don't see

it in the way he does at all.

But

that is why they are not supporting

it and have scuppered this

agreement.

Before we get very

excited about this, I'm very

confident that a deal will be made

and I'm also very confident that the

DUP will be able to agree to the

terms of any future deal that we

have.

What gives you that

confidence? What is the Government

going to do to get the DUP on board?

I think the DUP have said and the

Government have said that they want

to treat Northern Ireland as a whole

with the rest of the UK, and that is

something the DUP and the

Conservative Party is committed to,

it is a Conservative and Unionist

Party, for point and information.

Was it a mistake to talk about

regulatory alignment between Ireland

and Northern Ireland?

I think the

regulatory alignment wouldn't be a

deal-breaker for me. The DUP clearly

had an issue with that and we are

going to have to come up with a more

specific formula of words to please

them. I completely understand that,

that is how negotiation and

diplomacy is conducted.

But it is

not just a form of words, there is

going to have to be a decision by

the Government as to whether they

are going to align Northern Ireland

with the EU more closely, which the

DUP has said no to, but if they

don't do that, then the Irish

Government isn't going to agree

because they thought yesterday we

can to have regulatory equivalence

between Northern Ireland and

Ireland.

But equivalence is in the

same as alignment. I don't want to

get into a semantic debate. Clearly

regulatory alignment is different to

regulatory equivalence so we can do

a deal based on Northern Ireland and

Ireland and the rest of the EU.

Do

you think a deal is possible? It

seems that actually this can be

squared and it was about people

leaking details too soon yesterday.

I think it is shocking what happened

yesterday. What happened was

embarrassing for the country. It is

extraordinary that the Prime

Minister didn't keep the DUP

informed, didn't... I spoke to the

DUP last night and again this

morning, informally, and they are

very cross that they felt that they

weren't respected and included and

kept informed and they felt that the

Conservative Party hadn't really got

to know them, but I think they feel

they do now, and the Prime Minister

needs to take a very, very different

approach. She seems to have this

attitude, on many occasions,

actually, where she wants to do

deals privately but she falls short

on the aspects of it which are

around communication and bringing

people with her and it's a very

important quality when you are

talking about this kind of

negotiation.

We will come onto

substance, but it was mishandled and

the DUP are very cross?

I think what

you said in the question to the

Labour representative was right, I

think it was a question of a tweet,

it was a question of leaked

statements which were slightly

misinterpreted.

So we lose a deal on

the back of a tweet, is that what

you are saying?

I am not saying

that.

Well, the practical result is

a deal hasn't been done.

Jenny will

understand that we live in a social

media age and people react to all of

that.

Did the Number Ten operation

failed to come up to standards?

We

are very close to a deal and I think

a deal is eminently achievable and

far more likely than not and we will

have made significant progress. All

of these people, Vince and Jenny,

were saying it is never going to

happen, doomsayers right from the

start and they never thought we

would get a deal and it is a real

credit to the Government that we are

going to achieve a deal in the time

we have.

Isn't that what you did

say, that this is a mess?

We haven't

got a deal yet. On the two big areas

where the Government claims it has

got an agreement, which is on the

rights of citizens and on the money,

basically it has happened because

the British Government has signed up

to what the European Union asked for

a year ago. They knew exactly what

was coming down the track. And on

the Irish question, Jenny is right,

it was terribly incompetent but

underneath the incompetence, there

is a fundamental problem of

difference. This isn't the question

of no in sign language. You may well

get some agreement on regulatory

convergence or divergence, which is

about the single market but the

basic issue of freedom of movement

across the frontier through trade,

which is a customs union issue, has

not been resolved and hasn't even

been confronted.

You will know it

wasn't part of the first phase of

discussion, you have said that

yourself earlier.

Well, let's clear

up labours position, because do you

agree, Jenny Chapman, with Ruth

Davison, who says it regulatory

alignment in a number of specific

areas is the requirement for a

frictionless border, the Prime

Minister must conclude this should

be on a UK wide basis. Should we

stay in a customs union?

I

completely agree with Ruth on saying

it is a UK wide basis. We cannot

have separate deals for bits of the

United Kingdom, so yes on that.

Should we stay in a customs union?

We would not have ruled out

membership of the customs union in

the way the Prime Minister has and I

am sure she regrets that because she

has boxed herself in, and by taking

that of the table, something the

Labour Party would not have done and

we would have kept the customs union

not just on the table but we would

have wanted it for the transition

period as well...

So what would your

deal look like at this stage, if you

don't even know with few would have

been in or out of the customs union?

We would keep it on the table.

So

how could you do actively to do an

agreement?

You don't need the full

details.

you need to know if you

want to be in or out of the customs

union.

What we would say is we are

not ruling out membership.

Vince

Cable is clear, once to stay in a

customs union and the single market.

That is a clear position, you may

like it or not. The Conservatives

are saying we must be outside the

customs union and outside the single

market. Again, you may not agree

with it. And the Labour position is

we are not sure.

The Labour position

is we would keep it on the table and

negotiate from that position. This

is a negotiation, this is not a

situation where Theresa May can turn

up in Brussels and say this is what

I want, this is what I must have.

You have criticised the Government

because you say we need to know what

the Government actually once and

they said what they want.

Watching

is to do is go to Brussels and say

we are not ruling out the customs

union, which could be the solution

to not just future jobs and trade

for the whole of the UK, but solves

this absolutely critical issue of

the Irish border and people who are

saying, like Kwasi Kwarteng, that we

want to be out of the customs union,

cannot answer how you solve the

Irish border. They are prepared to

sacrifice that.

That is the solution

and what would you say if Theresa

May, in the end, agrees that that is

the only way to solve this problem,

is to say we are going to stay in

some sort of customs union in order

to have that frictionless border?

I

think you put it very well...

And

some I question.

My position is

clear, we have got to come out of

the customs union and out of the

single market. The issue about the

customs union is if we stay in a

customs union, we will not be able

to strike bilateral deals with any

other country and that is very, very

important. A very important part of

Britain's sovereignty and

opportunities. The Labour position

is as clear as mud, frankly, on all

these issues. I respect Vince's

position, he has a clarity and

thinks we should never have left and

we should stay in the EU forever and

a day, but what I am saying is we

are going to leave.

What is your

view of Labour's position, is it a

more nuanced position and would it

have worked in these negotiations,

saying we won't rule out staying in

the customs union?

I was

disappointed with the lack of

clarity, as you obviously were but

the point is we need to know what

the end point is. Is the objective

to stay in or go out? I think we are

reasonably clear where we need to

be, and unless it is absolutely

clear, at the end of the transition,

are you going to be in the single

market and customs union or not?

That question has to be answered.

That is what we would be

negotiating. We want a solution that

solves the Irish border and protects

jobs and the economy and a whole of

the UK.

But doesn't actually

amounted to Brexit.

We don't want a

solution that treat different parts

of the UK differently. With the best

will in the world, it is not the

Labour Party negotiating in

Brussels.

Does that mean you

shouldn't have a clear position?

We

do have a clear position that takes

us through the negotiation phase and

transition, which is estimated that

two years. That is not bad in terms

of clarity from a party that isn't

actually in the negotiations and we

would have handled yesterday a hell

of a lot better than we saw from the

Tory party.

Let me just ask, Kwasi

Kwarteng, on the European Court of

Justice, do you want to see an end

to the jurisdiction of the European

Court of Justice on EU citizens'

rides in the UK after Brexit?

I

would like to see an end to the

overall jurisdiction of the ECJ.

went?

I suspect that the end of

transition period in 2021. I don't

see it in 2019 because I think we

are going to have a transition but

certainly by the end of this

Parliament, we should be out of

their jurisdiction and that is a

clear part of the whole debate about

Brexit.

I think we have heard that Theresa

May is going to be speaking to both

Arlene Foster, head of the DUP, and

Michelle O'Neill for Sinn Fein later

on today, obviously to try to get

further agreement. Beyond

transition, would you accept any

jurisdiction of the European Court

of Justice on citizens' rides.

No, I

want full sovereignty of the United

Kingdom. I think we have got

perfectly good human rights records,

a perfectly good judicial system

respected around the world and I

think the rights of the EU citizen

here will be confirmed by our own

courts.

Is that possible?

It is fine

as far as it goes but we are not

just talking about EU citizens, we

are talking about British citizens

on the continent and where did they

go? Where do they get redress should

they have an issue? We are saying,

if you take Kwasi Kwarteng's

position, they would not have access

to the ECJ to solve anything and it

seems to be a red line put there for

ideological reasons by the Prime

Minister to keep people like Kwasi

onside.

She wouldn't need to do that

to keep the onside.

She probably

wishes she hadn't been quite so

emphatic about that.

If there is no

agreement at this stage before

moving on to phase two by December,

should the Prime Minister walk away?

I think in any negotiation, you

should be prepared to walk away,

that is the whole point. That is one

of the reasons David Cameron got

into the model that he did because

it was clear that he wasn't prepared

to walk away. I think the chances of

a deal of very high and if it

doesn't come to fruition this month,

we have until March.

So you are

saying you should wait until March,

you wouldn't walk away.

Ultimately,

you should have the ability to walk

away from any negotiation, that is

the whole point. I do think we are

so close that we should give it a

little more time in order to get the

deal.

Just before I let you go,

should the DUP be calling the shots?

I don't think they are particularly

calling the shots. They have ten MPs

and they know we rely on them from

Parliamentary majority but it is

very much the Prime Minister and

Conservative Government. There are

no Government ministers in the DUP

driving this.

But they don't

represent the majority in Northern

Ireland.

They don't, and we will

talk more about your position and we

can bring that up then. Thank you to

both of you.

Mark D'Arcy is in central lobby.

The

point of the urgent question is

obviously just to maximise the

Government's embarrassment. Keir

Starmer is at his best in

prosecuting barrister mode and he

will have lots to play with. The

real interest is going to be looking

at what some other groups are saying

on the kith backbencher, there are

groups lining up at the moment to

make sure that their particular view

of how Brexit should unfold is

hammered home, so there will be

people with unionist views saying no

separate solution for Northern

Ireland, others saying customs union

applying in Northern Ireland, why

can't we have it. Watch the Scottish

Tories in particular, they are

operating as a distinct group. One

said we can see them hunting as a

pack all the time. They will be

influential, if they flex their

muscles it is behind the scene,

watch what they have to say because

they speak with the voice of Ruth

Davidson.

What about Universal

Credit, because this has been a

contentious issue for the

Conservatives not least because some

on their own side don't like the way

it has been operationally rolled

out. This is down Labour.

This this

is a Labour motion, a strange

Parliamentary device called a humble

address to Her Majesty, it is a

device that can be pass, voted

through on an opposition they will

work. The Government's dismiss voted

against it as purely symbolic votes

but the Speaker has said they work.

This is to get the Government to

deliver up a series of reports from

the major projects authority on how

the implementation of Universal

Credit has been working out, in the

knowledge they are not a flattering

picture of the way this important

benefit is being rolled out across

the country. The idea is to force if

Government to disgorge what maybe

potentially embarrassing documents.

Thank you for bringing us

up-to-date.

Now, our Guest of the Day Vince

Cable took over the leadership

of the Liberal Democrats

after the general election

earlier this year, at a rocky

time for his party.

The party has 12 MPs in the Commons,

an increase on the eight seats

they held after the 2015 election

but still a long way

from the 57 seats they held

during the Coalition years.

They took 7.4% of the vote share

in the June election.

Opinion polls have not

shown an improvement

in their fortunes since then,

with the latest Survation poll

at the weekend showing support

for the party at just 6%.

But the party has gained 11 council

seats in by-elections

since the June election,

giving them a net gain

of seven councillors.

Slim situation isn't it for the

Liberal Democrats. A poll found half

of those asked support a referendum

on the final Brexit deal. And if

those numbers are accurate why do so

few people support the Liberal

Democrats?

We haven't had a test of

electoral support yet, we may have

an election in three or four years'

time. There will be local elections

next May, probably Parliamentary

by-election, locally we are doing

well.

Better but not well.

We

haven't had a test of support. The

opinion polls are where they have

been for some years.

6%.

Six to

nine, it is a are -- vary, the

Secretary of State is yet to come.

What is beginning to happen and your

owe tasting of the poll brings this

out our basic position on the issue

of the day which is Brexit chimes

with a lot of the public.

Why are

you sticking with it. You say there

hasn't been an electoral test, we

have had the general election, I

will take the by-election, the polls

haven't moved so why are you

sticking with the policy that that

has so for not ended up in any more

support for you.

In the general

election, I won and came back from

exile, personally it was a success

as it was for some of my colleague,

but the general election is past. I

mean, the situation is changing very

rapidly, a lot of people who voted

Remain in the referendum, basically

gave the Government the benefit of

the doubt. They thought they could

negotiate a soft Brexit. It is

becoming clear...

Or they voted for

the Labour Party.

This is unlikely

to happen. The performance of the

Labour Party in way counters your

point. What happened was within days

the Labour Party moved from being

complete no-hopers, to being

seriously challenging. The British

electorate is very volatile. The

issue of Brexit is unresolved. All

the polls show this there is a

strong public reaction against the

polarisation of the two major party,

that give us an opportunity.

Except

there hasn't been anything to show

that opportunity...

There hasn't

been much to show for it yet.

Those

within your own party, your former

colleague John Pugh said there is a

danger all our national political

band width is consumed by the Brexit

issue and we become Aznar Rowley

defined as Ukip. He has a point

doesn't he?

I did say at party

conference we are not Ukip in

reverse, I set out a set of issues

round National Health Service, the

commitment to fighting inequality.

Economic policy, sanity, which

things we stand for and that is the

broader issue, as I happens I

campaigned for John Pugh and he won

a by-election in his own area, he

wasn't expected to win and he did.

That is one of the sign where we are

organised, we have a good position,

we come back.

There is is a one in

five chance Brexit won't happen, I

presume you still believe that.

There is no marked difference in the

poll, what Europe would we be

staying in in would we will Babel to

revert back to our special status?

I

think what was, what is happening,

very clearly, is that, in a way

there is a new structure emerging,

you have an inner core built round

the eurozone which wants tighter

integration, but there is an outer

group which consists is of

Scandinavian countries and

potentially Britain which want to be

part of the European Union because

of the considerable benefits it has

through the supermarket, cooperation

on -- single market but do not want

that level of integration.

You think

we could retain that...

It is tragic

we are walking away at the moment

when Europe is being reformed in a

way that would be comfortable for

the UK.

Would we will Babel to keep

our rebate?

Almost certainly we

would.

Why? Why would they give us

that?

This depends on the

circumstances in which we chose to

remain. If we pulled Article 50 and

stayed within the European, having

had a referendum of the public, I

don't think the European Union are

going to raise major objection, they

have made it clear they would be

happy to have it back on the old

terms. If we had left and tried to

reapply, you are right. A Celtic of

additional conditionings would be

apply.

Do you think there is going

to be a fragmentation of the UK in

the way outlined to get an

aagreement, that different parts of

the UK will have to do their own

thing?

I think there is a risk. I

think one needs to make a

distinction between the Scottish

situation and Northern Ireland. In

zlolt is a deep anger they have been

treated differently but at the same

time there is a unionist majority in

Scotland, that seems to be growing.

The problem with Ireland, there is a

risk of a return to the troubles

because it is impossible to

reconcile the divergent positions of

Ireland...

A deal was nearly done.

Let us go back to the Liberal

Democrats. Jo Swinson is being

investigated over her expenses

spending during the election, was it

appropriate for the party to respond

by saying the allegations were a

classic SNP tactic when they have

lost an election? Where is your

evidence for that?

I was in Scotland

when this emerged, the people who

were conducting the election were

confident that they had observed the

rules as advised by the Electoral

Commission. ? How do you know it is

the SNP? They, as far bah as I

understand it that is where the

objections came from.

They denied

it.

The central point is it is being

investigated. I don't think this

will go any further.

How long do you

give yourself and the party to turn

it round?

I am not setting a time

limit. I have been through bad times

before. We were an asterisk in the

opinion poll once, a few months

later we were back, we have been

through a difficult...

They might

get fed up with you.

I am willing to

face that.

Is there...

There is no

pact. She is an excellent colleague.

We get on well as a partnership.

As

you

may

Hello, and welcome

to the Daily Politics.

The Government says it's confident

a deal on Brexit can be reached,

despite hopes of a breakthrough

on the question of the Irish border

being dashed yesterday.

But can the Prime Minister

find a solution that's

A London cloaked in the ashy fog

of Industrial Revolution.

The same view hot and

cold in fading light.

If you are searching

for a picture of Parliament,

it is probably Monet's Thames series

you see in your mind's eye.

The father of the Impressionists,

Claude Monet, spent three

winters in London painting

the Palace of Westminster.

This is the fist time

so many of the Thames series

have been in one place

for nearly 50 years.

He only painted the Houses

of Parliament in late

afternoon and at sunset.

He was very disciplined.

He left the Savoy at usually four

o'clock, walked along the Thames

and set up his easel on a covered

terrace in St Thomas's Hospital.

Caroline Corbeaut-Parsons

is the curator of the

Impressionists in London.

Monet painted the Houses

of Parliament for the first

time during his exile

during the Franco-Prussian

war in 1870.

At that point, the building had only

just officially been completed.

When he decided to paint it,

he chose a radically new subject,

which is interesting,

and something we have completely

lost, because when we look

at that picture, we think,

"Oh, another picture

of the Houses of Parliament."

But no, it was something new.

This exhibition at Tate Britain

is all about how London was viewed

through the eyes of French artists,

fleeing Paris during the

Franco-Prussian war in the 1870s.

They came to London

because Paris was in ruins

and they were looking

for rich patrons.

They would have a lasting impact

on the British art scene.

I think if you look at French

guides, London guides

in French at the time,

they all comment on the sheer mass

of the Houses of Parliament,

and the amount of money that British

taxpayers, I guess, at the time

had to pay for this,

and I think it must have really

struck them at a time when Paris

was, you know, still in ruins.

And so it was the power

of the British Empire,

air thick with smoke,

that so fascinated Monet

and his contemporaries.

Of course London was very

polluted at that stage,

and there were actually more people

in Central London than now,

so it was very, very busy.

There were, he said, purple fogs,

brown fogs, green fogs,

fogs of every single colour,

and this is reflected in the variety

of colours that you find,

you know, in his Houses

of Parliament paintings.

The exhibition runs

until May next year.

We're joined now by the art dealer

and presenter of Fake or Fortune,

Philip Mould.

Welcome. It is a far cry from the

sun lit lily ponds we are used to

from Monet.

He loved London and I

think the impressionists though, are

distinctive in that respect. They

sought alternative subject matter,

they love gardens and railways and

smoke and industrialism. That is

what they are about. That is what

making them so exciting as their

brush strokes.

Indeed. They are

beautiful paintings. Do you think

they are beautiful?

Unquestionably,

it is rather curious it took a

Frenchman with his 19 canvases of

the Palace of Westminster, to

immortalise it so beautifully.

Yes,

and why? Was there a political

statement as well as the brush

strokes?

I suspect there was. These

are exhibited in 1904. In that the

entente cordiale was signed, and I

suspect what could have been a

rather unsettling symbol of imperil

live was rather cosy.

What do you

think it said about London and the

country at the time, being painted

by Monet.

It is ironic, our

pollution was a marvellous catalyst

to a certain type of impressionist.

What is it? It is a sensual

response, it is articulating what is

in front of you but filing it. There

was something about dirt and smog

and fog and that view that was up

lifting for Monet, and he captured

it. I think he saw the opportunity

in London to do something he hadn't

done before. I think it made a Dame

sight more successful image nan a

water lily.

What do you think, are

you going to see it.

Yes, art is

political, on some of the most

powerful paintings, as you know

well, Picasso and Goya.

This is

Monet and the Houses of Parliament?

We need to take art seriously.

It is

very interesting you should say

that, politics can be ephemeral but

great art is about endurance, when

you put them together it can be

explosive, and I remember when I was

advising the House of Commons arts

committee, and Tony Banks was chair,

they had just received a good sum of

money to commission a statue of

Margaret Thatcher for members lobby,

and the members of the committee who

were predominantly Labour said over

our dead body.

Tony Banks, who understood the power

of art and politics, knew it had to

be done and swung the day and said,

goodness' sake, we have to pull

something then come the revolution!

Was Monet actually carrying out a

rather gentle viewer politics with

those paintings of the Houses of

Parliament -- view of politics?

Yes,

he was, let's not forget just hope

wonderfully uplifting, Ed official

and historical this masterpiece of

secular Gothic is. I mean, it is big

then and a lot of other things

beside -- Big Ben. I don't think you

can escape from the sort of iconic

power, the totemic power of that.

So

was it radical of Monet other time?

I think what was radical about

Impressionism and impressionists as

they were looking for alternative

subject matter and he found, in

London, next to the Thames, in

bricks, mortar and through a veil of

smog, just the most perfect thing.

He had me there. Thank you very

much.

It's been an exciting morning not

only because of all the Brexit news,

but also because England have been

involved in a gripping run chase

against Australia on day four

of the second Ashes Test.

And I have absolutely no idea

what most of that means.

I have an idea of some of it.

But luckily Elizabeth does.

Do I?

Thanks, Jo.

Yes, all eyes in the cricketing

world are focused

on the Adelaide Oval ground,

where England and Australia

are battling it out.

But because the television rights

to show the Ashes are fiercely

fought over by broadcasters,

the action is only available

to view by those willing

to pay a subscription.

Well, MPs are calling for that

to change, and for big sporting

events like the Ashes to once again

be broadcast on terrestrial,

free-to-view, television.

Leading the charge is the Labour MP

John Grogan, who joins us

from our very own Daily Politics

cricket ground,

and with him is the cricketing

legend, Henry Blofeld.

Welcome to you both. John, could you

start by telling me what you are

actually looking to change?

Well,

cricket is like great art, really,

it is part of our heritage and it

has been hidden away for 15 years on

subscription TV and it means kids

are not inspired to play the game.

The number of kids playing cricket

has been going down, more kids

recognise a worldwide wrestler than

the England cricket captain in a

recent survey, so we do have a law

in our country that says certain

events should be on free to air TV

and at least I think the highlights

of all Ashes series home and away

should be on free to air TV. The

home series is, certainly the away

series should be, so when the kids

come home from school tomorrow, they

will be able to see the highlights

of two Yorkshireman scoring

centuries to win the second Test.

It

is all about the Yorkshiremen. Henry

blow felt, do you agree, not having

these sort of competitions on

domestic TV affects our view of them

and our ability to join as a nation

and enjoy them?

Yes, and in all

possible worlds, we would want free

to air cricket on television but

there is the awful dichotomy, which

is money. The ECB, the England and

Wales Cricket Board, have done a

deal with Sky and the BBC which

begins, I think, in Twenty20 and

that is worth 1.1 billion. But I am

with you absolutely entirely with

this, it would be lovely if the

highlights could be seen every night

on free to air. I don't think we'll

ever get the actuality because of

the money but I think highlights

would be terrific. I think it is

utterly wrong if youngsters cannot

see their heroes in action on the

day they have done so well or so

badly.

We are keeping everything

crossed at the moment, aren't we?

John, that is a good point from

Henry, essentially, this is a

commercial decision and this money

is very, very important to cricket

and its future.

It is, I mean, it is

a balance, isn't it? Cricket would

probably recognise they have the

balance slightly wrong. Most boards,

tennis, rugby union, football, have

some coverage on free to air and

cricket when the other way to 15

years. Henry is right, we are

looking forward to three years' time

when there will be live cricket back

on the BBC and they have promised to

give it the full coverage like the

FA Cup and for the first time, there

will be some county cricket and A20

internationals and it can't come

soon enough.

Henry, the Ashes

series, where does it come on the

list of great sporting events which

mark win over world cups, we know

about Wimbledon, where does the

Ashes stand?

What a question to ask

me! It stands right at the very top!

But wouldn't it be wonderful if we

were to get up and win this match

tomorrow, though the odds must be

against. One has so often seen sides

chasing big totals and look as

though they might but they never

quite do. If they did, every child

in the country is going to want to

see Joe Root celebrating his 200 and

Jonny Bairstow, maybe he can get a

100 and celebrated with a headbutt,

who knows?

Who in deed, hendry can I

push you, you say it looks unlikely.

What is your prediction?

My

prediction is Australia will win,

although I hope I am wrong, I always

hope I'm wrong when I say things

like that but logic must look

towards Australia. But occasionally,

logic falls flat on its face and

let's hope it does tomorrow in

Adelaide.

Life is full of surprises.

I was surprised to win my seat in

June and I expected to be watching

Yorkshire County Cricket, instead of

which I was an MP, I think we will

win by one wicket.

Two mentions of

Yorkshire in one interview, thank

you very much both of you. Not sure

if you are a cricket fan, Vince, but

can I get your prediction?

I am

entirely with John Grogan on the

prediction and a basic principle of

terrestrial television. One of my

earliest memories of childhood is

seeing England humiliate Australia

and Jim Laker bowling ten wickets in

one innings. These things happen and

excite you as a child and lived with

you for the rest of your life.

We

can but hope.

I like the way you didn't ask me for

my prediction!

Now, last week, we talked

to East Staffordshire councillor

Deneice Florence-Jukes.

She was challenging Debretts to get

rid of what she called the outdated

advice to call female

councillors "Councillor Mrs".

Well, she won that battle and

Debretts agreed to make the change.

But then she turned her attention

to the next front -

the council itself.

I asked if she was confident she'd

win a vote to change

the terminology used there.

I would hope so.

There has been a little bit

of resistance to some change

in certain quarters,

but I hope once they hear my

argument in full in chambers

on Monday, I'll manage to convince

them that it's the right move.

Well, that was last Thursday -

but despite Deneice's

best efforts last night,

the East Staffordshire Borough

Council voted to allow women to keep

using the title "Councillor Mrs"

by 14 votes to 13.

The winning motion said councillor

should be able to choose how they

are addressed. We can talk again to

Deneice Florence-Jukes. Are you

disappointed?

Yes, I am. It is a

blow for sending a clear message to

the people in the borough that we

are open and forward-thinking and we

are not hung up on titles, so it is

a degree of disappointment.

What

actually happened at the meeting?

I

tabled my original motion and an

amendment was put in to basically

delete my idea that all councillors

should be called by a gender neutral

title of councillor, followed by

their names, and an amendment was

put in to say councillor should be

allowed to choose what they call.

Which I can agree with to a certain

point, but my argument there is we

are a body and we should stick to

our title of councillor.

Right, but

as you say, there isn't anything

wrong with freedom of choice, which

is what the council wants to do. We

have got an e-mail here that says

you e-mailed one of the colleagues

in the council team requesting that

from time to time on, she should be

addressed simply as councillor

Florence - Jukes, and that was put

into effect, so if you want to drop

the title, you can.

It was a bit of

a battle to drop that title, it

wasn't straightforward. Initially, I

was told the council had never been

approached about the subject before

and when I asked for legal

clarification, I was told they do

indeed follow Dabritz, and it was

only when I challenged it again and

said significantly can I be called

councillor Florence- Jukes, that

they allowed it.

It wasn't as

straightforward as it might appear.

What is your view, Vince Chris Watt

you have a message for East Stafford

a council?

There is a point behind

etiquette, people know where they

stand, so you call somebody a chair,

chairperson, chairwoman or a

chairman, you have a simple set of

rules and avoid a lot of

embarrassment and get on with the

real business.

Deneice, do you think

that is right?

I do to a point but

my argument has not been about what

individual councillors want to be

called, it was about the wider

message. We are majorly

underrepresented by so many groups

on the council and it was a way of

putting a message out that if you

want to enter public life, we are

welcoming, non-discriminatory and

that was the whole idea behind it,

so to a point I can agree that, you

know, they should be entitled to be

called what they want but not in a

public setting. I think the title

councillor is a stand-alone, gender

neutral, one size fits all title.

And on that basis, I will say thank

you to you, councillor Deneice

Florence-Jukes. We can get an update

on the fallout from the Brexit

negotiations yesterday. Here is

David Davis and his Shadow Keir

Starmer in the House of Commons in

the last few moments.

Our aims in

this negotiation remain as they have

always been, in particular on the

issue of Northern Ireland and

Ireland, we have been clear we want

to protect all elements of the Good

Friday Belfast Agreement to maintain

the Common travel area and

associated rights. We want to ensure

there is no hard border between

Ireland and Northern Ireland. We

recognise as we ex-it we must

respect the integrity of the EU

single market and the customs union,

equally clear we need to respect the

integrity of the United Kingdom.

It

is one thing to go to Brussels and

fallout with those on the other side

of negotiating table. It is quite

another to go to Brussels and

fallout with those supposedly on

your own side of negotiating table.

Arguments continuing in the House of

Commons.

There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was which party

leader has taken part

in a charity Christmas song,

singing the Mariah Carey classic

All I Want For Christmas?

I haven't a clue but I would guess

that Nicola Sturgeon.

You are wrong,

I'm afraid, it is the DUP leader

Arlene Foster.

Yes, the DUP leader has taken part

in a charity single -

along with other MLAs -

for the Northern Irish charity

Aspire NI, which helps

children in poverty.

So let's have a look

at her in action.

# I just want you for my own

# More than you could ever know...

She's got a good boys, hasn't she

was there a bit of...

On the basis

of that, politician should keep out

of music.

I thought it was quite

impressive.

Being charitable, this

is Christmas.

I think she might have

had a little bit of help. Thank you

to all of my guests but particularly

to Vince Cable for being guest of

the day. One o'clock is starting on

BBC One and we are back tomorrow

with PMQs.