08/01/2018 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome

to the Daily Politics

and Westminster, where

Theresa May is reshuffling

her team of ministers.

Several new faces are expected

around the Cabinet table,

although big figures

like Philip Hammond and Boris

Johnson are predicted to stay put.

Labour says it's a desperate PR

exercise, so does it have any

chance of rejuvinating

the Mrs May's Government?

MPs are back at Westminster

and they've got a busy workload

with plenty of new Brexit

legislation on the way,

we'll be taking a look

at what's on their plate.

Hospitals are under huge

pressure this winter

with overcrowded A&Es,

a lack of beds and

queues of ambulances.

Is now the time for politicians

to agree on a new approach

to funding the NHS?

The United States is just one

country heading to the polls this

year in what's set to be another

busy political year,

we'll bring you our guide

to elections around the world.

All that to come in the next

hour of low-calorie,

alcohol-free political discussion.

Yes, it's our first show of 2018,

and joining me for all of it,

two MPs who made a New Year's

resolution to appear more often

on the Daily Poilitics -

who knew it was so easy -

it's the Shadow Defence Secretary,

Labour's Nia Griffith,

and the Conservative Kwasi Kwarteng.

Welcome both of you.

It will be a cheery start

to the new working year

at Westminster for some

Conservatives - other than Kwasi

that is, he's always cheerful -

and a miserable one for others,

as they find out who's been promoted

or demoted in a reshuffle

which will see Theresa May give some

a leg up the ministerial ladder,

and others a friendly shove

down the greasy pole.

It has been painted as a show of

strength she will reshuffle her

Cabinet, but it is not a show of

strength. She's been forced into it

because of high-profile resignations

before Christmas?

There were two

things. Both were right. Yes, it

wouldn't have happened necessarily

if Damian Green had stayed. What

people were saying after the

election, was that nothing happened.

It was a minimal, low-key reshuffle

and people were saying the Prime

Minister wasn't strong enough.

Today, the beginning of 2018, we'll

have a wide reshuffle. As you said,

there are a lot of new faces. I

think that is a show of strength.

Yes, we have already heard that the

party chairman is leaving. We have

heard one or two other Cabinet

ministers resigning, not because

they were sacked, but because of

health and other personal reasons.

There'll be a lot of new faces

around the table. That is a good

thing. It is something which parties

do, Governments do, from time to

time. And it can refresh and sharpen

the message.

It may be, but she may

seize the opportunity as a result of

Damian Green leaving before

Christmas, or deciding to. You

mentioned Cabinet ministers leaving

for health reasons. We know about

the former Northern Ireland

Secretary. Are there others then who

are resigning for health reasons?

I

didn't know the exact reasons but I

was told the announcement would be

made. You have been let in on the

secret and we all know about that

now.

You mentioned Patrick

McLoughlin. Who would be a good

party chairman?

I think there are

many good communicators. People like

bran Dan Lewis is very effective.

There are a lot of other people.

What about Chris Grayling, who is

the current Transport Secretary?

He

is highly effective. He was the head

of Theresa May's campaign for the

leadership, which was effective. It

was successful. He is a good, strong

communicator. He's been at Cabinet

level for a while now.

There seems

to be a certain amount of confusion,

because the Conservative Partying

accidentally congratulated Chris

Grayling on his apaintment and then

de-- appointment and then deleted

it.

I have not seen what is going

on. I am not the person to ask about

high-level appointments like that.

If we are talking about a position

of strength for the Prime Minister,

she has U-turned on another

manifesto pledge. She did that

yesterday n the broadcast with

Andrew Marr. This time on

fox-hunting. Why?

I think

fox-hunting was an issue which came

up a bit in the election. It is

something which people felt wasn't

really strictly a priority. It

shouldn't be a priority and the

Prime Minister has adapted the

message to that. The fact is we have

a hung parliament. So many of the

things in the manifesto will have to

be a subject to compromise. That was

one of them.

You could say she won

the election even with a reduced

majority. Why is she abandoning

manifesto pledges, whether it was

grammar schools and now it is

fox-hunting. What else will she

U-turn on?

We have a hung

parliament. We have the most

extensive legislative programme

given the Brexit, given the EU

withdrawal and there are provisions

of time. There is not enough time to

get everything you put in the

manifesto. Things have to give. I

think the Prime Minister is showing

flexibility on that.

There's plenty

of speculation. All is not yet

clear. Let's look at what we know so

far.

If Theresa May keeps the position,

which was seen as her deputy,

speculation is it could go to Jeremy

Hunt or to the Justice Secretary,

David Liddington. This morning,

Northern Ireland Secretary resigned

from the Cabinet, citing health

reasons. Patrick McLoughlin also

relinquished his role as

Conservative Party chairman. Amongst

the names is Transport Secretary

Chris Grayling. Those who are

believed to be facing demotion, or a

side-ways move include Justine

Greening and Leader of the House,

Andrea Leadsom. The top jobs are

expected to remain broadly the same,

with Philip Hammond staying on as

Chancellor. Boris Johnson as Foreign

Secretary Amber Rudd at the Home

Office and David Davis as Brexit

secretary. Michael Gove is also

likely to stay on as Environment

Secretary. The changes could provide

an opportunity for others, which

former nurse Anne Milton tipped to

take over as Health Secretary,

should Jeremy Hunt move. And Brandon

Lewis, Dominic Raab and James

Cleverly expected to receive a

promotion. Steve Baker may see his

position elevated if he is invited

to attend Cabinet meetings as the

minister for no deal. Well, I think

we can find out more on what Fleet

Street makes of this reshuffle.

with Tom Newton Dunn from the Sun

and Lucy Fisher from the Times.

We had the resignation, there is

fevered speculation about the role

of party chairman. Will this

reshuffle turn out to be more

wide-ranging than anticipated?

It is

unclear. I don't want to make myself

a hostage to fortune. Something

which needs to be said is with Boris

Johnson and Philip Hammond in place,

this will be more about what the

Prime Minister isn't able to do as

much as what she is able to do. The

party chairman role is something

everyone is looking closely at. The

huge shake-up which needs to come,

following the election disaster. A

lot of mistakes, mishaps in the

party conference last year, the

appointment of regional chairman,

how they try to get the membership

up. That will be a big issue.

We

will talk more about rejuvenating

the party and how the Government

intends to do that. But Tom Newton

Dunn there has been talk about

Jeremy Hunt replacing Damian Green

as the de facto deputy. How likely

is that now?

I am told it is

probably unlikely, simply because

there will not be a like-for-like

replacement. There probably will not

be a First Secretary of State, which

is the job that he had. The problem

with reshuffle days is you can get a

line from number ten and people

close to the Prime Minister early on

because they have their battle plan.

The battle plan comes into contact

with the enemy, as all decent

battles to and it starts to fall

apart when ministers don't go in the

same direction you want them to and

get upset about the jobsed they are

offered. My -- jobs they are

offered. My feeling was that Brandon

Lewis, who we have seen going to

Number Ten is going to be the new

party chairman and a dynamic,

younger character, is he annual

probably good for the -- is he

probably good for the job. I will

put a fair bit of money on Hunt

going to business. Jeremy Hunt has

been speaking about the need to

revitalise the economy and get the

nation shipshape in terms of

rebalancing the trades and

industries that used to exist, maybe

not as productive away from the

European Union. The whole big tech

build up. The country needs to

change considerably to compete on a

different playing field, which is

what Brexit is all about. Hunt to

business will be the big star of the

day. To revitalise what has been a

woeful Tory Party election machine.

Lucy, taking on the point that

battle plans don't always go to plan

and you may have a lovely grid

worked out with how you'll reshuffle

the pack of cards. Is that why there

was a tweet from the Conservative

Party, who seem to accidentally

publish that Chris Grayling, the

Transport Secretary was going to

become the new chairman - in fact,

there it is. Congratulations to him

following his appointment. We have

just shown that on screen and then

it was quickly deleted. Does that

show confusion and chaos in terms of

this reshuffle, if, as Tom says, it

will be Brandon Lewis?

That is what

it points to. Confusion from where

the tweet came. I think if it turns

out to be wrong, and that message

come from the official Conservative

Party account, really it is the

perfect example of why they need a

major shake up. With Labour have

good use of video and they are

lagging in that aspect of

campaigning and yet another priority

that the new party chairman will

have to take on.

The new party

chairman role will have an impact as

far as the Government and the

Conservative Party is concerned. But

what about the wider impact, Tom? If

there is no movement of the

Chancellor or the Foreign Secretary

or Home Secretary, how significant

is this reshuffle?

I think you can

do quite a lot with the second

order. A new secretary to reshape

the country or bring the country up

to speed for a post Brexit future is

a big thing to do and you can

capture a lot of headlines. Perhaps

a new Education Secretary. I would

be surprised if we didn't have a new

Education Secretary by the end of

the day. That is a new mission to

take on some of the reforming zeal

we saw with Michael Gove and the

coalition Government which has been

lacking a little bit. Take on the

Prime Minister's more free schools,

more academies. Maybe return to the

grammar schools agenda. What knows?

Perhaps a new Health Secretary as

well. Which you could build some

fresh bridges. There is workman-like

stuff you can do with this. And you

can recast agendas on stuff which

matter to the Prime Minister, like

education, skills and industrial

strategy. What you cannot do is

completely change the direction of

your Government, which are occupied

be I the big beasts. Philip Hammond,

Boris Johnson, Amber Rudd - the

three Titans of the Cabinet at the

moment. Lucy is right. The reason

why the Prime Minister, I agree, I

think she would want to move two out

of the three. Amber Rudd who has

impressed universally over the last

year in that job. She can do that

because as Lucy says, she is not

strong enough. She will come under

threat from a faction behind a

faction behind Philip Hammond, the.

If she removes the two people who

are seen to be pivotal to that sort

of wing of the party.

Thank you very

much for your insights. I will let

you go. No doubt there'll be plenty

of people to chase after or on

twitter anyway.

That is the bottom line, isn't it?

If Theresa May was in a position of

power and strength and could shape

her top team the way she wanted to,

then she would move Boris Johnson

and Philip Hammond. She would look

at the big Cabinet posts?

I think

what Tom says is completely wrong.

Not all Cabinet reshuffles move the

big beasts. I was an MP during the

coalition Government. For four years

we had the same Chancellor. William

Hague was Foreign Secretary.

It was

a coalition. You had to negotiation

with your coalition partners.

David

Cameron was very strong. This idea

that you change a big beast, big

jobs every year is ridiculous. The

Budget last autumn was very

successful. There wasn't a hair on

it. It was well received. It would

be crazy for the Prime Minister to

move the Chancellor at this point. I

think what Tom said is wrong. If you

look Foreign Secretaries often

staying in the same position where I

did agree with Tom is this business

about the Business Secretary. That

is significant.

Would you be pleased

if it were Jeremy Hunt?

I think he

could do a lot of jobs. He's a very

talented politician.

He is the longest serving Health

Secretary.

Doesn't mean he's good.

He knows the job inside out and if

he stays that would be good but if

he moves I understand that and it

wouldn't be surprising.

Do you

welcome this reshuffle and this

change at the top?

Really it's about

moving chairs around on the Titanic.

What people really want to know was

what they will do about the

stagnating economy, the shortage of

housing, young people facing

escalating housing costs and student

debt. These are everyday issues and

people want answers. This is a

deeply unpopular Conservative

government and I'm not convinced at

all that any amount of reshuffling

will make any difference unless they

radically change their policies.

I

think Nia is right, it is the media

that obsesses about positions and

people.

So you agree...

I agree the

main battle, the main debate should

be about these core issues in terms

of housing, in terms of how the NHS

is funded under the economy, where I

think the Government has a story to

tell. And Labour would be completely

disastrous.

Do you think there

should be a cabinet minister for

Housing, for example?

Housing is

very significant, it sits within

DCLG and Sajid Javid has been

pushing lots of ideas.

But should

there be a minister, that would be a

radical move.

Again, I think we are

fixating with people and

institutions, not looking at policy.

The main thing that will help people

is the right policies.

Let's take a

break for a moment and go to Norman

Smith in Downing Street. Can you

tell us any more about this

reshuffle?

Some of the movements -

Brandon Lewis, the Immigration

Minister, is the first person into

Number Ten. Speculation, that will

be to take the party chairman post.

Shortly after then, Patrick

McLoughlin came out of Number Ten,

the existing party chairman, and

went off down Downing Street, didn't

say anything, but looks like a man

who was walking out of government

after a long time on the front

bench. Then the Parliamentary aide I

think to Brandon Lewis arrived at

Number Ten. This is guesswork but I

think all of these changes are

centred around Central office. You

could have Brandon Lewis as party

chairman and maybe James cleverly

would be his number two in an

attempt to reinvigorate the

Conservative election machine which

of course failed in the last

election and is viewed generally as

being off the pace, certainly

compared to labour when it comes

down to recruiting new members, when

it comes down to social media,

digital campaigning and that sort of

thing. There's a clear desire to

shake up Central office and I think

that's what the arrival of Brandon

Lewis and James Cleverly was about

this morning. Unconfirmed though,

just my best effort at a guess.

OK,

thank you. We were just hearing from

Tom Newton Dunn speculating on

Jeremy Hunt moving, and there

wouldn't be a like-for-like

replacement of Damian Green as de

facto secretary to Theresa May. Is

there any confirmation on any of

that?

No, all that is possible.

Jeremy Hunt is a business

background, would you want to move

him in the current pressure on the

NHS at this precise moment? Maybe

not. In terms of the Damian Green

post, I think it is correct there

won't be a formal Deputy Prime

Minister with all of the bangs and

baubles Damian Green had but I think

Mrs May will want someone who can

act as her eyes and ears in

Government sitting on the

innumerable committees Damian Green

sat on, her fixer within government

so there will be someone who takes

up that post even if they may not be

formal Deputy Prime Minister.

We

have been talking over the last few

months about Brexit and how much it

has dominated the agenda but do you

think the reshuffle today will

answer or Theresa May will try to

answer the criticism about

government policy regarding key

public services like the NHS, like

the railways, and the economy?

To be

honest, I think it's beyond any

reshuffle to address those sort of

issues. Most people frankly couldn't

care who is appointed to whatever

post, they probably don't even know

who they are and why should they. So

reshuffle will not provide a

solution to the difficulties the

Government may face on railways,

health or whatever. I think the aim

of the reshuffle is more

constrained, designed partly in

terms of party management to give

younger, newer MPs their chance to

shine. There's been pressure

building there, and also to present

a more diverse image of the

Conservative Party with more women,

more MPs from ethnic minorities. I

would suggest Mrs May's ambitions

are more limited in terms of what

she hopes to achieve from this

reshuffle.

Norman Smith in Downing

Street, thank you. Parliament is

getting back to work and it is set

to be packed to them for MPs, not

least on the subject of Brexit.

So as negotiations continue

in Brussels, what exactly

will MPs be debating?

This week the Commons

will see the second reading

of new trade and customs bills.

Those will implement a new framework

for an independent trade

policy after Brexit.

Next week MPs will vote on the next

stage on the over-arching

EU Withdrawal Bill.

The bill has already been

amended numerous times

and currently more than 20 further

amendments have been

tabled for this stage.

If it clears the Commons, the bill

will go on to the Lords for further

consideration at the end

of the month.

One key piece of legislation that

hasn't yet been published

is the new immigration bill

to establish new national policies

on immigration once the UK

ends free movement of people

from the European Union.

Well, the SNP is of course the third

largest party in the Commons,

and over the Christmas break they've

been urging Labour to join forces

to keep the UK in the single market

and the customs union after Brexit.

And the party's Europe spokesman

Stephen Gethins joins

us from the Commons.

Welcome to the programme, happy New

Year. You invited Jeremy Corbyn to

this cross-party meeting, he wrote

back to say he wasn't going to

attend. Is it worth having this

meeting if the Labour leader isn't

there?

Obviously it is disappointing

Labour won't participate, especially

in the Parliament of minorities when

you have a situation whereby parties

need to work together to get the

least worst option for what is a

pretty catastrophic Brexit process.

I think Ian Blackford did the right

thing, to write to the parties, put

aside our differences because

maintaining the customs union and

single market is one worth having.

Do you think it says Jeremy Corbyn

doesn't support the idea of

remaining in the single market and

customs union?

I think it says

Jeremy Corbyn has failed yet again

to take an opportunity to try and

get the least worst option is out of

Brexit which will help save jobs and

help the economy. We're not talking

about the best option, that is

staying part of the European Union.

It is disappointed at a time when we

could be working together that

Jeremy Corbyn seems to be the best

ally the hard Brexiteers have the

moment.

Is that what he is?

I think

Stephen Gettys needs to get real. We

accept the referendum went in favour

of Brexit and we are doing our best

to get the Government to see sense

on this. We want to protect industry

and jobs is much as we can therefore

have the best possible relationship

with the single market, the customs

union, and we want the Government to

realise they will clearly not get

everything done by a year in March

and they need a transition period.

But there will be. So what's the

difference between the optician...

We were clear last August we wanted

a proper transition period so

business can plan now. They are

already planning for a year hence

and many planning for ten years

hence. There have been questions

about whether to have this

transition period so that's the

first thing we would say. Secondly,

we are clear any Brexit negotiations

must protect jobs in this country

and that means trying to negotiate

the best deal we camped in terms of

access to the single market, in

terms of a form of customs union.

I

still don't see the difference

between your position and the

Government's position because the

Government is seeking a transition

period and that will be debated.

It's not just the SNP

that is critical in your stance of

not going to the meeting, so does

Tony Blair. What do you say to his

remarks - if Labour insists on

leaving the single market, the

handmaiden of Brexit will have been

the timidity of Labour.

The

important thing we are standing

for...

What would you say to Tony

Blair?

We don't want a second

referendum, that would undermine the

process, we respect the result but

we clearly want the best deal for

the UK.

Without being part of the

single market or customs union?

We

have to have a form of customs union

and the point being that a country

on its own cannot decide those. We

have 27 other countries to negotiate

with and we want to create the best

rapport, not shouting from the

hilltops or walking out of talks but

have the best rapport with the 27 to

get the best deal we can.

Stephen

Gethins, Labour will plough its own

furrow.

That's a very disappointing

response from Nia and one that a lot

of her colleagues disagree with. The

best option for jobs and the economy

is membership of the single market.

That is best for jobs and the

economy. We have said we will

compromise and that's why we work

together with other parties but

Labour's chaos on this is letting

Tories off the hook when they are

making a mess of this and we have a

responsibility to save as many jobs

out of this as we can. We know from

economists and others that

membership of the single market is

the least worst option at the

moment.

Without Labour, what are you

hoping to achieve?

I already tried

to work with a number of Labour MPs

but we are trying to reach out to

members, look at where we can get

common ground. With these key bits

of legislation coming up, let's look

at some of the amendments we can do.

No one party has the majority of

wisdom soaks speaking and listening

to one another is a good start.

You

are at a bit of a dead-end. You can

reach out as much as you like, I

mean even the EU has moved on in

terms of negotiations, Labour is not

willing to come to your meeting for

whatever reason, and Michel Barnier

once things signed off by October.

We have had a compromise now for

well over a year that we have set

out, it wasn't just one we came up

with, but it was an existing plan of

businesses and economists as well.

It's not what we would have wanted,

but critically on the single market

and this is important - people like

Dan Hannan, Brexiteers who provided

what little intellectual heavy

lifting there was to be done for

Brexit argued for staying in the

single market. Ruth Davidson argued

after the referendum we should

retain membership of the single

market. If those promises are kept,

you will have a majority in favour

of staying in the single market but

Labour need to start getting stuck

into this Government on this issue.

Before I go back to Nia, there is a

splitting cabinet about power line

and Britain should be as we move

towards these negotiations. Do you

favour closer alignment to the EU?

I

don't accept the promises of your

question. I think there's a debate,

I don't think it is in the binary

battle between close alignment or

sharp exit.

Closer to the status quo

or moving away?

I've always been a

Brexiteer, but it is not a binary

thing. We will be able to diverged,

that is what I want to do, I want to

control the borders of this country

and keep more of our money, and I

want to have...

But the time frame

is fairly fluid.

I want Parliament

to be sovereign. I don't think the

time frame is that fluid, but we

have got to show flexibility and we

have. We now have a two year

implementation period which we

didn't have. We are leaving the

single market and customs union, I

hope, but I think it is a process.

Do you expect to have an agreement

on the transition period by the end

of March this year?

I'm very

confident we will get a very good

deal with the EU.

All right, that's

not an answer to the question.

I

think so.

Stephen Gethins, thank

you.

You might remember that

in October last year,

three of the UK's leading remain

supporters - Ken Clarke,

Nick Clegg and Andrew Adonis -

went to Brussels to meet

with Michel Barnier,

he's the chief Brexit negotiator

for the European Commission.

They were criticised

by some who claimed

they were seeking to undermine

the British Government's position.

Well, Mr Barnier said

his door is always open

to senior political figures,

and this morning he had a visit

from the former Ukip leader

Nigel Farage, who says

he was there to speak

for the 17.4 million Brexit voters.

So, what did they discuss?

Well, Mr Farage joins

us from Brussels now.

So did he welcome you with open

arms?

He was very polite, he offered

me coffee which surprised me.

What

did you think he was going to offer

you?

Believe me, if you are invited

into a meeting and coffee is not

offered you are probably going to

get the sack in life so this was a

positive start I thought! Who was

very cordial, he always is to be

fair. I've met him many times in the

European Parliament and Strasbourg.

I started off by asking him, did he

really understand what the key

drivers were behind us voting for

Brexit? And it was very clear he

didn't. He started to talk about

economics and what the disadvantages

may be. I said this is way beyond

economics. It's about controlling

your own borders, making your own

laws.

It was a major driver of the Brexit

vote. And the answer was, no, he did

not. I thought what was interesting

is I'd gone there. You are right

when I saw Lord Adonis, Kenneth

Clarke and Nick Clegg it drove me

bonkers. I thought the real

collusion is between the British

elite and Brussels.

And now you are

there.

But I am not a colluder.

Believe me. If you believe, as I

believe, and all polling research

backs up, that immigration was a key

driver of the Brexit result, the

disappointing thing is that clearly

nobody from the British Government

has explained that to him and

progress has been made on that

whatsoever.

That is your view, isn't

it? You are a sort of self-appointed

representative of the 17.4 million

Brexit voters. The Government say

they respect the result of the

referendum. Labour say they respect

the result of the referendum. What

makes you the expect when Ukip did

rather badly in the election to know

what was in the mind of all those

Brexit voters?

There is something

called political science, there is

something called polling, all of

which shows you before and during

the referendum that one of the key

drivers was getting back control of

our borders. When I said I would

represent the view it was justified.

When I saw the income prewhention in

his face this was a key issue. I

don't doubt Mrs May will take us out

of the European Union. But this big,

key issue that everybody finds too

awkward to discuss. They would

rather brush it under the carpet it

is out there in the country. People

do care about it. Is it any wonder

we have an NHS crisis when we have

population growing by 500,000 a

year. Wherever we are, immigration

has not yet been discussed.

What do

you say in response? Nigel Farage

says he knows what the main driver

was behind the 17.4 million who

voted for Brexit?

I think

immigration was a portion of it. In

my constituency it came up. I think

it is simplistic to say that was the

only thing. But there were other

issues. There is sovereignty. Nigel

mentioned it might be a good idea to

make our own laws. There was a sense

that our political culture, our

institutions were things that people

valued and didn't want to be part of

a United States of Europe, which is

where people think the UK is

heading.

Are

I know Nigel. I think

he's a very persuasive guy. Good

luck to him.

Will Nigel Farage help

the negotiations from the British

point of view?

Michel Barnier knows

who the Government is and he's

obviously keeping his door open to

allow others to speak to him. You

know, he will understand fully what

the position is at the moment. He

can see quite clearly we are not

actually making very good progress

at the moment. We have rather a

last-minute deal botched together in

December. It wasn't clear on the

Ireland situation, not on EU nations

or the amount of money that will be,

it will be a last amount of money.

The EU wouldn't have said they would

move on - but there are things which

are unresolved. That is true. Nigel

Farage, you had questions which were

tweeted to your e-mail to give to

Michel Barnier. They were not all

from leave supporters were they?

No,

a broad cross section of people

asking questions. The first one I

asked was one of the questions sent

in. Did he understand the reasons

for leaving? The most interesting

part was phase two. I think in phase

one we have given too much money,

too much jurisdiction to the ECJ,

but let's look ahead to 2018. What

is really interesting is that

Barnier... Oh, yes, of course we are

very happy to have a trade deal on

goods, you know on the basis of

Japan or on the basis of Canada.

Well, of course they sell us 80

billion Euro-s worth of chocolate,

cars and wine every year, more than

we sell them. When I mentioned

services and financial services, as

being part of this package, I saw

his whole body language change. He

stiffened up and said, no, that

simply can't be. Now, if we are

going to enter a period of

negotiations where given the amount

we've conceded in phase one, if he

is not prepared to make some

concessions on that, then I think

the big change in the Brexit debate

which will come in 2018 is you will

start to see very big voices in

business say, let's not waste years

and years on this. Let's actually

move to WTO rules and do so quickly.

Was no deal part of your discussion

with Michel Barnier?

Yes,

absolutely.

What did he say? How

much did that dominate your

conversation?

Well, you know, he

said it would have bad consequences

for both of us. I said in the

short-term that is absolutely right,

but actually it would hurt Europe

far more than it would hurt us. Not

only do they sell us more goods than

we sell them. The truth is our

financial services we are the

investment bankers for the whole of

the rest of Europe. I would rather

somebody who spent 20 years in

business before getting involved in

politics, I would rather for the

short-term we reach the sensible

compromise deal. The British

Government has given a hell of a lot

already. It is now time for Barnier

to give something. He wasn't in that

mood this morning.

Finally, on Ukip,

a Ukip councillor has called on

Henry Bolton to resign because of

things in his private life. What say

you?

I say a man who passed out as

top cadet in Sandhurst, won a

bravery reward in the police, did

outstanding things in Afghanistan.

Got an OBE for services to

international security, none would

have been talked about or written

about. He has a fling with a

25-year-old and it is front-page of

some of the Sunday newspapers. While

short-term it may be uncomfortable

for him, the truth is people know

now his name.

Thank you for that,

Nigel Farage, after his meeting with

Michel Barnier. For more reporting,

check out the BBC News website.

The Prime Minister has

The Prime Minister had to defend

the Government's handling

the Government's handling

of the NHS yesterday,

after the unprecedented call

in England for a month's worth

of non-urgent operations

and appointments to be postponed.

As stories of patients enduring

long waits in ambulances

and on trolleys in A&E mount,

is it time to look at

a radically different way

of running our health service?

Here's Kate Andrews

from the Institute

of Economic Affairs,

with her soapbox.

All nonurgent operations

and outpatient appointments

in England are put on hold

because of mounting

pressure on the NHS.

I want to apologise for the fact

we have had regrettably to postpone

the number of operations.

I know it's frustrating,

I know it's disappointing

for people and I apologise.

The philosophy of the National

Health Service is that good

healthcare should be accessible

to all regardless of wealth,

but it's not available this month.

50,000 appointments have been cut

from the schedule and -

more accurately put -

50,000 patients, many

of whom are waiting in pain,

are being forced to wait even longer

for their hip replacements

and knee surgeries.

All because the NHS is ill-equipped

to deal with winter flu.

If this isn't the definition

of system failure, what is?

We all know deep down that hard

truths are being buried

to protect the sacred cow,

but if doctors are now speaking out

about the Third World

conditions in the NHS,

isn't it time that politicians

and commentators follow suit?

The NHS ranks in the bottom third

of international comparisons

for health system performance.

It rates far below the social health

insurance systems of Europe

and other systems further abroad,

which outperform the UK on crucial

aspects of health care,

like A&E waiting times

and cancer treatments.

If the UK were to consider

a different approach to health care,

there would be no need to compromise

on the core philosophy that care

should be available for all.

Contrary to popular belief,

most of the developed world offers

universal access to health care.

From Switzerland to Hong Kong,

these systems provide coverage

for everyone and they aren't toppled

over by flu outbreaks.

No one outside the UK

envies the NHS.

Many people, including

the Health Secretary this week,

cite the Commonwealth Fund study,

a rare report that ranks

the NHS best overall,

to suggest that they do.

But when you break it down and look

at the health outcome

section of the study,

the NHS plummets from the top

of the chart to tenth out of 11.

The Guardian summed the study up

perfectly when the 2014

version was released,

noting that the only serious black

mark against the NHS was a poor

record on keeping people alive.

You can keep the three letters

if you wish but it's time

for a radical change to create

a better patient-centric system.

And Kate Andrews joins us now.

You set out some of the problems.

What should the solution be?

It is a

combination. Funding should be

talked about but that is a secondary

issue for me. It was tweeted in an

article over the weekend from 2000.

It was highlighting all the same

problems with the NHS. It was

reported in the Telegraph that we

didn't have enough beds, that the

winter crisis was coming. We had to

get people from overseas to take up

vacancies in the NHS. We are dealing

this 18 years later. This highlights

that on the left everybody says we

need more money. Well, that might be

part of the solution.

Not just on

the left.

A lot of people do. A lot

of people are saying this Government

has underfunded the NHS. I reject

that. If you look at Australia and

Israel, they are actually putting

less money into their health care

systems and getting better patient

outcomes. On the right, often you

have a lot of people say we have too

many immigrants in this country

using up resources. Like 2000, like

now, you are more likely to be

treated by an immigrant rather than

to have them holding up the queue.

For me, it is about looking to

Europe, looking at other systems

getting this right. Not the US, but

others which are fit for 2018.

So a

social insurance scheme, where

people pay in at different levels as

they do in Germany and then you get

the health service at different

levels?

I think that would be a

great system to look at. It is not

just that people are paying out of

their own pockets, the Government

ensures everyone has access or they

will top you up or give you credit

to make sure you can afford it.

This

is changing the core fundamental

principal at the heart of the health

service, that it is point at the

point of -- that it is free at the

point of delivery. Are you able to

reconsider that?

Absolutely not. The

NHS will celebrate its 70th birthday

this year. There is full support

among the public for the NHS. If you

ask in a poll what would they like

to see their money spent on, they

put NHS first. They understand that

any of us can be hit by a very

serious illness and when the NHS is

given proper resources it has

standards second to none in the

world.

How much are you prepared to

put into it?

We said very, very

clearly in our manifesto for the

election this year that we would put

in an additional £37 billion over

the next five years in. We need that

level of funding. We need to ensure

we can deliver. If I may make the

point about 2000, we did an enormous

amount between 1997-2010 to bring

down waiting lists, to fund the NHS

better than it has been in the last

seven years that the squeeze on

funding has gone back in the other

direction.

Let's talk about the fact

that it is politically still

unpalatable to talk about getting

rid or getting rid of that principal

of it being free at the point of

delivery.

The UK came up with the

principal of universal access, free

at the point of use. No-one is

abandoning that. Every other country

in the world looked at that, apart

from the United States. It is a

great principal, be but they

implement it in a terrible way. That

is why the NHS is not replicated

anywhere else in the world. They

have different principals. We are

not talking about abandoning it. I

appreciate that point. My question

to you would be, if you didn't want

to put more money into the NHS,

where is -- if you did want to put

more money into the NHS where is it

coming from? What will we cut? What

will we prioritise to put more money

into the NHS?

We funded everything

we said we would in our manifesto.

We are talking about making sure...

That manifesto borrowed a lot of

money.

Gaping holes.

We have

fundleded funded all the promises we

have made. Cutting corporation cut

have put holes in this Government's

budget. The fact of the matter is

people want the NHS funded. We said

we would not get rid of that 50% tax

rate for the top taxpayers. We said

we will not impose further tax

burdens on the rest of the

population. We are very clear we can

fund it from changes that we would

make in the top taxation and

corporation.

And there is a crisis

in the NHS that goes beyond previous

crisis. Nai makes the point that

satisfaction in the NHS was high

when Labour led office and into a

few years into the coalition. Now,

on your watch you are presiding over

a crisis in which nonurgent

operations have been cancelled for a

month. Theresa May says the NHS is

better prepared because they have

cancelled the operations ahead of

time. There hasn't been such a

crisis and that is on a Conservative

Government's watch.

I completely disagree. You made an

assertion about this being an

unprecedented crisis and I'm

rejecting that because ever since

I've been in politics and before

that, the NHS has always been centre

of the political debate and people

have said there is a big problem,

and ongoing problems with funding.

That's a much more mature way of

looking at it than simply saying

this is the worst crisis we have

ever had.

I'm not saying it. NHS'

England Professor said it was the

worst he'd seen since the 1990s.

Professor Susan Mason has on patient

safety is being compromised. Then we

have anecdotal evidence that goes

beyond previous winters, talking

about people waiting in corridors,

on trolleys, not even being able to

be taken out of ambulances. Theresa

May would not have apologised if she

didn't think it was a crisis.

We

have a problem because we have lots

of demand and smaller resources,

there's a pressure on resources, we

know that, we are running a deficit

as we have done for 17 years. We

have got to try to balance the books

and stabilise the economy. I think

the Labour route would be

disastrous. That's not going to help

the NHS. Similarly what Kate was

saying about insurance and other

models, that's interesting, that is

part of the debate. I was in a

government with people like Nick

Clegg and others who had written

books about this. They wrote the

orange book 12 years ago suggesting

we need to look at bits of

insurance. I'm totally committed as

Nia is to an NHS free at the point

of delivery but also open-minded

enough to look at other countries.

So you would look at the ideas of

social insurance?

The idea we have a

long -- monopoly is an arrogant

idea.

It has been suggested people

over 40 should pay more tax to fund

the NHS, is that something you would

consider?

No, I don't see why people

over 40...

Perhaps only people over

40 who could afford it.

There are

lots of people over 40 who are not

earning lots of money. It's not as

if there is a scale. There are rich

35-year-olds.

So you reject that

suggestion. You talk to politicians

about this regularly off the camera,

is there more...

I'm thrilled to

hear Kwasi Kwarteng say he would

look at other ideas because many are

burying their heads in the sand is

saying the NHS is the envy of the

world. So I appreciate it so much.

I

think the problem is, I'm in between

both of you. It is easy to run down

the NHS, it is a huge success but

what I am open to, you know, I write

and edit books, and I'm interested

in debate, that is important.

We

will have to leave it there, but

thank you. 2008 team will be a

hectic year when it comes to

elections, with Vladimir Putin

running to yet another term as

Russian president, UK local

elections, and the US mid-term is

providing a litmus test for Donald

Trump's presidency.

Ali has taken a look for us.

Experts

reckon it is likely to end up in

another coalition government. A

couple of weeks after that on the

18th of March all eyes will be on

Russia. Vladimir Putin wants another

term as president and let's be

honest he is so popular it will

probably be handed to him a bit like

this cute puppy. In fact he has been

in power so long that if he wins he

will be the longest serving leader

since Stalin. The selection leader

has been formally banned from

standing because of embezzlement,

but if something closer to your home

is your cup of tea. On May the 3rd

151 councils with about 4400 seats

are up for grabs including every

council seat in London, where Labour

have big plans, as well as five

mayoral elections in the capital.

November the 6th could be a day of

fire and fury in the US as President

Trump faces his first nationwide

test when all 435 seats in the House

of Representatives and 33 of the 100

seats in the Senate will be

contested. Plenty of critics point

to the victory of Democrats Doug

Jones over the Republican Roy Moore

as a sign of things to come. But he

had, shall we say, some unique flaws

so as ever it is difficult to

predict the outcome of this US poll.

Before that weren't enough, hungry's

victor Orban will seek a third term

in April, while voters go to the

poll in Iraq in May and some time in

the spring in Egypt.

I'm exhausted

already, and we have Tim Marshall

with us in the studio so let's talk

about the Italian election on the

4th of March. The country is in the

midst of domestic problems and has

been for some time.

Several decades!

Post-war, some might say. What are

we expecting?

I think the drift to

the extremes will continue right

across Europe. Mr Orban will get in

in Hungary. In Italy you usually

think it doesn't matter who wins the

election because next year there is

usually a one. This time I think it

is not an extremist movement but not

a centrist movement. I think the

problem is Italy is not holding

together. The Northern league part

of it has already said it might

campaign on getting out of the

European Union so I'm going to watch

Italy to see how deep are the

fissures pulling Italy apart. Who

will win that election, I can tell

you who will win lots of elections

but not that one.

So do you see

Italy as the prism through which we

should see Europe as well?

Yes, but

the far right will continue to grow.

I constantly argue against this

narrative that in EU elections they

keep putting back the far right, I

think it's the other way round.

Marine Le Pen increased her vote,

the Dutch, and Germany AFG came in

with dozens. That will be replicated

this year again, the far right has

not peaked.

And briefly on Germany,

Angela Merkel is still struggling to

form a government, isn't that

critically important?

Yes, again

they still haven't got a coalition

government. She's deep in

negotiations now with social

Democrats. If they can't get the

coalition together probably this

week, firstly she is probably

finished, and secondly they will

have new elections. Without the

Mutti as they call her, Germany will

start to drift. Again, the EU, we

still see the splintering. If they

can get the coalition together, you

will see Mrs Merkel give in on some

of the immigration policies, and the

open door policy is finished in

Germany, which is also part of the

drift to the right. She will have to

compromise with the right and close

down immigration.

What about local

elections here?

I have absolutely no

idea, it's a foreign country to

meet!

What can we expect from them?

What should we expect? It

meet!

What can we expect from them?

What should we expect? It.

In London

all the boroughs will be up for

contest so it will be a very mixed

picture. I think the Government

perhaps could do well but mid-term

elections notoriously are difficult

for governments, we know that.

And

you would have to improve at local

election level if you're going to be

seen as the opposition preparing for

the next government.

I think people

are deeply unhappy with many things

this Conservative government are

doing, and in particular delivery of

local services. They can see social

care budgets being slashed, school

budgets, health service, and simple

things like collecting rubbish. They

can see the effects of austerity

over seven years now and I think

that will have a significant impact

on the way people vote in the local

elections this spring.

You are the

foreign affairs analyst, not the

local elections analyst. Let's have

a look at Donald Trump in enough

trouble of his own making to some

extent but the midterms are

considered a litmus test. Will they

be or are we still looking at the

core support for Donald Trump

remaining?

The latter, that's a

guess. In the Russian election,

Vladimir Putin will win. I suspect

the Republicans will hang on to both

houses. That's extremely important

because if the Democrats don't win

back the Senate, and that's going to

be close, if they don't have control

of it they cannot move ahead with

impeachment. I've always argued I

don't think he's going to be

impeached, I've never seen any solid

evidence against him. I've said this

before to you that we still look at

him through the prism of our

distaste, and that's not a good

template. Unemployment down, tax

reforms May kick in and may have

more money. The Senate and the house

are different beasts to Trump. I

accept they flipped Alabama...

Was

that not a big signal?

It was but

look at the candidate the Democrat

was up against, the chap on the

horse and they rode him out of town.

Alabama is not up this year but if

it was it would be reversed back to

the Republicans. The Republicans are

only defending eight seats in the

autumn, the Democrats are defending

24th. I think they will hang on and

I think Mr Trump, if you look at it

from inside America, he's not doing

anywhere near as badly as we think

he is.

All right, let's go to Norman

Smith in Downing Street. Can you

give us any update?

Three facts!

Fact one is me know Patrick

McLoughlin has now left government,

not a huge shock given the Tory

election woes and the fact he's been

on the Government front bench since

Mrs Thatcher. Fact two Brandon Lewis

is the new party chairman, the

Immigration Minister steps into the

party chairman role. And I suppose

the hope will be he will grab the

party machine by the lapels and give

it a good shake up because it was

clearly found wanting at the general

election campaign and we are

expecting a lot of new people to be

brought into party headquarters to

try and match Jeremy Corbyn when it

comes to recruiting new members.

Fact he is the Northern Ireland

Secretary is standing down on health

grounds and he has spoken about

having to have surgery for a lesion

on his right lung, there will be the

recuperation period and he thinks

you will need to run with the energy

and time to take on this sensitive

post.

And briefly, we are expecting

more tomorrow, aren't we?

We are

going to get a much bigger shake-up

of the middle ranks tomorrow and

that's when we are expecting new,

younger female MPs from ethnic

minorities to be brought on board.

Norman, thank you. I hope you are

not standing there the whole day but

you probably will be. Thanks to all

of our guests. The one o'clock news