09/01/2018 Daily Politics

Hello, and welcome

to the Daily Politics.

Justine Greening quits

the Cabinet rather than being

forced to do another job.

And she wasn't the only Secretary

of State to put their foot down.

What does the reshuffle say

about Theresa May's authority?

Theresa May's new top team

meet for the first time.

Today, she's reshuffling the junior

ranks of her Government.

We'll have the latest.

How to lose a job

and alienate people.

Last month, Toby Young

was was handed a role

overseeing universities.

This morning, he resigned

after a furore over controversial

tweets and newspaper articles.

Should he have been given

the job in the first place?

And - he's been meeting

and greeting, and, of course,

tweeting world leaders as President

of the United States

for almost a year now.

So, what should the world

make of Donald Trump?

All that in the next hour.

And with us for the whole

of the programme today

is Mark Malloch Brown.

He's a member of the House

of Lords and a former GOAT -

he was a minister in

Gordon Brown's Government

Of All The Talents, and a United

Nations Deputy Secretary General.

We love using that phrase!

He now leads Best for Britain -

an organisation

which aims to co-ordinate

pro-Remain groups to oppose

the Government's Brexit strategy.

Welcome to the programme.

First today, let's take a look

at how the papers reacted

to the Cabinet reshuffle -

and it won't make happy

reading in Downing Street.

The Times leads on the resignation

of Justine Greening,

calling the reshuffle "shambolic",

and saying it laid bare

"Theresa May's lack of authority".

The Guardian also highlights

Ms Greening's departure,

and says the Prime Minister has been

accused of "giving in to the boys"

after Jeremy Hunt refused to move

from Health Secretary

to the business department.

Mr Hunt's refusal

also leads The Mail.

The paper says Theresa May's

reshuffle plans were "torpedoed",

including her desire to remove

former leadership rival

Andrea Leadsom from the Cabinet.

And the Daily Telegraph recalls

Harold Macmillan's "Night

of the Long Knives" by describing

this reshuffle as a "false start":

"The night of the blunt stiletto".

We're joined now by our

Political Editor, Laura Kuenssberg.

It was never billed as being a

completely dramatic reshuffle, but

actually the papers have concluded

it was a damp squib. Do you agree?

I

think it was bungled in some

aspects. It was never meant to be

big and dramatic but there was quite

a lot of drama, the drum was

unintentional, because ministers, as

they sometimes do in reshuffle some

even when prime ministers are at the

peak of their powers, ministers did

not like what they were being

offered. If Downing Street does not

do their homework and test the

waters with ministers, would they be

willing to move or not, this is what

happens - they end up sitting around

the Cabinet table this morning with

Theresa May looking at colleagues

that she didn't want to be in those

seats. It has also made a lot of

serving people in the Government,

not just oriented is, quite

disgruntled, particularly at how

Justine Greening was treated. She is

very determined and robust. Somebody

told me yesterday originally when

she was offered the job of being

Secretary of State for the

Department for International

Development under David Cameron, she

was so cross that she staged a sit

in in number ten before eventually

accepting the job! She knows her own

mind and she is very determined.

Lots of Tory MPs are asking this

morning, why was Jeremy Hunt allowed

to argue for his job and say in

post?

She did for hours, apparently?

He went in in the night and emerged

in the dark! Justine Greening was

not allowed to do the same. She

could become somebody rather useful

to somebody like Mark Malloch Brown

today. She is a prominent Remainer,

she has won a London marginal seat,

not many of them in the Tory Party

these days. That could be storing up

trouble for the future, she is very

important.

Before we go on to the

other moves and what it says about

Theresa May's authority, Justine

Greening, will she join the ranks of

what have been described, some

people find rather offensively,

mutineers on the backbenches?

She

will be careful about what you does

next. She

next. She says she cares about

social mobility most, that is why

she wants to stay in that job.

She

was the first comprehensively

educated Education Secretary.

She

only launched her social mobility

strategy less than a month ago, the

ink is hardly dry on this very big

piece of work that was meant to work

in tandem with Theresa May's stated

goal of making the country work for

everyone. So she cares very deeply

about that. And from conversations

with those who understand her

thinking, she wants to make that her

focus. That said, she is a buddy who

cares very much about our future

relationship with the European

Union. It may well be that some of

her former colleagues manage to

entice her to be on the backbenches

with those group of awkward

Remainers.

What about Theresa May's

authority? Reshuffles can

historically be very difficult and

people who don't always move. What

does this say about a Government

which is read by doing and starting

the New Year on a fresh footing, and

she hasn't been able to do the

things that she wanted?

She had the

authority to make her move, and that

wasn't the case last year, she

wasn't even strong enough to have a

go at all of this. What they

discovered yesterday is that she

wasn't strong enough to be able to

deliver what she wanted. Suggestions

that she may did not come to pass.

Today, however, it is important,

maybe not so much to the public

perception, because frankly there

will be a lot of people walking up

and down Downing Street who even

devoted Daily Politics viewers may

never even have heard of! But for

the Tory Party and the succession

and renewal of the Next Generation,

today is very important in terms of

bringing other people forward. We

know already that Dominic Raab has

moved the housing.

We have just seen

Alok Sharma going through the front

door. There is Dominic Raab. He has

been given the housing brief.

He may

be rather disappointed not to be in

the Cabinet, some people who know

him well are suggesting. Jo Johnson

is also going into number ten, the

current science and Higher Education

Minister.

We don't quite know what

is happening with him.

Today we will

see a lot of new intake, or newish

intake MPs coming into Government.

Some of them from the 2015 intake.

Ten new names were suggested to me,

I'm not going to read them all out.

Some people who Daily Politics

viewers will have seen, MPs like

only Dowden, Suella Fernandes, a

prominent Euro sceptic, Jo

Churchill, one of the Suffolk MPs.

Muzarabani, a prominent Brexiteer.

We will see by the end of the day if

Theresa May has been able to achieve

the second aim of her reshuffle,

which was putting forward a new team

further down the ranks. But just to

close, a quiz question, he said in

2008, by the end of my first

Parliament, I want all -- a third of

my ministers to be female. Theresa

May and her allies are saying the

same thing. Bringing people from the

lower ranks is one thing, but

whether that changes the top table

in years to come, we will see.

Thank

you.

Now, what were the big moves

in yesterday's reshuffle?

Education Secretary Justine Greening

was the surprise departure last

night when she opted to leave

the Cabinet rather than be moved

to a different department.

She will be replaced

by Damian Hinds.

David Lidington moves

in to replace Damian Green

as Cabinet Office Minister,

after Mr Green was forced

to resign before Christmas.

He will not, however,

take over the title

of First Secretary of State -

a position which was the Prime

Minister's de facto deputy.

Mr Lidington will be replaced

as Justice Secretary by David Gauke,

who in turn vacates the Work

and Pensions Department

in favour of Esther McVey,

who returned to the Commons in last

year's general election.

Patrick McLoughlin handed over

the mantle of Conservative Party

Chairman to Brandon Lewis.

And Northern Ireland Secretary James

Brokenshire stood down

citing health reasons,

and will be replaced

by Culture Secretary Karen Bradley.

Matthew Hancock gets his first

Cabinet post by taking

over her department.

Jeremy Hunt refused to move

from the Department of Health,

and adds extra responsibility

for social care to his brief.

And Communities Secretary

Sajid Javid also adds

housing to his title.

The remaining Cabinet

line-up remains unchanged,

with Amber Rudd staying

at the Home Office, Boris Johnson

as Foreign Secretary,

and Philip Hammond as Chancellor.

And we're joined now

by the new Deputy Chairman

of the Conservative Party,

James Cleverley.

Welcome to the Daily Politics,

congratulations on your appointment.

This reshuffle was supposed to

underlying Theresa May's authority,

but in fact it has undermined it.

How has her authority been

strengthened?

This reshuffle was

about bringing new talent into

Government, we have seen that, we

have seen promotions in the Cabinet.

To whom? Who is the new talent who

has come into the Cabinet?

Well, you

know... We have a number of new

women that have come around the

Cabinet table, who are attending

Cabinet for the first time. Claire

is coming through in the Cabinet. We

are also seeing, as Laura was

saying, we have also seen in some of

the less high-profile roles,

particularly here at the vice

chairmanship of the party, which we

were discussing yesterday, a lot of

new people coming through. We are

going to see new faces coming into

Government.

At the lower levels, the

ministerial ranks below Cabinet. But

at Cabinet, there hasn't been the

complete change that we were

promised. Not at the top three

conditions. Because Theresa May

couldn't move people like Jeremy

Hunt and she couldn't persuade

Justine Greening to take the

position at work and pensions. How

would you judge Theresa May's

authority this morning?

You are

saying about what was promised. I

don't know who might have been

promising things to you, but the

decisions about reshuffles are taken

at number ten, and they are kept

private at number ten until the

announcement is made. There's been a

huge amount of speculation, there

always is when reshuffles come

along. It may well be that you feel

that the changes haven't met your

expectations.

They were the changes

that we expected because they came

from people around the Prime

Minister. I mean, do you think the

media has been mishandled in this

instance?

I think there have been a

lot of people in the media, and this

always happens, a lot of people in

the media speculate about who might

be getting promoted, who might be

moving. And it's always the case, I

remember a number of reshuffles when

people said, that's not what we

excited, as if somehow it is the

fault of Government. What we have

around the Cabinet table, we have a

really good mix of experience. We've

got a really, really strong team.

And also what we are seeing now is

people being brought up into

Government. And I'm Rulli positive

about these changes.

The former

Conservative leader Iain Duncan

Smith said Downing Street should

have managed the media more

carefully in the run-up to this

reshuffle. Do you agree with him?

No, I think it's impossible to

constantly chase the speculation. If

you try and back down every single

piece of speculation you wouldn't

have time to get any real work done.

Chris Grayling, it was tweeted out

by the Conservative headquarters

that he was going to be the chairman

and that was obviously completely

wrong.

Is actually proves my point.

The BBC, if I remember rightly,

confirmed for definite that Chris

Grayling was going to be... The

Conservative by the German, somebody

took what they believe to be an

authoritative source who got it

wrong -- the Conservative Party

chairman.

Didn't they think of

calling number ten to find it out

was it look that is the point of

chasing speculation, there is lots

of speculation

we are never going to

chase every bit of gossip and

speculation and it would be wrong to

do so.

Whose fault is it that the

headlines are so awful for Theresa

May and the Government this morning?

I don't think we should be too

worried about the headlines. Today

and yesterday were about reshuffle.

And that always causes lots of froth

and drama in the media. What really

is important is the delivery of

Government. Today's headlines are

what they. Tomorrow and onwards we

will be getting the really important

stuff, which is about what we are

doing and delivering in Government.

Let's talk about Deliveroo. If this

was going to be a reboot, if you

have said this is a new Cabinet,

although the faces haven't really

changed that much -- let's talk

about the reshuffle. What kind of

policy can you expect from the new

Cabinet?

What we are doing is

delivering on the agenda that the

Prime Minister is set out when she

stood on the steps of Downing

Street.

There is no change of policy

is?

It is never about no change, the

fundamental for loss of the about

what the Prime Minister and the

ministerial team is doing government

remains the same, about delivering

opportunities of the fundamental for

loss of view. It's about helping

people get on the housing ladder,

grabbing the employment, keeping the

economy on track, delivering a good

Brexit. These things in job because

they are the fundamentals, the

foundation stones upon which the

detail is built, they will remain

the same. Some of the details will

change, that always happens. But the

fundamental things remain the same

no matter what.

Reshuffles are

always built up in the BDO, in

Westminster, and in the bubble, to

some extent, this is an event for

us. Do you think this has been badly

handled?

There has been a pattern

with Theresa May, people get out

there and overpromise and then her

"Gypsy and what's delivered time

after time -- and her own

cautiousness chips in. James,

congratulations on your new role.

Fundamentally, this is a reshuffle

where the boys kept their jobs and

probably the greatest representative

of diversity in real performance

terms around the Cabinet table,

Justine Greening, lost hers.

How

much of a loss is Justine Greening

to the Cabinet?

It is never good news when you lose

a good minister from Government.

Justin had her own reasons, I

haven't been able to talk to her...

She didn't want the work and

pensions brief, do you think it was

a loss and should Theresa May have

tried harder to keep her?

As I say,

I wasn't privy to the conversations.

It is a shame, I think she is a

fantastic MP and I don't know the

reasons why she was not able to stay

in Government.

Was she doing a good

job, in your mind, as Education

Secretary?

The problem with recent

-- reshuffles us that there is

always more talent than there are

seats.

But what she doing a good

job?

Yes, I think so. The question

is, is there somebody that might do

a better job, might she be better

deployed doing a different job? It

is not about if it was a good job, I

think she was doing a good job.

There are a myriad of complicated

moving parts in a reshuffle and they

all into play.

How do you think it

looks when there have been promises

made by Theresa May about wanted to

have a Government that better

reflects society at large, when you

lose somebody like Justine Greening,

comprehensive re-educated, a

campaigner in terms of gay rights,

leaving the Government in that way,

and in terms of the number of women

there has been no net increase in

women in Cabinet posts?

As I say,

the changes to the cabinet, I think,

are taking us in the right

direction.

There are no more women

in full Cabinet posts?

We have ten

women attending cabinet. There has

got to be a degree of stability in

the Cabinet. We are in Government.

This is not one of the Labour

Party's Mickey Mouse Shadow Cabinet

reshuffles. These are people running

departments, where you have to have

a degree of stability. But we do

have a fantastic mix of people. We

have Esther McVey now, who has come

into Cabinet.

You don't think she

represents an increase in diversity,

I think you would be wrong.

Do think

she will become passionate in her

role?

I think she will be. From what

I know of her, and I don't know here

as well as some colleagues that

served with her previously, she is

absolutely passionate about

delivering the things we are all

passionate about, lifting people out

of hardship, giving people

opportunities...

She was very

criticised by the disability lobby

for her work in that role in the

last Government?

She was very

aggressively and nastily targeted by

people like John McDonnell, who used

very appalling and violent,

misogynistic language against her. I

think that unfortunately fuelled a

bit of a hue and cry.

The criticism

from disability rights campaigners

preceded the comments made by John

McDonnell.

I know when she

previously worked in the Department

for Work and Pensions she was

absolutely passionate about using

her role in that department to help

people get on in life. I think she

will be absolutely fantastic in that

role.

Let's move on to the party

itself. This is the role you are

going to be given. Do you think this

reshuffle was more about developing

the party, about the next election,

than it was about government policy,

and hence the ranks have been

swelled by the likes of you and your

colleagues at the party level?

I

think there is always a balance

between the work of Government and

how the mechanics, the party machine

works. They both need to work. A

good party machine helps government

deliver, and a government delivering

helps us with elections.

Has the

party machine been failing because

of what happened in the last

election?

The party machine

delivered the highest vote in a

generation.

How many members has the

party got?

I genuinely don't know at

the moment.

Why don't you know? Why

is it so difficult to get numbers of

Conservative Party members from

anybody in the Conservative Party?

Because we are, in the party, our

philosophy is that we believe in

autonomy, and party membership is

owned that the constituency level.

It is not that easy to compile

up-to-date and accurate figures. The

more important point is that the

party machine is a good machine and

it did well at the last general

election. The Labour Party did very

well, and sometimes the success that

we achieved is slightly overshadowed

and hidden. But it is about building

on that success and making sure that

we are absolutely ready to go into

the local elections in the spring of

this year, and other elections, and,

ultimately, the general election.

John Strafford, at the Campaign For

Conservative Democracy said that

membership could be as low as

70,000. Below 100,000 would make the

Conservative Party the fourth

largest party, behind the Liberal

Democrats, the SNP and certainly

behind Labour. Can you win an

election on that number of members?

I now work at Central office and I

don't have the figures at my

fingertips.

Would you be worried by

that? He is a man on the ground,

working at grassroots level for

years.

John cannot know what the

figures are. He may be speculating,

it could be an educated guess. The

point I am making is, whatever the

membership is, whatever the

functions at Central office have

been, at the last general election

we delivered the largest vote share

and the largest number of votes in a

generation. I am not saying it is

perfect, of course it isn't, and

there are things to do, but it is a

good organisation and working well.

Our job is to make it work better.

Will you publish the figures? Grant

Shapps said they should be published

when you have them?

I am the deputy

party chairman, that would need to

be signed off by my boss.

Do you

think they should be made public?

There are reasons to and fro.

Members are not the only thing. We

have a huge number of supporters and

activists who, for whatever reason,

are not party members, they don't

want to sign up. I don't think we

should disregard their contribution

because they don't put their

signature on a form.

Mark Malloch

Brown, we focused on Justine

Greening and talked about the

diversity and perhaps how Theresa

May's government has not reached the

aspiration of what she wanted.

Esther McVey is a new cabinet

minister, a woman in the Department

for Work and Pensions, do you

welcome that?

She knows a bit about

unemployment, having lost her seat!

Yes, of course. I don't know her at

all, but it is great to have her

there. The fundamental point that

you have just pressed James Wan,

this is a party which is shrinking,

it is smaller than a lot of NGOs,

NGOs looking at the historic houses

and animal rights, a modern social

media movement has 1.7 million

members. This is a shrinking party

that increasingly is out of touch, I

would argue, with the changing

politics.

But terms of vote share,

like the Labour Party, but slightly

bigger, because they did win the

election, albeit losing a majority,

42%?

The two main parties have a

bigger share of the vote than they

had in a generation, which I think

is a last hurrah as party politics

begins to fundamentally realign

around the newer agendas around

there.

In terms of messaging from

the party, are you pleased that Toby

Young has resigned?

I think it was

increasingly clear that was the

right choice. I think there were

many very credible reasons for him

to be appointed in the first place,

he had some fantastic work with free

schools. But he has put out

intentionally controversial ideas

into the public to stimulate debate.

That is what he was paid to do at

the time. Clearly, that overshadowed

the good work he did more recently

on education.

But there are reams of

tweets and articles that have now

been published. Should he have been

appointed on the basis of somebody

that talked about education, saying

the Government would have to repeal

the equality act because any exam

not accessible to a troglodyte with

a mental age of six would be judged

to be elated. -- elitist. Should

anybody like that have been

appointed?

Toby's job at the time he

wrote that was to stimulate debate

and argument and be provocative.

That is what he was meant to do. In

this instance, it was to rely more

heavily on the education experience

he developed with free schools. On

balance, it was clear that one

overshadowed the other.

Thank you.

Now, last month, he was appointed

to a Government quango

overseeing universities.

Today, Toby Young has resigned

from that role after a furore over

tweets and newspaper articles that

disparaged women, the disabled

and the working class.

Defenders point to Toby Young's

record as an educationalist

and founder of the West London Free

School, though many MPs

were unimpressed when his

appointment was discussed

in the Commons yesterday afternoon.

I am flabbergasted and it is

beyond me how the minister can stand

up and support this appointment.

As the Prime Minister said

yesterday, Mr Young,

since these comments and tweets,

has been doing exceedingly good work

in our education system.

And it is for that reason

that he is well placed to make

a valuable contribution to the work

of the board of the office

for students, where he will continue

to do much more to support

the disadvantaged than some

many of his armchair critics.

On this one, I think things

have gone badly wrong.

I'm not talking about the things

that he has done on Twitter.

What I am more concerned

about are some quite dark articles,

where he talks about the disabled,

where he talks about

the working class, much more

significantly in 2015.

And I have the article

here, on what he calls

"progressive eugenics".

Now, I find this incredibly dark

and very dangerous stuff.

I feel that Mr Young's comments do

cross a line and they are indicative

of an underlying character.

Clearly, there is a case

for the board revisiting

and asking him to step down.

And we're joined by

Labour's Dawn Butler,

who raised the urgent question.

And Freddie Gray, Deputy Editor

of The Spectator, where Toby Young

shared his resignation this morning.

Welcome to both of you. So, are you

pleased he has resigned?

I am

pleased he has resigned, it was the

right thing to do. It should have

been done earlier. I don't think he

should have resigned, I think the

Prime Minister should have been

stronger and said it was an

inappropriate appointment and he

should step down.

What do you say to

that? Looking at the articles, which

have been in the public domain,

along with thousands and thousands

of tweets that Toby Young deleted

rather hurriedly over the last week

or so, was it a mistake to have

appointed him in the first place?

I

don't actually know if it was a

mistake to have appointed him, what

I do think it is is sad. It has

obviously been proved to be a

mistake in that he has now had to

stand down. The point about it is

that it is sad, in that Toby has

changed as a person, he has talked a

lot about those changes, and he has

been bang to rights for things he

said in the past, which he said was

foolish, and which he said now are

plain wrong.

They are not in the

distant past. Some of them were said

in 2015. I mean, this article on

progressive eugenics, it was

referred to there by Robert Halford,

he proposed that poorer people

should be helped to choose which

embryos were allowed to develop

based on intelligence. Do you think

he has changed that much?

I disagree

with him very strongly there, and I

remember doing so at the time. I do

think that his opinions are complex,

and he is a convex person. In terms

of being qualified for this job,

we're not talking about him being

minister for health, we are talking

about him being 1/15 of a quango

that, up until recently, nobody had

heard of. I don't think that anybody

should be deemed unqualified,

because he is qualified, and he has

set up successful free schools.

Dawn

Butler, do you think people can

change? You sat in the studio with

me when we were talking about Jarrod

O'Mara, who you said was on a

journey and was changing, from some

of the things he had written in the

past. Do you think people can

fundamentally change or that

everything Toby has said and written

in the past marks him out for this

sort of job?

The difference between

Jarrod and Toby was that Jarrod was

published, and Toby was promoted.

The Government promoted Toby to

this, a paid, public appointment. We

need to establish if due process was

taken place, whether there was due

diligence in the process. We also

need to establish whether he was

suitable. It has come to light that

evidently he was not suitable. And

whether he was promoted on merit, or

the fact that he was mates with a

certain group of people.

Let's talk

about suitability. Freddie claims

that Toby Young was suitable because

of his background in education

recently. A founder member of a free

school, and it was in that capacity

that he was going to take up this

role, on the regulatory body. Do you

think he was qualified for that job?

There are over 800 free schools in

the UK, so there are a plethora of

people that were qualified. There is

also...

Was he qualified?

Well, he

wasn't suitable. Suitability, there

are the Nolan principles and the

seven principles of holding public

office. He has failed in all of

those principles. So, he wasn't

suitable for the position to be

appointed in the first place. It

shows a serious lack of judgment by

the Prime Minister, by Boris

Johnson, by Joe Johnson, defending

him in the house yesterday.

That is

the point, you cannot separate what

he may do professionally in terms of

education and the man himself on the

basis of what he said?

Yes, but I would emphasise again

that this is a minor role on a

quango, if we went through every

single Government quango and

analysed what each of them had said

and done on social media, you would

find yourself throwing out a lot of

people based on their character.

To

delete 40,000 tweets is an enormous

number of tweets to delete. Just 13

months ago, somebody put a sexual

harassment document on his desk and

underlined sections of it in red.

That shows you the type of mind and

character that he is all stop and I

am not saying...

You are not

objecting to Toby because of his

tweets, you are objecting to him

because he is a Conservative who is

on a quango.

Is that true? Is it

because he is a Tory

on a quango.

Is that true? Is it

because he is a Tory, in right-wing

Conservative?

That's absolutely

ridiculous. I am sat on a committee

in Parliament to change the culture

of Parliament in regards to sexual

harassment, I am on that committee

just two months, after two months I

can't stand up and speak out against

somebody with such views then I'm

not doing a good job. I'm not saying

that people can't go on a journey

and change they can.

You don't seem

to grant him the right to have a

journey.

He defended what he said,

saying exactly what you have just

said.

He said that he had said

childish things and they were wrong.

It is more than childish, isn't it?

These are deeply offensive. He has

justified it by saying that he was a

journalist provocateur. Well,

certainly, and it's not just Labour

politicians who have criticised him.

Robert Halfon, Sarah Wollaston,

others within the Conservative

Party. Does that not diminish your

argument that this is somehow a

Labour war?

I think there has been a

witchhunt, you know? There has been

a attempt to produce Toby in the

court of public opinion, and it has

worked.

He is in his 50s, it's a bit

late to grow up! I think his habits

are probably pretty formed! I do

have some sympathy around the fact,

being an ex-journalist myself,

journalism is about being

provocative, if we were all held to

account for everything we had said

as a journalist, we wouldn't get

anywhere. The Spectator has quite a

staple of people who have said

extremely, including Boris Johnson

at earlier stages, and die as a

reader have often enjoyed them.

Should

Should they be banned from holding

the sort of jobs?

Public standards

have moved at the same time as

people in social media have become

more extreme to capture attention.

Toby Young is properly a victim of

raising standards of what we expect

of people at a time that to keep his

audiences and readership he if

anything has had to become more

extreme and what he has said.

It is

not enough to apologise and distance

yourself from what you as a

journalist might have said and done"

he should have had the

self-awareness to say, go great I'm

the kind of provocative journalist

who better stick to my trade, I'm

going to

have a difficult time of it

if I have to move into public life.

Thank you.

It's approaching a year

since his inauguration,

and those who suggested that

Presidential office would change

the reality TV star and billionaire

have been proven wrong.

The account of a chaotic

and dysfunctional White House

in the book Fire and Fury,

published last week,

provided yet more evidence that

Donald Trump in no conventional US

President.

And, as the rest of the world has

discovered over the last 12 months,

he's not a man who does diplomacy.

Here's Elizabeth Glinka.

It's going to be on the America

first. America first -- only

America.

Right from the beginning,

Donald Trump's approach to

international relations has been

somewhat unorthodox. A diplomatic

insurgent, he pulled out of

international deals on trade and

climate change, denounced the 2015

nuclear deal with Iran, and broke

decades of policy by declaring

Jerusalem the capital of Israel.

He

absolutely was certain in his

language that he wanted to put

America's interests first on the

global stage. This meant

renegotiating multilateral

relationships, and really focusing

instead on bilateral partnerships.

He also wanted to renegotiate

America's relationship with Russia.

He thought he could for a much

stronger bond with President Putin.

A relationship that continues to

cause headaches, as at the official

investigation into collusion between

the trunk campaign and the Kremlin

intensifies. There was one subject

that he continued to return to again

and again.

We cannot continue to

allow China... They have taken our

money, they have taken our jobs...

China is a currency manipulator.

Yet

so far that open hostility appears

to have been forgotten.

China

welcomed President Trump and they

gave him a fantastic ceremony. He

left feeling like he had a very

strong personal relationship with

President Xi Jinping. Of course, the

broader context of the nuclear issue

in North Korea has meant that, for

Trump, that has taken precedence.

Whilst long-term allies are fearful

of an escalation on the Korean

potency luck at the American

President of the social media to

exchange in schools with King John

on. His putter spats are not

reserved for his foes -- with Kim

Jong-un. He retweeted a far right

groups.

Increasingly over time we

have seen tweets used to shout back

at the rest of the world. Leaders

around the world are trying to

decide what to do with this. Of

course, those people who are working

with him in the White House are also

faced with very difficult questions

about whether or not to disregard

the tweets or whether or not to try

and design strategies to continue to

implement these into policies, we

are seeing a range of different

responses to Twitter.

After a busy

12 months, it seems the world is

still a little perplexed by the man

who calls himself a very stable

genius.

We're joined now by

the former Vice-President

of Republicans Overseas,

Jan Halper Hayes.

Welcome back to the Daily Politics.

In your mind, what are Donald

Trump's signal foreign policy

achievements so far?

He has achieved

things with Isis, Nato actually has

increased its spending by about $12

billion.

What are his achievements

with Isis?

That they have driven

them out of certain areas of Syria

and Iraq. And they have been able to

release some of those who were

captured.

Even though Donald Trump

said he wouldn't actually intervene

in Syria before he became president.

Well, I think Donald Trump said a

lot of things. And, the fact is,

what people don't understand about

him is that he really operates from

a jewel perspective. He understands

that he is taking a position, but at

the same time, he realises that

America does have a responsibility

to the rest of the world.

Do you

agree with that? Do you think there

is a strategy behind Donald Trump's

tweeting? Because effectively, he is

running his own foreign policy from

Puerto?

I'm not sure there is eight

that you, but it is an instinct and

there is a powerful one. I say to

somebody who is perhaps not quite as

critical as his foreign policy as

you might imagine, because I felt

American foreign policy had become

rather complacent, it was managing

long-term problems like Syria and

Afghanistan, which never seemed to

get solved.

You would have liked to

have seen more intervention and you

think Donald Trump is the man to do

it?

No, not listen Sir Lee, I don't

think intervention is the solution

to all problems, by any means. I

felt a disruptive approach, a

challenge to a lot of America's

relationships, is valid. However,

the fact that they are all bundled

together behind this America first

label and it is so transactional and

so bilateral, it is having a really

devastating consequence. And it is

rippling out globally around trade,

security, you name it, is human

rights, democracy. It is proving so

far a very disappointing although

predictably so presidency, I think.

May I add about his tweeting, it is

strategic, exceedingly strategic.

Which tweets are strategic?

There

are four Prat agrees. One is to

deflect what is going on. --

categories. Two is to send out trial

balloons to test how people feel. To

divert from uncomfortable things, or

to do pre-emptive framing of things.

Where would you put Mexico and

Mexico building that will? Because

he tweeted about that early on, what

was that in terms of your

categories?

That was pre-emptive

framing. And under the trial balloon

to get a sense of what, how well it

would be received.

The nuclear

button, the most recent and

potentially the most explosive, to

coin a phrase. How would you

characterise that?

Well, I thought

it was very interesting that he came

up with a name for him, Rocket Man.

But the thing about North Korea, and

Trump is very much aware of this,

that he's almost like the gift that

keeps on giving to North Korea, like

the gift that keeps on giving the

journalist.

Seeing that his button

is bigger...

North Korea needs to

have and I American slant to it.

That has been something over the

years that has been very important

for their survival -- and

anti-American slant. From the Korean

War, they did not feel it was their

fault. His grandfather, Kim Il-sung,

was the one that first started that

attitude towards anti-American is.

Since the 60s, there have been

cartoons.

Nikki Haley, ambassador to

the UN, has defended Donald Trump's

nuclear button, mine is bigger than

yours, too Kim Jong-un, saying it

was required to keep the North

Korean leader on his toes.

It has

got a frat room for eternity to it,

guys standing naked in front of the

show and saying, mine is bigger than

yours!

That's a lovely image for us

at lunchtime!

It simply feeds into

exactly what you were saying, it

feeds into this America is the enemy

of North Korea, which keeps its weak

regime strong and in power. In fact,

for years, what has been begging to

be done in the Korean peninsula is

really to put China in front on this

one. It should be their problem, not

the US's problem. In fact, instead,

we keep on, rather than diminishing

Kim, we enhance him, by this sort of

nuclear button language and rocket

man language. He is running an

economy 100th the size of South

Korea. He has got some slightly

dodgy weaponry. We should turn this

problem over to China, which is the

neighbour that. For most if he tries

to use those weapons.

Do you think

there has been a moderating effect

on Donald Trump around because of

the advisers around him? People

always used to talk about the system

in America, the checks and balances.

Do you think that is in anyway

softening Donald Trump, apart from

the tweets he does from his bedroom?

I think in terms of his verbal

presentation, you are unlikely to

see anything softening. In of his

decision-making, general matters,

Kelly McMasters, he respects them

enormously. And he very much listens

to them.

Isn't that the case that

the world is tuning out of the

tweets to some extent, and the

process of foreign policy is being

done by the advisers around him?

Well, it is a strange moment when we

are forced to take comfort that

there are bunch of generals around

him! The American system

traditionally had civilian control

of the generals, this time we have

generals' control over civilians and

we are all relieved and happy. I

think it is right that there are

international has been some tuning

out. I'm struck when I go to

international conferences, the ones

who remain deeply alarmed by Trump

tend to be the Americans, who just

can't believe what comes next.

Whereas I think internationally,

there has been a little bit of view,

this guy, strange fellow, but

ultimately a weak president because

he can't drive what he wants through

Congress. And I think actually

that's a very dangerously benign

view to take of it, because a

president can make war. Can make

huge trouble around and

international security issue in a

way that he cannot do domestic

league.

But he also really values

being unpredictable. And in fact,

North Korea reached out to the

Heritage foundation, the Bruce

Klinger, who is their North Korean

expert, to ask him to come over and

explained Rob, which he declined.

But is it wise to repeatedly

intervene and actually insult your

allies? I mean, even Britain,

criticising the Mayor of London and

the Curragh policy here, is that

sensible diplomacy?

No, it's not

sensible diplomacy, it is Donald

Trump's behaviour and there are

aspects of him that are definitely

not perfect and unacceptable to a

lot of people, including myself. But

it is part of him,

it is part of him, and you really

have the June some of it out.

Except, is it damaging the global

reputation? Has it damaged the

global reputation already of the

United States?

I'm actually for mind

that our reputation has been damaged

for much longer than Trump came into

the Presidency.

Look, I would echo

that in the sense that I think, you

know, Obama and from, two sides of

the same coin, how do you manage

relative American weakness. America

is by far the strongest country in

the world still, but relative

weakness, inability to project its

power for example in Asia or in the

Middle East as effectively as it

could the past. Obamacare did it by

a rather quiet and, passive,

multilateralism that didn't really

deliver results. Trump has done it

with bluster and gesture, and

absolutely correctly,

unpredictability. I would argue the

returns on his strategy are probably

even less than they were no Obama's.

Thank you for coming in.

Now, New Year, new Brexit Bill.

The Trade Bill gets its second

reading in the Commons today.

That's the first proper

opportunity MPs have

to scrutinise the legislation,

which is exactly what our

Parliamentary Correspondent,

Mark D'Arcy, has been doing.

Thank you for fulfilling that

important duty. Tell us about it?

It's a tough job, but somebody has

to do it! The trade bill is quite a

small measure in terms of the number

of clauses, but it is a measure that

gives ministers are a lot of power

to implement trade deals that

haven't been negotiated yet. This is

the same problem that the an awful

lot of Brexit legislation, that you

have to have a large kit of tools

available to you, because the

structure you are building hasn't

even got past the concept stage yet,

let alone the design stage. So

they've got very wide powers they

are going to give to ministers to

enact trade treaties. Trade treaties

can be very big deals indeed. There

is a thing called the Government

Procurement Agreement, which is $1.3

trillion of business

across the planet. The UK will now

need individual membership of that,

and it is quite an important thing

for any number of British jobs. That

is just one of dozens of examples

out there of treaties that we have

to make or join as members of that

are coming down the path. The other

issue with this bill is that

Parliament is a little bit

uncomfortable about how little

traction it has when those treaties

come up. Remember, with a loss of

trade treaties, there are particular

issues that grab people's attention.

It might be hormone produced beef,

genetically modified soya beans or

chlorine washed chicken, but when

there was a thing called the

Transatlantic Trade and Investment

Partnership, TTIP, people became

extremely worried about that because

there was a thought out there that

it might impinge on the National

Health Service and effectively

privatise the NHS. Some people

dismissed that as a scare story, but

it was a worry that was definitely

up there.

Thank you very much.

Well, my guest of the day,

Mark Malloch Brown, has some

experience of global trade -

with previous roles at the UN

and as a Foreign Minister.

As does Digby Jones,

former Trade Minister

and a previous Head of the CBI.

He joins us now from Birmingham.

I think the two of you were in

government together, with Gordon

Brown. Welcome back to the Daily

Politics. Mark Mike Brown, David

Davies says he is aiming for a

Canada plus plus plus, Canada have

done a trade deal with the EU. Would

that be a good outcome in your mind?

It might well be, if one could guess

at what he means. This is the same

guy that has also, you know, there

has been talk today that he might

get a minister in charge of a no

Brexit scenario for the country. The

challenges in trade, the world is

full of pluralistic or multilateral

trade agreements and we are, in a

sense, old Britain, threatening to

set out to sea and reconstruct that

set of relationships for ourselves

pretty much from scratch, having

left the safe harbour of Europe. The

whole direction of international

trade policy at the is moment

towards the America First of Trump,

trade is going to be on my terms to

lower American trade deficits. It is

simply not a very good environment

to be trying to reinvent your trade

policy in, particularly when you

have that safe, effective harbour

where we do 43% of our trade at the

moment with Europe.

Digby Jones,

what do you say to that?

Greetings

from Birmingham. You have two GOATS

for the price of one. I am not as

pessimistic as Mark. I am very keen

on ensuring that we remain very good

friends with Europe. I don't like

the

the the idea that it will be enemies

and not friends, when it is in the

interests of an unemployed live in

Greece today, a single mother in

Madrid today, 12% of France

unemployed today, it is in their

interests that they get a good

quality trade agreement, covering

services and financial services,

with this enormous trading partner

called Britain. I wish those that

are still sulking about the result

came on board to get a good result.

I want the Cleggs, and the Blairs,

Mark, as well, in his suit, a

seriously good talent, I want them

to be behind the United Kingdom to

get the deal done. I don't call this

Canada plus plus plus, I think it

has the chance of being unique just

because we are so big. It is a

fabulous time to be doing deals in

Asia, and I have to say, with great

respect to Mr Barnier and his

people, and I'm going to see Michel

Barnier tomorrow...

You as well,

following Nigel Farage?

Not

following him in policy or thought,

I am following him in time. I am

going to say to him, I want to hitch

their wagon to Asia's century, and I

am not going to denigrate Europe. I

am going to say that I don't agree

with the safe harbour idea. Europe

is in relative decline. Asia is not.

I would like to be doing deals with

Asia.

Do you accept that? Are you

sulking? Are you sitting there with

others on the Labour and Tory side

that are just lacking the optimism

and the gung ho spirit of people

like Digby Jones for the trade deals

that are out there?

Well, if I was

ever feeling down, Digby was the man

I went to. He is gloriously

optimistic about everything, God

bless him, and terribly talented. So

I take what he says very, very

seriously. For me, it is not Europe

or Asia, and I don't think it is for

Digby, you can get both. I also

think you can get both. But how you

get both for me is different, you

start by holding on to Europe and at

age.

But you can't get free trade

deals with other countries if we are

still part of the single market?

All

of the Asians I talked you do not

like the idea of special trade stuff

governing the relationship with the

UK and Europe, because they look at

Europe as a single export market, of

which the UK is part. They don't

want to send cars and electronics

here that are different to the ones

they have to ship to Europe. The

complexity of that kind adds costs

to our imports, as well as what we

export.

Realistically, you say you

want to remain friends with Europe

and with the EU, but do you accept

that any trade deal with the EU,

which may be a good one,

particularly if it includes

services, which is a big issue for

Britain, it will not be as good as

the one we have got now?

I think in

tariff terms it will be the same as

now.

In trade terms?

Yes, but in

tariff terms, an inhibitor to trade,

frankly, every deal Mark and I ever

did as trade, you were starting with

tariffs of 10%, 12%, 8%, and trying

to get them down. I've never known a

trade negotiation on Earth start at

zero and try to get it up. I'm not

at all concerned. I think it will be

exactly the same in tariffs. Where I

am concerned and where we have work

to do is what I called nontariff

barriers to trade. The bureaucracy,

the regulation. Mark is right in

saying that we have to adapt, we are

not going to like this as a country

but we have to do it, we have to

adapt to a lot of the regulation

that Europe do to enable goods to be

sold there. Because of that, we will

do it for the rest of the world

because no producer in Britain, no

manufacturer or service provider is

going to have two lines, one for

non-Europe, and one for Europe. Mark

is absolutely right. You can work

through that by being Michel

Barnier's friend, saying, you're not

going to have a problem with me on

this, I want to get it done quickly

to give business certainty. What is

very important right now is that we

don't have the situation where, he

has to understand that we can walk

away but we're not going to.

You

want a situation where you could

walk away and not pay the divorce

bill?

Definitely.

Is there an

opportunity? The 27 are not united

completely when it comes to trade.

They all have different priorities

at the moment. It may be

at the moment. It may be that

Britain can secure trade deal like

Canada's, because we start with

being joined together, unlike

Canada. Do you accept that might be

straightforward and it is just

services that are the issue?

I think

services are a special issue, so

much of the architecture of Europe

that we blame on Brussels, the lead

partner with our trade ministers. We

have had a real hand in shaping

trade policy. However many pluses

you add to the Canada formula, we

become a taker, not a rule maker. We

can expect that trade policy will

shift to something more reflective

of Franco German priorities than

ours. We will steadily be on the

losing end of a changing European

trade policy which we will not be

able to influence.

As well as being

a rule taker, rather than a rule

giver, part of the argument of the

debate being held now, in terms of

the negotiations and how closely we

align ourselves with the EU, what

about trade diminishing with

distance? When people like you say,

look, there are all of these

opportunities out there in Asia and

Australia, isn't it true that it is

more difficult to trade in the way

that we do with close, literally,

geographical partners, than those

further afield in terms of volume?

No. In a world before

digitalisation, before Robitaille is

-- robots, I would have said yes.

The world has changed. Brussels has

not kept up. They saw success in

manufactured goods, when the world

is aching for what Britain does

really well. We can achieve so much

of that with technology. Where you

are right is that people are going

to have to get on the plane, rather

than Eurostar, and nobody does trade

better than when they are sitting

over a table and you're doing

face-to-face. You are right there is

that. But frankly, we are talking

about a few hours every time. It is

a different world. When you think of

someone

someone like the UAE, the third

biggest home of our exports, not

Germany, not France, what can they

do? They get value-added services.

That is the future.

Mark Malcolm

Brown, is the truth that the

organisation you are representing

wants to reverse Brexit?

Absolutely,

I am ashamed to say it, even with

Digby at the end of the line.

How do

you do it?

It's very clear, like

with anything to do with democracy,

you are allowed to change mind. That

is why we have new elections. I

think people are changing their

minds.

The polls don't indicate

that.

It depends which one you read.

But I agree that they haven't

changed it as dramatically as I

would like to see. It is moving

because there is a deterioration in

the economic situation and people

are beginning to understand that

they were seriously mis-sold in the

original referendum. The guys who

fought for Stronger In didn't fight

as strongly as they should. We are

such an ambivalent country when it

comes to Europe, we find it hard to

admit that we actually rather like

our European neighbours, that seems

to be a political suicide note.

There is no obvious mechanism in

order to stop?

There is a meaningful

vote in October, a defeat of the

government on that vote would lead

to a second referendum or election,

or some way of having a second

chance.

You have literally got ten

seconds?

Just beware, the word

tyrant. We chopped off the King's

head because he was telling

Parliament what to do. You don't

want to give the parliament into the

position of acting as the tyrant to

the people. The people asked for

something. I think what they really

asked for, deep down, but they

didn't want to be told what to do by

Berlin and Brussels. Be careful what

you might wish for, because if you

got it, I have to say that I think

parliament would be in an incurably

difficult position.

Let's quickly

get back to the reshuffle and find

out who has been in and out of

Number 10. Norman Smith is in

Downing Street. I hope you went home

last night and haven't been there

all night?

It has been like

Piccadilly Circus, coming and going.

What have we had so far? We have had

the reshuffle of the deckchairs of

some of the middle ranking male

ministers. We have seen, for

example, Dominic Raab has moved from

justice to housing, Alok Sharma made

way for him at housing and went to

employment. Joe Johnson, the

Universities Minister, yesterday

defending Toby Young, has been

shuffled over to transport. Greg

Hands stays at International Trade.

Some of the older men have been

parcelled off. These are male

ministers of a certain vintage,

shall we say in their 50s. John

Hayes, Philip Dunne, Robert

Goodwill, Mark Dhani, they will be

dispatched from government. -- Mark

Garnier. We have had Harriet

Baldwin, Margot James, some women

are inside Downing Street and I

expect they are likely to be pushed

up the ministerial ladder.

Thank you

for bringing us to the end of the

programme. All quiet behind you at

the moment at Number 10. Thank you

for being our guest of the day, Mark

Malcom Brown. The one o'clock News

is starting on BBC One. Andrew will

be here tomorrow for the first Prime

Minister's Questions. Goodbye.