Jo Coburn is joined by former Foreign Office minister and anti-Brexit campaigner Lord Malloch-Brown to discuss the Cabinet reshuffle and his plans to try and keep the UK in the EU.
Browse content similar to 09/01/2018. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
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
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 -
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?
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
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
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?
will be careful about what you does
next. She says she cares about
social mobility most, that is why
she wants to stay in that job.
was the first comprehensively
educated Education Secretary.
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
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.
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
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.
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,
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
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?
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
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?
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
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
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.
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
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
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
we are never going to
chase every bit of gossip and
speculation and it would be wrong to
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
What we are doing is
delivering on the agenda that the
Prime Minister is set out when she
stood on the steps of Downing
There is no change of policy
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.
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
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.
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
Was she doing a good
job, in your mind, as Education
The problem with recent
-- reshuffles us that there is
always more talent than there are
But what she doing a good
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
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
You don't think she
represents an increase in diversity,
I think you would be wrong.
she will become passionate in her
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
She was very
criticised by the disability lobby
for her work in that role in the
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.
from disability rights campaigners
preceded the comments made by John
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
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?
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.
party machine been failing because
of what happened in the last
The party machine
delivered the highest vote in a
How many members has the
I genuinely don't know at
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
Would you be worried by
that? He is a man on the ground,
working at grassroots level for
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.
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.
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
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
But terms of vote share,
like the Labour Party, but slightly
bigger, because they did win the
election, albeit losing a majority,
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
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
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
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.
Now, last month, he was appointed
to a Government quango
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
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?
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?
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
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?
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.
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.
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
Was he qualified?
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.
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.
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
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
He defended what he said,
saying exactly what you have just
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
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
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 they be banned from holding
the sort of jobs?
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.
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
have a difficult time of it
if I have to move into public life.
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
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
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.
absolutely was certain in his
language that he wanted to put
America's interests first on the
global stage. This meant
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
We cannot continue to
allow China... They have taken our
money, they have taken our jobs...
China is a currency manipulator.
so far that open hostility appears
to have been forgotten.
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
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
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
What are his achievements
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
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.
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
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
You would have liked to
have seen more intervention and you
think Donald Trump is the man to do
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?
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
That was pre-emptive
framing. And under the trial balloon
to get a sense of what, how well it
would be received.
button, the most recent and
potentially the most explosive, to
coin a phrase. How would you
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
Seeing that his button
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
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.
got a frat room for eternity to it,
guys standing naked in front of the
show and saying, mine is bigger than
That's a lovely image for us
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
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
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
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
I'm actually for mind
that our reputation has been damaged
for much longer than Trump came into
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
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
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
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.
what do you say to that?
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 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
You as well,
following Nigel Farage?
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
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
But you can't get free trade
deals with other countries if we are
still part of the single market?
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
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
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.
want a situation where you could
walk away and not pay the divorce
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?
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 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.
Brown, is the truth that the
organisation you are representing
wants to reverse Brexit?
I am ashamed to say it, even with
Digby at the end of the line.
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
The polls don't indicate
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
You have literally got ten
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
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
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.
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.
Jo Coburn is joined by former Foreign Office minister and anti-Brexit campaigner Lord Malloch-Brown to discuss the Cabinet reshuffle, his plans to try and keep the UK in the European Union, and the foreign policy of US president Donald Trump.