15/05/2016 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland


Andrew Neil and Mark Carruthers with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Guests include Iain Duncan Smith MP to discuss the EU referendum.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 15/05/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



comparing the mission of the European Union with


what Hitler was trying to achieve - has the Leave campaign's self-styled


Churchillian attack dog gone too far?


He says leaving the European Union


will improve the lives of the "have nots" -


but is the man who presided over billions of pounds of welfare


cuts really on the side of working people?


Reducing the powers of the House of Lords


would not be acceptable, says the woman charged with keeping order


in the upper house - but with 60 government defeats


in the last year alone have their Lord and Ladyships


And coming up here: The architect of opposition at Stormont,


the former MLA John McCalllister, gives us his verdict


on the Ulster Unionist Party's move out of government.


And with me - as always - three journalists who'd have been


sure to win the Eurovision political punditry contest: Helen Lewis,


Isabel Oakeshott and Amol Rajan who'll be tweeting throughout


So earlier in the week the Prime Minister warned that


leaving the EU could precipitate armed conflict in Europe.


Today, Boris Johnson hits back, comparing the European Union


to Hitler in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph:


"Napoleon, Hitler, various people tried this out,


The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods."


Boris goes on to say "The euro has become a means by which superior


German productivity is able to gain an absolutely unbeatable advantage


Could you organise an ordinance that British politicians should just shut


up about Hitler? It is an interesting one, the campaign are


getting quite grumpy, saying that he was not really talking about Hitler.


Boris is to clever not to know that if you mention Napoleon and Hitler


people will write headlines. He is a columnist and he knows this. It is


bizarre. It was Sadiq Khan sitting at home thinking he was the only


London mayor was not mentioned Hitler? The campaign has become


quite personal, it is about David Cameron's relationship with them,


and whether he has a hope of becoming leader. And as always like


to make things personal. It does not surprisingly in the slightest that


it is becoming more personal as the clock ticks towards the key date. On


Boris Johnson's comments, absolutely agree with Helen but no good can


come of a politician mentioning Hitler, but the reaction to the


remarks has been rather hysterical. If anyone bothers reading the


context... In the context. The Mac was an absolutely reasonable


statement of historical fact. We should not get to a point where


nobody can mention anything historical without it creating a


ridiculous action. I don't think it will be arise if it helps them win


votes. He fancies herself as an inherent to Winston Churchill, it


was in store. In your dreams, if the copy had come in and you had seen


the word logo might think you have a chance for a headline. Ever since


the collapse of the Roman Empire there have been attempts to unify


Europe. In a way, the Germans have that... There was a slight


difference in having endless pragmatic committees and ruling


tanks and to Poland. By different means is quite different. He was


arguing it was an attempt to unify Europe, it is bundled together


different ideas. It is a bit of a stretch. But overstretch! I think


there was a real danger... And what is the European Union, parable?


People support Brexit would say it was an attempt to build a European


super structure without a Democratic base. Democratic nations. It is


completely reasonable. Ireland begins to cover girl to make


important arguments about historical trends. Butler was Fromer remark.


He only mentioned Napoleon. Maybe he should have mentioned other leaders.


What do you make of the polls, showing neck and neck but they are


so far ahead in the economic argument, and that is why we will


win. They always hoped that. The evidence is that people put the


economy as the highest concern. What the Leave campaign is trying to do,


we've seen this from Nigel Farage, make the point that this is not just


about GDP, a few extra pounds in your pocket. The Leave campaign will


be hoping to highlight the question of what this means for society.


Now - would leaving the European Union be good


for the poor and disadvantaged in Britain?


That's the case that's being made by the former Work


and Pension Secretary Iain Duncan Smith.


I will be talking to him in a moment.


But first let's hear the warnings earlier this week about


the short-term impact of Brexit on the economy


from the Governor Bank of England, Mark Carney.


A vote to leave the European Union could have material economic effects


on the exchange rate, on demand, and on the economy's


So, this combination of influences on demand,


supply and the exchange rate could lead to a materially lower


path for growth and a notably higher path for inflation


than in the central projections set out in today's


Welcome back to the Sunday Politics. You've claimed that leaving the EU


would be good for the have nots but the Governor of the Bank of England


says it could lead to recession, inflation, unemployment. That could


be bad. If all the predictions were right. Every single one of these


predictions is done by groups of people who've got most of their


predictions wrong. The point I would make to you, the Treasury prediction


and the IMS prediction all show that if Britain left the EU the economy


would grow. Their argument is it would not grow as fast but how you


can predict a 0.6% variation is beyond me. He was the point I really


believe about the bank, which is where I find this very back. I think


the bank, the governor has strayed into an expression of a simple,


personal prediction. I don't think it is actually possible for you to


say with any absolute accuracy that that will happen. In a sense, when


you listen to what he said, he started to nuance about the idea, he


was not seeing it actually would be comic he said he thought it could be


about that. Here is my point about the independence of the Bank of


England. Section ten of the 1998 act makes it very clear that if he is to


talk about monetary policies, for which he has independence, he has to


be open, impartial and all things must be available. Last year, in


2015, when he spoke about the threat to the British economy, he made the


point which Mervyn King has made that the euro instability and the


crash has been very damaging to the British economy and will be even


more damaging as it goes on. Notice that when he came out on Thursday he


said nothing about the overall problems if we remained in. If


you're going to be impartial then you had damned well better say


something about the alternative case and the threats of remaining are


very clear. Mervyn King said there is a crisis going on and he does not


see an end to it. Why don't we hear from him about that? Has he breached


his obligations as Governor of the Bank of England? I believe that he


has. Should he resign? I think he ought to be asked why he has not


brought out both sides of the issue. He used to work for Goldman Sachs.


They are running through this, funding the campaign, he has been


very clear on it. You bring out Goldman Sachs, lack of impartiality,


you think he is not keeping his remit, should he resign? I think he


needs to answer about this one simple charge. I would like to see


the e-mail exchange over this issue, the telephone conversation minutes,


to see whether the Treasury has had any involvement in this process


whatsoever, what worries me slightly about what is going on, the Bank of


Scotland comes out on Thursday and then suddenly the head of the IMF


comes out on Friday with a similar prediction. These are the same


people that were telling us all that the UK is too small to leave and too


insignificant. Now we are so insignificant that we are plunging


the world into an economic crash. Are we saying this was an accident?


The governor did not call? Let me ask you this, we know what made...


Are you saying they are colluding? I wonder. Do you have any evidence?


Suddenly on Wednesday and Thursday, you have reports coming out, do you


think they spoke to each other about what they are doing? I wonder about


that. The Chancellor is supporting the governor, he then stands behind


Christine Lagarde. We know that they are players in this. The IMF always


works with them. We know which major economic authorities you don't like.


The Treasury, the IMF, the Bank of England, the OECD, which major


economic authorities do you rate? There have been some good reports


out, there are a number of good economists, lots of others from the


city who have produced a report which got very little coverage about


the prospect... Any major economic apologies? Yes but when they have


come out with these reports they have said the UK would continue to


grow. Not as quickly. Not as quickly. My point is if you're going


to be balanced you need to constantly reference that point and


if they want to say that there is a possibility this could lead to a


problem he must also point out that if we remain there is a possibility


that we will be damaged by this. You made that .3 times. Let me ask you,


can you name a major economic authority on your side of the


argument? I would not expect one to be on our side. So you have none? It


would be completely unusual for all these institutions not to want to


act the status quo. All these institutions said there was no


problem in 2007 and then one year later we hit the buffers and the


economy went down. None of them predicted it. Including the


Conservatives. None of them have apologised for their failure.


I want to show you this chart. This shows our balance of payments, our


deficit. It is the difference between our exports and imports. We


import a lot more than we export in goods and services. It has


continually got worse under your government. This deficit, which is


multi-billion, is financed by foreigners who buy our sterling as I


to make up the gap. If Brexit create a falling pound, why would the


foreigners continue to pay for our deficit? If the economy didn't


perform, why would be, but if you look at all those who predicted


where we would be now, they all said the threat of Brexit would actually


bring the pound crashing. The pound is now rising back up, close to


where it was when we started this campaign. 10% on last November. We


had this deficit, it is financed by foreigners. If they lose confidence


in this country, confidence in Stirling, how do we pay for this? We


have to make sure we run the economy in a way that they have confidence


in it, we have to get some of those regulations down, we have to make


British industry more competitive. We have to have a better plan to get


industry working again. That would be in the long term, this could be a


short-term problem that could hit in the summer. If it results leaving in


an uncontrolled, plummeting sterling, and the foreigners because


of the uncertainty and sterling going down are saying we are not


going to continue to finance it, the bank would have to raise interest


rates, wouldn't it? If that was the circumstance, yes, but it is what


you plan to do. Why are they investing in what we are doing at


the moment? They buy the bonds because they believe the Government


has a long-term plan to get the deficit down and reduce borrowing.


Therefore they believe the UK is a good investment and running a trade


surplus with the rest of the world. We are running a huge deficit. Yes,


but we are running a trade surplus. If they need to finance this


deficit, and it is not the budget deficit, it is how the foreigners by


our assets in order to help us run this deficit. If interest rate did


rise, it follows that mortgage rates could rise substantially. Yes but


the alternative could be the same, in other words if they believe what


we are doing is right for the economy they are prepared to back


it, which means you wouldn't have rising interest rates. All of this


is speculation because we don't know. Boris Johnson has admitted


that after Brexit there would be a Nike tick, that he believes the


economy would take a hit, but it would recover strongly. Do you


believe that? Possibly but this is speculation about something nobody


knows. There has been speculation about forecast in these economies,


most of them are wrong because people are unable to tell us about


what they think about our prospects afterwards. If we vote to leave, we


are already able to show we can get our money back in due course and we


are able to start planning our own economy so we are able to get the


kind of deals we need. That shows you have a plan that works. You


could offer short-term crisis in the interim, couldn't you? They are


worried whether their mortgage will have risen by August or September of


this year. If that were to happen but the word is if. This is pure


speculation. The point I am making is that the reality is it may go in


the opposite direction. Nobody can say that. The EU guarantees a number


of social protections for workers, covering things like equal pay,


working time, maternity pay. Can you pledged to fight to maintain all of


these protections if we leave? All of these were accepted by the


Conservative government and I believe strongly then need to be


protections for workers. All of these things in a democracy are


debated but the British government have actually themselves instituted


protections for workers. So would you fight to keep the protections


they currently have under EU guarantees? As it stands, yes. Why


should people trust you because you opposed the Web Time directive in


1996, and voted against the minimum wage in 1997. Why would they have


not looked to you for this social protection? Because rather than


forecast ahead, look back at what has happened to them. The


immigration has damaged them. I'm simply saying what has happened,


therefore my argument has been, and you have known that over a long


time, over nine years I have argued this process has been most damaging


to the people at the low skilled end. That is the migration issue, it


may well be true. I'm asking you why should people trust you on these EU


social protections that they would remain if we came out since you


voted against them when they were being proposed? The working Time


directive gave little or no flexibility at the time. It has been


in place and we had to work with it. You protect the workforce but you


make sure the competition that they face in terms of their jobs is


actually fair competition, not unfair competition. What has


happened, as you saw on Thursday with the national insurance numbers,


is a very high proportion of people coming in in under 52 weeks here who


have no commitment to the UK often staying in bed sits, compete on the


low salary end of life. Is the working Time directive, which


guarantees the hours people work in a week and proper breaks, is that


safe after Brexit or not? UK law would enshrine what we think is best


for protection of workforce and that is right. A democratic government


will decide on what it thinks is right. That is possible for Labour


or Conservative. I believe it is right to have it, the question is


how flexible... People watching this will not be reassured by this. I


will stick to the agreements we have. You point your fist in the


Commons when the Chancellor announced the new national living


wage, now you say it is a magnet for migrants, what changed? I said it is


a good people for people wanting to come and work here because they will


get a higher wage. I am wholly in favour of a rise to the minimum wage


because I believe that over time what happens to businesses is they


have got around paying lower wages... Would you still be in


favour of it if we stayed in the EU? Yes, because it is the best way you


can drive the wages up but if we stay in the EU it will become a


magnet for people to come in here and it will lead to huge problems.


The point I made on Tuesday this week was that have we have seen


already lots of people from the EU tend to come in. The vast majority


of people coming from the European Union into the UK, they tend to be


low skills, they tend to be ones taking a high proportion of those


low skilled jobs. They have taken them at lesser salary and driven it


down. The overall average wage will still be low for those on low


skills. You have brought up migration several times in this


interview, isn't the blunt truth, because I was asking about the


economics, you are losing the economic arguments, the polls show


that, you are more dependent on scaring people. John Major says:


What do you say? Rubbish. Very simple, he is talking nonsense. He


said only a few years ago that there was a real issue over immigration.


The Government had a target to get tens of thousands, the limit down to


tens of thousands, we are not achieving that. We talked about it


in the run-up to the election. The Prime Minister himself made a strong


commitment that we would ensure our borders were protected against


people coming to be here so it is nonsense because we are not raising


this is an issue because we are trying to win the referendum. Most


people in the country believes there is an issue about the open border


with the European Union. Why is it demagoguery, why is it extremism to


speak for British people who feel like their views are being tossed


aside? If you don't do it, the extreme parties get onto it. Was it


wise Boris Johnson to compare the EU's ambitions? I thought it was a


good article because he spoke about this nonsensical... Was it wise to


compare it with Hitler? Do you think Hitler's efforts to unify Europe are


the same as the European Union's efforts? I think the whole process


of trying to drive Europe together by force or democracy ultimately


makes problems. Isn't this referendum getting vaguely absurd?


We have the Prime Minister dangling the thought of world War three if we


leave, and on your side we have Boris Johnson saying Hitler and the


European Union are on the same script. It is both nonsense and you


know that. All he is doing in the interview is talking about the trend


towards the idea, and he's using historical parallels to explain it.


You go through this great idea that somehow there is a thing called


greater Europe. Whether or not you like the linguistics of this, my


point remains the same. If you vote to remain on the 23rd, you are


voting, the 12 residents said it clear that they intend to deepen...


The five presidents. The five presidents rather. David Cameron and


George Osborne won't debate other Tory ministers during the


referendum, are they concerned about party unity or just running scared?


You will have to ask them. My view about it is that it is right to have


a proper debate and by not opening that debate the British public will


be left to wonder why they were not allowed to see the two opposing


sides of the argument from the leading figures. You would debate


the Prime Minister? Yes, we need to get these things straight


face-to-face. After all, if this were an election would be Remain


side be allowed to say we won't debate Ed Miliband fustian might


know, they cannot do that. There are two side to this argument, if two


sides have to debate it that is right and proper. It should be down


to impartiality that we have two sides, the two sets of leaders. Iain


Duncan Smith, thank you. Now, the Commons are elected,


the House of Lords are not and is supposed to be


a "revising chamber". But have their lord and ladyships


been overstepping the mark? Over the the past year,


they've inflicted 60 defeats on a Government that's now poised


to clip the Lord's wings - reducing their power


to block changes in the law. But in an exclusive interview before


she steps down as the speaker of the House of Lords in the summer,


Baroness D'Souza has told us that the powers of the Lords


should not be curtailed. It's very obvious why


they are called the crossbenchers, My guide knows this place pretty


well, how it works, who's who. Since 2011, she's been Lord Speaker,


a role which involves overseeing proceedings here,


representing the Lords at home and abroad, and sitting


on a sack of wool. But the business in here over


which Baroness D'Souza presides has come under increasing criticism


from the Government. 247 members of the House of Lords


sit as Conservatives peers, making the governing party


a significant minority of the 807 members eligible to take


part in the Upper House. The Government has faced 60 defeats


in the House of Lords in the most The rate of defeats this time


round is more than twice that Then, the Government was defeated


in less than a quarter of votes compared to more


than half in the present one. Now there's a sense that the Lords


are too rebellious, they have been too rebellious over the last few


years and essentially the Lords You know, all governments


and all parliamentarians, or at least House of Commons,


always feel that the House of Lords is a place that thwarts them


in one way or another. And they're right, they do,


but that is in the nature They have all the power


and rightly so. I still think it's right


that the Lords should be free to scrutinise and to question


and to hold the Government to account, and to send back


legislation which it feels is not adequate, either in terms


of its clarity or because perhaps it infringes from time to time


individual liberties And that's exactly what happened


last October. The House of Lords effectively


blocked the Government's proposed changes to tax credits,


a massive blow to George Unelected Labour and Liberal Lords


have voted down a matter passed by the elected House of Commons,


that raises constitutional issues and David Cameron and I are clear


they will need to be dealt with. The way they dealt with it was to


ask Lord Strathclyde He concluded peers should


lose their absolute veto over detailed laws known as secondary


legislation, and instead be allowed only to send it back


to the Commons to think again. There's going to be a lively debate


about this in the House of Lords and I think that there will be a lot


of views expressed and obviously you would expect the Lords


to want to retain their power to scrutinise their power,


their privilege. If you start curtailing or eroding


or limiting the power of the Lords to do its job,


there is a question There is another question,


too, over the sheer number Baroness D'Souza told me


she would be pushing for a Lords motion in the new session,


she says the House of Lords should not be larger than the Commons,


suggesting the number of peers At least 20% of them should be


independents or crossbenchers, and no one party should


have a political majority. She said all of that can


be achieved by 2020. So, the size is making


it inefficient? It does have an impact unfortunately


on the role of the House of Lords in holding the Government


to account. It's very difficult if you're


limited to sort of say, in timed debates, a minute or two


minutes to speak, to develop a sustained argument


which will convince your fellow peers but also the Government


of what it is you are The traditional pomp and ceremony


of the Lords is well known but its relationship


with the Commons and exactly what role it can play in the future


is far more uncertain. And the man who was charged


by the Government to review the Lord's powers, Tam Strathclyde,


joins us now from Oxfordshire. Welcome to the programme. Nice to


see the sun is shining rate you are. We've just heard, what would be the


point of the Lloyds if the powers are watered down as your review


proposes. What do you say to her? There is no suggestion and no


recommendation by anybody in government to fundamentally change


the powers of the House of Lords. I made the most mild and humble


recommendation about process, where frankly most of us had understood


that the customs and conventions that had been built up would stick.


Last October, they broke down, as a result there is no consensus and


agreement on what those powers could be. I propose a new power to be able


to reject and ask. What is interesting is every school child


knows that the purpose of the House of Lords is to scrutinise but not to


block. What happened was the House of Lords using a veto and given it


is unelected, I don't think that power should ever be used. Is the


government going to implement your recommendations? Since I reported


before Christmas there have been four further reports, three in the


House of Lords and one in the House of Commons, commenting on this. I


think what the government will want to do is look carefully at these


reports before responding. I don't think there needs to be a rush to


legislation, and there may well be an attempt to get an agreement


between the parties in the House of Lords, between the two Houses of


Parliament. But if that consensus cannot be reached, I think the


government will have no option but to legislate on this matter. Your


government has had 60 defeats at the hands of the Lords. You wonder


whether the conservative tune has changed because it was Tory peers


inflicting defeat on Labour governments. Now you are getting a


taste of your own historic medicine, you just don't like it. I was Leader


of the Opposition for most of those years, particularly after the end of


the last century. We did defeat the government regularly on primary


legislation, not secondary legislation. What was interesting in


your package is the government has been defeated in the House of Lords


many more times than it did in the first Parliament of Tony Blair's


government. Over half of all the votes in the House of Lords are


defeated. This is not revision and scrutiny, this is not complementing


the work of the House of Commons, this is an aggressive political


statement why the other political parties. Is it really? This is a


government which increasingly brings forward ill thought out ideas which


it has not planned in advance, not without consultation, and is forced


into U-turns. There has been a series of them. That is why you need


a second chamber, to do proper scrutiny. I am the greatest defender


of the second chamber and indeed, a Conservative Party that fully


understands the central tenets of the Constitution, the balance


between the houses, but what we've seen in the last 12 months, and


remember, this is the first 12 months of a new conservative


administration, people who were elected to government, scarcely one


year ago, and what we've seen in the House of Lords are blocking tactics,


using vetoes rather than working with the House of Commons in order


to improve that legislation which you rightly criticise. Are you a


supporter of the way that governments have bloated the House


of Lords? There are over 800 active peers. The US Senate needs 100 and


it has real power. You've not got much power and those over 800 of


you. Is that sensible? When Mr Blair and his friends throughout the


hereditary peers in the 1990s I did argue that there was an inevitable


consequence that prime ministers would try to increase their own


numbers in the house. What's interesting about Mr Cameron is he


has created far more Labour peers. Wide of the need to be 800 of you?


You don't. -- why does there need to be 800. But those who want to reduce


it to 500 should say how they plan to do that. I would prefer either


people to be involved in the decision and they should be directly


It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.


We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now


Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland.


Any expectations of a quiet week at Stormont after the election


were quashed on Thursday as the Ulster Unionists


After losing his seat, the independent unionist


John McCallister wasn't there to witness the development


but his legacy lives on as the man behind the Opposition Bill.


And the face of Stormont is changing in another important way.


The election returned our highest number of female MLAs yet and I'll


And with me throughout with their thoughts Newton Emerson


The will they, won't they questions of the pre-election period were well


We don't yet have a government but we do have an opposition.


The debate around Mike Nesbitt's unilateral move continues.


Was it visionary leadership or mere grand-standing?


In the meantime, Stormont-watchers are beginning to think


through what opposition will actually look like.


John McCallister was the architect of the bill that made it possible,


and the independent MLA Claire Sugden has welcomed


Your boys welcome to the programme. There's a huge irony, when you


challenge Mike Nesbitt for the leadership of the UUP, used it on a


platform of going to opposition. You ask anyone, your parting gift this


entry was your private members bill and opposition which he has taken


advantage of and you're not there to be part of it. The bit me has always


been about creating an opposition, and opposition holds a government to


account. It also puts enormous pressure on those in government to


actually govern and we have to move away from this idea of endless


government by peace process negotiation with everyone, if you


are elected to government I congratulate the DUP and Sinn Fein,


they got their man they restored as before, only one seat down, and the


UUP it was sensible to go into opposition. There is a


responsibility there to do that so I'd encountered as grandstanding


because in UK politics Leader of the Opposition is known as the worst job


in politics, it is tough going holding a government to account with


all of the powers and trappings of government and actually coming up


and looking like a good thing at the next election. You agree? Of course.


Whatever his reasons for doing it with the fact that we now have an


opportunity for the within the assembly and that can only be a good


thing. The biggest problem with our politics for so long as we had one


holding the government to account and now we do. I am excited about it


but I do think moving forward the Ulster Unionists have the data in a


correct way, and too many occasions they have made sweeping statements.


They came at the government last year, I'm not sure why. You didn't


follow through on what they could have done in providing an unofficial


opposition last year so now they have the opportunity to be an


official opposition many to do it right. The Alliance Party can be


part of the government is it fills the role of department of justice


and across community votes but it copy but the opposition. You as an


independent could be invited to be the justice minister but you


wouldn't be allowed to be in the opposition. But odd. When John


presented his bill it was taken apart by the two main parties,


turkeys voting for Christmas, we are where we are and in this next


mandate we can move towards making a stronger so cannot democracy that


looks like other parts of the world. How do you think the relationship


will work between the Ulster Unionists, the SDLP, I don't know if


you have a view on whether it should stay or not and the smaller groups


and independence, could there be a bigger opposition of voice alongside


the official opposition? I think there should be. Your point and the


Alliance Party, they wanted to see and push for technical groups,


Claire 's point that that might evolve if Alliance were to forego


the justice department, you would then have about 14 MLAs that would


be very strong and say we should have a technical group. Might view


on the SDLP as I think in the three assembly elections I've been a


candidate they gone from 16 seats to 14 to 12, they came within 89 votes


of being out of the process effectively in west Belfast. You


cannot continue with that and be in the opposition from within the


government. Your vote going down. Without looking insane, hang on,


should we be outside and be a proper opposition and work in the Ulster


Unionists? -- without looking outside. I take the point that the


UUP, there is a responsible to the do it properly, not just opposition


for opposition sake. This has to be constructive opposition, real


meaningful politics coming up with alternative identities and that's a


long grind but it also puts pressure on the government to deliver and


step up to the plate. How much do you think the seating arrangements


matter? We have a system where parties from the two extremes of the


spectrum have to work together but people are familiar with the


adversarial style where the government and the opposition face


each other across the chamber, we don't have that honour should we


have that? Yes, because we are in a power-sharing arrangement and that


they does become the case of the Sinn Fein and DUP will become the


government than they have to present that to the public. I can say that


when and not standing in front of the public, but they should be. You


want them sitting together and facing the opposition? You have to


know Sinn Fein and the DUP don't want the optics. They do it behind


closed doors, why can't they be transparent? Ring it on. I think we


need to start moving towards normal politics and I think this is the


first that in doing that so I'm excited for the next five years as


long as people do the job right. You can't influence where people sit any


more and I'm not sure how much influence you had had but do you


think the optics that matter? I don't get a red herring. It's one of


the things I was going to put on the bill and I felt was a battle that I


didn't need to take on. Identity will happen this term but I think


the point about it helps it look like a cohesive government around


issues like collective responsibility and things like that,


that's where we need to get to. We've had this too long. Without


people almost -- we've had people in the DUP saying we're not ready


government with Sinn Fein and vice versa. Those seating arrangements


suit the narratives that each party want to put out but what you need is


a cohesive and coherent government. How difficult you think you were


before Sinn Fein and the DUP to be the two parties in the government


working together without the cover of any of this? Claire made the


point that they do it behind closed doors, not always liking the optics,


but do you think there would be people who be uncomfortable about


just those two parties from the absolute opposite ends of the


spectrum having to work together? That's what the people have voted


for. We have to remember that we had no election ten days ago, that's


what we got elected as our government. Those two big parties.


Having the fig leaves might be a big comfort to them but it's time, it


lets off the hook of to deliver, oh, it's all terribly difficult. The


other problem in speaking and dealing with both Sinn Fein and the


DUP journey progression of my opposition bill became clear that


there was many incidents that the big parties agreed and then they had


problems of the smaller parties, keeping confidentiality around


executive decisions or discussions, it caused problems. I think in some


regards while there be a nervousness at the start, I think it makes it


easier for smaller government partners. You talked about the


difficulties they could before the Sinn Fein and DUP working together


closing government, what about the smaller groups and smaller parties?


How do you think you get on with them? I think we're there on merit.


When not in competition so we're quite keen to work together from the


point of view of getting delivery. As I said, people say what impact


any have on as an independent, I forget an opportunity because big


parties and threatened by me and as an open door. Hopefully that will


happen in the next five. We will see.


Let's find out what my guests make of what we've just heard.


When you surprised of Mike Nesbitt is the opposition? It's deftly not


what he was planning but the electoral recovery plot failed to


happen. You can over analyse the strategy. It's simply a case of


throwing everything in the air and seeing where it lands. It's


disruptive tactics to try and change the playing field and see if he's


got more options coming out of that. There's no long-term plan for this.


Due think it is a system which can work as it is currently shaping? I


think that in terms of what this has been said, there's an element of


truth that, Mike Nesbitt and making this announcement about going into


this opposition and saying into battle, his unlike Corporal Jones


from that army. There's no substance. Opposition can work and


as a mechanism there to make it work and as the architect of it said, if


he wants to make it work, he need to be making a call to John McAllister


and bring him into the fold and saying we need help. Last year


nobody really noticed when the Ulster Unionist Party left the


executive. It didn't affect how business was done at the assembly.


If they going to make a proper opposition and the need to have a


strategy for how that will happen. Right now when not seeing that. I


don't think John was callous that will be sitting by the phone


expecting that call. What about the STL P? You think there is pressure


on Mr Wood to form part of that opposition? All three of the smaller


parties are split on the middle each over this issue. Our move as


dramatic as what has happened is going to do exacerbate the debate.


It puts more pressure on the leader and it could easily be what tipped


the balance. He can't appear to be following Nesbitt 's lead so you'll


have to wait until the last minute to make a decision and claim it's


based on the programme for government. Very tricky one for


Alliance because as we are saying Alliance can be a government but


can't be in opposition. It has eight seats, you need nine to be part of


the opposition, so can't clear the hurdle. It can't but let's remove


that from the equation because I don't think there's anyone in any of


the political parties who believes any of the four other parties can


take the Justice ministry at this point in time. It is still too


contentious and fraught. Alliance needs to be there at this point.


We'll talk to you later. Thank you. Let's have a quick look back


at the political week in 60 seconds The political class of 2016 arrived


at work fresh from election success. With the DUP as the largest party.


We're delighted to be back with the team. Good to have my 38 members


here. Discussions of the programme the government began and there were


some unhappiness with what was on offer. We're very far off Acer


stanch a programme for government. Then we had that moment when Mike


Nesbitt made headlines. The Ulster Unionist group will has decided


unanimously to form the first official opposition of this Northern


Ireland assembly. Let battle commence. I think that rather than


being seen as leadership, ill be seen as a lack of leadership. Alex


Kane said he would sing at Stormont in address if someone was elected so


it was time to stand and deliver. I am what I am!


Alex Kane, a born exhibitionist if ever there was one,


and it gives a new twist to the old question is the image


of a Stormont full of men in grey suits slowly changing?


We now have 30 women gracing the blue benches and I'm joined


by two of the newest recruits, Alliance's Paula Bradshaw,


who took a seat in South Belfast, and Linda Dillon from Sinn Fein,


who won the seat vacated by Martin McGuinness in Mid-Ulster.


30 women were returned out of 108, that's a third up on five years ago.


Absolutely. I think that I was delighted to say we brought three


new candidates through and all of them women so I think all the


political parties increase the representation. What we're seeing


here effectively is an organic change in society in Northern


Ireland. We are the second generation of women who've been in


power in the is in 70s and I think we need to continue to nurture women


in all walks of life so we can bring them through in terms front line


politics. But then know what you make of the statistics, 30 out of


108. It up on five years ago but it still under a third, 27%, a third


isn't brilliant. What were aiming for is 50%. It's far from good


enough. It is no improvement, it's not anywhere near where we need to


be. I have launched a bill already in terms of quotas for local


councils and I think that's where you get a experience. Boss quotas


cannot work in isolation, we do need them. It's not something that I


would have been in favour, took a long time to convince me within the


party because we already have that stands on the quotas and 30% of the


candidates in any winnable seat should be women. But I feel that


unfortunately it's needed but it certainly is not good work in


isolation and it's something I will raise all the time whenever I was in


the council in Mid Ulster, the minute the way it is run in the


rural councils it's an friendly in terms of family time because all of


the meetings on the evenings. I understand that is because a lot of


the men work full time jobs but my role as a mother and a wife is no


less valuable than theirs. Sue your legislation would be for quotas


council level. Should there be quotas forced on in future? That's


an excepted matters so I can't influence that. If you get a dry the


local government at that point then that will lead into the assembly


because we need to now be telling parties that you need to go out and


support those young capable women that in your community that could be


members of your party, represent your part in the future in politics


and that's only to be going. You're not a fan of quotas? We have looked


at them in the Alliance Party but we do that is necessary. I would like


to be disrespectful to those women who've come through in this round on


a quota system but we are naturally a very gender balance party that is


shown in selection process. Women are underrepresented the sewer LGBT


members, young people, in many ways -- so are LGBT members. We have a


Democratic party council and that the mechanism through which we


define our policy positions and we ensure that there are


representatives from the LGBT group, young people and Alliance women to


give them a support mechanism through which they can debate public


policies so internally we are very supportive of affirmative action and


making sure women's voices are heard but in terms of putting forward to


the electorate they forced slate of candidates that has been


orchestrated I don't think the letter at reward parties were doing


that. How significant you think it is that we now have a female First


Minister? You might not like her politics but you Myra from making it


to the top of the greasy pole? I think it's important we have women


in leading roles in society. Whatever level of society that may


be, politics, business or private or public sector, it's important to see


the women can do it. In terms of forts gender quotas, I don't agree


because I think we knew needed. Our ruling body is 50-50 and the reason


for that is if we don't have women in decision-making roles the right


decisions for women will not be made. That has been shown and borne


out even in the local government changes. There should have been a


lot of change in terms of making it more family friendly, it didn't


happen because women were not listen to and women were not listen to


because there weren't enough of them in the room. The point about LGBT


candidates, young candidates, if you focus simply on women, that's fine


but there are all kinds of other wine or the groups which also want,


demand and deserve equal representation. I accept that and we


also have new nationals with our communities and they need to be


represented in the future. All of that needs to be looked at. This is


only one part of it but I do believe that women make decisions but if


they're not in decision-making roles they won't get the make any


decisions. Women put off by long days and they sitting is any more


than men are? There's two part of that, we have women in senior


positions in the community, charities, women have a strong


influence in terms of policy development within the government


and in terms of service provision, so they are there. That's another


issue in Northern Ireland and we experience it in the Alliance Party,


there's still a threat from polymer truths. We still get the bullets and


oppose, death threats, the commentary on social media. It's not


for everybody to put themselves forward so we need to find ways to


give women a voice even if they don't want to go into elective


politics. When you sit someone like that, whenever you hear Paula talk


about those issues you can understand people are hoping he is


the last thing they want to do. What would you into political life? I


think it is difficult but I have been a Republican activist all my


life since I was a teenager and it's not something I aspired to, I never


wanted to be in the assembly or the council, but thankfully I did and I


had people who supported me and those were both men and women within


my party but I do think that seeing strong women in leadership roles in


my own party showed me that that was something that was possible. Getting


that support, having people tell you you can do this, it was a big part


of it. I'm a Republican activist of the heart and that's where it came


from. You have been involved in active politics before and you try


to get into the assembly a number of times. I've never stood for December


before. Westminster. And a counsellor. Has lived up to


expectations instalments so far? It was a busy week. Were thrown


straight into it but we hit the ground running and I've enjoyed it


so far. It seems so real but the staff at this and we have been


supportive so I'm looking forward to it. Interesting to hear your


thoughts. Thank you. Just time for a final chat


with Patricia and Newton. Will the increased number of female


MLAs make a difference I think it will. Women have a


different management style, a different leadership style, there


tends to be much more inclusive, more participatory. I don't know the


quotas work, if you look at the experience in the dialler elections


earlier this year. Quotas were divisive amongst parties and between


them. It's all legal challenges and it ended with 22% female TDs so...


Quotas or no quotas? There is a philosophical difference on this


between unionists and nationalists, a left right on cultural difference,


it's not universal. You will see that through Arlene Foster coming to


the fore. She engineers in general are proud of the fact that she has


made it as a woman without what they've perceived to be special


favours or tokenism and that will undermine and not in four quotas in


the assembly. The increased representation for women is good but


is not worried needs to be. If you look at the fact that Scottish


Parliament has 35%, we have a long way to go in the assembly. Thank


you. coming. Great to see you both. Back


to you. Welcome back. Now, have you had enough


of the EU referendum? Well there's a Queen's speech


next week in which we're promised Her Majesty will be talking


about something other than Europe. When Her Majesty visits


Parliament on Wednesday, front and centre in her speech


will be measures for curbing extremism, including banning hate


speakers from working with children And David Cameron will push forward


with Conservative plans for the British Bill of Rights,


in an attempt to assert the supremacy of UK courts


in the run-up to the EU referendum. The Prime Minister will also press


ahead with reforms to the adoption system, to speed up the placement


of children with permanent families. New rules will also be brought


in to make Britain a world leader in the development of driverless


cars, and the fishing port of Newquay may be about to become


the UK's first spaceport. It is one of eight sites


the Government will be looking at. And finally, schools in England


will be on the Queen's Along with the Government's


watered-down plans for academies, ministers will also now be


scrambling to work out new rules to stop parents


taking their children out of school for family holidays during term


time, following the High I don't get the impression there is


much to detract from the referendum campaign. Who knows whether any of


it will happen? You were just talking about the Lords and the


number of defeats, this has been a very torrid legislative session for


the government. You've had situations where the whips don't


seem to know what is going on. The Sunday trading Bill, it seemed like


the government did not realise they had not got the votes locked down.


Nobody knows who will be pro Minister after June the 23rd. Who


will be driving this legislation through? -- who will be Prime


Minister. Theresa May is a complicated opinion on the EU, she


wants to leave the EC HR but stay part of the EU. It is not there to


be exciting, it is to prove the government is doing something. To


the extent that there is any theme to what he announces, we need to go


back to 2005, David Cameron said he wants sunshine to win the day, the


wants his party to stop banging on about Europe and to be a social


reformer. There is a mention of reforming adoption systems, it is


like the big society has been wrenched back and David Cameron


wants people to think about his legacy as different from the one


nation Tory. Would be too much of an exaggeration to say that the


government is running the Remain campaign and is too busy doing that?


I don't think that it's an exaggeration at all. This speech is


going through the motions, I don't think it is something they need to


do. I don't think anyone will get terribly excited about it. This


British bill of rights, I had to look it up to see if it is the same


thing he has been talking about since opposition. But unless you


come out of the European Court, it does not make any difference. You


can always go to Strasberg. What was your take from Iain Duncan Smith.


He's an interesting media performer but I'm not sure he has appeal


beyond the base. The swing voter everybody is trying to target tends


to be an older northern man, classic Labour voter. What figures can speak


to those kind of people? I think all politicians have got a problem. Some


pollsters said, who is the figure who could convince people? They


said, the guy from money supermarket. The Governor of the


Bank of England is the closest you get in the political sphere. This is


a real problem for the Leave campaign, they don't have enough


people who preach beyond the converted. I was at the premiere of


Brexit The Movie. I felt that was a missed opportunity. So many


commentators were wheeled out who were over the age of 50, the


audience loved it but will it appeal beyond? I worry about that.


Commentators over the age of 50 will never catch on. What did you take of


it? There was a John Major called and Iain Duncan Smith winced with


fury. You realised this Tory civil war, the wounds were first fleshed


out 30 years ago. This stuff goes deep. Clearly immigration is his


strongest card and the idea that it is a conspiracy between these people


to keep us in, that is going to be their strongest card. That and


immigration. He did effectively call for the resignation of Mark Carney.


Now the rhetorical heat has been turned up on both sides


Let's just compare David Cameron's language in November last year


Some people seem to say that really Britain couldn't survive,


couldn't do OK outside the European Union.


Let's be frank, Britain is an amazing country.


We've got the fifth biggest economy in the world, we are


If we vote to leave on the 23rd of June, we will be


We will be voting for fewer jobs, we will be voting for lower growth.


We will be voting potentially for a recession.


He has dined out on the Euro-sceptic shilling for all these years and it


contrasts hugely with what he is saying no. It was bound to come back


and haunt her. It is remarkable the extent to which David Cameron has


been radicalised by his own campaign. Being in number ten is


like being in a cult. He has lost everything about his heritage. He is


fundamentally Euro-sceptic. Now we hear somebody banging the drum as if


Armageddon is happening if we vote out. It is bizarre. It is a problem,


what is the true David Cameron? Is it the one that we had only last


November? We should go back into the archives further, to see what he is


saying then,. But is it the one who says if we leave there will be armed


conflict? The issue for me, if you believe this, why would you risk


armed conflict for minor changes to our welfare balance? There is a


really interesting difference between him and Theresa May. She


said the sky will not fall in but in a dispassionate way, on balance, I


want us to remain in. That is realistic. Jeremy Corbyn has handled


this better than a it Cameron. That is another politician who is


naturally Euro-sceptic comedy follows the left-wing line that


there is a democratic deficit, corporate interests. When he is


asked about it he gives an answer as he did yesterday that is about


social protections and workers and sounds quite convincing. What do you


make of it? When David Cameron and owns the referendum it was born of


panic. The cause we have short-term culture in politics, it was brought


about by the rise of Ukip, Nigel Farage was doing fantastically well.


Little did they know that they would only get one MP and it has backfired


massively. If this was going to risk Armageddon it was stupid and


irrational of the Prime Minister. I wanted to ask you about the polls


but we've not got time. By next week, maybe when it has sunk in, so


far we have not seen any difference in the polls.


Now, viewers in the North West will have just seen Conservative MP


for Cheadle Mary Robinson challenged about whether expenses


for volunteers on a Conservative election Battle Bus in the run-up


to last year's general election should have been charged


to her local campaign or the national party.


The Conservative Party are under investigation for failing


to declare these expenses - something they put down


to an administrative error - but Ms Robinson insisted


The party was quite clear to us locally that it would be included


in the national spend and that was what we relied on,


and from my point of view it was never going to be a national


The national party told you this was going to be a national expense?


The national party was clear that it was part of the national expense.


It is not going away. It is really important. Journalists come under a


lot of flak. This is a very difficult story to report. It is


about minor details, accounting. This has been kept alive entirely by


journalists. Particularly Michael Crick on Channel 4 News. Exactly.


Things come out and it is hard to keep them down. People sitting at


home thinking journalism is all terrible, for once people will think


happier. Think of the fury of the Labour moderates, this is an open


goal, a well-organised Labour Party, strong leadership, it might be


exposed a bit, but they should exploit this. They have got complete


silence. So far you've got 11 police forces investigating the


Conservative Party about fraud and not a pipsqueak. The reason there


are so quiet is because they are up to their necks in it as well. That


is the difficulty, that it has been very difficult for broadcasters to


get MPs on from other parties because they are all concerned that


they have too much to hide. When I asked Alan Johnston about it, he did


not know anything about it. Michael Portillo did not know about it


either. I found that quite remarkable. It is a hard story to


digests. What is the one sentence explanation for that? When there is


all this blunder about the EU, it is crowding everything out. The money


was charged to the national campaign which was under the legal limit. It


should have been charged to the local campaigns but that would have


put it over the legal limit and that is where the criminal penalties are.


This is a big story about the way elections are funded, which is


ridiculous. As soon as somebody gets into government they lose interest


in it. You need to cover American elections if you think that is


ridiculous. I'm serious, the evidence we have is about the


Conservatives, how serious? I think they will get away with it. I don't


think the Labour Party is well placed to exploit it. The problem is


it will solidify and consolidate a feeling lots of people have that


politicians are a bunch of crooks, most of them are not. This certainly


stinks. We shall see. The police investigations are going on. That is


it for today. Thank you to all of my guests. I will be back at the same


time next week here on BBC One. The Daily Politics is back tomorrow. If


it is Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.


The referendum on whether we should remain within the European Union


Andrew Neil and Mark Carruthers with the latest political news, interviews and debate.

Andrew Neil interviews Vote Leave campaigner Iain Duncan Smith and discusses government plans for Lords reform with Lord Strathclyde.

The political panel is made up of Helen Lewis, Isabel Oakeshott and Amol Rajan.

Download Subtitles