22/01/2017 Sunday Politics West Midlands

It's Sunday morning, and this is the Sunday Politics.

Theresa May will be the first foreign leader to visit US

President Donald Trump this week - she's promised to hold "very

frank" conversations with the new and controversial

Speaking of the 45th President of America,

we'll be looking at what the Trump presidency could hold

in store for Britain and the rest of the world.

And with the Supreme Court expected to say that Parliament should

have a vote before the Brexit process begins, we'll ask

Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott what Labour will do next.

And in the Midlands, coming soon, that Brexit by-election.

Stoke voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU.

Now Ukip's new leader's plotting a spectacular sequel.

And to talk about all of that and more, I'm joined by three

journalists who, in an era of so-called fake news, can be

relied upon for their accuracy, their impartiality -

and their willingness to come to the studio

It's Steve Richards, Julia Hartley-Brewer

and Tom Newton Dunn, and during the programme they'll be

tweeting as often as the 45th President of the USA in the middle

So - the Prime Minister has been appearing on the BBC this morning.

She was mostly talking about Donald Trump and Brexit,

but she was also asked about a story on the front of this

It's reported that an unarmed Trident missile test fired

from the submarine HMS Vengeance near the Florida coast in June

The paper says the incident took place weeks before a crucial Commons

Well, let's have listen to Theresa May talking

The issue that we were talking about in the House of Commons

It was about whether or not we should renew Trident,

whether we should look to the future and have a replacement Trident.

That's what we were talking about in the House of Commons.

That's what the House of Commons voted for.

He doesn't want to defend our country with an independent

There are tests that take place all the time, regularly,

What we were talking about in that debate that took place...

I'm not going to get an answer to this.

Tom, it was clear this was going to come up this morning. It is on the

front page of the Sunday Times. It would seem to me the Prime Minister

wasn't properly briefed on how to reply. I think she probably was, but

the Prime Minister we now have doesn't necessarily answer all

questions in the straightest way. She didn't answer that one and all.

Unlike previous ones? She made it quite clear she was briefed. You

read between the Theresa May lines. By simply not answering Andrew Marr

four times, it is obvious she knew, and that she knew before she went

into the House of Commons and urged everyone to renew the ?40 billion

replacement programme. Of course it is an embarrassment, but does it

have political legs? I don't think so. She didn't mislead the Commons.

If she wanted to close it down, the answer should have been, these are

matters of national security. There's nothing more important in

that than our nuclear deterrent. I'm not prepared to talk about testing.

End of. But she didn't. Maybe you should be briefing her. That's a

good answer. She is an interesting interviewee. She shows it when she

is nervous. She was transparently uneasy answering those questions,

and the fact she didn't answer it definitively suggests she did know

and didn't want to say it, and she answered awkwardly. But how wider

point, that the House of Commons voted for the renewal of Trident,

suggests to me that in the broader sweep of things, this will not run,

because if there was another vote, I would suggest she'd win it again.

But it is an embarrassment and she handled it with a transparent

awkwardness. She said that the tests go on all the time, but not of the

missiles. Does it not show that when the Prime Minister leaves her

comfort zone of Home Office affairs or related matters, she often

struggles. We've seen it under questioning from Mr Corbyn even, and

we saw it again today. Absolutely. Tests of various aspects of the

missiles go on all the time, but there's only been five since 2000.

What you described wouldn't have worked, because in previous tests

they have always been very public about it. Look how well our missiles

work! She may not have misled Parliament, but she may not have

known about it. If she didn't know, does Michael Fallon still have a job

on Monday? Should Parliament know about a test that doesn't work? Some

would say absolutely not. Our deterrent is there to deter people

from attacking us. If they know that we are hitting the United States by

mistake rather than the Atlantic Ocean, then... There is such a thing

as national security, and telling all the bad guys about where we are

going wrong may not be a good idea. It was her first statement as Prime

Minister to put her case for renewal, to have the vote on

Trident, and in that context, it is significant not to say anything. If

anyone knows where the missile landed, give us a call!

So Donald Trump's inauguration day closed with him dancing

to Frank Sinatra's My Way, and whatever your view on the 45th

President of the United States he certainly did do it his way.

Not for him the idealistic call for national unity -

instead he used Friday's inaugural address to launch a blistering

attack on the dark state of the nation and the political

class, and to promise to take his uncompromising approach

from the campaign trail to the White House.

Here's Adam Fleming, with a reminder of how

First, dropping by for a cup of tea and a slightly awkward exchange

Then, friends, foes and predecessors watched

I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear...

The crowds seemed smaller than previous inaugurations,

the speech tougher then any previous incoming president.

From this day forth, it's going to be only America first.

In the meantime, there were sporadic protests in Washington, DC.

Opponents made their voices heard around the world too.

The President, who'd criticised the work of

the intelligence agencies, fitted in a visit to the CIA.

There is nobody that feels stronger about the intelligence community

And, back at the office, in the dark, a signature signalled

the end of the Obama era and the dawn of Trump.

So, as you heard there, President Trump used his

inauguration to repeat his campaign promise to put "America first"

in all his decisions, and offered some hints of what to expect

He talked of in America in carnage, to be rebuilt by American hands and

American Labour. President Trump has already started to dismantle key

parts of the Obama Legacy, including the unwinding of the affordable care

act, and the siding of the climate action plan to tackle global

warning. Little to say about foreign policy, but promised to eradicate

Islamic terrorism from the face of the Earth, insisting he would

restore the US military to unquestioning dominance. He also

said the US would develop a state missile defence system to deal with

threats he sees from Iran and North Korea. In a statement that painted a

bleak picture of the country he now runs, he said his would be a law and

order Administration, and he would keep the innocents safe by building

the border war with Mexico. One thing he didn't mention, for the

first time ever, there is a Eurosceptic in the oval office, who

is also an enthusiast for Brexit. We're joined now by Ted Malloch -

he's a Trump supporter who's been tipped as the president's

choice for US ambassador to the EU, and he's

just flown back from Washington. And by James Rubin -

he's a democrat who served Let's start with that last point I

made in the voice over there. We now have a Eurosceptic in the oval

office. He is pro-Brexit and not keen on further European Union

integration. What are the implications of that? First of all,

a renewal of the US- UK special relationship. You see the Prime

Minister already going to build and rebuild this relationship. Already,

the bust of Winston Churchill is back in the oval office.

Interestingly, Martin Luther King's bust is also there, so there is an

act of unity in that first movement of dusts. Donald Trump will be

oriented between bilateral relationships and not multilateral

or supernatural. Supranational full. What are the implications of someone

in the White House now not believing in it? I think we are present in the

unravelling of America's leadership of the West. There is now a thing

called the west that America has led since the end of World War II,

creating supranational - we just heard supernatural! These

institutions were created. With American leadership, the world was

at peace in Europe, and the world grew increasingly democratic and

prosperous. Wars were averted that could be extremely costly. When

something works in diplomacy, you don't really understand what the

consequences could have been. I think we've got complacent. The new

president is taking advantage of that. It is a terrible tragedy that

so many in the West take for granted the successful leadership and

institutions we have built. You could argue, as James Rubin has

argued in some articles, that... Will Mr Trump's America be more

involved in the world than the Obama won? Or will it continue the process

with running shoes on that began with Mr Obama? President Obama

stepped back from American leadership. He withdrew from the

world. He had a horrendous eight years in office, and American powers

have diminished everywhere in the world, not just in Europe. That

power will reassert. The focus will be on America first, but there are

foreign interests around the world... How does it reassert itself

around the world? I think the institutions will be recreated. Some

may be taken down. There could be some new ones. I think Nato itself,

and certainly the Defence Secretary will have discussions with Donald

Trump about how Nato can be reshaped, and maybe there will be

more burden sharing. That is an important thing for him. You are

tipped to be the US ambassador to Brussels, to the EU, and we are

still waiting to hear if that will happen. Is it true to say that Mr

Trump does not believe in EU integration? I think you made that

clear in the speech. He talked about supranational. He does not believe

in those kinds of organisations. He is investing himself in bilateral

relationships, the first of which will be with the UK. So we have a

president who does not believe in EU integration and has been highly

critical of Nato. Do the people he has appointed to defend, Secretary

of State, national security, do you think that will temper this

anti-NATO wretched? Will he come round to a more pro-NATO situation?

I think those of us who care about America's situation in the world

will come in to miss President Obama a lot. I think the Secretary of

State and the faculty of defence will limit the damage and will urge

him not to take formal steps to unravel this most powerful and most

successful alliance in history, the Nato alliance. But the damage is

already being done. When you are the leader of the West, leadership means

you are persuading, encouraging, bolstering your leadership and these

institutions by the way you speak. Millions, if not hundreds of

millions of people, have now heard the US say that what they care about

is within their borders. What do you say to that? It is such

an overstatement. The point is that Donald Trump is in a Jacksonian

tradition of national populism. He is appealing to the people first.

The other day, I was sitting below this page during the address, and he

said, everyone sitting behind me as part of the problem. Everyone in

front of me, the crowd and the crowd on television, is part of the

solution, so we are giving the Government back to the people. That

emphasis is going to change American life, including American

International relations. It doesn't moving the leak back -- it doesn't

mean we are moving out of Nato, it simply means we will put our

national interests first. There were echoes of Andrew Jackson's

inauguration address of 1820. That night, the Jacksonians trashed the

White House, but Mr Trump's people didn't do that, so there is a

difference there. He also said something else in the address - that

protectionism would lead to prosperity. I would suggest there is

no evidence for that in the post-war world. He talked about protecting

the American worker, American jobs, the American economy. I actually

think that Donald Trump will not turn out to be a protectionist. If

you read the heart of the deal... This is referring to two Republican

senators who introduce massive tariffs in the Hoover

administration. Exactly. If you read The Art Of The Deal, you will see

how Donald Trump deals with individuals and countries. There is

a lot of bluster, positioning, and I think you already see this in

bringing jobs by the United States. Things are going to change. Let's

also deal with this proposition. China is the biggest loser of this

election result. Let me say this: The first time in American history

and American president has set forth his view of the world, and it is a

mercantile view of the world, who makes more money, who gets more

trade, it doesn't look at the shared values, leadership and defends the

world needs. The art of the deal has no application to America's

leadership of the world, that's what we're learning. You can be a great

businessman and make great real estate deals - whether he did not is

debatable - but it has nothing to do with inspiring shared values from

the West. You saying China may lose, because he may pressure them to

reduce their trade deficit with the US. They may or may not. We may both

lose. Right now, his Secretary of State has said, and I think he will

walk this back when he is brief, that they will prevent the Chinese

from entering these islands in the South China Sea. If they were to do

that, it would be a blockade, and there would be a shooting war

between the United States and China, so US - China relations are the most

important bilateral relationship of the United States, and they don't

lend themselves to the bluff and bluster that may have worked when

you are trying to get a big building on second Ave in Manhattan. Is China

the biggest loser? I think the Chinese have a lot to lose. Gigi and

Ping was in Davos this week -- Xi Jin Ping was in Davos.

Is Germany the second biggest loser in the sense that I understand he

hasn't agreed time to see Angela Merkel yet, also that those close to

him believe that Germany is guilty of currency manipulation by adopting

a weak your row instead of the strong Deutschmark, and that that is

why they are running a huge balance of payments surplus with the United

States. American - German relations may not be great. There is a point

of view throughout Europe. You only have to talk to the southern

Europeans about this question. It seems like the euro has been aligned

to benefit Germany. Joe Stiglitz, the famous left of centre Democrat

economist, made the same case in a recent book. In this case, I think

Germany will be put under the spotlight. Angela Merkel has shown

herself to be the most respected and the most successful leader in

Europe. We who care about the West, who care about the shared values of

the West, should pray and hope that she is re-elected. This isn't about

dollars and cents. We're living in a time whether Russian leader has

another country in Europe and for some inexplicable reason, the

American president, who can use his insult diplomacy on everyone,

including Mrs Merkel, the only person he can't seem to find

anything to criticise about is Mr Putin. There are things more

important than the actual details of your currency. There are things like

preventing another war in Europe, preventing a war between the Chinese

and the US. You talk about the Trident missile all morning, nuclear

deterrence is extremely important. It doesn't lend itself to the bluff

and bluster of a real estate deal. I understand all that, but the fact we

are even talking about these things shows the new world we are moving

into. I'd like to get you both to react to this. This is a man that

ended the Bush Dynasty, a man that beat the Clinton machine. In his

inauguration, not only did he not reach out to the Democrats, he

didn't even mention the Republicans. These are changed days for us. They

are, and change can be good or disastrous. I'm worried that it's

easy in the world of diplomacy and in them -- for the leadership of the

United States to break relationships and ruin alliances. These are things

that were carefully nurtured. George Schultz, the American Secretary of

State under Reagan talked about gardening, the slow, careful

creation of a place with bilateral relationships that were blossoming

and flowering multilateral relationships that take decades to

create, and he will throw them away in a matter of days. The final

word... I work for George Schultz. He was a Marine who stood up

America, defended America, who would be in favour of many of the things

that Donald Trump and the tramp Administration... Give him a call.

His top aide macs that I've spoken to are appalled by Mr Trump's

abdication of leadership. He is going to our radically -- he's going

to eradicate extremist Islam from the face of the year. Is that

realistic? I know people in the national security realm have worked

on a plan. They say they will have such a plan in some detail within 90

days. Lets hope they succeed. We have run out of time. As a issues.

Thank you, both. -- fascinating issues.

So Theresa May promised a big speech on Brexit, and this week -

perhaps against expectation - she delivered, trying to answer

claims that the government didn't have a plan with an explicit

wish-list of what she hopes to achieve in negotiations with the EU.

To her allies it was ambitious, bold, optimistic -

to her opponents it was full of contradictions

Here's Adam again, with a reminder of the speech and how

There are speeches, and there are speeches.

Like Theresa May's 12 principles for a Brexit deal leading

to the UK fully out of the EU but still friendly in terms

This agreement should allow for the freest possible trade

in goods and services between Britain and the EU's member states.

It should give British companies the maximum

operate within European markets and let European businesses do

She also said no deal would be better than the wrong deal,

We want to test what people think about what she's just said.

Do we have any of our future negotiating

As the European Parliament voted for its new

president, its chief negotiator sounded off.

Saying, OK, if our European counterparts don't accept

it, we're going to make from Britain a sort

of free zone or tax haven, I

The Prime Minister of Malta, the country that's assumed the EU's

rotating presidency, spoke in sorrow and a bit of anger.

We want a fair deal for the United Kingdom, but

that deal necessarily needs to be inferior to membership.

Next, let's hear from some enthusiastic

leavers, like, I don't know, the Daily Mail?

The paper lapped it up with this adoring front page.

For Brexiteers, it was all manna from heaven.

I think today means we are a big step closer to becoming

an independent country again, with control of our own laws,

I was chuckling at some of it, to be honest, because

There were various phrases there which I've used myself again and

Do we have any of those so-called Remoaners?

There will, at the end of this deal process,

so politicians get to vote on the stitch-up, but

We take the view as Liberal Democrats that

if this process started with democracy last June,

We trusted the people with departure, we must trust them

Do we have anyone from Labour, or are you all

watching it in a small room somewhere?

Throughout the speech, there seemed to be an implied threat that

somewhere along the line, if all her optimism of a deal

with the European Union didn't work, we would move

into a low-tax, corporate taxation, bargain-basement economy on the

I think she needs to be a bit clearer about what

The Labour leader suggested he'd tell

his MPs to vote in favour of starting a Brexit process if

Parliament was given the choice, sparking a mini pre-revolt among

Finally, do we have anyone from big business here?

Of course, your all in Davos at the World Economic

Clarity, first of all, really codified what many of us have been

anticipating since the referendum result,

particularly around the

I think what we've also seen today is the Government's

willingness to put a bit of edge into the negotiating dynamic, and I

Trade negotiations are negotiations, and you have to lay out, and you

have to be pretty tough to get what you want.

Although some business people on the slopes speculated

about moving some of their operations out of Brexit Britain.

We saw there the instant reaction of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn,

but how will the party respond to the challenge posed by Brexit

Well, I'm joined now by the Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott.

People know that Ukip and the Tories are for Brexit. The Lib Dems are

four remain. What is Labour for? For respecting the result of the

referendum. It was a 72% turnout, very high for an election of that

nature, and we believe you have to respect that result. You couldn't

have a situation where people like Tim Farron are saying to people,

millions of people, sorry, you got it wrong, we in London no better.

However, how the Tories go forward from here has to be subject to

parliamentary scrutiny. Is it Shadow Cabinet policy to vote for the

triggering of Article 50? Our policy is not to block Article 50. That is

what the leader was saying this morning. So are you for it? Our

policy is not to block it. You are talking about voting for it. We

don't know what the Supreme Court is going to say, and we don't know what

legislation Government will bring forward, and we don't know what

amendment we will move, but we're clear that we will not vote to block

it. OK, so you won't bow to stop it, but you could abstain? No, what we

will do... Either you vote for or against all you abstain. There are

too many unanswered questions. For instance, the position of EU

migrants working and living in this country. You may not get the answer

to that before Article 50 comes before the Commons, so what would

you do then? We are giving to amend it. We can only tell you exactly how

we will amend it when we understand what sort of legislation the

Government is putting forward, and in the course of moving those

amendments, we will ask the questions that the people of Britain

whether they voted to leave remain want answered.

When you come to a collective view, will there be a three line whip? I

can't tell you, because we have not seen the government 's legislation.

But when you see it, you will come to a collective view. Many regard

this as extremely important. Will there be a three line whip on

Labour's collective view? Because it is important, we shouldn't get ahead

of ourselves. When we see what the Supreme Court says, and crucially,

when we see what the government position is, you will hear what the

whipping is. Will shadow ministers be able to defy any three line whip

on this? That is not normally the case. But they did on an early vote

that the government introduced on Article 50. Those who voted against

it are still there. In the Blair years, you certainly couldn't defy a

three line whip. We will see what happens going forward. I remember

when the Tories were hopelessly divided over the EU. All these

Maastricht votes and an list arguments. Now it is Labour. Just

another symptom of Mr Corbyn's poor leadership. Not at all. Two thirds

voted to leave, a third to remain. We are seeking to bring the country

and the party together. We will do that by pointing out how disastrous

a Tory Brexit would be. Meanwhile, around 80 Labour MPs will defy a

three line whip. It's too early to say that. Will you publish what you

believe the negotiating goal should be? We are clear on it. We think

that the economy, jobs and living standards should be the priority.

What Theresa May is saying is that holding her party together is her

priority. She is putting party above country. Does Labour think we should

remain members of the single market? Ideally, in terms of jobs and the

economy, of course. Ritt -ish business thinks that as well. Is

Labour policy that we should remain a member of the single market?

Labour leaves that jobs and the economy comes first, and if they

come first, you would want to remain part of the single market. But to

remain a member? Jobs and the economy comes first, and to do that,

ideally, guess. So with that, comes free movement of people, the

jurisdiction of the European, and a multi-million never shipped thief.

Is Labour prepared to pay that? Money is neither here nor there.

Because the Tories will be asked to pay a lot of money... The EU has

made it clear that you cannot have... I am asking for Labour's

position. Our position is rooted in the reality, and the reality is that

you cannot have the benefits of the member of the European Union,

including being a member of the single market, without

responsibility, including free movement of people. Free movement,

is remaining under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Is

that the Labour position? You've said that Labour wants to remain a

member of the single market. That is the price tag that comes with it.

Does Labour agree with paying that price tag? We are not pre-empting

negotiation. Our goals are protect jobs and the British economy. Is it

Labour's position that we remain a member of the customs union? Well,

if we don't, I don't see how Theresa May can keep our promises and has

unfettered access... You said Labour's position was clear. It is!

It is clear that Theresa May... I am not asking about Theresa May. Is it

Labour's position to remain a member of the customs union? It is Labour's

position to do what is right for British industry. Depending on how

the negotiations go, it may prove that coming out of the customs

union, as Theresa May has indicated she wants to do, could prove

catastrophic, and could actually destroy some of her promises. You do

accept that if we are member of the customs union, we cannot do our own

free trade deals? What free trade deals are you talking about? The

ones that Labour might want to do in the future. First, we have to

protect British jobs and British industries. If you are talking about

free trade deals with Donald Trump, the danger is that Theresa May will

get drawn into a free-trade deal with America that will open up the

NHS to American corporate... The cards are in Theresa May's hands. If

she takes us out of the single market, if she takes us out of the

customs union, we will have to deal with that. How big a crisis for

Jeremy Corbyn will be if Labour loses both by-elections in February.

I don't believe we will lose both. But if he did? I am not anticipating

that. Is Labour lost two seats in a midterm of a Tory government, would

that be business as usual? I'm not prepared to see us lose those seats,

so I will not talk about something that will not happen. Thank you.

You're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now

Coming up here in 20 minutes, The Week Ahead,

when we'll be talking to Business Minister Margot James

about the government's new industrial strategy and that

crucial Supreme Court ruling on Brexit.

First, though, the Sunday Politics where you are.

Welcome to the Sunday Politics in the Midlands, which voted

Now Ukip's new leader is plotting a spectacular sequel,

in the Labour seat vacated by Tristram Hunt.

No less spectacular, our guests today are Jess Phillips -

Outspoken Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley,

and Philip Dunne - Conservative MP for Ludlow

and Minister of State at the Health Department.

Because if Labour thought they'd wrong-foot their opponents

by triggering that Stoke Central by-election so soon after Tristram

Hunt announced his resignation, they may not have bargained for Ukip

being quite so quick off the mark.

Ten would-be Ukip contenders stood aside so that their new leader

Paul Nuttall could be unveiled, yesterday, as their choice for this

hotly-contested election on the 23rd of February.

Meanwhile the Shadow Health Secretary, John Ashworth,

was also in the constituency getting the Labour message across.

It certainly feels as if this campaign is well underway already.

And the Ukip leader Paul Nuttall, fresh from that whirlwind selection

process, joins us now from Central London.

and minions. If you're taking a bit of a risk, aren't you, so soon into

your leadership? If you lose you could be on the back foot before you

started. When I took over the leadership back at the end of

November I said I would lead from the front and I'm doing precisely

that. We've been looking at the seat of Stoke-on-Trent Central for many

months now. We know that it voted overwhelmingly for Brexit, nearly

70%. We know them graphically it is fertile ground for Ukip and

generally confident we can go in, put in a good performance, and who

knows, they could have Ukip MP in February. How well do you know the

place? Firstly, I lived for a short period of time in Shelton. I've been

there many times speaking to the Ukip branch. I'm from Bootle, which

is very similar to Stoke-on-Trent. It's a post-industrial town. I

understand the exam anxieties people have been constituencies like these

and will be going out, knocking on doors and talking about the issues

that matter to working-class people, whether that is law and order,

whether that is controlling immigration, whether that is putting

British people to the top of the job market or indeed housing lists, and

solving the problem within the NHS. I guarantee, with this new Labour

leadership they have, which is very much focused on North London and the

Islington set, talking about fair trade and climate change and what

not, we will resonate with the people of Stoke far more than Labour

well. Stoke is a place with a very strong sense of its own identity as

indeed has Liverpool, so isn't there a point that a Scouser like yourself

is not easy sell in Stoke? I think I'm an easier sell them the last two

Labour MPs, public schoolboys from down south. It's easy to sell a

working class Bootle boy in a working class can tip is

constituency. We'll be running at big campaign, professionally run,

and if we win perhaps we can go on and win seats all over the Midlands

and the north of England. You are calling it Brexit Central but it's

clear that Labour wanted to be NHS Central. Bearing in mind the local

hospital in that area has had some of the longest trolley waits in

Britain, you may say the NHS is running a stronger issue on the

streets than Brexit. I think both are. I've just listened to Diane

Abbott trying to set out Labour's position on Brexit and it seems they

want to stay in the single market, which means not controlling our

borders,... I agree the NHS is going to be a massive issue in this and

Ukip's position is that they have never gone into any election calling

for the privatisation of the NHS. We want more money put into it and we

will get this money from the foreign aid budget which is now costing

British people ?30 million. What the NHS needs is a quick cash injection

and I would rather British taxpayers money be spent on the NHS than

giving foreign aid to countries like India, China and Brazil who are

richer than us. Isn't the real problem that what has been your

selling point is no long unique to you. The Chew the Tories are just as

much the party of Brexit now, and some of the things Theresa May have

been saying over the last few days could equally have come from the

lips of any number of Ukip politicians. If you dig into the

detail of her speech she talks about a transitional period and a phasing,

there is no end state on this. What I challenge her to do is to set a

date when we will be out of the European Union and it will be keen.

Also there is no call for immediate immigration control. Literally

millions of people can come here between now and the end of Article

50. We know with Theresa May from her time as Home Secretary, she has

always been good at talking the talk, curtailing radical Islam, or

getting immigration down, but she never walks the walk. Talk is cheap.

If you want to vote for a politician who has always called for a clean

Brexit, controlling our own borders, signing our own trade deals, vote

Paul Nuttall! Thank you. So what is the mood in Stoke itself,

more than six months after it recorded one of the UK's biggest

Brexit votes? Tristram Hunt's resignation sets-up

the first real test of public We've just heard from Ukip's

candidate Paul Nuttall. But before the other contenders

converge on Stoke Central, our Political Reporter Kathryn

Stanczyszyn has been getting a taste So you start with a divided party

with a shrinking majority, add some upcoming boundary changes,

and throw in a bit of national The perfect ingredients

for a cracking by-election. Tristram Hunt's surprise resignation

from the Stoke-on-Trent Central seat has set the cat amongst

the political pigeons - and caused But what does it mean

for voters here? And my family's always

been labour, so Like, what they talk about makes

more sense for this area. But despite this being

Labour heartland, At the last general election

they significantly narrowed Labour's majority and pipped

the Conservatives to second place. And this was one of the most

pro-Brexit areas of the country. So, as we get ready to trigger

Article 50, will those lingering Brexit is still the number

one issue with voters. And of course Stoke-on-Trent -

Brexit capital of It's still going to be a big issue -

how we going to resolve it? What sort of Brexit

are we going to have? These things are going to be

key in the selection. You can't talk about this

by-election though without throwing in another ingredient, the complex

local political situation. The local council is

run by a coalition - the City Independants,

Ukip and the Conservatives - all of which will be

fielding a candidate. in 2015 as some of its solid

base went elsewhere. I'm a Conservative so

I stay Conservative. They've done more for us than Labour

have ever done for us. I'd say Ukip, really,

if it was about immigration, because I don't think any other

party will do anything about it. You're one of these people we keep

hearing about - Labour heartland My dad would turn in

his grave if he knew I Just the pathetic policies

of the Labour Party, So all eyes are on politics

in the Potteries. But just who will come

up with the goods? Two other candidates

are so far declared. For the Liberal Democrats,

Dr Zulfiqar Ali, and for the Christian People's Alliance,

Godfrey Davies. Labour will unveil theirs

on Wednesday, with the Conservatives and the Greens also expected

to name their choices we have tended to think of Stoke

Central is the safest of Labour seats. It's been years for 60 years.

But judging by what we've heard so far you're in for a real fight. I

think the Labour Party is still the favourite to win according to the

bookies but I think it would be wrong to think that we didn't have

to really listened to the people daren't hear what they're saying.

They're talking about infighting, they're saying the policies are

pathetic... To not like infighting and then vote Ukip after they have

punch-ups in the European Parliament seems like a strange choice. Those

charges could be laid at the Labour Party, and I'd be lying if I said I

wasn't the case. But I think the Labour Party are now just trying to

get on with the job. And that looks like it means focusing on the health

issue, and Stoke has been identified as one of the areas of key concern

about trolley waits in any. That's a real vulnerability feel Parliament,

your Government, your party,... Of course the appalling situation

developed under Labour and revealed answers conservatives. It's an

issue, were in the middle of winter which is a difficult time for the

health service. But I don't think this is just about the health issue

with this in action. I think the people of Stoke have to make a

decision. Time has moved on significantly since the last

election. We are now in a different environment. We have a Prime

Minister who is determined to deliver the referendum result and

the people of stroke -- Stoke have to do is decide if they want to be

represented by someone closely linked to the Prime Minister or to

Jeremy Corbyn. But more apparent as surely this wedge between user party

that campaign to remain in and... Everything she said, as I said to

Paul Nuttall, could have come from Ukip. And you on this issue. Paul

establishment, elitist argument establishment, elitist argument

which is funny given that he is the one in London right now. He stood

for the Conservatives on one occasion. I believe his heart is

really in it in Stoke! Believe it when I see it. The Labour Party has

to go to Stoke, go to the voters and be really honest with them about our

positions. Let me put to you a suggestion which is doing the rounds

of Westminster. I suspect you'll deny it. The Tories will put in a

token effort in Stoke and Ukip will put in a token effort in Copland as

a sort of informal trade. I will deny it. There is no deal beneath

them. We have two by-elections coming up there likely to be on the

same day in February. There will be a big focus on these two seats. We

are a close second in Copland. We have a powerful campaign to lead

there. And we are only 33 votes behind Ukip in Stoke. We will be

fighting hard for Conservative candidates in both seats.

It's hardly surprising Stoke Central has Brexit Is written all over it.

But after a week in which Theresa May signalled Britain's departure

from Europe's single market, business people right

across the economic heartlands of Britain are thinking

about what this means for them - from the executive boardroom

to the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker.

The butcher was among the people Joanne Writtle

"Deal or no deal" - the Prime Minister couldn't have

been clearer in her keynote speech on Tuesday.

Brexit means exit, not just from the EU but

Associate membership of the European Union,

or anything that leaves us half-in half-out.

I want to be clear - what I am proposing

cannot mean membership of the single market.

Bridgnorth butchers Mike and Sarah Pearce voted Leave,

I want this United Kingdom to emerge from this period

of change stronger, Sarah, more united.

of change stronger, fairer, more united.

So we will take back control of our laws

and bring an end to the

jurisdiction of the European court of Justice in Britain.

She's going for what the country wants, then.

At on the streets there was plenty of support for the PM.

I think we should go hard, and stay out altogether.

In the Commons, concerns about the economic

The Prime Minister set out a plan to leave the European Union

but she did not set out plan to keep anything

like the current access to our biggest single market for jobs,

So far the economic indicators are generally positive.

The weak pound is helping Midlands exporters and

The question now is could a hard Brexit translate into a

And with that thought in mind, we the region's economy?

And with that thought in mind, we are hearing serious misgivings,

particularly from the automotive sector, about what a hard Brexit 's

departure could mean. I am delighted that your reporter was in my

constituency last week. It has just won Great Britain's high street

market town. I'm making a serious point... I think what the Prime

Minister laid out on Tuesday was a serious, pragmatic approach to did

taking the UK out of the EU. What she was talking about in terms of

business relationships, which she and persist last week, which we need

to have a free take trade agreement with the EU and that will form part

part. So when we come out of the part. So when we come out of the

single market we do the best deal for British industry and services to

Europe. I've been talking to the Europe. I've been talking to the

regional direction of the employers's organisation. There are

real concerns about controls on imports, customs, technical delays,

which are worrying to business. That is why we have to have a serious the

go see Asian. It will be in the European nations' interest to

negotiate with Britain. They are negotiating with countries all over

the world which have less significant relationships with you

Europe. It is in their interests to do a deal with Britain. It is in

Britain's interests to do a deal with all sorts of places. As you see

the economic risks to the country? I am very worried about the potential

that we are going to, hilariously, create more pure bureaucracy and red

EU. In Stoke, 50% of ceramics go to EU. In Stoke, 50% of ceramics go to

the EU. But we cannot harvest tariffs lessening regulations on

things like Chinese dumping meaning in the Midlands businesses start to

struggle. Whilst Theresa May made some very clear sound bites, what is

not clear is some of the details about exactly what it will mean to

the industries here. So you want more clarity still? Clarity is

important, and that was the first point in her 12 objectives. We have

just heard Diane Abbott being as clear as mud on their position. In

contrast Theresa May has a vision for Britain's place in the world, a

global vision for British industry and we will hear more about the

industrial strategy next week. Thank you both.

Let's get our round-up now of the other political developments

making the news here over the past week.

60 Seconds is brought to us today by Sarah Bishop.

Fraud allegations against the former deputy leader

of Sandwell Council have been referred to West Midlands Police.

It follows a council investigation into the allocation of council

houses which "seemed to benefit" members of Councillor Mahboob

Around 300 people joined a protest against cuts to disability services,

Coventry Council has scrapped a third of its bus lanes.

They hope it will cut pollution and congestion on the city's roads.

Shrewsbury and Telford Hospitals Trust is looking for a new sandwich

supplier after the old one refused a request from health bosses

And Labour's Sion Simon launched his campaign to become

West Midands Mayor by calling for an end to the Barnett Formula,

which he says short-changes the English regions.

It's not fair that they should have better hospitals and better schools

than us even though we pay the same tax.

I just want our fair share of the national pie - a fair crack

"They", in this case, being the Scots and the Welsh,

who get significantly more per head of the population under the public

spending formula that's been used by successive Governments

The other candidates so far declared are James Burn for the Greens,

Beverley Neilsen for the Liberal Democrats,

and Andy Street for the Conservatives.

If the old chestnut, to make, as his keynote message. That successive

governments have shown not the slightest interest in changing this

so-called Barnett Formula. I think that Thorn the thing he is getting a

trust is the idea of England, and ASBOs there's an element of

patriotism, in fighting to make sure we get our fair share. Birmingham in

the West Midlands have been decimated in a variety of formulas.

Our schools funding is about to plummet in Birmingham. 10 million --

tens of millions will be lost. It can't be right that per head of

population in Scotland they get ten and a half thousand. In the Midlands

a thousand 750. Especially when we have a larger population... It's

absolutely bizarre. Here we have someone standing to become mayor of

the West Midlands who is talking more about what he cannot do for

Scotland in what he can do for Birmingham. What the wide West

Midlands area needs is to get behind the West Midlands and the end. We

need a who can deliver on improving the lot of people living in the West

Midlands area. What about kids in school? And not attacking Scotland.

What is he saying about the fact that in my constituency alone,

millions of pounds is being taken out... What is he saying about money

taken from schools? West Midlands MP whose constituency was in the bottom

seven you get hundreds of pounds more for every child in your school

divided from the mine. There needs to be better equity in delivering

school funding. A final quick thought from you. He described your

candidate is a man of shining city centres who doesn't know that much

about... He's an outstanding character. He lives he knows

Birmingham very well and has lived if the years. And the web West

Midlands. Thank you very much. My thanks to Jess Phillips

and Philip Dunne. Finally from me, we keep

hearing about it, "Midlands Engine" this.

"Midlands Engine" that. Warwick and Leamington's

Conservative MP Chris White opens a debate on Tuesday,

arguing that regional devolution "can give the Midlands

the resources for businesses to compete internationally,

and deliver jobs and security have to do this. Thank you to you

both. What exactly is the government's

industrial strategy? Will ministers lose their supreme

court battle over Brexit, and, Well, tomorrow Theresa May

is launching the government's industrial strategy -

and to talk about that we're joined by the Business Minister,

Margot James - welcome to the show. When you look at what has already

been released in advance of the Prime Minister's statement, it was

embargoed for last night, it's not really an industrial strategy, it's

just another skills strategy, of which we have had about six since

the war, and our skills training is among the worst in Western Europe?

There will be plenty more to be announced tomorrow in what is really

a discussion document in the preparation of an industrial

strategy which we intend to launch properly later in the year. Let's

look at skills. You are allocating 117 of funding to establish

institutes of technology. How many? The exact number is to be agreed,

but the spend is there, and it will be on top of what we are doing to

the university, technical colleges... How many were lit bio

create? We don't know exactly, but we want to put them in areas where

young people are performing under the national average. But if you

don't know how many, what is the basis of 170 million? That is the

amount the Treasury have released. The something that is very

important, we are agreed we need to devote more resources to vocational

training and get it on a par with academic qualifications. I looked on

the website of my old university, the University of Glasgow, the

Russell group universities. Its spending budget every year is over

600 million. That's one University. And yet you have a mere 170 million

foreign unspecified number of institutes of technology. It hasn't

got equality with the academics? You have to remember that just as you

have quoted figures from Glasgow University there are further

education colleges all over the country. The government is already

spending on 16 to 19-year-olds. But also, we are going to be adding...

This is new money that is all to the good, because we are already

spending a lot. We have already created 2 million more apprentices

since 2010. That many are not in what we would call the stem skills,

and a lot come nowhere near what the Dutch, Germans and Austrians would

have. I'm not clear how another 170 million would do. You said it is

more than skills. In what way is this industrial strategy different

from what Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne did before? It's different because

it is involving every single government department, and bringing

together everything that government does in a bid to make Britain more

competitive as it disengages from the European Union. That is what the

last Labour government did. They will much more targeted

interventions. Under the Labour government, the auto industry got

some benefit. A few more sectors were broached under the coalition

government. This is all about communities all over the country,

some of whom have fallen behind in terms of wage growth and good jobs.

The Prime Minister has already announced 2 billion as a research

and development priority in specific technologies, robotics, artificial

intelligence, medical technology, satellites... So you are doing what

has been done before. There is nothing new about this. Wait until

tomorrow, because there will be some new strands emerging. It is the

beginning of the dialogue with industry and with workers, and the

responses will be invited up until April. That will inform a wider

strategy that goes beyond skills. I have moved on to beyond them. I'm

slightly puzzled as to how the government knows where to invest in

robotics, when it can't even provide the NHS with a decent IT system.

Discuss. I have to say I find it bizarre that the government is

making an announcement about an amount of money and don't know where

it's going. This is typical of all governments over all political

shoes, which is total disregard for technical education, so different

from Germany, who actually invest in the technological side. Germany has

a long history. We want to emulate some of the best of what German

companies do. Siemens sponsor primary schools, for example. We

want to get a dialogue on with business. We don't want to decide

where this money is going. By the way, it was 4.7 billion that the

government has agreed to invest in science and research, which is the

most significant increase in decades. Can you remind us what

happened in Northern Ireland, when the government invested money in

state-of-the-art technology for energy? No one needs to be reminded

of that, and that is not what we are doing. We are inviting business and

industry to advise where that money is best spent. That's very different

from government deciding that a particular technology is for the

future. The government's chief scientific adviser has determined

that we will invest a huge amount in battery technology, which should

benefit the electric car industry, and... This is taxpayers' money. Who

gets it? Ultimately, business will get it, but often only when there is

a considerable amount of private sector finance also drawn in. But

who is held to account? Various government departments at local

authorities will hold this list to account. A lot of it is about

releasing private capital as well. Thank you very much. This week, the

Supreme Court, I think we know the ruling is coming on Tuesday. And the

expectation is that the judges will say Parliament will have to vote to

trigger. Is this all much ado about nothing? Parliament will vote to

trigger, and the government will win in the Lords and the Commons by

substantial majorities, and it will be triggered? Completely. We've

known that. Parliament is voted. Everyone is pretty confident that

the Supreme Court will uphold the High Court's decision and say it has

to go to MPs. There will be a bit of toing and froing among MPs on

amendments. You heard Diane Abbott's slightly car crash interview there.

The Lib Dems may throw something in, but we will trigger Article 50 by

the end of March. If it also says that the roll of Edinburgh, Cardiff

and Belfast should be picked up, that could complicate matters.

Absolutely. That could delay the planned triggering of Article 50

before the end of March. Not what they say about the Westminster

Parliament, because it is clear that it was. I never understood the

furore about that original judgment, because every MP made it clear they

wouldn't block it. Even though Diane Abbott was evasive on several

fronts, she said they wouldn't block it. You are right, if they give a

vote, or give some authorisation for the Scottish Parliament and other

devolved assemblies, that might delay the whole sequence. That is

the only significant thing to watch out for. Watch out on Tuesday. Mrs

May goes to Washington. It will be another movie in the making! I would

suggest that she has a tricky line to follow. She has got to be seen to

be taking advantage of the fact that there is a very pro-British,

pro-Brexit president in the Oval Office, who I am told is prepared to

expend political capital on this. But on the other hand, to make sure

that she is not what we used to call Mr Blair, George Bush's poodle. It

is very difficult, and who would not want to be a fly on the wall in that

meeting! I can't think of anyone in the world who would despise Mr Trump

more than Mrs May, and for him, he dislikes any woman who does not look

like a supermodel, no disrespected Mrs May. Most of it is actually

anti-EU, and I think we should capitalise it. Let's get the Queen

to earn her money, roll out the red carpet, invite him to dinner, spend

the night, what ever we need... Trump at Balmoral! Here is the

issue, because the agenda is, as we heard from Ted Malloch earlier, that

this is not an administration that has much time for the EU, EU

integration or Germany. I think Germany will be the second biggest

loser to begin with. They will not even give a date for Angela Merkel

to meet the president. This is an opportunity for Mrs May... It is a

huge. It could sideline talks of the punishment beating from Germany. The

Trump presidency has completely changed the field on Brexit. Along

came Donald Trump, and Theresa May has this incredible opportunity

here. Not of her making, but she has played her cards well. To an

officially be the EU emissary to Washington, to get some sort of

broker going. That gives us huge extra leveraged in the Brexit

negotiations. People around the world think Germany as a currency

manipulator, that it is benefiting from an underpriced euro, hence the

huge surplus it runs of America, and they think it is disgraceful that a

country that runs a massive budget surplus spends only 1.2% of its GDP

on defence, and America runs a massive deficit and needs to spend a

lot more. He's going for Germany. And what a massive shift. I think

Obama was quite open, in a farewell interview, that he felt closer to

Merkel than any other European leader. And Jamie kind of reflected

that in our discussion. Yes, that's very interesting discussion. I think

she was the last person he spoke to in the White House, Obama. And now

you are getting the onslaught from Trump. This Thatcher- Reagan imagery

is dangerous, though. Blair was hypnotised by it and was too scared

to criticise Bush, because he wanted to be seen in that light, and we

know where that led. Cameron similarly with Obama, which

presented him with problems, as Obama didn't regard him as his

number one pin up in Europe. I would put a note of caution in there about

the Thatcher - Reagan parallel. Everything Trump is doing now is

different from before, so Mrs May should not have any of these

previous relationships in her mind. That is not entirely true. Donald

Trump aches to be the new Ronald Reagan. He may be impeached first!

He sees her as the new Margaret Thatcher, and that may her leveraged

with him. Thank you. We'll be back here at the same time

next week, and you can catch up on all the latest political news

on the Daily Politics, In the meantime, remember -

if it's Sunday, It's just pain,

but it doesn't feel like pain, it feels much more violent,

dark and exciting.