Browse content similar to 22/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
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.