09/05/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

It's war - or it could be if Britain leaves the EU,

says the Prime Minister - but is his warning of instability

and conflict just desperate and insulting, as Leave

Labour's election results in England were better than some expected

and they won the contest for London mayor.

So why has the Shadow Chancellor launched a public attack on fellow

MP and former Labour cabinet minister Caroline Flint?

St Ives votes to ban the sale of new builds

to second home owners - but will it make it

easier for locals to get on the housing ladder?

And has London been taken over by cycling fascists?

Isn't it about time the rest of us Sturt up four our writes told

cyclists the roads are also for buses, cars, lorries and taxis --

stood up for our rights! All that in the next hour,

and with us for the whole of the programme today,

former Labour Shadow Cabinet minister Michael Dugher,

who describes himself on Twitter as having been "sacked

by Jeremy Corbyn for too much straight talking,

honest politics". And with him a man once described

as "David Cameron's worst nightmare" - but is now considered by some

a "national treasure", Conservative MP and Leave campaigner,

Jacob Rees-Mogg. With the local elections behind us,

the and just 45 days to go until the referendum,

the debate over our membership of The biggest names on either side

of the referendum campaign have gone into battle this morning armed

with big speeches. volleys, warning that peace

in Europe could be put at risk "Isolationism has never served

this country well", he says. "Can we be

so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured

beyond any shadow of doubt?" Mr Cameron also suggests

Winston Churchill would have disapproved of Britain

leaving the EU, saying

Britain made a "lone stand" in 1940 when it "stood as a bulwark

against a new dark age of tyranny". says: "The PM's words are deeply

ironic, given the EU's own border agency says the EU's borderless

policy is making the whole Meanwhile,

the leading light in the Leave campaign, Boris Johnson,

made a speech this morning entitled "The liberal

cosmopolitan case for Brexit", And attacked the EU's record on

signing trade deals. EU Houston trade deals with people and steamy

and Authority and with San Marino and others. Bravo but it has failed

to conclude agreements with India, China, or even America that it has

done trade deals with the Palestinian authority. Because

negotiating with the EU is like trying to ride a 28 man pantomime

horse with everyone pulling in different directions.

Michael Dugher, do you share the view that peace is at risk if we

leave the EU? I would not go so far as to imply that they will be Word

War three if we do not. But Mac world War three. I think he is right

to set the context, which is that the European Community did come out

of those hugely costly conflicts over very many years. I think that

is a timely reminder. I also think there is an issue in terms of the EU

in that it does help our defence and security now whether it is European

arrest warrant or frankly helping to co-ordinated across different

countries in Europe, whether dealing with terrorism at home otherwise Mac

overseas. I think there is something in that. Jacob Rees Mogg, your

position is threatening peace and stability? This is untrue. The Prime

Minister has got his sister rerun. Great Britain has not always engaged

on the European continent. A lot of our policy was to avoid that because

it brought us into walls. I could start with Elizabeth the first... Or

more recent history like the two world was because of that is how the

EU really came to be. The two wars were caused by two German dictator

's attacking their neighbouring countries. We got involved because

we felt that was crucial for bees and security. As Germany going to

become a dictatorship and invade if we leave? This is where the main

argument of the campaign becomes absurd and hysterical. Where would

all start and do you know what the poem list is talking about when he

says peace and stability would be threatened? Does the remainder side

have in their mind how this would break out? I think we are stronger

together. The threats today are not on the scale of world war or an

invading power yet in many ways the threats we face as a country are

more complicated and more difficult to deal with. They run across

borders when you think of the fight against international terror or the

walls by proxy that we have to deal with, dealing with international

terrorism. It is the case that the civilised democracies of this world

are better when they can work together in dealing with threats

that in many cases are very common. Particularly when we have looked at

the recent terrorist threats. Nothing to do with the European

Union. The five eyes system is the US, the UK, Canada, and New Zealand.

Weak or operated with France for better or worse in regard to

liberated -- we cooperated with them, that had nothing to do with

the EU, the Belgian authorities did not even tell the police the

information they had on terror attacks. So security is not to that

extent within the European treaties, it is pretending that there is a

competence within the EU that it is not. MI5 and MI6 has said that

Britain benefits from sharing intelligence. Another former head of

Isaacs has said the opposite. You have people taking different views

whether they favour remaining leaving. Of course you can cooperate

with friendly nations. You don't need a treaty structure that makes

European law your law or makes decisions of European courts your

decisions and overrides your democracy just too hot nations deal

with terrorism. We work more closely in this area with the United States

than with any single European country. What if the French

intelligence services knew about an imminent attack in Britain, surely

they would tell us, whether we were part of the EU or not? It is not a

choice of either - or, either we can have good relations with the

Americans or with our nearest neighbours. We can have both. The EU

facilitates the letter. From an industrial point of view when you

think of the complexity and cost of major defence programmes come

increasingly these are done as joint ventures between Anglo European

partners, these are just practical benefits that we get in a very

difficult and challenging defence and security climate. Those security

measures are primarily intergovernmental. The European

Arrest Warrant, all the fanfare about it how it would stop

terrorism, and then it was used to crush Mike a family -- crush a

family that were not happy. That was European law. Are you saying it is

never used to stop paedophiles, terror suspects? I say it was built

up to do that and then was used for minor things. You do not need

European superstructure to fight terrorism. You need intelligent

co-operation between independent European states. What happens in

this context is intergovernmental, not European union based. Is not

overstating the case, Michael, when the Prime Minister says that leaving

would be an act of abject retreat and risk turning the clock back to

nationalism in Europe. As you say you don't expect all out war to

break out if we were to leave the EU. Is that not also overstating his

case? All prime ministers can get carried away with their rhetoric and

in my experience all prime ministers love to have a reference to Winston

Churchill in their speech! It's like getting six the buzz on the lottery,

you can say I am the first Prime Minister since Winston Churchill to

do this! -- like getting six numbers on the lottery. Although he is right

to say that we are at a crossroads as a country. This is about our

ambitions as a country. We can go back to some sort of nostalgia that

I do not believe ever existed all can continue to recognise that

economically and in many areas our future belongs in a modern European

union of modern independent States, working together to face the

challenges that come upon union -- us as a country. Could you not be

accused of looking back to a past age and maybe Winston Churchill

would have been an your side? I don't think we need to think about

what dead people think of this, we need to think about what living

people think. The Prime Minister cannot see a pudding without over

egging it. On the Brexit side we are looking to a broad international

future without the closed European shop. We the ones with international

vision, supporters of the Remain camp are stuck in the 19th century

way of thinking. It is the rest of the world that is more important.

Now back in March the Foreign Affairs Select committee published

an analysis of what Leaving the EU would mean for Britain's

The report didn't take sides - the committee equally split

for and against leaving - but its Chairman -

Crispin Blunt - hadn't declared his hand.

In March he promised to listen to the views of his committee and then

come back and tell us which way he had decided to vote. This is what he

said. I've got a committee that,

other than me, is split 5-5. You're not going to tell us

until your committee reports? I want a unanimous report

from the Europhiles and the Eurosceptics,

who will then announce Because the nation

is waiting to hear. But I am going to wait

until the committee has reported... I can't imagine anywhere

better to do it! We like to hold politicians to

account on this programme. But us out of our misery, which way

are you going? I wrote a pamphlet on the need for a country to make a

choice on this Amber Rudd two competing statements on how we

should be, committed to the European ideal, making institutions work,

fully committed with European partners into making a reality all

the security and economic co-operation to make a success of

the ideals that came out of the ashes of World War II? Or and

internationalist vision for the UK, equipped with all the global

strength that we have, the economically unique selling points,

global rather than regional, a global vision if we choose, and a

global role should we choose to take it. There is only one of those rules

on offer today. As a positive role for the UK, globally, playing a

strong internationalist role against dog in the manger stopping our

European Union partners getting on with the necessary co-operation that

they need to do. So you are voting to leave? My conclusion is that I

want a positive story, positive role for the UK and so I think Brexit

offers that option. That was a long answer. So now we can confirm that

you are backing Brexit. I thought it might be good to give an explanation

of how I have come to this decision. Why has it taken News along? I

chaired a committee that was split down the middle, 5-5, without me,

and I thought it was more important and that the country takes a

decision. We need to set a path to the UK. Being half in and half out

was not, in my judgment, the right place to beat in 1998. It is still

not come in my view, the right place to be. We should be fully committed

to this institution and the European ideal or to this institution and the

European ideal or two and internationalist globalist view.

Does your committee back the vote to leave? Even though you have the

casting vote? We are not going to conduct another inquiry into our

role in the world. I wanted the committee to provide a service to

the public, produce a review of the position that was not biased. Not

biased because it was unanimously agreed by the committee regardless

of their field. That view is addressed to the electorate to help

them decide. Let's get reaction from our guests. Michael Dugher, you

disappointed that Crispin Blunt will not be campaigning on your side?

Think the way that Crispin and his committee have handled it has been

the right way, trying to explore the arguments. The committee deserves a

lot of credit for that. He's also right to say that regardless which

side of the odd and you fall on you need to emphasise the positive in

this. -- which side of argument. From the point of view of those of

us who want to Remain, the huge lessons from the Scottish referendum

is, if you are defending the status quo, against a change, then it's a

very difficult fight to have but it is not one borne out by the facts of

the case because I think this should be a contest of two competing

alternative views for Britain's relationship in Europe and in the

world. I am convinced that the best for Britain is to remain inside the

European Union yet to fight for Britain's interest in it. We have

not always done that terribly well. I think we must be much more

hard-headed about the changes we want.

The danger is that our defence of British interests, ever since the

European Union started in the direction away from just a single

market in the 1980s, and we have had endless successive treaties were the

British position has been doggedly defended by British Prime Minister,

getting us to opt out of various measures, all of which served us to

obstruct the workings of the European Union for them to deal

with... They need the fiscal stability to underpin a common

currency. We heard there that this was about trying to provide an

unbiased accounts of both side, but did the government not provide that

when it sent a booklet to each household listing the facts and

stats behind our membership of the Duke was the I'm astonished you

would think that, and I can't believe any of your viewers do. It

implied that we controlled our own borders when we don't. It was

disgraceful. The government spent ?9.2 million of taxpayers' money

trying to persuade us to do what the government wanted. Every time we

look on a government website, they have a pop up to try to get you to

read government propaganda. This is really shocking and an British. The

truth is, the people who want us to come out are offering the British

public a blank sheet of paper. They are inviting people to take a leap

into a world that is utterly undefined. They have no idea what

the Britain would look like outside the EU. It is right that we

emphasise the clear benefits we've got, and, frankly, the risks to

jobs, our economy and the security and everything else. We will have to

finish it there. Crispin Blunt, just to confirm that you will be

campaigning for Brexit. Yes. Scottish Conservative leader

Ruth Davidson now leads the official opposition in Holyrood,

and many are tipping her to become Never shy of a photo opportunity,

Ms Davidson has outdone herself during this last campaign,

so our question today is, which of these pictures

is the fake photo op? At the end of the show JacoB

and Michael will give So after winning the contest

for London mayor and better than expected results

in English Council elections, Labour might have been hoping

for a cessation of hostilities But yesterday fresh salvos

were being fired across radio First Caroline Flint appeared

on the Sunday Politics programme with this criticism of

Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell. John McDonnell also said

in the run-up to these elections Well, looking to hang

on isn't enough. This is the worst result

for an opposition party after The year after Michael Foot

was elected, I think we gained And in fact the Tories,

when you look at directly contested elections,

actually gained three. It doesn't take away

from the hard work on the ground by Labour councillors,

Parliamentary candidates and members in these elections,

but we need to be making far more inroads to be within an opportunity

to win in 2020 and that's That prompted this retort

from from John McDonnell on last I've heard Caroline Flint

quoted today quoting me, and I never actually said

what she is supposedly What I said after the elections

themselves was that people predicted that we were facing disaster

of losing anything between 175 and 200 seats, and when you compare

our success in the last week In 2012, when we fought these

seats last time round, we were at the highest level

of approval for Ed Miliband, and we've actually

virtually maintained I'm not in any way

complacent about that. Earlier in the day,

the Shadow Chancellor took He wrote: "Caroline

Flint, you quoted me saying re recent elections

"we are looking to hang on." "Could you now publicly

correct this." To which Ms Flint responded

by citing Pienaar's Politics on Radio 5 Live from 24 April,

writing: John McDonnell MP said "Hold on to as much

as we possibly can". Joining us now from

our Brighton studio is the Labour party Councillor

and Momentum activist, Sam Tarry. Welcome to the programme. Why is

John McDonnell having a public row with another Labour MP? Well,

obviously at the moment, there's been a lot of rows going on. The

interesting thing is there's two agendas trying to be set here. One

of the things I find disconcerting is the way that so many PLP members,

Labour MPs, are taking to the airwaves to put the boot in after a

set of election results in local government that are pretty good, and

some stonking results for London and Bristol mayor. Why did he send her a

public tweet? He said that he wants the party to unite, and here he is

demanding she corrects something she said, and an Dingxi does it

publicly. Is that best strategy for unifying the party? Twitter doesn't

necessarily lead to the most conciliatory discussion, I find! I

would advise people to calm down slightly. There is something, as a

grassroots member and a councillor for six years, a Chief Whip and

someone that understand about party discipline, a lot of ordinary Labour

Party members are getting fed up with certain quarters of the PLP

taking to the airwaves, constructing arguments just to put the boot in,

because they can't get over the fact that the candidate they supported

got 4.5% in the leadership elections. It's time to move on and

get behind the leader. Would it have been a more grown-up approach to say

to Caroline Flint, and respond to her, asking for a phone conversation

rather than carrying it out in public? For me, I always preferred

to get round the table and have a discussion. The junior doctors in

ACAS today, you don't have to be in a case but you do have to be more

diplomatic when you talk to each other. -- in ACAS. There are certain

MPs, such as Joe Cox, who sent out an e-mail to her local Labour Party

that she had put the knife into Jeremy Corbyn. These people should

be called in to see the whip. This behaviour is absolutely

preposterous. We've had a decent set of election results and need to get

behind Jeremy. Should people be pulled up in front of the leadership

and his team to respond, and ask why the article was written the day

after the election 's? In fairness to Joe-macro and meal, both of whom

nominated Jeremy, they said that they had waited until after polling

day because they didn't want to do anything to undermine our campaign

on the ground. They are entitled to speak their mind. There was an issue

as to how we conduct this debate. It was regrettable John Donnell taking

to Twitter. I just put it down to him having a long weekend... -- John

McDonnell. It's long hours that people work. You were also adding to

this view. Don't forget that Jeremy Corbyn defined his leadership at the

party conference saying that he wanted a new type of politics where

you can have debate and even room for a bit of dissent. Not

unreasonable for someone who voted against a Labour Party leader more

times than a Conservative leader. It is slightly hard to bear, this kind

of disloyalty. What ever side you came from in the leadership, all of

us in the Labour Party have to come together and reflect on the results.

You can contrast London and Scotland, say, and I think you can

learn lessons from both. You can take the positives from London and

say, what kind of campaign and message did we have there? We were

out of our comfort zone and were not just talking to ourselves and

mobilising the base, but reaching out the people who devoted

Conservative and not voted Labour before. We had a hideous momentum

hard left experience, where we were going on a left-wing anti-Trident...

Footing anti-Trident in your manifesto, which is itself evidently

anti-jobs in Scotland, surprise surprise, that ended up in absolute

disaster. There's lessons from the good and the bad that we have to

learn here. Let's put that to Sam. A Trident party just won a third term

in government. We need to have a serious discussion with the trade

unions about Trident and about those jobs. I agree with Michael that it

shouldn't be the centre of our discussion. But to say that it isn't

a popular position in Scotland is bonkers. The SNP have been one of

the most positive risk campaigning organisations in Scotland against

Trident, and they just wiped us out in the last election. Michael, you

want to respond. You are bonkers! The truth is, Jeremy said a year ago

that he felt that the situation we have in Scotland is, being very

straightforward, all we needed was a hard left, anti-austerity,

anti-Trident left-wing message, and he said it would be his top priority

and he was convinced of victory. Actually, we went backwards and we

finished behind the Conservatives in third place. We've got huge lessons

to learn in Scotland, and equally lessons to learn in areas we did

well. We fought a lot of ultra campaigns in places like Exeter. The

Sadiq campaign in London was very different to many others. Jeremy was

right to say we have on, or hold on, as John McDonnell said, but that

should not be the pinnacle of our ambition a year after an election.

11% went against us in any of that in Nuneaton. Darby, Thurrock, those

areas went against us, areas that are critical. It is much harder in a

general election. This is about as good as it will get for Labour. We

have a Tory party in disarray. There was nothing on Thursday, I put to

you, to suggest that you would have any chance of winning in 2020,

however you look at the results. I think that addressing the issue of

Scotland, the reality is that we got smashed under Jim Murphy in

Scotland. And you went backwards in these elections. It isn't about

right or left in Scotland, it's about constitutional politics.

Michael is muddying the water. Everything is seen through a

different prism there. I know there is a slight delay on the line, but

can I ask you to answer the question. What evidence was there

from the results on Thursday that says to you, we are on course to win

as the Labour Party in 2020? I think, on the local government

elections, places like Crawley, some of the issues we had around

Nuneaton... Some people said we would be hammered in those

elections. These are some key areas. You also think of Harlow, an area

near where I'm from. People there are saying that what Jeremy is

saying has resonance for them. His economic message is really, really

powerful to those people. But Labour did lose seats, didn't they? The

huge result in Bristol and in London... There's no point beating

around the bush. The reality is, there is a firm aims to build on for

stop there is a very, very high number of councillors in 2012. In

Bristol, 63%, with the Greens knocked out the park. In London,

Jeremy is tremendously popular as well as Sadiq. That double

combination, that double popularity, delivered as one of the best results

we will probably ever have in London. Do you think the party is

heading for a electoral disaster in 2020? Do you think they will win?

You have lost Scotland. Many would argue that is a humiliating defeat,

to go into third place. At what point do you stop being a protest

movement, in your words? At what point do you do something about it?

In these immediate days about those set of elections, we need to learn

from them. Including places like Bristol where we did well, and

places that we hung on but went backwards, and significantly so. We

have serious lessons to learn. The idea that we are on a trajectory to

winning the election at the moment would be in defiance of all history.

We've got to be honest about that. Also, let's talk to the voters out

there, rather than just doing the meetings will be packed out the room

and we all agree, and we delude ourselves that something is

happening out there, they are queueing around the corner. The

voters in many places did not share the same enthusiasm with ours as

some of our members do. We have huge lessons to learn. And any sensible

party would do that after nationwide elections in every corner of the

country. Let me turn briefly to the mayoral

campaign. As you will have heard on the radio and on TV there were many

complaints about Zac Goldsmith's campaign run by the Lynton Crosby

team. Do you now regret the way it was run. E I think Zac was an

exceptionally good candidate. I am not convinced the campaign showed

all his virtues in their highest colour. I think to that extent, that

was a pity. Very often after campaigns have taken place they are

judged retrospectively. If you have a campaign that wins everyone says

it must have been a brilliant campaign. And I think most however

good the campaign it would have been very hard to win in London. Right

but this is about the tone of the campaign, it was called dog whistle

politics by many politicians on Friday when I was covering the

elections and the aftermath. We can show you pictures of Lynton Crosby,

the strategist in the general election, his team ran the Goldsmith

campaign and he was then awarded a knighthood. We can show you the

pictures now. To receive the honour of might and Sir Lynton Crosby for

political service. Was it not unfortunate timing that he should be

receiving a knighthood, the man accused, perhaps not personally but

his team, of running a racist campaign? If I do not think it was

racist. That was deeply unfair. Some people thought it was. People always

fill political mad. They always attack the campaign of the opposite

party. Reasonable thing to do. I don't think it was racist. Lynton

Crosby is a distinguished strategist and played an important role in the

general election. I think that he thoroughly deserved his knighthood

and should probably get an even higher knighthood. Briefly, Michael

Dugher? That Labour campaign should give the Labour Party nationally in

on us encouragement and help. I don't believe the next general

election is lost. I think it is in our hands. I think Sadiq showed us

that if you have a campaign rooted in the centre ground, dignified,

with practical policies that command popular support, we have the strong

leadership Sadiq showed an anti-Semitism I think it shows that

when Labour riches beyond our base we can win. We should take enormous

encouragement from that and we can do it despite a hostile Tory media

and all the Tory money and all the Tory strategists in the world. Thank

you. Supporters say it will save lives,

promote healthy living, discourage But has the transformation

of the streets of London and other major cities for the benefit

of cyclists gone too far? Well, the broadcaster and writer

Janet Street-Porter thinks so. The wonderful city of London

was once a pleasure to walk through, but it has been brought to its knees

all Until just a few weeks ago,

our capital resembled a Roads were dug up and

rebuilt to make way for a In Bristol, segregated cycling lanes

have appeared and work on a similar scheme is near completion

in Manchester. Plans for expansion in Edinburgh

have been met by protests While cyclists breeze

through the city with little regard for anyone else, roads like this

have been reduced It makes life vile for

pedestrians, who have had to Why should cyclists get preferential

treatment over pedestrians? What about the very

young, the elderly, People who may not want

to or be able to cycle? People who cannot use public

transport? Riding a bike is subject to

the rules and many London cyclists cannot even keep to

those, whether it's stopping at a red light

or They aren't legally

compelled to wear a helmet and there

is no MOT for bikes. Cyclists won't even have

to use these highways

when they are finished. They can still risk

life on the open road. I thought that we lived

in a democracy, but it seems that in this city, cyclists have

more clout than anyone else. Isn't it about time

the rest of us stood up for our rights and told cyclists

that roads are also for buses, cars, But I suspect the cyclists

won't be happy until all other forms of

transport are eradicated. And we're joined now

by Janet, and also by Andrew Gilligan who was -

until yesterday - Welcome to both of you. Janet,

cycling takes pressure, you could argue, off congested roads and it

means people can use other forms of transport. Is that such a bad thing?

Let me say from the outset that in my original Colin said I that I like

cycling and our own a bike -- in my column. What I said was that the

cycling superhighways have caused inordinate traffic congestion. I

simply pointed out that riding a bike, especially some like London,

seems to have very few rules and regulations about it. People can

rent Boris backs, although I know they were brought in by Ken

You don't have to wear a helmet or pass a driving test and people are

routinely texting and taking selfie 's and so on. More importantly they

are not compelled to use the cycling lanes. That is the important point.

You have spent all this time and money on cycling lanes, they may be

a great idea, although not if the body uses them. The main cycling

path is two minutes from this building, have you seen it? Guess,

although not everyone uses it. Almost at opening it was almost

overcrowded. All through the day. When I saw and it was empty.

Tourists were using and without any crash helmets, taking photographs of

themselves in front of Big Ben. The point of cycle lanes is to create a

safe space where you don't need to crash helmets. Why are they not

compulsory? If they are in a safe space, which I agree with, in a

segregated when you're safe, why they're not compulsory because you

still see cyclists veering all over the road the pavements. They are

not, you could see that behind you when you were filming. Now the lanes

open everyone is using them and you are showing that a lot of the

objections are not founded. Andrew, when we last spoke about this on the

London Politics show on Sunday we showed a tip-off that film,

admittedly, it was empty and we saw cyclists using alternatives. All I

am saying is, are you sure they will be used? If they don't have to use

them, they won't necessarily. We don't need to argue, two minutes

outside this building you will see them. I lived for ten years in

central London and cyclists go all over the road and all over the

pavement. Leaving aside this and the highways, cyclists are not compelled

to stick to one part of the road. This kind of discussion is an

example of the lack of rationality about the debate in cycling. The

lack of rationality is Boris saying he wanted ?12 50 allocated per

London on cycling. You are not allocating bad for pedestrians. We

are arguing about whether something is happening or not, we can see it

happening two minutes from this building, these cycle lanes are

hugely changing the market, changing cycling from being a pursuit we'll

have to dress up in like and act aggressively, you see kids and

families coming out for a ride in the sunshine and they are working.

The fact is that we have 10,000 people a month in the population of

London and the only way to cope with that is either build more roads,

politically and physically impossible, or realign the roads to

make better use of them by encouraging forms of transport like

cycles which take up less space. Is that not the reality, Janet, you

have raised the point that more money is being spent on cycling and

the infrastructure because it is the only viable option if you are

looking to the future, because it would be able to build more roads,

you can only fit a certain number of cars. We haven't got a fully rounded

transport policy, we have built cycling superhighways but we have

three moved about one third of the road space through the middle of

London but we have not come up with a comprehensive strategy to make

lorries only use roads at certain times of day. We have not told

drivers that they will be penalised or can only come in and out at

certain times and we have not increased pedestrian areas. What I

am saying is, if you give one third of the road to cyclists you must

work out how to use the other two thirds so it isn't blocked because a

quality in London has gone right down. -- gridlocked. 1500 miles of

main road and with that cycle lanes on 12 miles. Janet wrote in an

article the other week that it had brought London to its knees. How can

that be true. As an example of hysterical rhetoric. It is not

hysterical, I am a Londoner and I go through central London. It has made

journeys slower. It is gridlock! That is has low it is. Vast majority

of Londoners never drive. Never drive in London. You are saying that

unless people cycle there is no future... Let me turn to the other

guests, has the balance been tipped to far in favour of the cyclists or

is this the way to go? On days like this I am glad I am not the Shadow

Transport Secretary! On your bike! There's an element of hysteria on

both sides. That is not how good transport policy should be made. It

doesn't reflect the way that individuals transport themselves

around the place. Most people are not cyclists or motorists, most

people are multimodal. They use a number of different ways to get

around. And you need a system. That is why organisations like Living

Streets, that do a lot for pedestrians in terms of looking how

to manage the roads, the roads are there for everyone. It is good news

that we are expanding the number of people cycling and the ability to do

that come equally we must recognise the importance of our London cabs

and everything else. We must recognise that London is different

to Barnsley or other sides of the country. Whose side are you on,

don't you cycle? I don't cycle. I am on Janet's side. She is spot on.

It's gone too far towards the cyclist Amber Rudd constant steps to

make things more difficult for the motorist. Lots of roads narrowed at

junctions to make it harder to get volumes through, very short time at

traffic lights. Hostility to the motorist. That includes the cab

driver. Cab drivers find it very tough in their business and part of

that is because they journeys are slow. Are we strangling one of the

lifelines of London? The assumption in this conversation is that the

card is massively important to transport in London. Janet, forgive

me, I did speak about the level of language in this debate and you are

showing at! The problem is that the vast majority of Londoners

literally, 71% of them, never drive in central London and only 3% of

them tried in central London everyday yet they get the majority

of the road space. What we are doing is fractionally reallocating road

space to the majority of Londoners who don't drive including

pedestrians. Very briefly. It ought to be the percentage of journeys by

car being done. You've got to include taxis... 1.3 million people

come into central London everyday. I'm going to finish it there and you

can all leave on your respective modes of transport! Thank you, thank

you rematch. -- very much. It's a busy week for our

parliamentarians this week, let's see what they've got

to look forward to. Coming up this afternoon,

Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt will face a grilling

from the Health Select Committee on the impact

of the Comprehensive Spending Review He'll be expecting some questions

on junior doctors' contracts too. of the Parliamentary Labour Party

and it should be interesting. Both Jeremy Corbyn and Sadiq Khan

will address MPs, London's new mayor has previously tried to distance

himself from the Labour leader. Tomorrow the great and good

of Parliament will be in their smartest gear to decamp

to Buckingham Palace to attend a reception with the Queen

to celebrate her 90th birthday. Prepare for lots of

Europe-related financial statistics on Wednesday as first

Gordon Brown makes his first speech of the referendum campaign,

and then George Osborne addresses the economic costs and benefits

of staying in the EU at a session On Thursday we'll find out

what the government has in store for the BBC

as Culture Secretary John Whittingdale publishes

the Government's White Paper Also on Thursday David Cameron

will host the world's first international anti-corruption

summit in London. Following the recent scandal over

the Panama papers the Prime Minister hopes to regain the initiative

and come up with an international We're joined now by Isabel Hardman

of the Spectator and Rafael Welcome to you both. Isabel Hardman,

first of all the EU referendum. The spectre of war has been unleashed in

this debate. What will be left in the armoury of Leave and Remain in

the coming weeks? It is worrying that we have also -- already reached

war in the scaremongering tactics! When I first saw the headlines of

David Cameron's speech, I thought the papers had overwritten it, but

then I realised that he was overwriting his own warning. Surely

it makes him look quite desperate, at this stage of the campaign, to be

warning that voting to leave would cause war in Europe. I don't

entirely agree with that. It lends itself to caricature and satire as

this bulging sere thing, the Prime Minister and the remaining camp are

trying to do. But you get the sense that people on the remaining side

are impressing on people that there are risks, that it is dangerous, and

for people in the Leave side to avoid acknowledging there are

risks... Ultimately, sticking with the status quo is kind of a win for

the Prime Minister and the Remain campaign. The junior doctors are

back to the negotiating table. And prospects for success. Neither side

seems keen to back down yet. The talks is a way for them to

re-engage, but the dispute has become so personal, and some of the

language being used has offended doctors so badly, it is very

difficult to see how they can reach agreement. And publication for

statistics -- of statistics by Jeremy Hunt has not helped him much.

This idea that more patients die at weekends has been challenged for a

second time, suggesting that his key assumption is based on flawed dent.

They are saying that when the Department for health analysed and

said that more people were being dying at the weekend, that there was

some sort of fudging going on, as people being admitted at the weekend

were being logged as emergency cases. The government's response to

this was that there were other studies and broader evidence that

suggested that you didn't want to get admitted to hospital at the

weekend. The wider problem here is that the government sees the junior

doctors still as negotiating in bad faith a bit. They see the BMA

position and the junior doctor permission -- position is being over

politicised. That they don't want anything on public sector reform,

and that junior doctors, C in Jeremy Hunt this sort of Thatcherite

posturing and saying, you are just trying to smash ours. It is so

polarised it is hard to see how you will get agreement. Let's talk about

another potential row, which is the BBC and John Whittingdale's

long-awaited proposals this week. What are you expecting? Isabel, can

you hear me? She seems to have lost her earpiece. Broadly speaking,

there will be an attempt to change the government 's structure of the

BBC. It happens from time to time that the BBC gets its mandate to be

the public sector broadcaster renewed. The problem is that the

critics see this always as a sort of opportunity for the government to

say that they don't like the fact that there is this massive

broadcaster funded essentially by attacks on everyone. They might

ideologically use this opportunity to bully the BBC, or to break it up

for another political objective. The government try to deny that and say

that they are going to move with The Times. Isabel, not sure if you can

hear me now, but I'm afraid it's goodbye! Sorry! Next time.

Let's just pick up on one of those stories -

the White Paper on the BBC expected out this week - well,

last night a string of Bafta winners used the opportunity of the awards

ceremony to mount a defence of the Corporation and Channel 4.

The BBC and Channel 4, which they are also attempting

to eviscerate, is the envy of the world, and we

should stand up and fight for it, not let it go by default.

If we don't, blink, and it will be gone.

There will be no more Wolf Halls, no more award-winning Dispatches

documentaries on Channel 4, just a broadcasting landscape

where the only determinant of whether something gets made

is whether it's likely to line the pockets of its shareholders.

Strong words there. Jacob Rees-Mogg, you are going to have a fight on

your hands. Will you be joining the 20 Tories who will be opposing the

recommendations? I cannot oppose them until they know what they are.

I don't know what he's going to say. We know vaguely the sort of areas

he's going to be looking at. Personally, I think the BBC is going

to make a big mistake in wanting to remain entirely dependent on licence

fee funding. It really ought to look at subscription to iPad and things

like that to get more revenue. Since 1990, the BBC's revenues have gone

up broadly in line with inflation, and sky's has gone from nothing up

to I think about ?10 billion. The BBC's soul and major source of

funding is the licence fee, and it needs to work out a scheme of how it

can compete globally, and I think it is missing that opportunity. Critics

would say, listening to those BAFTA winners, that they would say that.

Those programmes were published by the BBC. It is not actually in

defence of the programmes that they do or the corporation. It is in

defence of the whole of the creative industries of the UK that generate

enormous economic wealth for this country. That is something we are

losing sight of in this politicised debate that the government has been

deliberately stoking up. People abroad will look at the date we are

having about the BBC and think we are nuts. We have got something that

is the jewel in the crown of our creative industries in the UK. Take

a campaign like Let It B, showing how important it is to maintain a

world beating music industry in this country. There is a lot at stake

here. We will find out more later in the week, seeing as you are being

so-called about it! Nobody tells me anything about these things.

It is a familiar story in some of the more beautiful

Local families priced out of the housing market by rich city

dwellers eager to buy a second-home by the seaside for use

And the problem is no more accurate than the Cornish town of St Ives,

where around a quarter of the residential property is owned

But the town council is fighting back and in a referendum last week,

83% of residents backed a plan to restrict ownership

The town's mayor in Linda Taylor who is in our Truro studio.

Thank you for joining us on the Daily Politics. How do you plan to

restrict second home ownership? It's going to be done either way of a

covenant will be placed on the property. Could I just correct you.

The turnout was 42.7%, of which 83% of that vote was in favour. So how

would it work? New properties will have this covenant put on them so

that they are for primary use only, or the place where somebody will

spend most of their time. We could also ask to see that they are

registered on the electoral roll. It is only for new properties. It isn't

a retrospective planning decision, and it doesn't apply to the older

property stocks. What has been the reaction to those specific

proposals, and to holding the referendum in the first place? First

of all, the town are overjoyed that so many people came out to give such

a strong mandate to carry forward on the proposals. The neighbourhood

plan isn't all about the H2 primary residence policy, it does have a lot

of other points that we want to care for in relation to the town. The

media reaction throughout the UK and worldwide has been absolutely and

almost. St Ives is not alone with this problem. Everybody is looking

forward to seeing how our referendum will develop over the next months

and years. So all eyes are on you, no doubt in similar places across

the UK. Do you think it will be taken up in other similar areas or

seaside towns? That will have to be done by the community. Our

neighbourhood plan was led and driven by the community, but I would

not be at also prized if this doesn't give huge encouragement to

other communities to try and follow through on our H2 policy. What is

your response, Jacob Rees-Mogg? Are you on the side of those who want to

restrict local home ownership or the property developers? I am on the

side of the property developers. I think it is a Luddite approach to

limit people buying homes if they want to. If supply and demand don't

meet, prices will rise. People who go in and bring revenue to the area,

the enforcement is very difficult... Will use by on people to see how

many areas -- how many hours they spend there? Having free ownership

of this -- property in this country is something we have enjoyed for

thousands of years. It is a foolish approach, it will be damaging

economically, it will be bad for the property market in the long-term,

and you will have two tiers of property. You will have some houses

that have a boom, you will have others that are at a different

price, you will have enforcement problems... It is a really bad idea.

You can tell he's not a fan of your plan, Linda Taylor, and you are a

Luddite. That is unfortunate term to use for the mayor of sent eyes. I

feel that the neighbourhood plan would sit incredibly well in our

community. -- the Mayor of St Ives. We do not underestimate the

contribution that the visitor and the second home owner makes to our

economy. We can work together on this and I know that it will work.

The Conservative housing minister, Brandon Lewis, also doesn't like

your plan. What do you say to him? We haven't just done this... We have

had to work closely with the council and their legal team, and at every

stage we have worked very closely until we have got to the point that

this referendum could go out to vote. We have followed all the legal

steps. Cousin something always happens doesn't mean it always makes

it right. Perhaps St Ives will push the legal boundaries. If people want

it. The turnout was 43% and the majority was in favour of the plan.

Isn't it up to local people? We make our laws nationally. Isn't it about

devolving? It is a national statute, property, and that is quite right.

Doing it on planning is an abuse of the planning system.

There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was which of these Ruth Davidson photo

A) Riding a snowspeeder b) Playing ice hockey

c) On a logflume or d) Riding a buffalo

It's the log flume! That's the one I meant! That's correct. Look at you!

So indignant! Thank you very much to Linda there in St Ives,