:00:37. > :00:45.Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:46. > :00:48.It's war - or it could be if Britain leaves the EU,
:00:49. > :00:55.says the Prime Minister - but is his warning of instability
:00:56. > :00:57.and conflict just desperate and insulting, as Leave
:00:58. > :01:00.Labour's election results in England were better than some expected
:01:01. > :01:02.and they won the contest for London mayor.
:01:03. > :01:05.So why has the Shadow Chancellor launched a public attack on fellow
:01:06. > :01:07.MP and former Labour cabinet minister Caroline Flint?
:01:08. > :01:10.St Ives votes to ban the sale of new builds
:01:11. > :01:12.to second home owners - but will it make it
:01:13. > :01:17.easier for locals to get on the housing ladder?
:01:18. > :01:23.And has London been taken over by cycling fascists?
:01:24. > :01:32.Isn't it about time the rest of us Sturt up four our writes told
:01:33. > :01:37.cyclists the roads are also for buses, cars, lorries and taxis --
:01:38. > :01:43.stood up for our rights! All that in the next hour,
:01:44. > :01:46.and with us for the whole of the programme today,
:01:47. > :01:48.former Labour Shadow Cabinet minister Michael Dugher,
:01:49. > :01:50.who describes himself on Twitter as having been "sacked
:01:51. > :01:52.by Jeremy Corbyn for too much straight talking,
:01:53. > :01:53.honest politics". And with him a man once described
:01:54. > :01:58.as "David Cameron's worst nightmare" - but is now considered by some
:01:59. > :02:00.a "national treasure", Conservative MP and Leave campaigner,
:02:01. > :02:05.Jacob Rees-Mogg. With the local elections behind us,
:02:06. > :02:12.the and just 45 days to go until the referendum,
:02:13. > :02:15.the debate over our membership of The biggest names on either side
:02:16. > :02:25.of the referendum campaign have gone into battle this morning armed
:02:26. > :02:28.with big speeches. volleys, warning that peace
:02:29. > :02:33.in Europe could be put at risk "Isolationism has never served
:02:34. > :02:39.this country well", he says. "Can we be
:02:40. > :02:43.so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured
:02:44. > :02:46.beyond any shadow of doubt?" Mr Cameron also suggests
:02:47. > :02:49.Winston Churchill would have disapproved of Britain
:02:50. > :02:52.leaving the EU, saying
:02:53. > :02:55.Britain made a "lone stand" in 1940 when it "stood as a bulwark
:02:56. > :02:59.against a new dark age of tyranny". says: "The PM's words are deeply
:03:00. > :03:09.ironic, given the EU's own border agency says the EU's borderless
:03:10. > :03:11.policy is making the whole Meanwhile,
:03:12. > :03:15.the leading light in the Leave campaign, Boris Johnson,
:03:16. > :03:18.made a speech this morning entitled "The liberal
:03:19. > :03:31.cosmopolitan case for Brexit", And attacked the EU's record on
:03:32. > :03:35.signing trade deals. EU Houston trade deals with people and steamy
:03:36. > :03:41.and Authority and with San Marino and others. Bravo but it has failed
:03:42. > :03:48.to conclude agreements with India, China, or even America that it has
:03:49. > :03:52.done trade deals with the Palestinian authority. Because
:03:53. > :03:56.negotiating with the EU is like trying to ride a 28 man pantomime
:03:57. > :04:00.horse with everyone pulling in different directions.
:04:01. > :04:08.Michael Dugher, do you share the view that peace is at risk if we
:04:09. > :04:14.leave the EU? I would not go so far as to imply that they will be Word
:04:15. > :04:18.War three if we do not. But Mac world War three. I think he is right
:04:19. > :04:23.to set the context, which is that the European Community did come out
:04:24. > :04:28.of those hugely costly conflicts over very many years. I think that
:04:29. > :04:34.is a timely reminder. I also think there is an issue in terms of the EU
:04:35. > :04:38.in that it does help our defence and security now whether it is European
:04:39. > :04:41.arrest warrant or frankly helping to co-ordinated across different
:04:42. > :04:45.countries in Europe, whether dealing with terrorism at home otherwise Mac
:04:46. > :04:52.overseas. I think there is something in that. Jacob Rees Mogg, your
:04:53. > :04:57.position is threatening peace and stability? This is untrue. The Prime
:04:58. > :05:01.Minister has got his sister rerun. Great Britain has not always engaged
:05:02. > :05:06.on the European continent. A lot of our policy was to avoid that because
:05:07. > :05:11.it brought us into walls. I could start with Elizabeth the first... Or
:05:12. > :05:17.more recent history like the two world was because of that is how the
:05:18. > :05:20.EU really came to be. The two wars were caused by two German dictator
:05:21. > :05:25.'s attacking their neighbouring countries. We got involved because
:05:26. > :05:30.we felt that was crucial for bees and security. As Germany going to
:05:31. > :05:35.become a dictatorship and invade if we leave? This is where the main
:05:36. > :05:39.argument of the campaign becomes absurd and hysterical. Where would
:05:40. > :05:43.all start and do you know what the poem list is talking about when he
:05:44. > :05:53.says peace and stability would be threatened? Does the remainder side
:05:54. > :05:58.have in their mind how this would break out? I think we are stronger
:05:59. > :06:02.together. The threats today are not on the scale of world war or an
:06:03. > :06:06.invading power yet in many ways the threats we face as a country are
:06:07. > :06:10.more complicated and more difficult to deal with. They run across
:06:11. > :06:16.borders when you think of the fight against international terror or the
:06:17. > :06:19.walls by proxy that we have to deal with, dealing with international
:06:20. > :06:22.terrorism. It is the case that the civilised democracies of this world
:06:23. > :06:27.are better when they can work together in dealing with threats
:06:28. > :06:30.that in many cases are very common. Particularly when we have looked at
:06:31. > :06:37.the recent terrorist threats. Nothing to do with the European
:06:38. > :06:41.Union. The five eyes system is the US, the UK, Canada, and New Zealand.
:06:42. > :06:46.Weak or operated with France for better or worse in regard to
:06:47. > :06:53.liberated -- we cooperated with them, that had nothing to do with
:06:54. > :06:57.the EU, the Belgian authorities did not even tell the police the
:06:58. > :07:01.information they had on terror attacks. So security is not to that
:07:02. > :07:05.extent within the European treaties, it is pretending that there is a
:07:06. > :07:12.competence within the EU that it is not. MI5 and MI6 has said that
:07:13. > :07:18.Britain benefits from sharing intelligence. Another former head of
:07:19. > :07:20.Isaacs has said the opposite. You have people taking different views
:07:21. > :07:25.whether they favour remaining leaving. Of course you can cooperate
:07:26. > :07:30.with friendly nations. You don't need a treaty structure that makes
:07:31. > :07:34.European law your law or makes decisions of European courts your
:07:35. > :07:38.decisions and overrides your democracy just too hot nations deal
:07:39. > :07:41.with terrorism. We work more closely in this area with the United States
:07:42. > :07:47.than with any single European country. What if the French
:07:48. > :07:51.intelligence services knew about an imminent attack in Britain, surely
:07:52. > :07:59.they would tell us, whether we were part of the EU or not? It is not a
:08:00. > :08:04.choice of either - or, either we can have good relations with the
:08:05. > :08:09.Americans or with our nearest neighbours. We can have both. The EU
:08:10. > :08:14.facilitates the letter. From an industrial point of view when you
:08:15. > :08:17.think of the complexity and cost of major defence programmes come
:08:18. > :08:20.increasingly these are done as joint ventures between Anglo European
:08:21. > :08:25.partners, these are just practical benefits that we get in a very
:08:26. > :08:30.difficult and challenging defence and security climate. Those security
:08:31. > :08:34.measures are primarily intergovernmental. The European
:08:35. > :08:37.Arrest Warrant, all the fanfare about it how it would stop
:08:38. > :08:46.terrorism, and then it was used to crush Mike a family -- crush a
:08:47. > :08:52.family that were not happy. That was European law. Are you saying it is
:08:53. > :08:56.never used to stop paedophiles, terror suspects? I say it was built
:08:57. > :09:00.up to do that and then was used for minor things. You do not need
:09:01. > :09:06.European superstructure to fight terrorism. You need intelligent
:09:07. > :09:12.co-operation between independent European states. What happens in
:09:13. > :09:17.this context is intergovernmental, not European union based. Is not
:09:18. > :09:22.overstating the case, Michael, when the Prime Minister says that leaving
:09:23. > :09:26.would be an act of abject retreat and risk turning the clock back to
:09:27. > :09:30.nationalism in Europe. As you say you don't expect all out war to
:09:31. > :09:37.break out if we were to leave the EU. Is that not also overstating his
:09:38. > :09:41.case? All prime ministers can get carried away with their rhetoric and
:09:42. > :09:46.in my experience all prime ministers love to have a reference to Winston
:09:47. > :09:49.Churchill in their speech! It's like getting six the buzz on the lottery,
:09:50. > :09:57.you can say I am the first Prime Minister since Winston Churchill to
:09:58. > :10:00.do this! -- like getting six numbers on the lottery. Although he is right
:10:01. > :10:05.to say that we are at a crossroads as a country. This is about our
:10:06. > :10:10.ambitions as a country. We can go back to some sort of nostalgia that
:10:11. > :10:13.I do not believe ever existed all can continue to recognise that
:10:14. > :10:18.economically and in many areas our future belongs in a modern European
:10:19. > :10:25.union of modern independent States, working together to face the
:10:26. > :10:30.challenges that come upon union -- us as a country. Could you not be
:10:31. > :10:36.accused of looking back to a past age and maybe Winston Churchill
:10:37. > :10:39.would have been an your side? I don't think we need to think about
:10:40. > :10:42.what dead people think of this, we need to think about what living
:10:43. > :10:46.people think. The Prime Minister cannot see a pudding without over
:10:47. > :10:51.egging it. On the Brexit side we are looking to a broad international
:10:52. > :10:58.future without the closed European shop. We the ones with international
:10:59. > :11:01.vision, supporters of the Remain camp are stuck in the 19th century
:11:02. > :11:06.way of thinking. It is the rest of the world that is more important.
:11:07. > :11:08.Now back in March the Foreign Affairs Select committee published
:11:09. > :11:11.an analysis of what Leaving the EU would mean for Britain's
:11:12. > :11:14.The report didn't take sides - the committee equally split
:11:15. > :11:17.for and against leaving - but its Chairman -
:11:18. > :11:19.Crispin Blunt - hadn't declared his hand.
:11:20. > :11:26.In March he promised to listen to the views of his committee and then
:11:27. > :11:28.come back and tell us which way he had decided to vote. This is what he
:11:29. > :11:30.said. I've got a committee that,
:11:31. > :11:32.other than me, is split 5-5. You're not going to tell us
:11:33. > :11:35.until your committee reports? I want a unanimous report
:11:36. > :11:38.from the Europhiles and the Eurosceptics,
:11:39. > :11:39.who will then announce Because the nation
:11:40. > :11:45.is waiting to hear. But I am going to wait
:11:46. > :11:47.until the committee has reported... I can't imagine anywhere
:11:48. > :12:01.better to do it! We like to hold politicians to
:12:02. > :12:16.account on this programme. But us out of our misery, which way
:12:17. > :12:20.are you going? I wrote a pamphlet on the need for a country to make a
:12:21. > :12:27.choice on this Amber Rudd two competing statements on how we
:12:28. > :12:30.should be, committed to the European ideal, making institutions work,
:12:31. > :12:33.fully committed with European partners into making a reality all
:12:34. > :12:38.the security and economic co-operation to make a success of
:12:39. > :12:44.the ideals that came out of the ashes of World War II? Or and
:12:45. > :12:49.internationalist vision for the UK, equipped with all the global
:12:50. > :12:53.strength that we have, the economically unique selling points,
:12:54. > :12:56.global rather than regional, a global vision if we choose, and a
:12:57. > :13:04.global role should we choose to take it. There is only one of those rules
:13:05. > :13:08.on offer today. As a positive role for the UK, globally, playing a
:13:09. > :13:14.strong internationalist role against dog in the manger stopping our
:13:15. > :13:19.European Union partners getting on with the necessary co-operation that
:13:20. > :13:23.they need to do. So you are voting to leave? My conclusion is that I
:13:24. > :13:29.want a positive story, positive role for the UK and so I think Brexit
:13:30. > :13:34.offers that option. That was a long answer. So now we can confirm that
:13:35. > :13:39.you are backing Brexit. I thought it might be good to give an explanation
:13:40. > :13:46.of how I have come to this decision. Why has it taken News along? I
:13:47. > :13:51.chaired a committee that was split down the middle, 5-5, without me,
:13:52. > :13:56.and I thought it was more important and that the country takes a
:13:57. > :14:00.decision. We need to set a path to the UK. Being half in and half out
:14:01. > :14:05.was not, in my judgment, the right place to beat in 1998. It is still
:14:06. > :14:09.not come in my view, the right place to be. We should be fully committed
:14:10. > :14:12.to this institution and the European ideal or to this institution and the
:14:13. > :14:16.European ideal or two and internationalist globalist view.
:14:17. > :14:20.Does your committee back the vote to leave? Even though you have the
:14:21. > :14:24.casting vote? We are not going to conduct another inquiry into our
:14:25. > :14:29.role in the world. I wanted the committee to provide a service to
:14:30. > :14:33.the public, produce a review of the position that was not biased. Not
:14:34. > :14:37.biased because it was unanimously agreed by the committee regardless
:14:38. > :14:43.of their field. That view is addressed to the electorate to help
:14:44. > :14:48.them decide. Let's get reaction from our guests. Michael Dugher, you
:14:49. > :14:53.disappointed that Crispin Blunt will not be campaigning on your side?
:14:54. > :14:57.Think the way that Crispin and his committee have handled it has been
:14:58. > :15:01.the right way, trying to explore the arguments. The committee deserves a
:15:02. > :15:05.lot of credit for that. He's also right to say that regardless which
:15:06. > :15:09.side of the odd and you fall on you need to emphasise the positive in
:15:10. > :15:15.this. -- which side of argument. From the point of view of those of
:15:16. > :15:20.us who want to Remain, the huge lessons from the Scottish referendum
:15:21. > :15:25.is, if you are defending the status quo, against a change, then it's a
:15:26. > :15:29.very difficult fight to have but it is not one borne out by the facts of
:15:30. > :15:34.the case because I think this should be a contest of two competing
:15:35. > :15:39.alternative views for Britain's relationship in Europe and in the
:15:40. > :15:43.world. I am convinced that the best for Britain is to remain inside the
:15:44. > :15:47.European Union yet to fight for Britain's interest in it. We have
:15:48. > :15:50.not always done that terribly well. I think we must be much more
:15:51. > :15:55.hard-headed about the changes we want.
:15:56. > :16:05.The danger is that our defence of British interests, ever since the
:16:06. > :16:11.European Union started in the direction away from just a single
:16:12. > :16:14.market in the 1980s, and we have had endless successive treaties were the
:16:15. > :16:18.British position has been doggedly defended by British Prime Minister,
:16:19. > :16:23.getting us to opt out of various measures, all of which served us to
:16:24. > :16:31.obstruct the workings of the European Union for them to deal
:16:32. > :16:34.with... They need the fiscal stability to underpin a common
:16:35. > :16:39.currency. We heard there that this was about trying to provide an
:16:40. > :16:43.unbiased accounts of both side, but did the government not provide that
:16:44. > :16:47.when it sent a booklet to each household listing the facts and
:16:48. > :16:50.stats behind our membership of the Duke was the I'm astonished you
:16:51. > :16:57.would think that, and I can't believe any of your viewers do. It
:16:58. > :17:03.implied that we controlled our own borders when we don't. It was
:17:04. > :17:07.disgraceful. The government spent ?9.2 million of taxpayers' money
:17:08. > :17:11.trying to persuade us to do what the government wanted. Every time we
:17:12. > :17:16.look on a government website, they have a pop up to try to get you to
:17:17. > :17:21.read government propaganda. This is really shocking and an British. The
:17:22. > :17:25.truth is, the people who want us to come out are offering the British
:17:26. > :17:30.public a blank sheet of paper. They are inviting people to take a leap
:17:31. > :17:34.into a world that is utterly undefined. They have no idea what
:17:35. > :17:42.the Britain would look like outside the EU. It is right that we
:17:43. > :17:45.emphasise the clear benefits we've got, and, frankly, the risks to
:17:46. > :17:49.jobs, our economy and the security and everything else. We will have to
:17:50. > :17:51.finish it there. Crispin Blunt, just to confirm that you will be
:17:52. > :17:54.campaigning for Brexit. Yes. Scottish Conservative leader
:17:55. > :17:58.Ruth Davidson now leads the official opposition in Holyrood,
:17:59. > :18:00.and many are tipping her to become Never shy of a photo opportunity,
:18:01. > :18:04.Ms Davidson has outdone herself during this last campaign,
:18:05. > :18:06.so our question today is, which of these pictures
:18:07. > :18:09.is the fake photo op? At the end of the show JacoB
:18:10. > :18:25.and Michael will give So after winning the contest
:18:26. > :18:28.for London mayor and better than expected results
:18:29. > :18:30.in English Council elections, Labour might have been hoping
:18:31. > :18:32.for a cessation of hostilities But yesterday fresh salvos
:18:33. > :18:37.were being fired across radio First Caroline Flint appeared
:18:38. > :18:42.on the Sunday Politics programme with this criticism of
:18:43. > :18:45.Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell. John McDonnell also said
:18:46. > :18:48.in the run-up to these elections Well, looking to hang
:18:49. > :18:53.on isn't enough. This is the worst result
:18:54. > :18:55.for an opposition party after The year after Michael Foot
:18:56. > :19:01.was elected, I think we gained And in fact the Tories,
:19:02. > :19:12.when you look at directly contested elections,
:19:13. > :19:15.actually gained three. It doesn't take away
:19:16. > :19:17.from the hard work on the ground by Labour councillors,
:19:18. > :19:20.Parliamentary candidates and members in these elections,
:19:21. > :19:24.but we need to be making far more inroads to be within an opportunity
:19:25. > :19:28.to win in 2020 and that's That prompted this retort
:19:29. > :19:34.from from John McDonnell on last I've heard Caroline Flint
:19:35. > :19:41.quoted today quoting me, and I never actually said
:19:42. > :19:45.what she is supposedly What I said after the elections
:19:46. > :19:49.themselves was that people predicted that we were facing disaster
:19:50. > :19:54.of losing anything between 175 and 200 seats, and when you compare
:19:55. > :20:00.our success in the last week In 2012, when we fought these
:20:01. > :20:06.seats last time round, we were at the highest level
:20:07. > :20:11.of approval for Ed Miliband, and we've actually
:20:12. > :20:14.virtually maintained I'm not in any way
:20:15. > :20:18.complacent about that. Earlier in the day,
:20:19. > :20:26.the Shadow Chancellor took He wrote: "Caroline
:20:27. > :20:30.Flint, you quoted me saying re recent elections
:20:31. > :20:33."we are looking to hang on." "Could you now publicly
:20:34. > :20:37.correct this." To which Ms Flint responded
:20:38. > :20:40.by citing Pienaar's Politics on Radio 5 Live from 24 April,
:20:41. > :20:44.writing: John McDonnell MP said "Hold on to as much
:20:45. > :20:48.as we possibly can". Joining us now from
:20:49. > :20:54.our Brighton studio is the Labour party Councillor
:20:55. > :21:06.and Momentum activist, Sam Tarry. Welcome to the programme. Why is
:21:07. > :21:12.John McDonnell having a public row with another Labour MP? Well,
:21:13. > :21:17.obviously at the moment, there's been a lot of rows going on. The
:21:18. > :21:21.interesting thing is there's two agendas trying to be set here. One
:21:22. > :21:28.of the things I find disconcerting is the way that so many PLP members,
:21:29. > :21:32.Labour MPs, are taking to the airwaves to put the boot in after a
:21:33. > :21:41.set of election results in local government that are pretty good, and
:21:42. > :21:47.some stonking results for London and Bristol mayor. Why did he send her a
:21:48. > :21:52.public tweet? He said that he wants the party to unite, and here he is
:21:53. > :21:55.demanding she corrects something she said, and an Dingxi does it
:21:56. > :22:02.publicly. Is that best strategy for unifying the party? Twitter doesn't
:22:03. > :22:07.necessarily lead to the most conciliatory discussion, I find! I
:22:08. > :22:14.would advise people to calm down slightly. There is something, as a
:22:15. > :22:20.grassroots member and a councillor for six years, a Chief Whip and
:22:21. > :22:23.someone that understand about party discipline, a lot of ordinary Labour
:22:24. > :22:28.Party members are getting fed up with certain quarters of the PLP
:22:29. > :22:33.taking to the airwaves, constructing arguments just to put the boot in,
:22:34. > :22:37.because they can't get over the fact that the candidate they supported
:22:38. > :22:42.got 4.5% in the leadership elections. It's time to move on and
:22:43. > :22:46.get behind the leader. Would it have been a more grown-up approach to say
:22:47. > :22:50.to Caroline Flint, and respond to her, asking for a phone conversation
:22:51. > :22:58.rather than carrying it out in public? For me, I always preferred
:22:59. > :23:02.to get round the table and have a discussion. The junior doctors in
:23:03. > :23:05.ACAS today, you don't have to be in a case but you do have to be more
:23:06. > :23:12.diplomatic when you talk to each other. -- in ACAS. There are certain
:23:13. > :23:17.MPs, such as Joe Cox, who sent out an e-mail to her local Labour Party
:23:18. > :23:22.that she had put the knife into Jeremy Corbyn. These people should
:23:23. > :23:25.be called in to see the whip. This behaviour is absolutely
:23:26. > :23:29.preposterous. We've had a decent set of election results and need to get
:23:30. > :23:34.behind Jeremy. Should people be pulled up in front of the leadership
:23:35. > :23:37.and his team to respond, and ask why the article was written the day
:23:38. > :23:46.after the election 's? In fairness to Joe-macro and meal, both of whom
:23:47. > :23:50.nominated Jeremy, they said that they had waited until after polling
:23:51. > :23:55.day because they didn't want to do anything to undermine our campaign
:23:56. > :24:01.on the ground. They are entitled to speak their mind. There was an issue
:24:02. > :24:05.as to how we conduct this debate. It was regrettable John Donnell taking
:24:06. > :24:12.to Twitter. I just put it down to him having a long weekend... -- John
:24:13. > :24:20.McDonnell. It's long hours that people work. You were also adding to
:24:21. > :24:23.this view. Don't forget that Jeremy Corbyn defined his leadership at the
:24:24. > :24:27.party conference saying that he wanted a new type of politics where
:24:28. > :24:33.you can have debate and even room for a bit of dissent. Not
:24:34. > :24:39.unreasonable for someone who voted against a Labour Party leader more
:24:40. > :24:42.times than a Conservative leader. It is slightly hard to bear, this kind
:24:43. > :24:46.of disloyalty. What ever side you came from in the leadership, all of
:24:47. > :24:51.us in the Labour Party have to come together and reflect on the results.
:24:52. > :24:56.You can contrast London and Scotland, say, and I think you can
:24:57. > :24:59.learn lessons from both. You can take the positives from London and
:25:00. > :25:04.say, what kind of campaign and message did we have there? We were
:25:05. > :25:08.out of our comfort zone and were not just talking to ourselves and
:25:09. > :25:11.mobilising the base, but reaching out the people who devoted
:25:12. > :25:21.Conservative and not voted Labour before. We had a hideous momentum
:25:22. > :25:26.hard left experience, where we were going on a left-wing anti-Trident...
:25:27. > :25:31.Footing anti-Trident in your manifesto, which is itself evidently
:25:32. > :25:35.anti-jobs in Scotland, surprise surprise, that ended up in absolute
:25:36. > :25:44.disaster. There's lessons from the good and the bad that we have to
:25:45. > :25:48.learn here. Let's put that to Sam. A Trident party just won a third term
:25:49. > :25:51.in government. We need to have a serious discussion with the trade
:25:52. > :25:56.unions about Trident and about those jobs. I agree with Michael that it
:25:57. > :26:01.shouldn't be the centre of our discussion. But to say that it isn't
:26:02. > :26:07.a popular position in Scotland is bonkers. The SNP have been one of
:26:08. > :26:09.the most positive risk campaigning organisations in Scotland against
:26:10. > :26:16.Trident, and they just wiped us out in the last election. Michael, you
:26:17. > :26:22.want to respond. You are bonkers! The truth is, Jeremy said a year ago
:26:23. > :26:30.that he felt that the situation we have in Scotland is, being very
:26:31. > :26:33.straightforward, all we needed was a hard left, anti-austerity,
:26:34. > :26:38.anti-Trident left-wing message, and he said it would be his top priority
:26:39. > :26:44.and he was convinced of victory. Actually, we went backwards and we
:26:45. > :26:48.finished behind the Conservatives in third place. We've got huge lessons
:26:49. > :26:54.to learn in Scotland, and equally lessons to learn in areas we did
:26:55. > :26:57.well. We fought a lot of ultra campaigns in places like Exeter. The
:26:58. > :27:04.Sadiq campaign in London was very different to many others. Jeremy was
:27:05. > :27:09.right to say we have on, or hold on, as John McDonnell said, but that
:27:10. > :27:13.should not be the pinnacle of our ambition a year after an election.
:27:14. > :27:21.11% went against us in any of that in Nuneaton. Darby, Thurrock, those
:27:22. > :27:26.areas went against us, areas that are critical. It is much harder in a
:27:27. > :27:32.general election. This is about as good as it will get for Labour. We
:27:33. > :27:38.have a Tory party in disarray. There was nothing on Thursday, I put to
:27:39. > :27:45.you, to suggest that you would have any chance of winning in 2020,
:27:46. > :27:50.however you look at the results. I think that addressing the issue of
:27:51. > :27:55.Scotland, the reality is that we got smashed under Jim Murphy in
:27:56. > :28:01.Scotland. And you went backwards in these elections. It isn't about
:28:02. > :28:05.right or left in Scotland, it's about constitutional politics.
:28:06. > :28:08.Michael is muddying the water. Everything is seen through a
:28:09. > :28:13.different prism there. I know there is a slight delay on the line, but
:28:14. > :28:17.can I ask you to answer the question. What evidence was there
:28:18. > :28:24.from the results on Thursday that says to you, we are on course to win
:28:25. > :28:28.as the Labour Party in 2020? I think, on the local government
:28:29. > :28:33.elections, places like Crawley, some of the issues we had around
:28:34. > :28:37.Nuneaton... Some people said we would be hammered in those
:28:38. > :28:42.elections. These are some key areas. You also think of Harlow, an area
:28:43. > :28:48.near where I'm from. People there are saying that what Jeremy is
:28:49. > :28:54.saying has resonance for them. His economic message is really, really
:28:55. > :28:58.powerful to those people. But Labour did lose seats, didn't they? The
:28:59. > :29:03.huge result in Bristol and in London... There's no point beating
:29:04. > :29:10.around the bush. The reality is, there is a firm aims to build on for
:29:11. > :29:16.stop there is a very, very high number of councillors in 2012. In
:29:17. > :29:21.Bristol, 63%, with the Greens knocked out the park. In London,
:29:22. > :29:26.Jeremy is tremendously popular as well as Sadiq. That double
:29:27. > :29:30.combination, that double popularity, delivered as one of the best results
:29:31. > :29:36.we will probably ever have in London. Do you think the party is
:29:37. > :29:42.heading for a electoral disaster in 2020? Do you think they will win?
:29:43. > :29:47.You have lost Scotland. Many would argue that is a humiliating defeat,
:29:48. > :29:54.to go into third place. At what point do you stop being a protest
:29:55. > :29:58.movement, in your words? At what point do you do something about it?
:29:59. > :30:03.In these immediate days about those set of elections, we need to learn
:30:04. > :30:09.from them. Including places like Bristol where we did well, and
:30:10. > :30:14.places that we hung on but went backwards, and significantly so. We
:30:15. > :30:18.have serious lessons to learn. The idea that we are on a trajectory to
:30:19. > :30:23.winning the election at the moment would be in defiance of all history.
:30:24. > :30:28.We've got to be honest about that. Also, let's talk to the voters out
:30:29. > :30:32.there, rather than just doing the meetings will be packed out the room
:30:33. > :30:35.and we all agree, and we delude ourselves that something is
:30:36. > :30:43.happening out there, they are queueing around the corner. The
:30:44. > :30:46.voters in many places did not share the same enthusiasm with ours as
:30:47. > :30:51.some of our members do. We have huge lessons to learn. And any sensible
:30:52. > :30:52.party would do that after nationwide elections in every corner of the
:30:53. > :31:03.country. Let me turn briefly to the mayoral
:31:04. > :31:09.campaign. As you will have heard on the radio and on TV there were many
:31:10. > :31:12.complaints about Zac Goldsmith's campaign run by the Lynton Crosby
:31:13. > :31:21.team. Do you now regret the way it was run. E I think Zac was an
:31:22. > :31:24.exceptionally good candidate. I am not convinced the campaign showed
:31:25. > :31:30.all his virtues in their highest colour. I think to that extent, that
:31:31. > :31:35.was a pity. Very often after campaigns have taken place they are
:31:36. > :31:37.judged retrospectively. If you have a campaign that wins everyone says
:31:38. > :31:42.it must have been a brilliant campaign. And I think most however
:31:43. > :31:48.good the campaign it would have been very hard to win in London. Right
:31:49. > :31:51.but this is about the tone of the campaign, it was called dog whistle
:31:52. > :31:56.politics by many politicians on Friday when I was covering the
:31:57. > :32:00.elections and the aftermath. We can show you pictures of Lynton Crosby,
:32:01. > :32:04.the strategist in the general election, his team ran the Goldsmith
:32:05. > :32:09.campaign and he was then awarded a knighthood. We can show you the
:32:10. > :32:17.pictures now. To receive the honour of might and Sir Lynton Crosby for
:32:18. > :32:20.political service. Was it not unfortunate timing that he should be
:32:21. > :32:28.receiving a knighthood, the man accused, perhaps not personally but
:32:29. > :32:33.his team, of running a racist campaign? If I do not think it was
:32:34. > :32:38.racist. That was deeply unfair. Some people thought it was. People always
:32:39. > :32:43.fill political mad. They always attack the campaign of the opposite
:32:44. > :32:47.party. Reasonable thing to do. I don't think it was racist. Lynton
:32:48. > :32:51.Crosby is a distinguished strategist and played an important role in the
:32:52. > :32:55.general election. I think that he thoroughly deserved his knighthood
:32:56. > :33:01.and should probably get an even higher knighthood. Briefly, Michael
:33:02. > :33:04.Dugher? That Labour campaign should give the Labour Party nationally in
:33:05. > :33:09.on us encouragement and help. I don't believe the next general
:33:10. > :33:14.election is lost. I think it is in our hands. I think Sadiq showed us
:33:15. > :33:19.that if you have a campaign rooted in the centre ground, dignified,
:33:20. > :33:24.with practical policies that command popular support, we have the strong
:33:25. > :33:28.leadership Sadiq showed an anti-Semitism I think it shows that
:33:29. > :33:33.when Labour riches beyond our base we can win. We should take enormous
:33:34. > :33:37.encouragement from that and we can do it despite a hostile Tory media
:33:38. > :33:45.and all the Tory money and all the Tory strategists in the world. Thank
:33:46. > :33:47.you. Supporters say it will save lives,
:33:48. > :33:49.promote healthy living, discourage But has the transformation
:33:50. > :33:53.of the streets of London and other major cities for the benefit
:33:54. > :33:55.of cyclists gone too far? Well, the broadcaster and writer
:33:56. > :33:57.Janet Street-Porter thinks so. The wonderful city of London
:33:58. > :34:10.was once a pleasure to walk through, but it has been brought to its knees
:34:11. > :34:13.all Until just a few weeks ago,
:34:14. > :34:21.our capital resembled a Roads were dug up and
:34:22. > :34:26.rebuilt to make way for a In Bristol, segregated cycling lanes
:34:27. > :34:39.have appeared and work on a similar scheme is near completion
:34:40. > :34:42.in Manchester. Plans for expansion in Edinburgh
:34:43. > :34:44.have been met by protests While cyclists breeze
:34:45. > :34:59.through the city with little regard for anyone else, roads like this
:35:00. > :35:01.have been reduced It makes life vile for
:35:02. > :35:05.pedestrians, who have had to Why should cyclists get preferential
:35:06. > :35:11.treatment over pedestrians? What about the very
:35:12. > :35:12.young, the elderly, People who may not want
:35:13. > :35:20.to or be able to cycle? People who cannot use public
:35:21. > :35:26.transport? Riding a bike is subject to
:35:27. > :35:28.the rules and many London cyclists cannot even keep to
:35:29. > :35:31.those, whether it's stopping at a red light
:35:32. > :35:34.or They aren't legally
:35:35. > :35:41.compelled to wear a helmet and there
:35:42. > :35:43.is no MOT for bikes. Cyclists won't even have
:35:44. > :35:44.to use these highways
:35:45. > :35:46.when they are finished. They can still risk
:35:47. > :35:49.life on the open road. I thought that we lived
:35:50. > :35:53.in a democracy, but it seems that in this city, cyclists have
:35:54. > :35:57.more clout than anyone else. Isn't it about time
:35:58. > :36:01.the rest of us stood up for our rights and told cyclists
:36:02. > :36:06.that roads are also for buses, cars, But I suspect the cyclists
:36:07. > :36:12.won't be happy until all other forms of
:36:13. > :36:22.transport are eradicated. And we're joined now
:36:23. > :36:24.by Janet, and also by Andrew Gilligan who was -
:36:25. > :36:34.until yesterday - Welcome to both of you. Janet,
:36:35. > :36:37.cycling takes pressure, you could argue, off congested roads and it
:36:38. > :36:43.means people can use other forms of transport. Is that such a bad thing?
:36:44. > :36:49.Let me say from the outset that in my original Colin said I that I like
:36:50. > :36:54.cycling and our own a bike -- in my column. What I said was that the
:36:55. > :36:58.cycling superhighways have caused inordinate traffic congestion. I
:36:59. > :37:04.simply pointed out that riding a bike, especially some like London,
:37:05. > :37:08.seems to have very few rules and regulations about it. People can
:37:09. > :37:13.rent Boris backs, although I know they were brought in by Ken
:37:14. > :37:18.You don't have to wear a helmet or pass a driving test and people are
:37:19. > :37:23.routinely texting and taking selfie 's and so on. More importantly they
:37:24. > :37:27.are not compelled to use the cycling lanes. That is the important point.
:37:28. > :37:31.You have spent all this time and money on cycling lanes, they may be
:37:32. > :37:38.a great idea, although not if the body uses them. The main cycling
:37:39. > :37:45.path is two minutes from this building, have you seen it? Guess,
:37:46. > :37:49.although not everyone uses it. Almost at opening it was almost
:37:50. > :37:53.overcrowded. All through the day. When I saw and it was empty.
:37:54. > :37:59.Tourists were using and without any crash helmets, taking photographs of
:38:00. > :38:02.themselves in front of Big Ben. The point of cycle lanes is to create a
:38:03. > :38:08.safe space where you don't need to crash helmets. Why are they not
:38:09. > :38:13.compulsory? If they are in a safe space, which I agree with, in a
:38:14. > :38:15.segregated when you're safe, why they're not compulsory because you
:38:16. > :38:23.still see cyclists veering all over the road the pavements. They are
:38:24. > :38:28.not, you could see that behind you when you were filming. Now the lanes
:38:29. > :38:32.open everyone is using them and you are showing that a lot of the
:38:33. > :38:36.objections are not founded. Andrew, when we last spoke about this on the
:38:37. > :38:43.London Politics show on Sunday we showed a tip-off that film,
:38:44. > :38:47.admittedly, it was empty and we saw cyclists using alternatives. All I
:38:48. > :38:51.am saying is, are you sure they will be used? If they don't have to use
:38:52. > :38:57.them, they won't necessarily. We don't need to argue, two minutes
:38:58. > :39:02.outside this building you will see them. I lived for ten years in
:39:03. > :39:06.central London and cyclists go all over the road and all over the
:39:07. > :39:11.pavement. Leaving aside this and the highways, cyclists are not compelled
:39:12. > :39:15.to stick to one part of the road. This kind of discussion is an
:39:16. > :39:20.example of the lack of rationality about the debate in cycling. The
:39:21. > :39:26.lack of rationality is Boris saying he wanted ?12 50 allocated per
:39:27. > :39:29.London on cycling. You are not allocating bad for pedestrians. We
:39:30. > :39:32.are arguing about whether something is happening or not, we can see it
:39:33. > :39:38.happening two minutes from this building, these cycle lanes are
:39:39. > :39:42.hugely changing the market, changing cycling from being a pursuit we'll
:39:43. > :39:45.have to dress up in like and act aggressively, you see kids and
:39:46. > :39:50.families coming out for a ride in the sunshine and they are working.
:39:51. > :39:55.The fact is that we have 10,000 people a month in the population of
:39:56. > :40:00.London and the only way to cope with that is either build more roads,
:40:01. > :40:03.politically and physically impossible, or realign the roads to
:40:04. > :40:09.make better use of them by encouraging forms of transport like
:40:10. > :40:12.cycles which take up less space. Is that not the reality, Janet, you
:40:13. > :40:15.have raised the point that more money is being spent on cycling and
:40:16. > :40:19.the infrastructure because it is the only viable option if you are
:40:20. > :40:22.looking to the future, because it would be able to build more roads,
:40:23. > :40:29.you can only fit a certain number of cars. We haven't got a fully rounded
:40:30. > :40:32.transport policy, we have built cycling superhighways but we have
:40:33. > :40:36.three moved about one third of the road space through the middle of
:40:37. > :40:40.London but we have not come up with a comprehensive strategy to make
:40:41. > :40:44.lorries only use roads at certain times of day. We have not told
:40:45. > :40:49.drivers that they will be penalised or can only come in and out at
:40:50. > :40:52.certain times and we have not increased pedestrian areas. What I
:40:53. > :40:56.am saying is, if you give one third of the road to cyclists you must
:40:57. > :41:01.work out how to use the other two thirds so it isn't blocked because a
:41:02. > :41:10.quality in London has gone right down. -- gridlocked. 1500 miles of
:41:11. > :41:16.main road and with that cycle lanes on 12 miles. Janet wrote in an
:41:17. > :41:20.article the other week that it had brought London to its knees. How can
:41:21. > :41:25.that be true. As an example of hysterical rhetoric. It is not
:41:26. > :41:33.hysterical, I am a Londoner and I go through central London. It has made
:41:34. > :41:39.journeys slower. It is gridlock! That is has low it is. Vast majority
:41:40. > :41:47.of Londoners never drive. Never drive in London. You are saying that
:41:48. > :41:51.unless people cycle there is no future... Let me turn to the other
:41:52. > :41:56.guests, has the balance been tipped to far in favour of the cyclists or
:41:57. > :42:03.is this the way to go? On days like this I am glad I am not the Shadow
:42:04. > :42:07.Transport Secretary! On your bike! There's an element of hysteria on
:42:08. > :42:11.both sides. That is not how good transport policy should be made. It
:42:12. > :42:17.doesn't reflect the way that individuals transport themselves
:42:18. > :42:22.around the place. Most people are not cyclists or motorists, most
:42:23. > :42:28.people are multimodal. They use a number of different ways to get
:42:29. > :42:32.around. And you need a system. That is why organisations like Living
:42:33. > :42:35.Streets, that do a lot for pedestrians in terms of looking how
:42:36. > :42:40.to manage the roads, the roads are there for everyone. It is good news
:42:41. > :42:44.that we are expanding the number of people cycling and the ability to do
:42:45. > :42:48.that come equally we must recognise the importance of our London cabs
:42:49. > :42:52.and everything else. We must recognise that London is different
:42:53. > :43:00.to Barnsley or other sides of the country. Whose side are you on,
:43:01. > :43:05.don't you cycle? I don't cycle. I am on Janet's side. She is spot on.
:43:06. > :43:08.It's gone too far towards the cyclist Amber Rudd constant steps to
:43:09. > :43:12.make things more difficult for the motorist. Lots of roads narrowed at
:43:13. > :43:17.junctions to make it harder to get volumes through, very short time at
:43:18. > :43:21.traffic lights. Hostility to the motorist. That includes the cab
:43:22. > :43:26.driver. Cab drivers find it very tough in their business and part of
:43:27. > :43:31.that is because they journeys are slow. Are we strangling one of the
:43:32. > :43:35.lifelines of London? The assumption in this conversation is that the
:43:36. > :43:41.card is massively important to transport in London. Janet, forgive
:43:42. > :43:46.me, I did speak about the level of language in this debate and you are
:43:47. > :43:51.showing at! The problem is that the vast majority of Londoners
:43:52. > :43:55.literally, 71% of them, never drive in central London and only 3% of
:43:56. > :43:59.them tried in central London everyday yet they get the majority
:44:00. > :44:03.of the road space. What we are doing is fractionally reallocating road
:44:04. > :44:10.space to the majority of Londoners who don't drive including
:44:11. > :44:19.pedestrians. Very briefly. It ought to be the percentage of journeys by
:44:20. > :44:28.car being done. You've got to include taxis... 1.3 million people
:44:29. > :44:34.come into central London everyday. I'm going to finish it there and you
:44:35. > :44:35.can all leave on your respective modes of transport! Thank you, thank
:44:36. > :44:42.you rematch. -- very much. It's a busy week for our
:44:43. > :44:44.parliamentarians this week, let's see what they've got
:44:45. > :44:47.to look forward to. Coming up this afternoon,
:44:48. > :44:48.Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt will face a grilling
:44:49. > :44:50.from the Health Select Committee on the impact
:44:51. > :44:52.of the Comprehensive Spending Review He'll be expecting some questions
:44:53. > :44:56.on junior doctors' contracts too. of the Parliamentary Labour Party
:44:57. > :45:00.and it should be interesting. Both Jeremy Corbyn and Sadiq Khan
:45:01. > :45:03.will address MPs, London's new mayor has previously tried to distance
:45:04. > :45:05.himself from the Labour leader. Tomorrow the great and good
:45:06. > :45:07.of Parliament will be in their smartest gear to decamp
:45:08. > :45:10.to Buckingham Palace to attend a reception with the Queen
:45:11. > :45:12.to celebrate her 90th birthday. Prepare for lots of
:45:13. > :45:14.Europe-related financial statistics on Wednesday as first
:45:15. > :45:17.Gordon Brown makes his first speech of the referendum campaign,
:45:18. > :45:20.and then George Osborne addresses the economic costs and benefits
:45:21. > :45:24.of staying in the EU at a session On Thursday we'll find out
:45:25. > :45:29.what the government has in store for the BBC
:45:30. > :45:31.as Culture Secretary John Whittingdale publishes
:45:32. > :45:33.the Government's White Paper Also on Thursday David Cameron
:45:34. > :45:38.will host the world's first international anti-corruption
:45:39. > :45:41.summit in London. Following the recent scandal over
:45:42. > :45:45.the Panama papers the Prime Minister hopes to regain the initiative
:45:46. > :45:48.and come up with an international We're joined now by Isabel Hardman
:45:49. > :46:06.of the Spectator and Rafael Welcome to you both. Isabel Hardman,
:46:07. > :46:12.first of all the EU referendum. The spectre of war has been unleashed in
:46:13. > :46:17.this debate. What will be left in the armoury of Leave and Remain in
:46:18. > :46:22.the coming weeks? It is worrying that we have also -- already reached
:46:23. > :46:26.war in the scaremongering tactics! When I first saw the headlines of
:46:27. > :46:32.David Cameron's speech, I thought the papers had overwritten it, but
:46:33. > :46:35.then I realised that he was overwriting his own warning. Surely
:46:36. > :46:40.it makes him look quite desperate, at this stage of the campaign, to be
:46:41. > :46:47.warning that voting to leave would cause war in Europe. I don't
:46:48. > :46:53.entirely agree with that. It lends itself to caricature and satire as
:46:54. > :46:56.this bulging sere thing, the Prime Minister and the remaining camp are
:46:57. > :47:01.trying to do. But you get the sense that people on the remaining side
:47:02. > :47:10.are impressing on people that there are risks, that it is dangerous, and
:47:11. > :47:14.for people in the Leave side to avoid acknowledging there are
:47:15. > :47:20.risks... Ultimately, sticking with the status quo is kind of a win for
:47:21. > :47:27.the Prime Minister and the Remain campaign. The junior doctors are
:47:28. > :47:32.back to the negotiating table. And prospects for success. Neither side
:47:33. > :47:36.seems keen to back down yet. The talks is a way for them to
:47:37. > :47:41.re-engage, but the dispute has become so personal, and some of the
:47:42. > :47:44.language being used has offended doctors so badly, it is very
:47:45. > :47:51.difficult to see how they can reach agreement. And publication for
:47:52. > :47:56.statistics -- of statistics by Jeremy Hunt has not helped him much.
:47:57. > :48:01.This idea that more patients die at weekends has been challenged for a
:48:02. > :48:05.second time, suggesting that his key assumption is based on flawed dent.
:48:06. > :48:13.They are saying that when the Department for health analysed and
:48:14. > :48:18.said that more people were being dying at the weekend, that there was
:48:19. > :48:23.some sort of fudging going on, as people being admitted at the weekend
:48:24. > :48:28.were being logged as emergency cases. The government's response to
:48:29. > :48:31.this was that there were other studies and broader evidence that
:48:32. > :48:36.suggested that you didn't want to get admitted to hospital at the
:48:37. > :48:41.weekend. The wider problem here is that the government sees the junior
:48:42. > :48:45.doctors still as negotiating in bad faith a bit. They see the BMA
:48:46. > :48:52.position and the junior doctor permission -- position is being over
:48:53. > :48:58.politicised. That they don't want anything on public sector reform,
:48:59. > :49:02.and that junior doctors, C in Jeremy Hunt this sort of Thatcherite
:49:03. > :49:07.posturing and saying, you are just trying to smash ours. It is so
:49:08. > :49:12.polarised it is hard to see how you will get agreement. Let's talk about
:49:13. > :49:15.another potential row, which is the BBC and John Whittingdale's
:49:16. > :49:26.long-awaited proposals this week. What are you expecting? Isabel, can
:49:27. > :49:31.you hear me? She seems to have lost her earpiece. Broadly speaking,
:49:32. > :49:38.there will be an attempt to change the government 's structure of the
:49:39. > :49:41.BBC. It happens from time to time that the BBC gets its mandate to be
:49:42. > :49:48.the public sector broadcaster renewed. The problem is that the
:49:49. > :49:52.critics see this always as a sort of opportunity for the government to
:49:53. > :49:55.say that they don't like the fact that there is this massive
:49:56. > :50:01.broadcaster funded essentially by attacks on everyone. They might
:50:02. > :50:10.ideologically use this opportunity to bully the BBC, or to break it up
:50:11. > :50:14.for another political objective. The government try to deny that and say
:50:15. > :50:18.that they are going to move with The Times. Isabel, not sure if you can
:50:19. > :50:23.hear me now, but I'm afraid it's goodbye! Sorry! Next time.
:50:24. > :50:26.Let's just pick up on one of those stories -
:50:27. > :50:29.the White Paper on the BBC expected out this week - well,
:50:30. > :50:32.last night a string of Bafta winners used the opportunity of the awards
:50:33. > :50:34.ceremony to mount a defence of the Corporation and Channel 4.
:50:35. > :50:37.The BBC and Channel 4, which they are also attempting
:50:38. > :50:39.to eviscerate, is the envy of the world, and we
:50:40. > :50:42.should stand up and fight for it, not let it go by default.
:50:43. > :50:47.If we don't, blink, and it will be gone.
:50:48. > :50:51.There will be no more Wolf Halls, no more award-winning Dispatches
:50:52. > :50:54.documentaries on Channel 4, just a broadcasting landscape
:50:55. > :50:57.where the only determinant of whether something gets made
:50:58. > :51:00.is whether it's likely to line the pockets of its shareholders.
:51:01. > :51:16.Strong words there. Jacob Rees-Mogg, you are going to have a fight on
:51:17. > :51:20.your hands. Will you be joining the 20 Tories who will be opposing the
:51:21. > :51:25.recommendations? I cannot oppose them until they know what they are.
:51:26. > :51:30.I don't know what he's going to say. We know vaguely the sort of areas
:51:31. > :51:35.he's going to be looking at. Personally, I think the BBC is going
:51:36. > :51:40.to make a big mistake in wanting to remain entirely dependent on licence
:51:41. > :51:45.fee funding. It really ought to look at subscription to iPad and things
:51:46. > :51:51.like that to get more revenue. Since 1990, the BBC's revenues have gone
:51:52. > :51:58.up broadly in line with inflation, and sky's has gone from nothing up
:51:59. > :52:02.to I think about ?10 billion. The BBC's soul and major source of
:52:03. > :52:08.funding is the licence fee, and it needs to work out a scheme of how it
:52:09. > :52:12.can compete globally, and I think it is missing that opportunity. Critics
:52:13. > :52:18.would say, listening to those BAFTA winners, that they would say that.
:52:19. > :52:23.Those programmes were published by the BBC. It is not actually in
:52:24. > :52:26.defence of the programmes that they do or the corporation. It is in
:52:27. > :52:32.defence of the whole of the creative industries of the UK that generate
:52:33. > :52:35.enormous economic wealth for this country. That is something we are
:52:36. > :52:40.losing sight of in this politicised debate that the government has been
:52:41. > :52:44.deliberately stoking up. People abroad will look at the date we are
:52:45. > :52:49.having about the BBC and think we are nuts. We have got something that
:52:50. > :52:55.is the jewel in the crown of our creative industries in the UK. Take
:52:56. > :53:00.a campaign like Let It B, showing how important it is to maintain a
:53:01. > :53:06.world beating music industry in this country. There is a lot at stake
:53:07. > :53:11.here. We will find out more later in the week, seeing as you are being
:53:12. > :53:13.so-called about it! Nobody tells me anything about these things.
:53:14. > :53:16.It is a familiar story in some of the more beautiful
:53:17. > :53:19.Local families priced out of the housing market by rich city
:53:20. > :53:22.dwellers eager to buy a second-home by the seaside for use
:53:23. > :53:26.And the problem is no more accurate than the Cornish town of St Ives,
:53:27. > :53:29.where around a quarter of the residential property is owned
:53:30. > :53:33.But the town council is fighting back and in a referendum last week,
:53:34. > :53:36.83% of residents backed a plan to restrict ownership
:53:37. > :53:45.The town's mayor in Linda Taylor who is in our Truro studio.
:53:46. > :53:52.Thank you for joining us on the Daily Politics. How do you plan to
:53:53. > :53:59.restrict second home ownership? It's going to be done either way of a
:54:00. > :54:04.covenant will be placed on the property. Could I just correct you.
:54:05. > :54:14.The turnout was 42.7%, of which 83% of that vote was in favour. So how
:54:15. > :54:20.would it work? New properties will have this covenant put on them so
:54:21. > :54:24.that they are for primary use only, or the place where somebody will
:54:25. > :54:30.spend most of their time. We could also ask to see that they are
:54:31. > :54:35.registered on the electoral roll. It is only for new properties. It isn't
:54:36. > :54:40.a retrospective planning decision, and it doesn't apply to the older
:54:41. > :54:43.property stocks. What has been the reaction to those specific
:54:44. > :54:48.proposals, and to holding the referendum in the first place? First
:54:49. > :54:55.of all, the town are overjoyed that so many people came out to give such
:54:56. > :55:00.a strong mandate to carry forward on the proposals. The neighbourhood
:55:01. > :55:04.plan isn't all about the H2 primary residence policy, it does have a lot
:55:05. > :55:12.of other points that we want to care for in relation to the town. The
:55:13. > :55:15.media reaction throughout the UK and worldwide has been absolutely and
:55:16. > :55:22.almost. St Ives is not alone with this problem. Everybody is looking
:55:23. > :55:27.forward to seeing how our referendum will develop over the next months
:55:28. > :55:32.and years. So all eyes are on you, no doubt in similar places across
:55:33. > :55:38.the UK. Do you think it will be taken up in other similar areas or
:55:39. > :55:42.seaside towns? That will have to be done by the community. Our
:55:43. > :55:47.neighbourhood plan was led and driven by the community, but I would
:55:48. > :55:54.not be at also prized if this doesn't give huge encouragement to
:55:55. > :55:59.other communities to try and follow through on our H2 policy. What is
:56:00. > :56:04.your response, Jacob Rees-Mogg? Are you on the side of those who want to
:56:05. > :56:08.restrict local home ownership or the property developers? I am on the
:56:09. > :56:12.side of the property developers. I think it is a Luddite approach to
:56:13. > :56:22.limit people buying homes if they want to. If supply and demand don't
:56:23. > :56:27.meet, prices will rise. People who go in and bring revenue to the area,
:56:28. > :56:32.the enforcement is very difficult... Will use by on people to see how
:56:33. > :56:37.many areas -- how many hours they spend there? Having free ownership
:56:38. > :56:43.of this -- property in this country is something we have enjoyed for
:56:44. > :56:46.thousands of years. It is a foolish approach, it will be damaging
:56:47. > :56:50.economically, it will be bad for the property market in the long-term,
:56:51. > :56:55.and you will have two tiers of property. You will have some houses
:56:56. > :56:58.that have a boom, you will have others that are at a different
:56:59. > :57:05.price, you will have enforcement problems... It is a really bad idea.
:57:06. > :57:12.You can tell he's not a fan of your plan, Linda Taylor, and you are a
:57:13. > :57:16.Luddite. That is unfortunate term to use for the mayor of sent eyes. I
:57:17. > :57:24.feel that the neighbourhood plan would sit incredibly well in our
:57:25. > :57:27.community. -- the Mayor of St Ives. We do not underestimate the
:57:28. > :57:31.contribution that the visitor and the second home owner makes to our
:57:32. > :57:36.economy. We can work together on this and I know that it will work.
:57:37. > :57:40.The Conservative housing minister, Brandon Lewis, also doesn't like
:57:41. > :57:49.your plan. What do you say to him? We haven't just done this... We have
:57:50. > :57:53.had to work closely with the council and their legal team, and at every
:57:54. > :57:58.stage we have worked very closely until we have got to the point that
:57:59. > :58:02.this referendum could go out to vote. We have followed all the legal
:58:03. > :58:07.steps. Cousin something always happens doesn't mean it always makes
:58:08. > :58:14.it right. Perhaps St Ives will push the legal boundaries. If people want
:58:15. > :58:19.it. The turnout was 43% and the majority was in favour of the plan.
:58:20. > :58:29.Isn't it up to local people? We make our laws nationally. Isn't it about
:58:30. > :58:33.devolving? It is a national statute, property, and that is quite right.
:58:34. > :58:35.Doing it on planning is an abuse of the planning system.
:58:36. > :58:39.There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
:58:40. > :58:41.The question was which of these Ruth Davidson photo
:58:42. > :58:44.A) Riding a snowspeeder b) Playing ice hockey
:58:45. > :58:46.c) On a logflume or d) Riding a buffalo
:58:47. > :59:05.It's the log flume! That's the one I meant! That's correct. Look at you!
:59:06. > :59:07.So indignant! Thank you very much to Linda there in St Ives,