09/05/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 09/05/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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,


Download Subtitles