Andrew Neil and Jo Coburn are joined by Guardian journalist Polly Toynbee to discuss Labour's potential return to shadow cabinet elections and the Liberal Democrat conference.
Browse content similar to 20/09/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
As the Labour leadership contest enters its final 24 hours,
it's high noon in the battle to take control of the party.
As we come on air, the party's governing body, the NEC,
is settling in for a marathon meeting that could prove
crucial in the ongoing struggle between Mr Corbyn
Theresa May's in New York at the UN, where she'll warn about mass
She's also telling world leaders the UK isn't turning inwards
The Liberal Democrats are meeting in Brighton ahead of leader
Tim Farron's big speech, and we'll be talking
about their plan for a new tax to pay for the NHS.
And as Jeremy Corbyn reveals his preferred teatime snack,
we'll be asking why politicians find it so hard to pick
Why do they find it so hard? We're going to find out.
of the programme today, it's the Guardian's Polly Toynbee.
She's resisted the lure of Liberal Democrat conference
in Brighton to be with us here in Westminster -
probably because we told her there would be free biscuits.
That's just something we tell all our guests to get them
So we'll be talking about the Liberal Democrat
conference, and we'll be back on air at two o'clock to bring you live
coverage of leader Tim Farron's speech to his party.
How could you miss that? Best get the popcorn in now!
But first today, let's talk about Theresa May's trip
to New York, where she's due to give her first speech
She's already been talking about migration, and today she and
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson are meeting with big US investors
to spread the word about trade opportunities with post-Brexit
She's also responded to Eastern European leaders
for suggesting they would make life difficult for the UK on the way
We're going to be in a negotiation with the other members of the
European Union as we negotiate the way we are exiting and the
relationship we're going to have with them afterwards.
I'm very clear, we're going to go in there to
get the right deal for the United Kingdom.
I'm going to be ambitious for Britain in the negotiations, and
I want to see the deal that's going to be right for the UK.
We're joined now by the Conservative MP Kwasi Kwarteng.
Welcome back. Are we not at the moment, because we all look at what
the Prime Minister says, but even the Slovakian prime minister, what
he says, are we not in a phoney war where what anybody says does not
matter? You make a good point. At the beginning, people are setting
out their stall in the negotiation, saying they will be tough and will
drive difficult deals, but I think what the Prime Minister said is
right. There will be a deal, at the end of the day, because it is in our
mutual interest as Britain and the EU to come to a deal. That is the
line from your side of the argument, but you said we are at the beginning
of a negotiation. I'm not even sure we are. Preparatory stage. The
understanding is that article 50 will be invoked sometime next year.
That is 12 months, maybe you could be more specific. Before Easter?
What do you think? We have been in the EU for over 40 years, so whether
it is at some point next year in the long run is neither here nor there.
It has to be done and dusted if we're going to an election in 2020
is at least before then. If you add two years to 2017, that's 2019.
There isn't a problem. I can understand that you can't rush to
trigger article 50, you want to do preparatory work beforehand. But the
longer you leave it, I would suggest, the more you create a
vacuum and the more others will fill that vacuum, not necessarily to your
advantage. There will be a long vacuum anyway because the process of
negotiation will take longer than two years, I suspect. Irene the FT
day after day and one industry after another, the sheer complexity of
what has to be agreed on each kind of sector that we are involved with
I think... It will leak from both sides. Under article 50, they cannot
take more than two years unless all 27 members plus ourselves I agree.
Indeed. The great problem is there will be no agreement on anything
unless all 27, plus the European Parliament, agree on everything. The
idea that we can get there in two years seems to be whistled thinking.
Perhaps we can, but during that time, there will be huge gaps, highs
and lows in expectations. It will leak from the European side, from
the 27 countries, leak from Parliament and from our site, too.
The party is riven. There is the Chancellor on one side saying soft
Brexit, and then there is Boris, the man David Davis, the terrible three.
They are on the hard Brexit site. You can exaggerate the complexities.
There is access to the single market and there is freedom of movement.
They are linked. And a lot of discussion will be about those
issues. I read the FT, as Polly does, I even read her column. There
is endless hand-wringing and saying how difficult it will be, and how
complicated and all the rest of it, but actually, I think the principles
are simple. There is no doubt that Brexit means Brexit. What that means
is that we will not stay in the U. We know exactly what it doesn't
mean. Hasn't the narrative been set because Theresa May doesn't have
anything to say at the moment? If she doesn't have a message to sell,
because it will take time, that vacuum could create problems. You
said it will take time, so the narrative will be filled. We are in
a stage before preparation. The negotiations haven't started. There
is no point in trying to second-guess our position before we
start. I know there is endless hand-wringing. Brexit means Brexit
is a tautology. They want us to leave as well. We all know that. It
is a clear mandate, a clear proposition, and I think we will be
able to deliver this into under half years. Simplicity has been the big
lie on the Brexit side of the argument. There is nothing simple
about it. Every industry has their own quite complex needs in terms of
staying in the single market. That and the free movement of people. At
the end of the two-year period, if there is still a tonne of tough to
do, what happens? You describe article 50 very well. We leave
anyway. Sir James Dyson has a clear view and says we start with a blank
sheet of paper and we can carry on negotiating. I don't think this
hotel California idea that we are always going to stay in is tenable
and that it is going to happen. Is it your view that we cannot sign
trade deals with other countries while these talks are going on, but
could we begin negotiations, scope out deals with Canada or America or
Australia? That think that's why the Prime Minister set up the Department
of International trade. We know we can't sign deals, so what is the
point of having a Department if they are not doing preparatory work for
deals that will be signed after we leave the EU? Is that possible? You
can scope it out. Liam Fox is in the Gulf states making deals with people
that a lot of people would regard as quite unsavoury. If that is the
alternative to the EU, making deals with dictators and people bombing
other countries, I'm not sure that will go down awfully well. The EU
makes deals with these people. It may do, but not the sort of deals we
will be proposing. We will be pretty desperate. We have 44% of our trade
with Europe, so if we are replacing some of that, we will be on our
knees in these negotiations and will take any deal. I think the prophecy
of doom, people have had enough of. In my constituency, people are very
optimistic and upbeat about the prospects for Brexit. I have lots of
exporters who export all around the world, selling fridges to Libya, if
you can believe. These companies are buoyant and optimistic about the
future. Nothing has happened yet. One thing that may be going the way
of the Brexiteer 's, which is not of their making, but it is quite clear
when you look at the lack of future for TTIP with North America, or the
inability of Congress to agree the specific trade deal which has been
agreed but not ratified by the US Congress, that maybe these big
regional trade deals have come to an end and we are moving back into an
age of bilateral trade deals between Japan and America, Britain and
Canada and whatever. You need to look at the reasons why TTIP is
falling apart. It is because the Americans won't agree to regulations
that we have, and we won't agree to let them trade on more relaxed
regulations. Do we want beef from America that has been injected with
chemicals or antibiotics that we wouldn't allow? We want the same
standards. And that was the problem. Are you saying that Britain would
accept lower standards than the EU in a TTIP deal? I have no idea, I am
simply saying that it would seem axiomatic, let's take Canada, that
it would be easy to do for one country to do a deal than Canada
doing a deal with the whole of the EU. I'm not sure why, unless there
are regulations the EU insists on that we will drop. If you have 27
individual states performing -- forming part of the EU, it is much
harder, all things being equal, to do a deal with 27 when they had to
agree on everything than it is with one country. It is just arithmetic.
This kind of speculation, this kind of discussion, based on a minimum of
fact, because we don't know, this will continue all the way through
Christmas, won't it? In the negotiation, we don't know what the
other people are thinking. It is like any kind of game theory. You
don't know what all 27 are thinking, so we have to stop the discussions.
I don't believe we will have these endless .my John Major said it will
take ten years, someone else says it won't. The big question that will be
asked is, what was all this for? We are going to go through this hell
for at least two years, and at the end it might be OK, it might be
disastrous, but what was it all for? That's what people will ask. I think
it was good to reclaim sovereign rights over a sovereign country.
Let's not refight the referendum campaign. Oh, we will!
The question for today is all about biscuits.
You can't say we shy away from the big issues of the day.
Yes, Jeremy Corbyn was interviewed by users of the website Mumsnet
yesterday, and as is now traditional, he was asked
Was it, A: Garibaldi, B: Jammy dodgers, C:
A bit later on in the show, Polly, who bows to no-one
in her biscuit knowledge, will give us the correct answer.
In just 24 hours' time the ballot will close in the contest to choose
We won't know until this coming Saturday if it will be
Jeremy Corbyn or Owen Smith, although if you were to head
to your local bookmakers, you'd need to spend ?66 in order
to win ?1 back on a bet for Mr Corbyn to see
Let's just explain that - put down ?66 can, get ?1 back if he wins.
Not that we endorse gambling, particularly at those odds.
But Mr Smith's campaign insists he is still in with a chance,
and both men are still working hard to hoover up those final votes.
Let's have a reminder of how the campaign has unfolded.
Launching my bid to be the next leader of the Labour Party, and more
importantly than that, the next Labour Prime
This party is strong, this party is capable
And that I am leader of the party, I will be that Prime
It doesn't mean trading our principles.
How you can complain about disunity in the
party when you and others are the ones who resigned from the party?
Most people in the undecided section have moved
and swelled the ranks of the
I think we should stay within the European
Union, and I've always believed that.
Jeremy wants to leave the European Union.
We have to realise that regrettable as they are, the
results of the referendum, we have to ensure we have access to
European markets for manufactured goods.
I've absolutely no desire whatsoever to go on Strictly Come Dancing.
If Jeremy Corbyn wins, as the polls seem to suggest,
attention will turn to the other battle within Labour, over
who controls the party machinery - supporters of Mr Corbyn or those MPs
And today sees something of a show-down at a meeting
of Labour's National Executive Committee.
It's just got under way, and it could pave the way for rule
changes that could change the balance of power within Labour.
The National Executive Committee is the ruling body of the Labour Party.
It is composed of 33 members from various branches
of the Labour movement, including MPs, trade unions
The NEC is finely balanced between allies and opponents
of Jeremy Corbyn, making it a key battleground in the ongoing power
In August, six new NEC members were elected in a clean sweep
Today is the final meeting before they take up their posts.
Items up for discussion include possible changes to the rules
Labour MPs voted overwhelming for a return to a Shadow Cabinet
Jeremy Corbyn, however, is understood to favour a counter
proposal for "partial" elections that would see the Leader,
MPs and party members each decide a third of the Shadow Cabinet.
But whatever is agreed today won't be the end of the story.
It will also need to be ratified by the party conference
Well, Labour's deputy Tom Watson has been speaking ahead of the meeting.
We've been airing our dirty linen in public.
We've got a leadership election, we'll get a new leader on Saturday
and we've got to put the band back together because Jeremy,
Owen, myself, John McDonnell, most of our front bench,
think we're heading for an early General Election.
So, there are a series of proposals today to try and help do that.
Well, let's find out more now from our correspondent Mark Lobel.
He's outside the meeting which we're told could last for as
Here you are again outside an NEC meeting, the Labour ruling
executive, is this the showdown we have been talking about? You are
right, it's a little bit like Groundhog Day. Two months ago they
were here Jeremy Corbyn trying to get on to the leadership ballot.
Since then over the last two months while they've tried really hard in
public, Jeremy Corbyn and the deputy leader, to really get on and show
they're best of friends, behind the scenes they've been fighting very
hard. When the parliamentary Labour Party came up with this proposal for
elected Shadow Cabinet members, rather than appointed ones, it was
met with scepticism by Jeremy Corbyn's camp. One member told me it
was transparent manoeuvring to undermine Jeremy Corbyn. He at first
suggested he would bring members on as part of the election but I
understand he is going to kick the idea into the long grass today so
that it can get proper consideration as part of a wider review of party
democracy so that might not be resolved today. But this other issue
of registered supporters, the constituency that traditionally
favours left-wing leaders, might be scrapped, that's another thing put
up today, people who pay ?25 to vote for the leadership, to get a vote in
the leadership, that facility might go as a result of today's meeting.
In terms of the party itself, inward looking, infighting, the critics
say. But this is a battle for the heart and soul of the Labour Party.
What is or isn't decided today or at any subsequent meeting will decide
the future direction of the party, won't it? Absolutely. This is a
crunch meeting and if it's not resolved today, the Shadow Cabinet
issue is still a crunch issue, as one former Shadow Cabinet who left
upset with Jeremy Corbyn's handling of the party said to me we might by
the end of this week and on Saturday if he is re-elected as is widely
rekicked, have Jeremy Corbyn strong within the party, the party itself
will remaven divided and this Shadow Cabinet Minister is looking to see
who is in the Shadow Cabinet and what it looks like as an example of
how the party will continue and whether they'll be a strong
opposition. Jeremy Corbyn's camp, however, says that there is at least
a dozen former Shadow Cabinet members that will come in, even if
he is still appoints a Shadow Cabinet and they'll focus on two
things. Electoral strategy straightaway, they almost want an
early election and they would encourage Theresa May to have one.
They also need to prepare for the local and mayoral elections in May.
Second, they're going to try to change the party into a
union-backed, take it away from the momentum groups, some upset, some
members of the parliamentary party and want to take away something that
turns their stomach and make it into a more inclusive party. Only eight
hours to go, to see you this evening.
He has nothing else to do, no harm, keeps him out of harm's way!
She's a newly elected member of the NEC who'll be taking up
So, she too can look forward to sitting in these meetings
So you are not at the NEC today because you are not yet on but you
will be for the next meeting? Absolutely. I will be joining
straight after conference. What is your view on whether or not the
Shadow Cabinet should be elected? Well, you know, I think it's
important that sort of debate happens really. I am on the NEC to
represent members. I was elected to represent members and members will
unite behind and make their decision on Saturday clear. I understand
that. What I am asking is when that debate takes place, it seems like it
may take place today, but may not be decided today, so it will still be
an issue by the time you are on the NEC. What is your position? I like
the idea of opening up the notion of greater party democracy and
decision-making to members and widening that debate and looking at
that. It's great that the parliamentary Labour Party has put
forward this concept and this idea because I think it's something we
ought to discuss and look at. Who do you think should elect the Shadow
Cabinet? I think the notion of having a debate that involves the
membership in being able to select some is a good idea. The opportunity
also for the membership having decided their leader, the
opportunity for the leader to actually also appoint who he would
like to serve the leadership with him. Let me get this clear. You
think the broad membership should choose some of the Shadow Cabinet,
and the leader should also choose some? I like the idea of having that
discussion about how can we enable the membership to have a greater say
in party democracy in the running of the Labour Party and I think the
notion of enabling the Shadow Cabinet to have that interaction
with the membership is an important one. Equally important is the
opportunity for the parliamentary Labour Party to have its say but
crucially... The leader, the democratically elected leader to
appoint. It seems are you in favour of this one-third one-third,
one-third solution that the members elect a third, the leader chooses a
third and the PLP chooses a third? It's an idea that is just emerging
and I think I am open to hearing that discussion and engaging with
others around that. It gives the opportunity, in my view, for the
membership to have a real say in party democracy and I think that's
important. Is this a good idea? It's a complete stitch-up between on the
Corbynite side, because at the moment as things stand with a huge
new membership, the old membership is on the whole less pro-Corbyn with
a new membership, they will vote the Corbyn ticket. Claudia was elected,
six members by the membership, all of them the straight Corbyn slate,
so Corbyn would have a third, he would also control the slate of the
other third. The PLP would effectively be outvoted. What's
interesting about this is that there is no constitution for the Shadow
Cabinet. Once they are sitting around the table decisions are not
made there. The reason that so many people walked away from it was that
they would have discussions around the table and Jeremy Corbyn would
say thank you very much and go away and nothing would be decided and he
would do whatever he wanted. There is nothing in the constitution that
says the Shadow Cabinet actually matters. I guess if he gets a Shadow
Cabinet more to his liking he may end up taking more decisions in it?
Possibly. I think he makes his own decisions. In reality, what you saw
was when Jeremies could elected this time last year, with an overwhelming
mandate, Jeremy opened up the Shadow Cabinet to a wide range of people.
People came on board. The idea... But then left. What we saw was a bit
of an orchestrated... The big chunk of them left. Was that a vote
against the leader or a vote against the democratic membership that
elected the leader in the first place? What should they do around
the table, if you had Heidi Alexander walking to talk about
health policy, other people walk -- wanting to talk and they couldn't
get a meeting, so there was no policy, a bit of time of time. But
the Shadow Cabinet was clearly useless. These are things we heard.
This is all being played out in the public domain, put to the membership
again. They've heard all of this. They will make their decision on
Saturday. I believe that they will continue to have faith in Jeremy as
the leader, despite all that you say and despite all that the
parliamentary Labour Party have said. We have got a tripling of the
membership, this is all happening under Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy's drawn
a fine line between Labour's policies and where the Conservatives
are at. The membership are listening to this and making a clear decision
on Saturday and it's behind that sense of unity that I think the
Labour Party needs to draw its energy and take that. The Labour
Party is, in quote, near terminal meltdown. I think it is. It's really
two parties. The old Labour Party and then this huge avalanche of new
arrivals who are a completely different party. Of course if we had
a sensible electoral system they would be two parties, just as the
Tories would long ago have been a pro-Europe and anti-Europe party. We
have an electoral system that forces people to say within the two big
parties, which is very uncomfortable. At the moment for
Labour it really is could habiting divorced couples. These are ordinary
people from the stretch of of the country, nurses, these are
administrators, these are people doing ordinary jobs from all ages,
all diversities, all mixes, joining in for change, for something that
reflects change in society. This is a powerful testimony of people
coming together and saying that they are fed up with the current
political system and they want to see change. They see that hope, that
energy in Jeremy. What do you say to poly's point or claim that your
party's in near terminal meltdown? I don't think that is the case. What
we will see from Saturday is hopefully a sense of unity. The
membership will be clear about its decision. Nearly 600,000 members
making a very clear decision about who it wants to lead the party. That
is a clear standing. What do MPs do? The parliamentary Labour Party will
hopefully come behind that sense of unity and that sense of democracy.
You know it's not going to. At the end of the day we are a Labour Party
that believes in social justice. These are parliamentary Labour Party
members that do not want to see a divided party, do not want to see a
split. They actually believe in democracy and they will unite behind
that. You don't know that. The fact is that a lot of these Labour MPs
who are anti-Corbyn, the likelihood is will now face deselection
problems. That's plain. Len McCluskey has made it plain. He has
a lot of power. Even without being orchestrated, partly because of the
happenstance of the boundary changes. Which gives them an
opportunity. Gives them an opportunity. There is a lot of
momentum going on in the back door of a lot of these MPs. I think they
feel they are threatened with deselection. I think they have to
between now and then make it quite clear what they actually stand for
and I am advocating they should take a strong pro-European position
because the Labour Party has simply and scent... Some are saying they
will drift back to a Shadow Cabinet under Jeremy Corbyn which shows
there could be moves to them supporting him as leader again. Yes,
I think some will. Some found it so impossible last time they say they
can't. Some will, certainly if the PLP gets to elect most of the - a
majority of the members they'll put up enough people. That's not going
to happen? You weent want that to happen. These eight-hour meetings,
somebody You wouldn't want the PLP to choose a Shadow Cabinet? It would
be unjust if it was just the PLP. I think you need to have the leader
having a say and the membership having a say and at the end of the
day you talk about deselection, there is nobody calling for
deselection of hard-working parliamentary Labour Party members.
Not Jeremy Corbyn, not any of the leadership of the Labour Party.
What about Peter Keil in Brighton? I don't believe that is really what
we're talking about? Did you see Channel 4 last night? Come on... You
said no one is calling for his deselection, but people were.
Channel 4 News is not a credible journalistic... It was hardly
credible. A focus on a WL as being the basis of any entry is, this is
not... But there was someone calling for Mr Keil to be deselected. The
leadership of the party, and the structures that govern the Labour
Party, there is no one calling for deselection of anybody. So you would
back Mr Keil to stay as the MP for Brighton and Hove? He has the
opportunity to put himself... I didn't ask you that. I'm not a
member in Brighton and Hove. At the end of the day, I will sit on the
Labour Party's NEC. While I am there, I won't advocate deselection
and I don't expect anyone else to. We are talking about hard-working
Labour MPs, Unity, working together and taking the fight to the Tories,
to the Conservatives, and ensuring that we win over on the ardent of
anti-austerities. Let's return now to the Liberal
Democrat conference, where later today Tim Farron
will use his closing speech to unveil a panel of senior doctors
and other experts to examine the case for a dedicated
NHS and care tax. Here's the party's health spokesman,
Norman Lamb, telling conference that the health
service needs more money. We live in a country with the 6th
largest economy in the world. Yet we are letting
people down so badly. Surely we can do better than this
but the Government seems Again and again, they claim
that they are giving money to the NHS, more
so than ever in the past. Treat these claims
with extreme caution. And Norman Lamb joins
us now from Brighton. Norman Lamb, you want to raise taxes
to pay for health and social care - which taxes will you raise and by
how much? I am asking this expert panel to look, and I think it is a
sensible way to develop policy, to get health economists, others with
an expert knowledge of the NHS to work together to advise the party,
but we are asking them to look at the case for a dedicated health care
tax which would be shown on your pay packet, and my view is that health
and care are, in a way, unique in terms of public services in that
demand just keeps rising inexorably every year, by 4% across the
developed world. There is a real case for carving it out. You end the
distortion of spending in other areas of Government spending as well
by carving it out and dealing with it separately. Then there is the
case of whether you need to increase it. You would have a separate
hypothecated tax that would go towards paying for health and social
care. How much would it be? Would it be 1p on national insurance, on
income tax or what? We know that 1p on income tax or national insurance
will raise ?4 billion ?5 billion, something in that range. Certainly,
that amount extra at the moment would make a massive difference to
the sustainability of our health and care system. So that is what you
would go for? Yes. The argument I am making is, let's look at the design
of a dedicated tax. You could base it... Frank Field has argued this,
that it should be based on national insurance. You would then need to
look at whether you need to make it more progressive. You would need to
make sure it is fair between generations but ultimately, it could
form the basis of a hypothecated tax. The argument is that if people
could see where their money is going on this, they may be prepared to pay
a bit more, if it is clear that the system needs more money. Before,
under Labour, there was more money for the health service, but it
wasn't hypothecated in quite that way, which meant that some of the
money did not go towards health. Exactly, and Frank Field makes that
point. The NHS in England is facing a ?22
billion gap in its finances by 2020, so if you're only talking about ?4
billion being raised on national insurance, it won't go that far. Why
not be bolder in opposition? That is why I have asked the expert panel to
look at this. The public are crying out for politicians to be straight
and to tell people what the scale of the problem is. There has been a
conspiracy of silence about health and care funding. No party wants to
admit how dire the situation is. No party at the last election came up
with a solution to this problem. Including yours. Absolutely, I am
saying that. And yet everyone within the system recognises that the
situation now is dire and it will have real consequences for human
beings. I put it to you that the reason is because it is not
palatable politically. I don't know, but maybe people don't want to pay
more than 1p extra on National Insurance to pay for extra money
going into the health service. I think you're right. The consensus
over many years has been, don't talk about extra tax, only talk about
cutting tax. But there is also, we know, an enormous sort of affection
for the NHS, but their results are a recognition that every family relies
at moment of need on a very well organised and effectively
functioning health system and care system. Is there any evidence that
the public want to pay for this? That is the question. Beyond getting
this panel to advise the party on our policy-making, I've also called,
along with Liz Kendall and Dan Poulter yesterday, a form of -- a
former Conservative minister, the three of us have come together to
urge Theresa May to set up a cross-party commission to engage the
public on these critical, once-in-a-lifetime questions. I have
talked to the Institute for Government for this. It has been
done in the last decade with pensions, and by establishing a
process that binds in all the parties, a solution was developed
which we legislated for. We need the same process for health. Your
thoughts, Polly Toynbee, because it has been dismissed by the Government
and even Labour voices like Margaret Hodge, who says there is a lot of
waste and if we got rid of that, we would not have to raise this sort of
money that Norman Lamb was talking about. She has been brilliant and
incisive about picking up bits of waste, but I think everyone
recognises that the health service is severely underfunded and there
has to be some mechanism by which the public does, as Norman Lamb
suggests, if they really care about the health service, which the polls
show they do, there has to be a method for paying for it. I think a
Royal commission would be an excellent idea. I think there is see
Roe chance of the Tories doing it. They brought in the Lansley act,
which the Lib Dems voted for, at last. They brought in a budget that
cut the NHS spending as never before. And the Lib Dems were part
of that. I know they regret it now, but it is a shame. Let's talk about
the merging of health and social care, as Andy Burnham has talked
about. How would that work? There is a central grant that goes to
councils and they decide how much is spent on care. Are you saying that
within the NHS budget more of that should go to social care? I am
arguing that we have to have a unified health and care system. If
you think about it from the patient's point of view, it is
ridiculous that it is split down the middle. Too often, quite vulnerable
people fall through the cracks in the system between organisations,
and we have this crazy situation of two lots of people commissioning
services in every locality. Let's just recognise that there is a
continue here between health and care, and that the whole system
ought to be focusing much more on preventing ill-health and preventing
deterioration of health. Get all the incentives in the system aligned and
have one pot of money. That would save money and it would make more
efficient use of resources. But I think, you know, we need to organise
things in localities. We shouldn't have a top-down service. But that
does sound like what you are proposing. You are centralising
something that has been decentralised. I think you were the
party of local decisions. No, not at all. I think it is important to have
very clear national standards about your right of access. One of the
things I have campaigned for for many years and introduced as a
minister is the first maximum waiting time standards in mental
health. So, wherever you live in the country, you should know that the
National Health Service will give you access to good, evidence -based
treatment on a timely basis. You can then allow every area to design
services to meet the needs of that locality, subject to those national
standards which everyone should abide by. That seems perfectly
consistent. Norman Lamb, thank you very much.
What could Brexit mean for the airline industry?
Well, there were warnings during the referendum that a vote
to leave might affect the cost of cheap flights to Europe.
But, as you'll have realised by now, along with most things to do
with Brexit, the reality is a little more complicated.
Take a look on the website flightradar and you
will see some of the two million-plus take-offs and landings
It is an industry regulated in a big way by
A group of airlines and airport operators had a meeting with
Chris Grayling the Transport Secretary here at the Department for
Transport during the summer holidays.
Top of their wish list is
access to the EU's single market in aviation.
I understand easyJet would
like a deal where any UK-based airline could fly from any European
city to any other European city, as they can do now.
And they want a deal done as soon as possible.
Maybe even separate from the main Brexit
Transatlantic carriers like Virgin are also concerned about
what happens to the EU's agreement with the US,
which allows European airlines to fly to American cities.
Will Brexit Britain have to negotiate its own treaty with
Aviation lawyers say deals will have to be done
position to fall back on, like the World Trade
Organisation provides for
Andrew Neil and Jo Coburn are joined by Guardian journalist Polly Toynbee. They discuss the latest on Labour's decision on whether to return to shadow cabinet elections and the Liberal Democrat conference in Brighton.