13/01/2017 Daily Politics

Senior Labour MP, Tristram Hunt, announces

he's leaving politics to head up the V museum in London.

He insists he's not trying to rock the Labour boat

but his decision triggers a tricky by-election for Jeremy Corbyn.

We report on the power struggle going on within Momentum -

the grassroots organisation set up to support Mr Corbyn's leadership.

Just one week before he takes office, what do we know

about Donald Trump's plans for the presidency?

And you might know what hard Brexit is

but what about grey Brexit, clean Brexit and red,

We've got the Daily Politics guide to Brexit terminology.

All that in the next hour and with us for the duration

Guardian columnist, Gaby Hinsliff and Isabel Oakeshott, political

So, earlier this morning the senior Labour politician Tristram

Hunt confirmed he will stand down as a Member of Parliament to become

the director of the Victoria and Albert Museum in London.

In a letter to his local party, Mr Hunt says the job was too

good to turn down and that he has "no desire to rock

the boat" and that "anyone who interprets my decision to leave

Let's talk to our political correspondent, Carole Walker.

He says he is not rocking the boat and we shouldn't interpret it that

way but that's what many people will do. There is no doubt that tris Tam

hunted's departure is a big loss to the Labour Party. People on all

sides of the party know that. 'S charismatic, well-known figure and

his departure follow that of Jamie Reid, another Labour MP who is also

standing down. Triering a by-election in Copeland. Labour will

have to face a tricky by-election in Stoke. As you mention there, tris

Tam hunt in his resignation letter says he doesn't want to rock the

boat and talked about how his new role in the V will enable him to

combine his passion for education, his train public engagement but he

talks, too, about his frustration of 23409 being able to tackle

inequality and poverty particulars will you now Labour is out of power

and he has been hugely critical in the past of Jeremy Corbyn's

leadership. He was opposition spokesman on education and stood

down when Corbyn cosh became leader. -- Corbyn cosh became leader. After

the referendum in the summer, he wrote scathing criticism on Jeremy

Corbyn's role during the referendum campaign and said that Labour voters

need a different Labour Leader. He called on the Labour Party to act,

this was, of course before Jeremy Corbyn fought and successfully

stayed on as Labour Leader. I think the concern from many of those who

used to be in the mainstream of the Labour Party, who now feel that they

are out in the cold under Jeremy Corbyn, will see this as a further

sign of how disillusioned many who represent that wing of the party

have become and I think it'll reinforce the concerns that the

Labour Party is shifting, in Jeremy Corbyn' direction, and that many

those whose views are different to the Labour Leader, now see their

futures outside Parliament. All right, thank you very much for that.

At least it is windy, but it is good to seat sun is out. It was snowing

when I came in. Gaby, not entirely unexpected? No but still a shock. He

has decided to stop banging his head against a brick wall. The Labour

Party is not going in his preferred direction, Corbyn cosh is not going

anywhere, so leaves MPs with a choice - do you sit around and be a

prophet of doom for the next ten years or decide there are other ways

to serve the public. It is only 18 months since a general election and

there use to be a convention you don't b bail out in the middle of a

Parliament. Some will see it as dereliction of duty. But a problem

already a tricky by-election in Copeland in the North west, where

the Labour majority is small. Now another by-election in Stoke in the

Midlands much his majority is a little bit bigger there, but Ukip

and the Conservatives were strong seconds, and it was baying

eurosceptic constituency in the referendum. I don't think any

additional by-election is welcome by Jeremy Corbyn at the moment.

Certainly, Tristram hunt's departure is a damning excitement on the

leadership. It is not going to be the last. What is happening is that

recruitment agencies are actually swirling, like vultures, over the

most talented members of the moderate wing of the Parliamently

Labour Party. And they are getting a lot of very tempting approaches. And

I think that there will be other high-profile departures because for

many Labour MPs, who are frustrated with the direction that Jeremy

Corbyn has taken, there are other ways they feel they could more

effectively do a job to serve the public. Well, Paul Flynn, a Labour

MP tweeted, "Thinker, Tristram schaunt stumbled into the alien

world of politics, blinked, baffled, he retreats back into his natural

habitat of academia." Mr Flynn then deleted that tweet, for reasons that

some may find obvious, others woented.

-- others won't. The point, I'm not sure he was make, but point that

comes out of this is that someone like Tristram Hunt had a hinterland

beyond politics. He was a distinguished academic, written many

books. And Jamie Reid had habiter land, I think he has gone into Seoul

afield. If we want to look at the Labour MPs in the moderate wing of

the Labour Party, who could have other jobs to go to? I would look at

people who have track records in other fields, talents they can use,

most MPs came from something. It is interesting to me that both of those

two have small children. I think if you have a family that you are away

from during the week, there is a question of - what am I really doing

this for? Could I be, frankly, having a nicer life all around and

not banging my head against a brick wall. I think there are a lot of MPs

who feel the same as Hunt, intensely frustrated, the word he used in his

letters but don't have job offers at the door. I guess the truth that

Paul Flynn was trying to get at and maybe why he deleted the tweet, that

Mr Corbyn and people around him, may be glad to see the back of him? Yes,

I'm sure they are, they will, in their small-minded world see this as

some kind of little victory but at the end of the day none of it looks,

good, does it? We shall see. Politicians always like to be

at the cutting edge and we learn today that one party leader

is planning to give an address b) French Presidential

candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon? At the end of the show Gaby and

Isabel will give us the correct Now, after a tempestuous press

conference and lurid claims of compromising material

in the hands of the Russians, President-elect Trump is putting

the finishing touches to his plan Next Friday Mr Trump

will become Mr President, at the traditional inauguration

ceremony on the steps So what do we know about how

Donald Trump plans to govern as President and what impact

will his nominations Donald Trump's choice

for Secretary of State - the American equivalent

of the Foreign Secretary - is Rex Tillerson, the former chief

of Exxon Mobil who is said to have had a close relationship

with Vladimir Putin. He has done a lot of business in

Russia Tillerson raised eyebrows yesterday

by saying the US would have to send "a clear signal" that China should

be barred from accessing islands it has built in disputed territory

in the South China Sea. James Mattis, Mr Trump's choice

for Secretary of Defense, is known for taking a hard-line

position on Iran and yesterday said the US needs to "forge a strategy

to checkmate Iran's goal But critical rhetoric of Nato

was scaled back yesterday, with General Mattis saying he wants

to see the US maintaining the "strongest possible

relationship" with America's "most Donald Trump has chosen several

climate change sceptics to join his top team,

including Rick Perry as Energy Secretary,

who described climate change I guess that doesn't make him a

sceptic, but a denier. And what about the President-elect's

key election pledge - to build a wall on the border with

Mexico? In his press conference on

Wednesday, Mr Trump confirmed work on the wall would start soon

after his inauguration, with the central American state

reimbursing the costs later. Donald Trump also used his press

conference to welcome his If Putin likes Donald Trump,

guess what, folks, that's called Now, I don't know that

I'm going to get along with Vladimir Putin,

I hope I do. And if I don't, do you honestly

believe that Hillary would be Does anybody in this room

really believe that? We're joined now by Sir

Give us all a break. Christopher Meyer, our former

ambassador to the United States. Welcome back.

I guess a lot of people will think - what is the point of continued

Russian-American hostility, aggression, return of the kold war,

why not have a -- return of the Cold War. Why not have a goal -

rebuilding a relationship with the Kremlin? I think it is a very good

goal. In and of itself there is nothing objectionable to rebuilding

the relationship which has deteriorated seriously and actually

is some kind of threat to world peace. I think the problem we've had

with Trump's remarks about Russia, they tended to be linked with

extreme scepticism with the use of Nato. You put those #20g9 and it

becomes, I think, dangerous to the British national interest and to

members of NATOs' interests. If, however he is going to take the

Mattis line... And he is pro-NATO And as a military man that would be

typical, he is in favour, he will drop the scepticism about Nato but

still say - I'm going to work Bert with the Russians that President

Obama did, I see no objection. Mr Trump takes over when there is

criticism over the Obama foreign policy. Mr Obama has shown little

interest in Europe. He has done several U-turns in the Middle East,

indeed many say he has created a vacuum which the Kremlin have

filled, without resolving any of the issues there and it was all meant to

be, as part of the American pivot to the Pacific, and he hasn't really

done that, either, as we see the growing naval power of China and

these islands. So, he's not inheriting a form of policy, I would

suggest, that has been a great success? I actually - I'm a bit of a

dissident on this. I actually think will the passage of time people will

look back on Obama's policy and say - it wasn't so stupid at all. He

made mistakes, talking about a red line with the Syrian regime's use of

chemical weapons, that was a mistake, he looked like he was

wheeling back on something he himself has said but in the Middle

East overall I don't find anything particularly objection objectionable

about Russia a regional power in that area, taking more of the

responsibility for outside intervention in the Syrian civil

war. I think the United States and the United Kingdom, for that matter,

other Nato Allies, have nothing to gain by getting deeply involved in

what is going on in Syria. Except that on the one hand the Americans,

you take that view, but if the American position was that Assad has

to go but you create the circumstances where Mr Putin comes

in as Assad's biggest backer, you are facing both ways at once There

are contradictions. Let us not deny T I think this is the weakest area

of Obama's foreign policy. And the UK is worse, actually on this very

point that you just made. Something in a sense, I feel that all this

Russian stuff is a bit like - look, there is a squirrel, let's talk

about Russia, talk about Putin, talk about his different attitudes. It

seems to me that everybody I have learn interested Trump's transition

team and listen to his Secretary of State, that the real hardline he is

going to take is against China. If I was the President in China I

would be really worried because there has historically been a kind

of triangular game over decades, China, Russia, United States, we saw

that in the days of the Soviet Union. If I was a member of the

foreign policy planning staff of the Chinese Foreign Minister I would be

saying oh-oh, it looks like there could be a US-Russia axis which is

going to develop, it might not, but it could develop and it's going to

have one feature in common, and that will be a hostility towards China. I

think the kind of Russian-Chinese raproachment vaguely seen is a

fragile thing. Trump has spoken about building a 350 warship

imperial Navy. That Navy is overwhelmingly, Wye suggest, for

deployment in the Pacific. To counteract a rise of Chinese Naval

power. If you square off the Russians, which is essentially about

troop deployment, any standoff with Russia is about boots on the ground.

Any standoff with China is ships in the sea, not boots on the ground. So

there is a kind of sense in his part that let's square that off because I

need the money to build this imperial Navy. Well, when I was in

Washington people were talking about a 450-ship Navy which would be

necessary to keep, 350 sounds relatively modest. But I agree with

you that if you are a Naval strategist what you are worried

about is development of the Chinese Navy, although if you are in Beijing

you are saying we haven't had a blue waters Navy historically. Please may

we have secondhand Russian aircraft carriers so we can... Only one. Only

one, you are right. There may be another after that trip through the

channel. If I was looking at my crystal ball which is particularly

misty at the moment, I would say if there is a raproachment it will be

fragile. Let us say it solidifies out of that triangle China becomes

the loser. Do you detect any changing focus in terms of foreign

policy from what Trump was saying on the campaign trail or even in the

early days post the election and to what he is thinking of for a Trump

administration? I think that Russia still seems to be the main theme,

that there is so much noise about. I think this whole issue about what's

going on in the south China seas which is getting a lot less

attention in the global media, it's something I am beginning to look at

at the early stages of a book on defence at the moment, it's

absolutely fascinating and people don't really realise how aggressive

China is getting in its strategic positioning, essentially almost kind

of creating air strips built on little rocks that are nr the middle

of nowhere, building up positioning which is an incredibly aggressive

way of behaving. It's not getting a lot of attention at the moment but I

am sure that is something that is going on in Trump's mind. The other

thing we didn't really talk about, the wider context of this is what's

going to go on in the Baltic states and clearly if the relationship

between America and Russia is going to get any warmer that is crucial,

what are Putin's intentions there? I am told that there is almost no

doubt he will attempt to introduce tariffs against the Chinese. He may

not get it through Congress but he is going to try? China isn't just

key to his foreign policy, it's key to his domestic policy. What does

Trump stand for? It's bring back jobs, make America great again, stop

the country being flooded with cheap Chinese imports. That is the single

most important thing in a way about - that's the single most important

thing about his relationship with China, it's a trading relationship

and whether he is prepared to launch really a trade war with China. Let

me go back to the squirrel. This business of the dossier and the rest

of it. What do you make of the involvement in this of MI6, not just

their ex-agent but giving permission for this agent to speak to the FBI,

even though he was no longer with MI6 and the involvement of a former

British ambassador, as well, what do make of it? At one level it's

absolutely delicious. This is wonderful stuff. Great story.

Another level it feeds Russian paranoia about the wicked British.

Since the days of the revolution they've been paranoid about British

intelligence. They have overrated us a lot which has been useful to us, I

have to say, so they will say that Chris Steel, who I have never met by

the way... Donald Trump has called him a failed spy by the way. It

shows that possibly we have got the worst of all the world's in this

because... Upset the Russians and Donald Trump, as well. So, the idea

that Tony Blair once had of straddling the Atlantic didn't quite

mean this in mutual insults to the Russians on one hand and the

Americans on the other. I don't know what to make of this. I am told he

was a good MI6 operative. He seemed to have become obsessive as he was

paid to compile this report and he seemed desperate to get the report

out in some shape or form. This was a private operation, originally

bankrolled by Republican billionaire who wanted to stop Trump becoming

the nominee for his party. Then taken over by rich Democrats to try

to stop him becoming President of the United States. This was paid for

propaganda-information. Paid for is the key phrase here, because I think

when you move out of a Government bureaucracy and you start going into

the wider world and trying to make money running a consultancy of the

kind he ran, then you are very keen if you offer your product to become

known because it increases your own, you hope, reputation. So I guess his

keenness to see this reach a wider audience was very much driven by

perfectly normal commercial motivation because he was

co-partners, being... Being paid. His company in London had been hired

by an American company which in turn had been hired by first of all as I

say the Republican billionaire and then the rich Democrat fat cats.

Contracts will now come powering in, I assume he thought, he is running

for his life! If he was such a smart MI6 operative would he not have

worked that out? He had worked with - been connected with what is the

one with the polonium poisoning. You would have thought if his

fingerprints were over this dossier, that life would not continue as

nrmal. Some would say in the Foreign Office and I can not speak for the

foufs, some would say if you spend too long in MI6 you could slightly

bonkers. Your former colleague, Andrew Wood say he helped bring

attention to the dossier compiled by Chris Steel, by bringing attention

to Senator John McCain, indeed I am told John McCain sent somebody over

and was told you look for someone holding a copy of the Financial

Times. Clearly they didn't meet in the Stock Exchange because that

wouldn't really set you apart. Would you have done that? I don't think

so. But I think this happened at some international security

conference, in Canada? Correct. Who knows. It could be Andrew Wood

saying to John McCain, hey, have you seen this funny report? It could be

just like that. Were you subject to KGB stings when you were in Moscow,

honeypot traps? I was, I am pleased to say I thought of the Queen and

resisted all. No pictures. They tried three games, one was a gay

assault if I can put it in those terms. The other two were

heterosexual. I resisted all of them in the name of my country. They

didn't resist your red socks? I didn't wear them! Thank you.

What's the best way to sort out a classic political power struggle?

Could it be eating cupcakes and thinking about butterflies?

That, apparently, was the response of a senior figure in Momentum

to a sudden plan to revamp the pro-Jeremy Corbyn campaign

group's entire constitution, minutes before he was pushed out.

Without so much as even a nibble of a cupcake.

In what's being described as a "coup d'email",

Momentum founder Jon Lansman has taken back control of

the organisation which he hopes will one day affiliate

Look at this Momentum members having so much fun.

They are a Christian youth group in America.

My choice is I stand on the rock of Jesus.

I choose to be the only one for the only one.

But for the organisation of the same name, in praise of Jeremy Corbyn,

Jill Mountford, an Alliance For Workers' Liberties Supporter,

was one of the most senior people in Momentum until three days ago.

She has told the Daily Politics that a sudden shake-up this week

was a coup d' e-mail to take over the organisation, with no

discussion, no debate and she complained that people

are being taught some appalling lessons in how you build

As far as coups go and the Labour movement has had a few

attempts recently, this one appears to be

Here is what happened, on Tuesday night at 7.39,

with no prior warning, this e-mail was sent to Momentum's

Attached was a proposed new constitution, ripping up

the current rules and structures, that had handed control to a few

hard-left delegates last month in what some then called a coup.

Within minutes of this countercoup, approval came from several members

So by 8.54, just 75 minutes later, they had a majority.

Just before it was time for a hot cup of cocoa and bedtime,

Momentum's existing democratic structure has been dissolved.

So a victory for both the man who sent the original e-mail,

Momentum's founder, John Landman, who crucially maintains control

of a database of members' details and his allies.

I don't think we need to be talking about coups and countercoups

and it is all getting a bit Game of Thrones, this is just

the Labour Party where we are trying to organise for Jeremy Corbyn's

Christine Shawcroft, a left-winger, seen as a moderate in the current

spat was also on the scooped momentum steering committee

Jeremy Corbyn put under consultation and we based

the new arrangements on the results of the consultation.

You basically flushed out the Trotskyists, didn't you?

But the new constitution says all members of Momentum must join

the Labour Party by the summer, a move endorsed yesterday

I want all Momentum members to become members

of the party and I want the party membership to continue to grow.

So, some members of Momentum who have been expelled

from the Labour Party, like Jill Mountford, could soon find

In addition, so-called moderate MPs, like Hillary

Benn, who staged a failed coup against Jeremy Corbyn last summer,

could suffer from Momentum's growing influence.

Jeremy Corbyn was asked yesterday if he would step in to

defend his former Shadow Cabinet colleague, if local party activists

I do not, as a leader, dictate or interfere in

I want justice, I want democracy, I want fairness, I

The victors of yesterday's coup d'e-mail also

want Momentum to affiliate with Labour.

Just ask the Communist Party who were

refused entry, when they tried over half a century ago.

Let the happy times roll on for these Momentum members in America

but there's not much of a festive atmosphere right now, amongst Jeremy

With me now is the Momentum member Paul Hilder, who was also

a co-founder of the online crowd-funding platform

Crowdpac and Luke Akehurst, Secretary of the centrist Labour

Some are saying that this move by the Momentum chairman to impose this

new constitution is like a coup, is it a coup? Absolutely not. I think

that what's happened here is long overdue, actually, but they've laid

stronger democratic foundations for the movement. It's happened through

a democratic consultation which they had over 40% turnout in, which was

more than a movement like one got in Spain in similar consultations and

that consultation, that vote, found an overwhelming majority of Momentum

members believing in a par days paintery model of democracy rather

than the old-fashioned model of committees and so forth which some

people are more attached to. What do you make of Jill Mountford doing

about it's a disregard of struck sturs? The membership has

demonstrated that they don't believe in the model of democracy which Jill

is advocating. They believe in a more participating approach. The new

constitution is fascinating, it has an election for potentially every

post on that new co-ordinating group, if there is contestation of

elections and this extraordinary group, 15 members selected by lot

randomly from the movement as a whole who also play a role in

decision-making. Sqa Isn't this what centrist figures

like Tom Watson have been wanting, making with sure they clean up their

act and make sure they are an aphysicalaited o and that's what

they are doing? The moderate wing of the Labour Party, believes it is

appropriate whether it is a faction or any of the centrist factions to

be formally affiliated to the Labour Party. That's my fear, it's kind of

institutionalisation of the factionalism. It's quite ridiculous

that we are sat here on national TV debating the internal structures of

a faction within the Labour Party. It just shouldn't be that parties

within a party like that... But isn't Labour First a faction? Well,

we don't have all this rigmarole of kind of branches and votes and

meetings and structures that mirror the Labour Party's structure. We are

a network of people... But you are a faction. People could call you a

faction. We are a network of people that agree with each other. You

could call that a faction. Sthant what Momentum is, except for the

hard left ones? A group of people that broadly agree with each other.

I have no problem with the existence of networks of people within the

Labour Party that agree with each other but when that becomes

fundamental to the internal dynamic of the party, that everyone feels

you are either for or against Momentum and you are either in

Momentum or outside, that's very you think haeltedy and a lot of Labour

Party members don't want to be badged up like that. What would you

say? I agree with the morns of a broad church and much more open

exchange and debate. I think that what is going on here in Momentum,

though, is really about them trying to lean into a positive engagement

with the Labour Party. One of the risks of what Jill Mountford and

other people, the direction in which they were leading things, some

people were warning - this is going to lead at some point to Momentum

splitting off and becoming a separate party. Full engagement

here, with the Labour Party, which I think at one level I have seen

people on the right of the Labour Party welcoming. OK. Gaby, what do

you make of it? It worries me slightly that the Labour Party has

so little to say, that we are down to discussioning whether the You

dayian people's, people's front of Judaea is in control of Momentum. It

is an inward looking debate. I don't think people care. It is probably a

good thing if they've kicked out the Trots, but it is a long way from

many people who joined Momentum think it was. It was if you have

never been interested in politics before, you can come into this big

party and ended up about a low about logistics. Have you, Gabby's phrase,

kicked out the Trots. I'm not in any desuggestion-making role in this

movement. I wasn't asking you about the decision. I don't believe that

anybody has been kicked out at this point in time. There is a rule that

you won't be able to be a member, except under exceptingal

circumstances, through appeal, if you have been expelled from the

Labour Party and everybody is being encouraged to join the Labour Party

but the other thing about Moment up, you have a broader supporter base of

200,000 people. I think Gabby is right to say - you know, there are

more important things going on in the xun trithan the internal

constitutional arrangements of different political movements. --

going on in the country. But I think what they have done is broadly

constructive and opened up the possibility for it to live up to the

promise it articulated on in the beginning. Well, moderate Labour MPs

would say thil straits with the hard left, put five of them in a room and

you get at least six rows. A bit like Ukip? Well, very like Ukip, I'm

sure would them you would get ten rows with six in the room. I think

Gabby is right - there is an interesting question about that this

says to the young, enthusiastic people who signed up to Momentum and

thought they were getting engaged in some exciting new form of politics

and just find it is all consuming itself, the party is eating itself.

This is the ultimate example. Look, Akehurst, if you have to be a member

of the Labour Party, now to be a member of Momentum, shouldn't they

be allowed to affiliate to the Labour Party? No affiliation isn't

for faction s or groups of a particular viewpoint. It is for

trade unions or for socialist societies I w like the Fabian

Society think-thank that or Labour Students or Christian Socialists, it

is for groups that are open to anyone, left or right of the party.

It's completely inappropriate to have formal recognition in the

structures for groups. It would open them up to reselection of MPs and

give them delegates to local parties. The party here is

institutionalisation of factionalism and of division, when actually the

Labour Party needs to unite, and not have these divisions around what

labels people attach to themselves. What is your reaction to Tristram

Hunt's regular Is nation? -- resignation? Well he has decided to

do other things, fair enough. I think toeps up an extraordinarily

interesting by-election, a big challenge for Labour -- it opens up.

A big challenge, given how that constituency in Stoke is and a

challenge and an opportunity for Momentum and the Labour Party to see

what it can do in a constituency like that. I don't think anyone

would predict the outcome. And finally, Luke, your reaction to Mr

Hunt's resignation? I'm disappointed. I think we need

fighters rather than quitters. Both people who'll stay and fight to

bring the Labour Party back to electability in a moderate

standpoint and people who will fight against the Tories. He has made his

choice but it is not one I'm very impressed by. We'll leave it there.

I didn't get into John Landsman resigning as director of skament

moiment scam campaign service, and being replaced by his ally,

Christine Shawcroft who sits on the national committee I wouldn't go

there. As the weekend approaches, I'm not. Thank you for joining us.

At the start of the new year, how are the political parties faring?

If you believe the opinion polls, the Conservatives have a commanding

lead over Labour across the UK, and the SNP are maintaining

But another measure of party support is actual votes in ballot boxes

and every Thursday local council by-elections are held

which can give an indication of the parties' fortunes.

The last time we looked at what was happening in ward

by-elections was back in October, so let's take a look

Since the local elections in May last year, there have been 190 local

council by-elections, held across England,

In total, around 70 seats have changed hands.

So how have the main parties been doing?

Since October, the last time we looked at what was happening

in ward by-elections, the Conservatives have lost another

seat, making a net loss of 15 seats since May.

And there's more bad news for Labour.

They're down another 4 seats, and have lost 12 seats in total.

Ukip have lost another councillor, and 3 seats in all.

But with the Lib Dems it's a different story.

Since October, they've increased their gains

Elsewhere, the SNP have lost two seats and Plaid Cmyru

And to discuss all that we're joined now by the academic Tony Travers

from the Department of Government at the London School of Economics.

First of all, tony, the principle - are local Government by-elections a

guide to how the parties are fairing? They are not a bad guide.

Like by-elections, you have to be a bit cautious with individual ones.

But certainly if you look at the aggregated local election results,

particularly on all-out days which we get in May each year and look at

the way the parties perform in those and you adjust them to represent

what local elections are taking place in a particular year, they

give you a very clear sense of whether or not an opposition party

is likely to win at the next general election. So they are, in many ways,

a better guide now, in some ways, than opinion polls. Well, the be Lib

Dems have gained 26 seats. Obviously following a period when they were

pretty much wiped out in #35r789ly terms, not wiped out but decimated

in parliamentary terms. -- in parliamentary terms. Does it amount

to a fightback? It certainly is. You catalogue the significant shift to

the Liberal Democrats in the local by-elections there is a pattern over

time. Yesterday there were two more, one in Sunderland and one in Hemel

Hempstead, where in both cases there were significant swings, in

Sunderland... 42%. To the Lib Dems. Actually, Sunderland. So this tells

us that there is something going on out there, I'm in the exactly sure

what it is, but something is going on. Well, Sunderland is interesting,

because Sunderland was one of the pivotal moments on the right of the

referendum and we knew it was going to vote for Brexit but it voted by

more than we thought and yet there is a 42% swing to the Lib Dems that

want to undo Brexit. How does that happen? Well, it probably isn't all

about Brexit, is it? A number of things are going on. A lot of

Liberal Democrats will be recognised, as happened in the

Richmond parliamentary by-election, as putting forward a pro-Remain or

anti-Brexit view, but I think in other election, they have a lot of

things going on here. The response to the Labour Party's internal

troubles and at the same time, you know, remember the Conservatives

have now, one way or another been in power for seven years and a sort of

mid--term anti-Government view probably tangled up in this as well.

People are not going to Ukip it would appear in places like

Sunderland, they are actually going to the Liberal Democrats, it is an

interesting phenomenon and it may have an effect on the by-elections.

I don't know if that will happen in Copeland or Stoke on Trent but it

could affect the result. Well, the Liberal Democrats took control of

the Three Rivers District Council by winning a seat from the

Conservatives last night as well. And yet when we look at the two

by-elections coming up for Westminster, cleaned in the

north-west and Stoke-on-Trent, central in the Midlands, Labour

seems to be on the back foot there. You would expect a Government to

lose by-elections midterm, you know this is what happens and Labour,

obviously is in a mess nationally, so that's not - but what is

interesting, the Liberal Democrats seem to be picking up all over the

place, they are picking up Labour voters who can't vote for Corbyn,

obvious, they are picking up Tory voters who were Remainers or

dismayed by Theresa Mays inner who ways and less, the usual coalition

of Liberal Democrats, because they can't figure out where else to put

their vote. They become a grab bag for all sorts of things. That will

not work in Copeland which will be much more of a conventional fight

and it'll not work in Stoke where it will be Labour verses Ukip but from

talking to people t seems people are more confident about holding Stoke

than they are about holding Copeland. The majority is bigger.

But Stoke is a very Brexity place. And Ukip was a strong second. They

were nip and tuck with the Conservatives for second place. But

you would normally expect in a seat like Copeland, held by Labour, and

at times the as Tony says, the governing party has been in power

for seven years but opposition parties hold on to their seats so

the loss of Copeland would be huge if it happened. It certainly would

be, it is difficult to read much into the statistics we looked at at

the beginning of this section on who has gained what so far, because if

you are look agent those as a guide as to what might happen in 2020, it

is reunreliable. At the moment we are in this incredibly unusual

interim period before we presumably leave the EU, so people feel as they

perhaps did in Richmond, that voting for the Lib Dems might influence in

some way the ways we come out. By the time we get to 2020, we will be

in entirely different territory. I'm not sure any of these cases really

are much of a good guide. The Labour Party would be thrown into crisis if

the Conservatives were to win Copeland. And Ukip -- this is a

bigger stretch, both are a bit of a stretch but this is a bigger one -

if Ukip was to win Stoke? I think that's right. It is very difficult

for the Labour Party if they start losing by-elections in the midterm

of a Conservative Government. With crisis in the NHS and... All those

things playing. We are running up to a full sweep at local elections.

Councils in England and Wales holding local elections in May. That

will give us a national sense of how well the Liberal Democrats are

doing. I do think that - and I take the point we are a long way away

from a general election, but truth is unless an opposition party is

doing really in local elections through the period of a Parliament,

it is very, very unlikely they are going to win the next general

election. That's what the locals do tell us, they sell us more about the

opposition than the Government in some ways. We'll keep an eye on them

and monitor the results. Thank you for your help in this regard.

You'll have heard the terms 'hard brexit' and 'soft brexit'.

But what about 'grey brexit', and 'clean brexit'?

If the terminology used in the brexit debate has been

giving you a headache, we've got just the thing

Here's Adam Fleming's guide to the language of Brexit.

The language of Brexit can be baffling and some words

Let's try and shed some light anyway.

Proponents of leaving feel this is used in a pejorative way

by former Remain campaigners to describe the worst possible

outcome of the Brexit negotiations, ie, where trade and travel

are difficult and there's little or no co-operation on justice,

Leavers much prefer the phrase clean Brexit.

Clean Brexit is defined by the campaign group Change Britain

as removing the UK from all parts of the EU that prevent us

signing our own global trade deals and writing our own regulations

and with everyone knowing what's going to happen when.

It's the opposite of dirty Brexit which presumably means no one

knowing exactly what's going to happen when.

The clearest version of this is the UK staying

in the single market, designed to allow goods and services

to travel around the EU with as few barriers as possible,

although you have to stick to the rules of the single market,

possibly including the free movement of people.

In fact, Michael Gove has christened it fake Brexit.

It actually stands for pay as you go Brexit, the idea that we take

programmes and elements of the EU we still quite like and pay

For example, the Brexit Secretary, David Davis, hasn't ruled out

the idea of paying money for access to the single market.

This is a scenario designed to bridge between two extremes.

They are, black or disorderly Brexit, which is is us leaving

without any kind of exit deal in a fairly chaotic fashion,

and white Brexit, which I think means leaving but inheriting

Grey Brexit is a sort of Goldilocks mixture of the two.

What do you think about that, Prime Minister?

Actually, we want a red, white and blue Brexit,

that is the right Brexit for the United Kingdom.

Coined on a battleship in the Gulf, red, white and blue Brexit

was Theresa May's attempt to paint the process in her own terms,

patriotic, optimistic, uniquely British.

Now obviously the BBC doesn't have a view

about which phrase is the right one because they're all judgments.

But hopefully you feel a bit more switched on about what people

And we've prepared a cut-out-and-keep guide

If you'd like to get your hands on it, check out our Facebook page

A viewer pointed out we coined a new phrase this morning, Brexitee.

During the campaign itself I don't remember anybody talking about hard

Brexit or soft Brexit, it was Brexit or not Brexit. Brexit in terms of a

hard Brexit, though, was coined by the Remainers who had lost after

June and it's been a very clever phrase for them. I agree with that,

I think it was a hostile rebranding exercise. It was an attempt to use

the language of Brexit to try to clutch victory from the jaws of

defeat, to try to frighten people into thinking that hard Brexit was

something they hadn't voted for. In fact, soft Brexit I think for most

people that backed Brexit is a kind of synthetic Brexit, it's not a real

Brexit. For me all this terminology, but particularly the two simple

phrases we started out with, hard Brexit and soft Brexit, is a

nonsense. Brexit is Brexit, as Theresa May has said, it means

Brexit. . I think her red, white and blue thing, although it got a laugh

from the particular way we presented it there, is a Goodway of putting

it. What she means is the Brexit that people voted for, one that's in

the best interests of Britain. Most of the people who ran the vote Leave

campaign, as Adam said, they seemed to think that what is called a soft

Brexit is really not a Brexit at all. The trouble with this whole

debate is when Brexit means Brexit, everyone knows what they means, they

don't. There is about 14 different ways you compute it. For the

campaign it was imperative not to talk about that, because you can get

a majority for just Leave. The minute you start breaking it down

into what that means because everyone has different ideas about

what they meant by Leave, some immigration is important, trade has

different meaning for different people, it's better to forget about

that and get the maximum number of people under the Leave umbrella.

Once it's happening you have to be specific about what kind of Brexit

and that's the reason Theresa May takes refuge in let's have a red,

white and blue Brexit which means kind of nothing, because the minute

she is specific someone will be unhappy, half the Tory Party will be

furious because it's not their version. Half who voted Leave will

say that's not what I meant. It's to keep it kind of vague for as long as

possible while sounding like you are saying something. The Leave side

didn't like the invention of hard Brexit but they then hit back

because we have now had words like Remoaner. In the first few weeks

after Brexit and probably the few months after the referendum result

Brexiteers and supporting MPs were very nervous about this kind of

language. I sense that people are more relaxed about that now. Leave

supporters now feel they're a little bit less anxious about this

terminology and where it way lead us because there is more confidence

that Theresa May, who was a Remainer, will actually deliver the

kind of Brexit, vague as it may be, that most people who voted for Leave

had in mind. You mentioned that Theresa May has kept it vague, Gaby,

because the moment she stops doing that someone will be upset. This

speech is now on Tuesday. There surely has to be some substance in

this speech now? From what we understand she's going to be clear

about things we sort of knew, which is her priorities are reduce

immigration, get out of the European Court of justice, but do that in a

way that preserves as good trade relations as possible. But it's less

now about what her negotiating objectives are, what you want to

know is how is she going to get there? We understand she wants the

least damaging deal, fine, who doesn't? How do you think you are

going to get that exactly? I don't think we will hear a great deal

about that on Tuesday. She's been specific at some points, weirdly

specific. She said at one point we will have the right to label our own

food which tells you something very specific about what she wants. Then

she backs away from it... What does label your own food mean? God knows!

It implies for a start, that we are not going to be told to put on food

labels by Brussels which implies outside the single market, probably

outside the WTO rules. That's weirdly specific. Then there is a

hurried retreat away from that. You thought you knew where you were, oh,

hang on, you don't again. Because of the vacuum the Government's created

as a tries to work out what Brexit actually means, she said Brexit

means Brexit, but hadn't yet worked out what that means, others have

filled the vacuum. If she does not do something to fill this vacuum in

this speech next week there will be despair on both sides. The people

who wanted to stay will despair but people who wanted to leave will

despair, as well. She doesn't have to stumble on for that much longer

before she triggers Article 50. So why bother with a speech at all?

Well, she's doing the speech because she's under so much pressure from

all sides and I think it will be a kind of bizarre exercise in

stringing out for as long as possible saying as little as

possible with possibly one top line to satisfy the broadcasters and the

media. I have always thought that if you haven't really - if you bill a

big speech, you better have something to say otherwise it's

better not to give it. Other people will say the trouble is we are close

enough now to the triggering of Article 50 negotiation, before long

we will get stuff leaking out of 27 other member states capitals about

what they think the British position is and their position would be in

response. This is their last chance to sort of have control of the

narrative a bit before it slips away. I agree, there is only so many

speeches you can give where there is a big build-up and then it's like,

is that it? Exactly. Time now for our high-speed round-up

of the week in politics Theresa May launched her vision

of what she calls the shared society promising extra money for local

mental health services. For too long, mental illness has

been something of a hidden Jeremy Corbyn attempted

to reboot his leadership, announcing Labour were no longer

wedded to freedom of movement, before flip-flopping and saying

he could support free Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt

came under pressure over He says the NHS is getting more cash

than it asked for but the boss It would be stretching it to say

that the NHS has got more Strikes disrupted travel around

Britain with workers from London Underground,

British Airways and And, outgoing US President Barack

Obama delivered an emotional final speech in Chicago,

while President-elect Trump held a conference attacking fake news

and dirty dossiers. Someone added true Brexit and fake

Brexit to the lexicon. Gaby, we have talked about Theresa May's brings

problems and the need to, not give away her negotiating strategy, but

to fill out her vision of a post-Brexit Britain. She has two

immediate problems, though, the rash of strikes, particularly in London

and the south-east, affecting transport at a time when the weather

is miserable, and this simmering and probably growing crisis in the NHS.

I would suggest that it's not clear on either front if MrsMay has a clue

what to do. I think the tensions particularly on the NHS, which is

moving from simmering to boiling point now, the tensions between

Number 10 and Simon Stevens, head of NHS England, are very clear now.

Simon Stevens is not someone I would go to war with unless I knew what I

was doing. The idea that you are fighting with your most important

senior civil servant in terms of delivering at the same time as the

papers are full of awful stories about people dying on trolleys in

corridors and Little Children spending hours in A waiting to be

seen, I think there needs to be a sense of something from the

Government other than just insisting the NHS has money and it's going to

be fine, because it's Patently not fine. Strikes causing disruption and

we don't really know what the Government's response or attitude or

- we know the attitude, not the response. A growing crisis in the

NHS. Yet, MrsMay's 14 points ahead in the polls. If there was a real

opposition in this country she would not be 14 points ahead at all.

Indeed I would suggest she would be behind now. Absolutely. It tells you

everything you need to know about the state of the Labour Party and

whether they are capable of being an effective opposition at the moment.

I think Gaby is right on the NHS, it's not a problem that's going to

go away but the problems are so fundamental they're not something

that she can correct at the same time as tackling getting Britain out

of the EU. Let's come to the quiz. I think our guests will struggle on

this! The question was which party leader

is planning to address his b) French Presidential

candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon. Or d) outgoing European Parliament

President Martin Schulz. You don't know, do you? I am saying

it's a trick question and Tim Farron is a hologram. The Jean-Luc

Melenchon. Thanks to Gaby, Isabel

and all my guests. I'll be back on Sunday

with the Sunday Politics when I'll be talking to Lib Dem leader

Tim Farron and press regulation