27/11/2016 Sunday Politics East Midlands


Andrew Neil and Marie Ashby are joined by Jonathan Ashworth MP, Lord Paddy Ashdown, the founder of Cobra Beer Lord Karan Bilimoria, and the founder of Wetherspoons Tim Martin.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 27/11/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



It's Sunday morning and this is the Sunday Politics.


Was Fidel Castro a revolutionary hero or a murderous dictator?


After the Cuban leader's death, politicians divide over his legacy.


Can the NHS in England find billions of pounds' worth of efficiency


The Shadow Health Secretary joins me live.


Should we have a second Brexit referendum on the terms


of the eventual withdrawal deal that's struck with the EU?


Former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown and former Conservative cabinet


What does the Autumn Statement mean? go head-to-head.


And with me, Tom Newton Dunn, Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.


They'll be tweeting throughout the programme


Political leaders around the world have been reacting to the news


of the death of Fidel Castro, the Cuban revolutionary who came


to power in 1959 and ushered in a Marxist revolution.


Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson described the former leader


as an "historic if controversial figure" and said his death marked


Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said Castro was "a champion of social


justice" who had "seen off a lot of US presidents"


President-elect Donald Trump described the former Cuban leader


as a "brutal dictator", adding that he hoped his death


would begin a new era "in which the wonderful Cuban people


finally live in the freedom they so richly deserve".


Meanwhile, the President of the European Commission,


Jean-Claude Juncker, said the controversial leader


was "a hero for many" but "his legacy will be judged


I guess we had worked that out ourselves. What do you make of the


reactions so far across the political divide? Predictable. And I


noticed that Jeremy Corbyn has come in for criticism for his tribute to


Castro. But I think it was the right thing for him to do. We all know he


was an admirer. He could have sat there for eight hours in his house,


agonising over some bland statement which didn't alienate the many


people who want to wade into attacked Castro. It would have been


inauthentic and would have just added to the sort of mainstream


consensus, and I think he was right to say what he believed in this


respect. Elsewhere, it has been wholly predictable that there would


be this device, because he divided opinion in such an emotive way.


Steve, I take your point about authenticity and it might have


looked a bit lame for Jeremy Corbyn to pretend that he had no affection


for Fidel Castro at all, but do you think he made a bit of an error


dismissing Castro's record, the negative side of it as just a floor?


He could have acknowledged in more elaborate terms the huge costs. He


wanted to go on about the health and education, which if you actually


look up the indices on that, they are good relative to other


countries. But they have come at such a huge cost. He was not a


champion of criminal justice. If he had done that, it would have been


utterly inauthentic. He doesn't believe it. And he would have


thought there would be many other people focusing on all the epic


failings. So he focused on what he believed. There are times when


Corbyn's prominence in the media world now as leader widens the


debate in an interesting and important way. I am not aware of any


criticisms that Mr Corbyn has ever announced about Mr Castro. There


were four words in his statement yesterday which is spin doctor would


have forced him to say, for all his flaws. He was on this Cuban


solidarity committee, which didn't exist to criticise Castro. It


existed to help protect Castro from those, particularly the Americans,


who were trying to undermine him. And Corbyn made a big deal yesterday


saying he has always called out human rights abuses all over the


world. But he said that in general, I call out human rights abuses. He


never said, I have called out human rights abuses in Cuba. In the weeks


ahead, more will come out about what these human rights abuses were. The


lid will come off what was actually happening. Some well authenticated


stories are pretty horrendous. I was speaking to a journalist who was


working there in the 1990s, who gave me vivid examples of that, and there


will be more to come. I still go back to, when a major figure diet


and you are a leader who has admired but major figure, you have to say


it. That is the trap he has fallen into. He has proved every criticism


that he is a duck old ideologue. But he is not the only one. Prime


Minister Trudeau was so if uses that I wondered if they were going to


open up a book of condolences. I think it reinforces Corbyn's failing


brand. It may be authentic, but authentic isn't working for him.


When I was driving, I heard Trevor Phillips, who is a Blairite, saying


the record was mixed and there were a lot of things to admire as well as


all the terrible things. So it is quite nuanced. But if you are a


leader issuing a sound bite, there is no space for new ones. You either


decide to go for the consensus, which is to set up on the whole, it


was a brutal dictatorship. Or you say, here is an extraordinary figure


worthy of admiration. In my view, he was right to say what he believed.


There was still a dilemma for the British government over who they


sent to the funeral. Do they sent nobody, do they say and Boris


Johnson as a post-ironic statement? There is now a post-Castro Cuba to


deal with. Trump was quite diplomatic about post-Castro Cuba.


And Boris Johnson's statement was restrained. The thing about Mr


Castro was the longevity, 50 years of keeping Marxism on the island.


That was what made it so fascinating.


Before the last election, George Osborne promised the NHS


in England a real-terms funding boost of ?8 billion per year by 2020


on the understanding that NHS bosses would also find ?22 billion worth


Since last autumn, NHS managers have been drawing up what they're calling


"Sustainability and Transformation Plans" to make these savings,


but some of the proposals are already running into local


opposition, while Labour say they amount to huge cuts to the NHS.


Help is on the way for an elderly person in need in Hertfordshire.


But east of England ambulance call operators


they're sending an early intervention vehicle


with a council-employed occupational therapist on board.


It's being piloted here for over 65s with


When they arrive, a paramedic judges if the patient can be


treated immediately at home without a trip to hospital.


Around 80% of patients have been treated this way,


taking the strain off urgently-needed hospital beds,


So the early intervention team has assessed the patient and decided


The key to successful integration for Hertfordshire being able


to collaboratively look at how we use our resources,


to have pooled budgets, to allow us to understand


where spend is, and to let us make conscientious decisions about how


best to use that money, to come up with ideas to problems


that sit between our organisations, to look at things collaboratively.


This Hertfordshire hospital is also a good example of how


You won't find an A unit or overnight beds here any more.


The closest ones are 20 minutes down the road.


What's left is nurse-led care in an NHS-built hospital.


Despite a politically toxic change, this reconfiguration went


through after broad public and political consultation


with hospital clinicians and GPs on board.


It's a notable achievement that's surely of interest to 60% of NHS


trusts in England that reported a deficit at the end of September.


It's not just here that the NHS needs to save money and provide


The Government is going to pour in an extra ?8 billion into the NHS


in England, but it has demanded ?22 billion


worth of efficiencies across the country.


In order to deliver that, the NHS has created 44 health


and care partnerships, and each one will provide


a sustainability and transformation plan, or STP, to integrate care,


provide better services and save money.


So far, 33 of these 44 regional plans, drawn up by senior people


in the health service and local government,


The NHS has been through five years of severely constrained spending


growth, and there are another 4-5 years on the way at least.


STPs themselves are an attempt to deal in a planned way


But with plans to close some A units and reduce the number


of hospital beds, there's likely to be a tough political battle


ahead, with many MPs already up in arms about proposed


This Tory backbencher is concerned about the local plans for his


I wouldn't call it an efficiency if you are proposing to close


all of the beds which are currently provided for those coming out


of the acute sector who are elderly and looking


That's not a cut, it's not an efficiency saving,


All 44 STPs should be published in a month's time,


But even before that, they dominated this week's PMQs.


The Government's sustainability and transformation plans


for the National Health Service hide ?22 billion of cuts.


The National Health Service is indeed looking for savings


within the NHS, which will be reinvested in the NHS.


There will be no escape from angry MPs for the Health Secretary either.


Well, I have spoken to the Secretary of State just this week


about the importance of community hospitals in general,


These are proposals out to consultation.


What could happen if these plans get blocked?


If STPs cannot be made to work, the planned changes don't come


to pass, then the NHS will see over time a sort of unplanned


deterioration and services becoming unstable and service


The NHS barely featured in this week's Autumn Statement


but the Prime Minister insisted beforehand that STPs


are in the interests of local people.


Her Government's support will now be critical for NHS England


to push through these controversial regional plans,


which will soon face public scrutiny.


We did ask the Department of Health for an interview,


I've been joined by the Shadow Health Secretary,


Do you accept that the NHS is capable of making ?22 billion of


efficiency savings? Well, we are very sceptical, as are number of


independent organisations about the ability of the NHS to find 22


billion of efficiencies without that affecting front line care. When you


drill down into the 22 billion, based on the information we have


been given, and there hasn't been much information, we can see that


some of it will come from cutting the budget which go to community


pharmacies, which could lead, according to ministers, to 3000


pharmacies closing, which we believe will increase demands on A and


GPs, and also that a lot of these changes which are being proposed,


which was the focus of the package, we think will mean service cuts at a


local level. Do they? The chief executive of NHS England says these


efficiency plans are "Incredibly important". He used to work from


Labour. The independent King's Fund calls them "The best hope to improve


health and care services. There is no plan B". On the sustainable


transformation plans, which will be across England to link up physical


health, mental health and social care, for those services to


collaborate more closely together and move beyond the fragmented


system we have at the moment is important. It seems that the ground


has shifted. It has moved into filling financial gaps. As we know,


the NHS is going through the biggest financial squeeze in its history. By


2018, per head spending on the NHS will be falling. If you want to


redesign services for the long term in a local area, you need to put the


money in. So of course, getting these services working better


together and having a greater strategic oversight, which we would


have had if we had not got rid of strategic health authority is in the


last Parliament. But this is not an attempt to save 22 billion, this is


an attempt to spend 22 billion more successfully, don't you accept that?


Simon Stevens said we need 8 billion, and we need to find 22


billion of savings. You have to spend 22 billion more efficiently.


But the Government have not given that 8 billion to the NHS which they


said they would. They said they would do it by 2020. But they have


changed the definitions of spending so NHS England will get 8 billion by


2020, but they have cut the public health budgets by about 4 million by


20 20. The budget that going to initiatives to tackle sexually


transmitted diseases, to tackle smoking have been cut back but the


commissioning of things like school nurses and health visitors have been


cut back as well. Simon Stevens said he can only deliver that five-year


project if there is a radical upgrade in public health, which the


Government have failed on, and if we deal with social care, and this week


there was an... I understand that, but if you don't think the


efficiency drive can free up 22 billion to take us to 30 billion by


2020, where would you get the money from? I have been in this post now


for five or six weeks and I want to have a big consultation with


everybody who works in the health sector, as well as patients, carers


and families. Though you don't know? I think it would be surprised if I


had an arbitrary figure this soon into the job. Your party said they


expected election of spring by this year, you need to have some idea by


now, you inherited a portfolio from Diane Abbott, did she have no idea?


To govern is to make choices and we would make different choices. The


budget last year scored billions of giveaways in things like


co-operating -- corporation tax. What I do want to do... Is work on a


plan and the general election, whenever it comes, next year or in


2020 or in between, to have costed plan for the NHS. But your party is


committed to balancing the books on current spending, that is currently


John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor's position. What we are


talking about, this extra 30 billion, that is essentially current


spending so if it doesn't come from efficiency savings, where does the


money come from? Some of it is also capital. Mainly current spending. If


you look at the details of the OBR, they have switched a million from


the capital into revenue. Why -- how do you balance spending?


That is why we need to have a debate. Every time we ask for


Labour's policy, we are always told me a debate. Surely it is time to


give some idea of what you stand for? There's huge doubts about the


Government 's policy on this. You are the opposition, how would you do


it? I want to work with John McDonnell to find a package to give


the NHS the money it needs, but of course our Shadow Chancellor, like


any Shadow Chancellor at this stage in the cycle, will want to see what


the books look like a head of an election before making commitments.


I am clear that the Labour Party has to go into the next general election


with a clear policy to give the NHS the funding it needs because it has


been going through the largest financial squeeze in its history.


You say Labour will always give the NHS the money it needs, that is not


a policy, it is a blank cheque. It is an indication of our commitment


to the NHS. Under this Conservative government, the NHS has been getting


a 1% increase. Throughout its history it has usually have about


4%. Under the last Labour government it was getting 4%, before that


substantially more. We think the NHS should get more but I don't have


access to the NHS books in front of me. The public thinks there needs to


be more money spent on health but they also think that should go cap


in hand with the money being more efficiently spent, which is what


this efficiency drive is designed to release 22 billion. Do you have an


efficiency drive if it is not the Government's one? Of course we


agree. We agree the NHS should be more efficient, we want to see


productivity increased. Do know how to do that? One way is through


investments, maintenance, but there is a 5 million maintenance backlog.


One of the most high risk backlogs is something like 730 million. They


are going to switch the capital spend into revenue spend. I believe


that when you invest in maintenance and capital in the NHS, that


contribute to increasing its productivity. You are now talking


about 5 billion the maintenance, the chief executive says it needs 30


billion more by 2020 as a minimum so that 35 billion. You want to spend


more on social care, another for 5 billion on that so we have proper


care in the community. By that calculation I'm up to about 40


billion, which is fine, except where do you get the and balance the


account at the same time? We will have to come up with a plan for that


and that's why I will work with our Shadow Treasury team to come up with


that plan when they head into the general election. At the moment we


are saying to the NHS, sorry, we are not going to give you the


investment, which is why we are seeing patient care deteriorating.


The staff are doing incredible things but 180,000 are waiting in


A beyond four hours, record levels of people delayed in beds in


hospitals because there are not the beds in the community to go to save


the NHS needs the investment. We know that and we know the


Government's response to that and many think it is inadequate. What


I'm trying to get from you is what your response would be and what your


reaction will be to these efficiency plans. Your colleague Heidi


Alexander, she had your job earlier this year, she warned of the danger


of knee jerk blanket opposition to local efficiency plans. Do you agree


with that? Yes. So every time a hospital is going to close as a


result of this, and some will, it is Labour default position not just


going to be we are against it? That is why we are going to judge each of


these sustainability plans by a number of yardsticks. We want to see


if they have the support of local clinicians, we want to see if they


have the support of local authorities because they now have a


role in the delivery of health care. We want to see if they make the


right decisions for the long-term trends in population for local area.


We want to see if they integrate social care and health. If they


don't and therefore you will not bank that as an efficiency saving,


you will say no, that's not the way to go, you are left then with


finding the alternative funding to keep the NHS going. If you are


cutting beds, for example the proposal is to cut something like


5000 beds in Derbyshire and if there is the space in the community sector


in Derbyshire, that will cause big problems for the NHS in the long


term so it is a false economy. An example like that, we would be very


sceptical the plans could work. Would it not be honest, given the


sums of money involved and your doubts about the efficiency plan,


which are shared by many people, to just say, look, among the wealthy


nations, we spend a lower proportion of our GDP on health than most of


the other countries, European countries included, we need to put


up tax if we want a proper NHS. Wouldn't that be honest? I'm not the


Shadow Chancellor, I don't make taxation policy. You are tempting me


down a particular road by you or I smile. John McDonnell will come up


with our taxation policy. We have had an ambition to meet the European


average, the way these things are measured have changed since then,


but we did have that ambition and for a few years we met it. We need


substantial investment in the NHS. Everyone accepts it was


extraordinary that there wasn't an extra penny for the NHS in the


Autumn Statement this week. And as we go into the general election,


whenever it is, we will have a plan for the NHS. Come back and speak to


us when you know what you are going to do. Thank you.


Theresa May has promised to trigger formal Brexit negotiations


before the end of March, but the Prime Minister must wait


for the Supreme Court to decide whether parliament must vote


If that is the Supreme Court's conclusion, the Liberal Democrats


and others in parliament have said they'll demand a second EU


referendum on the terms of the eventual Brexit deal before


And last week, two former Prime Ministers suggested


that the referendum result could be reversed.


In an interview with the New Statesman on Thursday,


Tony Blair said, "It can be stopped if the British people decide that,


having seen what it means, the pain-gain cost-benefit analysis


John Major also weighed in, telling a meeting


of the National Liberal Club that the terms of Brexit


were being dictated by the "tyranny of the majority".


He also said there is a "perfectly credible case"


That prompted the former Conservative leader


Iain Duncan Smith to criticise John Major.


He told the BBC, "The idea we delay everything simply


because they disagree with the original result does


seem to me an absolute dismissal of democracy."


So, is there a realistic chance of a second referendum on the terms


of whatever Brexit deal Theresa May manages to secure?


Lib Dem party leader Tim Farron has said, "We want to respect


the will of the people and that means they must have their say


in a referendum on the terms of the deal."


But the Lib Dems have just eight MPs - they'll need Labour support


One ally is former Labour leadership candidate Owen Smith.


He backs the idea of a second referendum.


But yesterday the party's deputy leader, Tom Watson, said that,


"Unlike the Lib Dem Brexit Deniers, we believe in respecting


To discuss whether or not there should be a second referendum


on the terms of the Brexit deal, I've been joined by two


In Somerset is the former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown,


and in Shropshire is the former Conservative cabinet minister


Paddy Ashdown, let me come to you first. When the British people have


spoken, you do what they command, either you believe in democracy or


you don't. When democracy speaks, we obey. Your words on the night of the


referendum, what's changed? Nothing has changed, Andrew, that's what I


said and what I still believe in. The British people have spoken, we


will not block Parliament debating the Brexit decision, Article 50, but


we will introduce an amendment to say that we need to consult the


British people, not about if we go out but what destination we would


then achieve. There is a vast difference in ordinary people's


lives between the so-called hard Brexit and soft Brexit. Soft Brexit,


you remain in the single market, you have to accept and agree on


immigration. Hard Brexit you are out of the single market, we have many


fewer jobs... Why didn't you say before the referendum there would be


a second referendum on the terms? Forgive me, I said it on many


occasions, you may not have covered it, Andrew, but that's a different


thing. In every speech I gave I said this, and this has proved to be


true, since those who recommended Brexit refused to tell us the


destination they were recommending, they refuse to give any detail about


the destination, if we did vote to go out, it would probably be


appropriate to decide which destination, hard Brexit or soft


Brexit we go to. They deliberately obscure that because it made it more


difficult to argue the case. It wasn't part of the official campaign


but let me come to Owen Paterson. What's wrong with a referendum on


the terms of the deal? We voted to leave but we don't really know on


what conditions we leave so what's wrong with negotiating the deal and


putting that deal to the British people? This would be a ridiculous


idea, it would be a complete gift to the EU negotiators to go for an


impossibly difficult deal because they want to do everything to make


sure that Brexit does not go through. This nonsense idea of hard


Brexit and soft Brexit, it was never discussed during the referendum


campaign. We made it clear we wanted to take back control, that means


making our own laws, raising and spending the money agreed by elected


politicians, getting control of our own borders back, and getting


control of our ability to do trade deals around the world. That was


clear at all stages of the referendum. We got 17.4 million


votes, the biggest vote in history for any issue, that 52%, 10% more


than John Major got and he was happy with his record number of 14


million, more than Tony Blair got, which was 43%, so we have a very


clear mandate. Time and again people come up to me and say when are we


going to get on with this. The big problem is uncertainty. We want to


trigger Article 50, have the negotiation and get to a better


place. OK, I need to get a debate going.


Paddy Ashdown, the EU doesn't want us to leave. If they knew there was


going to be a second referendum, surely there was going to be a


second referendum, surely their incentive would be to give us the


worst possible deal would vote against it would put us in a


ridiculous negotiating position. On the contrary, the government could


go and negotiate with the European Union and anyway, the opinion of the


European Union is less important than the opinion of the British


people. It seems to me that Owen Paterson made the case for me


precisely. They refuse to discuss what kind of destination. Britain


voted for departure, but not a destination. Because Owen Paterson


and his colleagues refused to discuss what their model was. So the


range of options here and the impact on the people of Britain is huge.


There is nothing to stop the government going to negotiate,


getting the best deal it can and go into the British people and saying,


this is the deal, guys, do you agree? Owen Paterson? It is simple.


The British people voted to leave. We voted to take back control of our


laws, our money, our borders. But most people don't know the shape of


what the deal would be. So why not have a vote on it? Because it would


be a gift to the EU negotiators to drive the worst possible deal in the


hope that it might be chucked out with a second referendum. The


biggest danger is the uncertainty. We have the biggest vote in British


history. You have said all that. It was your side that originally


proposed a second referendum. The director of Leave said, there is a


strong democratic case for a referendum on what the deal looks


like. Your side. Come on, you are digging up a blog from June of 2015.


He said he had not come to a conclusion. He said it is a distinct


possibility. No senior members of the campaign said we would have a


second referendum. It is worth chucking Paddy the quote he gave on


ITV news, whether it is a majority of 1% or 20%, when the British


people have spoken, you do what they command. People come up to me and


keep asking, when are you going to get on with it? What do you say to


that, Paddy Ashdown? Owen Paterson has obviously not been paying


attention. You ask me that question at the start. Owen and his kind have


to stick to the same argument. During the referendum, when we said


that the Europeans have it in their interest to picket tough for us,


they would suffer as well. And that has proved to be right. The European


Union does not wish to hand as a bad deal, because they may suffer in the


process. We need the best deal for both sides. I can't understand why


Owen is now reversing that argument. Here is the question I am going to


ask you. If we have a second referendum on the deal and we vote


by a very small amount, by a sliver, to stay in, can we then make it


best-of-3? No, Andrew! Vince Cable says he thinks if you won, he would


have to have a decider. You will have to put that income tax, because


I don't remember when he said that. -- you have to put that in context.


Independent, 19th of September. That is a decision on the outcome. The


central point is that the British people voted for departure, not a


destination. In response to the claim that this is undemocratic, if


it is democratic to have one referendum, how can it be


undemocratic to have two? Owen Paterson, the British government, on


the brink of triggering article 50, cannot tell us if we will remain


members of the single market, if we will remain members of the customs


union. From that flows our ability to make trade deals, our attitude


towards freedom of movement and the rest of it. Given that the


government can't tell us, it is clear that the British people have


no idea what the eventual shape will be. That is surely the fundamental


case for a second referendum. Emphatically not. They have given a


clear vote. That vote was to take back control. What the establishment


figures like Paddy should recognise is the shattering damage it would do


to the integrity of the whole political process if this was not


delivered. People come up to me, as I have said for the third time now,


wanting to know when we will get article 50 triggered. Both people


who have voted to Remain and to Leave. If we do not deliver this, it


will be disastrous for the reputation and integrity of the


whole political establishment. Let me put that you Paddy Ashdown. It is


very Brussels elite - were ask your question but if we don't like the


answer, we will keep asking the question. Did it with the Irish and


French. It is... It would really anger the British people, would it


not? That is an interesting question, Andrew. I don't think it


would. All the evidence I see in public meetings I attended, and I


think it is beginning to show in the opinion polls, although there hasn't


been a proper one on this yet, I suspect there is a majority in


Britain who would wish to see a second referendum on the outcome.


They take the same view as I do. What began with an open democratic


process cannot end with a government stitch up. Contrary to what Owen


suggests, there is public support for this. And far from damaging the


government and the political class, it showed that we are prepared to


listen. We shall see. Paddy Ashdown, have you eaten your hat yet? Andrew,


as you well know, I have eaten five hats. You cannot have a second


referendum until you eat your hat on my programme. We will leave it


there. Paddy Ashdown and Owen Paterson, thank you much. I have


eaten a hat on your programme. I don't remember!


It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.


We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now


In the East Midlands, never mind the just managing jams,


what about those who are not managing at all?


We have brought the Chancellor's Autumn Statement to the town


that voted very heavily to leave the European Union.


And more money from the Chancellor for housing.


Will it be enough to cut the waiting list?


I don't think we've had a really good consistent housing policy for


Hello, I am Marie Ashby and my guests are the Conservative


former Chancellor himself, and the Labour MP for Gedling


Let's get your reaction to the Autumn Statement.


The Chancellor painted a picture of growing debt and


I was very reassured by the statement.


At last, after all the madness of the last few months,


there is the man who understands economic policy


and there is a sound and


tough guy when he needs to be talking about the real world.


And getting us all to face up to the fact that the next few


The global economy is in no great state either.


He explained how he is going to stick


to sensible economic policies and concentrate on what little money


he has got to try and develop a modern, competitive


economy to give people jobs for the future.


He is going to have to stick to that as well and not be


That infrastructure investment which has been promised is


Your party is attacking the Chancellor,


isn't it, for not tackling social care at all.


The first thing to say about the Autumn Statement was,


in or out of the EU, it was an admission of the failed


We now have a Government that can't see anything


about extra spending about on the NHS or social care


and is having to borrow an extra 122 billion over the period


of the next five years without a clear indication


of when the budget will come into surplus at the same


time as living standards are being squeezed.


I think people out there will see it as


an Autumn Statement that carries on the failed policies


He should apparently have spent a lot more money and somehow get rid


I think if you followed Vernon's remedy, the debt


Back in the real world, the fact is the


financial crash of 2006-2008 is the main cause of where


we were and we haven't successfully here or in the rest of


You predicted that there could be a recession.


After the Brexit vote, you predicted there could be a recession.


Could that still happen in your view?


I think there is a real risk of a recession.


I am usually quite a cheerful guy, as you will admit.


Yes, I think there is a serious risk of a recession in the next year


If that is the case, is it likely that Theresa May


I'm asking do you think she could do that?


The last Government that I was in that called


because it could not think of what else to do


What we need is a clear-headed man like Philip Hammond who is


not going to play silly short-term politics.


He knows you get lobbied for more money every time you go near the


House of Commons if you are the Chancellor.


A change of policy is


He was keen to spend money on infrastructure with more


than ?1 million for affordable housing.


Will that be enough to tackle the region's housing shortage?


Nottingham's new waterside neighbourhood is taking shape.


45 homes have just been finished on old


industrial land within spitting nistance of the city's sights.


The idea of living here on the banks of the Trent is


This development has taken 20 years to come about.


There are many other brown field sites in


Nottingham that have waited just as long to be built on.


On the surface things seem to be picking up.


In Nottingham, just over two and half thousand homes are


in the pipeline, being built or recently completed.


I guess the idea ultimately is that all of this land


we see in front of us here will be developed?


Yes, this is just the


start of a huge regeneration project.


There is economic uncertainty, however I think in


Nottingham we are determined to make this work.


We are determined to do


what we can to work with developers to bring sites forward, to make


development possible and to regenerate these areas.


The developer behind this project believes


successive governments could have done much more to help.


Arguably, we are not producing enough homes of the right type.


Clearly, the results show that we could doing better.


What did you make of the Autumn Statement?


The housing infrastructure fund is a step in the


The new money, additional money for affordable housing is important.


Some of the money announced on Wednesday's should


trickle down to the East Midlands and perhaps to affordable housing


Jordan has just moved into one of the new


council houses in a generation in this Conservative run district.


The local authority has paid for some of this


under the Right to Buy scheme and derelict houses are also


But money is tight and the extra cash on the Government is welcome.


It is fantastic news and we will be able to build more houses


We will be bidding for that money and building more developments


and getting people off the waiting lists.


45 families will have a new home here.


That is out of the waiting list of around a thousand.


The housing crisis will take some solving.


Housing is part of the big push on infrastructure.


What else is in it for the East Midlands?


We're joined by Maria Machancoses, the programme directors of


It is the body that has been set up to improve


Very few mentions of the Midland Engine in the Autumn Statement.


?5 million for a transport hub in Birmingham.


This is in addition to the 12 million that was announced


As you know, we are working very hard with the Trent eight


authorities and businesses, universities and colleges to submit


to Government our priorities. What this 5 million that we receive is to


help us shape some of the projects that we have in mind and these


projects will enable solutions to improve the east and west


connectivity between the cities and the towns. Tell us about those


projects. What will we see here in the Midlands? We will address some


the bottlenecks. They are not allowing businesses to connect with


each other in a faster and reliable way. There are a number of


interventions around Birmingham and also in the south-west and into the


East Midlands that would allow that connectivity to happen. That is what


we are calling the Midlands rail harp. We heard from a Economist last


week that says there are billions of pounds in cash for the Northern


Powerhouse. He could do it is a Government behind this Midland


engine? I believe in it strongly. We have got to spread the benefits of


economic success across the country. Stop it being in London and the


south-east. There is a limit to how far they can go down there. The


Midlands and the north should be able to support a moderate economy.


We have Rolls-Royce and hotel. Also a lot of smaller businesses. --


Toyota. Political lobbying and we have a marginal seat you, can we


have a bypass? We cannot afford that sort of stuff at the moment. I am


glad that Philip did not produce a list of projects that Gordon and


George did occasionally. What we need is for business people to focus


on where we need to spend money and cut business costs. Links between


Birmingham and Derby and Nottingham are attractive. Vernon Coker, can I


bring in here, is a Government behind this? I think I agree with


Ken about the need to secure economic growth. If we are talking


about transport and links with the east and west are important but the


big thing from our point of view is the lack that the Government is


saying they will lecture via the Midlands rail line by 2023. Nothing


is being said about that. Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield, the


electrification of that is very crucial. That is what businesses did


to me and the Government has not said anything at all. This is what


you are about, Maria. How concerned are you that this all education is


being delayed? It has been made clear that electrification on the


Midlands is very important. We are also putting the all education in


the context of high-speed rail to. It does seem sometimes that our


region is being sidelined. We are a waiting for it here and we're going


to be waiting long time for that. We had been talking about it for eight


years and we have not seen every evidence of it. I quite agree but


instead of going back to the usual political rows, equal to the West


Country and there's not enough coming here at, Scotland is


unfurling treated... Jobs are at stake. These are difficult times.


Why does it take so long? I would like to see that I would like to see


someone that electrified the Midlands rail line is the key


business. Business going to London could travel more comfortably


because it would be quieter. I want to see a good business case for what


that would do to stimulate economic activity. Jobs and investment


here... All of the big business leaders and people from the various


and people who use the line would and people who use the line would


all say the electrification make a big difference. When you have a


second-class line, as we have at the moment, it does influenced


investment decisions and the way people are talking about it.


High-speed rail going ahead is going to make a big difference. We might


as well have a moderate train. High-speed rail brings a new


capacity. That is important. I am glad that is steaming ahead.


Everyone else arguing what they would like to see in the real...


Another delay means businesses are very concerned about it. The money


you spend has got to be on something that has some immediate practical


impact. The only one that is not a electrified north to south. It is


the only one. It is a good service. It is not as good as it should be.


It is important. It is very important to show the certainty to


businesses and communities that we are doing our very best and planning


for the future to provide them for a faster and better connections,


north, south. What we are trying to do with the Midlands connect is that


certainty and providing businesses and the clear voice to Government


what it is we require in terms of infrastructure to support growth and


put us at the global stage. When will we see evidence of that? We are


submitting the final strategy in March and that will have a plan of


action. We will require when and hopefully it will be starting to get


the support from Government and getting them ready and starting now.


These projects take a long time to implement. We can see that. It is a


real thing and we are working with the Government of long-term planning


and support. Thank you very much indeed for joining us. We have


discussed some of the big policy ideas behind the Autumn Statement.


What affect will have on people here in the East Midlands? Here is our


political editor. We now know that Brexit means slow economic growth


and higher inflation. We have brought the Autumn Statement to


Mansfield, the town which voted 70% of all the European union -- leave


the European Union. When we get everything together we will be our


own country again and that is what we need. You do not think economic


bad news is enough to put you off? No, it will get better. I did not


think Brexit was a good idea but now we have gone that way it has to be


in the best interest of the country. You would hope so anyway. Modest and


medium term. Here in the final lounge it is all about people having


the money to spend. Productivity means sales and it is also about


getting here easily. That means spending money on transport


infrastructure. We need people into spend money and we also attract


people from further appeal to the field. People cannot get here, they


are not going to come and do that. -- further afield. The Autumn


Statement was trailed as one to help beat just about managing. There are


a lot of in that than to please. They are going to dig it off of us


-- to get off of us, the pensioners. There are people you lot worse off


than we are. Two independent think tank said said those on low incomes


face grim years. Credit unions use money to lend and encourage saving.


My message is to look at your budget and then at what you have coming in


and out and put something aside for a emergencies. Even a small amount


can make a big difference. What about those who have nothing?


Nowhere to sleep at night? The Government is going to spend ?10


million over two years. Is it enough? We are now seeing 39 people


sleeping rough in Nottingham on a single night. It was down to three


at one stage. The situation has got worse and got worse quickly. What we


need is not a ?10 million initiative, we need is a national


strategy. The Government delegated the responsibility to local


authorities. This is a national problem and not a local problem.


Back to those managing, a group which accounts for the politicians.


Does the Autumn Statement mean jam today and vote tomorrow? The


Institute for Fiscal Studies said that prospects for PR dreadful.


People on low wages may be earning less into thousand and 21 than in


2007. It is a grim outlook, isn't it? It is a very difficult time.


We... People have been badly hit by the fiscal collapse of a couple


years ago which we have not fully recovered from. There is no strong


economic growth taking place in any western country for very long. We


are getting to the end of the economic cycle and people who voted


to make themselves poor are believing the European Union, if


we're not careful. It is very difficult to look ahead without


telling yourself we have got to pull yourself together, pursue sensible


policies and make sure the living standards to go back to getting back


on a path. That means moderate businesses and moderate economy run


sensibly with access to the markets. Any reasons to be cheerful? Raising


the threshold in which people pay tax, increasing the living wage.


That is going to help people in work. It is going to be a tough


period. The choice of the Government have made are making that worse. If


you look at the Institute for Fiscal Studies are saying, it points out


the rise in the threshold is the freezing of work benefits has caused


problems. What could be Government have done, in your view, to made a


difference? It should not adopt look at the National insurance threshold.


What they should not have done was the changes to the in work benefits


which affect those people who are trying to do the right thing, going


to work. They are having more money ticking off them when they are at


work. That is a choice the Government has made. Some of the


backbenchers are saying that is the wrong thing to have done. As the


Government on the wrong thing? We were subsidising low pay, low


productivity and long hours culture with vast in work benefits which


have exploded over the last 20 years. We were running up debt and


relying on the tightness of strangers. The deficit... It was a


third of what it was in worst GDP ratio when Auden Brown went, thank


heavens. It has been difficult. -- Gordon. The immediate outlook is


worrying. The thing I would say is that if you go back to 2010 when


Labour lost the election, the economy was growing. The deficit was


falling and the economy was growing. It was the decisions made by the


coalition Government that choked off that growth and we had the severe


austerity imposed which turned out we were going to balance the books,


that field. We have ditched that moved to something else. We have


more people in work then we have before. We have created more than


30,000 jobs in three months as here. There are reasons to be positive,


are in there? You can point to that but what we point to is that living


standards have fallen. Living standards are likely to fall and if


you look at the analysis of the budget that has been made... The


Autumn Statement, rather. It is the purist and those just above that to


our paying the most. There are warnings that food inflation could


rise. That is not going to help anybody. All inflation is going to


rise a bit, I'm afraid. We have to minimise the impact. These are


predictions. They have been wrong before. We voted for Brexit and we


have had a crash in the value of sterling. People got the idea we


were going to leave the single market and the custom union... The


economy is growing. The economy is growing but it is slowing quite


rapidly. The idea that all we have to do is spend more public money...


All the people burning names are people I would love to be able to


help but Gordon is to have two budget eight year handing the stuff


out and he left us with the deepest recession... Time now for a round-up


of some of the other blood cult stories. Here's Tony with 60


seconds. -- the other political stories. The overnight closure of


the A services is to be referred to the Health Secretary. Campaigners


welcomed the move. The NHS as trust says it does not have enough doctors


to cover the overnight shifts. Plans to change the way Derby City Council


is elected have been rejected. Councillor voted against the planned


to switch to elections every four years. They will stick with the


current system of voting. Former striking miners and their families


have released a Christmas single to say thank you to the people who


provided food to help them through the 1984 strike. Proceeds of the


single will be given to food banks. There is a lack of Christmas cheer


in Leicester were some have said the city's tree is an embarrassment. The


council says it has had excellent feedback. It is not even December


yet. That is the Sunday politics here in the East Midlands. Thank you


to Ken Clarke and then in Cork for joining us in the studio. We will be


back next week. Now it is back to hand you back to Andrew


have got to make sure London is open. Thank you. Andrew, back to


you. Is Theresa May serious


about curbing executive pay? Who will be crowned Nigel Farage's


successor as Ukip leader? And can the Lib Dems pull off


a by-election upset in Richmond? So,,, on pay talk about the


executive of what executives get compared to the average worker in


the company, giving shareholders real power to vote down pay rises if


they don't like them, which is pretty much what Ed Miliband


proposed in the general election in 2015. Is she serious about this? She


is very serious, and the Tory party probably does owe Ed Miliband an


apology for trashing his ideas and 2015 and then putting them all up


for votes in November 20 16. She is very serious, and this all comes


back to her desperate fear that unless capitalism reforms itself and


becomes more acceptable to the just about managing or even 78% of the


country who are not earning vast wealth at anywhere near the figures


you see in the City, serious things will happen and the political sense


of trust will implode. She has already been bartered down by her


own Cabinet on this. She wanted to go further and make workers on the


board mandatory. They have managed to stop that. What will her fallback


position be on workers on the board if she is not able to get it into


some claw? We would like to have workers on the board, but whatever


they do on the board there will have no voting powers on the board. When


you look at what was leaked out over the weekend, that we should know the


ratio of the top to the average and that shareholders who own the


company should determine, in the end, the highest-paid salaries, you


kind of think, what could the possible objection be to any of


that? Two things. One, I agree with Tom that she is deadly serious about


this agenda and it comes under the banner, that sentence in the party


conference speech about "It's time to focus on the good that government


can do". She is by instinct more of an interventionist than Cameron and


Osborne. But she is incredibly cautious, whether it is through the


internal constraints of opposition within Cabinet, or her own small C


Conservative caution in implementing this stuff. Part of the problem is


the practicalities. George Osborne commission will Hutton to do a


report which came out with similar proposals, which were never


implemented. It is quite hard to enforce. It will antagonise business


leaders when she's to woo them again in this Brexit furore. So there are


problems with it. And judging by what has happened so far, my guess


is that the aim will be genuinely bold and interesting, and the


implementation incredibly cautious. Does it matter if she annoys some


business leaders? Isn't that part of her brand? Will there be problems on


the Tory backbenches with it? I think there will be and I think it


does matter at this sensitive time for when we are positioning


ourselves as a country and whether we are going to brand ourselves as a


great city of business, implementing quite interventionist policies. Any


suggestion that the government can control how much the top earners


get, I think would be received in a hostile way. What would be wrong


with the shareholders, who own the company, determining the pay of the


higher hands, the executives? Morally, you can absolutely make


that argument but to business leaders, they will not like it.


Ultimately, this will not come down to more than a row of beans. There


was a huge debate about whether there should be quotas of women on


boards. In the end, that never happened. All we get is figures. But


quotas of women, for which there is a case and a case against too, that


was a government mandate. This is not, this is simply empowering


shareholders who own the company to determine the pay of the people they


hire. There is a strong moral argument for it. Strong economic


argument. But the Tory backbenchers will not like this. The downside is


that this is a world where companies are thinking about upping sticks to


Europe. No, they say they are thinking of that. Not one has done


it yet. Others have made massive investments in this country. But is


it not an incentive for those making these threats to actually do it? In


Europe, bankers' pay is now mandated by Brussels. It is a vivid way of


showing you are addressing the issue of inequality. I think she will go


with it, but let's move on to Ukip. I think we will get the result


tomorrow. There are the top three candidates. Paul Nuttall, Suzanne


Evans and on my right, John Reid Evans. One of them will be the next


leader. Who is going to win? It is widely predicted to be Paul Nuttall


and is probably the outcome that the Labour Party fears most. Paul


Nuttall is a very effective communicator. He is not a household


name, far from it, but people will begin to learn more about him and


find that he is actually quite a strong leader. Can people Ukip


together again after this shambolic period since the referendum? If


anyone can, he can. And his brand of working collar, Northern Ukip is the


thing that will work for them. Do you think he is the favourite? It


would be amazing if he doesn't win. His greatest problem will be getting


Nigel Farage off his back. He is going on a speaking tour of North


America. A long speaking tour. Ukip won this EU referendum. They had the


chance to hoover up these discontented Labour voters in the


north, and all he has done is associated with Ukip with Farage.


But Nigel Farage is fed up of Ukip and will be glad to be hands of it.


The bigger problem is money. If it is Paul Nuttall, and we don't know


the results yet, but he is the favourite, if it is him, I would


suggest that that is the result Labour is frightened of most. To be


honest, I think they are frightened of Ukip whatever the result.


Possibly with good cause. The reason I qualify that is that what you call


a shambles over the summer has been something that goes beyond Monty


Python in its absurdity and madness. That calls into question whether it


can function as a political party when you have what has gone on. The


number of leaders itself has been an act of madness. In a context which


should be fantastic for them. They have won a referendum. There is a


debate about what form Brexit should take, it is a dream for them, and


they have gone bonkers. If he can turn it around, I agree that he is a


powerful media communicator, and then it is a threat to Labour. But


he has got to show that first. Indeed. The by-election in Richmond


in south-west London, called by Zac Goldsmith over Heathrow. Has it


turned out to be a by-election about Heathrow, or has it turned into a


by-election, which is what the Lib Dems wanted, about Brexit? We will


know on Thursday. If the Lib Dems win, they will turn it into an EU


referendum. It seems incredibly close now. The Lib Dems are swamping


Richmond. They had 1000 activists there yesterday. That is getting on


for 100th of the population of the place! If the Lib Dems don't manage


to win on Thursday and don't manage to turn it into an EU referendum


despite all their efforts, it will probably be a disaster for the


party. What do you hear, Isabel? I hear that the Lib Dems have


absolutely swamped the constituency, but this may backfire. I saw a bit


of this myself, living in Witney, when the Lib Dems also swamped and


people began to get fed up of their aggressive tactics. I understand


that Zac Goldsmith is cautiously optimistic that he will pull this


one off. Quick stab at the result? I don't know. But we are entering a


period when by-elections are acquiring significant again. If the


Lib Dems were to make a game, it would breathe life into that near


moribund party like nothing else. Similarly, other by-elections in


this shapeless political world we are in are going to become


significant. We don't know if we are covering it live on Thursday night


yet because we have to find at the time they are going to declare.


Richmond are quite late in declaring, but if it is in the early


hours, that is fine. If it is on breakfast television, they be not. I


want to show you this. Michael Gove was on the Andrew Marr Show this


morning. In the now notorious comment that I made, I was actually


cut off in midstream, as politicians often. The point I made was not that


all experts are that is nonsense. Expert engineers, doctors and


physicists are not wrong. But there is a subclass of experts,


particularly social scientists, who have to reflect on some of the


mistakes they have made. And the recession, which was predicted that


we would have if we voted to leave, has gone like a puff of smoke. So


economic experts, he talks about. The Chancellor has based all of his


forward predictions in this Autumn Statement on the economic expert


forecasters. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said it is 50-50,


which is the toss of a coin. But what was he supposed to do? You


would ideally have to have a Budget that had several sets of scenarios,


and that is impossible. Crystal ball territory. But you do wonder if


governments are right to do so much of their fiscal projections on the


basis of forecasts which turn out to be wrong. They have nothing else to


go on. The Treasury forecast is to be wrong. No doubt the OBR forecast


will prove not to be exact. As you say, they admitted that they are


navigating through fog at the moment. But he also added that it


was fog caused by Brexit. So Brexit, even if you accept that these


forecasts might be wrong, is causing such a level of uncertainty. He put


the figure at 60 billion. That could come to haunt him. He hasn't got a


clue. He admitted it. He said, Parliament mandates me to come up


with something, so I am going to give you a number. But I wouldn't


trust it if I were you, he basically said. I agree with you. The man who


borrowed 122 billion more off the back of a coin toss was Philip


Hammond. It begs the question, what does that say about the confidence


Philip Hammond has in his own government's renegotiation? Not a


huge amount. I agree. Philip Hammond quoted the OBR figures. He basically


said, this is uncertain and it looks bad, and on we go with it. It is a


very interesting situation, he said. He was for Remain and he works in a


department which regards it as a disaster, whatever everyone else


thinks. I have just been told we are covering the by-election. We are


part of the constitution. Jo Coburn will have more


Daily Politics tomorrow And I'll be back here on BBC One


next Sunday at 11. Remember - if it's Sunday,


it's the Sunday Politics. to signify the Africans


who were here. The story of Henry VIII


and his six wives and into the private lives


of Henry's six wives. My heart is filled with sorrow.


I am not a fool.


Andrew Neil and Marie Ashby present the latest political news, interviews and debate. They is joined by shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth MP, Liberal Democrat peer Lord Paddy Ashdown, the founder of Cobra Beer Lord Karan Bilimoria, the founder of Wetherspoons Tim Martin, and Kenneth Clarke MP. The political panel comprises Isabel Oakeshott, Tom Newton Dunn and Steve Richards.

Download Subtitles