Andrew discusses Brexit with former Conservative health secretary Stephen Dorrell and Australian high commissioner Alexander Downer, and looks at the issue of air pollution.
Browse content similar to 18/12/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Morning, folks, and welcome to the Sunday Politics.
Hard line remainers strike back at Brexit.
Are they trying to overturn the result of June's referendum
by forcing a second vote before we leave?
Australia's man in London tells us that life outside the EU "can be
pretty good" and that Brexit will "not be as hard as people say".
Could leaving the EU free Britain to do more business
It's been called "disgusting, dangerous and deadly"
but how polluted is our air, how bad for our health,
New funding for schools but will children in rural areas
benefit at the expense of inner-city pupils?
And we look back at a year of turmoil in politics.
And with me in the Sunday Politics grotto, the Dasher, Dancer
and Prancer of political punditry Iain Martin,
They'll be delivering tweets throughout the programme.
First this morning, some say they will fight
for what they call a "soft Brexit", but now there's an attempt by those
who campaigned for Britain to remain in the EU to allow the British
people to change their minds - possibly with a second referendum -
The Labour MEP Richard Corbett is revealed this morning to have
tried to amend European Parliament resolutions.
The original resolution called on the European Parliament
to "respect the will of the majority of the citizens
of the United Kingdom to leave the EU".
He also proposed removing the wording "stress that this wish
must be respected" and adding "while taking account of the 48.1%
The amendments were proposed in October,
but were rejected by a vote in the Brussels
Constitutional Affairs Committee earlier this month.
The report will be voted on by all MEPs in February.
Well, joining me now from Leeds is the Labour MEP who proposed
Good morning. Thanks for joining us at short notice. Is your aim to try
and reverse what happened on June 23? My aim with those amendments was
simply factual. It is rather odd that these amendments of two months
ago are suddenly used paper headlines in three very different
newspapers on the same day. It smacks of a sort of concerted effort
to try and slapped down any notion that Britain might perhaps want to
rethink its position on Brexit as the cost of Brexit emerges. You
would like us to rethink the position even before the cost urges?
I get lots of letters from people saying how one, this was an advisory
referendum won by a narrow majority on the basis of a pack of lies and a
questionable mandate. But if there is a mandate from this referendum,
it is surely to secure a Brexit that works for Britain without sinking
the economy. And if it transpires as we move forward, that this will be a
very costly exercise, then there will be people who voted leave who
said Hang on, this is not what I was told. I was told this would save
money, we could put it in the NHS, but if it is going to cost us and
our Monday leg, I would the right to reconsider. But
your aim is not get a Brexit that would work for Britain, your aim is
to stop it? If we got a Brexit that would work for Britain, that would
respect the mandate. But if we cannot get that, if it is going to
be a disaster, if it is going to cost people jobs and cost Britain
money, it is something we might want to pause and rethink. The government
said it is going to come forward with a plan. That is good. We need
to know what options to go for as a country. Do we want to stay in the
single market, the customs union, the various agencies? And options
should be costed so we can all see how much they cost of Brexit will
be. If you were simply going to try and make the resolution is more
illegal, why did the constitutional committee vote them down? This is a
report about future treaty amendments down the road for years
to come. This was not the main focus of the report, it was a side
reference, in which was put the idea for Association partnerships. Will
you push for the idea before the full parliament? I must see what the
text is. You said there is a widespread view in labour that if
the Brexit view is bad we should not exclude everything, I take it you
mean another referendum. When you were named down these amendments,
was this just acting on your own initiative, or acting on behalf of
the Labour Party? I am just be humble lame-duck MEP in the European
Parliament. It makes sense from any point of view that if the course of
action you have embarked on turns out to be much more costly and
disastrous than you had anticipated, that you might want the chance to
think again. You might come to the same conclusion, of course, but you
might think, wait a minute, let's have a look at this. But let's be
clear, even though you are deputy leader of Labour in the European
Parliament, you're acting alone and not as Labour Party policy? I am
acting in the constitutional affairs committee. All I am doing is stating
things which are common sense. If as we move forward then this turns out
to be a disaster, we need to look very carefully at where we are
going. But if a deal is done under Article 50, and we get to see the
shape of that deal by the end of 2019 under the two-year timetable,
in your words, we won't know if it is a disaster or not until it is
implemented. We won't be able to tell until we see the results about
whether it is good or bad, surely? We might well be able to, because
that has to take account of the future framework of relationships
with the European Union, to quote the article of the treaty. That
means we should have some idea about what that will be like. Will we be
outside the customs union, for instance, which will be very
damaging for our economy? Or will we have to stay inside and follow the
rules without having a say on them. We won't know until we leave the
customs union. You think it will be damaging, others think it will give
us the opportunity to do massive trade deals. My case this morning is
not what is right or wrong, we will not know until we have seen the
results. We will know a heck of a lot more than we do now when we see
that Article 50 divorce agreement. We will know the terms of the
divorce, we will know how much we still have to pay into the EU budget
for legacy costs. We will know whether we will be in the single
market customs union or not. We will know about the agencies. We will
know a lot of things. If the deal on the table looks as if it will be
damaging to Britain, then Parliament will be in its rights to say, wait a
minute, not this deal. And then you either renegotiate or you reconsider
the whole issue of Brexit or you find another solution. We need to
leave it there but thank you for joining us.
Iain Martin, how serious is the attempt to in effect an wind what
happened on June 23? I think it is pretty serious and that interview
illustrates very well the most damaging impact of the approach
taken by a lot of Remainers, which is essentially to say with one
breath, we of course accept the result, but with every action
subsequent to that to try and undermine the result or try and are
sure that the deal is as bad as possible. I think what needed to
happen and hasn't happened after June 23 is you have the extremists
on both sides and you have in the middle probably 70% of public
opinion, moderate leaders, moderate Remainers should be working together
to try and get British bespoke deal. But moderate Leavers will not take
moderate Remainers seriously if this is the approach taken at every
single turn to try and rerun the referendum. He did not say whether
it was Labour policy? That was a question which was ducked. I do not
think it is Labour Party policy. I think most people are in a morass in
the middle. I think the screaming that happens when anybody dares to
question or suggest that you might ever want to think again about these
things, I disagree with him about having another referendum but if he
wants to campaign for that it is his democratic right to do so. If you
can convince enough people it is a good idea then he has succeeded. But
the idea that we would do a deal and then realise this is a really bad
deal, let's not proceed, we will not really know that until the deal is
implemented. What our access is to the single market, whether or not we
are in or out of the customs union which we will talk about in a
minute, what immigration policy we will have, whether these are going
to be good things bad things, surely you have got to wait for four, five,
six years to see if it has worked or not? Yes, and by which stage
Parliament will have voted on it and there will be no going back from it,
or maybe there will. We are talking now about the first three months of
2019. That is absolutely the moment when Parliament agrees with Theresa
May or not. One arch remain I spoke to, and arch Remainiac, he said that
Theresa May will bring this to Parliament in 2019 and could say I
recommend that we reject it. What is he on or she? Some strong chemical
drugs! The point is that all manner of things could happen. I don't
think any of us take it seriously for now but the future is a very
long way away. Earlier, the trade Secretary Liam Fox was asked if we
would stay in the customs union after Brexit.
There would be limitations on what we would do in terms of tariff
setting which could limit the deals we would do, but we want to look at
all the different deals. There is hard Brexit and soft Brexit as if it
is a boiled egg we are talking about. Turkey is in part of the
customs union but not other parts. What we need to do is look at the
cost. This is what I picked up. The government knows it cannot remain a
member of the single market in these negotiations, because that would
make us subject to free movement and the European Court. The customs
union and the Prime Minister 's office doesn't seem to be quite as
binary, that you can be a little bit in and a little bit out, but I would
suggest that overall Liam Fox knows to do all the trade deals we want to
do we basically have to be out. But what he also seems to know is that
is a minority view in Cabinet. He said he was not going to give his
opinion publicly. There is still an argument going on about it in
Cabinet. When David Liddington struggled against Emily Thornbury
PMQs, he did not know about the customs union. What is apparent is
Theresa May has not told him what to think about that. If we stay in the
customs union we cannot do our own free trade deals. We are behind the
customs union, the tariff barriers set by Europe? Not quite. Turkey is
proof of the pudding. There are limited exemptions but they can do
free trade with their neighbours. Not on goods. They are doing a trade
deal with Pakistan at the moment, it relies on foreign trade investment
but Europe negotiates on turkey's behalf on the major free-trade
deals. This is absolutely why the customs union will be the fault line
for the deal we are trying to achieve. Interestingly, I thought
Liam Fox suggested during that interview that he was prepared to
suck up whatever it was. I think he was saying there is still an
argument and he intends to win it. He wants to leave it because he
wants to do these free-trade deals. There is an argument in the cabinet
about precisely that. The other thing to consider is in this country
we have tended to focus too much on the British angle in negotiations,
but I think the negotiations are going to be very difficult. You look
at the state of the EU at the moment, you look at what is
happening in Italy, France, Germany, look at the 27. It is possible I
think that Britain could design a bespoke sensible deal but then it
becomes very difficult to agree which is why I ultimately think we
are heading for a harder Brexit. It will be about developing in this
country. So, we've had a warning this week
that it could take ten years to do a trade deal
with the EU after Brexit. But could opportunities to expand
trade lie elsewhere? Australia was one of the first
countries to indicate its willingness to do a deal
with the UK and now its High Commissioner in London has told
us that life outside the EU He made this exclusive film
for the Sunday Politics. My father was the Australian High
Commissioner in the early 70s when the UK joined
the European Union, Now I'm in the job,
the UK is leaving. Australia supported
Britain remaining a member of the European Union,
but we respect the decision that Now that the decision has been made,
we hope that Britain will get on with the process
of negotiating their exit from the European Union and make
the most of the opportunities that Following the referendum decision,
Australia approached the British Government
with a proposal. We offered, when the time was right,
to negotiate a free trade agreement. The British and Australian
governments have already established a working group to explore a future,
ambitious trade agreement once A free trade agreement will provide
great opportunities for consumers Australian consumers could purchase
British-made cars for less We would give British
households access to cheaper, Our summer is during your winter,
so Australia could provide British households with fresh produce
when the equivalent British or Australian households would have
access to British products Free-trade agreements
are also about investment. The UK is the second-largest source
of foreign investment in Australia. By the way, Australia also invests
over ?200 billion in the UK, so a free trade agreement
would stimulate investment, But, by the way, free-trade
agreements are not just about trade and investment,
they are also about geopolitics. Countries with good trade relations
often work more closely together in other fields including security,
the spread of democracy We may have preferred
the UKto remain in the EU, We may have preferred the UK
to remain in the EU, but life outside as we know can
be pretty good. We have negotiated eight free-trade
agreements over the last 12 years, including a free-trade agreement
with the United States This is one of the reasons why
the Australian economy has continued to grow over the last 25 years
and we, of course, are not Australia welcomes Theresa May's
vision for the UK to become a global We are willing to help
in any way we can. Welcome to the programme. The
Australian government says it wants to negotiate an important trade deal
with the UK as efficiently and promptly as possible when Brexit is
complete. How prompt is prompt? There are legal issues obviously.
The UK, for as long as it remains in the EU, cannot negotiate individual
trade deals. Once it leaves it can. We will negotiate a agreement with
the UK when the time is right, by which we mean we can do preliminary
examination. Are you talking now about the parameters? We are talking
already, we have set up a joint working group with the British
Government and we are scoping the issue to try to understand what
questions will arise in any negotiation. But we cannot have
formally a negotiation. Until the country is out. Why is there no
free-trade deal between Australia and the European Union? It is a long
and tortuous story. Give me the headline. Basically Australian
agriculture is either banned or hugely restricted in terms of its
access to the European Union. So we see the European Union, Australia's,
is a pretty protectionist sort of organisation. Now we are doing a
scoping study on a free-trade agreement with the European Union
and we hope that next year we can enter into negotiations with them.
But we have no illusions this would be a very difficult negotiation, but
one we are giving priority to. Is there not a danger that when Britain
leaves the EU the EU will become more protectionist? This country has
always been the most powerful voice for free trade. I hope that does not
happen, but the reason why we wanted Britain to remain in the European
Union is because it brought to the table the whole free-trade mentality
which has been an historic part of Britain's approach to international
relations. Without the UK in the European Union you will lose that.
It is a very loud voice in the European Union and you will lose
that voice and that will be a disadvantage. The figure that jumped
out of me in the film is it to you only 15 months to negotiate a
free-trade deal with the United States. Yes, the thing is it is
about political will. A free-trade agreement will be no problem unless
you want to protect particular sectors of your economy. In that
case there was one sector the Americans insisted on protecting and
that was their sugar industry. In the end after 15 months of
negotiation two relatively free trading countries have fixed up
nearly everything. But we had to ask would be go ahead with this
free-trade agreement without sugar west we decided to do that. Other
than that it was relatively easy to negotiate because we are both
free-trade countries. With the UK you cannot be sure, but I do not
think a free-trade agreement would take very long to negotiate with the
UK because the UK would not want to put a lot of obstacles in the way to
Australia. Not to give away our hand, we would not want to put a lot
of obstacles in the way of British exports. The trend in recent years
is to do big, regional trade deals, but President-elect Donald Trump has
made clear the Pacific trade deal is dead. The transatlantic trade deal
is almost dead as well. The American election put a nail in the coffin
and the French elections could put another nail in the coffin. Are we
returning to a world of lateral trade deals, country with country
rather than regional blocs? Not necessarily. In the Asia Pacific we
will look at multilateral trade arrangements and even if the
transpacific partnership is not ratified by the Americans, we have
other options are there. However, our approach has been the ultimate
would be free-trade throughout the world which is proving hard to
achieve. Secondly, if we can get a lot of countries engaged in a
free-trade negotiation, that is pretty good if possible. But it is
more difficult. But we do bilateral trade agreements. We have one with
China, Japan, the United States, Singapore, and the list goes on, and
they have been hugely beneficial to Australia. You have been dealing
with the EU free deal, what lessons are there? How quickly do you think
Britain could do a free-trade deal with the EU if we leave? Well, there
is a completely different concept involved in the case of Britain and
the EU and that is at the moment there are no restrictions on trade.
So you and the EU would be talking about whether you will direct
barriers to trade. We are outsiders and we do not get too much involved
in this debate except to say we do not want to see the global trade
system disrupted by the direction of tariff barriers between the United
Kingdom, the fifth biggest economy in the world, and the European
Union. Our expectation is not just the British but the Europeans will
try to make the transition to Brexit as smooth as possible particularly
commercially. Say yes or no if you can. If Britain and Australia make a
free-trade agreement, would that include free movement of the
Australian and the British people? We will probably stick with our
present non-discriminatory system. Australia does not discriminate
against any country. The European Union's free movement means you
discriminate against non-Europeans. Probably not.
It could lead to a ban on diesel cars, prevent the building
of a third runway at Heathrow, and will certainly make it
more expensive to drive in our towns and cities.
Air pollution has been called the "public health crisis
of a generation" - but just how serious is the problem?
40,000 early deaths result from air pollution every year in the UK.
Almost 10,000 Londoners each year die prematurely.
It seems at times we can get caught up in alarming assertions
about air pollution, that this is a public health
emergency, that it is a silent killer, coming from politicians,
But how bad is air quality in Britain really?
Tony Frew is a professor in respiratory medicine and works
at Brighton's Royal Sussex County Hospital.
He has been looking into the recent claims
It's a problem and it affects people's health.
But when people start talking about the numbers
of deaths here, I think they are misusing the statistics.
There have been tremendous improvements in air quality
There is a lot less pollution than there used to be
and none of that is coming through in the public
So what does Professor Frew make of the claim that alarming levels
of toxicity in the air in the UK causes 40,000 deaths each year?
It is not 40,000 people who should have air pollution
on their death certificate, or 40,000 people who
It's a lot of people who had a little bit of life shortening
To examine these figures further we travelled to Cambridge to visit
I asked him about the data on which these claims
They come from a study on how mortality rates in US cities
First of all, it is important to realise that that 40,000 figure
29,000, which are due to fine particles, and another 11,000
I will just talk about this group for a start.
These are what are known as attributable deaths.
Known as virtual deaths, they come from a complex statistical model.
Quite remarkably it all comes from just one number and this
was based on a study of US cities and they found out that
by monitoring these cities over decades that the cities which had
a higher level of pollution had a higher mortality rate.
They estimated that there was a 6% increased risk of dying
each year for each small increase in pollution.
So this is quite a big figure, but it is important to realise
it is only a best estimate and the committee that advises
the government says that this figure could be between 1% and 12%.
So this 6% figure is used to work out the 29,000
Yes, through a rather complex statistical model.
And a similar analysis gives rise to the 11,000 attributable deaths
How much should we invest in cycling?
Should we build a third runway at Heathrow?
We need reliable statistics to answer those questions,
but can we trust the way data is being used by campaigners?
I think there are people who have such a passion for the environment
and for air pollution that they don't really
see it as a problem if they are deceiving the public.
Greenpeace have been running a campaign claiming that breathing
London's air is the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day.
If you smoke 15 cigarettes a day through your adult life,
that will definitely take ten years off your life expectancy.
If you are poor and you are in social class five,
compared to social class one, that would take seven
If you are poor and you smoke, that will take 17 years off your life.
Now, we are talking about possibly, if we could get rid of all
of the cars in London and all of the road transport,
we could make a difference of two micrograms per metre squared in air
pollution which might save you 30 days of your life.
There is no doubt that air pollution is bad for you,
but if we exaggerate the scale of the problem and the impact
on our health, are we at risk of undermining the case for making
And we are joined now by the Executive Director
You have called pollution and national crisis and a health
emergency. Around the UK are levels increasing or falling? They are
remaining fairly static in London. Nationally? If you look at the
studies on where air pollution is measured, in 42 cities around the
UK, 38 cities were found to be breaking the legal limit on air
pollution so basically all of the cities were breaking the limit so if
you think eight out of ten people live in cities, obviously, this is
impacting a lot of people around the UK. We have looked at in missions of
solvent dioxide, they have fallen and since 1970, nitrogen dioxide is
down 69%. Let me show you a chart. There are the nitrogen oxides which
we have all been worried about. That chart shows a substantial fall from
the 1970s, and then a really steep fall from the 1980s. That is
something which is getting better. You have to look at it in the round.
If you look at particulates, and if you look at today's understanding of
the health impact. Let's look at particulates. We have been really
worried about what they have been doing to our abilities to breathe
good air, again, you see substantial improvement. Indeed, we are not far
from the Gothenberg level which is a very high standard. What you see is
it is pretty flat. I see it coming down quite substantially. Over the
last decade it is pretty flat. If you look at the World Health
Organisation guidelines, actually, these are at serious levels and they
need to come down. We know the impact, particularly on children, if
you look at what is happening to children and children's lungs, if
you look at the impact of asthma and other impacts on children in cities
and in schools next to main roads where pollution levels are very
high, the impact of very serious. You have many doctors, professors
and many studies by London University showing this to be true.
The thing is, we do not want pollution. If we can get rid of
pollution, let's do it. And also we also have to get rid of CO2 which is
causing climate change. We are talking air pollution at the moment.
The point is there is not still more to do, it is clear there is and
there is no question about that, my question is you seem to deny that we
have made any kind of progress and that you also say that air pollution
causes 40,000 deaths a year in the UK, that is not true. The figure is
40,000 premature deaths is what has been talked about by medical staff.
Your website said courses. It causes premature deaths. What we are
talking about here is can we solve the problem of air pollution? If air
pollution is mainly being caused by diesel vehicles then we need to
phase out diesel vehicles. If there are alternatives and clean Turner
tips which will give better quality of air, better quality of life and
clean up our cities, then why don't we take the chance to do it? You had
the Australian High Commissioner on this programme earlier. He said to
me earlier, why is your government supporting diesel? That is the most
polluting form of transport. That may well be right but I am looking
at Greenpeace's claims. You claim it causes 40,000 deaths, it is a figure
which regularly appears. Let me quote the committee on the medical
effects of air pollutants, it says this calculation, 40,000 which is
everywhere in Greenpeace literature, is not an estimate of the number of
people whose untimely death is caused entirely by air pollution,
but a way of representing the effect across the whole population of air
pollution when considered as a contributory factor to many more
individual deaths. It is 40,000 premature deaths. It could be
premature by a couple of days. It could me by a year. -- it could be
by a year. It could also be giving children asthma and breathing
difficulties. We are talking about deaths. It could also cause stroke
and heart diseases. Medical experts say we need to deal with this. Do
you believe air pollution causes 40,000 deaths a year. I have defined
that. You accept it does not? It leads to 40,000 premature deaths.
But 40,000 people are not killed. You say air pollution causes 40,000
deaths each year on your website. I have just explained what I mean by
that in terms of premature deaths. The question is, are we going to do
something about that? Air pollution is a serious problem. It is mainly
caused by diesel. If we phased diesel out it will solve the problem
of air pollution and deal with the wider problem of climate change. I
am not talking about climate change this morning. Let's link to another
claim... Do you want to live in a clean city? Do you want to breathe
clean air? Yes, don't generalise. Let's stick to your claims. You have
also said living in London on your life is equivalent to smoking 50
cigarettes a day. That is not true either. What I would say is if you
look at passive smoking, it is the equivalent of I don't know what the
actual figure is, I can't remember offhand, but it is the equivalent
effect of about ten cigarettes being smoked passively. The question is in
terms of, you are just throwing me out all of these things... I am
throwing things that Greenpeace have claimed. Greenpeace have claimed
that living in London is equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day and
that takes ten years off your life. Professor Froome made it clear to us
that living in London your whole life with levels of pollution does
take time off your life but it takes nine months of your life. Nine
months is still too much, I understand that, but it is not ten
years and that is what you claim. I would suggest you realise that is a
piece of propaganda because you claim on the website, you have taken
it down. I agree it has been corrected and I agree with what the
professor said that maybe it takes up to a year off your life, but the
thing is, there are much more wider issues as well, in terms of the
impact on air pollution, and in terms of the impact on young
children. We can argue about the facts... But these are your claims,
this is why I am hitting it to you. It does not get away from the
underlying issue that air pollution is a serious problem. We are not
arguing for a moment that it is not. Do you think the way you exaggerate
things, put false claims, in the end, for of course we all agree
with, getting the best air we can, you undermine your credibility? I
absolutely do not support false claims and if mistakes have been
made then mistakes have been made and they will be corrected. I think
the key issue is how we are going to deal with air pollution. Clearly,
diesel is the biggest problem and we need to work out a way how we can
get away from diesel as quickly and fast as possible. Comeback and see
us in the New Year and we will discuss diesel. Thank you.
It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.
We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now
More money for some schools, but cuts for others
as the Government tries to make funding fairer.
We have to stop thinking about schools as a cost to society
but think about investing in education as investing
And which of our politicians will be celebrating around the Christmas
tree and who'll be glad to see the back of 2016?
We'll be picking the winners and losers in what's been
an eventful year for politics and for our East
My guests this week are two MPs who were both on the winning side
of the big argument of 2016, backing Leave in the referendum.
Andrew Bridgen is the Conservative MP for North West Leicestershire
and John Mann is Labour's MP for Bassetlaw.
First, let's look at the changes to social care announced this week.
The Government's allowing councils to increase council tax to raise
more money to tackle what's becoming a growing problem.
Andrew Bridgen, councils are saying that it is really disappointing
that the Government is not simply just giving them more money
Well, the Government just doesn't have more money,
all of the money comes from the taxpayer anyway.
But this is a hypothecated tax, the money must be
We know there is a huge and growing need with an ageing population
and it will be spent locally, but it is not just all about money,
it is about integrating social care and health.
John Mann, Andrew Bridgen says that the Government is tackling
the problem as much as it can, Labour has ducked this
Well, there has been a ?4.6 billion cut since 2010,
that is quite a lot of care that is not going on
Actually, Andrew has got part of it right,
if we merged the social care, let the NHS run social care.
I have made that demand of government in my area,
we will be the first to do it and the Government
It has been talked about for years, however, and it has not happened.
I have actually made that demand as well.
We are the only developed country that has health and social care
in separate budgets but one of the problem is that
the Government do not want to be accused of another
However, you have to make health and social care work together,
otherwise it will just fall in between two budgets
What we should do is let the NHS run social care in one
The NHS has not got enough money either, though, has it?
I want a situation where old people can live their lives in dignity
and not what we have at the moment, which is a lottery
That is what a civilised country should be.
That is what I want as well, that is why people have to keep
voting Conservative to keep the economy going and so that we can
have proper public services and not go bankrupt like we always do
But in Leicestershire, Andrew, they are having to make
This money that they will get in is just a drop in the ocean
when it comes to paying for social care.
It is 3% on council tax this year, 3% next year...
Which they have said is still not enough, the councils say.
Plus an extra 900 million and a fund of 284 million to top up councils
whose council tax take will not be as big because they have
They have said that is a drop in the ocean.
It is an issue that is going to get more acute because we have an ageing
population, we are all living longer, there are many people out
there with complex mobilities and we need to keep them
in a lifestyle in their home for as long as possible, people
do not want to end their lives in hospital for the last few years.
Education has been a major concern in the East Midlands for decades
now, with some of the poorest performing schools in the country.
This week, the Government attempted to tackle the problem with plans
for a radical overhaul of how schools are funded.
It's aimed at ending an imbalance which means city schools get more
But some critics say it means some of our worst performing areas
The Christmas holidays are tantalisingly close and today's
lesson has a seasonal theme, but money worries mean
that their headteacher is struggling to feel festive.
We are just about making ends meet but we're aware that it is becoming
more and more difficult every year and the things that will go
are those things that enhance the curriculum -
theatre groups, visits out, but also, you know, losing
teaching assistants, additional support in the classrooms
are things that no other schools are having to consider at the moment
and that will make a real difference to what we are able to do.
Our school funding system, as it exists today, it's unfair,
The new funding formula announced this week by the Education Secretary
could actually leave Hillocks Primary better off.
Schools in Nottinghamshire currently receive around ?4,300
each year per pupil, but if you go down the road
And this is one of the schools that benefits from the current formula,
although parents at Ellis Guilford in Nottingham did help to foot
In Leicestershire, the county council's long argued
Obviously, the funding announcement is very welcome.
We regard that as a step in the right direction.
But we need the technical advice to look behind the figures that have
And that's where the Government, I think, have been quite clever.
They have not said they will do this overnight, they have said
there will be a limit on how much any one school can lose or gain.
The new system is supposed to make things fairer.
There will be around 10,000 schools better off
But the National Audit Office says overall, schools face a real terms
budget cut of 8% over the next three years.
The head here is also a senior vice president of the NUT and she thinks
If we are in a position where we are not able to give them
pay increases and we are not able to provide additional
support in classrooms, that'll be another reason
We have to stop thinking about schools as a cost to society,
but think about investing in education as investing
The Government's shiny new funding model has arrived giftwrapped
in time for Christmas, but the decorations will be long
gone before we really understand its impact.
So, some good news there for rural areas with more money for them,
but as we heard, it's coming from areas which many say need it
Well, I have been a long-time campaigner in the F40 group
for school funding and I think in Leicestershire we are going to
Historically, we have either been the lowest funded per pupil
in the country and I think we are now the second lowest.
We have had a situation which you cannot defend,
where every people in Birmingham is funded ?1000 a year more
than pupils in my constituency and even pupils in Leicester
It is much fairer because it is looking at it on a school basis.
I have some pockets of deprivation as high as anywhere in the City
of Westminster in my constituency which were not getting
the funded they needed, this should sort that out.
But the facts speak for themselves, don't they,
You look at the counties, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire,
Leicestershire, they are generally above the national average for GCSEs
but the cities, Nottingham, Derby, Leicester are below.
Nottingham and Derby are actually in the bottom 20,
so those facts speak for themselves, the cities need more money,
They do because of attainment problems, but if you actually look
at the Secretary of State's statement, that is being taken
into account as well, so it is deprivation and also
attainment, so where there are issues around attainment,
It will be on a school by school basis.
I have already looked at some of the detailed figures,
not every school in my constituency will get an increase,
Well, one of the ironies is when you are having
your Christmas dinner, you will be raising a toast
to the highest best performing schools in the country
with an increase, and that is, of course, Bassetlaw,
which has been totally transformed over the last ten years.
Now, that has required money, but this formula, attainment,
we will be doing too well and they will be telling us we have
State funding of schools, now, you are doing a bit too good...
Actually, mine is a relatively deprived area compared
to most of the country, so we need the money.
So, as ever, there is a sting in the tail with this Tory government.
They pretend to be giving money and then they pull some of it back.
There has been a historical imbalance, hasn't there, on this?
Why should my area get less money...?
Have a tape playing - we need more money.
Actually, I will have some of your money because some of your areas
We are already the third lowest per pupil...
The biggest increase is in the south-east of England
Hang on a minute, looking at some of the posh areas down there...
Is the East Midlands losing out again?
The East Midlands is gaining a bit but it should be gaining more
Why are the kids in my area not funded as well as say
Where would you get all this money from them? I would have some from
Weybridge and Woking. Aside from arguments about what tax should be,
just with the money that is available, we can do better. That is
the version of socialism that John mine likes... Take from the richer
areas, where they are getting more money than we are, actually, that
was the campaign. We were sat together arguing about this. These
areas are getting too much money, we should have favour funding. That is
what the fairer funding campaign was about. We watched together. Your lot
is twisted in the end. My area is doing really well, brilliant
teachers, brilliant schools. The best in Nottinghamshire for the
first time ever and you squeeze some money off of us... Hang on a minute,
reward success, do not punish it. Reward success, that is great coming
from a socialist! But you are not doing so! You have schools that are
bottom of the pile, know they are top of the pile, that is brilliant,
but then you take money away from them. There has got to be a level
that you cannot go below in terms of funding because you have to fund the
electricity bill, the teachers, in Leicestershire, I have schools with
teachers because of their commitment to the school have not taken their
girls cannot afford to pay them. Why girls cannot afford to pay them. Why
not find out a few things that we could get rid of, like the House of
Lords! Save some money and put that into the schools. The government
departments like the Department for Education good shift that... That is
only to save money! Some people might argue it is not the way. But
it would be a very effective way. Some of the ways in which money is
wasted by this government, that would be very sensible. We could
join together on that, go into Parliament on Monday and say, we
need a little bit more. This is how you do it. I think you are taking
the festive feeling a little bit too far.
From Brexit, to coups, to massive changes in government.
And the East Midlands and its politicians have
So who's had a good year, who's had a bit of a turkey?
And what does next year have in store?
Our political editor, Tony Roe, looks back at a memorable 2016.
2016, the year when pretty much all the political punditry was wrong.
Prediction number one, there will be an EU referendum
Prediction number two, Hillary Clinton will be US president.
Doubts were there for those Labour campaigners on the ground
Gordon Brown came here to De Montfort University,
the problem was, Gordon Brown was speaking to those who were
Those wanting to leave took to the streets.
It was a big surprise when the referendum result came.
It either caused political careers to crash or they were reinvigorated.
Well, somebody's gone smack into this poor thing.
Rutland's Sir Alan Duncan went from being in charge of decluttering
the nation's road signs to representing the Government
at Fidel Castro's funeral as a Foreign Office Minister.
They are ugly, unnecessary, get rid of the whole lot.
But there was Labour mutiny in the East Midlands
In one heady weekend in June, Gloria De Piero resigned
from the Shadow Cabinet, closely followed by
Lilian Greenwood, then Vernon Coaker stood down,
before Toby Perkins resigned the next day.
Well, good morning, everybody, thank you very much
In the real Cabinet, a case of unhappy families and a loss
New premier Theresa May discarded Nicky Morgan as Education Secretary,
Baroness Stowell of Beeston stepped down as Leader of
Patrick McLoughlin moved from Transport Secretary to chairman
And Anna Soubry resigned from her role as Business Minister
and became a standard bearer for those campaigning
Anna Soubry is the voice of reason for the Remain campaign.
The politician who Theresa May was happy to get rid
Jon Ashworth stayed in the Shadow Cabinet
as Shadow Health Secretary but he lost his place
And Keith Vaz lost the prestigious chair of the Home Affairs Committee
Political predictions, eh, who would make them
If Brexit fails, and there is a civil war in the Tory Party,
I could see Anna Soubry standing against Theresa May.
The one thing that Margaret Thatcher and the Tories never gets...
What we could get in 2017 is a Labour Party splitting.
Remember how the experts scoffed when a man in his 60s
Well, we all know what happened to Leicester City in 2016.
Jeremy Corbyn's test in the world of politics will come in May's
They could be a real game-changer in 2017.
Let us have a quick look at your own personal memorable moments of the
year. Andrew, this is you supporting Andrea Leadsom for leader of your
party. John Mann, this issue berating Ken Livingstone for his
comments on Hitler. Quite a memorable year, Mark I am sure you
will both agree. The theme that emerges is that loss
of influence, that loss of Cabinet members around the table, is that
quite worrying, Andrew? Not really, you cannot speak out necessarily
about issues that may be the particular concern to the region. I
do not think either myself or John have been shrinking violets from the
backbenches. But we need as many of you to do that on our behalf. But we
have more people from the backbenchers speaking out on behalf
of the East Midlands. Or that the referendum come from? It came from
the backbenches. Has there been a lot of influence with the loss of
these Cabinet members? No, politicians come and go, that is
always the case. The public do not really give a dam. There are as many
MPs as they were in the East Midlands, but it is the arguments,
can they win the big arguments? That is what next year will bring. Who is
speaking up for us then at the table from your party, apart from
yourself? On what issue? When it comes to Bassetlaw Hospital, for
example, I can assure you that when they try and cut that back like they
have done the Grantham and Newark hospital, I will be there because
that is my job with my constituents. That is how you have influence. The
big issues, there are lots of big issues facing us. Not just the
agenda is that the Government brings into Parliament, minor stuff, I am
not saying it is not stuff that should be debated and laws passed,
but it is my lust for a lot of it, the big debates and big arguments,
we are in The Thick Of It and that is what people should expect of
their MPs. We have got as much influence today as they had one year
ago. What about Brexit, Andrew Bridgen,
that will help us specifically here in the East Midlands? We are trying
to talk up the economy. We have the highest levels of economic growth
outside of London. Leicestershire has the highest in Leicestershire.
the rail free interchange. They the rail free interchange. They
start constructing that next month. 7000 more jobs, I have to make sure
that we have the connectivity to the rail infrastructure so that
unemployed people in Leicester, Derby at Nottingham can come and
take the 7000 jobs because I have only got 455 people employed in my
constituency. We'll Brexit work in Bassetlaw? It will work but what we
need to do is look at the benefits. I expect the government to get its
format through to guarantee those employment rights such as paid
holidays that came from Europe, we should instil them into British law,
I predict we will do that next year. How long will that take because this
week we are hearing it could take ten years just to sort out the
deals? I predict that will happen and be concluded next year. The laws
need to be changed in this country and they will be done in a matter of
months and not years. There is a lot of nonsense talk and that is people
who are trying to rerun the referendum campaign. I want to go
year with Brexit, let us get rid of year with Brexit, let us get rid of
zero-hour contracts that have zero-hour contracts that have
plagued areas like mine that the plagued areas like mine that the
European enshrined in law in this country. Here is a real opportunity
to allow people to when they go to work on a Monday morning, not to
have to know that they do not know how much they will earn, how many
hours they are working... Let us get some decent standards back in this
country, the opportunities are there. We are escaping from the EU
and the big fear from the EU ruling elite is that they will be a lot of
countries that want to follow us down the tunnel. There is a big
danger from the EU in these negotiations... Let us face it, as
they do not want to negotiate, we cannot do that. However long
timescale we set, it will never be long enough. When the German Carter
and the French wine producer and the Spanish waiter realise that the EU
elites are not acting in their interest, I think the EU could have
big problems. What about HS2, that is another big issue going into
2017, have you softened your position on that at all? No, I think
that with things brought in by George Osborne, I think that HS2
should have been in the bin with those. There is no good route, we
have a new route through a phase two. That says ?900 million but
which is the problem elsewhere and nobody wants it. If a Jez Toogood
for you in Bassetlaw? If the money is shifted to the east Coast Main
Line, get rid of the level crossings, I am eating Network Rail
in January to get that of the eight level crossings in Bassetlaw which
prevent -- present a safety risk and slowdown trains. We could properly
electrify that line all the way through and do up the stations, more
trains on it, that is what I would spend the money on. Perhaps we can
priorities in the New Year, you have priorities in the New Year, you have
mentioned the NHS. Absolutely, above everything else is to save Bassetlaw
hospital. Trying to stop the children's ward from being 24 hours,
trying to get rid of the accident and immense unit, the, centre, we
will not be prepared to go the way that Newark did. The way that
Grantham is going as well... People are having to fight to keep their
hospital alive. That is absolutely fundamental, that is my number one
priority. Any government minister who wants to try and mess around
with my hospital, you are dealing with me and 100,000 of my
constituents. You will be fighting that out over the Cabinet table, I
am sure. Time now for a round-up of some
of the other political stories 500 people have joined
a campaign fighting plans for private security patrols
in a Nottinghamshire village. Syston Parish Council says police
cuts means that the village The new group says that
crime is not a problem. In the last week, members have
started a youth disco Some derby schools will close over
the next two days because of strike They are opposing changes to pay
and working conditions. Grantham MP Nick Boles
made his voice heard in the Commons He texted his colleague
Robert Jenrick over his campaign to restore 24-hour emergency
services in Grantham. So, would my right honourable
friend, the Prime Minister, receive the petition he has
organised, ensure that the passionate views
of his constituents are heard? The Prime Minister said
the Government was listening. Nottingham City Council has launched
the country's first all-electric park-and-ride bus service to improve
air quality in the city, which is That's the Sunday Politics
in the East Midlands. Thanks to Andrew Bridgen and John
Mann for joining us in the studio. Just time to wish you a very
Merry Christmas from Will Article 50 be triggered
by the end of March, will President Trump start work
on his wall and will Front National's Marine Le Pen
provide the next electoral shock? 2016, the Brexit for Britain and
Trump for the rest of the world. Let's look back and see what one of
you said about Brexit. If Mr Cameron loses the referendum
and it is this year, will he be Prime Minister at the end
of the year? I don't think he will lose
the referendum, so I'm feeling It was clear if he did lose the
referendum he would be out. I would like to say in retrospect I saw that
coming on a long and I was just saying it to make good television!
It is Christmas so I will be benign towards my panel! It is possible,
Iain, that not much happens to Brexit in 2017, because we have a
host of elections coming up in Europe, the French won in the spring
and the German one in the autumn will be the most important. And
until we know who the next French president is and what condition Mrs
Merkel will be in, not much will happen? I think that is the
likeliest outcome. Short of some constitutional crisis involving the
Lords relating to Brexit, it is pretty clear it is difficult to
properly begin the negotiations until it becomes clear who Britain
is negotiating with. It will come down to the result of the German
election. Germany is the biggest contributor and if they keep power
in what is left of the European Union, will drive the negotiation
and we will have to see if it will be Merkel. So this vacuum that has
been seen and has been filled by people less than friendly to the
government, even when we know Article 50 has been triggered and
even if there is some sort of white paper to give us a better idea of
the broad strategic outlines of what they mean by Brexit, the phoney war
could continue? Iain is right. 2017 is going to be a remarkably dull
year for Brexit as opposed to 2016. We will have the article and a plan.
The plan will say I would like the moon on a stick please. The EU will
say you can have a tiny bit of moon and a tiny bit of stick and there
will be an impasse. That will go on until one minute to midnight 2018
which is when the EU will act. There is one thing in the Foreign Office
which is more important, as David Davis Department told me, they know
there is nothing they can do until the French and Germans have their
elections and they know the lie of the land, but the people who will be
more helpful to us are in Eastern Europe and in Scandinavia, the
Nordic countries. We can do quite a lot of schmoozing to try and get
them broadly on side this year? It is very difficult because one of the
things they care most about in Eastern Europe is the ability for
Eastern European stew come and work in the UK. That is key to the
economic prospects. But what they care most about is that those
already here should not be under any pressure to leave. There is no
guarantee of that. That is what Mrs May wants. There are a lot of things
Mrs May wants and the story of 2017 will be about what she gets. How
much have we got to give people? It is not what we want, but what we are
willing to give. The interesting thing is you can divide this out
into two. There is a question of the European Union and our relationship
with it but there is also the trick the polls did to London -- there is
also the polls. There is question beyond the Western European
security, that is about Nato and intelligence and security, and the
rising Russian threat. That does not mean the Polish people will persuade
everyone else to give us a lovely deal on the EU, but the dynamic is
bigger than just a chat about Brexit. You cannot threaten a
punishment beating for us if we are putting our soldiers on the line on
the eastern borders of Europe. I think that's where Donald Trump
changes the calculation because his attitude towards Russia is very
different to Barack Obama's. It is indeed. Mentioning Russia, Brexit
was a global story but nothing can match and American election and even
one which gives Donald Trump as well. Let's have a look at what this
panel was saying about Donald Trump. Will Donald Trump win the Republican
nomination next year. So, not only did you think he would
not be president, you did not think he would win the Republican
nomination. We were not alone in that. And they're right put forward
a motion to abolish punditry here now because clearly we are
pointless! There is enough unemployment in the world already!
We are moving into huge and charted territory with Donald Trump as
president. It is incredibly unpredictable. But what has not been
noticed enough is the Keynesian won. Trump is a Keynesian. He wants
massive infrastructure spending and massive tax cuts. The big story next
year will be the massive reflation of the American economy and indeed
the US Federal reserve has already reacted to that by putting up
interest rates. That is why he has a big fight with the rest of the
Republican Party. He is nominally a Republican but they are not
Keynesian. They are when it comes to tax cuts. They are when it hits the
rich to benefit the poor. The big thing is whether the infrastructure
projects land him in crony trouble. The transparency around who gets
those will be extremely difficult. Most of the infrastructure spending
he thinks can be done by the private sector and not the federal
government. His tax cuts overlap the Republican house tax cuts speaker
Ryan to give not all, but a fair chunk of what he wants. If the
American economy is going to reflate next year, interest rates will rise
in America, that will strengthen the dollar and it will mean that Europe
will be, it will find it more difficult to finance its sovereign
debt because you will get more money by investing in American sovereign
debt. That is a good point because the dynamics will shift. If that
happens, Trump will be pretty popular in the US. To begin with. To
begin with. It is energy self-sufficient and if you can pull
off the biggest trick in American politics which is somehow to via
corporation tax cuts to allow the reassuring of wealth, because it is
too expensive for American business to take back into the US and
reinvest, if you combine all of those things together, you will end
up with a boom on a scale you have not seen. It will be Reagan on
steroids? What could possibly go wrong? In the short term for
Britain, it is probably not bad news. Our biggest market for exports
as a country is the United States. Our biggest market for foreign
direct investment is the United States and the same is true vice
versa for America in Britain. Given the pound is now competitive and
likely the dollar will get stronger, it could well give a boost to the
British economy? Could do bit you have to be slightly cautious about
the warm language we are getting which is great news out of President
Trump's future cabinet on doing a trade deal early, we are net
exporters to the US. We benefit far more from trading with US than they
do with us. I think we have to come up with something to offer the US
for them to jump into bed with us. I think it is called two new aircraft
carriers and modernising the fleet. Bring it on. I will raise caution,
people in declining industries in some places in America, the rust
belt who have faced big profound structural challenges and those are
much harder to reverse. They face real problems now because the dollar
is so strong. Their ability to export has taken a huge hit out of
Ohio, Michigan and Illinois. And the Mexican imports into America is now
dirt cheap so that is a major problem. Next year we have elections
in Austria, France, the Netherlands, Germany, probably Italy. Which
outcome will be the most dramatic for Brexit? If Merkel lost it would
be a huge surprise. That is unlikely. And if it was not Filon in
France that would be unlikely. The consensus it it will be Francois
Filon against Marine Le Pen and it will be uniting around the far right
candidate. In 2002, that is what happened. Filon is a Thatcherite.
Marine Le Pen's politics -- economics are hard left. Francois
Filon is as much a cert to win as Hillary Clinton was this time last
year. If he is competing against concerns about rising globalisation
and his pitch is Thatcherite, it is a bold, brave strategy in the
context so we will see. It will keep us busy next year, Tom? Almost as
busy as this year but not quite. This year was a record year. I am up
in my hours! That's all for today,
thanks to all my guests. The Daily Politics will be back
on BBC Two at noon tomorrow. I'll be back here
on the 15th January. Remember, if it's Sunday,
it's the Sunday Politics. The most a writer
can hope from a reader West Side Story took choreography
in a radical new direction. The dance was woven
into the storyline,
Andrew Neil and Marie Ashby are joined by Alexander Downer, Australian high commissioner to the United Kingdom, Stephen Dorrell, chair of the NHS Confederation, and John Sauven, executive director at Greenpeace.
Helen Lewis of the New Statesman, Iain Martin of Reaction and Tom Newton Dunn of the Sun review the papers.