18/12/2016 Sunday Politics East Midlands


Andrew discusses Brexit with former Conservative health secretary Stephen Dorrell and Australian high commissioner Alexander Downer, and looks at the issue of air pollution.

Similar Content

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.

Download Subtitles