Andrew Neil and Marie Ashby with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Guests include Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron MP, Max Mosley and Piers Morgan.
Browse content similar to 15/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
It's Sunday morning, and this is the Sunday Politics.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to end Britain's membership
of the EU's single market and its customs union?
We preview Theresa May's big speech, as she seeks to unite the country
Is the press a force for good or a beast that needs taming?
As the Government ponders its decision, we speak to one
of those leading the campaign for greater regulation.
Just what kind of President will Donald Trump be?
Piers Morgan, a man who knows him well, joins us live.
And in the East Midlands, the council bucking the trend and
building new care homes for the elderly.
We've a special weather report on the
And to help me make sense of all that, three of the finest
hacks we could persuade to work on a Sunday - Steve Richards,
They'll be tweeting throughout the programme, and you can join
So, Theresa May is preparing for her big Brexit speech on Tuesday,
in which she will urge people to give up on "insults"
and "division" and unite to build, quote, a "global Britain".
Some of the Sunday papers report that the Prime Minister will go
The Sunday Telegraph splashes with the headline: "May's big
gamble on a clean Brexit", saying the Prime Minister
will announce she's prepared to take Britain out of membership
of the single market and customs union.
The Sunday Times has a similar write-up -
they call it a "clean and hard Brexit".
The Brexit Secretary David Davis has also written a piece in the paper
hinting that a transitional deal could be on the cards.
And the Sunday Express says: "May's Brexit Battle Plan",
explaining that the Prime Minister will get tough with Brussels
and call for an end to free movement.
Well, let's get some more reaction on this.
I'm joined now from Cumbria by the leader
of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron.
Mr Farron, welcome back to the programme. The Prime Minister says
most people now just want to get on with it and make a success of it.
But you still want to stop it, don't you? Well, I certainly take the view
that heading for a hard Brexit, essentially that means being outside
the Single Market and the customs union, is not something that was on
the ballot paper last June. For Theresa May to adopt what is
basically the large all Farage vision of Britain's relationship
with Europe is not what was voted for last June. It is right for us to
stand up and say that a hard Brexit is not the democratic choice of the
British people, and that we should be fighting for the people to be the
ones who have the Seat the end of this process, not have it forced
upon them by Theresa May and David Davis. When it comes though dual
position that we should remain in the membership of the Single Market
and the customs union, it looks like you are losing the argument, doesn't
it? My sense is that if you believe in being in the Single Market and
the customs union are good things, I think many people on the leave site
believe that, Stephen Phillips, the Conservative MP until the autumn who
resigned, who voted for Leave but believe we should be in the Single
Market, I think those people believe that it is wrong for us to enter the
negotiations having given up on the most important part of it. If you
really are going to fight Britain's corner, then you should go in there
fighting the membership of the Single Market, not give up and
whitefly, as Theresa May has done before we even start. -- and wave
the white flag. Will you vote against regret Article 50 in the
Commons? We made it clear that we want the British people to have the
final Seat -- vote against triggering. Will you vote against
Article 50. Will you encourage the House of Lords to vote against out
Article 50? I don't think they will get a chance to vote. They will have
a chance to win the deuce amendments. One amendment we will
introduce is that there should be a referendum in the terms of the deal.
It is not right that Parliament on Government, and especially not civil
servants in Brussels and Whitehall, they should stitch-up the final
deal. That would be wrong. It is right that the British people have
the final say. I understand that as your position. You made it clear
Britain to remain a member of the Single Market on the customs union.
You accept, I assume, that that would mean remaining under the
jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, continuing free movement
of people, and the free-trade deals remained in Brussels' competence. So
it seems to me that if you believe that being in the Single Market is a
good thing, then you should go and argue for that. Whilst I believe
that we're not going to get a better deal than the one we currently have,
nevertheless it is up to the Government to go and argue for the
best deal possible for us outside. You accept your position would mean
that? It would mean certainly being in the Single Market and the customs
union. It's no surprise to you I'm sure that the Lib Dems believe the
package we have got now inside the EU is going to be of the Nutley
better than anything we get from the outside, I accept the direction of
travel -- is going to be the Nutley better. At the moment, what the
Government are doing is assuming that all the things you say Drew,
and there is no way possible for us arguing for a deal that allows in
the Single Market without some of those other things. If they really
believed in the best for Britain, you would go and argue for the best
for Britain. Let's be clear, if we remain under the jurisdiction of the
ECJ, which is the court that governs membership of the Single Market,
continued free movement of people, the Europeans have made clear, is
what goes with the Single Market. And free-trade deals remaining under
Brussels' competence. If we accepted all of that is the price of
membership of the Single Market, in what conceivable way with that
amount to leaving the European Union? Well, for example, I do
believe that being a member of the Single Market is worth fighting for.
I personally believe that freedom of movement is a good thing. British
people benefit from freedom of movement. We will hugely be hit as
individuals and families and businesses. Mike I understand, but
your writing of leaving... There the butt is that if you do except that
freedom of movement has to change, I don't, but if you do, and if you are
Theresa May, and the problem is to go and fight for the best deal,
don't take it from Brussels that you can't be in the Single Market
without those other things as well, you don't go and argue the case. It
depresses me that Theresa May is beginning this process is waving the
white flag, just as this morning Jeremy Corbyn was waving the white
flag when it comes to it. We need a Government that will fight Britain's
corner and an opposition that will fight the Government to make sure
that it fights. Just explain to our viewers how we could remain members,
members of the Single Market, and not be subject to the jurisdiction
of the European court? So, first of all we spent over the last many,
many years, the likes of Nigel Farage and others, will have argued,
you heard them on this very programme, that Britain should
aspire to be like Norway and Switzerland for example, countries
that are not in the European Union but aren't the Single Market. It is
very clear to me that if you want the best deal for Britain -- but are
in the Single Market. You go and argue for the best deal. What is the
answer to my question, you haven't answered it
the question is, how does the Prime Minister go and fight for the best
deal for Britain. If we think that being in the Single Market is the
right thing, not Baxter -- not access to it but membership of it,
you don't wave the white flag before you enter the negotiating room. I'm
afraid we have run out of time. Thank you, Tim Farron.
The leaks on this speech on Tuesday we have seen, it is interesting that
Downing Street has not attempted to dampen them down this morning, in
the various papers, do they tell us something new? Do they tell us more
of the Goverment's aims in the Brexit negotiations? I think it's
only a confirmation of something which has been in the mating really
for the six months that she's been in the job. The logic of everything
that she's said since last July, the keenness on re-gaining control of
migration, the desire to do international trade deals, the fact
that she is appointed trade Secretary, the logic of all of that
is that we are out of the Single Market, quite probably out of the
customs union, what will happen this week is a restatement of a fairly
clear position anyway. I think Tim Farron is right about one thing, I
don't think she will go into the speech planning to absolutely
definitively say, we are leaving those things. Because even if there
is a 1% chance of a miracle deal, where you stay in the Single Market,
somehow get exempted from free movement, it is prudent to keep
hopes on that option as a Prime Minister. -- to keep open that
option. She is being advised both by the diplomatic corps and her
personal advisers, don't concede on membership of the Single Market yet.
We know it's not going to happen, but let them Europeans knock us back
on that,... That is probably the right strategy for all of the
reasons that Jarlan outlined there. What we learned a bit today is the
possibility of some kind of transition or arrangements, which
David Davies has been talking about in a comment piece for one of the
Sunday papers. My sense from Brexiteers aborting MPs is that they
are very happy with 90% of the rhetoric -- Brexit sporting MPs. The
rhetoric has not been dampened down by MPs, apart from this transitional
arrangement, which they feel and two France, on the one front will
encourage the very dilatory EU to spend longer than ever negotiating a
deal, and on the other hand will also be exactly what our civil
service looks for in stringing things out. What wasn't explained
this morning is what David Davies means by transitional is not that
you negotiate what you can in two years and then spend another five
years on the matter is that a lot of the soul. He thinks everything has
to be done in the two years, -- of the matter are hard to solve. But it
would include transitional arrangements over the five years.
What we are seeing in the build-up is the danger of making these kind
of speeches. In a way, I kind of admired her not feeding the media
machine over the autumn and the end of last year cars, as Janan has
pointed out in his columns, she has actually said quite a lot from it,
you would extrapolate quite a lot. We won't be members of the Single
Market? She said that in the party conference speech, we are out of
European court. Her red line is the end of free movement, so we are out
of the Single Market. Why has she sent Liam Fox to negotiate all of
these other deals, not that he will succeed necessarily, but that is the
intention? We are still in the customs union. You can extrapolate
what she will say perhaps more cautiously in the headlines on
Tuesday. But the grammar of a big speech raises expectations, gets the
markets worked up. So she is doing it because people have said that she
doesn't know what she's on about. But maybe she should have resisted
it. Very well, and she hasn't. The speech is on Tuesday morning.
Now, the public consultation on press regulation closed this
week, and soon ministers will have to decide whether to
enact a controversial piece of legislation.
Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, if implemented,
could see newspapers forced to pay legal costs in libel and privacy
If they don't sign up to an officially approved regulator.
The newspapers say it's an affront to a free press,
while pro-privacy campaigners say it's the only way to ensure
a scandal like phone-hacking can't happen again.
Ellie Price has been reading all about it.
It was the biggest news about the news for decades,
a scandal that involved household names, but not just celebrities.
They've even hacked the phone of a murdered schoolgirl.
It led to the closure of the News Of The World,
a year-long public inquiry headed up by the judge Lord Justice Leveson,
and in the end, a new press watchdog set up by Royal Charter,
which could impose, among other things, million-pound fines.
If this system is implemented, the country should have confidence
that the terrible suffering of innocent victims
like the Dowlers, the McCanns and Christopher Jefferies should
To get this new plan rolling, the Government also passed
the Crime and Courts Act, Section 40 of which would force
publications who didn't sign up to the new regulator to pay legal
costs in libel and privacy cases, even if they won.
It's waiting for sign-off from the Culture Secretary.
We've got about 50 publications that have signed up...
This is Impress, the press regulator that's got the backing
of the Royal Charter, so its members are protected
from the penalties that would be imposed by Section 40.
It's funded by the Formula One tycoon Max Mosley's
I think the danger if we don't get Section 40 is that
you have an incomplete Leveson project.
I think it's very, very likely that within the next five or ten years
there will be a scandal, there'll be a crisis in press
standards, everyone will be saying to the Government,
"Why on Earth didn't you sort things out when you had the chance?"
Isn't Section 40 essentially just a big stick to beat
We hear a lot about the stick part, but there's also a big juicy carrot
for publishers and their journalists who are members of an
They get huge new protections from libel threats,
from privacy actions, which actually means they've got
a lot more opportunity to run investigative stories.
Impress has a big image problem - not a single national
Instead, many of them are members of Ipso,
the independent regulator set up and funded by the industry that
doesn't seek the recognition of the Royal Charter.
The male cells around 22,000 each day...
There are regional titles too, who, like the Birmingham Mail,
won't sign up to Impress, even if they say the costs
are associated with Section 40 could put them out of business.
Impress has an umbilical cord that goes directly back to Government
through the recognition setup that it has.
Now, we broke free of the shackles of the regulated press
when the stamp duty was revealed 150 years ago.
If we go back to this level of oversight, then I think
we turn the clock back, 150 years of press freedom.
The responses from the public have been coming thick and fast
since the Government launched its consultation
In fact, by the time it closed on Tuesday,
And for that reason alone, it could take months before
a decision on what happens next is taken.
The Government will also be minded to listen to its own MPs,
One described it to me as Draconian and hugely damaging.
So, will the current Culture Secretary's thinking be
I don't think the Government will repeal section 40.
What I'm arguing for is not to implement it, but it will remain
on the statute book and if it then became apparent that Ipso simply
was failing to work, was not delivering effective
regulation and the press were behaving in a way
which was wholly unacceptable, as they were ten years ago,
then there might be an argument at that time to think well in that
case we are going to have to take further measures,
The future of section 40 might not be so black and white.
I'm told a compromise could be met whereby the punitive parts
about legal costs are dropped, but the incentives
to join a recognised regulator are beefed up.
But it could yet be some time until the issue of press freedom
I'm joined now by Max Mosley - he won a legal case against the News
Of The World after it revealed details about his private life,
and he now campaigns for more press regulation.
Are welcome to the programme. Let me ask you this, how can it be right
that you, who many folk think have a clear vendetta against the British
press, can bankroll a government approved regulator of the press? If
we hadn't done it, nobody would, section 40 would never have come
into force because there would never have been a regulator. It is
absolutely wrong that a family trust should have to finance something
like this. It should be financed by the press or the Government. If we
hadn't done it there would be no possibility of regulation. But it
means we end up with a regulator financed by you, as I say
many people think you have a clear vendetta against the press. Where
does the money come from? From a family trust, it is family money.
You have to understand that somebody had to do this. I understand that.
People like to know where the money comes from, I think you said it came
from Brixton Steyn at one stage. Ages ago my father had a trust there
but now all my money is in the UK. We are clear about that, but this is
money that was put together by your father. Yes, my father inherited it
from his father and his father. The whole of Manchester once belonged to
the family, that's why there is a Mosley Street. That is irrelevant
because as we have given the money, I have no control. If you do the
most elementary checks into the contract between my family trust,
the trust but finances Impress, it is impossible for me to exert any
influence. It is just the same as if it had come from the National
lottery. People will find it ironic that the money has come from
historically Britain's best-known fascist. No, it has come from my
family, the Mosley family. This is complete drivel because we have no
control. Where the money comes from doesn't matter, if it had come from
the national lottery it would be exactly the same. Impress was
completely independent. But it wouldn't exist without your money,
wouldn't it? But that doesn't give you influence. It might exist
because it was founded before I was ever in contact with them. Isn't it
curious then that so many leading light show your hostile views of the
press? I don't think it is because I don't know a single member of the
Impress board. The chairman I have met months. The only person I know
is Jonathan Hayward who you had on just now. In one recent months he
tweeted 50 attacks on the Daily Mail, including some calling for an
advertising boycott of the paper. He also liked a Twitter post calling me
Daily Mail and neofascist rag. Are these fitting for what is meant to
be impartial regulator? The person you should ask about that is the
press regulatory panel and they are completely independent, they
reviewed the whole thing. You have probably produced something very
selective, I have no idea but I am certain that these people are
absolutely trustworthy and independent. It is not just Mr
Hayward, we have a tonne of things he has tweeted calling for boycotts,
remember this is the man that would be the regulator of these papers.
He's the chief executive, that is a separate thing. The administration,
the regulator. Many leading light show your vendetta of the press. I
do not have a vendetta. Let's take another one. This person is on the
code committee. Have a look at this. As someone with these views fit to
be involved in the regulation of the press? You said I have a vendetta
against the press, I do not, I didn't say that and it is completely
wrong to say I have a vendetta. What do you think of that? I don't agree,
I wouldn't ban the Daily Mail, I think it's a dreadful paper but I
wouldn't ban it. Another Impress code committee said I hate the Daily
Mail, I couldn't agree more, others have called for a boycott. Other
people can say what they want and many people may think they are right
but surely these views make them unfit to be partial regulators? I
have no influence over Impress therefore I cannot say anything
about it. You should ask them, not me. All I have done is make it
possible for Impress to exist and that was the right thing to do. I'm
asking you if people with these kind of views are fit to be regulators of
the press. You would have to ask about all of their views, these are
some of their views. A lot of people have a downer on the Daily Mail and
the Sun, it doesn't necessarily make them party pre-. Why would
newspapers sign up to a regulator run by what they think is run by
enemies out to ruin them. If they don't like it they should start
their own section 40 regulator. They could make it so recognised, if only
they would make it independent of the big newspaper barons but they
won't -- they could make Ipso recognised. Is the Daily Mail
fascist? It certainly was in the 1930s. Me and my father are
relevant, this whole section 40 issue is about access to justice.
The press don't want ordinary people who cannot afford to bring an action
against the press, don't want them to have access to justice. I can
understand that but I don't sympathise. What would happen to the
boss of Ofcom, which regulates broadcasters, if it described
Channel 4 News is a Marxist scum? If the press don't want to sign up to
Impress they can create their own regulator. If you were to listen we
would get a lot further. The press should make their own Levenson
compliant regulator, then they would have no complaints at all. Even
papers like the Guardian, the Independent, the Financial Times,
they show your hostility to tabloid journalism. They have refused to be
regulated by Impress. I will say it again, the press could start their
own regulator, they do not have to sign... Yes, but Levenson compliant
one giving access to justice so people who cannot afford an
expensive legal action have a proper arbitration service. The Guardian,
the Independent, the Financial Times, they don't want to do that
either. That would suggest there is something fatally flawed about your
approach. Even these kind of papers, the Guardian, Impress is hardly
independent, the head of... Andrew, I am sorry, you are like a dog with
a bone. The press could start their own regulator, then people like the
Financial Times, the Guardian and so one could decide whether they wanted
to join or not but what is absolutely vital is that we should
have a proper arbitration service so that people who cannot afford an
expensive action have somewhere to go. This business of section 40
which you want to be triggered which would mean papers that didn't sign
up to Impress could be sued in any case and they would have to pay
potentially massive legal costs, even if they win. Yes. This is what
the number of papers have said about this, if section 40 was triggered,
the Guardian wouldn't even think of investigation. The Sunday Times said
it would not have even started to expose Lance Armstrong. The Times
journalist said he couldn't have done the Rotherham child abuse
scandal. What they all come it is a full reading of section 40 because
that cost shifting will only apply if, and I quote, it is just and
equitable in all the circumstances. I cannot conceive of any High Court
judge, for example the Lance Armstrong case or the child abuse,
saying it is just as equitable in all circumstances the newspaper
should pay these costs. Even the editor of index on censorship, which
is hardly the Sun, said this would be oppressive and they couldn't do
what they do, they would risk being sued by warlords. No because if
something unfortunate, some really bad person sues them, what would
happen is the judge would say it is just inequitable normal
circumstances that person should pay. Section 40 is for the person
that comes along and says to a big newspaper, can we go to arbitration
because I cannot afford to go to court. The big newspaper says no.
That leaves less than 1% of the population with any remedy if the
newspapers traduce them. It cannot be right. From the Guardian to the
Sun, and including Index On Censorship, all of these media
outlets think you are proposing a charter for conmen, warlords, crime
bosses, dodgy politicians, celebrities with a grievance against
the press. I will give you the final word to address that. It is pure
guff and the reason is they want to go on marking their own homework.
The press don't want anyone to make sure life is fair. All I want is
somebody who has got no money to be able to sue in just the way that I
can. All right, thanks for being with us.
The doctors' union, the British Medical Association,
has said the Government is scapegoating GPs in England
The Government has said GP surgeries must try harder to stay
open from 8am to 8pm, or they could lose out on funding.
The pressure on A services in recent weeks has been intense.
It emerged this week that 65 of the 152 Health Trusts in England
had issued an operational pressure alert in the first
At either level three, meaning major pressures,
or level four, indicating an inability to deliver
On Monday, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt told the Commons
that the number of people using A had increased by 9 million
But that 30% of those visits were unnecessary.
He said that the situation at a number of Trusts
On Tuesday, the Royal College of Physicians wrote
to the Prime Minister saying the health service was being
paralysed by spiralling demand, and urging greater investment.
On Wednesday, the Chief Executive of NHS England, Simon Stevens,
told a Select Committee that NHS funding will be highly constrained.
And from 2018, real-terms spending per person would fall.
The Prime Minister described the Red Cross's claim that A
was facing a "humanitarian crisis" as "irresponsible and overblown".
And the National Audit Office issued a report that found almost half,
46%, of GP surgeries closed at some point during core hours.
Yesterday, Mrs May signalled her support for doctors' surgeries
opening from 8am to 8pm every day of the week, in order to divert
To discuss this, I'm joined now by the Conservative
MP Maria Caulfield - she was an NHS nurse in a former
life - and Clare Gerada, a former chair of the Royal College
Welcome to you both. So, Maria Caulfield, what the Government is
saying, Downing Street in effect is saying that GPs do not work hard
enough and that's the reason why A was under such pressure? No, I don't
think that is the message, I think that is the message that the media
have taken up. That is not the expression that we want to give. I
still work as a nurse, I know how hard doctors work in hospitals and
GP practices. When the rose 30% of people turning up at A for neither
an accident or an emergency, we do need to look at alternative. Where
is the GPs' operability in this? We know from patients that if they
cannot get access to GPs, they will do one of three things. They will
wait two or three weeks until they can get an appointment, they will
forget about the problem altogether, which is not good, we want patients
to be getting investigations at early stages, or they will go to
A And that is a problem. I'm not quite sure what the role that GPs
play in this. What is your response in that? I think about 70% of
patients that I see should not be seen by me but should still be seen
by hospital consultants. If we look at it from GPs' eyes and not from
hospital's eyes, because that is what it is, we might get somewhere.
Tomorrow morning, every practice in England will have about 1.5 GPs
shot, that's not even counting if there is traffic problems, sickness
or whatever. -- GPs shot. We cannot work any harder, I cannot
physically, emotionally work any harder. We are open 12 hours a day,
most of us, I run practices open 365 days per year 24 hours a day. I
don't understand this. It is one thing attacking me as a GP from
working hard enough, but it is another thing saying that GPs as a
profession and doing what they should be doing. Let me in National
Audit Office has coming up with these figures showing that almost
half of doctors' practices are not open during core hours at some part
of the week. That's where the implication comes, that they are not
working hard enough. What do you say to that? I don't recognise this. I'm
not being defensive, I'm just don't recognise it. There are practices
working palliative care services, practices have to close home visits
if they are single-handed, some of us are working in care homes during
the day. They may shot for an hour in the middle of the data will sort
out some of the prescriptions and admin -- they may shot. My practice
runs a number of practices across London. If we shut during our
contractual hours we would have NHS England coming down on us like a
tonne of bricks. Maria Caulfield, I'm struggling to understand, given
the problems the NHS faces, particularly in our hospitals, what
this has got to do with the solution? Obviously there are GP
practices that are working, you know, over and above the hours. But
there are some GP practices, we know from National Audit Office, there
are particular black sports -- blackspots in the country that only
offer services for three hours a week. That's causing problems if
they cannot get to see a GP they will go and use A Nobody is
saying that this measure would solve problems at A, it would address
one small part of its top blog we shouldn't be starting this, as I
keep saying, please to this from solving the problems at A We
should be starting it from solving the problems of the patients in
their totality, the best place they should go, not from A This really
upsets me, as a GP I am there to be a proxy A doctor. I am a GP, a
highly skilled doctor, looking after patients from cradle to grave across
the physical, psychological and social, I am not an A doctor. I
don't disagree with that, nobody is saying that GPs are not working hard
enough. You just did, actually, about some of them. In some
practices, what we need to see, it's not just GPs in GP surgeries, it is
advanced nurse practitioners, pharmacists. It doesn't necessarily
need to be all on the GPs. I think advanced nurse practitioners are in
short supply. Position associate or go to hospital, -- physician
associates. We have very few trainees, junior doctors in general
practice, unlike hospitals, which tend to have some slack with the
junior doctor community and workforce. This isn't an argument,
this is about saying, let's stop looking at the National health
system as a National hospital system. GPs tomorrow will see about
1.3 million patients. That is a lot of thoughtful. A lot of activity
with no resources. If you wanted the GPs to behave better, in your terms,
when you allocated more money to GPs, part of the reforms, because
that's where it went, shouldn't you have targeted it more closely to
where they want to operate? That is exactly what the Prime Minister is
saying, extra funding is being made available by GPs to extend hours and
services. If certain GP practices cannot do that, the money will
follow the patient to where they move onto. We have no doctors to do
it. I was on a coach last week, the coach driver stopped in the service
station for an hour, they were stopping for a rest. We cannot do
it. Even if you gave us millions more money, and thankfully NHS is
recognising that we need a solution through the five-day week, we
haven't got the doctors to deliver this. It would take a while to get
them? That's my point, that's why we need to be using all how care
professional. Even if you got this right, would it make a difference to
what many regard as the crisis in our hospitals? I think it would. If
you look at patients, they just want to go to a service that will address
the problems. In Scotland for example, pharmacists have their own
patient list. Patients go and see the pharmacists first. There are
lots of conditions, for example if you want anticoagulants, you don't
necessarily need to see a doctor, a pharmacist can manage that and free
up the doctor in other ways. The Prime Minister has said that if
things do not change she is threatening to reduce funding to
doctors who do not comply. Can you both agree, that is probably an
empty threat, that's not going to happen? I hope it's an empty threat.
We're trying our best. People like me in my profession, the seniors in
our profession, are really trying to pull up morale and get people into
general practice, which is a wonderful profession, absolutely
wonderful place to be. But slapping us off and telling us that we are
lazy really doesn't help. I really don't think anybody is doing that.
We have run out of time, but I'm certain that we will be back to the
subject before this winter is out. It's just gone 11:35am,
you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers
in Scotland, who leave us now Coming up here in 20
minutes: The Week Ahead. In the East Midlands,
the council building new care homes. Derbyshire bucks a national
trend with its latest specialist centre but says it
will struggle to build more. We are wasting money
keeping people in hospital, which is expensive,
when they don't need to be there instead of coming
to places like this. And it's looking like
a stormy year ahead in politics, so we've got a special
weather report on the political Well, predicting the weather
is one thing, but forecasting the political outlook,
that's a real challenge. I'll be looking at
what 2017 could have instore for the region's
politicians, the economy, and the big events coming up
in the year ahead. My guests for our first week
of 2017 are Sir Patrick McLoughlin, the MP for
Derbyshire Dales and chairman of the Conservative Party,
and Liz Kendall's First, we'll be getting
reaction to something Jeremy Corbyn told us this week and it
appears to be an entirely new The Labour leader told our political
editor, Tony Roe, that a Labour Government would take over
the course of the private finance initiatives, which have landed
hospitals with billions of pounds of I do think PFI, frankly,
was a big mistake. I think it would be much
better to invest in those new hospitals by direct public
investment and I think that, generally, the public
would agree with it and I don't think anybody
now So, Liz Kendall, was
this a surprise to you? Look, some of the early PFI deals
where poor value for money and I think it's important
to look at, but, you biggest programme of hospital
building in the history of the NHS and we turned Victorian buildings
into state-of-the-art NHS Do you agree with
Jeremy Corbyn on this? I think it's important
that we look at any It's interesting that the health
foundation looked at this issue last year and they actually said
that the cause of the financial I think the real
thing we need to look at is getting more money
into the system and look at the Government's
failures on the NHS. Patrick McLoughlin,
the biggest PFI contract in our region is actually
for Kings Mill Hospital in Mansfield, which has a debt
of ?2.5 million for a refit which Surely it does make sense
to effectively step in and right of that
massive amount of debt. Well, it's not about writing it off,
it's about what was paid. What Jeremy Corbyn doesn't answer
in their quick quip with Tony is where any money was now
going to come from, it's still
a debt on Government. I think this is a bit too
dismissive, saying that all the PFIs were great things and they've
done marvellous things. There were some very bad
deals and we've been able to renegotiate some of those
deals, but there are debts around some of our hospitals
and quite a big call on their finances,
and that is part of the problem that they're
having to address within the house Jeremy Corbyn suggests that it
could be paid for by borrowing Is that really a sensible idea
in the current climate? any deal that is poor value for
money, but the real issue we've got with the health care
system is that we're not putting the money
into social care so elderly people
are getting forced to go into hospital and getting
stuck in hospital. That's the good for them and it
costs the taxpayer more. The Government has
completely failed to Liz, when you're fighting
the last general election, when you're on the front bench,
you failed to our commitment on the health service, we were told
by signing even that an extra ?8 billion was needed, we said
we would put that money end, we are putting that money end,
we will be putting Well, finds even said
this week that the Prime Minister was stretching it to say
the NHS had got the money it wanted and, in fact, any said that next
year's spending plans on the NHS Staying with health, let's move
on now because one East Midlands authority is bucking the national
trend by building its own care homes Derbyshire County Council said
it means it can help ease pressure on the NHS, but it
claims that Government rules will Our political editor
Tony Roe has been to visit the Council's
newest care home. The number of council-run care
homes are dwindling. Here in Derbyshire, they are taking
a different approach. Meadowview is built into a hillside
at Darley Dale near Matlock. Architecture for the
elderly and views they
say some of the best Day care is an important part
of what they do here. Jane Morris says it's
now a highlight of the I am look after very
well by my family. I found I couldn't
walk, so I came here. At first, you do wonder what it's
going to be like and what It wasn't until Mum came that,
actually, you realise how good Meadowview provide specialist
dementia care, too, contributing to over 140 beds
provided by the council. But they also have debts which can
take the pressure of stretched hospitals,
interim care to get people ready to go home again,
ready for independence. This facility has got 16 beds
specifically to get people out of hospital, get them skilled
and rehabilitated, backed up so they can go home and live
independently Now, in a lot of places,
then that facility as people either language in hospital longer
than they should or they go to a nursing home and sometimes
never go home from there. It's a ?10 million
capital investment here that kept control
of social care in Derbyshire. They believe they found
the way that is best for the elderly but the Government, they
say, doesn't approve and is making We will be struggling
to do this again because we can't use the health and social
care budget to support people We are wasting money
keeping people in hospital, which is expensive,
when they don't need to be there. Social care was missed
out of the Chancellor's Last month, councillors
were told they can add an extra 3% to council
tax bills to help pay for social care over
the Each 1% that said only
raises 2.7 million. We don't want and we shouldn't
be a bill that the It should be sorted
out at national level. But in a Commons
debate this week, the Health Secretary Jeromy Hunt
defended the Government's record in response to criticism
from the Shadow Health Secretary, Social care last year,
spending went up by He stood on a platform
at the last election of not a penny more to local
authorities for social care. To stand here as a defender of
social care is, frankly, an insult to vulnerable people up and down
the country but particularly people living under Labour councils
like Hounslow, Merton and Eeling where they are refusing
to raise the social care -- precept but complaining
about social care funding. There have been called
to take the politics out of social care,
have an independent commission
which discusses the best way forward
in The Lib Dems go as far as saying
there should be a tax to Others say the real problem
is years of cutbacks. Sir Patrick McLoughlin,
you have to admit that Meadowview, which we were looking at there,
looked Surely it makes sense
to allow more councils to build homes themselves rather
than relying on the private sector. Well, Meadowview is actually in my
constituency, you're quite right, but it was also on the planning
by the last administration, the
Conservative administration, when the county councils were being run
by the Conservatives. I thought the way in
which the dismissal of the extra money when it was said that 1%
only raised 2.7 million. That's going to be
an increase in an Derbyshire can have an increase
of over ?8 million therefore
in its social care budgets. So, the Government is listening
and has made, and will They are raising the
council tax, but they There was going to be
a question as to how much money you put in
and how you use resources But can you see a benefit of
Meadowview? You but it's not something
that your comment is In fact, people have
said they have been too Even though they want
to eat the NHS' problems, they have told they should
rein back in, basically. It's up to the local authorities
what they do with their The problem is keeping elderly
people out of hospital. Saving any money, Britney back and social care.
My understanding is that when a that plan, the Government said no.
There is a real problem here with the
Government thinking that the social care
precept can fund the gap in
In Derbyshire, just like in Leicester, the social care
precept only makes up one third of the gap
and the real problem is
poorer areas are less able to raise money from the social care precept,
so, in Leicester, we can raise about ?6.50 per head
It will increase inequalities and my constituents
Well, we've got to look at social care.
We got to look across the whole piece.
We asked Sir Simon Stephens how much extra was
Before the last general election, he said that those extra ?8 billion
We've committed an extra ?10 billion into the health service.
People working in the health service are doing a fantastic job at the
moment under very, very difficult circumstances.
Is something that has happened at different times of a
There's always extra pressures on the health service.
Well, of course, but you say it's up to local areas to try and look at
Nottinghamshire County Council called on the
Government to commit an extra ?2.3 billion
to social care, which is the
saying is needed on top of what the
I would expect Nottinghamshire County Council to pass
a project like that and say it's got to be found by the Government
The simple fact is, we've increased spending on the health
service and obviously we've got to look at some of the issues which
have come about as a result of some of the things
we seen over the past few
Miss Kendal, the Government, Jeremy Hunt, is saying there's an
extra ?208 million in funding a into social care.
And he is allowing councils to raise council tax.
Overall, we have seen around ?4.5 billion cut
from social care budgets in the Government came.
Patrick, I want to see that money got forward.
That doesn't come on until 2019 - 20.
I also strongly support a cross-party look at one
term funding issues for the NHS and social care.
It's always going to be political, but I actually think,
if you want a long-term solution, we are going
to have to get round the
We've tried it before, it's very, very difficult.
But I've certainly supported calls from Norman Lamb
Let's get round the table and look at it.
But we do need an immediate cash injection
because, otherwise, the system is really going to struggle.
Well, the money has been made available.
They are saying it's not enough, though,
The NHS are saying it's not enough, councils are saying it's not
They might we increase and brought forward.
We asked how much was needed, recommitted Stewart.
Labour did not commit to a 20 was a Labour front
bench spokesman on the last general election.
They did not commit to that extra funding.
We've got to deal with the situation we
There's no point in this debate going back and
And that's certainly what we have done
by the extra ?600 million that Jeremy Hunt has announced by giving
By giving local authorities the extra power that
they can to raise finance locally and spent that locally.
Surely it's time to get round the table, which
is what Liz is suggesting, and other people.
The last Labour Government spent 30 years at a Royal
There's been more talking about this.
Are you against getting round a table and talking this?
I think there's a lot that we can learn as we need
I think the public gets sick about this when they are in an ambulance
outside A and they can't get to see their GP.
They would like us to get around the table.
The Government has got to acknowledge what the state
Are you in denial over the state of the NHS currently?
We appreciate the tremendous work that
there are doctors, nurses, front line staff, paramedics, people
involved in the health service are doing.
Well, you can see more on the state of the NHS in an Inside
Out special programme tomorrow night at 7:30 here on BBC One.
Now, as you already seen, 2017 is shaping up to
be quite a contentious year in politics,
but what does it hold for
One person used to predicting the future is East
Midlands today weather presenter Alex Hamilton.
What you probably don't know is that Alex is also a
So, we've asked her to do a special forecast looking at the
outlook for the region's political weather for 2017.
Well, predicting the weather is one thing but
forecasting the ecological outlook is a real challenge.
In the East Midlands, we seen some of the
highest economic growth outside of London but also some of the lowest
Some say Brexit will bring sunshine and blue skies,
but others say an economic rainstorm will dampen the region's commercial
Several Labour MPs mutinied against Jeremy Corbyn last
Now, the winds of political change could blow through the
revolving doors of Westminster again,
but some familiar faces from the
East Midlands may have to stay out in the cold for a little longer yet.
Well, there was an icy reception for some East
Midlands MPs in Theresa May's new regime but who'd
thought that would be in the
Reshuffles are notoriously hard to predict but, in the Primate
of Brexit, that carousel of high and low pressure around the Cabinet
It was a funny picture for much of 2016.
When will that blanket of fog lift or not in 2017, the issue is so
complex is likely there will be some mist patches surrounding finer
And what about the electrification of the
Will we be able to get to London at lightning speed?
Or will there be a storm over delays to the project?
The Government says it is committed, but East Midlands MPs on all sides
And talking of rail, building has now started on the rail freight
It promises a jet stream of jobs for the East Midlands.
Opponents warn of a tornado of environmental problems.
Or the lack of it here in the East Midlands?
failure to agree with neighbours has left plans final
Meanwhile, the sun shines on the devolution deal in
Perhaps the Spring will allow new plans for our
As we've been hearing, health looks set to
Dark clouds seem to gather over some of
Warnings about the closure of Glenfield Children's Heart Unit in
Leicester and a review of several smaller hospitals could bring
We'll have to stay tuned to the forecast to see how
A units are under pressure and Emas was named the
nation's worst performing and services for hospital handovers.
A blizzard of calls in the New Year stretch the service even further.
If the inclement conditions continue for Emas,
create the perfect storm for the service in 2017.
All in all, it's a changeable forecast for the
Well, we told you she was a political geek.
So, the electrification of the mainline.
Patrick, you were Transport Secretary when that was given the
again at what a lot of our regional MPs,
labour and Conservative, are
very concerned now that it would go ahead.
Some of the work has already started and some of the
changes that one sees as one goes from the trained in Derby to London
Some of the double tracking just outside Corby is also
Well, the trouble is, when you're working on a
railway line which is a live railway line and in operation, it
does take longer on those particular project, and we embarked on a huge
investment as far as electrification across the country.
Liz, your Labour colleague Lilian Green is one who has been very
We haven't had a clear commitment about completing the
project and, overall, we see nine times as much investment in rail
infrastructure in wonder as he do in the East Midlands.
Because when you're talking about that, your job and that the
King's Cross is serving the east coast.
You're quite right, there is a project across rail which is a
big project in London, but that is part
of the reason, one of the
reasons why they've got things like HS2.
This Government is committing more to transport than the
last previous government ever did.
the very past six years, we've done very badly in terms of
We have the world's largest cluster of
railway companies in the East Midlands.
We really need to make the most of it and we need that because
they want jobs and growth for the East Midlands
to do even better in
If the Government wants to balance the economy and get an
economy working for everybody, it needs to do more for the East
I buy how important infrastructure is.
But 30 years of Labour governments, you've done ten
miles of electrification in the country.
I'd like to say it was at a snails pace.
Your New Year's resolution, I believe, is to help
We have some of the best clinical app comes as Glenfield.
For public consultation, it will be announced later on this one.
there working very closely with your hospital and campaigning.
I think Liz has done a commendable job on that.
I want to see people partake in a public exercise because
the question is about heart service across the country and I think it's
absolutely vital that this particular issue is...
It shouldn't become a party political issue.
We've got to make sure we've got the right answer for the region.
Time for a round-up of some of the other political
stories from the East Midlands this week in 60 seconds.
petitions against plans to survey Sherwood Forest for shale gas.
A firm wants to scan line under the forest to see if there is
Derby is to get a share Government funding to
create 9000 free childcare places around the country.
The city will get part of ?2 million being
allocated to six cold spots where lack of social mobility is a major
They are facing higher council tax to pay for
The county was when Police and Crime Commissioner wants it to
centralise any amount of tax paying towards policing.
It would add ?3.50 per year to the average bill and
Having failed to agree on its own devolution deal,
the East Midlands is now throwing a spanner in the
Elections for a mayor there have been put back for more
time to consult on by Chesterfield to join the scheme.
And that is the Sunday Politics in the East Midlands.
Thanks to Liz Kendall and Sir Patrick McLoughlin
Lillian Greenwood will be here next time.
Now, if anyone thought Donald Trump would tone things down
after the American election campaign, they may have
The period where he has been President-elect will make them think
again. The inauguration is coming up on Friday.
Never has the forthcoming inauguration of a president been
In a moment, we'll talk to a man who knows Mr Trump
But first, let's have a look at the press conference
Mr Trump gave on Wednesday, in which he took the opportunity
to rubbish reports that Russia has obtained compromising information
You are attacking our news organisation.
Can you give us a chance, you are attacking our news
organisation, can you give us a chance to ask a question, sir?
As far as Buzzfeed, which is a failing pile of garbage,
writing it, I think they're going to suffer the consequences.
Does anyone really believe that story?
I'm also very much of a germaphobe, by the way.
If Putin likes Donald Trump, guess what, folks, that's called
The only ones that care about my tax returns are the reporters, OK?
Do you not think the American public is concerned?
The Wiggo, Donald Trump at his first last conference. The Can will he
change as President? Because he hasn't changed in the run-up to
being inaugurated? I don't think he will commit he doesn't see any point
in changing. Why would he change from the personality that just one,
as he just said, I just one. All of the bleeding-heart liberals can wail
and brush their teeth and say how ghastly that all this, Hillary
should have won and so on, but he has got an incredible mandate.
Remember, Trump has the House committee has the Senate, he will
have the Supreme Court. He has incredible power right now. He
doesn't have to listen to anybody. I spoke to him a couple of weeks ago
specifically about Twitter, I asked him what the impact was of Twitter.
He said, I have 60 million people following me on Twitter. I was able
to bypass mainstream media, bypass all modern political convention and
talk directly to potential voters. Secondly, I can turn on the TV in
the morning, I can see a rival getting all of the airtime, and I
can fire off a tweet, for free, as a marketing man he loves that, and,
boom, I'm on the news agenda again. He was able to use that
magnificently. Twitter to him didn't cost him a dollar. He is going to
carry on tweeting in the last six weeks, he was not sleeping. Trump
has never had an alcoholic drink a cigarette or a drug. He is a fit by
the 70, he has incredible energy and he is incredibly competitive. At his
heart, he is a businessman. If you look at him as a political
ideologue, you completely missed the point of trouble. Don't take what he
says literally, look upon it as a negotiating point that he started
from, and try to do business with him as a business person would, and
you may be presently surprised so pleasantly surprised. He treats the
press and the media entirely differently to any other politician
or main politician in that normally the politicians try to get the media
off a particular subject, or they try to conciliate with the media. He
just comes and punches the media in the nose when he doesn't like them.
This could catch on, you know! You are absolutely right, for a start,
nobody could accuse him of letting that victory go to his head. You
know, he won't say, I will now be this lofty president. He's exactly
the same as he was before. What is fascinating is his Laois and ship
with the media. I haven't met, and I'm sure you haven't, met a party
leader who is obsessed with the media. But they pretend not to be.
You know, they state, oh, somebody told me about a column, I didn't
read it. He is utterly transparent in his obsession with the media, he
doesn't pretend. How that plays out, who knows? It's a completely
different dynamic than anyone has seen by. Like he is the issue, he
has appointed an unusual Cabinet, that you could criticise in many
ways. Nearly all of them are independent people in their own
right. A lot of them are wealthy, too. They have their own views. They
might not like what he tweaked at 3am, and he does have to deal with
his Cabinet now. Mad dog matters, now the Defence Secretary, he might
not like what's said about China at three in morning - general matters.
This is what gets very conjugated. We cannot imagine here in our
political system any kind of appointments like this. Using the
wouldn't have a line-up of billionaires of the kind of
background that he has chosen -- you simply wouldn't have. But that won't
stop him saying and reading what he thinks. Maybe it will cause him some
internal issues when the following day he has the square rigged with
whatever they think. But he's going to press ahead. Are we any clearer
in terms of policy. I know policy hasn't featured hugely in this
campaign of 2016. Do we have any really clear idea what Mr Trump is
hoping to achieve? He has had some consistent theme going back over 25
years. One is a deep scepticism about international trade and the
kind of deals that America has been doing over that period. It has been
so consistent that is has been hard to spin as something that you say
during the course of a campaign of something to get elected.
Ultimately, Piers is correct, he won't change. When he won the
election committee gave a relatively magnanimous beach. I thought his ego
had been sated and he had got what he wanted. He will end up governing
as is likely eccentric New York liberal and everything will be fine.
In the recent weeks it has come to my attention that that might not be
entirely true! LAUGHTER
It is a real test of the American system, the Texan bouncers, the
foreign policy establishment which is about to have the orthodoxies
disrupted -- the checks and balances. I think he has completely
ripped up the American political system. Washington as we know it is
dead. From his garage do things his way, he doesn't care, frankly, what
any of us thinks -- Trump is going to do things his way. If he can
deliver for the people who voted for him who fault this disenfranchised,
-- who voted for him who felt this disenfranchised. They voted
accordingly. They want to see jobs and the economy in good shape, they
want to feel secure. They want to feel that immigration has been
tightened. If Trump can deliver on those main theme for the rust belt
communities of America, I'm telling you, he will go down as a very
successful president. All of the offensive rhetoric and the
argy-bargy with CNN and whatever it may be will be completely
irrelevant. Let me finish with a parochial question. Is it fair to
say quite well disposed to this country? And that he would like,
that he's up for a speedy free-trade, bilateral free-trade
you'll? Think we have to be sensible as the country. Come Friday, he is
the president of the United States, the most powerful man and well. He
said to me that he feels half British, his mum was born and raised
in Scotland until the age of 18, he loves British, his mother used to
love watching the Queen, he feels very, you know, I would roll out the
red carpet for Trump, let him eat Her Majesty. The crucial point for
us as a country is coming -- let him me to Her Majesty. If we can do a
speedy deal within an 18 month period, it really sends a message
that well but we are back in the game, that is a hugely beneficial
thing for this country. Well, a man whose advisers were indicating that
maybe he should learn a few things from Donald Trump was Jeremy Corbyn.
Yes, MBE. Mr Corbyn appeared on the Andrew Marr Show this morning. --
yes, indeed. If you don't win Copeland,
and if you don't win Stoke-on-Trent Central,
you're toast, aren't you? Our party is going to fight very
hard in those elections, as we are in the local elections,
to put those policies out there. It's an opportunity to challenge
the Government on the NHS. It's an opportunity to challenge
them on the chaos of Brexit. It's an opportunity to challenge
them on the housing shortage. It's an opportunity to challenge
them on zero-hours contracts. Is there ever a moment that you look
in the mirror and think, you know what, I've done my best,
but this might not be for me? I look in the mirror
every day and I think, let's go out there and try
and create a society where there are opportunities for all,
where there aren't these terrible levels of poverty, where
there isn't homelessness, where there are houses for all,
and where young people aren't frightened of going to university
because of the debts they are going to end up
with at the end of their course. Mr Corbyn earlier this morning.
Steve, would it be fair to say that the mainstream of the Labour Party
has now come to the conclusion that they just have to let Mr Corbyn get
on with it, that they are not going to try and influence what he does.
They will continue to try and have their own views, but it's his show,
it's up to him, if it's a mess, he has to live with it and we'll have
clean hands? For now, yes. I think they made a mistake when he was
first elected to start in some cases tweeting within seconds that it was
going to be a disaster, this was Labour MPs. They made a complete
mess of that attempted coup in the summer, which strengthened his
position. And he did, it gave Corbyn the space with total legitimacy to
say that part of the problem is, we're having this public Civil War.
In keeping quiet, that disappeared as part of the explanation for why
Labour and low in the polls. I think they are partly doing that. But they
are also struggling, the so-called mainstream Labour MPs, to decide
what the distinctive agenda is. It's one of the many differences with the
80s, where you had a group of people sure of what they believed in, they
left to form the SDP. What's happening now is that they are
leaving politics altogether. That is a crisis of social Democrats all
across Europe, including the French Socialists, as we will find out
later in the spring. Let Corbyn because then, that's the strategy.
There is a weary and sometimes literal resignation from the
moderates in the Labour Party. If you talk to them, they are no longer
angry, they have always run out of steam to be angry about what's going
on. They are just sort of tired and feel that they've just got to see
this through now. I think the by-elections will be interesting.
When Andrew Marr said, you're toast, and you? I thought, he's never
posed! That was right. A quick thought from view? One thing Corbyn
has in common with Trump is immunity to bad news. I think he can lose
Copeland and lose Stoke, and as long as it is not a sequence of
resignations and by-elections afterwards, with maybe a dozen or 20
Labour MPs going, he can still enjoy what. It may be more trouble if
Labour loses the United trade union elections. We are in a period of
incredible unpredictability generally in global politics. If you
look at the way the next year plays out, if for example brags it was a
disaster and it starts to unravel very quickly, Theresa May is
attached to that, clearly label would have a great opportunity
potentially disease that higher ground, and when Eddie the Tories --
Labour would have an opportunity. Is Corbyn the right guy? We interviewed
him, what struck me was that he talked about being from, a laughable
comparison, but when it is really laughable is this - Hillary Clinton,
what were the things she stood for, nobody really knew? What does Trump
stand for? Everybody knew. Corbyn has the work-out four or five
messages and bang, bang, bang. He could still be in business. Thank
you for being with us. I'll be back at the same
time next weekend. Remember - if it's Sunday,
it's the Sunday Politics.