20/11/2016 Sunday Politics East


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 20/11/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning folks - welcome to the Sunday Politics.


Theresa May says she'll deliver on Brexit but does that mean leaving


the EU's Single Market and the Customs Union?


Tory MPs campaign for a commitment from the Prime


The Chancellor pledges just over a billion pounds worth of spending


on Britain's roads but is that it or will there be


Here in the East... 18 days in the job.


The devolution dream for Norfolk and Suffolk is all over.


In a special programme, we look at what's gone wrong


in London: Is the battle for Richmond Park based on the skies? Or


is it about a bigger conflict in Europe?


And with me - as always - and, no, these three aren't doing


the Mannequin challenge - it's our dynamic, demonstrative


dazzling political panel - Helen Lewis, Isabel Oakeshott


and Tom Newton Dunn they'll also be tweeting throughout the programme.


First this morning - Theresa May has said


"Brexit means Brexit" - but can the Prime Minister -


who was on the Remain side of argument during the referendum


Well, Leave-supporting Tory MPs are re-launching


the "European Research Group" this morning to keep Mrs May's feet


Are you worried that you cannot trust Theresa May until payment to


deliver full Brexit was Magellan like I totally trust Theresa May,


100% behind her. She has displayed a massive amount of commitment to


making a success of Brexit for the country.


We don't know that yet, because nothing has happened. Why, then


have you formed a pressure group? We were fed up with the negativity


coming out around Brexit. I feel positive about the opportunities we


face, and we are a group to provide suggestions. Who do you have in mind


when you talk about negativity the Chancellor? No, from the Lib Dems,


for example, from Labour MPs. This is a pressure group for leaving


membership of the single market and customs union, correct? That is what


we are proposing. It has a purpose other than just to combat


negativity. When it comes to membership of the single market and


the customs union, can you tell us what Government policy is towards


both or either? Rightly, the Government hasn't made the position


clear, and I think that is the right approach, because we don't want to


review our negotiating hand. What we're saying... I'm not asking what


you are saying. Can you tell us what Government policy is towards


membership of these institutions? The Government wants to make sure


British businesses have the right to trade with EU partners, to forge new


trade deals with the rest of the world. We hope to Reza may speak at


Mansion house this week. -- we had Theresa May speak at Mansion house


this week. She has been clear, saying it was not a binary choice.


And she's right. Let's run that tape, because I want to pick up on


what she did say. This is what she had to say about the customs union


at Prime Minister's Question Time. On the whole question of the customs


union, trading relationships that we have with the European Union and


other parts of the world once we have left the European Union, we are


preparing carefully for the formal negotiations. We are preparing


carefully for the formal negotiations. We want to ensure we


have the best possible trading deal with the EU once we have left. Do


you know what she means when she says being in the customs union is


not a binary choice? I think she's right when she says that. At the


moment, and you know this, as long as we are in the customs union, we


cannot set our own tariffs or rules, cannot have a free trade agreement


with the US or China. We need to leave a customs union to do that.


Binary means either you are in or you are out, self which is it? We


still want to trade with the EU and I think we can have a free trade


agreement with the EU. That is a separate matter, and it has to do


with the single market. What about the customs union? We need to leave


the customs union. We do it and properly. That is how to get the


most out of this opportunity. Summit is a binary choice? The Prime


Minister is right when she says it's not a binary choice. Both can't be


right. We can leave the customs union, get their benefits, and have


a free trade agreement with zero tariffs with the EU. So it is a


binary choice an either be stale really. Yellow like I am saying the


Prime Minister is right when she says it is not a binary choice. -- I


am saying the Prime Minister is right. We need clarity. Youth had


said -- you have said it is a binary choice. We need to leave the


constraints of the customs union. It pushes up prices. The EU is not


securing the right trade deals, and if we want to make the most of it,


we need to get out there and get some deals going. Do you accept that


if we remain in the customs union, we cannot do our own free-trade


deals? Yellow right 100%. That is why we have to leave. -- 100%. Do


you accept that if we leave the customs union but stay with


substantial access, I don't say membership, but substantial access


to the single market, that goods going from this country to the


single market because we're no longer in the union will be subject


to complicated rules of origin regulations, which could cost


business ?13 billion a year? I would like to see a free-trade agreement


between the UK and the EU. Look at the Canadian deal. I give you that,


but if we're not in the customs union, things that we bring in on


our own tariffs once we've left we can't just export again willy-nilly


to the EU. They will demand to see rules of origin. Norway has to do


that at the moment and it is highly complicated expensive. I think if we


agree a particular arrangement as part of this agreement with the EU,


we can reach an agreement on that which sets a lower standard, which


sets a different level of tariffs, which protects some of our


industries. Let's suppose we have pretty much free trade with the EU


but we are out of the customs union, and let's suppose that the European


Union has a 20% tariff on Japanese whisky and we decide to have a %


tariff - what then happens to the whisky that comes into Britain and


goes on to the EU? The EU will not let that in. That will be part of


the negotiation. I think there is a huge benefit for external operators.


Every bottle of Japanese whisky they will have to work out the rules


of origin. There have been studies that show there is a potential for


50% increase in global product if we leave. We're losing the benefits of


free trade. I understand, I am asking for your particular view


Thank you for that. Is it not surprising Mr Hannan could


not bring himself to say we would leave the customs union? It is


messy. The reason there is this new group of Tory MPs signing up to a


campaign to make sure we get a genuine Brexit is because there is


this vacuum. It is being filled with all sorts of briefing from the other


side. There is a real risk in the minds of Brexit supporting MPs that


the remaining side are going to try to hijack the process, not only


through the Supreme Court action, which I think most Brexit MPs seem


to accept the appeal will fail, but further down the line, through


amendments to the great repeal bill. This is a pressure group to try to


hold the Prime Minister to account. There is plenty of pressure on the


Prime Minister effectively to stay in the single market and the customs


union, and if you do both of these things, de facto, you have stayed in


the EU. She is in a difficult position because there is no good


faith assumption about what Theresa May wants because she was a


Remainer. There is all this talk about a transitional arrangement,


but she can't sell that as someone who voted to remain. The way Isabel


has characterised it is interesting. There is a betrayal narrative.


Everyone is looking to say that she has betrayed the true Brexit. Since


the Government cannot give a clear indication of what it once in terms


of the customs union, which sets external tariffs, or the single


market, which is the free movement of people, capital, goods and


services, others are filling this vacuum. Right. The reasons they


can't do this are, first, they don't know if they can get it or not. We


saw this with the renegotiation the last Prime Minister. What are they


hoping to get? The world on a stick, to get cake and eat it. You go into


a negotiation saying, let's see what we can get in total. Are they going


to ask the membership of the single market? Yellow I think they will ask


for a free trade agreement involving everything. You can demand what you


want. The question is, do they stand a cat's chance in hell of getting


it? They don't know. Welcome back. We will be back, believe me. It is


150 day since we found out the UK had voted to leave the EU, but as we


have heard, remain and leave campaigners continue to battle about


what type of relationship we should have with the EU after exit.


Leave campaigners say that leaving the EU


also means quitting the


Single Market, the internal European trading bloc that includes free


movement of goods, services, capital and people.


They point to evidence that leading Leave supporting


politicians ruled out staying in the Single Market during


Andrea Leadsom, for example, said it would almost


certainly be the case that the UK would come out of the Single Market.


When asked for a yes or no on whether the UK should stay


"No, we should be outside the Single Market."


And Boris Johnson agreed with his erstwhile ally, saying, "Michael


Gove was absolutely right to say the UK


They've released a video of clips of Leave campaigners speaking before


the referendum apparently saying that the UK should stay in the


Nigel Farage, for example, once said that on leaving


the EU we'll find ourselves part of the European economic area


Owen Paterson, the former Environment Secretary,


once made the startling statement that only a madman would actually


And Matthew Elliott, the Vote Leave chief, said


that the Norwegian option would be initially attractive for some


But do these quotes create an accurate picture of what


To cast some light on where these quotes came from we're


joined by James McGrory, director of Open Britain


Welcome to the Sunday Politics. . Your video has statements from leave


campaigners hinting they want to stay in the single market. How many


were made during the referendum campaign? I don't know. Not one was


made during the referendum campaign. Indeed, only two of the 12


statements were recorded after Royal assent had been given to the


referendum. Only one was made this year before the referendum.


Throughout the campaign am a leave campaigners lauded the Norwegian


model. Norway are in the single market but not in the EU. They went


out of their way not to be pinned down on a specific trading


arrangement they want to see in the future with Europe, when the


Treasury model the different models it was the EEA or a free-trade


agreement. I understand. Does it not undermine your case that none of the


12 statements on your video were made during the campaign itself


when people were giving really serious thought to such matters The


Leave campaign weren't giving serious thought to such matters


They did not set out the future trading model they wanted to see.


But you cannot produce a single video with somebody saying we should


stay in the single market during the campaign. Daniel Hanna had talked


about the Norwegian model as a future option. One comment from


Nigel Farage dates back to 2009 when we didn't even know if we would


have a referendum or not. Does it not stretch credibility to go back


to the time when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister? The overall point


stands. It is not supposed to be an exhaustive list of the options.


Daniel Hannan, described as the intellectual godfather of the Leave


movement is saying that no one is talking about threatening our place


in the signal market. I think it's legitimate to point out the Leave


campaign never came forward with a credible argument. We have


highlighted some of the quotes you picked out from leave campaigners


over time. Do you think you have fully encapsulated their arguments


accurately? I don't think in a 2nd video you can talk about the full


thing. -- a 90-2nd video. Some of them want to seek a free-trade


agreement, some to default on to World Trade Organisation tariffs.


There is a range of opinion in the Leave campaign. Let's listen to the


clip you used on Owen Paterson first.


Only a madman would actually leave the market.


Only a madman would actually leave the market.


It's not the EU which is


a political organisation delivering the prosperity and buying our goods.


It's the market, it's the members of the market and we'll carry on


I mean, are we really suggesting that the


economy in the world is not going to come to come


to a satisfactory trading arrangement with the EU?


Are we going to be like Sudan and North


It is ludicrous this idea that we are going to leap off a


What he said when he said only a madman would leave Europe, was that


we would continue to trade, we would continue to have access. Any country


in the world can have access. What the Leave campaign suggested is our


trade would continue uninterrupted, they are still at it today, David


Davis used the phrase, uninterrupted, from the dispatch box


recently. You misrepresented him by saying only a madman would leave the


Single Market and stopped it there, because he goes onto say that of


course we want Leave in the sense of continuing to have access. I don't


think he was about axis, he is talking


about membership. He doesn't use the word membership at all. He talks


about we are going to carry on trading with them, we will not leap


off, we will carry on trading. Anybody can trade with the EU, it's


the terms on which you trade that is important and leave campaigners and


Patterson is an example of this saying we can trade as we do now,


the government saying we can trade without bureaucratic impediments and


tariff free. The viewers will make up their mind. Let's listen to the


views of Matthew Elliott, the Chief Executive of Vote Leave.


When it comes to the Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that


it might be initially attractive for some business people.


So you then cut him off there but this is what he went on to say in


the same clip, let's listen to that. When it comes to the Norwegian


option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initially attractive


for some business people. But then again for voters


who are increasingly concerned about migration in the EU,


they will be very concerned that it allows free movement


of people to continue. Again, you have misrepresented him.


He said the Norwegian model has attractions but there are real


problems if it involves free movement of people, which it does.


But you cut that bit out. I challenge anyone to represent them


accurately because they took such a range of opinions. I don't know what


we are supposed to do. You are misrepresenting them. He is saying


the Norwegian option is attractive to business, I understand why. It


might not be attractive for voters. But then he said if it allowed free


movement of people it could be an issue. You took that out. You are


saying this is a definitive position. I'm suggesting you are


distorting it. This is what you had Mr Farage say.


On D+1 we'll find ourselves part of the European economic area


This is what he then went on to say in that same clip that you didn t


run. There is absolutely


nothing to fear in terms of trade from leaving


the on D+1 we'll find ourselves part


of the European Economic Area and we should use our


membership of the EEA as a holding position from which


we can negotiate as the European Union's biggest export


market in the world, as good a deal, my goodness me,


if Switzerland can have one we So there again, he says not that we


should stay in the Single Market as a member, but that we stay in the EA


as a transition until we negotiate something. -- EEA. This whole clip


is online, how would you get away with this distortion? It is not a


distortion, the whole point is to point out they do not have a


definitive position, he is arguing for membership of the Single Market,


for a transitional period. For the transition. How long does that go


on, what does he want to then achieve? Not very quickly but he


does not say we should stay members of the Single Market and you didn't


let people see what he went on to say, you gave the impression he


wanted to stay in the one it. It would not be a video then, it would


be a seven-week long lecture. They took so many positions, and the idea


now that they were clear with people that we should definitely leave the


Single Market I think is fictitious. You are trying to make out they all


had one position which was to remain members of the one it. You see the


full clips that is not what they are saying. We are trying to point out


there is no mandate to leave the Single Market. The idea the Leave


campaign spoke with unanimity and clarity of purpose and throughout


the whole campaign said we will definitely leave the Single Market


is not true. That is the whole point of the media. We showed in the


montage in the video just before we came on, we said that then Prime


Minister, the then Chancellor, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, being


categorical that if you vote to leave the EU, you vote to leave


membership of the Single Market What bit of that didn't you


understand? Under duress they occasionally said they wanted to


leave. Some of them wanted to leave the Single Market. All of the other


promises they made, whether ?35 million for the NHS, whether a VAT


cut on fuel, points-based system. You do not have a single quote of


any of these members saying they want to be a member. Daniel Hannan


has said consistently that Norway are a part of the Single Market You


spend the referendum campaign criticising for Rim misrepresenting


and misrepresenting and lying and many thought they did. Having seen


this many will conclude that you are the biggest liars. I think it is


perfectly reasonable to point out that the Leave campaign did not have


a clear position on our future trading relationship with Europe.


That is all this video does. It doesn't say we definitely have to


stay in the Single Market, it just says they do have a mandate to drag


us out of our biggest trading partner.


Now people have seen the full quotes in context our viewers will make up


their mind. Thank you. Now - voting closes next week


in the the Ukip leadership contest. The second Ukip leadership contest


this year after the party's first female leader - Diane James -


stood down from the role Since then the party's lurched from


farce to fiasco. It's a world gripped by uncertainty,


split into factions. Yes, 2, because they're


having their second Watch as the alpha male,


the Ukip leader at Nigel Watch as the alpha male,


the Ukip leader Nigel Farage, hands power to the new alpha


female Diane James. The European Parliament


in Strasbourg, October. Another leading light and possible


future leader, the MEP Steven Wolfe,


has been laid low after an alleged tussle with a colleague


during a meeting. A few days later he is


out of hospital and I will be withdrawing my


application to become I'm actually withdrawing


myself from Ukip. You're resigning from the party


I'm resigning with immediate effect. And this week a leaked document


suggested the party improperly spent EU funds on political


campaigning in the UK. Another headache for whoever takes


over the leadership of the pack One contender is Suzanne Evans,


a former Tory councillor and was briefly suspended for


disloyalty. Also standing, Paul Nuttall,


an MEP from Liverpool who has been by Farage's side


as his deputy for six years. There's another big beast


in the Ukip leadership contest, and I'm told


that today he can be spotted He's John Rees-Evans,


a businessman and adventurer who is offering members the chance


to propose policies via a website We've got really dedicated


passionate supporters who feel like they're not really


being listened to and are not even Typically what happens


is they just basically sit there until six months before


a General Election when they are contacted and asked to go out


and leaflet and canvas. Even at branch level people feel


there is not an adequate flow of communication


up-and-down the party. Are you not going to take part in


any hustings? He left a hustings saying


the contest was an establishment coronation and has


made colourful comments in the past. He's in favour of the death penalty


for crimes like paedophilia. I think there is a clear


will amongst the offences should be dealt with


decisively. But again, on an issue like that,


that is something that Our members are not


going to agree with me on everything and I don't believe that


I would have any authority to have the say and determine


the future What method would you use


for the death penalty? Again, that is something that could


be determined by suggestions made So you'd have like an online


poll about whether you use the electric chair,


or lethal injection? For example, arguments would be made


in favour of This is such a small aspect


of what I'm standing for. Essentially, in mainstream media


they try to by focusing on pretty irrelevant


details. This is one vote that


the membership would have. What I'm actually trying to do


in this party is to revolutionise the democratic


process in the UK, and that's really what your viewers should


be concentrating on. With him at the helm he reckons Ukip


would win at Meanwhile, in New York,


on a visit to Trump Tower, Nigel Farage admired the plumage


of the President-elect, a man he has described as


a silverback gorilla, a friendship that's been condemned by some


in this leadership contest. There are also elections


to the party's National Executive Committee, a body


that's been roundly criticised by And we're joined now by two


of the candidates in the Ukip leadership election -


Suzanne Evans and Paul Nuttall. We are going to kick off by giving


each of them 30 seconds to lay out their case as to why they would be


the less leader starting with Suzanne Evans.


Ukip is at its best when it is scaring the political establishment,


forcing it to address those problems it would rather ignore. But it


really change people's lives for the better and fast, we need to win


seats and elections right across the country. To win at the ballot box we


need to attract more women, more ethnic


minorities, and more of those Labour voters who no longer recognise their


party. I know how to do that. Ukip under my


leadership will be the same page about it, common-sense, radical


party it has always been, just even more successful. Thank you, Suzanne


Evans, Paul Nuttall. I'm standing on a platform of unity and experience.


I believe the party must come together if it is to survive and


prosper. I believe I'm the best candidate to ensure that happens, I


am not part of any faction in the party, and beyond that I have done


every single job within the party, whether that is as head of policy,


whether that is Party Chairman, deputy leader for Nigel for the past


six years. I believe Ukip has great opportunities in Labour


constituencies where we can move in and become the Patriot invoice of


working people, and beyond that we have to ensure the government's feet


are held to the fire on Brexit and we get real Brexit, not a


mealy-mouthed version. How will you get a grip on this? People have to


realise that the cause is bigger than any personality, we have to get


together in a room and sort out not just a spokespeople role but roles


within the organisation, Party Chairman, party secretary, and


whatnot. But as I say, Ukip must unite, we are on 13% in the opinion


polls, the future is bright, there are open goals but Ukip must be on


the pitch to score them. He says he's the only one that can get a


grip on this party. I disagree, I have a huge amount of experience in


the party as well and also a background that I think means I can


help bring people together. I have always said nothing breeds unity


faster than success and under my leadership we will be successful.


There is concern about the future of our National Executive Committee


going forward. Mr Farage called it the lowest grade of people I have


ever met, do you agree? I think he must have been having a bad day I


think we need to make it more accountable to the membership, more


open, more democratic. What would you do with the National Executive


Committee? I have been calling for the National Executive Committee to


be elected reasonably since 201 giving the members better


communication lines and make it far more transparent. Would you have a


clear out of the office? I wouldn't, I think the chairman of the party,


Paul Upton, the interim chairman, is doing a good job and the only person


who has come out of the summer with his reputation enhanced. Let me show


you a picture we have all seen of your current leader, Mr Farage, with


President-elect Donald Trump. Paul Nuttall, you criticise Mr Farage's


decision to appear at rallies during the American election and called Mr


Trump appalling. Do you stick by that? I wouldn't have voted for him.


I made it clear. Do you still think he's appalling now that he is


President-elect? Some of the things he said were appalling during the


campaign that he said. But he would be good for Britain, trade,


pro-Brexit and he is an Anglo file and the first thing he did was put


the bust of Winston Churchill back in the Oval Office. You, Suzanne


Evans, called Mr Trump one of the weakest candidates the US has had. I


said the same about Hillary Clinton. They cannot both be the weakest The


better candidate on either side would have beaten the other, that is


quite clear. Do you stand by that, or are you glad that your leader Mr


Farage has strong ties to him? I am, why wouldn't I be? For Ukip to have


that direct connection, it can be only good for a party. Were you not


out of step and Mr Farage is in step because it looks like your vote is


according to polling I have seemed like Mr Trump and his policies? Let


me finish. If I am the leader of Ukip I will not be involving myself


in foreign elections, I will because in trading here in this country


ensuring we get Ukip people elected to council chambers and get seats in


2020. The other thing your leader has in


common with Mr Trump is that he rather admires Vladimir Putin. Do


you? I don't. If you look at Putin's record, he has invaded Ukraine and


Georgia. I am absolutely not a fan. I think that Vladimir Putin is


pretty much a nasty man, but beyond that, I believe that in the Middle


East, he is generally getting it right in many areas. We need to


bring the conflict... Bombing civilians? We need to bring the


conflict to an end as fast as possible. The British and American


line before Donald Trump is to support rebels, including one is


affiliated to Al-Qaeda, to the Taliban. We need to clear these


people out and ensure that Syria becomes stable. This controversial


breaking point poster from during the referendum campaign. Mr Farage


unveiled it, there he is standing in front of it. You can bend it - do


you still? Yes, I think it was the wrong poster at the wrong time. I


was involved with the vote Leave campaign as well as Ukip's campaign,


and I felt strongly that those concerned about immigration were


already going to vote to leave because it was a fundamental truth


that unless we left the European Union we couldn't control


immigration. I thought it was about approaching those soft wavering


voters who weren't sure. I don't think I said it was racist, but it


was about sovereignty and trade and so forth. That was where we needed


to go. I was concerned it might put off some of those wavering voters.


People may well say, it was part of the winning campaign. It was Ukip


shock and all, which is what you stand for and what makes you


different. I said I would know how that I said I would not have gone


for that person and I thought it was wrong to do it just a week out from


the referendum. However, I believe it released legitimate concerns


with a deluge of people making their way from the Middle East and Africa


into the European continent. Where is the low hanging fruit for you,


particularly in England? Is it Labour or Conservative voters? I


want to hang onto the Conservative voters we have got but I think the


low hanging fruit is Labour. Jeremy Corbyn won't sing the national


anthem, Emily Thornbury despises the English flag. Diane Abbott thinks


anyone talking about immigration is racist. Not to mention John


McDonnell's feelings about the IRA. Labour has ceased to be a party for


working people and I think Ukip is absolutely going to be that party.


It is clear, I absolutely concur with everything Suzanne has said. I


first voiced this back in 2008 that I believe Ukip has a fantastic


opportunity in working-class communities, and everyone laughed at


me. It is clear now that we resonate with working people, and you have


seen that in the Brexit result. Would you bring back the death


penalty? It wouldn't be Ukip policy. Absolutely not. Would you give more


money to the NHS and how would your fanatic? You like it is important to


fund it adequately, and it hasn t been to date. We promised in our


manifesto that we would give more money. Where does the money come


from? It is about tackling health tourism. I think the NHS is being


taken for a ride at the moment. That may be right, but where does the


money come from? It is about scaling back management in the NHS, because


that has burgeoned beyond control. They are spending far more money on


management. Where would you save money? We need to look at HS two,


foreign aid. Now we have Brexit and we will be saving on the membership


fee. We need to cut back on management, as Suzanne says. It


cannot be right that 51% of people who work for the NHS in England are


not clinically qualified. The NHS needs money now - where would you


get it? From HS two. That is capital spending spread over a long period.


Where will you get the money now? OK, another one. We spent ?25


million every day on foreign aid to countries who sometimes are richer


than ourselves. Through the Barnett formula. You would take money away


from Scotland? Yes, I think they get far too much. PG tips or Earl Grey?


Colegrave. PG tips. Strictly come dancing or X Factor? Neither.


Strictly. I would love to be on it one day. There you go. Thank you


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.


Welcome to a special Sunday Politics East,


devoted to devolution plans for this region.


Here with me are some of the key people involved.


Devolution will now deliver for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.


But the plan for Norfolk and Suffolk is over.


The dream began with a handshake on a bridge over the River Waveney


in 2013 and culminated in a 90-minute meeting


in King's Lynn this week that saw the end of it.


We'll hear from both sides and discuss what happens next.


What this is about is, can you be more than a sum-of-parts?


Can you really come together and actually achieve


a level of growth that you couldn't achieve on your own?


It has been such a torturous process.


Yet, on the face of it, devolution seemed such a good idea.


Instead of Westminster runnhng transport and road networks


and deciding when new roads and homes should be built,


a locally elected mayor could make the decisions instead


He or she will be a big character, who can both make sure that


we fight our corner domestically, get the investment we need,


make the decisions locally to improve things.


And also represent East Anglia around the world.


We've agreed that a single, powerful East Anglia


combined authority can headed up by an elected mayor...


The initial plans were rushdd out by the government before thdy had


And it eventually secured its own devolution deal,


leaving Norfolk and Suffolk on their own.


Four of Norfolk's seven authorities pulled out early on.


On Thursday night this week, King's Lynn and West Norfolk


I think people are concerned that the imposition of a maxor


I think they understand that we need infrastructure and we need


But I think they don't need another layer of bureaucracx.


Tomorrow, the government is expected to confirm that the devoluthon deal


for Norfolk and Suffolk is off the table.


All of Suffolk councils were expected to approve


And two authorities in Norfolk South Norfolk and Broadland -


overwhelmingly said yes to a devolution this week.


Devolution is, really, devolving powers from


central government to local government


And that's exactly what people in all the consultations,


and everything that was said, wanted to hear.


I would hate to think we are saying...


"Right, that's it, put it all to bed", and walk away.


That will be a disaster for everybody.


And, this weekend, people are talking about


Of those in Norfolk and Suffolk who really want devolution


But there are still some people hoping


On Friday, the government ptlled out of the devolution deal for Norfolk


and Suffolk worth ?750 millhon over 30 thirty years,


The decision followed the vote at King's Lynn District Council


The town's MP, Sir Henry Bellingham, has spearheaded the campaign


against devolution and a directly elected mayor.


He told Andrew Sinclair that he doesn't think


We are seeing cuts to lollipop ladies, gritting on winter roads,


And so, to actually have put money, a lot of money, into setting up


with all the bureaucracy that entails -


would have been completely unacceptable.


?750 million over 30 years for infrastructure.


Norfolk and Suffolk have just turned their backs


George Osborne said he would devolve money to combined authoritids


that would, otherwise, have been spent by


It is old money being delivered in a new way.


What we said in the manifesto was that we would devolve money


to combined authorities and have elected mayors


There's nothing in the manifesto about rural areas.


What is interesting is that a lot of shire counties have rejected


Yorkshire has rejected it. Lincolnshire as well.


So, basically, elected mayors do not go in shire counties.


I have an affinity to Norfolk, I love Norfolk.


I have no affinity to East @nglia or Norfolk and Suffolk.


But what is the problem with the mayor?


Why are people so fearful of the idea of a mayor?


First of all, this would have been a Suffolk mayor, because, already,


four Norfolk councils were out of the process.


So it wasn't Norfolk and Suffolk, as everyone kept saying.


So, by definition, it would have been a Suffolk mayor.


And the mayor would have had power over regional planning.


He could have set up a land commission, which could havd looked


We were going to see powers going away from our borough council


So, I don't want to have that power given away.


I don't want to have a fifth tier of bureaucracy.


I think the idea of having loney given to local authorities,


or to a new combined authorhty without a mayor, is a good hdea


But I'm dead against the idea of an elected mayor.


The public would not have found that acceptable.


Nick Daubney, the former leader of King's Lynn Counchl


"Norfolk is so often at the bottom of the pile.


"Devolution will make things happen".


Isn't there a danger that Cambridgeshire will move ahdad


with devolution and Norfolk and Suffolk


will, once again, be left at the bottom of the pile?


If you look at the big-ticket items...


Under this devolution deal, we were talking about 13 million


a year, with a bit more for housing and a bit more for infrastrtcture.


The Ely North Junction, which actually isn't in either


Norfolk or Suffolk, by the way, is going to cost 100 million.


The schemes on the A47 - we are talking about roundabouts -


These schemes are in the programme already.


What could the elected mayor and the combined authority


It might have got things built quicker.


I don't think it would have done,


because the money is already committed.


I don't accept what people are saying about


And how Norfolk will go back into the dark ages.


We will get a deal in futurd that will suit Norfolk much better.


And it may well not entail an elected mayor.


So, what sort of a deal do you envisage in future?


The government have made it very clear


They want the devolution deals to go through.


But, in phase one, they had to be elected mayors,


because that's what Sajid Javid inherited.


"Look, if you reject this ddal, I won't take it personally.


And we can look at a new de`l. That's what he said.


Listening to that is one of the main architects of the plans,


West Suffolk MP and Minister for Culture and Digital Polhcy,


Henry Bellingham is very confident of a new deal


I am not sure about that. What I do want to see is the continuation of


the principle behind devolution which is one that many people back,


including right across Norfolk and certainly here in Suffolk. That is


the more decision should be made locally. More local Seo for those


decisions. Of course it is disappointing when more mondy


locally is put on the table or decisions to be made locallx is put


the table, and we have been working on this pan for several years. And


some councils have decided to reject it. But I think we should continue


to work to get decisions made locally. The mayor seems to be the


main sticking point. Why has the government insisted


upon something that, quite frankly, lots


of people at a local I'm not sure that is true, `ctually.


I think the idea of having ` single person who is accountable as well as


responsible is a very strong one. It certainly worked in lots of areas


around the world and countrx. And it really puts a place on the lap. So,


I think that it is a popular idea and a good idea. And I think that it


will work. What we've got to do now is take away that this is about


getting decisions made locally. If the council decides locally that


they don't want those powers, that is their decision. I think we should


continue to work with those who want to go forward with the deal and


thumping close of the deal that is on the table. And try to make that


work. These decisions should be m`de on


the deal should be made loc`lly unsupported locally. Right `cross


Suffolk, people are very supportive of having extra money coming into


their area and extra powers so decisions can be made locally. I


want to see that happen. We will be working with the decision that was


made in Norfolk on Friday. We will be working next week to see if we


can land a deal amongst those who want to support it. How significant


is all of this? We had the accusation that it is just old money


being spent on a different way. It is extra money coming to our area.


That is the point. Of coursd, all government money ultimately as tax


payer's money. But that is `t a national level. I want to sde extra


what was being proposed. And I hope what was being proposed. And I hope


that we can keep that on thd table. So, I think there is a good deal of


support for continuing with this. And that is amongst those who want


a. Those who don't, that fine. Thank you very much. -- those who wanted.


Here in the studio, we have the former Labour ldader


of Norfolk County Council, George Nobbs, who was for


Colin Noble, Leader of Suffolk County Council,


John Fuller, the leader of South Norfolk District Council,


who has spent a great deal of time trying to make it work.


And Norfolk MP, Richard Bacon, who added his name


to a letter supporting devolution last month.


George Nobbs, you were in f`vour, but you're not now?


But hasn't Norfolk missed ott on all this money and the chance


I don't think so. A lot of things that Matthew said... He said, for


example, this is about decisions being made locally. Yet the decision


which has scuppered the stedl is one which we cannot make locallx. The


whole problem with this as H have been in favour from the beghnning of


devolution, but it has been dictated to us. I remember going to leetings


with ministers where they h`ve said in the past we have imposed a model


that was a mistake. It is up to you that was a mistake. It is up to you


to devise exactly the deal xou want. And then, as soon as we went to them


and said, can we change this? No. So, the government had handled this


badly. Well, the government has had badly. Well, the government has had


to deal with diametrically opposed interests. I supported it bdcause I


didn't want extra money to comment Norfolk and Suffolk. This ddal was a


route to making that happen. I thought there was a chance to


streamline it later on and lake it streamline it later on and lake it


more acceptable. John Fuller, extra money that could have slippdd


through your fingers. You fdeling a bit despondent this morning? Yes, I


am disappointed that if you have a am disappointed that if you have a


winning lottery ticket and xour neighbour's dog eats it. But that


lottery ticket was worth ne`rly ?1 billion. So long, that taxp`yer s


money from this region has gone on to London. We could have got that


back, but also retained a greater proportion going forward. And that


seems, to me, it is a government forcing a man upon us, that seemed


to me a price worth paying. Colin Noble, Sir Henry Bellhngham


took a strong objection to ` mayor Seriously, though, the concdrns


in Kings Lynn are very diffdrent I think for me, as long as H've been


a councillor, this has alwaxs been about more local decision-m`king. As


higher had more senior roles, we have gone to Whitehall and pointed


what we should be doing. -- as I what we should be doing. -- as I


have had more senior roles. You are sitting with council leaders and


business people who know thd area know what needs to be done `nd make


decisions and better decisions than are made in Whitehall. John made the


point about the amount of money on offer. For me, this has alw`ys been


about more local decision-m`king. Whether the mayor came from Norfolk


Suffolk, I don't accept the point at all. I think the combined atthority


on the way we work together shows that we can make the decisions for


knowledge of it, which is a far knowledge of it, which is a far


better way of making decisions than doing it by going down to Whitehall.


You are nodding in agreement. But you could not make it work. I am not


in agreement with Henry Bellingham. It is not an objection to the


scheme. Henry says he has no affinity with East Anglia. H find


that hard to believe. I don't mind whether the mayor comes frol Norfolk


Suffolk. I just don't want there to be one. And I don't want ond


imposed. John says the government imposing one is a price worth


paying. If the money was sufficiently good and you could


convince councils it would work they would have voted for it. Five


out of seven districts in Norfolk voted no. The whole with thhs.. You


remember the meeting in Cambridge. Out of the blue, we were told that


Norfolk and Suffolk deal is dead. The Cambridge deal is dead. This new


deal, which we have announcdd as a surprise today is the only deal


town. They have changed backward and forward and it has been top,down.


John Fuller? There have been changes. It would have been more


straightforward, the governlent just told us what they were doing. There


have been bumps along the road. -- have been bumps along the road. --


away from the main point. Rhchard away from the main point. Rhchard


and I were opposed on the ET debate. We need to have an outward looking


economy after Brexit. We have to compete on a geography that makes


sense to inward investors. @nd having somebody, a mayor, who can go


out and represent our interdsts it is a good thing. We are net


contributors to the Exchequdr. I would rather have them spent in


Norfolk and Suffolk. Even if it is not quite enough as George light say


to start with, the point of this was it was the start of something that


could have grown. You could have seen the PCC being merged into the


elected county commissioner. There is every reason why this should have


evolved. Strategic decisions could then be made, regarding bro`dband


local level. And you have gdnuine local level. And you have gdnuine


local decision-making. And xou don't have concerns about more tidrs of


government. We have 782 councillors across Norfolk and Suffolk. It


sounds a bit heavy for me. We were sounds a bit heavy for me. We were


not going to stream all of that through this deal. But I thhnk it


would have led to a local government that for purpose.


Because, whereas everyone here is very interested


in all the details, I'm wondering whether people in the street


are going to notice any difference at all,


I think they would notice the difference if it was devolution


This is the argument many of us happy forward. This has nothing to


do with devolution. You mentioned the meeting on the bridge. That was


nothing to do with this deal. That was Norfolk and Suffolk county


councils and to do users -- two leaders coming together voltntarily.


Colin, I want to hear your response. Doesn't matter to the ordin`ry


people in the street? Yes, because it is about growth and jobs. We re


of Whitehall and bringing them of Whitehall and bringing them


locally and making better ddcisions to help grow our economy. When we


looked at this after Juma Rdel took the decision go out and talk to the


public and talk to businessds, some themes emerged. Very clear themes.


When you were asked, do you want a mayor? They didn't want another


layer of government. And ard you OK with a mayor? The answer was yes.


Business people said yes overwhelmingly. Business, when you


go out and talk to federations and Chambers and board members `nd wider


than let board members, all of them are unanimous in their opinhon that,


yes, a mayor would help drive growth. Let's move this and look


forward to stop what next? John Fuller. You have talked abott the


coalition of the willing. Those of us who do wish to get on...


The moral case for building homes is good tomorrow as it was last week.


The case for new jobs and infrastructure and training


youngsters and the skills that they need to grow the economy is still


going forward. That is what devolution was all about. I'm yet to


meet anybody who does not w`nt infrastructure to go along with the


building of new homes or jobs. That is what devolution is about. Those


areas that want to get on should be able to. I think what this has shown


us is that the people in West Norfolk have a completely dhfferent


economy to those closest to Norwich. They look to Cambridge and


Peterborough and, although we have a single county in Norfolk, there are


different areas with differdnt aspirations. They need to bd


accommodated. Does the government need to go back to the drawhng


board? You have to start from where we are. A local councils in Norfolk


and a similar number in Suffolk and far too many councils. That needs


streamlining. Taxpayers expdct it. And they have every right to expect


a local government that is fit for purpose. Even a small housing


development can take ten to 15 years. We have got to get a local


system for decision-making that works. And we need a strongdr local


government that is steered by central government.


Colin Noble, how confident are you of securing


Yesterday, all of the leaders, we all sat down as we do every month,


because we have a regular mdeting. And we discussed it and we decided


that next week all about cotncils were meeting and we would go back to


our councils with the results of the work that we done and talking to the


public and talk to the councils to make a decision. Among the leaders,


there's a feeling that we would like to go ahead and to put to the


Secretary of State a Suffolk only deal. But it is not just Suffolk


only. It is Suffolk -based. Other areas can see the advantage of


devolution and the advantagd it will make and bring infrastructure


spending, we want to talk to those areas. The SDP is north Essdx as


well. Talk to all of our potential partners about how we would take a


Suffolk -based devolution ddal forward. It is not over unthl it is


over. Thank you very much. Before we go,


something a little bit fishx in our political


round-up of the week. A better deal for the fishing


industry in this region was called for in Parliament this week. He said


Brexit presented a opportunhty to regenerate communities like


Lowestoft. This is the very least they deserve in the most dangerous


trade in Britain. Labour's party faithful heard that membership has


raised since last's General Election. The government is to spend


?27 million on developing the case for a fast road link between Milton


Keynes and Cambridge. The ddcision will be announced in next wdek's


Autumn Statement. And Norfolk MP Richard Bacon prompted the PM into a


response less to -- Theresa May and more may West. What reassur`nce does


she have for fat, middle-agdd white men that may feel we have bden left


behind? Perhaps he would like to come up and see me sometime?


We're back at the same time next week.


never happened and will not happen in four years. It is subject we


should spend more time on. Back to you.


What will the Chancellor have to say in his first big economic statement?


What impact will the forecasters say Brexit will have on the economy


And who will face the Front National's Marine Le Pen in


Well, the Shadow Chancellor and the Chancellor have both been


touring the television studios this morning.


Let's be clear, a lot of this is going to be gimmicks and press


As I've said, in the pipeline, we've only


seen one in five delivered to construction, that's all.


So a lot of this will be a repeat of what


I'm not going to reveal what I'm going to say on


We don't have unlimited capacity, as one might


imagine from listening to John McDonnell, to borrow


hundreds of billions of pounds more for discretionary spending.


That simply doesn't exist if we're going to


retain this country's hard-won credibility in the financial markets


if we are going to remain an attractive place for business to


We didn't learn very much, Helen, but the papers were briefed this


morning that there will be another ?1.3 billion for roads and things


like that. ?1.3 billion is 0.08 of our GDP. Not exactly an


infrastructure investment programme, is it? Yellow like I have to say, it


was not thrilling to read the details. -- I have to say... It is


the first big financial statement that is going to come and I think


there will be a big row about the OBE are forecast because they cannot


set out a range, they have to commit to one forecast. Everything they do


is incredibly political. DOB are is on a hiding to nothing. -- DOB are


-- the Office for Budget Responsibility. I don't know how


they will square the circle. It is an interesting week. It is all about


the economy and public finances and we don't have to talk about Brexit


until next Sunday, but no, I have a terrible feeling that by the end of


Wednesday afternoon we will be screaming and shouting about how


Brexit is going to be for the economy. Just imagine the Treasury


comes out with his forecast that it is going to collapse growth and


collapsed Treasury takings, people will be apoplectic. Until now, the


economy has continued to grow strongly. Pretty well. They cannot


say, we have noticed it slowing down and that will continue. They have to


take a punt if they think it will slow down. It affects the


Chancellor's figures, because the more they say it is slowing down,


and I have seen that it will go from 2% down to 1.4%, the more the


Chancellor's deficit rises even without any more tax cuts and


spending. Absolutely. I think Tom is right. What we will see this week is


a continuation of the debate we have been having all along. If the Office


for Budget Responsibility has negative and gloomy predictions


there will be howls of agony, and rightly howls of frustration from


Brexiteers who will say that all the dire predictions from before the


referendum have not come to pass and now you are talking things down in a


way that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The money for roads, you


were dismissive about it, but every little helps. I don't dismiss it, I


say it doesn't amount to a fiscal stimulus in macro economic terms.


I'm sure if you are on that road, it will be useful. They are going to


build a super highway between Oxford and Cambridge. I would like to see


them go out to Japan and learn how to fill a hole in two days. I would


suggest the road from Oxford to Cambridge is not for the just


managing classes, even though it goes through Milton Keynes, and that


simply freezing due freezing fuel duty isn't going to hack it, either.


These just about managing people are potentially quite a big band. With


income tax rises, it means anything you do to help them is incredibly


expensive. The universal credit freeze is an interesting example of


that. Philip Hammond sounded ambivalent about it after


pre-briefings that it might not the cuts might not go ahead. There are


people who are in work but because they are low paid don't have the


number of hours, they require welfare benefits to top up their


pay, and these welfare benefits as it stands, are frozen until 202 ,


and yet inflation is now starting to rise. That's a problem for the just


managing people. Correct. It is worse than that, because we are


talking about April 2017 when tax credits become universal credits, so


the squeeze will be greater. We will get a small highway between a couple


of university towns, but if he has any money left to spend at all, it


will be on some pretty seismic jazzman for the just about managing


people. I am so glad we're not calling them Jams on this programme,


because it is a patronising tone. What the Chancellor and Shadow


Chancellor did not confront is that Mr Trump's election is a watershed


in terms of being able to borrow cheaply. The Federal Reserve is


about to start raising rates. The days of cheap borrowing for


governments could be coming to an end. You can feel a bit sorry for


labour here because after having had six years of being told that we need


a surplus and these things are important, we can't deny the


deficit, we have switched now and the first thing that Philip Hammond


did was to scrap George Osborne s borrowing targets. He has given


himself more wriggle room than George Osborne had. He has and it


will cost them more. Debt servicing will now rise as a cost. Where is


the next political earthquake going to happen?


It could be Italy, or the French elections coming up next spring


Now, who will face the Front National's Marine Le Pen in next


year's French Presidential elections?


Well, France's centre-right part, Les Republicans,


are selecting their candidate in the first round of


Well, France's centre-right part, Les Republicans,


are selecting their candidate in the first round of


Let's speak to our correspondent in Paris, Hugh Schofield.


Welcome to the programme. Three main candidates, the former -- two former


prime ministers and Nicolas Sarkozy, the former president. It is not


clear who the front runner is. Robbins it is quite an exciting


race, because four weeks it did look as if it was going to be Juppe. It


is a two round race. Two go through and the idea is that they rally all


the support together. It looked like the first round would be dominated


by Juppe and Nicolas Sarkozy, and there was a clear binary combination


there, because Sarkozy was looking for squeamish far right voters. In


other words, veering clearly to the right and far right on immigration


and identity issues. And Juppe is the opposite, saying we had to


appeal to the centre. That was what it looked like. But the third


candidate has made this really quite staggering surge in the last few


days. There was a debate on Thursday and he was deemed to have won it on


television. He is coming up strongly, and I wouldn't be at all


surprised to see him go through which would be interesting from a


British perspective, because if the becomes president, he will be the


first president with a British wife. His wife Penelope is Welsh.


We will have to leave it there. I would suggest that the reason it is


fascinating is that whoever wins this primary for the centre-right


party is likely to be the next president, and who the next


president is will be very important for Britain in these Brexit


negotiations. Nothing will really happen until it is determined. Then


after the German elections in October. I would add one more


constituent part. The most important thing about the race is who can stop


Marine Le Pen. Marine Le Pen will almost be one of the ones in the


run-off. The Socialists don't expect much. Francois Hollande is done


There is too much of a cliff to climb. Which one of these three


centre-right candidates can stop Marine Le Pen? We have had Brexit


and Trump, but we could also have Marine Le Pen. If it is Sarkozy it


is the battle of the right. In some areas, he has moved to the right of


marine Le Pen. I suppose he feels he has do in order to take the wind out


of our sails. You wonder if she could succeed later on if she does


not this time. Talking to French analysts last night, there was


suggesting that she could not do it this time but could win the next


time. All the events in France over the last year seemed to provide the


most propitious circumstances for her to do well, and particularly if


you throw in Trump and Brexit. Suppose it is Mr Sarkozy, and he


goes through and wins the Republican nomination, and he and Marine Le Pen


go through to the second round, that would mean, think about it, is that


a lot of French socialist voters and those on the father left would have


to grit their teeth and vote for Nicolas Sarkozy. They might not do


it. We might see what we saw in America, where lots of potential


Clinton voters did not turn out You got politicians like Melanchon on


the far left saying there are foreign workers taking bread out of


French workers' mounts. We sometimes forget, because we tend to emphasise


the National of the National front, but actually, there are economic


policy is quite Bennite. Sarkozy is the Hillary Clinton of the French


elections. He is Mr establishment. Juppe and the other third candidate


are the same. You have to re-establish candidates running


against an antiestablishment candidate. There are populist


economic policies from the National front. The other three want to raise


the retirement age and cut back on the 35 hour week, which are not


classic electoral appeals. Mr Juppe used to be the Mayor of Bordeaux.


And we are the biggest importers of claret, so that could have an


effect. In 2002, it was Jack Shear against John Marine Le Pen, and the


socialist campaign slogan was, vote for the Crook, not the fascist. We


will see what they come up with this time.


The Daily Politics is back at noon tomorrow on BBC Two,


where on Wednesday I will have full coverage of the Chancellor's Autumn


But remember, if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.


Download Subtitles