27/11/2016 Sunday Politics East


Similar Content

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



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


Was Fidel Castro a revolutionary hero or a murderous dictator?


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


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


The Shadow Health Secretary joins me live.


Should we have a second Brexit referendum on the terms


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


Former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown and former Conservative cabinet


minister Owen Paterson go head-to-head.


Here in the East: Years of cuts in subsidies for buses puts


transport in rural areas at risk, so will the new bus bill


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


They'll be tweeting throughout the programme


Political leaders around the world have been reacting to the news


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


to power in 1959 and ushered in a Marxist revolution.


Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson described the former leader


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


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


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


President-elect Donald Trump described the former Cuban leader


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


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


finally live in the freedom they so richly deserve".


Meanwhile, the President of the European Commission,


Jean-Claude Juncker, said the controversial leader


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


inauthentic and would have just added to the sort of mainstream


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


That was what made it so fascinating.


Before the last election, George Osborne promised the NHS


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


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


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


"Sustainability and Transformation Plans" to make these savings,


but some of the proposals are already running into local


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


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


But east of England ambulance call operators


they're sending an early intervention vehicle


with a council-employed occupational therapist on board.


It's being piloted here for over 65s with


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


treated immediately at home without a trip to hospital.


Around 80% of patients have been treated this way,


taking the strain off urgently-needed hospital beds,


So the early intervention team has assessed the patient and decided


The key to successful integration for Hertfordshire being able


to collaboratively look at how we use our resources,


to have pooled budgets, to allow us to understand


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


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


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


This Hertfordshire hospital is also a good example of how


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


The closest ones are 20 minutes down the road.


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


Despite a politically toxic change, this reconfiguration went


through after broad public and political consultation


with hospital clinicians and GPs on board.


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


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


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


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


in England, but it has demanded ?22 billion


worth of efficiencies across the country.


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


and care partnerships, and each one will provide


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


provide better services and save money.


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


in the health service and local government,


The NHS has been through five years of severely constrained spending


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


STPs themselves are an attempt to deal in a planned way


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


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


ahead, with many MPs already up in arms about proposed


This Tory backbencher is concerned about the local plans for his


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


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


of the acute sector who are elderly and looking


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


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


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


The Government's sustainability and transformation plans


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


The National Health Service is indeed looking for savings


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


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


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


about the importance of community hospitals in general,


These are proposals out to consultation.


What could happen if these plans get blocked?


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


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


deterioration and services becoming unstable and service


The NHS barely featured in this week's Autumn Statement


but the Prime Minister insisted beforehand that STPs


are in the interests of local people.


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


to push through these controversial regional plans,


which will soon face public scrutiny.


We did ask the Department of Health for an interview,


I've been joined by the Shadow Health Secretary,


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


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


independent organisations about the ability of the NHS to find 22


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


collaborate more closely together and move beyond the fragmented


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


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


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


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


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


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


together and having a greater strategic oversight, which we would


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


commissioning of things like school nurses and health visitors have been


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


budget last year scored billions of giveaways in things like


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


been going through the largest financial squeeze in its history.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


contribute to increasing its productivity. You are now talking


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


reaction will be to these efficiency plans. Your colleague Heidi


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


have the support of local authorities because they now have a


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


substantial investment in the NHS. Everyone accepts it was


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


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


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


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


Theresa May has promised to trigger formal Brexit negotiations


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


for the Supreme Court to decide whether parliament must vote


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


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


referendum on the terms of the eventual Brexit deal before


And last week, two former Prime Ministers suggested


that the referendum result could be reversed.


In an interview with the New Statesman on Thursday,


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


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


John Major also weighed in, telling a meeting


of the National Liberal Club that the terms of Brexit


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


He also said there is a "perfectly credible case"


That prompted the former Conservative leader


Iain Duncan Smith to criticise John Major.


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


because they disagree with the original result does


seem to me an absolute dismissal of democracy."


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


of whatever Brexit deal Theresa May manages to secure?


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


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


in a referendum on the terms of the deal."


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


One ally is former Labour leadership candidate Owen Smith.


He backs the idea of a second referendum.


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


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


To discuss whether or not there should be a second referendum


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


In Somerset is the former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown,


and in Shropshire is the former Conservative cabinet minister


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


appropriate to decide which destination, hard Brexit or soft


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


impossibly difficult deal because they want to do everything to make


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


ridiculous negotiating position. On the contrary, the government could


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


European Union is less important than the opinion of the British


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


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


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


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


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


There is nothing to stop the government going to negotiate,


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


strong democratic case for a referendum on what the deal looks


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


will be disastrous for the reputation and integrity of the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics East.


Later in the programme, the devolution deal


for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough goes through, after all of the local


Getting those seven councils together to face the problems


that the city and the county faces - tackling affordable housing,


sorting out transport issues and equality issues


on a bigger geography - is right for our residents.


What hope is there for our rural bus services in


Here with me today, Shadow Transport Minister


and MP for Cambridge, Daniel Zeichner,


and Ian Stewart, Conservative MP for Milton Keynes,


who is parliamentary private secretary to Liam Fox,


So let's start with the Autumn Statement,


the first since the vote to leave the EU.


The economy may be slowing down, but there was some good


Business rate relief for rural areas is going up from 50% to 100%,


which could mean an extra ?2,000 a year for some businesses.


And there is another ?2 billion nationally for research spending,


which may reassure science and technology firms in this region,


who get much of their funding from the EU at the moment.


More money was announced for broadband, too -


?1 billion nationally to help reach "not spots".


But road and rail were the main winners.


The Chancellor confirmed millions of pounds to transport links


between Cambridge and Oxford via Milton Keynes.


110 million is going towards developing the east-west rail link.


And Philip Hammond promised ?27 million to make the case


for a road expressway along what he called


"a transformational tech corridor" between the two university cities,


a development that has already proved controversial in the Commons.


Mr Speaker, this Autumn Statement is a statement for the elite.


The Chancellor said that Oxford and Cambridge expressway will become


a "transformational tech corridor", drawing on the world-class research


strengths of our two best-known universities.


I think the honourable lady fell into the trap


of believing this rather stale, antiquated class-war rhetoric


that she gets from the leadership of her party.


I mean, the Oxford to Cambridge expressway will benefit places


I think the point that Valerie was making is that, yes,


it is good that we are getting these transport improvements,


but what about the people who are really struggling to get


by on the estates in Cambridge, who are seeing their benefits cut,


There are people on disability allowance having to live on very


You have been making the case for more money for science


in Cambridge for a long time, so now you have got it.


Absolutely, and that I certainly welcome, the extra money


But the key issue is, why is it that people


who are struggling at the moment should be having to struggle


And that is why this is an unfair Autumn Statement -


it is not helping people at the bottom.


Ian Stewart, I mean, Milton Keynes was mentioned


as benefiting from this Oxford-Cambridge road,


Absolutely, and I've been campaigning for the east-west


This won't just be a local transport project, this will be a key part


And the BCR, the benefit cost ratio of this project,


it is something like six to one, so it will be an enormous boost


Yes, benefiting Oxford, yes, benefiting Cambridge, but also


And it will unlock a lot of housing development


so I was very, very pleased with this announcement.


You must have a lot of people in Milton Keynes who are struggling,


Do you think it was an elitist Autumn Statement?


No, I think it was an Autumn Statement that was very


cleverly focused on getting our economy match-fit.


And there is going to be a lot of economic turbulence


in the world going forward, and we need to make sure we've got


the resilience, we've got the skills, and we are investing


in the productive part of our economy.


We need to close the productivity gap we have with some


So I was very pleased that there was a specific focus


on infrastructure and other areas, which will obviously


This science money, as I say, you have been


going on about for a long time - surely the more successful


Cambridge is, the more successful this region is,


and that money trickles down to the poorest in society.


No, trickle-down absolutely does not work, and that is part of the reason


we have seen what has happened with Brexit and with Trump,


actually because trickle-down does not work.


And actually this was a really rather...


It wasn't nearly bold enough, this Autumn Statement.


We have actually lifted up our investment in research


and development from 1.7% of GDP to 1.8%, which isn't good,


but when you look at the rest of the world, where it is getting


where it is getting closer to 3%, this was not enough for the kind


You want to just say anything about that and then we will move on?


Well, we are still dealing with the legacy of debt


that we inherited from the past Labour Government.


But what we are balancing within those constraints


is carefully targeting investments in the productive


Well, after months of debate and argument, we now know devolution


for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough will happen and happen soon.


Power and money will be transferred from Whitehall and there will be


There was talk of a deal involving Suffolk and Norfolk,


Cambridgeshire was tempted back to the table with the promise


The green light was given to go it alone this summer.


This week, the last council to say yes, Cambridge City,


We are part of a county geography which has always been a bit


more blue than other, and we have to stand up


for Cambridge particularly because Cambridge is the centre


of the growth, so the Government wanted to Cambridge in the deal,


and that is why we got such a good offer on housing.


We need now to work together because the geography


of Cambridgeshire means that all of our problems have to be


Certainly for the future, Cambridge cannot cope with the level


We actually want to work with others to share the benefits and to share


Well, the new authority will start work in February,


with the first mayor being elected in May.


In the meantime, the leader of Cambridgeshire County Council


will be interim chairman of the shadow combined authority.


He is councillor Steve Count and he's here now.


It is an interesting question and it is one I have been


I'm still actually thinking about that.


So that is quite close to a yes, isn't it?


We are still in the process but I think the important thing


here is that the people of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough


will ultimately get to decide, whoever that might be,


and I think that the task in front of that mayor is a complicated task,


but it will make a difference in peoples lives.


It has been quite a long process, before you got to this?


And it was difficult to get Cambridge city on board.


Is that a political argument or is that an economic argument?


Cambridge city wasn't the only authority that actually walked


In fact, I would say that virtually every authority at some time walked


away and said it was not good enough for them.


That whole journey has taken a number of years now,


two or three years, but where we are now


it is a cracking deal for all of us and that is why we have signed


Do you ever wished that you had gone in with Norfolk and Suffolk?


In retrospect, I am very glad of where we are now.


I think that fine tuning us and helping us to unite over


what was a common economic than refer many of us actually


But what we will do in the future is find ways to work


over our borders, because a lot of the investment decisions


Were you one of those who always accepted the need for an elected


mayor, or did you change your mind as you went along?


Where I have been, and I think a lot of people on this journey,


And, are you sure you want a mayor for this?


And it was always said to us, if you want a serious deal,


So we kept saying, what does a serious deal look like?


And eventually we got to a place where we are saying,


if that is what you are offering us, then we are happy to have a mayor.


But, remember, we did go out to the people with the consultation


and the people said, we have looked at the entire deal.


It involves all of these fantastic benefits, so, yes,


Now, he is saying, Ian Stewart, that actually he would


like to welcome in people from outside the boundary.


And that actually is where you come in with devolution,


because you would like this arm between Cambridge and Oxford


Absolutely, because if you look at that corridor, you're going


to have a lot of infrastructure investment on the new housing,


covering many different local authorities, and indeed regions -


Milton Keynes and Oxford being in the South East,


South Northamptonshire being in the East Midlands


and Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire in the east of England.


I think we are going to have to construct some new authority.


I don't have the precise model in mind but some interlocking model


that will allow all of these authorities to be able to cooperate


on developing infrastructure that will be of mutual benefit.


So I very much look forward to working with the new combined area,


with all of the existing bodies, and taking forward the conclusions


I mean, I congratulate my colleagues on


Cambridge City Council and Lewis Herbert for extracting


?17 million for a much-needed council housing,


but you look at all of this and we are going to end up


with a situation where we are going to have a


directly elected mayor and we've got county council elections next year,


and an elected leader of the county council.


Frankly, Brussels looks like a model of simplicity and


So, do you not agree with devolution or do you not agree with this


Devolution in general, yes, than you a regional level,


and that is what Labour had and that is what Labour


will do in the future because this will all have to be completely torn


But the point is that the old regional boundaries have got nothing


to do with this Oxford-Cambridge corridor, which as I have said


that is why I am saying we need to construct a new


model that looks at the new economic area


that has nothing to do with the boundaries


But they are going to have to make it work.


What do you make of these two arguments?


I think it is quite sad that people are trying to pull apart what we


have already managed to construct over a long period of time.


This is what the local people want, what the


local politicians have built upon what the Government has agreed to.


Here is a local politician who has not agree with it.


No, he has not, and there are six MPs my area


as Cambridgeshire County Council leader, not just one.


Not just one way that we are going to accommodate all of them and work


But take the talk about the Milton Keynes, Oxford and that's...


We have already formed, not myself but I am on it,


the Economic Heartland Alliance, which is actually working together


very well and that will be one of the mechanisms that we see how


we can work together even better in the future.


He is saying that the MPs, you are alone in that,


You should ask most of the other MPs who are of the Conservative


persuasion, who are not on the Government payroll -


they are pretty unhappy about this too.


But Cambridge doesn't just look to the east,


Cambridge looks to London as well, and that is the point.


But he is saying to look to the west.


East-west, but it also looks north-south.


The links with London are crucial as well.


So, basically, I don't think this model works at all.


I think you need to pay attention to what is actually going on


We have the M11, the London Stansted Cambridge corridor...


If we look at the east we have the Cambridge to


Norwich A11 Tech corridor, and then we look out to the west,


Well, you see, this is exactly the work that the infrastructure


It is actually headed by someone from your


They are looking at how we can put together the


different bits of governance across this corridor


It will work in conjunction with these new bodies.


It goes on causing argument and debate.


Well, any new mayor will have significant new powers and more


money to deal with things like transport, including buses.


Since 2010, 45% of bus subsidies in this region have been cut.


Add those cuts up and it comes to ?13 million.


Luton and Southend have cut subsidies completely.


And Bedford, Milton Keynes and Northamptonshire have


The aim of the Bus Services Bill, which is going through Parliament


at the moment, is to improve services for things


But some of the new powers will only be available to elected mayors.


At the moment, we only have one of those.


It is a sight villages in Murrow see only once a week,


the number 390 bus coming to take them for their weekly shop.


It runs between Wisbech and Peterborough,


This service does not pay for itself, because so many


The council subsidises the route, but with increasingly tight budgets,


Cambridgeshire County Council has considered cutting the funding.


I do not drive since my husband died.


I do not drive and the bus is a lifeline for me.


It is the only bus to Peterborough from where we live in Murrow.


And I do my food shopping, so I just need the bus


There are people in the village who never go anywhere, really.


And OK, it is only Peterborough, but it is a larger city.


You have got the cathedral, and you have got a mixture of shops,


you have got people from all over the world, and it provides


This service may be safe for now, but with increasingly tight budgets,


there is no doubt that all of our councils will consider


making more cuts to bus services in the future.


That is bad news for the rural communities that rely on them.


Bus travel remains the most popular form of public transport,


so could the Bus Services Bill provide an opportunity for a rethink


about how they are operated and paid for?


The bill aims to increase passenger numbers and improve services


through measures like allowing councils to partner with local bus


operators and have more involvement over routes,


integrated ticketing like Oyster cards, which would make one ticket


and areas with an elected mayor will get powers to bring in bus


franchising and invite operators to bid for routes.


But that rules out areas that do not have the devolution.


Some people might think, yeah, actually, we want an elected mayor,


but people in other areas might think, no, we don't really want this


extra layer of Government, and we think that no matter


whether or not you have an elected mayor you should be able


to depend on a regular, frequent and affordable bus service.


Suffolk County Council has cut its spending


But they are hoping that this bill will help them improve bus services


without having to pay out more money.


The bus bill does give you that opportunity you have more data


available to the local operators, so we can have through ticketing.


We can actually have more visibility of life timescales on the buses,


and actually then you actually can actually start placing orders


on these sort of things, and book a ticket and actually


place a ticket and use this on the vehicle.


Arriving back home laden with shopping bags, these passengers


have a rather more simple hope for the bill - that the bus that has


become their lifeline will not disappear.


Daniel Zeichner, you have become quite a bus fan over


If you are in a rural area and you rely on the bus,


and the only people using it have a bus pass, it doesn't pay.


Basically, when the buses were privatised by the Conservatives


30 years ago, London was left different and it was regulated.


And the London bus system has succeeded since then.


But the London system succeeds because it has got lots of people


using it because it is very busy and it is very difficult


But also it allows the authorities to cross-subsidise.


In the areas on the outer edges of London, It is exactly


That is because most of our region has cities like Cambridge


So it will put all these things right?


Well, it will not unfortunately because the Government does not


want to make those powers available to any area that does not


So I have been talking to councillors in Hertfordshire


and Essex who aren't really disappointed that there will not be


Now, the bill started in the House of Lords.


Labour has introduced positive amendments.


Now, the bill, when it comes to the Commons in a few weeks' time,


if it is passed as it is now than we will have those powers


but I fear that the Government will try another overturn those changes.


This elected mayor thing causes problems wherever


Why is the Government so wedded to the elected mayors?


Personally, I am more flexible on what the Government's arrangement


I think the important thing to realise with this buses bill,


it gives lots of flex abilities, because different parts


of the country need different structures.


Every part of the country, if they have got rural areas


they need buses for people who do not...


Granted, but the structure that works in a cathedral city


like Cambridge or Oxford is different to the model that works


in my area like Milton Keynes, which is a much more complex


system, which is different to what works in London.


And the bill which I think as a whole commands quite a wide


cross-party support is designed to give that flexibility.


So, would you give those powers to local authorities,


Think it is something I'm personally happy to look at.


I sit on the transport select committee, and we just


I think this will be an evolutionary process.


As different models of devolution get set up around the country,


I think this, through secondary legislation, this flexibility


But there will be a lot of people who, while all of this is going on,


will worry that they will not have a bus service.


Well, what we want to see is to give each local area at the flexibility


What we have also got to bear in mind going forward is that


new technology will offer different solutions to this.


On transport policy, there actually is a lot of good


Well, I am very encouraged by what Ian is saying, and hoping


that any non-confrontational way, we might be able to come


to an agreement in the Commons on this, which would be


But one thing I would finish by saying is that part


of the problem is actually the amount of money that has been


That is what has really cut the subsidy in rural areas.


Our round-up of the political week now in 60 seconds


The Prime Minister came to Cambridge to announce research and


development investment to ensure that the country remains at the


cutting edge of scientific discovery.


What I've seen here at Cambridge is this


excellent example of the knowledge base of the university coming


Police and Crime Commissioners have warned that they will be asking for


more money from council tax payers next year.


They claimed they need extra cash to protect front line


It is for them to tell me what they want from the police service.


It is my responsibility to tell them the


Major changes into health services have been published.


Peterborough and pinching the hospitals are to merge.


And in Essex, three hospitals in Basildon, Chelmsford and Southend


could be completely reorganised, including accident and emergency


And in the wake of the Trump victory, the MP for Chelmsford


The best person to fill the vacancy for the ambassador to the United


Kingdom next year would be Hillary Rodham Clinton.


Though I suspect the last thing she'd want to do is be associated


I saw him with a big rosette for her.


Well, Simon wears a Hillary Clinton watch.


What I wonder is whether Hillary Clinton wears a Simon Burns watch.


Just one comment from both of you on the Trump thing.


The President-elect Donald Trump, sorry.


For me, what worries me most is America becoming more


protectionist at a time that we need to be remaking the case


So I hope that is going to be one item that is top of the agenda.


We agree on some things but I think it is a reflection


of a very uncertain world that we are in the moment,


and I would urge the Government to think again about Brexit


such a dangerous situation from the United States.


Thank you, both of you, for being with us today.


You can keep in touch via our website.


We are back at the same time next week,


but, for now, from all of us, back to Andrew in the studio.


article 15 noticed this served. We have got to make sure London is


open. Thank you. Andrew, back to you.


Is Theresa May serious about curbing executive pay?


Who will be crowned Nigel Farage's successor as Ukip leader?


And can the Lib Dems pull off a by-election upset in Richmond?


So,,, on pay talk about the executive of what executives get


compared to the average worker in the company, giving shareholders


real power to vote down pay rises if they don't like them, which is


pretty much what Ed Miliband proposed in the general election in


2015. Is she serious about this? She is very serious, and the Tory party


probably does owe Ed Miliband an apology for trashing his ideas and


2015 and then putting them all up for votes in November 20 16. She is


very serious, and this all comes back to her desperate fear that


unless capitalism reforms itself and becomes more acceptable to the just


about managing or even 78% of the country who are not earning vast


wealth at anywhere near the figures you see in the City, serious things


will happen and the political sense of trust will implode. She has


already been bartered down by her own Cabinet on this. She wanted to


go further and make workers on the board mandatory. They have managed


to stop that. What will her fallback position be on workers on the board


if she is not able to get it into some claw? We would like to have


workers on the board, but whatever they do on the board there will have


no voting powers on the board. When you look at what was leaked out over


the weekend, that we should know the ratio of the top to the average and


that shareholders who own the company should determine, in the


end, the highest-paid salaries, you kind of think, what could the


possible objection be to any of that? Two things. One, I agree with


Tom that she is deadly serious about this agenda and it comes under the


banner, that sentence in the party conference speech about "It's time


to focus on the good that government can do". She is by instinct more of


an interventionist than Cameron and Osborne. But she is incredibly


cautious, whether it is through the internal constraints of opposition


within Cabinet, or her own small C Conservative caution in implementing


this stuff. Part of the problem is the practicalities. George Osborne


commission will Hutton to do a report which came out with similar


proposals, which were never implemented. It is quite hard to


enforce. It will antagonise business leaders when she's to woo them again


in this Brexit furore. So there are problems with it. And judging by


what has happened so far, my guess is that the aim will be genuinely


bold and interesting, and the implementation incredibly cautious.


Does it matter if she annoys some business leaders? Isn't that part of


her brand? Will there be problems on the Tory backbenches with it? I


think there will be and I think it does matter at this sensitive time


for when we are positioning ourselves as a country and whether


we are going to brand ourselves as a great city of business, implementing


quite interventionist policies. Any suggestion that the government can


control how much the top earners get, I think would be received in a


hostile way. What would be wrong with the shareholders, who own the


company, determining the pay of the higher hands, the executives?


Morally, you can absolutely make that argument but to business


leaders, they will not like it. Ultimately, this will not come down


to more than a row of beans. There was a huge debate about whether


there should be quotas of women on boards. In the end, that never


happened. All we get is figures. But quotas of women, for which there is


a case and a case against too, that was a government mandate. This is


not, this is simply empowering shareholders who own the company to


determine the pay of the people they hire. There is a strong moral


argument for it. Strong economic argument. But the Tory backbenchers


will not like this. The downside is that this is a world where companies


are thinking about upping sticks to Europe. No, they say they are


thinking of that. Not one has done it yet. Others have made massive


investments in this country. But is it not an incentive for those making


these threats to actually do it? In Europe, bankers' pay is now mandated


by Brussels. It is a vivid way of showing you are addressing the issue


of inequality. I think she will go with it, but let's move on to Ukip.


I think we will get the result tomorrow. There are the top three


candidates. Paul Nuttall, Suzanne Evans and on my right, John Reid


Evans. One of them will be the next leader. Who is going to win? It is


widely predicted to be Paul Nuttall and is probably the outcome that the


Labour Party fears most. Paul Nuttall is a very effective


communicator. He is not a household name, far from it, but people will


begin to learn more about him and find that he is actually quite a


strong leader. Can people Ukip together again after this shambolic


period since the referendum? If anyone can, he can. And his brand of


working collar, Northern Ukip is the thing that will work for them. Do


you think he is the favourite? It would be amazing if he doesn't win.


His greatest problem will be getting Nigel Farage off his back. He is


going on a speaking tour of North America. A long speaking tour. Ukip


won this EU referendum. They had the chance to hoover up these


discontented Labour voters in the north, and all he has done is


associated with Ukip with Farage. But Nigel Farage is fed up of Ukip


and will be glad to be hands of it. The bigger problem is money. If it


is Paul Nuttall, and we don't know the results yet, but he is the


favourite, if it is him, I would suggest that that is the result


Labour is frightened of most. To be honest, I think they are frightened


of Ukip whatever the result. Possibly with good cause. The reason


I qualify that is that what you call a shambles over the summer has been


something that goes beyond Monty Python in its absurdity and madness.


That calls into question whether it can function as a political party


when you have what has gone on. The number of leaders itself has been an


act of madness. In a context which should be fantastic for them. They


have won a referendum. There is a debate about what form Brexit should


take, it is a dream for them, and they have gone bonkers. If he can


turn it around, I agree that he is a powerful media communicator, and


then it is a threat to Labour. But he has got to show that first.


Indeed. The by-election in Richmond in south-west London, called by Zac


Goldsmith over Heathrow. Has it turned out to be a by-election about


Heathrow, or has it turned into a by-election, which is what the Lib


Dems wanted, about Brexit? We will know on Thursday. If the Lib Dems


win, they will turn it into an EU referendum. It seems incredibly


close now. The Lib Dems are swamping Richmond. They had 1000 activists


there yesterday. That is getting on for 100th of the population of the


place! If the Lib Dems don't manage to win on Thursday and don't manage


to turn it into an EU referendum despite all their efforts, it will


probably be a disaster for the party. What do you hear, Isabel? I


hear that the Lib Dems have absolutely swamped the constituency,


but this may backfire. I saw a bit of this myself, living in Witney,


when the Lib Dems also swamped and people began to get fed up of their


aggressive tactics. I understand that Zac Goldsmith is cautiously


optimistic that he will pull this one off. Quick stab at the result? I


don't know. But we are entering a period when by-elections are


acquiring significant again. If the Lib Dems were to make a game, it


would breathe life into that near moribund party like nothing else.


Similarly, other by-elections in this shapeless political world we


are in are going to become significant. We don't know if we are


covering it live on Thursday night yet because we have to find at the


time they are going to declare. Richmond are quite late in


declaring, but if it is in the early hours, that is fine. If it is on


breakfast television, they be not. I want to show you this. Michael Gove


was on the Andrew Marr Show this morning. In the now notorious


comment that I made, I was actually cut off in midstream, as politicians


often. The point I made was not that all experts are that is nonsense.


Expert engineers, doctors and physicists are not wrong. But there


is a subclass of experts, particularly social scientists, who


have to reflect on some of the mistakes they have made. And the


recession, which was predicted that we would have if we voted to leave,


has gone like a puff of smoke. So economic experts, he talks about.


The Chancellor has based all of his forward predictions in this Autumn


Statement on the economic expert forecasters. The Office for Budget


Responsibility has said it is 50-50, which is the toss of a coin. But


what was he supposed to do? You would ideally have to have a Budget


that had several sets of scenarios, and that is impossible. Crystal ball


territory. But you do wonder if governments are right to do so much


of their fiscal projections on the basis of forecasts which turn out to


be wrong. They have nothing else to go on. The Treasury forecast is to


be wrong. No doubt the OBR forecast will prove not to be exact. As you


say, they admitted that they are navigating through fog at the


moment. But he also added that it was fog caused by Brexit. So Brexit,


even if you accept that these forecasts might be wrong, is causing


such a level of uncertainty. He put the figure at 60 billion. That could


come to haunt him. He hasn't got a clue. He admitted it. He said,


Parliament mandates me to come up with something, so I am going to


give you a number. But I wouldn't trust it if I were you, he basically


said. I agree with you. The man who borrowed 122 billion more off the


back of a coin toss was Philip Hammond. It begs the question, what


does that say about the confidence Philip Hammond has in his own


government's renegotiation? Not a huge amount. I agree. Philip Hammond


quoted the OBR figures. He basically said, this is uncertain and it looks


bad, and on we go with it. It is a very interesting situation, he said.


He was for Remain and he works in a department which regards it as a


disaster, whatever everyone else thinks. I have just been told we are


covering the by-election. We are part of the constitution.


Jo Coburn will have more Daily Politics tomorrow


And I'll be back here on BBC One next Sunday at 11.


Remember - if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.


to signify the Africans who were here.


The story of Henry VIII and his six wives


Download Subtitles