05/03/2017 Sunday Politics East


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 05/03/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


The Chancellor says that to embark on a spending spree


in Wednesday's Budget would be "reckless".


But will there be more money for social care and to ease


The UK terror threat is currently severe,


but where is that threat coming from?


We have the detailed picture from a vast new study of every


Islamist related terrorist offence committed over the last two decades.


What can we learn from these offences to thwart future attacks?


The government was defeated in the Lords on its


We'll ask the Leader of the House of Commons what he'll do if peers


Here in the East, the headteacher threatening to quit,


after hundreds of schools are set to lose out under the government's


All that coming up in the next hour and a quarter.


Now, some of you might have read that intruders managed


to get into the BBC news studios this weekend.


Well three of them appear not to have been ejected yet,


so we might as well make use of them as our political panel.


Tom Newton Dunn, Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.


They'll be tweeting throughout the programme.


Philip Hammond will deliver his second financial


statement as Chancellor and the last Spring Budget


for a while at least - they are moving to the Autumn


There's been pressure on him to find more money


for the Health Service, social care, schools funding,


But this morning the Chancellor insisted that he will not be


using the proceeds of better than expected tax receipts to embark


What is being speculated on is whether we might not have borrowed


quite as much as we were forecast to borrow. You will see the numbers on


Wednesday. But if your bank increases your credit card limit, I


do not think you feel obliged to go out and spent every last penny of it


He is moving the budget to the autumn, he told us that in his


statement, so maybe on Wednesday it will be like a spring statement


rather than a full-blown budget. Tinkering pre-Brexit and in November


he will have a more clear idea of the impact of Brexit and I suspect


that will be the bigger event than this one. It looks as if there will


be a bit of money here and there, small amounts, not enough in my


view, for social care and so on, possibly a review of social care


policy. A familiar device which rarely get anywhere. I think he has


got a bit more space to do more if he wanted to do now because of the


politics. They are miles ahead in the polls, so he could do more, but


it is not in his character, he is cautious. So he keeps his powder dry


on most things, he does some things, but he keeps it dry until November.


But also, as Steve says, he will know just how strong the economy has


been this year by November and whether he needs to do some pump


priming or whether everything is fine. He said it is too early to


make those sorts of judgments now. What is striking is the amount of


concern there is an Number ten and in the Treasury about the tone of


this budget, so less about the actual figures and more about what


message this is sending out to the rest of the world. I think some


senior MPs are calling it a kind of treading water budget and Phil


Hammond has got quite a difficult act to perform because he is


instinctively rather cautious, or very cautious, and instinctively


slightly gloomy about Brexit. He wanted to remain. But he does not


want this budget to sounded downbeat and he will be mauled if he makes it


sound downbeat, so he has to inject a little bit of optimism and we may


see that in the infrastructure spending plans. He has got some room


to manoeuvre. The deficit by the financial year ending in April we


now know will not be as big as the OBR told us only three and a half


months ago that it would be. They added 12 billion on and they may


take most of that off again. He is under pressure from his own side to


do something on social care and business rates and I bet some Tory


backbenchers would not mind a little bit more money for the NHS as well.


He is on a huge pressure to do a whole lot on a whole load, not just


social care. There is also how on earth do we pay for so many old


people? There is the NHS, defence spending, everything. But his words


this morning, which is I am not going to spend potentially an extra


30 billion I might have by 2020 because of improved economic growth


was interesting. You need to hold something back because Brexit might


go back and he was a bit of a remain campaign person. If you think


Britain is going to curl up into a corner and hideaway licking its


wounds, you have got another think coming. That 30 billion he might


have extra in his pocket could be worth deploying on building up


Britain with huge tax cuts in case there is no deal, a war chest if you


like. He will have more than 27 billion. He may decide 27 billion in


the statement, the margin by which he tries to get the structural


deficit down, he will still have 27 billion. If the receipts are better


than they are forecast, some people are saying he will have a war chest


of 60 billion. That money, as Mr Osborne found out, can disappear. He


clearly is planning not to go on a spending spree this Wednesday. It is


interesting in the FTB and the day, David Laws who was chief Secretary


for five minutes, was also enthusiastic about the original


George Osborne austerity programme and he said, we have reached the


limits to what is socially possible with this and a consensus is


beginning to emerge that he will have to spend more money than he


plans to this Wednesday. This is not just from Labour MPs, but from a lot


of Conservative MPs as well. People will wonder when this austerity will


end because it seems to be going on for ever. We will have more on the


budget later in the programme. Now, the government was defeated


last week in the House of Lords. Peers amended the bill that


will allow Theresa May to trigger Brexit to guarantee the rights of EU


nationals currently in the UK. The government says it will remove


the amendment when the bill returns But today a report from


the Common's Brexit committee also calls for the Government to make


a unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU


nationals living here. If the worst happened,


are we actually going to say to 3 million Europeans here,


who are nurses, doctors, serving us tea and coffee in restaurants,


giving lectures at Leeds University, picking and processing vegetables,


"Right, off you go"? No, of course we are not


going to say that. So, why not end the


uncertainty for them now? will help to create the climate


which will ensure everyone gets to say because that's


what all of us want. That is why we have unanimously


agreed this recommendation that the government should make unilateral


decision to say to EU citizens here, yes, you can stay, because we think


that is the right and fair thing to do.


And we're joined now from Buckinghamshire by the leader


of the House of Commons, David Lidington.


Welcome back to the programme. The House of Lords has amended the


Article 50 bill to allow the unilateral acceptance of EU


nationals' right to remain in the UK. Is it still the government was


my intention to remove that amendment in the comments? We have


always been clear that we think this bill is very straightforward, it


does nothing else except give the Prime Minister the authority that


the courts insist upon to start the Article 50 process of negotiating


with the other 27 EU countries. On the particular issue of EU citizens


here and British citizens overseas, the PM did suggest that the December


European summit last year that we do a pre-negotiation agreement on this.


That was not acceptable to all of the other 27 because they took the


view that you cannot have any kind of negotiation and to Article 50 has


been triggered. That is where we are. I hope with goodwill and


national self interest on all sides we can tackle this is right that the


start of those negotiations. But it is not just the Lords. We have now


got the cross-party Commons Brexit committee saying you should now make


the unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU nationals in the


UK. Even Michael go, Peter Lilley, John Whittington, agree. So why are


you so stubborn on this issue? I think this is a complex issue that


goes beyond the rise of presidents, but about things like the rights of


access to health care, to pension ratings and benefits and so on...


But you could settle back. It is also, Andrew, because you have got


to look at it from the point of view of the British citizens, well over 1


million living elsewhere in Europe. If we make the unilateral gesture,


it might make us feel good for Britain and it would help in the


short term those EU citizens who are here, but you have got those British


citizens overseas who would then be potential bargaining chips in the


hands of any of the 27 other governments. We do not know who will


be in office during the negotiations and they may have completely


extraneous reasons to hold up the agreement on the rights of British


citizens. The sensible way to deal with this is 28 mature democracies


getting around the table starting the negotiations and to agree to


something that is fair to all sides and is reciprocal. What countries


might take on UK nationals living in the EU? What countries are you


frightened of? The one thing that I know from my own experience in the


past of being involved in European negotiations is that issues come up


that maybe have nothing to do with British nationals, but another issue


that matters a huge amount to a particular government, it may not be


a government yet in office, and they decide we can get something out of


this, so let's hold up the agreement on British citizens until the


British move in the direction we want on issue X. I hope it does not


come to that. I think the messages I have had from EU ambassadors in


London and from those it my former Europe colleague ministers is that


we want this to be a done deal as quickly as possible. That is the


British Government's very clear intention. We hope that we can get a


reciprocal deal agreed before the Article 50 process. That was not


possible. I understand that, you have said that already. But even if


there is no reciprocal deal being done, is it really credible that EU


nationals already here would lose their right to live and work and


face deportation? You know that is not credible, that will not happen.


We have already under our own system law whereby some people who have


been lawfully resident and working here for five years can apply for


permanent residency, but it is not just about residents. It is about


whether residency carries with it certain rights of access to health


care. I understand that, but have made this point. But the point is


the right to live and work here that worries them at the moment. The Home


Secretary has said there can be no change in their status without a


vote in parliament. Could you ever imagine the British Parliament


voting to remove their right to live and work here? I think the British


Parliament will want to be very fair to EU citizens, as Hilary Benn and


others rightly say they have been overwhelmingly been here working


hard and paying taxes and contributing to our society. They


were equally want to make sure there is a fair deal for our own citizens,


more than a million, elsewhere in Europe. You cannot disentangle the


issue of residence from those things that go with residents. Is the


Article 50 timetabled to be triggered before the end of this


month, is it threatened by these amendments in the Lords? I sincerely


hope not because the House of Lords is a perfectly respectable


constitutional role to look again at bills sent up by the House of


commons. But they also have understood traditionally that as an


unelected house they have to give primacy to the elected Commons at


the end of the day. In this case it is not just the elected Commons that


sent the bill to be amended, but the referendum that lies behind that. It


is not possible? We are confident we can get Article 50 triggered by the


end of the month. One of the other Lords amendments


will be to have a meaningful vote on the Brexit deal when it is done at


the end of the process, what is your view on that? What would you


understand by a meaningful vote? The Government has already said there is


going to be a meaningful vote at the end of the process. What do you mean


by a meaningful vote? The parliament will get the opportunity to vote on


the deal before it finishes the EU level process of going to


consideration by the European Parliament. Parliament will be given


a choice, as I understand, for either a vote for the deal you have


negotiated or we leave on WTO rules and crash out anyway, is that what


you mean by a meaningful choice? Parliament will get the choice to


vote on the deal, but I think you have put your finger on the problem


with trying to write something into the bill because any idea that the


PM's freedom to negotiate is limited, any idea that if the EU 27


were to play hardball, that somehow that means parliament would take


fright, reverse the referendum verdict and set aside the views of


the British people, that would almost guarantee that it would be


much more difficult to get the sort of ambitious mutually beneficial


deal for us and the EU 27. Your idea of a meaningful vote in parliament


is the choices either to vote to accept this deal or we leave anyway,


that is your idea of a meaningful vote. The Article 50 process is


straightforward. There is the position of both parties in the


recent Supreme Court case that the Article 50 process once triggered is


irrevocable. That is in the EU Treaty already but we are saying


very clearly that Parliament will get that right to debate and vote. I


think the problem with what some in the House of Lords are proposing, I


hope it is not a majority, is that the amendments they would seek to


insert would tie the Prime Minister's hands, limit and


negotiating freedom and put her in a more difficult position to negotiate


on behalf of this country than should be the case. One year ago you


said it could take six to eight years to agree a free-trade deal


with the EU. Now you think you can do it in two, what's changed your


mind? There is a very strong passionate supporter of Remain, as


you know. I hope very much we are able to conclude not just the terms


of the exit deal but the agreement that we are seeking on the long-term


trade relationship... I understand that, but I'm trying to work out,


what makes you think you can do it in two years when only a year ago


you said it would take up to wait? The referendum clearly makes a big


difference, and I think that there is an understanding amongst real the


other 27 governments now that it is in everybody's interests to sort


this shared challenge out of negotiating a new relationship


between the EU 27 and the UK because European countries, those in and


those who will be out of the EU, share the need to face up to massive


challenges like terrorism and technological change. All of that


was pretty obvious one year ago but we will see what happens. Thank you,


David Lidington. Now, the Sunday Politics has had


sight of a major new report The thousand-page study,


which researchers say is the most comprehensive ever produced,


analyses all 269 Islamist telated terrorist offences


committed between 1998-2015. Most planned attacks were,


thankfully, thwarted, but what can we learn


from those offences? For the police and the intelligence


agencies to fight terror, Researchers at the security think


tank The Henry Jackson Society gave us early access to their huge


new report which analyses every Islamism related attack


and prosecution in the UK since 1998, that's 269 cases


involving 253 perpetrators. With issues as sensitive


as counterterrorism and counter radicalisation, it is really


important to have an evidence base from which you draw


policy and policing, This isn't my opinion,


this the facts. This chart shows the number


of cases each year combined with a small number


of successful suicide attacks. Notice the peak in the middle


of the last decade around the time of the 7/7 bombings


in London in 2005. Offences tailed off,


before rising again from 2010, when a three-year period accounted


for a third of all the terrorism cases since the researchers


started counting. What we are seeing is a combination


of both more offending, in terms of the threat increasing,


we know that from the security services and police statements,


but also I believe we are getting more efficient in terms


of our policing and we are actually A third of people were found to have


facilitated terrorism, that's providing encouragement,


documents, money. About 18% of people


were aspirational terrorists, 12% of convictions were related


to travel, to training And 37% of people were convicted


of planning attacks, although the methods have


changed over time. Five or six years ago,


we saw lots of people planning or attempting pipe bombs and most


of the time they had Inspire magazine in their possession,


that's a magazine, an Al-Qaeda English-language online


magazine that had specific More recently we have seen


Islamic State encouraging people to engage in lower tech knife


beheading, stabbings attacks and I think that's why we have


seen that more recently. Shasta Khan plotted with her


husband to bomb the Jewish In 2012 she received


an eight-year prison sentence. She's one of an increasing


number of women convicted of an Islamism related offence


although it is still overwhelmingly a crime carried out


by men in their 20s. Despite fears of foreign terrorists,


a report says the vast Most have their home in London,


around 43% of them. 18% lived in the West Midlands,


particularly in Birmingham, and the north-west is another


hotspot with around 10% Richard Dart lived in Weymouth


and tried to attend a terrorist He was a convert to Islam, as were


60% of the people in this report. He was a convert to Islam, as were


16% of the people in this report. Like the majority of cases,


he had a family, network. What's particularly interesting


is how different each story is in many ways,


but then within those differences So your angry young men,


in the one sense inspired to travel, seek training and combat experience


abroad, and then the older, recruiter father-figure types,


the fundraising facilitator types. There are types within


this terrorism picture, but the range of backgrounds


and experiences is huge. And three quarters of those


convicted of Islamist terrorism were on the radar of the authorities


because they had a previous criminal record, they had


made their extremism public, or because MI5 had them


under surveillance. To discuss the findings of this


report are the former Security Minister Pauline Neville-Jones,


Talha Ahmad from the Muslim Council of Britain, and Adam Deen


from the anti-extremist group The report finds the most segregated


Muslim community is, the more likely it is to incubate Islamist


terrorists, what is the MCB doing to encourage more integrated


communities? Its track record on calling for reaching out to the


wider society and having a more integrated and cohesive society I


think is a pretty strong one, so one thing we are doing for example very


recently I've seen we had this visit my mosque initiative, the idea was


that mosques become open to inviting people of other faiths and their


neighbours to come so we were encouraged to see so many


participating. It is one step forward. Is it a good thing or a bad


thing that in a number of Muslim communities, the Muslim population


is over 60% of the community? I personally and the council would


prefer to have more mixed communities but one of the reason


they are heavily concentrated is not so much because they prefer to but


often because the socio- economic reality forces them to. But you


would like to see less segregation? Absolutely, we would prefer more


diverse communities around the country. What is your reaction to


that? Will need more diverse communities but one of the


challenges we have right now with certain organisations is this


pushback against the Government, with its attempts to help young


Muslims not go down this journey of extremism. One of those things is


the Prevent strategy and we often hear organisations like the MCB


attacking the strategy which is counter-productive. What do you say


to that? Do we support the Government have initiatives to


counteract terrorism, of course we do. Do you support the Prevent


strategy? We don't because it scapegoats an entire community. The


report shows that contrary to a lot of lone wolf theories and people


being radicalised in their bedrooms on the Internet that 80% of those


convicted had connections with the extremist groups. Indeed 25% willing


to Al-Muhajiroun. I think this report, which is a thorough piece of


work, charts a long period and it is probably true to say that in the


earlier stages these organisations were very important, of course


subsequently we have had direct recruiting by IS one to one over the


Internet so we have a mixed picture of how people are recruited but


there's no doubt these organisations are recruiting sergeants. You were


once a member of one of these organisations, are we doing enough


to thwart them? If we just focus on these organisations, we will fail.


We -- the question is are we doing enough to neutralise them? The


Government strategy is in the right place, but where we need to focus on


is the Muslim community or communities. The Muslim community


must realise that these violent extremists are fringe but they share


ideas, a broad spectrum of ideas that penetrate deeply within Muslim


communities and we need to tackle those ideas because that is where it


all begins. Are you in favour of banning groups like Al-Muhajiroun?


Yes, it was the right thing to do and I can tell you the community has


moved a long way, Al-Muhajiroun does not have support. Do you agree with


that? Yes, but it is very simplistic attacking Al-Muhajiroun. ISIS didn't


bring about extremism, extremism brought about ISIS, ISIS is just the


brand and if we don't deal with the ideological ideas we will have other


organisations popping up. The report suggests that almost a quarter of


Islamist the latest offences were committed by individuals previous


unknown to the security services. And this is on the rise, these


numbers. This would seem to make an already difficult task for our


intelligence services almost impossible. Two points. It is over


80% I think were known, but it shows the intelligence services and police


have got their eyes open. But the trend has been towards more not on


the radar. That has been because the nature of the recruitment has also


changed and you have much more ISIS inspired go out and do it yourself,


get a knife, do something simple, so we have fewer of the big


spectaculars that ISIS organised. Now you have got locally organised


people, two or three people get together, do something together,


very much harder actually to get forewarning of that. That is where


intelligence inside the community, the community coming to the police


say I'm worried about my friend, this is how you get ahead of that


kind of attack. Should people in the Muslim community who are worried


about individuals being radicalised, perhaps going down the terrorist


route, should they bring in the police? Absolutely and we have been


consistent on telling the community that wherever they suspect someone


has been involved in terrorism or any kind of criminal activity, they


should call the police and cooperate. As the so-called


caliphate collapses in the Middle East, how worried should we be about


fighters returning here? Extremely worried. They fall into


three categories. You have ones who are disillusioned about Islamic


State. You have ones who are disturbed, and then you have the


dangerous who have not disavowed their ideas and who will have great


reasons to perform attacks. What do we do? Anyone who comes back, there


should be evidence looked into if they committed any crimes. But all


those categories should all be be radicalised. You cannot leave them


alone. Will we be sure if we know when they come back? That is


difficult to say. They could come in and we might not know. There is a


watch list so you have got a better chance. And you can identify them?


This is where working with other countries is absolutely crucial and


our border controls need to be good as well. I am not saying and the


government is not saying that anyone would ever slip through, but it is


our ability to know when somebody is coming through and to stop them at


the border has improved. An important question. Given your


experience, how prepared are away for a Paris style attack in a


medium-size, provincial city? The government has exercised this one.


It started when I was security minister and it has been taken


seriously. The single biggest challenge that the police and the


Army says will be one of those mobile, roving attacks. You have to


take it seriously and the government does. All right, we will leave it


Now, Brexit may have swept austerity from the front pages,


but the deficit hasn't gone away and the government is still


Just this week Whitehall announced that government departments have


been told to find another ?3.5bn worth of savings by 2020.


Last November the Independent office for Budget Responsibility


said the budget deficit would be ?68 billion in the current


It would still be ?17 billion by 2021-22.


On Wednesday the Chancellor is expected to announce


that the 2016-17 deficit has come in much lower than the OBR forecast.


Even so, the government is still aiming for the lowest level


of public spending as a percentage of national income since 2003-4,


coupled with an increase in the tax burden to its highest


So spending cuts will continue with reductions in day-to-day


government spending accelerating, producing a real terms cut of over


But capital spending, investment on infrastructure


like roads, hospitals, housing, is projected to grow,


producing a 16 billion real terms increase by 2021-22.


The Chancellor's task on Wednesday is to keep these fiscal targets


while finding some more money for areas under serious


pressure such as the NHS, social care and business rates.


We're joined now by Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies.


Welcome back to the programme. In last March's budget the OBR


predicted just over 2% economic growth for this year. By the Autumn


Statement in the wake of the Brexit vote it downgraded back to 1.4%. It


is now expected to revise that back around to 2% as the Bank of England


has again. It is speculated on the future. It looks like we will get a


growth forecast for this year not very different from where it was a


year ago. What the bank did was upgrade its forecast for the next


year or so, but not change very much. It was thinking about three or


four years' time, which is what really matters. It looked like the


OBR made a mistake in downgrading the growth in the Autumn Statement


three months ago. It was more optimistic than nearly all the other


forecasters and the Bank of England. It was wrong, but not as wrong as


everybody else. We don't know, but if it significantly upgraded its


growth forecast for the next three or four years, I would be surprised.


It also added 12 billion to the deficit for the current financial


year in the Autumn Statement, compared with March. It looks like


that deficit will probably be cut again by about 12 billion compared


to the last OBR forecast. It is quite difficult to make economic


policy on the basis of changes of that skill every couple of months.


That is one of the problems about having these two economic event so


close together. My guess is the number will come out somewhere


between the budget and the Autumn Statement numbers. There was a nice


surprise for the Chancellor last month which looked like tax revenues


were coming in a lot more strongly than he expected. But again the real


question is how much is this making a difference in the medium run? Is


this a one-off thing all good news for the next several years? If


growth and revenues are stronger, perhaps not as strong as the good


news last month, but if they are stronger than had been forecast in


the Autumn Statement, what does that mean for planned spending cuts? It


probably does not mean very much. Let's not forget the best possible


outcome of this budget will be that for the next couple of years things


look no worse than they did a year ago and in four years out they will


still look a bit worse, and in addition Philip Hammond did increase


his spending plans in November. However good the numbers look in a


couple of days' time, we will still be borrowing at least 20 billion


more by 2020 than we were forecasting a year ago. Still quite


constrained. George Osborne wanted to get us to budget surplus by 2019.


That has gone. Philip Hammond is quite happy with a big deficit and


is not interested in that. But what he is thinking to a large extent, as


you have made clear, there is a lot of uncertainty about the economic


reaction over the next three or four years. He says he wants some


headroom. If things go wrong, I do not want to announce more spending


cuts or more tax rises to keep the deficit down. I want to say things


have gone wrong for now and we will borrow. And I have got some money in


the kitty. He will not spend a lot of it now. I understand the


Chancellor is worried about the erosion of the tax base and it is


hard to put VAT up by more than 20%, millions have been taken out of


income tax, only 46% of people pay income tax, fuel duty is frozen for


ever, corporation tax has been cut, the growth in self-employed has


reduced revenues, is that a real concern? These are all worries for


him. We have as you said in the introduction to this, got a tax


burden which is rising very gradually, but it is rising to its


highest level since the mid-19 80s, but is not doing it through


straightforward increases to income tax. Lots of bits of pieces of


insurance premium tax is here and the apprenticeship levied there, and


that is higher personal allowance of income tax and a freeze fuel duty,


but at some point we will have to look at the tax system as a whole


and ask if we can carry on like this. We will have to start increase


fuel duties again, or look to those big but unpopular taxes to really


keep that money coming in to keep the challenges we will have over the


next 30 years. He is going to set up a commission on social care. He has


had quite a few commissions on social care. Thank you for being


with us. It's just gone 11.35,


you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers


in Scotland who leave us now Coming up here in twenty


minutes, the Week Ahead. Hello and welcome to


The Sunday Politics East. Later in the programme,


the fairer funding formula hitting hundreds of our schools.


Some do gain, but one headteacher says he will quit,


rather than sack any staff. I am not willing to come


into this profession, that I love so much, and ruin


children's lives. With me is Clive Lewis,


the Labour MP for Norwich South, who recently stood down


as Shadow Business Secretary And Patrick O'Flynn,


the Ukip MEP for the Eastern region, who once fell out with the former


leader, Nigel Farage. He is not the only one.


Douglas Carswell has all also become embroiled in a spat with the former


leader of the party. Nigel Farage called


for the resignation of the party's only MP, amid accusations that


Douglas Carswell failed to lobby for a knighthood for him.


It is something the Clacton MP The multi-millionaire who helps fund


Ukip, Arron Banks, then threatened to stand against Carswell


will at the next general election. One member of Ukip's


national executive had this Douglas should go off


and do his own thing. He was independent and did not


really follow the Ukip whip at all. Not that we have a whip,


as he is the only one there in Parliament.


He doesn't always go with with the general accord of the party


or the constitution of the party. Well, yes, I have


to admit, it has been My view is that Paul


Nuttall was elected on an overwhelming mandate


and on a ticket of party unity. I think he had managed


to establish party unity. I call on all the supporters


of the party and the members to get behind Paul and keep speaking


speaking with one voice. These noises are an


annoying distraction. You are talking about


party unity, but when Nigel Farage was the leader,


you called him "snivelling I don't think that


was quite the phrase. Do your views lie more in accord


with Douglas Carswell? People have said there has been far


too much toing and froing. As I recall, during


the week, Douglas has not The accusation was that


Douglas had gone out his way to block Nigel


getting a knighthood. That does not does not seem


to be the case, at all. Douglas did lobby for Nigel to get


a knighthood, but maybe made some kind of quip


that annoyed Nigel. This is more than just


the to and fro between two people. It is more about the battle


for the heart and mind of Ukip. We have got the anti-immigration


wing and we have got I do not think there


is an anti-immigration wing of Ukip. I think the whole party


wants scaled immigration. I think everyone sees immigration


has been far too high and we want to establish our own border system


and our own point system. Douglas agrees with that just


as much as anyone else. And on some ideas, Douglas


and Nigel may be more But there has been some bad blood


between Nigel and Douglas. If you want me to trace the cause


of it, I think it was the issue of which group was going to lead


the Leave campaign Douglas thought, as did I,


that Vote Leave was best equipped to That got the designation


and that won the referendum. We thought the Labour


Party had problems. More on that later, but do you think


what Ukip is going through That is why I am a bit


reluctant to get But one party, one MP


and multiple splits. I do not quite know


what has happened there. Where you are and where


Douglas Carswell is, is a very different place


to where Nigel Farage is. He is far more toxic


on immigration that I say that because I think,


he has come back from America and I think he believes the Trump


brand of politics, which he is very enamoured


with, is a good fit. There are many different


parts of Ukip. There are those who want wanted


to take back control But I think they have ridden


the tiger of the issue of immigration and hostility


to people from other countries. I think one was to


secure coming out of Europe and I think that is


where the split is now. The Conservatives are


the party of Brexit now. Our primary function,


as it was in the beginning, and Clive is right,


we were set up to get us out of It was an ambition that many people


scoffed at. Anyone who starts playing fast


and loose with Brexit, we are there, to use the phrase,


to bite them on the backside. But also, we are looking


at other issues. Why is so much of our money put


abroad for foreign aid when we have Briefly, yes or no,


will Carswell survive? He's a very valuable


member of our party. I want to move on to the plight


of many of the region's schools. Nearly 1,000 of them


are going to lose out under the government's


new funding formula. The idea behind the changes


was to create a more level But more than one-third


of schools here will find Under the changes, two-thirds


of schools could see more funding with the biggest winners,


Suffolk and Bedford Borough. There, more than 75%


of the schools will gain. In most of our authorities,


more than half of the schools will receive


a rise in funding. But at the bottom,


Luton and Southend. In the latter, no schools


will get any more money. The headteacher of one high-profile


school in Harlow has warned warned that he will resign,


rather than sack any staff under This is the school that entertained


millions on Educating Essex. But could the headmaster


of the school put himself His is one of thousands of schools


across the country which could see a cut in funding


from the government Passmores School


could lose ?750,000. That would mean bigger class sizes


and up to 20 teacher redundancies. I have already said,


for that particular year, I will draw the plan up to try


and save that money, Therefore, there will be a difficult


choice at some point for me and for them, in that


them, I will either have to leave because they are asking me


to do something I am not willing to do, or they will have


to get rid of me. I am not willing to come


into this profession, that I love so much,


and ruin children's lives. I am getting upset even thinking


about it. There were always going to be winners and losers. The school is


not alone in feeling the pressure. There are a lot of possible protests


coming up and at least one resignation. Under the proposed


changes, some schools will be given a lump some to take into account


previous funding and mobility. In Luton, 57 of the 59 primary schools


will see the budget cut. We have the greatest need is greatest


deprivation. We would like to think that any government would put that


as a priority. Teachers taking to the streets to protest has not been


ruled out by the council. At the end of the day, the formula is not


providing enough funding peer people for the schools to be able to


giving enough money to them. Amid giving enough money to them. Amid


accusations that the government has simply got near mathematics role. We


felt there was a big disparity across different parts of the


country. Are we spending the rate mode in the right places? In a place


like Luton with a sort of a motor of deprivation, funding cut like that


simply be right. The Department for Education would not give is an


interview, but did release a statement.


Two thirds of schools in the region getting more money. What is the


problem? In my constituency, ?40 million less will be spent. It is


going to have a real impact on the schools. We came second from the


bottom on social mobility. What we are seeing, it is busily rearranging


debt levels across education. This is the first cut in education that


we have seen for nearly three decades. It is very serious. We came


up with fully funded tax cuts to help education. The likes of the


Barnett formula, we would have looked at that again, which gives


disproportionate amounts of money to Scotland, the foreign aid budget. We


have got to a position where even the people who are benefiting


probably feel that they are standing still. What is the answer? Schools


simply need more money. Readers are going to come from? At the last


general election, we said what we general election, we said what we


would cut to fund it. We think if you invest in people, that is how


you boost the economy. The critical thing is that this is not just about


schools. It is not just about secondary schools. It affects


nursery schooling and primary schools. We will turn back to the


problems of the Labour Party. They are way behind in the opinion polls


on the back of two very disappointing by-election results.


Though is that going down with party members in the region as the pupae


are four important elections? -- PPO.


The Labour Party leader was in Cambridge launching the election for


the mayor. This is what he likes best, getting away from Westminster.


This is about hosting. Cambridge is very expensive. We need proactive


councils who are going to do something about that pervade hosting


with rental that can be afforded by people. The Labour Party has not


quite hit rock bottom. But the other end it worse position than they have


been for decades. What about their chances in the East? The


traditionally struggle to do well in the region. But there are places


like Ipswich, which is a classic swing seat. It is held by the


Conservatives at the moment. In this coffee shop, the CV upload of the


Labour Party 's record locally. We have been Labour Party members for a


long table. We have seen good times and bad teams. Do people ever talk


about Jeremy Corbyn? His name has come up. A lot of people really love


them, a lot of people really do not like him. It is very polarising. If


you speak to everyone on the doorstep, most people will say, the


do not have a problem with them. You will get the odd person who does not


like him. But that does not seem to be any agreement on how to beat


things better. The notion that getting Jeremy Corbyn oak-wood mean


that everything would be fine and dandy tomorrow is ridiculous. A lot


of people do not normally at the Labour Party stands any more. People


seem to think it changes every day. We have to appeal to the wider


electorate. That is where the problem is. How did he do that? You


have to be given any clear for your objectives are, with relation to


your traditional values. There are many places where the Labour Party


has to do well. They have high levels of Labour support in the past


recorded in these places. And this brings us to Clive Lewis. He stood


up to Jeremy Corbyn over Trident and resigned as Shadow Business


Secretary because of the Brexit situation. There are certain people


that wanted him to run to try and replace Jeremy Corbyn. But I think


he is not experienced enough. You do not want to do these things


straightaway. Most of the Labour Party did not want another


leadership election. They want the party to progress, but am not sure


how it will do. I knew going to stand? No, I have heard all the


stuff about telephone links be set up, websites being set up. It is


complete rubbish. I helped Jeremy Corbyn get elected. I resigned over


Europe. I resigned over Europe only. I have been quite clear we


understand. I have only been in Parliament two years. I would not be


ready. And quite frankly, I will tell you why you would not even


stand. Jeremy Corbyn was elected twice to lead the party. You would


not have go for the leader led Labour? You would never see that. If


a few years down the line, someone said I had the potential, that may


be different. You come into politics to lead your community, to stand up


to people. What about these websites. Argue responsible for


them? Not at all. I have no idea. Whether they come from. I do not


know who they have come from. I did not do that, but I can tell you


categorically it was not me. Should the responsible people be


investigated? I have tried to find out Ruby have set this up. The


initial findings are that it is a known Ukip activist. When we have


more information, able release it. During our previous leadership


issues, someone set up a Twitter account with me to be the leader,


which got me into that of trouble. Very similar situation. It had


nothing to do with me. You are not ruling out going for the Labour


Party leadership in the future. In 1020 years, who knows? But I support


the current leadership. I support Jeremy Corbyn. Most of the party


need to get behind the leader. Do you think he will be the next Prime


Minister? Yes, I do. If there was another leader Labour leadership


election, to the benefit? I think they would benefit from a young,


charismatic leader. Our party does need some sort of connection with


the public. As you saw in the film the, there like of direction with


regard to what the party policies. The policies on the national basis


you to change to regularly. They do not change. New policies do come


out. We have been through a big period of transition. What we will


go see and articulate is new and policies which I think our


investment in people lead. This is about how we can make sure that the


wealth of the country is spread out. Now, a quickfire look at some other


stories over the last seven days, Norfolk MP George Freeman


weathering a storm, over his comment that benefits


should only go to "really It prompted the Prime Minister


to come to his defence. My honourable friend has rightly


apologised for the comments that he made and I hope that this


whole House will Good ratings this week


from the independent watchdog about most of our police forces, with


the exception of Northamptonshire and Hertfordshire,


who require improvement. But Bedfordshire Police was the only


force in the country to be The Justice Secretary Elizabeth


Truss appeared before a House of Lords select committee


and defended herself for staying silent when judges


were criticised over Brexit. I think it is dangerous


for a government minister to be saying, "This is an acceptable


headline and this is not". And an 'enthusiastic' participant


won the MPs annual pancake race. How does it feel for


Labour to win something? We are getting used to it.


We are getting used to it. We are going to have to get


yesterday? I have often been called a toss. Very good. That is all we


have time for. And that is all from The Sunday


Politics all we need Crossrail as well. We will be


poring over the entrails of the budget next week. Thank you very


much indeed. So the Brexit Bill is back in


the Lords next week and the Lib Dems They've ordered pizza and camp beds


to encourage their peers to keep talking all night,


only to be told by the Lord's authorities that their plans fall


foul of health and safety laws. Laws that they probably voted for.


What did you make of David Liddington's remarks on the Lords


amendments, particularly not just the one on EU nationals, but on what


is regarded as a meaningful vote at the end of the process? Let's be


clear, as ministers like to say, the meaningful vote vote is by far the


biggest thing that will happen in Parliament. It puts EU citizens into


a tiny corner. It will decide not just who is going to have the final


say on this, but who the EU is negotiating with. Is it directly


with Theresa May or is it with Parliament? Who will decide the


shape of Brexit, Parliament or Theresa May? The Lords amendment is


just the first chapter. They have voiced Theresa May to give them a


veto on everything she does, and there is a possible chance in the


Commons could uphold this amendment. The meaningful vote amendment? The


meaningful vote amendment. But is it a meaningful vote if the choice is


to either back the deal or crash out of the deal? That is what the remain


supporting MPs or hardline people who want to remain fear. What they


want is the power to be able to send Theresa May back to the negotiating


table. Why is that anathema to many Brexit supporters? They believed it


would crucially and critically undermine Theresa May's negotiating


hand and also create a long period of uncertainty for business. There


is already great uncertainty and this could extend it. The


government's position is in there was a proper, meaningful vote which


Parliament could reject what was on offer, that would be an incentive to


the EU to give us a bad deal? I think that is the fear. If you are


saying to the people you are negotiating with that that is


another authority and Theresa May will have to go back and have all of


this approved, I think it would have a very significant undermining


effect on her negotiating hand. Things change from day to day. We


are talking about 2019 and 2018 at the earliest, but if the government


lost a vote on the Brexit deal, would he not have to call in someone


else? That is why the vote will be meaningful even if the amendment on


this meaningful vote will be lost. You cannot do a deal on something as


historic as Brexit and have Parliament against you. So, whatever


form this vote takes, whenever it happens, it will be hugely


meaningful. Whatever label that is given and if she lost it she would


call a general election. She could not impose it. To call a general


election now you need a majority of MPs which she will not have, so


maybe she will not get her election after all. It would be very unlike


Labour not to vote for an election. It would be very unlike Labour not


to vote for an election. The elections to Stormont have given


a boost to the republicans and put the long term status


of Northern Ireland in some doubt. Sinn Fein's leader Gerry Adams


spoke to reporters Yesterday was in many,


many ways a watershed election, and we have just started a process


of reflecting what it all means, but clearly the union's majority


in the Assembly has been ended, and the notion of a permanent


or a perpetual unionist majority Is he right? Is this a watershed?


The nationalist vote in the assembly will now come to 39 and the


Unionists 38. It is only one member, but it is significant. This is a


very serious moment and because of everything else going on with Donald


Trump and Brexit it is taking a while for people here to realise


just how significant this is. Talking to someone who only recently


left a significant role in Northern Ireland politics last night, they


said they were very worried about what this means. It is likely there


will be a call for some kind of international figure to chair the


talks to try and see if there is a way of everybody working together.


All sides will probably try to extract more money from the


Treasury, but it is a very dangerous moment. Should we regard Michelle


O'Neill, who has replaced Mr McGuinness as the leader, it is she


the First Minister death probably not quite. An interesting thought.


Indeed, the daughter of an IRA man, a fascinating concept in itself. But


there are are still a large amount of MLAs who will not give Sinn Fein


what they need. But what effect does this have on the legacy of the


prosecutions and the great witchhunts which the British


Government has vowed to end. There is a majority left on the Stormont


assembly to end those. But some would keep them going for time


continuing, which is a headache for Theresa May. You have now got 27


Sinn Fein members, 28 DUP, then the SDLP bumps up the numbers a little


bit. You have got the British Government transfixed with Brexit


which has huge implications for the border between North and South in


Ireland, and the Irish government is pretty wavering as well and if there


is an election there, Sinn Fein could do well in the Dublin


parliament as well. There are a lot of moving pieces. There are and


there is a danger that we look at everything through the prism of


Brexit, but I found Friday and this weekend fascinating. Theresa May and


Scotland were Nicola Sturgeon is framing Brexit entirely through an


argument to have a second referendum on independence which she wants to


hold it she possibly can. And the Irish situation with the prospect of


a hard border with Northern Ireland voting majority to remain, quite a


substantial majority, again a few of the instability at the moment. That


We will be keeping an eye on it for sure.


Yesterday, US President Donald Trump tweeted allegations


that his predecessor, Barack Obama, had ordered


his phones to be tapped during the election campaign.


"Terrible!", Trump wrote, "Just found out that Obama


had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory.


I'm not quite sure what McCarthyism that is.


He followed up with a series of tweets comparing it to Watergate.


"How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very


The sacred election process, I think at one stage he said it was a dodgy


election process, but now it is sacred.


You are frightened to go to bed at night, you do not know what you are


going to wake up to. Completely uncharted territory here. Little


more than a month ago at the inauguration they were making the


veneer of small talk and politely shaking hands. He saw Barack Obama


and Michelle off on the helicopter. You do not know what is coming next.


Is there a scintilla of evidence to back up Donald Trump's claims? Yes,


there is, although he is very muddled about it all. I will


explain. Remember what happened to Mike Flynn, talking to the Russian


and Ambassador will stop they were listening. Barack Obama does not


sign of warrants, but somebody else did. So why on earth would you not


want to listen to the president elect himself in case he might also


be breaking the law. Does that sound to you like convincing evidence or


just a supposition? I think Tom should go and work for him, that is


the most credible interpretation I have heard for a long time. Start


tweeting the case for the tweet. What is interesting about this is my


theory is he does not really like the idea of being a president. That


wild press conference he gave a couple of weeks ago there was one ad


lib that did not get repeated which was, I suppose I am a politician


now, as if he was humiliated at the idea of being a president. He likes


being the businessman with a swagger tweeting around the clock. And


campaigning again. He keeps going to what looked like campaign rallies. I


disagree with you about him not liking being president. I think he


loves the idea of being the president, but the reality is so


frustrating on every level, finding he does not have unlimited room for


manoeuvre and so many things have been put in place to stop them doing


things he would do in the business environment. We have had two more


tweets from him this morning, I guess when he woke up. Who was it


who secretly said to the Russian president, tell Vladimir that after


the election I will have more flexibility? Who was that? Possibly


Hillary Clinton. Is it true the Democratic National committee would


not allow the FBI access to check server or other equipment after


learning it was hacked? Can that be possible? This was all an issue in


the campaign. He is now a president. Shall I point out the flaw in Tom's


theory. They were not bugging Michael Flynn's phone, it was the


Russian Ambassador's telephone they were barking. Mr Neil, I would never


contradict you on this programme. But if you suspect there was


criminal activity going on, as there was by Michael Flynn, why would you


not want to put on a tap? I don't know. That is it for today.


I'll be back next week here on BBC One at 11am as usual.


The Daily Politics is back tomorrow at midday on BBC Two.


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


Download Subtitles