08/11/2015 Sunday Politics London

As evidence grows that the Russian passenger jet downed over

Egypt's Sinai desert last weekend WAS the target of

a terrorist attack, we look at how Moscow and the West will respond.

We will have the latest from each at and Russia. -- Egypt.

Are we now on the brink of an even more dangerous phase of Islamist

David Cameron says he's ready to lead Britain out of the EU

if he doesn't get what he wants from renegotiation,

Will his list of demands result in a good deal or turn out to be

And the row over a new contract for junior doctors in England

As the doctors ballot for strike action,

we'll be talking to Shadow Health Secretary Heidi Alexander.

In London this week, at this time of Remembrance, we have been trying

to find out why so few Londoners are signing up to the Armed Forces.

And with me, as always, the three journalists that help make this show

the most anticipated TV event since the John Lewis Christmas advert

It's Nick Watt, Polly Toynbee and Janan Ganesh.

We're not sure if they'll make you start thinking

But they may well bring a tear to your eye.

So, this week, we'll see what many eurosceptics and europhiles have

been waiting for with all the excitement of a child thinking about

their Christmas wish list, even though it's only early November

David Cameron will publish his letter to the President of the

European Council setting out the "broad outlines" of what he wants

to achieve from his renegotiation of Britain's EU membership.

The upfront briefing from Ten Downing Street says that

he'll challenge both the in and out campaigns to be more

But, to assuage the eurosceptic majority in his party he'll use his

strongest language yet to say that if he doesn't get what he wants

Whether they believe him is another matter.

This is what Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond has to say this

The British people will not be fobbed off with a set of cosmetic

This is about fundamental change in the direction of travel in the

European Union, to make sure that it works for Britain, and that it is

an effective organisation for all the citizens of Europe, driving our

prosperity and competitiveness in the 21st century.

If we cannot do that, then we will not be able to win a referendum

That was the Foreign Secretary. Janan Ganesh, is anything happening?

There is a problem the David Cameron, the things he is most

likely to get from his renegotiation are not the things that will move

the average voter, so what he is likely to get our protections for

non-euro countries within the EU, and that will be very technical

institutional stuff, double majority voting and so forth. That is doable,

the Germans don't want a fragmented EU in terms of the currency. Does

your average undecided voter decide on the basis of that? I think they

are more moved by free movement and immigration, maybe even economic

regulation, so the things he is most likely to get may not help him in a

year or 18 months' time when he is campaigning to win a referendum You

get the feeling he has delayed telling us what he is really looking

for because he is bound to disappoint. Indeed, and he has to be

very careful to ask for things he can get. Three of the main things he

can get, but I don't think he will get the four years' delay for in

work benefits, it is discriminatory and goes against the basic

principles and yet he is asking again. We can only hope he has had a

nod and a wink from 27 other countries that they will agree to

that because if he fails to get it, it will agree to that because if he

fails to get it, it'll renegotiation and it is a good package, so we will

hope it is not a cavalier piece of speaking. What is your take? Philip

Hammond did say some of the changes would be introduced through domestic

legislation and it does look like the ban on EU migrants claiming in

work benefits for four years, the Government will they would thereby

codify some recent European Court judgments that have gone in favour

of the UK and not embedded in treaty change, but the hard language about

treaty change, the reason they are standing soaked up, is George

Osborne is absolutely confident that he is going to get a treaty change

agreement, protections for the Euro outs and Britain will get an opt out

from an ever closer union. George Osborne's the is that the protection

for the Euro outs is the most important thing he can get the

benefit of Britain but he knows politically the campaign, the most

important thing he has to get those migrant benefit restrictions. We

will see what he says on Tuesday, that is when the speech is being

made. A senior US government official is

quoted today by CNN saying they are "99.9% certain" that the 224

passengers aboard the Russian jet which crashed into the Sinai Desert

last Saturday were the victims That's the view in London as well

as Washington and now, A memorial service has been held

today in the Russian city of St Petersburg, where the charter

flight was heading, while Moscow draws up plans to repatriate 80 000

of its holidaymakers from various locations in Egypt, after it

suspended all flights there, following in the wake of Britain's

decision to suspend flights from Sharm el-Sheikh where thousands of

British citizens are still stranded. The downing of the flight is

a tragedy for those who lost their lives, and an inconvenience

for those stuck in Sharm. But its geopolitical significance

will be massive if it represents the emergence of Islamic State,

much better funded and organised than al-Qaeda, as a terrorist group

capable of hitting targets far from In a moment, we will speak to Steve

Rosenberg in St Petersburg. First, we are joined by Sally Nabil from

Sharm el-Sheikh. Does the Egyptian Government Phil Borley get

now? The British were the first to stop flights, the Americans followed

another Russians have banned all flights to Egypt except to get

people out, is it beginning to trouble the Cairo Government? The

Egyptian Government seems to be in a very tight situation, from an

economic perspective. Tourism is very important to the economy, it is

a lifeline to the Egyptian economy, which is already in a bad shape and

the tourism industry depends mainly on Russia and Britain, so the fact

that no more to wrists, from Russia or Britain, will be coming to Egypt

is a huge blow to tourism here and Egypt needs foreign currency and it

depends on tourist spot that mainly, so it is a major blow to the

industry and put the Government in a tight situation. On the other hand,

the way the Egyptians have handled security in Sharm el-Sheikh airport

was a matter of great concern and criticism from different countries

around the world, even the tourists I have spoken to, they told us when

they first arrived, the security measures were a mess, so now the

measures have been tightened, some to wrists I spoke to yesterday told

me it makes them feel better -- some to tourist. If the President Sese

Government is feeling beleaguered in Cairo and will take another economic

hit because of the tourism, can we expect further crackdown on the

Sinai province terrorist groups It is hard to tell at the moment, but

the Sinai military operation has been going on for nearly two years

now and every now and then, we hear about major attacks carried by

mainly the IS affiliated group called the Sinai province, so the

fact that the group have operated in Sinai the nearly two years, it seems

the insurgency group is still gaining momentum and if it happens

to be true they managed to smuggle a bomb on board the plane, it is a

major blow to the security operators. Sally Nabil, thank you.

Let's go to St Petersburg, we are joined by Steve Rosenberg. Is there

any indication yet of how, assuming that it is shown to be a terrorist

attack, any indication of how Vladimir Putin is going to respond?

No, not yet. I think it is important to remember that despite the growing

suspicion that this was a bomb, the official Kremlin line still is that

it is keeping an open mind about this disaster, it is treating all

theories equally and the Kremlin says the fact that it has suspended

all flights to Egypt does not mean it favours the terror theory over

any other. Having said that, if it is proven to be a bomb, then judging

by the way President Putin has responded in the past to terror

attacks, I think we can expect a forceful response from him. How is

the domestic politics? I know it is hard to tell, because the media is

so controlled by the Kremlin, but is this an opportunity for Mr Putin to

further strengthen his position with a tougher crackdown, or is there

their fear in the Kremlin that having casualties as a result of his

war on terror will not make him very popular? It is an interesting

question. I remember back in 20 4, when there was a string of terror

attacks on Russian soil, there were bombs in the Moscow Metro, two

planes bombed out of the sky and the year ended with the school siege in

Beslan, where 330 people were killed. None of that seemed to dent

Vladimir Putin's popularity. Quite the opposite, he used it to

strengthen the power of the Kremlin. Now, you could argue that if this

doesn't prove to have been a bomb, that could undermine the narrative

that the Kremlin has been pushing domestically about its military

operation in Syria. In other words, Russia has been saying it has been

carrying out air strikes in Syria to boost national security in Russia,

to destroy terrorists so they couldn't come to Russia and kill

people there, that narrative will be seriously undermined. But whether

Russians would connect the dots and say, President Putin said we would

be safer but we clearly are not I don't think that would happen,

because the Kremlin control so tightly the media here, particularly

television, and television is the key to influencing public opinion.

So if the Kremlin was to change the narrative to something more like we

have been attacked, we are the victims of terror, we need to carry

on our battle against international terrorism, I think the Russian

public would support that and from the people I have spoken to on the

streets of St Petersburg this morning, I haven't heard a word of

criticism of Vladimir Putin. Most people have said to me, I understand

Russia is at threat of terror attacks and they don't seem to

connect what may have happened to the Russian air bus with Russia s

military operation in Syria. Steve Rosenberg in St Petersburg.

We're joined now by the foreign affairs analyst Tim Marshall,

Dr Domitilla Sagramoso, an expert in Russian security

And joining us from our Plymouth studio is the

He sits on the Commons Defence Committee, and is

Tim Marshall, if, as the intelligence suggests, this attack

was coordinated with Islamic State leaders in Iraq, and its affiliates

in the Sinai called soon I province, it means Islamic State has

the capability to plot mass casualty attacks outside of Syria and Iraq --

called Sinai province. I think in the future, they will be able to do

it globally and this is the first sign of them doing it outside of the

countries they operate in. The head of the FSB came back the lead met

Putin on Friday and Putin immediately set ground the planes,

that shows us what they truly believe. Britain is third, it is

Russia and Germany and France in the amount of tourists there. President

Sisi has been to Moscow three times since he was elected. He is trying

to pull Russia back from America. So it is difficult for the Egyptians

and Russians to come back out to openly unsaved. So to come back to

your original point, I think it is pretty clear that the Isis affiliate

in Sinai swore allegiance to Isis in Iraq. They are under a lot of

pressure from the Russians, 20% of the bombing was against Syria. They

have told their affiliate in the Sinai, you are the ones who can do

it from you do the operation, they have killed the Russians and the

Russians have to respond, I agree with what the Moscow correspondent

said, Putin does not respond -- not not respond, Putin responds and

response with violence. Johnny Mercer, if what we are saying is

true and it was a planned attack by Islamic State, it takes IS into what

is called full spectrum terrorist activity and it is better financed

than Al-Qaeda, it is better resourced and organised in Syria and

Iraq and Osama Bin Laden ever was sitting in a cave in Afghanistan,

this takes the global war on terrorism to a whole new level.

This threat is existential. You can see, if this is proved to be

something that has originated from so-called Islamic State, you can see

their strategic region. This is why the Prime Minister has been going on

about this for so long. We have to do something about so-called Islamic

State because the threat will only get closer. We see this great

outpouring of humanity with that little boy washed up on a beach We

have had 30 of our own terrorists massacred in Tunisia.

I understand. Is the British response which the Prime Minister

has not managed to get Pollard to agree to on deploying eight Tornado

jets into Syria, is that really adequate given what you have called

an existential threat? We need to do what we are asked to

do by the coalition. It is not a question of how much manpower or

machinery we are sending but the effect we can achieve on the ground.

We have been asked to provide those Tornado jets because they have a

specific tactical and technical capability to the coalition are

asked when it comes to dynamic targeting within Syria. We should

stand up to that and do our duty, and have the stomach for the fight.

The idea we are asking people to do some mass bombing in Syria with no

strategy, is misinformed. We should have got past this by now.

What does this mean for Russia and Mr Putin?

To a certain extent, this has brought the ball back to Russia I

would disagree with what the correspondent was saying, that the

Russians will not be particularly affected and critical of Mr Putin's

paper in the Middle East. On the one hand they understand, that is their

argument that the President Assad regime needed to be faced for stock

because it had fallen, then jihadists groups in Damascus and

western parts of the country weather and they understand that.

On the other hand, they will put brakes to any attempt to send ground

troops which I think they are not planning to do either. I imagine he

will have another response to the bombing.

He hasn't done much, Tim Marshall. He has been bombing the other groups

against President Assad. He may now extend the bombing to

Islamic State. If you look at the pattern of

bombing, 80% against the Free Syrian Army, it's changed on Thursday.

There was an increase on bombing on Isis targets and I think you'll see

more of that in coming days. There is no way the Russians will react.

The Russian public, if you look at 9/11 and the reaction of the

American public, lots of things have happened to lots of countries, the

immediate reaction in the first weeks and months is not, our foreign

policy is wrong, but revenge. The most potent of many of the human

emotions. I am certain in the short term the Russian public will support

more action. Your original point, Isis is in Libya, Syria,

Afghanistan, Iraq, India, growing very slowly in many other countries,

and it has become the poster boy for jihadists. It has replaced Al-Qaeda

and with that comes money and people prepared to kill themselves.

Johnny Mercer, the head of MI5 says the threat of terrorism to the UK is

the highest he has seen, that was before the jet went down over the

Sinai desert. We now know, we have had it independently corroborated,

that I S has been using mustard gas on civilians in Aleppo, not because

it is a very use to them, but as a sign, we have got it, a sign to the

West. Is that a response series SATs is

there a response seriously adequate to this?

Until now, we have not been militarily involved as much as we

should have. We are in a difficult place here, we are learning all

still healing from the mistakes in the last 15 years in terms of

foreign policy engagement. That can't mean we draw up the

drawbridge and think the way to keep safe at home and keep our way of

life is to have no strategic involvement overseas.

If it is proved this is done by so-called Islamic State, it

demonstrates their strategic reach and reinforces that argument that we

have to do something about this threat. It is only going to come

closer and it is not good enough for it to come closer, the something to

happen, and afterward for us to say, we should have done this and that.

We need an intelligent foreign policy such intervention strategy,

this is what the banister is trying to do and we should support him

He referred to help Afghanistan and Iraq hang over this country's

foreign policy and military responses. Does Afghanistan, from

the Soviet era, does that hang over, is it a restraint on what the

Kremlin might do today? Totally, they are aware of the risks

that occurred when they intervened and the deaths and casualties in

Afghanistan. One of the reasons why the Civic union became so weak and

eventually led to its disintegration. There is only one

other point I would like to make which people in Russia are now

talking about, experts, is the fact that to a certain extent this attack

was also very much targeted against Egypt. I think a lot of the focus

has been on Russia. For me, it was always not very clear white Isis in

Egypt in the Sinai desert was going to attack if Russian plane, and why

not the people who were under the bombs?

It seems very much that we should not forget the dimension that to a

certain extent the Russians might not have been the initial main

objective of the attack, but to have an impact on Egypt and the Egyptian

tourism industry, because a country suffering the most from this attack

is actually going to be Egypt. Because its economy is so weak. We

had to be more careful when we analysed these groups and the

connections, and not immediately assume that Isis is giving this

order. I disagree with that interpretation.

Tim Marshall, here is the rub at the moment. We now face this potential

far wider or dangerous better resourced terrorist threat than ever

before. It happens at a time when we want to get together to deal with

this but the British are not bombing in Syria. Our allies America have

stopped bombing, Saudi Arabia, UAE, has devoted its jets, Bahrain has

not been part of anything since debris, the Saudis since September,

Jordan since August. America which is half-hearted in this, is almost

on its own in dealing with this now. And with a president not keen on

doing this, who was pushed into it. The British situation is different.

The politics of the matter, it is clear, is not in the House of

Commons. The SNP, Labour, Tory rebels, will

vote it down. We were talking earlier, because of a rock, we are

not going to do without Parliamentary vote. -- Iraq.

The French are putting their aircraft carrier back into the Gulf.

It was that the two months and they are selling it back from another

operation. At the request of the Americans In

2007, since then, the Americans do not have a carrier in the Gulf.

The Tornado jets would make a difference. To say, we as a culture

with commonalities in our belief systems, we are standing together.

At the moment, they are not. We will leave it there.

The uneasy truce between supporters of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn

and the majority of Labour MPs is under renewed strain this week.

First, MPs from the right of the party swept the board

at elections for posts that will give them a role in making policy.

Then Mr Corbyn's senior policy adviser, a young man called

Andrew Fisher, was suspended from the party, apparently after Blairite

MPs complained he had backed an anarchist at the general election

We already know that at least one MP wants to trigger

a leadership election if next May's election results are underwhelming.

But, if there is a contest, how would it work, and what hurdles

would face Mr Corbyn and his potential challengers?

Giles has been delving into the Labour Party rule book

Be warned, there is flash photography in his film.

That some Labour MPs did not and do not want Jeremy Corbyn

That there are internal tensions between some MPs and Jeremy Corbyn's

That Labour has not removed a sitting leader since 1935 is a fact.

And that Jeremy Corbyn won the ballot to become leader with

a whisker off 60% of the vote is also a fact.

What is surprising about these facts is that it's Jeremy Corbyn's team

themselves who are very keen to see the rules surrounding any challenge

Because, when it comes to the rule book, the mechanism for such

It starts well enough with chapter four, clause two, B, two:

The wording of this clause is, in fact, already out-of-date as

of last conference, as any MP who can get 20% of support from

Labour Parliamentarians, that's MPs and now MEPs which, as of now means

Whether there is anyone who could do that at the moment is

a very moot point, however much some might wish there was.

If they get them, they then write to the Party General Secretary, and

Then Labour's National Executive Committee decides the timetable and

The problem is, nowhere in the rules is it specified what happens next.

It seems, within party circles, depending on their views,

The challenger or challengers are put on the ballot with

But the incumbent leader then needs 15% of Labour Parliamentarians to

nominate them so they too appear on it.

He is not popular inside the PLP, that is very clear.

So, if he's not going to go through automatically,

he has to knock on doors and get people to sign the form

The challenger is on the ballot others may also seek 20% nomination

threshold, and they too appear, but the leader is automatically included

The idea, the incumbent, somebody with 60% of the electorate in the

Labour Party, might not be on the ballot paper, yet someone at best

on the fringes of the Labour Party could be, is obviously unthinkable.

Only the named challenger goes forward

with their 20% nomination, and it is a straight binary head-to-head with

the leader who again is automatically in the contest.

Mr Corbyn might need more protective gear from scenario one and two, but

this programme understands option three is what the current leader's

team and the party solicitor think is the correct interpretation.

Of course, any talk of leadership challenges

might well upset the 60% of those who clearly wanted Jeremy Corbyn to

not only lead the party but lead it into the 2020 general election.

This wouldn't happen in any other organisation where you

have a new CEO judged on metrics that happened in the

Let us give him a bit more time before we start mounting challenges

or talking about challenges, because he does have an overwhelming mandate

Nonetheless, in bars and offices across Westminster, some Labour MPs

are thinking into the night how they can stop Jeremy Corbyn.

And some have no desire to remove him,

but think the idea of challenging any leader is important as an idea.

As a historian, I realise the Labour Party has a major problem

And I want a situation where it can say

they are not doing a decent job and therefore they have got to go.

Because if he had won, he's there for two or three years.

So, if the rules were clarified would it make

I can't see it happening for a very long time.

At the moment, the only way to be able to get rid

of Jeremy Corbyn, if that is what you want, is to convince people he

I see absolutely no evidence of that happening at all.

Of course that doesn't mean someone won't try.

Pole, even if the Parliamentary party had the stomach for a coup

against Mr Corbyn, it would result in civil war within the party

because the next election would go back to the same electorate that

elected Mr Corbin? could happen but if he was an

absolute disaster, losing by-elections, and by disaster,

significantly worse than Ed Miliband's results. After all,

Labour doesn't get rid of its leaders. Until something of that

kind happens, where you have a really persuasive argument that

there is not a hope in hell of him winning the next election, that

might bring the party round, but any rebels had to bring enough up the

party round to say, look, winning is what really matters and this guy

isn't going to win for us. Are there people talking, plotting coup is

already? Of course, the counterrevolutionaries, and they are

delighted with themselves in the PLP, they have a serious of

modernisers who have been elected to the chairmanship of these committees

-- a series of modernisers. 10% of them visited bag of loot voted for

this candle. The problem is, they have the power to trigger a

leadership contest but do not have the power to decide the contest

that will be for the people who overwhelmingly voted for Mr Corbyn

and I agree, it will take up catastrophic meltdown over the next

year to get the contest taking place, but even if you had that

contest, I still think you will find, because he has only been there

a year, his supporters will say it is not our fault, give him more time

and you will find even in those circumstances, Jeremy Corbyn or

Jeremy Corbyn person would win. Mr Corbyn does sometimes create

unnecessary problems for himself. Let me show you this clip from

Andrew Fisher, he was a political adviser to Mr Corbyn. He has been

suspended from the party but he is still working for the Labour

leader. One of its problems is this is what he had to say.

I had the most excruciating half-hour of my life where I was

I sometimes have nightmares, very violent, bloody nightmares

But it was excruciating and he said, look, we got to explain to people

there is more to life than moving from the bedroom to the sofa.

That was his attitude towards people who are unemployed.

For this plummy accented, Oxbridge-educated Tory

in a red rosette, frankly, to be saying that, was the most

It took every sinew of my self-discipline not to thump him.

Though Mr Fischer is no stranger to defend himself, having called other

Labour members vile gits and scumbags. You wonder why Mr Corbyn

feels he needs someone like this. And if you think Mr Corbyn is trying

to prevent an internal push against himself, why he would making the

late make several of the personnel decisions he has -- why he would be

making several other personnel decisions. If you are hoping to get

him out, your hub would have to be that the new members that have

changed the composition of the Labour Party are not hardened,

militia style activists that will defend him to the last ditch, but

are dreamers and kids who got excited over the summer and will

break away in the coming years and will realise that internal party

warfare means turning up to tedious meetings on a wet Thursday night and

they will not be there to protect him in the worst instances. I think

Polly is right, he won't go unless he is an obvious disaster, but I

don't think he will come across as an obvious disaster until the spring

of 2020, by which time it is too late and Labour have already lost

the last of the late next election. -- lost the next election.

It's coming up to one o'clock, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

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

Coming up here in 20 minutes, we'll be talking to

Shadow Health Secretary Heidi Alexander about the row over

First, though, the Sunday Politics where you are.

Why do Londoners seem less keen than others to enlist with our

Stephen Pound, Labour MP for Ealing North.

And Bob Stewart, Tory MP for Beckenham or,

as many people know him, Colonel Bob Stewart of the Cheshire Regiment.

And I was able seaman pound, by the way. Lest we forget.

First, though, to the campaign against policing cuts in

the capital, which we talked about last week, but which has been given

yet more thrust by a leaked letter to Government, signed by London s

Deputy Mayor for Policing among others, warning of potential legal

Let's begin on this. Are there areas -- other areas public sector light

have faced the chill wind of reforms, are they being seen to make

too much of a fuss? In a way, they should, because they are trying to

represent themselves but equally, they have such a hugely responsible

business in hand, even though I watched the rioting, where police

were hurt in Whitehall by so-called anarchists. We all have great

sympathy for the police but the answer to your question is, yes I'm

afraid the police have got to look very carefully at how they spend our

money. So it is fair that they should be looking to prepare for 25%

cuts and if it means fewer officers and fewer officers in your neck of

the woods in Beckenham, so be it? Well, yes, so be it. We can only

have what we can afford, but actually, we want to look very

carefully at where the cuts are and the Government I know are trying

like hell to make sure the cuts are not where it matters and as far as

the public is concerned, people like all of us here, where it

matters is the front line. Can we live with these cuts question mark

the police exaggerating potentially the impact of this? I don't think

they are and before we go any further, we should send our best

wishes to the three police officers very badly injured in the line of

duty and sincerely hope they are out of hospital quickly. We cannot

afford not to have the police, society cannot function without the

police force. Full in the last 0-15 years, policing in London has gone

through a massive change, with the safer neighbourhood teams,

neighbourhood policing, all of which was quite positive. What is

happening now is a fall in certain types of crime is now being expended

out and extrapolated into grounds for reducing the police budget. Just

as we cannot afford not to have a properly funded Health Service,

because if we do not have a healthy workforce, we do not work, if we

don't have a safe community, we have no life in the city. The commission

has said in relation to the protests, two sets this week, that

he can't guarantee, it might be a problem being able to police these

in future of what you say to that? It is true and this Sunday,

Remembrance Sunday, in Epping, the police will not be unable to allow

the Royal British Legion parade and service of remembrance to take place

because they do not have the police officers. I cannot believe in the

sixth seventh richest country in the world, we cannot afford to properly

fund the police force. Without them, there is no safe society. I can t

disagree with that. The problem is there will be no society at all

unless we can afford it. There is a real problem. We have a national

liquidity problem which we have got to solve one way or another. I

agree, we have to have a decent Health Service, of course, and we

have to have an effective policing and the three men that were hurt

yesterday, we all... What you say about that? When the commissioner

says he will have trouble dealing with protests like this, what do you

say? I know what the Commissioner does already, they bring in

policeman from across the country, that is happening already. What he

means is he will have to bring more in. They did that in the riots in

2011. Bernard Hogan-Howe is not an alarmist, he is cool and

hard-headed. A very sensible police officer and if someone like him is

saying this, which is unprecedented for a Commissioner of the

Metropolitan police, we have to take it very seriously. And the final

vote from me, I think they will if Bernard is saying that. Everybody is

trusting him. Plans for a Garden Bridge across

the River Thames are proving rather One of the points of contention

for those who object to the whole concept is that ?60

million of public money has been ?30 million from the Mayor or,

in effect, Transport for London Last month, one

of the local planning authorities involved, Lambeth, said it wouldn't

negotiate any further unless this The Garden Bridge was given

the go-ahead by Boris Johnson But has since been dogged

by the issues of need, desirability, and who was paying for

its construction and maintenance. In September, Lambeth Council

seemingly killed off the idea by suspending lease negotiations

on land needed for the bridge. Concerned that too much public money

had been committed to the project. Now it is back on,

after council leader Lib Peck reached a deal to limit Transport

For London's contributions from ?30 reached a deal to limit Transport

For London's contributions from The Labour mayoral candidate Sadiq

Khan was quick to claim a share of Despite the deal, the trust

behind the bridge can still spend up ?20 million of which is in the

form of a 50-year loan agreement. Some doubters have

not been won over. The Labour MP in the Lambeth

constituency This is not really a deal, but

a cobbling together of facts and figures, putting it in a way that

makes it look like the public is still saving money, but actually the

public is still paying for a project that should never be happening

in that area. I do not know why Sadiq has got drawn into this

and has changed his mind. I'm very hopeful he can

do another U-turn. It seems questions might be

asked whether an immediate saving Joining us, Lib Peck,

leader of Lambeth Council. Clear this up, a month ago or a few

weeks ago, you were saying you didn't want to go ahead with this

bridge and now you are saying it is fine to go ahead. Do you know what

you're doing? I am very clear, it is a creative and ambitious scheme and

I hope it will become as distinctive as something like the London eye but

I don't think it can come at any cost. We have been clear that

Lambeth will not pay anything towards the scheme and we have

become increasingly concerned about the way money has been spent and

pledged and Transport for London are down to spending 30 million. So that

is your only concern, you like the money magnet project but you think

public money should not be spent on it -- you like the project. ?20

million has only been spent by TfL. And 30 million has been contracted.

And under this arrangement, 20 million will only be alone, not a

long-term spend? We have intervened to make sure that what was going to

cost the London taxpayer ?30 million is now going to cost the London

taxpayer ?10 million, a saving of 20 million for the people of Lambeth

and the constituencies the gentleman represent. TfL will spend the money

but to say it will be alone? TfL have spent ?20 million already and

have contracted a further ?10 million to make sure they can get

in... That they will get the money back? Yes, we will make sure that

the Garden Bridge Trust do more fundraising, they basically reduce

the cost of the overall project and pay back some of the money to

Transport for London. But this trust is struggling to get the money

together to build it in the first place, it doesn't look like it will

have huge amounts of income, how has TfL been allowed to agree this kind

of deal when there is no guarantee of this money being paid back? It is

a legal agreement, bit like a mortgage, repayment loan and they

have to pay interest on it, so is a watertight agreement we have with

TfL that has reduced the overall cost to the taxpayer. So it is being

paid back over 50 years? Yes, but in the interim, they will do a lot to

reduce the cost and increase the private fundraising. Is there a

guarantee it gets paid back with interest? No loss to the taxpayer?

There is absolute guarantee, this is a good deal, we have intervened and

our powers as Lambeth Council to get a better deal for the residents of

Lambeth and the residents of London. You were concerned about the public

money and so has Sadiq Khan, the mayoral candidate. We heard from

Kate Howey, he doesn't know what he is doing, she implied, he has

turned, he was against it and now supports it. What is your take?

Sadiq Khan has been clear from the beginning, he likes the project and

is ambitious but has concerns over the public money. We have to put it

in context, 56% cuts in our grant from central Government, I cannot

with my hand on my heart talk about saving public money and being

responsible with it and allow something that is spending public

money in the former that carelessly. We know Lambeth was involved in

negotiations, how much was Sadiq Khan involved to make sure the 20

million will come back? He is not involved, I am the leader of Lambeth

Council, I am my own woman, I was at negotiations, but Sadiq Khan made

his views clear. He gave the impression he has taken credit for

it. Not at all, I work closely with him and I think he will make an

excellent mail. What about the whole project, you have been unhappy with

the funding behind it but other Labour councillors, perhaps

particularly in that area, don't like the whole thing. And a lot of

local people don't like it, so why are you going ahead with it? There

are people close to the bridge who are opposed to it and Kate Hoey the

local MP, has come out against the bridge and I am sure she will now

become quite vociferous in some of the things she thinks our concerns,

but they will be addressed through planning conditions. When it went to

Lambeth planning committee, it was granted permission but with 46

conditions attached concerning things like noise and congestion and

construction, and all of those need to be satisfied before the bridge

moves on to the next phase. What do you think? I think everybody would

start from the same place, if we can do it without massively impacting on

Londoners, what a great idea and it will be extremely interesting, Kate

Hoey and Joanna Lumley on opposite sides, it isn't going to be dull.

But this is actually a really good exciting idea and it is about time

we had a few schemes like this and one of the things you talked about,

the Bridge trust raising their own money, you negotiated this, so you

would know, it is 12 days a year they are going to be able to fund

raise using the bridge itself, so they have a sensible... And you

think that is OK? Some people have a problem with it because it is not a

genuine public right-of-way access. I would be happy with the bridge

that I didn't have before if I could have it every day of the year bar

12. I still think commuters from Waterloo, crossing the river going

to bank, this is really quite exciting and I like the idea of

London leading. I came across Hungerford Bridge

What to think of the garden idea? I think, OK.

I am worried about sightlines been ruined, wonderful sights from

Waterloo Bridge down river and I hope that won't interfere with that

incredible panorama. Regarding costs.

In the end, we will pay one way or the other. Some will pay, it means

ask one way or the other. It is a good idea, it looks jolly nice,

something unique. He is right to worry about the

sightlines? Not at all, they have been addressed by our planning

committee and considered seriously. I contest the fact we are all going

to pay for it anyway, we have secured a great deal.

Will this happen, will the building start soon? It has to go through

planning conditions and we are resuming land negotiations and that

is on our land in Lambeth. Thank you for clarifying that.

At this time of Remembrance, we've taken a look

And we've found out that Londoners make up a disproportionately small

share of those signing up to serve their country.

As Andrew Cryan reports, it's apparently because of

London's pomp and ceremony help draw tourists

The changing of the guards, Trooping of the Colour

and the annual Remembrance Day commemoration all help to make

the capital in many ways the focal point of British military ceremony.

But while London as a capital city might will host the set-piece

military events, a series of Freedom of Information requests from this

programme has found that ordinary Londoners seem very reluctant

to sign up and join the Armed Forces.

The official estimate is that London makes up 13%

But in the last period we have figures for,

recruitment from London centres accounted for just 6% of the Army,

7.5% of the RAF's so-called Phase One intake

and 3% of the Navy, not at officer level.

James Cleverly is the MP for Braintree,

a member of the London Assembly and serves in the Territorial Army.

He thinks the capital's large ethnic minority population is a key factor.

Sons follow fathers and increasingly, in this day

So when you haven't got a track record

of people from ethnic backgrounds in the Armed Forces, that is one

opportunity for recruitment that is a little bit tougher.

But the numbers signing up for the RAF and the Navy are so small that

the MoD are unable to provide data for those signing up last year from

The Army didn't give us comparable figures, but of service men

from the UK in their ranks, just 4% come from ethnic minorities.

Waleed Ghani is a Muslim Londoner who served in the forces.

He thinks there is more to the London figures than simply

The whole culture of the Army is one that is very provincial,

very traditional, very conservative, and that's just not London.

Recruitment's really high in garrison towns and places in

the country where the Army is very visible, whereas in London, you only

really see the Army when it comes to ceremonial things like the Cenotaph

on Remembrance Sunday or Buckingham Palace or Horse Guards.

Along with official military parades,

an annual march of the West Indian Servicemen Association in Brixton.

It was set up, they say, due to a lack of black faces

at the official Remembrance Sunday commemorations.

Some of the old guys came and they said,

you have got to do something about this

and I said, I will think of something that we can do.

So then one day I said, right, you know what?

We are going to have our own march past.

We'll invite all the services and also all the youngsters who are

in the services to come along, so that we are effectively doing

a recruitment and marketing drive for the respective forces.

In a statement, the Ministry Of Defence told us

So, when asked if they would join the Army,

No, I'd be too scared, I'm not fit enough for it.

I don't know, it is just patriotism, I guess.

It's not good, like, why would I join...?

Imagine I got posted in Afghanistan, what am I going to do,

I don't really have the option here, though, I'm not British.

But whatever the many reasons behind it may be, the separate

question is what difference Londoners' reluctance to sign up

actually makes on the Armed Forces' ability to defend the realm.

Let us pick up on that, does it matter? Does it make a difference?

Yes, the problem is London and the South generally, Tim, are pretty

poor at recruiting soldiers, sailors and airmen, pretty good at

officers. The old maxim used to be, officers recruited from the south,

soldiers from the north. It is a silly comment. But at the

same time it is fairly true. The opportunities, still true, the

opportunities for people in the South are better than in the North.

So, naturally enough, they have more job chances in London and the South.

Stephen Pound, true generally except in places, the naval bin, like

Portsmouth? It is very different. The Armed

Forces in the counties where you have the county regiments, there is

clearly an association. If you go to the House of Commons, they is a

beautiful painting of the Battle of Trafalgar.

Look at the deck of victory and you will see black faces, black sailors

serving on Nelson's flagship. The first VC for 30 years, Johnson they

harry, from grenade. The way forward is to have people

recognise this is not a question of ethnicity but job opportunities Who

will join the Armed Forces if you think you will be made redundant?

Today there are twice as many in prison...

If we take up that economic point, and assume it exists, we know the

rates of joblessness are higher among ethnic minorities in London.

Some, fair enough. Is there an issue?

The Armed Forces are not where the police are in terms of diverse

recruitment? I do not know the answer, I really don't.

You have no expense? When I was commanding a battalion, I did not

care what people looked like. It was what was said in their eyes

that mattered. There is a tradition, in the north,

if I was a colonel wandering around recruiting in Manchester and

Newcastle, people would say, Colonel, I have two boys in the

Army. Down the South McCutcheon in the

south, it is not the same. The ethnic stuff?

I really hope people see the Army as an equal opportunity opportunity --

employer in all ways. As a past commanding officer, I never even

considered... Is civil servant asked me, how many

people from ethnic backgrounds are in my battalion, I said, no idea.

We heard the Muslim woman in that report very reluctant.

When my father took me to the recruiting office in high Holborn,

that is where a Londoner joint than ever.

It is a significant point but another issue, that question about

who we are fighting. Someone saying they were too scared.

Briefly. I am sorry, we have run out of time.

My thanks to Bob Stewart and to Stephen Pound and, with that,

The row between junior doctors and Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has

The disagreement centres around a proposed new contract

The Government says the existing arrangements are outdated

and claims the move will help deliver the Conservative manifesto

The British Medical Association representing junior doctors, says

the changes will result in working practices that are unsafe and unfair

Any industrial action could involve a walk-out from all

but emergency work, in what is likely to be the biggest

Well, the Labour Party has called on Mr Hunt to scrap his plans,

and the Shadow Health Secretary Heidi Alexander joins us now.

Welcome to the programme. Is the Labour Party in favour of the

concept of a 7 day a week Health Service? We are but I think you need

to understand the barriers that exist in order to provide that

service. Jeremy Hunt the Health Secretary has

implied that if you change the junior doctors's contract, then in

some way that automatically means you have a 7 day NHS. It doesn't.

You don't just need junior doctors. They are already working weekends

and nights. You need consultant cover, diagnostics support,

pharmacists, 24/7 social care. If Jeremy Hunt isn't being honest

about the resources he would put in to deliver that 24/7 NHS, then

picking a fight with junior doctors which is what he seems determined to

do at the moment, will not provide the solution he said it will.

If you wanted a proper 7-day-a-week NHS, would you also had to change

the junior doctors's contract? I'm not totally convinced that

changing their contracts will actually result in more junior

doctors being available on the ward. There are some things that should

probably... You have said the existing contract

is not perfect, do you need to change it in some ways for seven day

cover? Along with the things you mentioned. If you listened to what

hospital bosses and chief executive say, they are saying very clearly

that the junior doctor contract is not the main issue here.

There are other things that would need to change. One of the things

that really concerns junior doctors is that the proposals that seemed to

be on the table at the moment are bad for patient safety, and they are

not convinced that the proposals will result in them not working even

more excessive and exhausting hours than they at the moment.

The contract at the moment has financial penalties built into it

which means, if a hospital forces junior doctors to work very long

hours, then that hospital is financially penalised. And that

system, whilst it may not be perfect, has the broad confidence of

junior doctors, and they are very worried this proposal that has come

forward in the last couple of days, even though negotiations have been

going on for years, will compromise patient safety.

Was the BMA right to begin a strike ballot without sitting down with

Jeremy Hunt over the new offer? I think the BMA and junior doctors

feel that they have been backed into a corner because of the way that

Jeremy Hunt has handled these negotiations.

He started off by saying that the BMA and junior doctors would have

two agreed to 22 out of 23 preconditions laid down by the

doctors and dentists's remuneration board.

He went on to imply, which has angered Junor doctors even more if

you change this contract it will somehow result in lives being saved.

And then we have a situation on Wednesday, 24 hours before the

ballot of junior doctors is due to start, that he decides the best way

to conduct negotiations is to issue a press release from the Department

of Health. And that is the best way to conduct negotiations.

He has been talking to the BMA since 2012, this is not a new problem

He has made an 11% pay offer. He said other than the few already

working illegal hours, less than 1% would see come would lose some pain

but that is because they would not be working as much. 75% would get a

rise, is that not something worth talking about?

A lot of this is spent, Andrew. How do you know?

The 11% pay offer applies to a proportion of the junior doctors's

contract, the other proportion of their wage will actually be going

down. So, you cannot say that this is an 11% pay rise. Let me finish

this point. How do you know if you don't sit around negotiations?

Listen to Jeremy Hunt, he is saying the overall pay envelope for junior

doctors will remain broadly the same. How can it possibly be an 11%

pay rise? A rise in the basic and they will do

less overtime, less hours would count as overtime.

It is cogitated as it may be the junior doctors will think this does

not take us forward. Don't they owe it to those of us who

pay their salaries, the people who use the NHS, to sit down with Mr

Hunt and go through it? I think they have tried but the way in which the

Health Secretary has handled these negotiations has been absolutely

appalling. Take the example of this. On

Wednesday, again, 24 hours before the ballot opens, it is the first

time that the Health Secretary says that the Care Quality Commission are

going to be involved in monitoring the hours of junior doctors. Why

didn't we hear that two months ago? Why did we hear that six months ago?

This is the Care Quality Commission... If you were a junior

doctor, would you vote for strike action?

I am not a junior doctor, it is not for me as a politician to sit in a

TV studio on a Sunday afternoon and tell junior doctors how they should

vote in a ballot. I am not going If they do vote for strike action,

will the Labour Party support them? I am not going to prejudge the

outcome of the ballot. You have come on and argued the junior doctors'

case, with knowledge and some eloquence, so if they vote for

strike action, why, given everything you have said, would you not support

them? Jeremy Hunt can avoid a strike tomorrow if he avoids the threat of

contract imposition. I will ask Jeremy Hunt when I speak to him

Would you, if they vote for strike action, will the Labour Party

support them? It is a simple question. I will be happy to come

back and speak to you in a couple of weeks, but I am not going to

prejudge the outcome of a democratic process that is currently under way.

The Government in a mess or other junior doctors chancing their arm?

It is interesting, it is where is where those two Conservative

manifesto commitments made, the seven-day NHS and the other thing,

the ?22 billion of efficiency savings in the NHS to meet the 30

billion funding gap. What is interesting is if there is pain

here, imagine what it will be like in other areas of the public

services. The NHS is protected, it has a ring fenced budget that rises

in line with inflation. Other areas that are not protected will face

cuts of 25%, so this is just an early taste of how difficult things

will get next year on the other side of the Spending Review. I want to

put something to you that the cheaper the defence staff said to

me, not about the NHS, he would be worried if Mr Trident Macca delete

Corbin's views on Trident became Labour policy -- Jeremy Corbyn's

views on Trident became Labour policy, that he would never press

the button. Let's hear what Richard Houghton had to say. The whole thing

about deterrence rest on the court Macca delete -- rest on the use If

you say you are never going to use it, I say you use it every minute of

every day and the purpose of the deterrent is you don't have to use

it because you successfully deter. So no point in spending billions and

billions if our enemies think we will never use it? Yes, because

deterrence is then completely undermined.

Isn't that the point, if you have the deterrent, you say you will use

it, even if you might not. If you don't have it, you save the money.

What is the logic of having it and saying you will not use it? I think

Jeremy was probably answering a hypothetical question. He has been

clear that the Labour Party is going to have a review of its policy. I am

somebody who welcomes that review, to be honest. I understand that but

my point is you can have a review and say we won't have the deterrent

or we will have the deterrent. What is the logic of saying we will have

it but won't use it? As I say, I think Jeremy was answering a

hypothetical question. I think it is a difficult question. His views on

nuclear weapons are long held. The Labour Party needs to go through

this review. We need to decide democratically as a party whether we

want to commit to the renewal of Trident. At the point at which that

decision is taken, Labour Party members will obviously be

deciding... Thank you, you can come back and tell me that.

There's no Sunday Politics next week because MPs are taking a break

from Westminster - but we'll be back on the 22nd November.

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