:00:38. > :00:41.Good morning, and welcome to the Sunday Politics.
:00:42. > :00:44.Police say they're treating a multiple stabbing in London
:00:45. > :00:53.as the the RAF intensifies its bombing campaign over Syria,
:00:54. > :00:56.is this the latest sign of an evolving threat on British streets?
:00:57. > :00:58.Labour scored a significant win at this week's Oldham by-election
:00:59. > :01:00.but after a tough week for Jeremy Corbyn
:01:01. > :01:08.there are more reports of smears, abuse and even talk of a purge.
:01:09. > :01:14.And it's not just the Labour party that has its rebels,
:01:15. > :01:17.we'll be talking to the Conservative MP Heidi Allen,
:01:18. > :01:19.who hit the headlines after delivering a bombshell speech
:01:20. > :01:28.against her own party's welfare plans.
:01:29. > :01:33.Boris Johnson add cycling revolution is proving controversial, is the
:01:34. > :01:38.mayor backing bikes over other road users?
:01:39. > :01:41.And joining me for all of that, three journalists who've dutifully
:01:42. > :01:47.battled through the wind and the rain to get here,
:01:48. > :01:49.even without the threat of a telling off from Andrew.
:01:50. > :01:51.It's Nick Watt, Isabel Oakeshott and Janan Ganesh,
:01:52. > :01:53.and they'll be tweeting throughout the show.
:01:54. > :02:01.that police are treating an attack at a London underground station
:02:02. > :02:04.A man carrying a knife was reported to have screamed,
:02:05. > :02:07.as he injured three men at Leytonstone station
:02:08. > :02:13.making it potentially the first terrorist attack on British soil
:02:14. > :02:16.since the murder of fusilier Lee Rigby in 2013.
:02:17. > :02:17.Mobile phone footage shows police officers
:02:18. > :02:20.wrestling with a man after he had been tasered.
:02:21. > :02:23.He was later arrested and remains in custody.
:02:24. > :02:27.The Metropolitan Police said one man suffered serious knife injuries
:02:28. > :02:29.but was not thought to be in a life-threatening condition,
:02:30. > :02:36.while two other victims received minor injuries.
:02:37. > :02:38.Well, the Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith
:02:39. > :02:40.has this morning called the attack an "abomination",
:02:41. > :02:42.and we can speak now to the local MP John Cryer
:02:43. > :02:55.Your response? It is an appalling attack. And it is frightening, very
:02:56. > :02:58.frightening for local people. I've been talking to some of the local
:02:59. > :03:02.businesses this morning and obviously they are all very worried
:03:03. > :03:06.about it now. What the background is, what the motivation is, I do
:03:07. > :03:11.think it would be particularly helpful to speculate at the moment.
:03:12. > :03:16.-- I don't think it would be particularly helpful. So I'd rather
:03:17. > :03:21.not do that. But when something like this happens in your own area, it is
:03:22. > :03:24.not something expect. Leytonstone is a peaceful area, a lot of
:03:25. > :03:27.communities live together extremely peacefully and harmoniously, that's
:03:28. > :03:32.one of the great things about this area. People will be scared and
:03:33. > :03:37.understandably so, as you say, so what is your message to constituents
:03:38. > :03:41.as they wake up to this news? I think the message is that we carry
:03:42. > :03:47.on as normal, that we don't allow this sort of barbaric behaviour to
:03:48. > :03:53.change our lives. And I think that's the important thing. And I think
:03:54. > :03:56.people will continue as well. I'm not saying people will be blase
:03:57. > :04:01.about it, people will be very concerned. But I don't think people
:04:02. > :04:04.will allow this to change the way they live their lives on a
:04:05. > :04:09.day-to-day basis, that's the impression I've had from the people
:04:10. > :04:12.I've been talking to this morning. Now, this has happened just days
:04:13. > :04:18.after parliament voted for air strikes in Syria, people are bound,
:04:19. > :04:24.rightly or wrongly to draw a link between the two, what say you?
:04:25. > :04:28.Welcome I was opposed to the air strikes in Syria, I voted against
:04:29. > :04:32.air strikes in Syria, I think it will prove to be quite a major
:04:33. > :04:37.mistake. I am not convinced that this will be connected to the air
:04:38. > :04:43.strikes in Syria. Well I just don't know at the moment so we can only
:04:44. > :04:47.speculate. But there doesn't seem to be immediately evidence that there
:04:48. > :04:51.is a direct link. But we have to find out what the background is.
:04:52. > :04:54.Police are investigating. I have been in contact with police this
:04:55. > :04:59.morning. At I think it would be dangerous to say this is a direct
:05:00. > :05:03.consequence of air strikes in Syria. And as I say I am a fairly major
:05:04. > :05:06.critic of the government's activities. Thank you.
:05:07. > :05:08.This comes after the so-called Islamic State
:05:09. > :05:10.claimed a husband and wife who massacred 14 people
:05:11. > :05:16.were supporters of the terrorist group.
:05:17. > :05:20.So is this just the latest sign that the West faces a new type of threat?
:05:21. > :05:24.Well, we're joined now by the security expert Will Geddes.
:05:25. > :05:29.At the moment it looks like a lone wolf, no accomplices, no
:05:30. > :05:34.organisation in any major way behind it, is that how you read it? I think
:05:35. > :05:38.pretty much so. It is incredibly difficult to say right now and again
:05:39. > :05:42.it is dangerous to speculate too much until the police have
:05:43. > :05:46.undertaken their investigations to determine how this individual was
:05:47. > :05:50.motivated, under what particular an brother that might have been,
:05:51. > :05:54.whether it was alone, whether it was a self radicalisation process --
:05:55. > :06:01.what particular an umbrella that might have been. We have been
:06:02. > :06:05.expecting an attack because we have had the Paris attacks, we have had
:06:06. > :06:09.the attacks in Southern California, and there had been warnings about
:06:10. > :06:14.it, and the terror threat is still extremely high. So we shouldn't be
:06:15. > :06:18.that surprised. No, I don't think we are. And I think we are accepting
:06:19. > :06:22.the fact that unfortunately we are at a very high risk level intervals
:06:23. > :06:27.of these types of attacks. And this precedes the Syrian bombing
:06:28. > :06:30.agreements in terms of the fact that there were seven significant plots
:06:31. > :06:35.foiled this year. We have always been on the radar, it is just down
:06:36. > :06:39.to the capabilities of the individuals. Sadly, certainly in the
:06:40. > :06:42.wake of this most recent incident, it will be the platform of lone
:06:43. > :06:46.wolves more than anything else. Do you think that is the case? That is
:06:47. > :06:51.the most recent pattern, that might be what continues in, unfortunately,
:06:52. > :06:55.capitals across Europe? I think we have to be pragmatic and accept
:06:56. > :07:00.that. Ultimately we know that the individuals that are planning as
:07:01. > :07:04.cells have a far higher chance of detection. So individuals working on
:07:05. > :07:07.their own, whether it be in a very specific conceptual sort of agenda
:07:08. > :07:17.and motivation or whether it be an individual that is simply aligned to
:07:18. > :07:20.the ideologies of Daesh will add to the spectrum of Brett. Nick Watt,
:07:21. > :07:25.what do you think the little reaction will be? We have had some
:07:26. > :07:28.reaction from Jon Cryer saying stay vigilant but don't be blase. That
:07:29. > :07:33.was an incredibly important contribution you had from John
:07:34. > :07:36.Cryer, he is not just the local MP, E is the chairman of the
:07:37. > :07:40.Parliamentary party. In that capacity Jeremy Corbyn invites him
:07:41. > :07:46.to attend the Shadow Cabinet. He voted against air strikes and he is
:07:47. > :07:49.being held up as how the majority of opinion in the Labour Party is
:07:50. > :07:53.against air strikes. He was absolutely clear saying it would be
:07:54. > :07:57.dangerous to say that this attack in Leytonstone is in any way linked to
:07:58. > :08:00.the vote in parliament. The reason why that is significant is that
:08:01. > :08:04.there will be some people and indeed we are already seeing some people on
:08:05. > :08:08.Twitter saying that this attack in Leytonstone is as a result of that
:08:09. > :08:11.vote. Well, the chairman of the PLP who voted against the air strikes
:08:12. > :08:15.said it would be dangerous to make that conclusion. But people will
:08:16. > :08:18.make those links and they will continue to do so particularly in
:08:19. > :08:22.the light of Michael Fallon saying the bombing campaign is intensifying
:08:23. > :08:27.in Syria and there are likely to be civilian cavities. They may well do
:08:28. > :08:32.so but what strikes me about this attack, is awful and horrible as it
:08:33. > :08:36.is for everybody involved, is that it is a rather pathetic and little
:08:37. > :08:41.attack. Very happily the victim, as we understand it, is not going to
:08:42. > :08:44.die as a result of this attack. What strikes me is, were we in America
:08:45. > :08:48.and were the people who are prone to do these things able to get their
:08:49. > :08:53.hands on guns, this would have been a mass casualties could well have
:08:54. > :08:57.been a mass casualties attack. As it was, we're left with somebody just
:08:58. > :09:01.randomly stabbing and not really getting anywhere. Do you think
:09:02. > :09:07.people are ready for how long this campaign is going to go on for, and
:09:08. > :09:10.we are going to live in the shadow indirectly or directly of a
:09:11. > :09:14.terrorist threat? I don't know if people are ready for just Syria or
:09:15. > :09:19.maybe five years worth of security being one of the top three issues in
:09:20. > :09:23.the country. If you look at the issues index, most salient to voters
:09:24. > :09:27.in recent years, it has been the usual economy, NHS, immigration to a
:09:28. > :09:30.certain extent. I wonder whether, by the time of the next election
:09:31. > :09:35.because of this fairly consistent terror threat, security is even
:09:36. > :09:38.number one, two or three. We've got the investigatory Powers Bill going
:09:39. > :09:42.through Parliament at the moment and I think that kind of legislation,
:09:43. > :09:47.the presence of a terror threat, the kind of thing that is on the evening
:09:48. > :09:51.news might overnight over five years will change what we consider to be
:09:52. > :09:55.the most salient issues in British issues -- night after night. There
:09:56. > :09:59.had been reports that one of the Paris attackers had travelled to
:10:00. > :10:02.Britain earlier this year, and the chair of the Home Affairs Select
:10:03. > :10:05.Committee said it is a real worry that people are able to get through
:10:06. > :10:10.our borders without being detected. How worried are you by those
:10:11. > :10:13.reports? I think we are playing a bit of a catch-up game and
:10:14. > :10:17.unfortunately we have to appreciate it many capabilities in tens of the
:10:18. > :10:22.border force a Metropolitan Police and police agencies across the UK.
:10:23. > :10:24.Although there have been positive suggestions by the government in
:10:25. > :10:28.terms of boosting numbers within the security services, for example, you
:10:29. > :10:35.are still looking at approximately 18 months before those 1900 new
:10:36. > :10:39.heads within GCHQ and security services will be operationally able
:10:40. > :10:42.to fulfil their mission. Briefly on the police numbers, also a very
:10:43. > :10:46.controversial issue in terms of the spending review, that didn't happen,
:10:47. > :10:52.the cuts that people feared, the government will be relieved they did
:10:53. > :10:55.not make those cuts? Iain Duncan Smith in condemning these attackers
:10:56. > :10:58.as an abomination made that exact point, saying we kept those police
:10:59. > :11:00.numbers and they will be important in terms of attacking the terrorist
:11:01. > :11:01.threat. Now, the Prime Minister had hoped to
:11:02. > :11:04.sign off his plans for a renegotiation of Britain's EU
:11:05. > :11:07.membership later this month. have decided not give him an early
:11:08. > :11:10.Christmas present, and that means the referendum on
:11:11. > :11:23.whatever deal he does get Last month David Cameron sent a
:11:24. > :11:28.letter to Donald Tusk, president of the European Council setting out the
:11:29. > :11:32.EU reform demands. There were four main areas he once renegotiated.
:11:33. > :11:37.Protection for non-Europe countries and safeguarding their rights.
:11:38. > :11:41.Exemption from an ever closer union. And more powers for national
:11:42. > :11:47.parliaments. Restore competitiveness in the EU which involves cutting red
:11:48. > :11:51.tape and free trade agreements with other economies. And finally, the
:11:52. > :11:55.one causing the most headaches, restricting benefits for EU
:11:56. > :11:58.migrants. Under the Prime Minister's plans, EU migrants would
:11:59. > :12:04.not be able to claim any in work benefits for four years. On Thursday
:12:05. > :12:07.David Cameron abandoned hopes for an early referendum as early as May
:12:08. > :12:12.next year after admitting he would not be able to get the deal he wants
:12:13. > :12:15.at an EU summit in two weeks' time. Donald Tusk will on Monday published
:12:16. > :12:21.an assessment of the British demands in a letter to the 27 other member
:12:22. > :12:25.states. It follows a round of confessionals in which governments
:12:26. > :12:28.have outlined their concerns. He said December's meeting will pave
:12:29. > :12:36.the way for a deal in February. By then David Cameron will be forced to
:12:37. > :12:38.decide whether to campaign for a Brexit or stay in the EU.
:12:39. > :12:42.and committed eurosceptic Iain Duncan Smith
:12:43. > :12:44.has been speaking on The Andrew Marr show this morning,
:12:45. > :12:47.and he said the delay was a sign of strength, not weakness.
:12:48. > :12:54.Well the mood is actually very upbeat. I'm involved in putting
:12:55. > :12:57.together the package that the Prime Minister wants to take to the
:12:58. > :13:00.council. So we've been deep in discussion about that. The Prime
:13:01. > :13:04.Minister has been pretty clear throughout that he wants to take a
:13:05. > :13:08.package that supports the manifesto commitment. In my area for example
:13:09. > :13:11.on welfare it is very clear that he wants to have that commitment,
:13:12. > :13:13.people living here and contributing to the system, and that will be one
:13:14. > :13:15.of the key elements. We did ask for a government minister
:13:16. > :13:20.to talk to us about the prime minister's renegotiation plans
:13:21. > :13:22.but were told none was available. we can speak instead to the
:13:23. > :13:25.Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin, of the eurosceptic Conservatives
:13:26. > :13:28.For Britain group and he joins us
:13:29. > :13:39.from our Westminster studio. Welcome to the programme. Are you as
:13:40. > :13:47.upbeat and optimistic as Iain Duncan Smith? No. Ironic, really, because
:13:48. > :13:51.he and I were elected on the same day in 1992 and we both opposed the
:13:52. > :14:01.Maastricht Treaty. We both spare about the direction of the European
:14:02. > :14:05.Union. -- we both despair. And while he is gamely supporting the Prime
:14:06. > :14:10.Minister's negotiation in its centre is, I think he knows in his heart
:14:11. > :14:13.that this is a very lame renegotiation compared to what the
:14:14. > :14:17.Prime Minister was originally promising. I mean, there are a whole
:14:18. > :14:25.range of things that the Prime Minister wanted, like getting out of
:14:26. > :14:30.all the home affairs and justice revisions of the Lisbon Treaty, like
:14:31. > :14:34.getting a complete opt out of the EU Charter of fundamental rights, which
:14:35. > :14:39.is, for example, gives the power to the European court of justice to
:14:40. > :14:40.decide prisoner voting and not just the European Court of Human Rights,
:14:41. > :14:47.and so it goes on. But, you know, you know Iain Duncan
:14:48. > :14:52.Smith well, he is not known as a raging Europhile, and if he is
:14:53. > :14:58.optimistic and competent, certainly, publicly, the chances of a
:14:59. > :15:01.meaningful deal of a deal with Europe, -- meaningful chance of a
:15:02. > :15:06.deal with Europe, then why cannot you be? He is bound by his duty to
:15:07. > :15:11.the cabinet, but I am free to speak my mind, Iain Duncan Smith focus
:15:12. > :15:17.very narrowly on a very circular way, on his own, on the Prime
:15:18. > :15:25.Minister's own terms of reference. The European Union has changed so
:15:26. > :15:28.dramatically over the last 20 or 30 years, the question the British
:15:29. > :15:31.people are going to have to face, do they want to carry on with this
:15:32. > :15:34.journey? There is no status quo, is they want to carry on with the
:15:35. > :15:37.journey of integration, because what the prime ministers negotiating
:15:38. > :15:41.about, will not change the course of the European Union or the course of
:15:42. > :15:46.the United Kingdom within the European Union. They are relatively
:15:47. > :15:50.trivial, rather complicated, but relatively trivial negotiating
:15:51. > :15:55.demands. He's going to get the deal by February. Even if he gets the
:15:56. > :15:59.deal by February, it will not change the price of fish, it will not allow
:16:00. > :16:03.the UK Parliament to determine our own laws and it will not restrict
:16:04. > :16:06.the European court of justice, another of the Prime Minister's
:16:07. > :16:14.demands that he has now dropped. It will not restore the opt out of the
:16:15. > :16:18.social chapter, which was gained by John Major in the Maastricht Treaty,
:16:19. > :16:23.it will not achieve any of these things. There was never going to be
:16:24. > :16:27.enough concessions... I am glad you are making the point that this
:16:28. > :16:31.renegotiation was never really going to address the fundamental
:16:32. > :16:39.problems... Or, you were never going to be satisfied! The Prime Minister
:16:40. > :16:44.was making these much tougher demands. He has dropped these
:16:45. > :16:47.demands. I would be supporting the Prime Minister's negotiating
:16:48. > :16:50.position if he had stuck to his demands. Which one in particular, if
:16:51. > :16:53.there was one thing you would like to see him bring back which you
:16:54. > :16:58.could sell to your constituents, what would it be? The fundamental
:16:59. > :17:03.one, restrict the ability of the European Court of Justice to rule on
:17:04. > :17:08.almost anything. Risen a voting, I mentioned, it is now moving to that
:17:09. > :17:11.area. And the whole question of the relationship between those countries
:17:12. > :17:14.that do not want to be in political union, do not want to be involuntary
:17:15. > :17:19.union, do not want to be in the fiscal union treaty which has been
:17:20. > :17:24.redesigned by the call Eurozone states. -- prisoner voting. What we
:17:25. > :17:28.have got to face, this is not a status quo we are voting to stay in,
:17:29. > :17:32.it is a continuing development of European Union integration, if you
:17:33. > :17:41.want to have choices, you must vote Leave. It has been reported that the
:17:42. > :17:45.campaign will campaign for Brexit. LAUGHTER
:17:46. > :17:50.Would you welcome him leading the campaign from the out? You have
:17:51. > :17:57.laughed... We would welcome him joining the vote to leave campaign,
:17:58. > :18:01.but I don't think it is very likely, at the moment he is convincing
:18:02. > :18:06.people he's being really tough but we know that this is what happens in
:18:07. > :18:10.all EU negotiations, the government pretends to be tough, pretends to be
:18:11. > :18:14.a showdown, and in the end, hey presto, rabbit out of the hat,
:18:15. > :18:18.everything is marvellous. Game set and match for the British. Is there
:18:19. > :18:23.any thing, do you think, that Iain Duncan Smith will be able to sell
:18:24. > :18:30.once this renegotiation is done and dusted? Sell to the backbench... ? I
:18:31. > :18:34.doubt it, I think... As Bernard has suggested, in January, 2013, when
:18:35. > :18:37.David Cameron talked about renegotiation, he meant something
:18:38. > :18:40.sweeping, even in addition to the thing is Bernard has mentioned, even
:18:41. > :18:44.including flirting with the idea of some deep reform to European free
:18:45. > :18:47.movement, that was what was being suggested two years ago. There is
:18:48. > :18:53.not going to be anything approaching any of that in any deal that urges
:18:54. > :18:56.early next year. As it stands a number of backbenchers will find
:18:57. > :19:01.that hard to support. Tactic from Downing Street, to leak the idea
:19:02. > :19:04.that David Cameron might conceivably support the leave campaign, slightly
:19:05. > :19:09.misjudged, so transparent the obvious that he will not. If
:19:10. > :19:14.anything, it was a message sent to other European capitals, " if I
:19:15. > :19:23.don't do that smack if you do not do this deal, I may join the sceptics.
:19:24. > :19:29.-- if you do not do this deal". I agree with Jan, nobody will take
:19:30. > :19:32.seriously the idea that he will campaign for out because
:19:33. > :19:35.fundamentally that is not what he believes, he wants to stay in and
:19:36. > :19:40.has said seven the beginning. Bernard is right, there is a feeling
:19:41. > :19:45.that the renegotiation will only achieve something rather cosmetic.
:19:46. > :19:48.-- and has said so since the beginning. David Cameron may pull a
:19:49. > :19:53.rabbit out of a hat and pretend that he has got a concession but people
:19:54. > :19:55.will not be convinced. I leave it to Nick to stick up for the Prime
:19:56. > :19:58.Minister in this particular instance, what would the rabbit in
:19:59. > :20:04.the hat, the rabbit coming out of the hat, be, for David Cameron, once
:20:05. > :20:10.this deal is done and dusted. It will be examined as rabbit, because
:20:11. > :20:13.we will know about it! He cannot go beyond what he wrote in the letter
:20:14. > :20:18.to Donald Tusk, the rabbit that he takes out of a hat which says, isn't
:20:19. > :20:22.this amazing, isn't opt out from the historic commitment to ever closer
:20:23. > :20:25.union, he will say it is significant... He will say it has an
:20:26. > :20:29.impact on the European Court of judgment rulings, but the point is,
:20:30. > :20:35.first, we know that is what he wants to achieve, and also, people like
:20:36. > :20:39.Bernard, and we can see he is nodding (!), he will say this is
:20:40. > :20:44.just a cosmetic change, it is not going to change the fundamental
:20:45. > :20:50.privacy of EU law over EU law. -- fundamental primacy of EU law over
:20:51. > :20:53.UK law. If there were a concession on in work benefits, many people
:20:54. > :21:00.feel that is impossible, bearing in mind the laws, would that satisfy
:21:01. > :21:02.you? It would not, in the end, the European Court of Justice will
:21:03. > :21:07.always have the power to overturn Teva has been agreed, the problem
:21:08. > :21:10.the Prime Minister has got, he started at the beginning with
:21:11. > :21:15.grappling with quite some big things, but refusing to argue with
:21:16. > :21:19.the overall architecture of the European Union. -- grappling with
:21:20. > :21:23.some quite big things. If you do not change the architecture, nothing
:21:24. > :21:27.will really change, except that the European Union will carry on
:21:28. > :21:31.morphing into a state and we will be part of that, whether we are in out
:21:32. > :21:35.of the Euro, ever closer treaty in the treaty -- ever closer union in
:21:36. > :21:38.the treaty, not in the treaty, whatever. Thank you very much for
:21:39. > :21:42.joining us. The real substance being debated
:21:43. > :21:46.by MPs in the Commons on Wednesday may have been whether to extend air
:21:47. > :21:49.strikes into Syria but it was the conflict inside
:21:50. > :21:51.Jeremy Corbyn's party that ended up
:21:52. > :21:53.grabbing just as many headlines. Even when the party finally arrived
:21:54. > :21:55.at a position, it couldn't heal the rift between
:21:56. > :22:00.the leader and some of his MPs. The party received
:22:01. > :22:01.a much-needed boost with a comfortable majority
:22:02. > :22:04.in Thursday's by-election. So when it comes to Jeremy Corbyn's
:22:05. > :22:06.Labour, just what do the voters
:22:07. > :22:18.make of it all? Labour won the old by-election and
:22:19. > :22:21.comfortable, there are majority was reduced but they increased their
:22:22. > :22:26.share of the vote, Jeremy Corbyn says it shows that Labour is
:22:27. > :22:29.electoral. We, with the help of the pollen company populace, have
:22:30. > :22:33.gathered together a group of people that once voted Labour but did not
:22:34. > :22:38.at the last election. We are going to hear of what they think of the
:22:39. > :22:41.new Labour Party and behind this screen, we have two seasoned Labour
:22:42. > :22:47.advisers to pass comment on what they hear. Vets get started. --
:22:48. > :22:51.polling company Populous. -- let's get started. All of the former
:22:52. > :22:55.Labour voters are from London, and at the general election they spread
:22:56. > :23:00.their approach to Ukip, the greens, conservatives and Lib Dem, all of
:23:01. > :23:03.them felt Labour lost their vote over the economy, Ed Miliband and
:23:04. > :23:08.being out of touch. What do they make of Labour today? -- Greens.
:23:09. > :23:12.They are moving in the right direction, with a charismatic
:23:13. > :23:23.leader, whose policies seem to be standing up for the average man. I
:23:24. > :23:29.disagree, no disrespect, for me, I am quite a middle ground person,
:23:30. > :23:35.going from the left to the right, they have gone far too left for me.
:23:36. > :23:40.For me they are unelectable. He is very principled, I respect him for
:23:41. > :23:45.that but I do not agree with his policies, particularly defence.
:23:46. > :23:51.Initial impressions? Did people know who he was before he became the
:23:52. > :23:57.Labour leader? I had not. Had you heard of him? I had heard of him...
:23:58. > :24:02.He seems principled, compassionate... He has used a term,
:24:03. > :24:11.the new politics... Have you heard that? Yes... Do you know what he
:24:12. > :24:16.means? Not specifically, I presume he means a different attitude
:24:17. > :24:22.towards leading the party and the way they make decisions perhaps.
:24:23. > :24:30.It goes back to the same problem, if you have a vague catchphrase and no
:24:31. > :24:35.substance behind it... Maybe I am not seeing the strong leadership --
:24:36. > :24:39.leadership capability, I understand he's principled, but as a leader of
:24:40. > :24:42.the country, I am not convinced. Does that sound like a good way of
:24:43. > :24:47.changing things, giving them more freedom in the way that they vote?
:24:48. > :24:52.It brings a more human feel, does not feel like everyone is a robot,
:24:53. > :24:55.all of us in this room, we could all be voting for Labour but we would
:24:56. > :25:01.all have different opinions on things. That is... That is a human,
:25:02. > :25:06.you know, that is human nature. I think the fact that is being
:25:07. > :25:10.respected, that is good. But, keeping it in line, how he's going
:25:11. > :25:17.to manage that, that may be a problem. That woman has some up the
:25:18. > :25:26.nub of the problem! That is pretty much their position right now. This
:25:27. > :25:30.is a video clip... I'm not happy with the shoot to kill policy in
:25:31. > :25:41.general, I think that is quite dangerous. That is woolly. You
:25:42. > :25:49.cannot go from principled to Willy and evasive, that is a problem. --
:25:50. > :25:56.woolly and evasive. You need crystal clear clarity on security issues.
:25:57. > :26:00.You need to give somebody a bit of time, let them lace up their running
:26:01. > :26:05.shoes (!), they find their own pace, and they get a little bit of time.
:26:06. > :26:10.It is early days, he has just started in the job. In time, he will
:26:11. > :26:20.show, you know, a lot of strength will stop courage, I think. Why not
:26:21. > :26:23.vote Labour this time? -- a lot of strength and courage. Labour was
:26:24. > :26:28.giving benefits left right and centre, if somebody needs them,
:26:29. > :26:29.fine, but they were in so much debt, the country was getting further and
:26:30. > :26:37.further into the country was getting further and
:26:38. > :26:40.to it. Do you know the if Jeremy Corbyn and John Madonna's government
:26:41. > :26:49.would spend more money, would they put up taxes? -- do you know if they
:26:50. > :26:54.Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell government. I bet there is not a
:26:55. > :26:58.single specific about how it is different. Despite the debate about
:26:59. > :27:07.austerity. They have not mentioned that word once. The fact Labour have
:27:08. > :27:10.not articulated anything... They have asked a leading question, so
:27:11. > :27:17.not to give that response, that suggest, well,... We will not make
:27:18. > :27:21.up our minds... We do not know... These people are not the British
:27:22. > :27:25.electorate, nor can they alone give Labour a victory, but there will be
:27:26. > :27:30.plenty to note, as lost Labour voters, they seem prepared to give
:27:31. > :27:36.Labour and Jeremy Corbyn time to bed in.
:27:37. > :27:38.STUDIO: And I'm joined in the studio now
:27:39. > :27:40.by the Shadow Work and Pensions secretary, Owen Smith.
:27:41. > :27:45.We have had plenty of evidence from the pollsters, you saw and heard
:27:46. > :27:48.some of it, at the last election Labour was not trusted on the
:27:49. > :27:52.economy, particularly when it came to managing the welfare bill, do you
:27:53. > :27:57.think you are on the way to learning that trust? If you take the evidence
:27:58. > :28:03.of the poll that matters, the poll with the people, looking at Oldham,
:28:04. > :28:06.then perhaps we are winning back trust. There is no doubt we did not
:28:07. > :28:11.have it at the last election, that is why Labour lost and lost badly,
:28:12. > :28:18.but we did win a victory on Thursday in Oldham, up 10%, the Tories were
:28:19. > :28:21.down 10%. Perhaps we are in the foothills of starting to win back
:28:22. > :28:26.trust. I recognise and Jeremy Ross recognises we have a long way to go,
:28:27. > :28:29.almost five years until the next election and we will have to put in
:28:30. > :28:36.place policies and ideas to win back trust fully. -- Jeremy recognises.
:28:37. > :28:39.It was a Labour victory but that is a Labour heartland, you should not
:28:40. > :28:44.be surprised that you did well somewhere like Oldham, that is
:28:45. > :28:48.despite the policies of the national party, you could say, it you could
:28:49. > :28:53.say it is because of a strong Labour parliament, that is not a Nuneaton
:28:54. > :28:56.which you need to win back. But in the media we were talking about lots
:28:57. > :29:02.of suggestions that Labour was going to lose that seat, or if we win, we
:29:03. > :29:07.would win only by 1000. Labour MPs themselves were saying that! That is
:29:08. > :29:11.my point. But the pollsters were certainly saying in their view, we
:29:12. > :29:16.were likely to struggle. For us to hold it as well as we did, increase
:29:17. > :29:20.the share of the vote from last time around, 11,000 majority, you cannot
:29:21. > :29:25.say anything other than it was a good victory for Labour. I think it
:29:26. > :29:29.has to be a vindication both of Jim McMahon, the excellent candidate,
:29:30. > :29:35.now the MP for old, a good local guy who has been a council leader, very
:29:36. > :29:41.well respected. -- Oldham. The kind of community-based politicians that
:29:42. > :29:45.we produce in labour. -- community rooted politicians. But also a
:29:46. > :29:48.vindication of Jeremy Corbyn and the rebuilding of trust. Nobody in
:29:49. > :29:49.Oldham can be in any doubts as to who is the leader of the Labour
:29:50. > :29:59.Party right now! Let's talk about welfare, we heard
:30:00. > :30:02.the lady saying Labour was giving benefits left, right and centre and
:30:03. > :30:07.leaving the country in so much debt, how do you address that? Well, I
:30:08. > :30:10.think we've got to start by doing what we did not do well enough under
:30:11. > :30:15.the last parliament which is call out the line from the Tory party
:30:16. > :30:19.that the dead this country were in and are still in, let's not forget
:30:20. > :30:25.the Tories have practically doubled debt. Let's talk about welfare
:30:26. > :30:28.specifically. Happy to. The Labour Party under Harriet Harman clearly
:30:29. > :30:34.felt it should move closer to the Conservatives on welfare and not
:30:35. > :30:37.further away, the party did not vote against their bill introducing ?12
:30:38. > :30:41.billion of saving and Harriet Harman said she was sympathetic to lowering
:30:42. > :30:47.the benefits cap. You did not vote against the limit on child tax
:30:48. > :30:52.credits for two children. In that vote we definitely were wrong and
:30:53. > :30:56.that's why Labour has now voted against the welfare bill, and the
:30:57. > :31:02.reason for that is the reason many people in this country, I think,
:31:03. > :31:05.have started to turn against the Conservative Party. Because the tax
:31:06. > :31:10.credit changes that were at the heart of that bill, and the heart of
:31:11. > :31:13.the ?12 billion savings. At you knew about the tax credit bill and you
:31:14. > :31:17.were still in favour of a benefit cap, at the time you were still in
:31:18. > :31:23.favour of lowering the benefit cap and you wanted to limit it to child
:31:24. > :31:27.tax credits to two children. So was that all a complete aberration?
:31:28. > :31:30.Well, as I said, I think those were the wrong decisions. I actually
:31:31. > :31:35.argued within the Shadow Cabinet at the time against our abstaining on
:31:36. > :31:38.that vote. I said in my conference speech a couple of months ago that
:31:39. > :31:42.this is no time for the Labour Party to be abstaining on whether we make
:31:43. > :31:47.poor people, working people, poorer, in this country. People want the
:31:48. > :31:50.Labour Party to stand up for working people. What is your evidence for
:31:51. > :31:55.saying people want you to do that? Harriet Harman announced that Labour
:31:56. > :32:00.did not oppose limiting tax credits to two children because she said, we
:32:01. > :32:03.simply cannot say to the public that you were wrong at the election. So
:32:04. > :32:09.who is representing the people here? We might point to Heidi Allen, who
:32:10. > :32:13.you have got on the programme later, or any of the other 20 or 30 Tory
:32:14. > :32:18.MPs who stood up against their own Prime Minister just a few weeks ago.
:32:19. > :32:22.On tax credits? Saying that they got it wrong on tax credits. The Tories
:32:23. > :32:27.describe that as welfare spending, that was part of their ?12 billion
:32:28. > :32:30.at the election. It is entirely legitimate for me to talk about
:32:31. > :32:35.that. Of course it is but it is not just that. You said people want us
:32:36. > :32:40.to do this and I am trying to get from you the evidence for that. Yes
:32:41. > :32:43.on tax credits but more broadly on Labour's perception of people on
:32:44. > :32:48.Labour with welfare. We have seen leaks from polling from Labour's
:32:49. > :32:52.learning the lessons task force chaired by Margaret Beckett in which
:32:53. > :32:56.people said Labour was in full to the undeserving, it needs to be for
:32:57. > :32:59.middle-class voters not just down and outs. And a Labour win would
:33:00. > :33:05.have been good for people on benefits and immigrants, anyone
:33:06. > :33:09.claiming money. How will you win an election if people only see you as
:33:10. > :33:12.representing those groups? Well, we've got to win an election because
:33:13. > :33:18.those groups and low and middle income earners in Britain, the very
:33:19. > :33:22.people being hit by tax credit cuts and now the universal credit cuts
:33:23. > :33:25.that are coming down the stream next year, need a Labour government in
:33:26. > :33:28.order to introduce fairness. They also want to know that we are in
:33:29. > :33:36.favour of free-form. There is no doubting that. Where is the evidence
:33:37. > :33:39.for that? -- in favour of reform. This is your own polling and it is
:33:40. > :33:44.not in line with what the public want or how they view you. That's
:33:45. > :33:47.what I just said. In addition to supporting in work benefits for
:33:48. > :33:52.people who are in low and middle income jobs, like tax credits and
:33:53. > :33:57.universal credit, we also need to be making an argument for reform. Do
:33:58. > :34:01.you accept you are not doing that? Well I think we are only just
:34:02. > :34:04.starting to do that. I'm going to be announcing in the New Year a big new
:34:05. > :34:10.commission by the Labour Party to look at Social Security, to try to
:34:11. > :34:14.present a Labour alternative, reformed social security system.
:34:15. > :34:18.There is no doubt that for generations people have increasingly
:34:19. > :34:24.become Miss trust for of the social securities system -- distrusting of
:34:25. > :34:28.the Social Security system. We need to win back people's trust. It
:34:29. > :34:33.should be a massive positive for our country that we have a generous
:34:34. > :34:39.welfare state, it is a positive. Which policy decisions so far are
:34:40. > :34:43.going to back up that idea of reform rather than people's idea that you
:34:44. > :34:48.are only four people on benefits if you are trying to your appeal? And
:34:49. > :34:53.you have talked about tax credits, but if you want to lower the benefit
:34:54. > :34:57.cap, if you now don't want to limit tax credits, which policy areas now
:34:58. > :35:00.back up what you've just said about reform? Well, we've said very
:35:01. > :35:07.clearly that we support the government in capping the overall
:35:08. > :35:11.spending on social security. And the benefit cap? Well, the benefit cap,
:35:12. > :35:16.interestingly, I think we've reserved judgment on. But it was
:35:17. > :35:22.only two weeks ago... That wasn't your view. Let me finish, if I may.
:35:23. > :35:26.Two weeks ago we had a legal opinion from a judge in London that the
:35:27. > :35:29.benefit cap was discriminating against disabled people. There is
:35:30. > :35:32.further evidence that the benefit cap is not doing what the government
:35:33. > :35:36.set out to do, it is not saving money because it means local
:35:37. > :35:39.councils are having to spend money on discretionary housing payments to
:35:40. > :35:44.support people being made homeless as a result of it. It isn't helping
:35:45. > :35:48.people back into work. It's only around 4% of people seem to be
:35:49. > :35:52.getting any benefit. So the question is, what is this benefit cap for in
:35:53. > :35:56.individual households? Yes we need of course to have a limit on the
:35:57. > :36:00.amount of money that people can have individually and as households but
:36:01. > :36:04.it has to reflect need. Well, that's important, because listening to you
:36:05. > :36:08.there, it sounded like you wanted to drop the idea of a benefit cap in
:36:09. > :36:15.principle. So you still support the idea of a benefit cap at ?26,000 per
:36:16. > :36:18.year? No we don't. But you did at the election support it? At the
:36:19. > :36:23.election we did, and since the election we have changed our view.
:36:24. > :36:27.Our view is that cutting it to ?23,000 and ?20,000 which is what
:36:28. > :36:31.was included in the welfare bill, I'm afraid it is a congregated lot
:36:32. > :36:34.of numbers but we've got to get into them, that would mean that we would
:36:35. > :36:38.affect literally millions of people across Britain and it would have
:36:39. > :36:42.resulted in hardship and would have cost money. What should the cap be?
:36:43. > :36:45.We need to get back to a principle that people use to understand which
:36:46. > :36:49.is the connection between the sorts of support that you might receive
:36:50. > :36:53.from the state, the amount of money you contribute, so getting back a
:36:54. > :36:59.connection between contribution and reward, but also your need. So if
:37:00. > :37:03.you've got three children, or if you fall pregnant in a period where you
:37:04. > :37:06.lose your job, you don't get penalised for having that said
:37:07. > :37:11.child. It seems to me extraordinary that the government is penalising
:37:12. > :37:15.children. You are not supporting a cap at the moment? You cannot say
:37:16. > :37:19.?26,000 was right, you are now reviewing the whole policy? You
:37:20. > :37:22.agree with Jeremy Corbyn that it results in social cleansing? I have
:37:23. > :37:27.been saying that for the last two months, there is nothing new that.
:37:28. > :37:30.We said we would oppose the reduction. When I spoke to you last
:37:31. > :37:35.time on daily politics you said you would stick to the principle of the
:37:36. > :37:39.benefits cap. I did not. You said in September that you wanted to have a
:37:40. > :37:43.benefit cap, in principle you did not agree with lowering it to
:37:44. > :37:47.?23,000, and Jeremy Corbyn was against it. What I said very
:37:48. > :37:52.clearly, we were opposed to the reduction to ?23,000 and ?20,000
:37:53. > :37:56.outside London. I said we were reviewing the concept of a benefits
:37:57. > :38:01.cap across the board. But that we do accept that there have to be limits
:38:02. > :38:04.on the amount of money that an individual households can get in
:38:05. > :38:08.benefits. And what we need to do is get to a point where we've got a
:38:09. > :38:15.much fairer set of criteria to now analyse and understand why we should
:38:16. > :38:18.be giving family X amount Y, and that should reflect their need. The
:38:19. > :38:23.number of children, the nature of work they are in, and the relative
:38:24. > :38:27.security of the family. The fundamental principles we have
:38:28. > :38:30.always adhered to. Most viewers out there will not understand a
:38:31. > :38:36.government that says we penalised children we take money away from
:38:37. > :38:40.them on the basis of how many children may have. You abstained on
:38:41. > :38:43.that issue earlier, but as you said, you changed your mind. Should
:38:44. > :38:47.colleagues of yours be worried about being sacked after voting against
:38:48. > :38:51.the leadership on air strikes? No, I don't think they should be.
:38:52. > :38:54.Obviously I'm not in charge of reshuffles, that's a job to Jeremy,
:38:55. > :38:59.but I just think this is newspaper tittle tattle. What I've seen in the
:39:00. > :39:02.way in which Jeremy has handled this in Shadow Cabinet is that he has
:39:03. > :39:07.been very keen to stress that we've got to be respectful of the
:39:08. > :39:10.different views. I voted against, others voted in favour, I don't
:39:11. > :39:14.think there is any reason, and I think any abuse that anyone has been
:39:15. > :39:18.subject to as a result of decisions taken in good conscience and good
:39:19. > :39:20.faith is disgraceful, and we should not settle for it or allow it in the
:39:21. > :39:23.Labour Party. Owen Smith, thank you. It's just gone 11.35, you're
:39:24. > :39:26.watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers
:39:27. > :39:28.in Scotland who leave us now Coming up here in
:39:29. > :39:33.twenty minutes, we'll be talking to the Conservative MP who used her
:39:34. > :39:36.maiden speech to rebel against her First though,
:39:37. > :39:47.the Sunday Politics where you are. Welcome to the London part
:39:48. > :39:52.of the show. Coming up, Boris Johnson's cycling
:39:53. > :39:54.revolution, and the so-called Cycle Superhighways are proving
:39:55. > :39:57.controversial. Is the Mayor backing bikes
:39:58. > :40:02.over other London commuters? Joining me, Meg Hillier Labour MP
:40:03. > :40:06.for Hackney South and Shoreditch, and Bob Neill, Conservative MP
:40:07. > :40:10.for Bromley and Chislehurst. First up, the Wednesday vote
:40:11. > :40:16.in the House of Commons which took Britain to war in the skies over
:40:17. > :40:19.Syria, a decision that has caused In London there were 31 MPs who
:40:20. > :40:23.voted with their leader Jeremy Corbyn
:40:24. > :40:25.in opposing air strikes, whilst 11 All 27 Conservative London MPs
:40:26. > :40:39.voted to support the bombing. Amongst those who voted not
:40:40. > :40:41.to bomb was London Mayoral His Conservative rival for Mayor,
:40:42. > :40:48.Zac Goldsmith, A point
:40:49. > :40:53.of difference that may well play a significant part in the build-up
:40:54. > :40:56.to the male election next May. Bob, you voted in favour of the
:40:57. > :40:58.air strikes with the government. What makes you so sure it
:40:59. > :41:01.will make us safe in London? Because we are already a target, we
:41:02. > :41:05.are already in the very front line. And if we don't degrade Isis in its
:41:06. > :41:09.heartland where it has its training camps, where it gets its resources
:41:10. > :41:12.and money from, if we don't do that they will come for people in London
:41:13. > :41:15.just as they did in Paris. What happened in Paris could
:41:16. > :41:17.as easily have happened in Clerkenwell or Hackney or
:41:18. > :41:20.Islington or Camberwell. They hate us because of not what we
:41:21. > :41:24.do but because of who we are, So we are in the front line,
:41:25. > :41:29.we've got to make sure that we Would you describe Meg Hillier,
:41:30. > :41:36.as somebody who voted against air I think there are some people
:41:37. > :41:45.in Meg's party who in the past may Is it inappropriate, using the
:41:46. > :41:50.language, for the Prime Minister? It is not a party political issue
:41:51. > :41:53.as far as I am concerned. Everyone votes upon
:41:54. > :41:55.their own conscience. I think everybody took
:41:56. > :42:01.it very seriously. I took my view very seriously that
:42:02. > :42:04.we needed to protect citizens in the UK, I believe that this does,
:42:05. > :42:07.with our resources, the brimstone missiles and so on,
:42:08. > :42:10.we can make a difference. It is not the whole picture,
:42:11. > :42:13.of course there has got to be political solutions as well, but it
:42:14. > :42:17.will be part of the security issue. Bob Neill says it is a very serious
:42:18. > :42:20.issue and of course it is, So what is going on in the
:42:21. > :42:25.Labour Party where you've got a Shadow Foreign Secretary that
:42:26. > :42:28.holds a completely different view to Firstly, I do agree with Bob that we
:42:29. > :42:34.are target anyway, whatever vote would have happened on Wednesday and
:42:35. > :42:37.I don't think that bombing Syria will make us less of a target, so I
:42:38. > :42:41.think there is a real issue but we both agree
:42:42. > :42:43.about the need to keep London safe. Look, in terms of the Labour Party,
:42:44. > :42:46.it is not unprecedented to have a free vote
:42:47. > :42:48.on difficult national issues. If you look back to the 70s
:42:49. > :42:51.and the referendum on European If you can't actually forge
:42:52. > :42:56.an agreement then a free vote is a reasonable alternative,
:42:57. > :42:59.and we had some very reasoned and sensible discussions within the
:43:00. > :43:01.party, in fact cross party as well. And that's what lead
:43:02. > :43:04.in the end to the vote The Shadow Cabinet could not agree
:43:05. > :43:09.and on that basis the free vote... You say it was unprecedented in
:43:10. > :43:12.terms of previous votes in the 1970s In terms of going to war,
:43:13. > :43:17.when has there been a case of a Shadow Cabinet divided
:43:18. > :43:23.like that in having a free vote? I'm saying on these national
:43:24. > :43:26.issues there has been precedents. But not on the issue
:43:27. > :43:28.of going to war? I can't think
:43:29. > :43:30.of one right here right now. But I do think if the Shadow Cabinet
:43:31. > :43:33.couldn't reach a point of agreement, it would have been more damaging
:43:34. > :43:36.for the Labour Party to go in As Bob rightly highlighted, it is
:43:37. > :43:40.very much a matter of conscience. People thought long and hard
:43:41. > :43:42.about these decisions. And some of those who voted
:43:43. > :43:51.for are still anguished about the Prime Minister's lack
:43:52. > :43:53.of really convincing suggestion The after plan is something
:43:54. > :43:57.that worries a lot of people. How have you responded to claims by
:43:58. > :44:00.your parliamentary colleagues within the Labour Party who said that they
:44:01. > :44:04.had been intimidated, they had received abuse from people who said
:44:05. > :44:06.they should have voted against air strikes as you did, and calling
:44:07. > :44:09.for them to be deselected? In a democracy, we are not
:44:10. > :44:16.delegates, we are representatives, people really worked and were
:44:17. > :44:21.anguished in making their decision. They made that decision on the basis
:44:22. > :44:25.of what they thought was right. It is just not acceptable to have
:44:26. > :44:28.bullying of anybody, least We expect comment and discussion, we
:44:29. > :44:32.expect people to be robust in their views, but threats and bullying have
:44:33. > :44:40.no place in the Labour Party as Jeremy Corbyn and Tom Watson, our
:44:41. > :44:43.deputy leader, have made very clear. Do you think they should
:44:44. > :44:45.do more to stop that? Well it is a difficult thing,
:44:46. > :44:47.isn't it? Many of these people hide
:44:48. > :44:51.anonymously behind things. I was on the speaker's digital
:44:52. > :44:53.democracy commision, and we looked at and made a recommendation
:44:54. > :44:56.about reducing cyber bullying, and If it were,
:44:57. > :45:00.it would not be happening anywhere. It is such an emotive issue that
:45:01. > :45:03.there are many people who are wanting to influence their MPs, some
:45:04. > :45:06.of them Labour Party members who feel that some MPs who voted for air
:45:07. > :45:09.strikes don't reflect their views. As soon
:45:10. > :45:13.as you make a decision you upset sometimes as many as half or more
:45:14. > :45:16.of the people that you represent. We're not delegates, we have to
:45:17. > :45:19.weigh up on the basis of information and analysis that we do, we have
:45:20. > :45:22.access to a lot of briefings from One of the things that led to me
:45:23. > :45:26.voting the way I did because I was not convinced about
:45:27. > :45:29.after plan which the Prime Minister With just six months left in office,
:45:30. > :45:38.Boris Johnson is putting in place the final touches to what
:45:39. > :45:41.he hopes will be his legacy. One such scheme is what he likes
:45:42. > :45:44.to call a cycling revolution. A key part of it,
:45:45. > :45:46.a series of new segregated so-called cycle superhighways is proving
:45:47. > :45:48.deeply controversial. With the mayor accused of handing
:45:49. > :45:50.over a disproportionate amount of London's road space to bicycles
:45:51. > :45:53.at the expense of everyone else. Andrew Crier has been taking a look
:45:54. > :46:01.at what all the fuss is about. VOICEOVER: The very first cycle
:46:02. > :46:06.superhighways looked like this, strips of blue at the side of the
:46:07. > :46:09.road which some critics called death
:46:10. > :46:12.traps. This morning in rush another cyclist
:46:13. > :46:15.died here, she is the third cycling She'd been using the mayor's
:46:16. > :46:20.cycle superhighway, too. with a fundamentally different
:46:21. > :46:29.approach here. The superhighway now segregated from
:46:30. > :46:32.other traffic with a raised curb. The move from this blue strips
:46:33. > :46:35.on the side of the road to these new fully segregated cycle lanes
:46:36. > :46:37.might be safer, This is the mayor's vision
:46:38. > :46:41.for a cycling revolution. A series
:46:42. > :46:43.of new segregated superhighways that are in the process
:46:44. > :46:46.of being finished all round town. The result has been sometimes
:46:47. > :46:52.horrendous traffic. I just want to apologise to
:46:53. > :46:55.people for the days they I know that there are many people
:46:56. > :46:59.who think that we are giving too I think that sometimes
:47:00. > :47:17.a great city has to do things that are not easy, but not always
:47:18. > :47:19.immediately, people do not In the long run, people will
:47:20. > :47:23.understand the vital importance. But even when the construction
:47:24. > :47:25.of the lanes is finished, some say London's roads will be
:47:26. > :47:27.slower forever. We found this broken
:47:28. > :47:30.down lorry causing huge backups in one spot where a lane
:47:31. > :47:33.of traffic has been removed and a new superhighway put in its
:47:34. > :47:38.place. Instead of two lanes to get around
:47:39. > :47:41.the lorry there is now only one. This is
:47:42. > :47:43.the brand-new cycle superhighway They have narrowed the road
:47:44. > :47:47.in order to get the cycle lanes in, and as you can see, the traffic is
:47:48. > :47:51.backed up as far as the eye can see, and the cycle lane, well,
:47:52. > :47:55.I cannot see anybody on it at all. You could have cycled,
:47:56. > :48:07.they would say? There may be very few cyclists using
:48:08. > :48:14.parts of the new lanes at the moment,
:48:15. > :48:16.but City Hall say the new safer, segregated routes will eventually
:48:17. > :48:20.encourage new cyclists onto them. Chris cycles almost every day
:48:21. > :48:25.in London We took them both for a ride
:48:26. > :48:36.on the superhighway from a blue strip to
:48:37. > :48:47.a fully segregated route. Do you think you're any more
:48:48. > :48:49.likely to cycle in London? The risks entailed where
:48:50. > :48:55.there's public transport, buses and tubes,
:48:56. > :48:57.it is sufficiently good for me. Not too dangerous but dangerous
:48:58. > :49:14.enough not to be worth the risk. I think it is terribly important to
:49:15. > :49:16.have cycle lanes In this instance we have
:49:17. > :49:20.a solid kerb alongside a market. In some cases,
:49:21. > :49:23.bins block the cycle lane. I think probably a series
:49:24. > :49:26.of bollards The lane here also leaves
:49:27. > :49:30.the bus stop stranded between While they might have made the road
:49:31. > :49:37.better for cyclists, have Transport For London really just made it
:49:38. > :49:40.a worse place for pedestrians Having been low down the pecking
:49:41. > :49:46.order for many years, some would argue it was about time cyclists
:49:47. > :49:54.were given greater priority. STUDIO: Joining me, Andrew Gilligan,
:49:55. > :49:59.the mayor's Cycling Commissioner, and from Copenhagen,
:50:00. > :50:07.Camilla Van Deurs, who is a partner in the
:50:08. > :50:13.globally-renowned Gehl Architects, who have pioneered the concept of
:50:14. > :50:15.shared open spaces. Andrew Gilligan, first of all,
:50:16. > :50:17.some have described, as you will know, the original
:50:18. > :50:19.cycle superhighways as deathtraps. seven people died on the roads where
:50:20. > :50:31.we are now installing The death rate is actually very low,
:50:32. > :50:37.a quarter of what it was 25 years ago, but nonetheless, there was lots
:50:38. > :50:40.of criticism of the level Is it an admission of failure
:50:41. > :50:44.because you have had to now erect boundaries to separate cyclists
:50:45. > :50:46.from motorists and vehicles, an It is a reflection of what is
:50:47. > :50:57.happening on London's roads. Anyone can go out
:50:58. > :51:00.and find a time when the cycle lane is empty and the road is full,
:51:01. > :51:03.but a quarter of all traffic in the morning rush hour is now bicycles,
:51:04. > :51:06.tens of thousands of journeys every We have just got to provide
:51:07. > :51:10.for that. We've chosen the routes
:51:11. > :51:13.of the superhighways with very high volumes of cycle
:51:14. > :51:18.traffic already, more than 50% of all
:51:19. > :51:21.the traffic on Blackfriars Road and We just have not been providing
:51:22. > :51:25.for it until now, with the consequences you described at
:51:26. > :51:27.the beginning, deaths and injuries. Camilla, do you think it is
:51:28. > :51:31.dangerous having cycle superhighways that do
:51:32. > :51:35.not have a clear physical separation
:51:36. > :51:37.from the rest of the traffic? First of all, I must congratulate
:51:38. > :51:40.you that London is finally doing something, it has taken more than
:51:41. > :51:43.a decade of promises before proper Secondly, yes, segregation in terms
:51:44. > :51:48.of a kerb is always a better idea. We know that 20% more cycle
:51:49. > :51:52.if there is a kerb. In terms of safety,
:51:53. > :51:56.this is absolutely going to have an impact, particularly for those
:51:57. > :51:58.who are not prone to cycle today, That is the problem, encouraging
:51:59. > :52:11.more people to use cycle lanes, but we saw in the film,
:52:12. > :52:13.they are empty. For large spaces of time they are
:52:14. > :52:16.empty and we see traffic building That was the same
:52:17. > :52:21.the same argument used when we People like you showed pictures
:52:22. > :52:24.of empty bus lanes It is not cynical, it is happening
:52:25. > :52:29.because I travel on these routes but we took out space in the early
:52:30. > :52:38.noughties to give to buses and everyone said the same
:52:39. > :52:41.as you are saying, the bus lanes are What that did was encourage people
:52:42. > :52:45.to move onto buses, it caused a reduction in the amount
:52:46. > :52:47.of traffic and that is precisely
:52:48. > :52:50.what we are doing with bikes. We have 10,000 new people joining
:52:51. > :52:52.the population of London every month and there are only two ways to cope
:52:53. > :52:55.with that, build more roads, politically and physically
:52:56. > :52:59.impossible, or make better use of