17/04/2016 Sunday Politics London

David Cameron thinks we'll be stronger, safer

Leave campaigners say the real risk would be a vote to remain.

So what are the dangers if we decide to stay?

On his final presidential visit to the UK, Barack Obama

will back the idea of Britain remaining in the EU.

But is the leader of the free world right to wade into our debate?

And before the referendum, there's the small matter

of national and local elections right across the UK.

In London, with less than three weeks to go to polling day,

we hear from mayoral hopefuls Sian Berry of the Greens

And with me, as always, our panel of the best and brightest

political brains in the business, Nick Watt, Isabel Oakeshott

Now, the referendum isn't the only vote looming on the horizon.

Before the EU vote on June 23rd voters across the UK will get

a chance to cast their ballot in a range of elections

There are seven sets of elections happening in May,

all of which will take place on the same day,

Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will hold national elections.

There are 60 seats up for grabs in the Welsh Assembly.

The Scottish Parliament, in which the SNP has held

a majority since 2011, will elect 129 members,

and in Northern Ireland, there are 108 seats that will be

decided for representatives to the assembly at Stormont.

Across England there are local government elections.

124 councils have seats up for election.

35 metropolitan councils, 19 unitary authorities

and 70 district councils, and four cities in England

will elect mayors, London, Bristol, Liverpool and Salford.

Londoners will also elect members to the London Assembly

Finally, voters in 41 police force areas in England and Wales

will elect a Police And Crime Commissioner.

Joining me now from Glasgow is our election guru,

Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University.

Let's start with the local elections in England. How should we judge the

performance of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party in these elections We

have to appreciate that the seats up for grabs on me the these elections

were for the most part fought for three year is ago. We are looking at

the time of George Osborne's so-called a shambles budget when

support for the Conservatives fell away. These were the only set of

elections during the last parliament where the Labour Party began to put

in a performance where you might have thought they would have been

capable of winning the next election. Jeremy Corbyn's

misfortune, he is defending not a brilliant baseline, but a relatively

good one. Labour six or seven points ahead, as judged by their share of

the vote. The truth is that Jeremy Corbyn is not 67 points ahead. In

contrast to what we might have expected a few weeks ago, he is no

longer 67 points behind. Labour and the Conservatives seem to be quite

close to each other. That means that in practice Mr Corbyn may well be

facing losses. The figure of 15 has been bandied around. Will that be

good? Better than it might have been a few weeks ago. Is it the sort of

performance to persuade you that the Labour Party is on course to win the

general election? Certainly not Is the biggest threat that they would

lose London, and would that be unlikely? I agree it would be

unlikely. If they were to fail to win the London mayoral election

that would be a serious reverse for Labour. Back in 2012, although Boris

Johnson on the London mayoral election, Labour was clearly ahead

in the parallel election. Neither Sadiq Khan, the Labour candidate,

Northside Goldsmith, the concerted of the -- the Conservative

candidate, has the same kind of attractiveness to the public. Labour

did relatively well in London 1 months ago. If David Cameron were

not to win that election, Labour would have questions to ask itself.

Could Labour even come third behind the Scottish Tories? The answer is

that they could. There is another opinion poll lead this morning that

put Labour on the Conservatives neck and neck with each other. Some

opinion polls put Labour and the Conservatives together, but not by

much. Labour neglect the heading for a very bad performance. It would be

the worst result in any election since 1918. I do not think it will

tell you much about Jeremy Corbyn and his popularity. We have to

remember that what happens in Scotland is very distinct and

separate from what happens in the rest of the UK. The election in

Scotland is going to be, primarily, framed by people's views about

independence. The truth is the overall majority of people that

voted for independence are still determined to vote for the SNP. So

long as that remains the case, Labour will struggle another the

border. It has to do with Scottish politics and little to do with what

is happening in the rest of the UK. Is there really a Ukip surge in

Wales? The opinion polls suggest that Ukip are doing well in Wales.

But that is roughly where the opinion polls are putting Ukip

across the UK as a whole. In Wales, as in Scotland, and the London

assembly elections, the elections are being held by proportional

representation, not first past the post, so if Ukip can get the 15

that the opinion polls suggest that the might get, they will get

significant representation in the Welsh assembly. Getting Ukip grade

is one of the things in which the opinion polls tend to disagree with

each other. Ukip will perhaps not do as well as that, they will get some

seats, but perhaps not as well as the parties hoping. Northern

Ireland, and the executive almost collapsed there last year. Will the

turmoil at Stormont, is it likely expected to change people's voting

patterns this time? We not expecting a vast in Northern Ireland. Not only

is the assembly elected proportionally, but so is the

elected -- the executive. The larger of the two Unionist parties and the

Nationalist parties might not be quite as strong as last time. No one

is expecting very much in way of a major change. Thank you for joining

us. Nick Watt, let me come to you. These elections are widely being

seen as Mr Corbyn's first serious test. What a Labour's real

expectations? The expectation is there going to do badly in Scotland.

That is in. They will do badly in Wales but the expecting that. They

will not admit that they could do very badly in the English local

elections, and that they could lose seats. If the Labour Party lost

seats in the local elections, it would be the first time since 1 85

that an opposition party had suffered losses in local elections

in a non-general election year. It would be woolly bad. What did is

down two at the end of the day, I know we should not wish think about

London, a great picture of Glasgow behind John Curtice, but it is down

to London. Jeremy Corbyn needs one victory and he looks like he will

get one, Sadiq Khan in London. That will probably enough. He can do

badly everywhere else but as long as he holds onto London years save I

think because the others are just priced in. If he can be seen to

notch up one victory, it is a bit like the old and Royston by-election

at the end of last year. Everyone assumes that they will do badly

They did well, it stabilises the leadership. He would probably be

safe even if you lost London? I think he would be. Those who would

like to see the back of have the difficulty that essentially his

supporters control the party membership. It is an interesting

question, how this is going to be judged. I spoke to one of Jeremy

Corbyn's critics within the parliamentary party this morning and

was surprised how upbeat he sounded. He said, I think we might put on a

couple of hundred seats. This is a terrible time for the Tory

leadership. I came off the phone and thought, this is about expectation

management. This is the critics of Jeremy Corbyn saying that we should

put on a few hundred seats. When they do not, they will see it as a

disaster. The setting him up to fail. The Tories are expected to do

quite well in these elections, even in Wales. We have had the budget,

the Panama Papers, the steel crisis, the split over the referendum. It

has got to take its toll on the Tories? It has in the opinion polls,

which are Sean at the minimum of the Tory lead, narrowing, and in some

cases Labour pulling ahead. I suspect some Tories would not mind

doing badly in the local elections in England if it relieves the

pressure on Jeremy Corbyn, who they want in place over the next four

years and contesting the 2020 general election. Even if Labour do

badly in Scotland, Jeremy Corbyn owes a debt to Sadiq Khan, because

his likely but not certain victory in London, judging by the opinion

polls, will attract more attention than elections everywhere, not

before it deserves -- not because it deserves to, but because the media

has a slight skew towards London. It is a slightly sexier office. It will

drown out any underperformance that Labour have in the rest of the

country. Is it too cynical to say that some Tories will not be too

upset if they do not win London because Mr Corbyn will then be

secure? I do not think that is cynical. That is absolutely the

case. Janan is right. There will be lots of post-analysis about how the

billionaire's son, Zac Goldsmith, lost the election. It is interesting

that the people who want to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour

Party, the window they are talking about is not after the local

elections, but after the referendum at the end of June. We might be

focused on the Conservatives by then. I think the troubles of the

Tory party will take the focus then. So the referendum

campaign has begun. The official campaign groups have

been designated and the arguments The Prime Minister says we'll be

stronger, safer, and better off in. And a vote to leave,

says to Mr Cameron, But it won't have escaped your

attention that the EU is also facing challenges,

a migration crisis, economic So, if we do decide to remain,

what are the risks ahead of us? For some, the consequences of this

EU referendum are crystal clear For the rest of us,

it is difficult to see the future after June the 23rd,

hard to predict. Of course, the politicians claim

to know our fortunes. This cannot be described as anything

other than risk, uncertainty, We have clearly elevated Brexit

as one of the serious downside risks I firmly believe that leaving the EU

would leave our country less secure. This lot, Vote Leave,

call it Project Fear. They say the other side is trying

to scare people into thinking that Instead they say that

the uncertainty is staying in. What will the EU look like in five,

ten, 15 years? For me, it would be an outdated

bloc, something that was created in the last century,

something that can neither control It has been foretold that migration

will be one of the dominant David Cameron insists his negotiated

emergency brake on migrants' in work benefits as well as changes to child

benefits will discourage EU migration, but some experts say it

will have little impact. Figures from the Migration

Observatory this week suggest that continuing economic instability

in the Eurozone is encouraging an increasing number of southern

European migrants to head to the UK Looking forward, it is very

difficult to know It is possible that if the gap

in economic performance between the UK and other

countries, for example, Italy, Portugal and Spain,

remains significant, there could be quite a pull factor

for some time. It is also possible if there is more

economic convergence that we could see the numbers

start to fall. Much has also been made this week

about the risk to both the British and the global economy if Britain

voted to leave the EU, In the single market we trade freely

right across Europe and we have a say in making

the rules across the Continent. If we leave, we give

all of that up with no idea The real economic risks are for

staying in the European Union. We might find ourselves on the hook

for bailouts for countries that are having difficulty staying

in the euro in the future. We might find that our rebate comes

under assault in the future, we might find that the amount

of money overall that we have to give the European Union

goes up and up and up. A few weeks ago, the Governor

of the Bank of England said that leaving the EU was the biggest

domestic risk to Membership of the European Union

brings risks as well, and the principal risk,

risks I should say, because there are more than one

are associated with the unfinished On the issue of whether our laws

are made in Westminster or Brussels, for those wanting to leave the EU,

a vote to remain would mean handing Fewer and fewer things over

which we have the authority Fewer and fewer of our decisions can

be upheld in British courts And I also know that fewer and fewer

decisions will be made on European Union level

which will be in British interests. And yet one former minister told me

that pooling some decision-making The truth is that if you enter

into any international agreement, then you may agree that those

decisions should be Our Nato membership involves exactly

the same kind of arrangement. We allow Nato to take a decision

for our collective strength. Both sides seemed to agree a vote

to remain is not a vote Those who want to stay

in are confident, at least publicly, that the renegotiation will change

for the better our relationship Those who want out say that

relationship will only get worse. Quite how persuasive

those two visions are, I predict we will find out

on June the 24th. Joining me now is Labour MP

Tristram Hunt, he was a member of the Shadow Cabinet

under Ed Miliband. He is now campaigning for Britain

to remain in the EU. Do you accept, let's look at some of

the risks that could be associated with remaining, start with

immigration. Do you accept that as long as we remain in the EU we have

no real control of the numbers coming to our country? The European

Union is not perfect and it is quite right to have this debate about how

we reform Europe in the future. When it comes to our borders, we check

who comes in. There will remain passport controls but we have to

make sure that we explain to people that if we left Europe but still

wanted to trade with the single market, we would also have to have

the free movement of people just as Norway and Switzerland does. But in

the long run I think there is an interesting question about the

degree of free movement of people across the European Union. My point

is that Britain should be a part of that conversation. We should be

involved in that reform and change and if we are not at the table than

our voice won't be heard. The numbers would seem to be beyond our

control because that's the price of membership. Over the past five years

the number of EU nationals living in the UK has risen by 700,000, it is

now 3.3 million, it has doubled in ten years. As long as we remain in

the EU it is surely a risk that at least another 700,000 could come in

the next five years, it could be even more. Or it could be markedly

less. If we go back to a time when the British economy was worse in the

1980s, we saw large numbers of people going abroad to work in the

European Union. We are taking a snapshot at the moment and the point

about pooling risk across the single market is that when your economy is

in difficulty you can take opportunities in other parts of the

country. In the UK we should be supporting reforms to make sure

there are not benefit attractions to coming to the UK so I think the

Prime Minister's point about having to pay in before you take out, the

point about fairness is really important and I think people in

Britain think that if people are coming here to work, to pay their

taxes and contribute to society that is fine. You say it's a

snapshot but let's look at this chart. Over the last five years as

you can see from that, from about 2012, under five years in fact,

these are the absolute number, immigration from the EU has risen

dramatically. My point is it is not a snapshot, it is a clear trend The

part of immigration over which we have no control is rising the

fastest, isn't that a risk? But we go back to 1975 so historically this

is a snapshot, and overtime this well change. We cannot have a system

whereby you turn up in the UK and claim benefits from day one. You

have to have a contributory principle. Also, those parts of the

country, Boston in Lincolnshire parts that have experienced high

levels of immigration and we should be open and honest about this that

we have seen statistics show big changes and may have impacted

communities in big ways sometimes, they need the extra resource for

schools and hospitals that this brings in. The case I'm putting to

you this morning is that that is not necessarily a snapshot or that it

will necessarily change. Let's look at the risks we would face in the

years to come. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, decided that last

year over a million Syrian immigrants could go to Germany.

Eventually they could come here if they wish. Why should we be at the

risk of unilateral decisions taken by a foreign leader? Obviously there

are issues about residency rights in Germany or Italy before anyone could

come to the UK. We retain border controls. If they become German

citizens they will be allowed to come here. This is a balance of

risks, on June the 23rd of voters have to weigh up these may bes. What

we have heard clearly from the governor of the Bank of England the

Chancellor of the Exchequer, the head of the IMF, that there will be

a seismic economic shock to the British economy. I understand that

and there has been plenty of coverage of the risks of coming out,

but I'm looking at the risks of staying in. Let me give you another

one, I've given you the Angela Merkel example. Albania, Turkey and

others all want to join the EU. More people that could have a right to

come and live and work in the UK. That is a risk. We are already

seeing the risk of Brexit. The pound is falling in value, economic

decisions are not being taken at the moment. I'm not arguing that there

are risks to coming out, I perfectly understand that. I'm looking at the

risks if we stay in. Address this issue that the risk is of another 87

more people with the right to come to Britain. My point is the risks

are happening now,... What is your answer to the 87 million? The

extension of Europe has to be managed carefully. The broader

conversation about the total free movement of people across the

European Union is something that needs to be addressed but firstly we

won't have any say over that if we have left the European Union.

Secondly, those countries which trade with Europe like Norway and

Switzerland also have to accept the free movement of people. There's no

free ticket on this. What I want is a strong Great Britain at the

negotiating table making the case for our borders and security. When

it comes to the free movement of people you raised the issue of

Syrian refugees and concerns about security in the aftermath of

Brussels and Paris, being part of Europe and having security

connections with Europe makes us stronger. There's talk of another

Greek financial bailout, fears of an Italian banking crisis looming this

summer. If the eurozone plunges into another recession, the numbers

coming here could easily hit new record highs. We have also seen we

are not part of the Europe... They will come here looking for jobs We

are not on the hook for the Greek bailout. We were with the last one.

Not to the same degree as other European members. We negotiated a

strong exemption from that. This is about Britain having a strong voice

at the negotiating table and you are offering up your own Project Fear. I

am taking a methodical look at the risks. The eurozone is stagnating at

the moment, that's why Spaniards, Italian and Portuguese are pouring

into this country in huge numbers. If the eurozone was to tilt into

another recession, that risks a lot more. It is a risk, and the British

answer to that should be to deepen the single market, to make it more

effective, to have growth across Europe. You do, if you have a strong

British voice arguing for growth across Europe. You're talking about

these potential threats in the future, we have a threat now.

Businesses in my constituency, Stoke-on-Trent, are not making

investment decisions. Indecision, two years of negotiation if we

leave. Hold on... Two years of indecision if we vote to leave. Why

are they eyeing the British stock exchange if there is indecision

There will always be levels of flow and investment but what we are

seeing is fear and concern about the future. I think of workers in

Staffordshire who go to work at the Toyota plant in Derby, they have

jobs because of being part of the single market. I'm talking about the

risks if we remain. Do you deny that if we stay in we face further

integration? We have had a clear commitment from the Prime Minister

that we won't be involved in ever closer union and that is a big

philosophical moment, that Britain has a distinct and different stance

to the rest of the European Union. I think people will benefit from the

best of both worlds. If that is the case, you will be familiar with D5

president report, the official road map for greater integration into the

European Union. It calls for financial, fiscal and political

union by 2025. That could affect us. We have a clear commitment we will

not be involved in ever closer union. Have you read this report?

Not all of it. It is not a long report. It says much of what I have

just named, not all, but much of that could be achieved already

through a deepening of the single market, which is important for all

28 EU members, so we would not necessarily be excluded. I am in

favour of a deep into single market so that those 200,000 businesses in

the UK, exporting to Europe, have greater growth and opportunities.

People become richer. So there could be deeper integration. I would like

to see the digital and service economy grated more, we want more

jobs and growth across Europe that Britain will benefit from. Why would

we, when we face a global fear about downturn, decide to cut ourselves

off from the richest market in the world. You say it is the richest, it

is also stagnating. Because we cannot do our own trade deals with

the part of the world that is growing, our trade is therefore

hindered. It has taken seven years to reach a deal with Canada, it is

not complete, the free trade deal with Australia has been blocked by

Italy. These are all growth markets, unlike Europe, and we are unable to

do free trade deals with them. That is a risk. Do you honestly think

that if we left Europe and there were negotiations with India about a

free trade deal, the UK, 60 million people, would be ahead of the queue

of the European Union... Nothing is happening with India for nine years.

We had historic links with India. What about Australia and Canada We

are not owed a living in the world. We have to make our businesses grow

on their own terms and you do that by being part of the European Union.

You have a much greater weight around the world by being part of

this. My point is that we have the best of both worlds. We have the

historic connections with the Commonwealth, with America. But why

does the American trade representative say to us you would

be crazy to leave Europe. Why do our allies around the world say you

should be part of Europe? You say we won't be part of any further

political integration, you say we won't join the euro, we won't be

part of Schengen, and yet it is clear Europe will become at least

within the eurozone more and more integrated. We will have less

influence on that, we will essentially become a semi detached

country club. What is the point The point is a growing market for

British businesses of 500 million people, and yes, this is the point

about the best of both worlds, we don't want ever closer political

union. We want access to the single market. The best of both worlds

safer, stronger and better off in Europe.

Now, this week President Obama will make his valedictory

He'll even have lunch with the Queen to celebrate her ninetieth birthday,

presumably after she's watched the Daily Politics.

But it's another aspect of Mr Obama's visit

While he's here, the leader of the free world is expected

to endorse the idea of the UK remaining in the

Those campaigning to leave the EU are,

surprise, surprise, a

Here's what Boris Johnson had to say yesterday.

I just find it absolutely bizarre that we are being lectured

by the Americans about giving up our sovereignty,

The United States, for their own reasons, their own history,

traditions, based on the ideas of no taxation without representation

a fervent belief in the inviolability of American democracy,

they would not dream of sharing sovereignty.

Is he in danger of making America look like a hypocrite?

Not in danger of it, I am afraid there is an intrinsic hypocrisy

I do not know what he's going to say, but if that is

the American argument, of course it is nakedly hypocritical.

To discuss this I'm joined by James Rubin.

He was a spokesman in the US State Department during Bill

And Liam Fox, former Defence Secretary, and a leading

light in the campaign to leave the EU.

Why should the leader of her closest allies, with whom we have a special

relationship, on your regard as crucial to this country, not say

what he thinks is in our national interest? He is entitled to say what

he thinks is an America's national interest, but whether it is in the

interests of Britain is a different question. Of course the president is

entitled to say what he thinks, but we have to add a couple of caveats.

That is his view. There are other views in America, Senator Rubio for

example expressing a different view, he has expressed what he thinks

about the special relationship if Britain were to leave the European

Union. Tell me one previous American administration, Democratic or

Republican, that thought we should not be in the EU, or did not care if

we left? It is not a question of what the express, it is that they

should respect what Britain does. They all want us to stay? There were

strong elements of the last Republican administration, strong

Republican leaders at present, who do not think... I do not remember

the second President Bush saying that Britain should leave the EU.

The debate is now, about our future, our relationship with the rest of

the world. It is fair to say, though I might not use the same

terminology, it is unthinkable that the United States would allow a

court to overrule the Supreme Court or someone else to determine their

external borders, in a way that the European Union does for the United

Kingdom. Boris Johnson has made that point. President Obama, supporting

things for Britain, things that no European -- that no American

president would contemplate. Maybe we would be more inclined to listen

to the president if he favoured an open border with Mexico, and if

Congress was no longer the ultimate decider of federal law? Let me see a

couple of things. I am glad that my colleague agrees that the president

is attacked -- entitled to express his view of what is in the

President's interest. -- America's interest. America and the EU

together, they are the most powerful force for free markets and democracy

around the world. If Britain leads the European Union, we will be

weaker. We will might be able to pursue the great values that our

countries have pushed around the world. Written working with the

United States and the EU is able to do that. We have a joke in America,

but it is a serious matter. Friends do not let friends drive drunk. This

is not in our interest, or the interests of the world. What about

our interest? You will make that judgment. Is the president simply

going to say it is in the interests of America? I think he will avoid

telling Britain what is in Britain's interest. About the point on

hypocrisy, I know Boris Johnson likes to read biographies of the

past. Maybe he is living in the past when he thinks that America is a

very large country, a superpower, it has the world's largest military. It

does not have to do only what you choose is compared to the British.

Britain is a different country, not the superpower any more. Just

because we will not do something does not mean that the British

ignored. If the US president was coming here to support Leave, you

would be shouting it from the rooftops? I do not think we will

find out if that is true or not There is an element of hypocrisy. We

need to get the balance. We need to stick to the issues. We recognise

the president is alleged to have his view, but it is not the only

American view of what is in America's interests. We have to

recognise it is a British debate ultimately. We will make our

decision. As to this point about pushing our values, Britain had the

same values before we joined the European Union in 1973. The fact we

will be changing our philosophical approach because we are part of the

group in union is not true. I mean that the EU is a very powerful

instrument in our world. The United States has great military power but

there are other powers we need to achieve order and stability, and

promote free markets. We need the ability to promote sanctions and

provide aid. We need the ability to promote democracy. The EU is good at

that working with the United States. We are better able to do that when

our closest ally is within the EU. Let him come back on that. We think

that the European Union is failing and that the structural failures of

the European Union are not good for the West. We are seeing the

re-emergence of nationalist tensions across Europe. We are seeing fence

building. That is not the fault of the EU. It is a failure of the EU.

We are seeing a whole generation of young Europeans unemployed as a

result of the single currency. It is creating tensions. You did not have

a problem with foreigners weighing in during the Scottish referendum.

You told the Scandinavian countries, if your analysis is that Scottish

independence is a threat to your security, why are you not standing

up and saying it? President Obama probably thinks it is a threat to

allow security, so why should they not see that? I thought it was a

risk to the security of Britain in the Scottish referendum if we left

Natal. If Britain pulls out of the EU, the Scottish will pull out of

Britain and there will be a hold-mac in Natal. I do not believe that to

be true. When were you last in Scotland? I was recently there and I

sat with the Scottish party leader. They have been clear that if the EU

does not include Britain, the Scottish want to lead. Interest is

one thing, having an opinion about what the SNP will do is different.

THEY ALL SPEAK AT ONCE What about Senator Cruise, he is

fighting for the Republican nomination with Donald Trump. He

said that Mr Obama's comments will make it more likely that England, he

means Britain, that England will pull out of the EU? I do not think

it will have a massive impact either way in terms of the British result.

I think it is important for us to recognise that this is a decision

for the United Kingdom. I do not agree with this assessment that the

European Union in its current model is good for the United States. It is

unstable. Now you're giving an opinion for us. You just asked me

not to do that. The United States and Britain working together have

made the world a better place for democracy, for a free market. We are

only able to do that successfully when our closest ally is part of the

EU. American foreign policy will be weaker, Western foreign policy will

be weaker if the British leave the EU. We look forward to the

President's visit, whatever he has to say. Thank you.

It's just gone 11:35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now

Coming up here in 20 minutes, the Week Ahead.

First though, the Sunday Politics where you are.

Hello and welcome to the London part of the show.

It's less than three weeks until London decides

Last week we heard from George Galloway of Respect

This week two further candidates go under the spotlight.

Later, I will be speaking to Caroline Pidgeon

But first, last year it wasn't just Jeremy Corbyn

and the Labour Party which

saw an unprecedented surge of support.

In January 2015, the Green Party were signing up to 13,000 new

And with the Liberal Democrats' support declining at last

year's general election, could the Greens, who came third

in the 2012 mayoral election, convert that

momentum into a strong showing in the London mayoral

Raphael Sheridan's been taking a look.

The mayoral campaign is not always glamorous.

But despite a rainy day in Enfield, the Green Party candidate,

Sian Berry, was hoping to convince voters to go green on May the 5th.

If you want a really radical mayor, you need to vote Green.

Some just wanted to get out of the rain.

Can I give you a leaflet about cleaner air?

This is the second mayoral election Berry has stood in,

Yes, do recommend me to all your friends.

She is upbeat about the current campaign.

It is going really well, we're getting of a fantastic

response when we take our good ideas around the doorsteps.

Today we are talking about our clean air plans.

They have been rated 10 out of 0 by the campaigners.

My cycling policies got rated 1 out of 10 yesterday.

So what are the Greens' big ideas in this election?

On housing, they would build 20 ,000 new homes by 2020, half

On transport, they will abolish the zonal system on the underground

by 2025, meaning everyone will pay a flat fare to travel

They will introduce a so-called ONE Ticket so that commuters will not

pay to switch between buses, tubes and trains.

And on air pollution, they will switch all buses and taxis

Two weeks ago, the Greens released their manifesto for Londoners.

There was lots on how best to run the capital,

but very little on the party's long-term policies, including

radical aspirations for a zero or negative growth economy.

Some critics believe that this radicalism is bubbling just under

They are aiming for what people might call social engineering.

They're opposed to economic growth, industrialisation, all the things

They sometimes appear to be, basically, to have the economic

views of the 1750s, but with radical 21st-century social justice

A few months before the unexpected rise of Jeremy Corbyn

to the leadership of the Labour Party, the Greens also

had their own unprecedented rise in the number of members joining.

It was something the leadership called the Green Surge,

The difficulty the Greens have is that in some

ways their representatives are too nice, they are Green in one sense

They cannot do the deals, do the hard things which would go

against their and their voters' principles, which you need to do

to get into power, to have any chance of a big change to society

In the assembly election, in the mayoral election,

it is easier for them to make progress, and even then,

Two seats seems to be as much as they can get on the assembly

The Green contingent at City Hall, assembly members Jenny Jones

and Darren Johnson, are standing down, so it is up to Sian Berry

to convince Londoners that the Green Party has

And Sian Berry joins me in the studio.

Let's talk about housing. It is a big issue. You want to build 20 ,000

homes by 2020. That surely means building on the green belt? It does

not, we have lots of public land we can use. We must keep the principle

of Brownfield land first, town centres first for as long as we can.

The next London plan should not relax taxes for the green belt. When

we have built 200,000 relax taxes for the green belt. When

may be short of space and we will have to think hard about whether we

include Ciani green belt or jump over it and start with new kinds and

things like that. For the next 5 years I think we're OK. You want to

prioritise Brownfield sites, so does everyone. They are not always

appropriate and some of them are highly toxic. Shelter says that most

of the Brownfield land already has houses on its you would have to look

at it before 15 years' time. I do not agree. I think there is lots you

can get from building on top of the homes that we'll ready have, you can

do some creative things with infilling. We have lots of car park

in London we will maybe needing in the future because we will have

better and cheaper public transport. I think we are OK for the next 5

years. Relaxing the protections too soon and would lead to Greenfield

being used first. That would be wrong. You have said in your

manifesto that about half of the 2000 homes you want to build will be

affordable but you do not provide a definition? In a sense it is

meaningful. We need to define a living rent In

a quite sophisticated way, we need to look at it at a London level At

the moment we are paying round half hour average salary is going on rent

across London and that is too high. What is in your manifesto? People

believe about 30-35% is affordable. Shouldn't that be in your manifesto,

because people want to know. I think shouting out a number isn't the

right answer here. When you say you have an affordable figure, you

haven't actually got one yet. Tony Travers in that video was talking

about how we don't do deals, we do do deals. We won the living wage

unit for Ken Livingstone. That calculates a different living wage

for Londoners because we have different costs. Just saying 35 , it

might be too low or too hi. But that will have an impact on the number of

affordable homes you can build, depending on the figures. We are

talking radically about changing the market in housing. We cannot just

keep begging the big developers for more affordable homes because they

are good at getting out of that Do you think you can do a lot better?

Yes, we need to ditch the model we have at the moment and use the

alternative, using public land and working with small developers,

people who want to build their own homes, co-operatives and councils

and build a secondary market. I think it is a model that could

really work and get affordable homes to buy and rent on that land we

have. Let's talk about transport because in the film you talked about

a new affordable ticket, how much would that cost? We have spoken to

Transport for London about this they estimate that adding a bus

journey to every tube journey would cost around about up to ?300 million

a year in the budget. How would you pay for that? Overall, including the

plan to bring down fares into central London we think about 1 % of

the fares income would be lost that way and we propose to get that back

by increasing the costs for driving in the inner-city. It is very

speculative, isn't it? We could bring in a new congestion charge

that covers the whole city. At the moment their drivers contribute 40%,

car drivers only 2%. A congestion charge that covers the whole of

London needs to be combined with a new emission zone and that is the

right way to go. People who take public transport are doing the right

thing. But you would be leaving Transport for London with a quarter

of a million back -- black hole We would bring in the congestion charge

and the lower emissions zone over several years using lots of

consultation. There wouldn't be any black holes and we are committed to

investing more in public transport and walking and cycling and sorting

out town centres. You want to close down City Airport, what do you say

to the 2000 people who work there? I think there's a real opportunity at

City Airport to shift the flight there, and that would free up

500,000 square metres of space. The vision you can have for that amount

of space in London, I mean you're talking about the lack of brownfield

land, we have an airport's worth there. People are blighted by air

pollution, it would make a real difference to their lives too. Do

you support the idea of a zero growth or even negative growth

economy in the long run? We are inevitably going to grow in London

because our population is increasing. But I think we need to

build a more resilient economy. I will be launching my plans for a

bank for London which will help small businesses grow, beer space

for people to quickly save as well so more of the Londonerseconomy

stays here and not going to tax havens. What about security and

crime? The Mayor of London oversees the Metropolitan Police and one of

the policies on the Green Party s website says it should not be a

crime is simply to belong to an organisation or have sympathy with

its aims. Should being a member of ISIS or Al-Qaeda not be a criminal

offence? Organisations committed to violent terrorism is something that

should be illegal, but police in London need to be working with

communities, we need to rewrite the police's priorities. We have members

with certain aspects of policing and surveillance, also the Prevent

strategy. What do you make of the front-page story that Sadiq Khan

shared a platform with a man convicted of terrorism in 2003.

Serious concerns? These attacks keep on coming against Sadiq. I think the

attack today is about a conference which was about the treatment of

prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and we know there was injustice there. It

is about due process. These attacks are coming from the Conservative

campaign, they are seeking to divide London and that's not the campaign

we want to see in London. Just 12 months ago,

the Lib Dems were riding high - part of the Coalition Government,

they were never far from a ministerial car and team

of civil servants ready Battered at the General Election,

they were slung out of office and their number of MPs in London

reduced from seven to just one. They say the Mayoral election

is where the fightback begins. Andrew Cryan has been out

on the campaign trail Winning elections in one of the most

diverse cities on Earth takes This week two-time London Assembly

member and the Liberal Democrat candidate for mayor,

Caroline Pidgeon, was courting it as a backdrop for her next

party election broadcast. When you ask Liberal Democrats,

they will tell you that this election is where their fightback

begins. Not just here in London,

but for the whole country. Which is all very well to say,

but how on earth do you do it? Well, talk about the issues that

matter to Londoners, talk about my record of eight years

on the London Assembly. Out there talking to people

about housing, about how we can build more homes

across London, how we can improve Talking about real issues that

affect people's everyday lives. That's what they're interested in,

and that's why I think we're So, what exactly are these policies

which the Lib Dems claim On housing they're hoping to build

200,000 new homes, part paid for by putting 20 quid a year

on Londoners' council tax bill, in a similar way to how

we paid for the Olympics. On transport she wants the Tube

to be half price before 7:30am, and to introduce

a flat one-hour bus fare. She also wants to see investment

in childcare paid for by a ?2 The Liberal Democrats are,

I think, going for a very I think anybody would read

Caroline Pidgeon's policy platform and say there was much in it that

couldn't be adopted by Labour or the Conservatives, or indeed

by most reasonable politicians. In fact if you look

at their website, a lot of what Caroline Pidgeon has

been doing is classic Liberal Democrat campaigning,

which is out at a road or a school, One thing that is different

about this campaign On the ballot they will be called

Caroline Pidgeon's London According to Mark Littlewood,

the party's former director of communications, the whole

campaign is a bit lacklustre. Her aim is surely a relatively

modest one, to get the Liberal Democrats back into the foothills

of electoral credibility, to maybe get 5% more of the vote,

to retain one or two I wonder whether she should have

done something a bit more I think a bold policy on airports

would have been interesting. Could there be a more Liberal

approach to drugs policy? That's not the sort of thing that

gets you to 40 or 50% of the vote, but given that she has absolutely

no chance of winning, why not actually put a flag

in the ground on a couple of core Liberal issues which I think

would appeal to a smallish but nevertheless miserable

segment of the electorate But back on the campaign trail,

Caroline Pidgeon's London Liberal Democrats are upbeat,

confident they will do better Having been beaten so badly,

doing worse could mean something You say this election is where the

fightback begins, isn't the truth that the party has done so badly at

the last elections in London that anything other than near

obliteration is a fightback? No we have seen since the general election

in London our vote going up. We have seen our vote growing but what I'm

finding is a really fantastic response from people across London,

liking what we are saying, liking that I have eight years' experience

at City Hall. But as Tony Travers was saying they are policies that

could be adopted by the other parties, there is nothing

distinctive Liberal Democrat. The whole manifesto is distinctly

Liberal Democrat, clear policies I have been working on over the last

eight years in the London Assembly. Building homes, having effective

fare cuts to help low-income workers going into work. I am the only

candidate talking about the cost of childcare in London. Being a mother

myself with the two -year-old, I know how I watering the costs are.

Why have you rebranded the party with this new name, Caroline

Pidgeon's London Liberal Democrats? Making it clear that in this

election you are voting not only for the mayor but the London Assembly.

This new title will elect a team of Liberal Democrats who will hold

whoever is mayor to their promises. It is a distinct way of linking the

mayoral election with the London Assembly. Your name is there, isn't

it then about personality? Because that's what the previous incumbents

and the current one have done. I have been working hard for the last

eight years on different issues across London so my record for

action for eight years is making sure people are clear, if you like

what Caroline says, you can vote Caroline Pidgeon's London Liberal

Democrats and make sure every vote counts. Wouldn't it be better to

concentrate on the big prize, which is to be mayor? Or is it an

admission that realistically it will be much more about the team because

you won't be the next mayor? The profile of the mayoral candidate is

what everyone focuses on so we are making it clear, if you like what

Caroline is saying, this is how you can vote for her and her team to

make sure you have people at City Hall holding the mayor to their

promises. Let's have a look at some of those policies. Housing, as I

spoke to Sian Berry, the detail to charge people ?20 on their council

tax bill to pay from our housing. How much will that raise? This is

what people in London have been paying for the last ten years, we

have been paying it for the Olympic Games, it works out at 32p per week

and from that we can raise ?86 million per year. We then use that

to fund borrowing and we can borrow around ?2 billion. I am the only

candidate working out how we can raise money to put in to make sure

we can fund the homes. It is still quite small scale. We are talking

about 4000 homes if you raise 2 billion at the London market price.

We are building extra homes on top of the budget we already have and

the ?2 billion is a subsidy of around 260,000 per property and that

with the GLA land means we can build the homes we need. Everyone is

talking numbers of homes, I am the only candidate with a clear costed

policy. You have said you are trying to raise money and obviously

building more houses is part of the answer, but for example in

Southwark, the rebuilding of just one estate, the Aylesbury is said to

cost ?1.5 billion, that's one estate and that is only just under what you

will raise overall. But the estate is huge, thousands of homes. This

with the GLA land makes it clear we can build the council housing we

need but we've also got to tackle those in private rented

accommodation. One in four people renting privately, we have got to

tackle rogue landlords. I want to make sure every landlord has a

kitemark so you know I won't have these terrible fees, I will get a

good service. Let's look at another policy area because Mark Littlewood

also talked about having a bolder policy platform, gave drugs reform

as an example of a strong liberal policy that would attract a strong

minority of voters. Should that be more of a focus in your manifesto?

No, we have clear policy nationally around drugs. When I speak to people

on the streets, that's not the issue that comes up, it is tackling knife

crime, having more visible policing on the streets, and that is what our

manifesto focuses on. Putting youth workers in A, making sure that

when the young person comes in with an injury they can be diverted away

from gangs and given support. It is a big deal for the National party

policy but not for you? When I talk to people it is about knife crime, I

am the only candidate putting money into pay for 3000 additional police

to make sure Londoners feel safe as they move around the city. That s

the priorities I've had from Londoners and that is what I will

deliver on. What do you make of the front page of Sadiq Khan, the Labour

candidate for mayor, and the fact he shared a platform with a man

convicted of terrorism in 2003? I am fed up of the mudslinging. The real

issues are how we will tackle the housing crisis, how people can feel

safe on the streets, this is what people are talking to me about. You

don't think your prospective voters will be concerned about that? There

is so much mudslinging, no one knows what to believe. There can be a

photo, you have no idea who they are and they can later turn out to be

some extremist. You have to be careful but my focus is on the

issues, and I wish the candidates would work out how we can make

London work for everyone. What would you advise your voters to do with

their second preference? It is up to them. I am after Liberal Democrat

votes for mayor to make sure we have a strong Liberal Democrat presence.

Odds of you becoming next mayor Who knows but the more people who talk

to me, the more I am convincing people.

My thanks to Caroline and Sian Berry, who was with us earlier.

Just a reminder - here is a list of all the candidates running

for mayor, and you can find full details of the election

Polling day is on Thursday 5th of May.

I do hope you can join us next week, when our guest is the Labour

Now, the Treasury wading into the referendum campaign,

the government will get its first look at the Chilcot report,

Janan, we're going to get the Treasury report on what it would

mean for the economy we leave the EU. The Chancellor will wade in as

well. It is supposed to be pretty bad, the consequences. Given that

the Chancellor's stalk is not as its highest, does it matter? Probably

not. Even if his stock were much higher, it is still the government

advocating for its own positions are your average water might look at it

and think, they would say that, wouldn't they? On its own, the

Treasury report and the IMF does not matter, Mark Carney's interventions

do not matter, the big business interventions do not matter. Combine

them in the run-up to the June 3rd vote, the drip, drip of mainstream

opinion, however you want to phrase it, probably does impinge on the

minds of the nervous swing voter. There is a massive antiestablishment

Zeitgeist in this country and internationally. You can resent the

establishment and still take them seriously when the unified on the

question of pounds and pence and the family budget. That is the issue.

The Remain campaign has all the big battalions on its side. The issue

is, if you listen to the big battalions and you read them, then

you would vote to remain. As Janan says, as we see in America, we can

see here as well, lots of antiestablishment sentiment is

around. If you have David Cameron, Lord Ashdown, Neil Kinnock, the

president of America, Goldman Sachs, the IMF, the CBI, it could be these

are the people that they want to take it out on? Absolutely. I was

speaking to someone prominent from the Brexit lot yesterday, and they

said the cheered when they saw the photograph of Neil Kinnock and David

Cameron lined up. They think that plays to their cause. I agree with

pretty much everything that Janan said, it is the drip. People do not

go into the details, but get a sense of things. The antiestablishment

feeling is something that is accumulating. You feel it out there,

definitely. George Osborne takes the view that he could actually lose the

argument in one area, the process argument, which is, it is outrageous

the government is spending ?9 million on this leaflet, this is not

the done thing, the Electoral Commission are not happy, and

Brexit, when that arrogant, but the actor Mickey needs to win is the

substance argument, what Janan was talking about. The electorate do not

tune into the process argument. We do and we get excited, but the

electorate get tuned into the substance arrogant, and that is

where he thinks he will prevail In terms of the intervention by the

Treasury, the Treasury has form on this. If you think back to the

Scottish referendum they had a very meticulously prepared document. At

the time, they were sitting on it and waiting for the exact moment

with the thought it would be most powerful. Of course the Brexit side

of things will have a very prepared for battle for everything that that

report says, so I wonder if it will disappear into the key says, she

says, on the one hand, on the other, and it will cancel out. This is the

issue I cannot quite understand If you look at the reports on the line

the Treasury and the Cancellara going to take, it is scary. They say

the economy will be in a mess, billions lost on investment, rising

unemployment, interest rates on mortgages might go up. Growth will

be hit. Let's say all of that is true. All of that was true whether

or not Mr Cameron had done his deal with Europe. Even if he had not done

a deal with Europe, surely it would follow that we should still stay in

a view except all that? Does that not undermine the government's

credibility? It undermines the deal which no one has talked about since

February. Tristram Hunt was the first one to mention it for a long

time this morning. It is a complete irrelevance. If you believe, as the

Treasury will I do, that Brexit is to Mendis existential economic risk,

even calling a referendum, you would wonder why risk it. These are good

arguments against David Cameron George Osborne, the government and

its handling. I do not think it translates into an argument in

favour of voting to leave. Jeremy Corbyn made his intervention last

week with the speech. Do we know what else he's to do? Campaign with

great enthusiasm to keep Britain in the European Union. We all know what

Jeremy Corbyn things. He is from that element of the Labour Party,

Tony Benn supporters, who campaigned for no in 1975. The signed up to the

1983 manifesto that said that Britain should leave the European

Union. He was in the element of the Labour Party that did not buy into

the famous French intervention. He is ticking the box. When he was

leader, he found himself boxed into a corner, signed up with Hilary Benn

and membership of the European Union. The calculation the Jeremy

Corbyn made was that he had much bigger battles to fight. Trident was

a bigger issue for him. It is a problem for David Cameron. From the

look of the opinion polls at the moment, a majority of Conservative

inclined voters will vote to leave. To win, David Cameron needs to get

out the Labour vote and the centre-left vote. If that is all Mr

Corbyn is going to do, it may be more difficult. He sounded so have

hearted. If I was on a Sunday newspaper, I would be deploying

people to track Jeremy Corbyn at all these low profile events that he

ghosted, where no one thinks there is any press, and let's hear what he

really thinks. In private, I beg you would get the comments that would

expose his true position. Howdy Remain get the Labour vote added? We

need other votes. They need other advocates, Alistair Darling, a

strong figure, still held an advocates, Alistair Darling, a

Labour Party. It is difficult. advocates, Alistair Darling, a

turnout in the referendum. Yes. What about the president of America

coming here? We know what line he's going to take, but we do not know

how he will coach it. Will that influence how people think about our

position in Europe? To the extent that it is another voice on top of

the ones that we mentioned earlier. In combination they matter more than

they might matter individually. The reason that Obama matters

disproportionately is a big part of the Leave argument rests on the idea

that if you were to leave the European Union, there is a world of

opportunity out there, and trade deals with countries like the US. We

have made to answer one. Yes, so if one of the biggest foreign

governments of the Lott intervenes, it undercuts the Leave argument by

quite a bit. I imagine that before the referendum that the

interventions by foreign governments will be more decisive than the

interventions by big business domestically. It will not be phrased

more strongly than that, do not expect any big trade deals. Will the

president have much of an impact? I think the Brexit campaigners are

surprisingly relaxed about this which suggest to me that they do not

think he will have much impact. There is a sense that perhaps

America, I am not saying President Obama himself, but America may not

understand the real detail of this debate. I think that is clear. What

did is that many people find so objectionable about the EU. There is

always that thing about do not waltz over here and tell us what to do.

The Brexit campaigners were not initially relaxed. There was a

letter to the embassy saying that he should not be intervening. They got

their act together and thought, that is a silly process argument, let's

focus on the substance. Boris Johnson on the BBC saying that the

president is a hypocrite, because he would not surrender that level of

sovereignty, that is an argument on substance, where they should be

focusing their attention. The Chilcot Report, of great longevity,

it is going to Downing Street later this week. Downing Street will look

through to see of their any national security implications before it is

published. Should the report be published during the referendum

campaign? I cannot see a principal reason why it should not. You could

argue that if it pains the establishment, and leaving the EU is

an antiestablishment thing to do, it favours one side over another. That

is almost an indirect thing. If the report is ready and all the editing

has been done, there is no reason in principle it cannot come out. I

would agree. Does this favour one side of the other? It seems to me it

does not. No doubt everything at the moment is being seen through the

prism of the EU referendum campaign. At the end of the data is about the

lessons that need to be learned and the families desperate for it to

come out. We are desperate to see it. I am not arguing it should be

delayed, I wondered about the principle. If you're

antiestablishment minded and the establishment get some candid

kicking in the report, or it confirms all you ever thought about

it, it could have a marginal impact. Or you could say that Jacques Chirac

and other EU leaders back in 20 3 said the conflict was a disaster,

and maybe we should have a common foreign and Security policy. It

would be more of an issue if Tony Blair was playing a massive role in

the campaign. Where is he, with its Tony Blair? I heard he wanted to be

more involved and he was advised to keep his head down. For some reason,

the Remain people do not seem keen on having him. We are always

available for interviews. Thank you. Next week, we're on at

the later time of 1:40 Remember, if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics.