:00:37. > :00:43.President Obama leaves the UK, claiming it could take up to 10
:00:44. > :00:47.years to do a free trade deal with the UK if we leave the EU
:00:48. > :00:52.but is America's trade deal with the EU any closer to happening?
:00:53. > :00:54.Immigration's running at more than three times
:00:55. > :00:57.the Government's target - but is the Home Secretary right that
:00:58. > :01:00.Britain can only stay in the single market if it agrees to the continued
:01:01. > :01:10.Jeremy Corbyn faces his first big electoral test as Labour Leader
:01:11. > :01:13.in next month's local elections - will the party increase the number
:01:14. > :01:26.as the mayoral finishing line draws closer, Labour's candidate,
:01:27. > :01:29.Sadiq Khan, is here with us to outline why he should
:01:30. > :01:36.And with me for the duration, three journalists whom no-one puts
:01:37. > :01:39.at the back of the queue - or even the line.
:01:40. > :01:41.Nick Watt, Isabel Oakeshott and Tom Newton Dunn -
:01:42. > :01:44.they'll be tweeting throughout the programme.
:01:45. > :01:48.So, Air Force One left Stanstead Airport a few hours ago
:01:49. > :01:52.and the President is now in Hanover, Germany.
:01:53. > :01:55.But the reverberations of Mr Obama's intervention in the EU referendum
:01:56. > :01:59.On Friday, the President told a press conference
:02:00. > :02:06.the EU, it would be at the back of the queue when it comes to doing
:02:07. > :02:10.a free trade deal with the US - comments he was asked about in a BBC
:02:11. > :02:14.The UK would not be able to negotiate something with the United
:02:15. > :02:20.We wouldn't abandon our efforts to negotiate a trade deal with our
:02:21. > :02:30.largest trading partner, the European market, but rather
:02:31. > :02:33.it could be five years from now ten years
:02:34. > :02:38.from now, before we were able to actually get something done.
:02:39. > :02:41.And I'm joined now by the Justice Minister and Leave
:02:42. > :02:53.Welcome to the programme. Mr Obama, 5-10 years for a free-trade deal
:02:54. > :02:57.with the UK under the EU. He's right, isn't he? What was most
:02:58. > :03:02.interesting this morning was how far he has backtracked since Friday
:03:03. > :03:05.evening. As you said, we were told we would be sent to the back of the
:03:06. > :03:11.queue if we didn't take his advice and stay in the EU. Now, he has said
:03:12. > :03:18.that if Britain was independent from the EU, we could not expect to do a
:03:19. > :03:22.free-trade deal quicker than with the EU. No one is really expecting
:03:23. > :03:28.that, so I think the reality is that these things can take time. It has
:03:29. > :03:36.taken almost 40 years even to get to this stage with a stalled EU- US
:03:37. > :03:39.deal. I think we would be better placed, and we are not prejudiced by
:03:40. > :03:46.being outside the EU in doing that. The president has made it clear that
:03:47. > :03:50.American power will do regional deals. That is why he has put so
:03:51. > :03:54.much energy into a specific deal with the 11 countries. He wants to
:03:55. > :04:00.do and EU deal involving all the EU members. The only started in 20 3,
:04:01. > :04:04.they haven't been at it for 40 years. We have been talking about it
:04:05. > :04:10.for 40 years. That is a different matter. The negotiations started in
:04:11. > :04:14.2013. We would be a long way behind these two megadeal. When he said we
:04:15. > :04:20.were at the back of the queue, I was a bit startled, so I went and
:04:21. > :04:23.checked. The US has no other bilateral negotiations for a freight
:04:24. > :04:30.train with any other country than the EU. When you look at the 23
:04:31. > :04:34.trade deals it has, none of them are worth an economy bigger than
:04:35. > :04:37.Britain. Let's remember that if America signed a trade deal with us,
:04:38. > :04:43.it would be the equivalent of the North American trade deal because...
:04:44. > :04:48.I think we have strong mutual interest in doing it. America had a
:04:49. > :04:55.number of bilateral free trade talks going on with about 15 different
:04:56. > :05:00.countries. It essentially froze them because it wants to do regional
:05:01. > :05:04.deals - why would it reopen at Mr Ross? In the last 25 years, it has
:05:05. > :05:10.done a string of bilateral and regional negotiations, given the
:05:11. > :05:14.collapse of WTO talks, the Pacific deal was done. The EU one is stuck
:05:15. > :05:19.in the mud. If Britain came out of the EU, saying, we are not shackled
:05:20. > :05:23.by the special interests of film-makers who don't want American
:05:24. > :05:28.box sets polluting French culture, we want insist on the labelling
:05:29. > :05:32.requirements unfettered cheese that the Greeks do. And we won't have a
:05:33. > :05:35.dispute about the settlement mechanism that the Europeans are
:05:36. > :05:39.concerned about and people are concerned about in this country It
:05:40. > :05:42.is important to understand why the Americans insist on that, because
:05:43. > :05:47.they don't trust the court systems in many European countries will stop
:05:48. > :05:50.American firms trust British courts to resolve commercial this beautiful
:05:51. > :05:56.stop all of these problems will be swept away, and I think we would be
:05:57. > :06:01.well placed. If we're done with the EU and we not a member, the EU will
:06:02. > :06:06.have free trade with United States and we don't know when we will have
:06:07. > :06:13.it. It could give a huge advantage to the French, Germans, Italians and
:06:14. > :06:22.Spanish. We know that the White House briefs out... The White House
:06:23. > :06:26.regularly briefed it. If you look at White House commentary, let me just
:06:27. > :06:31.put this to you - if America was my priority is the EU deal, the best
:06:32. > :06:35.way of ramping up its negotiations leveraged would be to come to a
:06:36. > :06:39.relatively quick deal with Britain. That would put the pressure on. In
:06:40. > :06:45.trade negotiations, America had a history of doing that. Do you accept
:06:46. > :06:51.that whatever our relationship with the EU, if we read, we can have no
:06:52. > :06:55.full access to the single market unless we agree to free movement of
:06:56. > :06:59.people? It depends what you mean by full access to the single market. I
:07:00. > :07:08.think we would not see any trade barriers go up because we are the
:07:09. > :07:12.fifth biggest economy in the world, but it means we can have proper
:07:13. > :07:16.control of our borders and we will not be bound by the stifling
:07:17. > :07:19.regulation that gives us a competitive disadvantage. It is
:07:20. > :07:23.important for small businesses here. You still don't know if we would
:07:24. > :07:28.have access to the single market. You can't tell as that. Everyone who
:07:29. > :07:33.does who is not a member of the EU has had to agree to free movement.
:07:34. > :07:36.It is a strawman to say, I can't tell you what the deal looks like
:07:37. > :07:41.until we have had the referendum. I can tell you this: Look at the
:07:42. > :07:46.options being put at their - Swiss, Norwegian, Turkish. I think because
:07:47. > :07:53.Britain's economy is bigger than all of those combined, and because
:07:54. > :07:57.French farmers and German car manufacturers sell as ?60 billion
:07:58. > :08:01.more each year than we sell them, we are very well placed and mutual
:08:02. > :08:05.self-interest suggests we would cut a good deal.
:08:06. > :08:10.How would we have more control over borders if we left? We would have
:08:11. > :08:14.control over who could come to work here, I understand that, if we want
:08:15. > :08:18.in the EU any more, provided we weren't part of the single market,
:08:19. > :08:22.but how would we be able to stop people coming here? Do you think if
:08:23. > :08:29.we leave the EU that, if you're French or German or Italian, you
:08:30. > :08:33.would need a Visa? There are two issues: The numbers, and I think
:08:34. > :08:36.that as the Home Secretary conceded, we cannot control the numbers
:08:37. > :08:41.because of free movement if we are in the EU, and that makes life
:08:42. > :08:45.harder. The second question is, checks at the border, preventative
:08:46. > :08:48.ones. Under UK law with non-EU countries, we can stop someone
:08:49. > :08:54.coming in because it is not conducive to the public good. With
:08:55. > :09:00.the EU, we can only deny entry if there is a serious, credible and
:09:01. > :09:04.present threat. Which we do. As a result, since 2010, 6000 people have
:09:05. > :09:10.been turned back from the EU. If you compare that with people from out
:09:11. > :09:18.with the EU, we have registered to 60 7000. That shows the stronger
:09:19. > :09:24.checks. I understand, but my question is, outside the EU, we
:09:25. > :09:28.would not insist on visas for the Germans, French and so on? We would
:09:29. > :09:35.have to look at that as part of the negotiations. At the moment, the
:09:36. > :09:40.Obama Administration is looking at new Visa requirement and screening
:09:41. > :09:44.from Germany, Belgium, Greece, France because of the recent
:09:45. > :09:47.terrorist attacks. I think we should at least have the power and control
:09:48. > :09:53.to do that to keep Britain safe Then we would need a Visa to go to
:09:54. > :09:57.France and Germany. A final question: Why do you not want the
:09:58. > :10:01.leader of the National front in France, Marine Le Pen, to come here?
:10:02. > :10:05.She's one of your biggest supporters. Her views are racist and
:10:06. > :10:11.I don't share her values. I think our party is deeply offensive. But
:10:12. > :10:15.she is on your site. All the more reason why I wouldn't like to see
:10:16. > :10:20.her come. So we do have control over our borders of the Home Secretary
:10:21. > :10:26.can stop coming? People from outside the EU, rappers like snoop doggy
:10:27. > :10:29.dog, have been barred entry because they have a offensive views. If the
:10:30. > :10:35.Home Secretary checks with officials, we probably cannot be
:10:36. > :10:38.nigh Marine Le Pen entry. It is another demonstration of the things
:10:39. > :10:40.we can't do because we don't have the proper controls of our borders.
:10:41. > :10:42.Thank you. Jeremy Corbyn will get his first big
:10:43. > :10:45.electoral test in just under two weeks' time, when voters go
:10:46. > :10:47.to the polls in local Opposition parties usually do
:10:48. > :10:50.well in these contests, even when they've just
:10:51. > :10:52.lost a general election. But with analysts predicting
:10:53. > :10:54.that the party could actually lose councillors, party
:10:55. > :10:56.strategists are There's a simple principle
:10:57. > :11:03.in British politics - if you want to win elections, you need to win
:11:04. > :11:08.seats of every shape and size. When in government, parties tend
:11:09. > :11:13.to lose council seats. In opposition,
:11:14. > :11:17.they tend to win them. Even Michael Foot, who went
:11:18. > :11:19.on to lead Labour to its biggest general election defeat
:11:20. > :11:25.ever, did pretty well to start with. In his first electoral test,
:11:26. > :11:27.in 1981, the party took When Neil Kinnock became leader
:11:28. > :11:33.he also managed a more And then Ed Miliband,
:11:34. > :11:46.he picked up 857 seats. Since local government was invented
:11:47. > :11:48.in its modern form in 1974,
:11:49. > :11:52.there have been only two years 1982 and 1985 - when the opposition
:11:53. > :11:56.party has actually lost seats in a local
:11:57. > :11:58.election if it is not So far, so historically positive for
:11:59. > :12:04.Jeremy Corbyn. The problem is, experts in the field
:12:05. > :12:10.reckon Labour could lose 150 seats in these English
:12:11. > :12:14.council elections. Even the party machine has been
:12:15. > :12:18.managing expectations. You simply can't
:12:19. > :12:20.explain away any kind of net loss of seats
:12:21. > :12:24.in these elections. After all, a new leader
:12:25. > :12:29.in the middle of his honeymoon period following on from
:12:30. > :12:34.a disastrous mega-galactic shambles of a budget failure shouldn't expect
:12:35. > :12:36.to see anything other than dramatic gains in the local
:12:37. > :12:40.elections that follow. Anything else,
:12:41. > :12:41.historically speaking, is It's an argument put forward by some
:12:42. > :12:49.of his MPs. I'm not going to put
:12:50. > :12:52.a specific number on it, but 300-400 seats would be a good
:12:53. > :12:54.step in the We have to be ambitious,
:12:55. > :13:00.because we are the Labour Party, and we are a
:13:01. > :13:03.party of government. We exist in order to be
:13:04. > :13:06.in Government and make a difference Southampton, that is where
:13:07. > :13:10.Ed Miliband has been... The last time this batch of council
:13:11. > :13:14.seats were contested, Labour under Southampton was one of a number
:13:15. > :13:23.of areas where Labour failed to capitalise in the general election,
:13:24. > :13:25.losing a Parliamentary If Jeremy Corbyn wants to be
:13:26. > :13:30.Prime Minister in 2020, he will be expected to make inroads now in many
:13:31. > :13:34.of the English council areas, and I think that all
:13:35. > :13:41.leaders are judged by We've got from now until
:13:42. > :13:45.the 5th of May to deliver positive and encouraging
:13:46. > :13:48.results for Labour. It's always hard to compare
:13:49. > :13:50.historic elections. There are always different
:13:51. > :13:53.political contexts, varying numbers of seats up grabs,
:13:54. > :13:57.but rightly or wrongly, several Labour MPs I've spoken
:13:58. > :14:00.to will do just that, conscious that Jeremy Corbyn
:14:01. > :14:02.could make history for the And we're joined now
:14:03. > :14:10.from Salford by the Shadow Education Secretary,
:14:11. > :14:20.Lucy Powell. Welcome to the programme, Lucy
:14:21. > :14:23.Powell. Your Labour MP Carly, Stephen Kinnock, says you should be
:14:24. > :14:28.gaining an extra 300-400 council seat in England - does that seem
:14:29. > :14:33.right? I won't get into the predictions game. Like Stephen, like
:14:34. > :14:38.Jeremy and the rest of the Shadow Cabinet, I am optimistic about these
:14:39. > :14:44.elections. We are a political party and always looking to make gains and
:14:45. > :14:48.progress at every electoral test. These elections are no different. I
:14:49. > :14:55.won't get into the predictions business. Hold on. What about the
:14:56. > :14:59.principle that new opposition leaders always do pretty well in
:15:00. > :15:07.their first electoral test? I was looking at the record - Ed Miliband,
:15:08. > :15:11.Tony Blair, Neil Kinnock, even Michael Foot, they all made gains.
:15:12. > :15:16.We must expect Jeremy Corbyn to do the same, surely?
:15:17. > :15:27.I have been hoping we will make progress. Do you think you will make
:15:28. > :15:31.gains? We are looking at winning in London for the first time since
:15:32. > :15:35.2004, we are looking to make progress in the local elections we
:15:36. > :15:40.are looking to stay in power in Wales. Obviously in Scotland things
:15:41. > :15:43.are difficult there and they are long-term legacy issues for the
:15:44. > :15:48.Labour Party to deal with in Scotland but you do have to set it
:15:49. > :15:52.into context. It has been an incredibly tough year for the Labour
:15:53. > :15:57.Party, we suffered a crushing election defeat. That was not even a
:15:58. > :16:03.year ago, which we weren't expecting and everybody else wasn't expecting
:16:04. > :16:08.either. We had a long, drawn-out leadership contest. We have a new
:16:09. > :16:13.leader in Jeremy Corbyn and it takes time for everybody to adjust to
:16:14. > :16:18.that. But I think we have had a very positive few weeks where we have
:16:19. > :16:25.been on the front foot, we have been effective opposition, with issues
:16:26. > :16:30.like the Budget... We haven't got too much time. Let me put it in
:16:31. > :16:36.context. The Tories have divided and they are in disarray, last month
:16:37. > :16:44.brought yet another omnishambles Budget. Why would you not be poised
:16:45. > :16:57.for big gains? I am very hopeful we will get big gains. London will be a
:16:58. > :17:01.big gain, we haven't won since 004. What I'm interested in is how we on
:17:02. > :17:06.the right track for winning in 020, and that is a really tough job. I
:17:07. > :17:12.don't think anyone underestimates the challenge we face as a political
:17:13. > :17:16.party. Let me see if I can pin you down. Maybe one of the reasons it is
:17:17. > :17:24.not an easy job is that you may not be in tune with the public mood
:17:25. > :17:28.This chart shows they regularly rate immigration one of their number one
:17:29. > :17:34.concern is, ahead of the NHS and the economy, this is recent poll. Most
:17:35. > :17:38.are not against immigration but they think the influx is too high. How
:17:39. > :17:44.does that square with Jeremy Corbyn's view that we have not let
:17:45. > :17:49.too many in? All of these issues we have got to think deeply about and
:17:50. > :17:52.there is an urgency to that. Immigration, welfare, the economy,
:17:53. > :17:57.these were all issues at the last election but that was only a few
:17:58. > :18:03.months ago. If we knew the answer is, if we knew how we would make
:18:04. > :18:07.labour relevant again, the Labour values I care about, how we will
:18:08. > :18:11.make them relevant in the modern world, if I had those answers we
:18:12. > :18:17.wouldn't be sitting here now because we would be in Government. Do you
:18:18. > :18:24.agree with Jeremy Corbyn... We have got to spend time, doing the
:18:25. > :18:29.difficult job of understanding how the Labour Party can be relevant in
:18:30. > :18:37.the modern world, and that includes issues... If you let me come back to
:18:38. > :18:41.immigration and get a specific answer out of you. Do you agree with
:18:42. > :18:47.Jeremy Corbyn that in recent years we have not let too many in? I don't
:18:48. > :18:51.want to get into a numbers game about immigration. I know from all
:18:52. > :18:54.the work I do on the doorstep, immigration is a massive issue and
:18:55. > :19:03.people have real concerns about the impact that immigration has on some
:19:04. > :19:06.of our communities. As the Labour Party, we have to address those
:19:07. > :19:11.That's why I thought we were right at the last election to have a
:19:12. > :19:17.policy around the emergency rate for example on benefits for EU migrants,
:19:18. > :19:23.a policy the Government have adopted, but I don't think simple
:19:24. > :19:28.retail policy offers are what Labour's challenge is right now Our
:19:29. > :19:33.challenge is over the next few years what is our relevant values that we
:19:34. > :19:42.can offer to the public that will help us win the election. Let me
:19:43. > :19:48.come onto education. You asked if you planned to bring academies under
:19:49. > :20:00.local authority control and you said no, by 2020 almost every secondary
:20:01. > :20:05.school will be a free School or an Academy, do you stand by that? Only
:20:06. > :20:12.17% of primary schools are academies. You said nearly every
:20:13. > :20:16.secondary, do you stand by that I don't know about primary schools,
:20:17. > :20:20.let's see what happens over the next few weeks because the Government's
:20:21. > :20:25.attempt to force all schools against their wishes to become an Academy is
:20:26. > :20:28.on the rocks. They put the brakes on some schools feeling they have no
:20:29. > :20:36.option but to become academies, which is what many schools felt over
:20:37. > :20:40.the last few years. And I understand the policy of making every school
:20:41. > :20:45.and Academy is difficult, I take your point, but you said every
:20:46. > :20:49.secondary school and most primaries will be free schools or an Academy.
:20:50. > :20:56.It is not that different from where the Government wants to end up, is
:20:57. > :21:02.it? You are taking my comments out of context. I was talking about
:21:03. > :21:06.Labour's policy at the next election in that circumstance, and my point
:21:07. > :21:11.is that we have got to look anew at what is the accountability framework
:21:12. > :21:14.for all schools? How do we make sure there are sufficient places in our
:21:15. > :21:17.schools, that we have raising standards in our schools, we have
:21:18. > :21:23.sufficient school improvement support for our schools, and we have
:21:24. > :21:25.proper accountability of some of these Academy chains of which we are
:21:26. > :21:32.seeing many more problems arising with their accountability. That is
:21:33. > :21:37.what I will be looking at. In the short term, I will be fighting tooth
:21:38. > :21:40.and nail the Government's plans to force good and outstanding schools
:21:41. > :21:52.against their wishes to become academies. Jeremy Corbyn has
:21:53. > :22:01.described academise a share -- described... Jeremy said lots of
:22:02. > :22:07.things about the forced programme. Is it asset stripping or not? In
:22:08. > :22:13.some cases it can be. The key question is does it meet the test of
:22:14. > :22:17.school improvement? There is mixed evidence of whether it leads to
:22:18. > :22:23.school improvement, as the education select committee have found. The
:22:24. > :22:26.second question is does it give schools freedom and autonomy? How
:22:27. > :22:32.can that be the case if you are forcing a school against its wish to
:22:33. > :22:37.be an Academy. That is not real autonomy. And the first test is
:22:38. > :22:48.around accountability and there are some very real issues there. Some
:22:49. > :22:52.might call that asset stripping If our state system is being asset
:22:53. > :22:58.stripped as your leader claims, that would be really serious so is he
:22:59. > :23:02.right or wrong? There have been examples of financial mismanagement
:23:03. > :23:04.in some Academy chains, we have seen those recently where directors have
:23:05. > :23:12.been paying themselves double money by setting up arms length
:23:13. > :23:16.organisations that they are also paying themselves from so there are
:23:17. > :23:21.issues of financial probity which is why both Jeremy and I have been
:23:22. > :23:27.arguing that there needs to be a much more robust financial
:23:28. > :23:34.accountability structure. He seems to be against academies altogether.
:23:35. > :23:40.We have got exactly the same view about this, Jeremy and I have worked
:23:41. > :23:45.closely on these issues and that is that there are some excellent
:23:46. > :23:48.Academy schools, there are also some excellent community schools. This
:23:49. > :23:54.tired argument of pitting one school type against another is frankly
:23:55. > :23:57.over. What we have got to be addressing is ensuring we have good
:23:58. > :24:01.quality teachers and head teachers in all of our schools, something the
:24:02. > :24:04.Government is failing to do. We ve got to make sure schools have
:24:05. > :24:13.adequate resources, and they are facing real terms cuts to their
:24:14. > :24:17.budgets, and make sure we have enough places for all of our
:24:18. > :24:23.children. There is a crisis in school places and teacher shortages.
:24:24. > :24:28.Very interesting ground which you have gone over before. I want to
:24:29. > :24:35.show you an advert gone up for a new media spokesperson for Jeremy
:24:36. > :24:41.Corbyn. There is a fixed term contract for Jeremy Corbyn, leader
:24:42. > :24:46.of the Labour Party, running from December 2016 or when he ceases to
:24:47. > :24:52.be leader, whichever is sooner. Which do you think will be sooner? I
:24:53. > :24:57.haven't seen the advert but Jeremy has only been a leader for a few
:24:58. > :25:02.months. OK, you're not going to tell me which would be sooner? We are
:25:03. > :25:05.supporting him in his job and I m not going to comment on that. Very
:25:06. > :25:07.well. Thank you very much. The party views on Europe
:25:08. > :25:11.and immigration are well-known, but voters may not know
:25:12. > :25:14.what Nigel Farage's Purple Army thinks about issues
:25:15. > :25:17.like recycling and council tax. Ukip, which had never held more
:25:18. > :25:19.than a handful of local election seats before,
:25:20. > :25:21.achieved its first major breakthrough in 2013,
:25:22. > :25:27.when they gained 139 seats. The following year they increased
:25:28. > :25:31.their total by another 161 seats, performing particularly well
:25:32. > :25:35.in parts of Essex. While in 2015, on the same day
:25:36. > :25:37.as the general election, In that set of elections,
:25:38. > :25:46.Ukip won control of Thanet Council in Kent, the first time the party
:25:47. > :25:50.took control of a local council But within six months they had
:25:51. > :25:54.lost overall control, after five councillors left Ukip,
:25:55. > :25:59.saying they were unhappy with the council's lack of action
:26:00. > :26:01.on a manifesto pledge to reopen So, 2016 is the last year
:26:02. > :26:07.in the four-yearly cycle Will they be able to
:26:08. > :26:16.maintain the momentum? We're joined now by the party's
:26:17. > :26:26.deputy chairman, Diane James. Welcome to the programme. You have
:26:27. > :26:32.got your referendum running strongly in the news, immigration is a huge
:26:33. > :26:37.issue as well. What would be a good result for Ukip in these local
:26:38. > :26:41.elections? Certainly to retain the 20 seat we will be defending this
:26:42. > :26:48.time, but also building on that We are fielding 1400 candidates out of
:26:49. > :26:52.the 2700 that will be available across the country. We are also
:26:53. > :26:57.fielding candidates in the big Assembly elections - Stormont,
:26:58. > :27:05.Holyrood... And the police crime Commissioner. Are you looking to
:27:06. > :27:12.gain? Of course, we wouldn't be doing anything otherwise. Populist
:27:13. > :27:16.and anti-EU parties are gaining ground right across Europe so if you
:27:17. > :27:21.don't gain ground there must be serious doubts in this climate about
:27:22. > :27:23.your long-term future. We are looking to gain ground and increase
:27:24. > :27:29.the number of councillors we have got as well as membership of all of
:27:30. > :27:36.the assemblies I have referred to. The momentum is behind the populist
:27:37. > :27:39.parties, but certainly behind the Eurosceptic parties because what
:27:40. > :27:44.they do say and they share in terms of issues is the negative impact of
:27:45. > :27:48.EU membership is having on particularly for instance just
:27:49. > :27:51.trying to plan in terms of infrastructure and other aspects.
:27:52. > :28:00.And yet when you get a foothold in local government it doesn't go very
:28:01. > :28:04.well. You controlled Thanet, within six months you had lost overall
:28:05. > :28:11.control. You are still just a protest party. We are not just a
:28:12. > :28:16.protest party. The issue you are referring to is Manston airport
:28:17. > :28:20.very difficult in terms of the overall plans for that from not only
:28:21. > :28:25.just the local authority but also the county council level so we don't
:28:26. > :28:28.actually have control of Kent County Council. I'm sure if we had we could
:28:29. > :28:35.have had a lot more import there. Equally there is this issue of a
:28:36. > :28:39.local problem and individuals coming into government, no matter which
:28:40. > :28:43.party they represent, understanding how slowly sometimes decisions can
:28:44. > :28:49.be reached. Look at Boston Borough Council, you did well there in 015.
:28:50. > :28:53.Then one Ukip councillor was suspended, the party split down the
:28:54. > :28:58.middle because you couldn't agree on a leader, six councils carried on
:28:59. > :29:05.under the Ukip banner, six others under the Ukip Group, it is a
:29:06. > :29:09.shambles. You always pick up on the bad news to do with Ukip but you
:29:10. > :29:14.never pick up on the bad news to do with other parties. This morning you
:29:15. > :29:24.reeled off a series of good examples, but you have you raised
:29:25. > :29:30.any of the councillors from Labour across the country who have had to
:29:31. > :29:34.be suspended for serious reasons. Some decided to walk away from the
:29:35. > :29:38.Ukip banner for whatever reasons, but in terms of the individuals who
:29:39. > :29:46.have been suspended or had to stand down, that is the different ball
:29:47. > :29:51.game and I would like you to be fair in tackling that.
:29:52. > :29:56.My job is to put the tough questions each party. Why would people vote
:29:57. > :30:00.for a party that might not even have a reason to exist after the
:30:01. > :30:06.referendum? We will have a reason to exist because no one else will hold
:30:07. > :30:11.David Cameron to account and make sure it happens. That is my view. In
:30:12. > :30:17.terms of our counsellors, bear in mind we are the only party out there
:30:18. > :30:25.that does not flip councillors. Probably just as well! It sounds
:30:26. > :30:30.like you cannot be whipped. I am not into dominatrix stuff. I'm talking
:30:31. > :30:34.about politics! It is something our cabinet ministers are accused of the
:30:35. > :30:37.moment. There is real disquiet amongst the electorate that they
:30:38. > :30:42.want to vote for somebody, and then they see the systems that are in
:30:43. > :30:45.place, cabinet rather than committee, backbenchers who find
:30:46. > :30:49.themselves in a situation where they can't contribute to decisions. And
:30:50. > :30:59.we are talking about incursions into the green belt, housing targets and
:31:00. > :31:03.academies. This is the sort of issue that I Ukip councillor who is not
:31:04. > :31:10.whipped will be able to represent their community. Even if we leave
:31:11. > :31:15.the EU, Ukip continues? Yes, it does. We will talk to the
:31:16. > :31:16.Conservatives and Liberal Democrats about the local elections in England
:31:17. > :31:18.next week. We say goodbye to viewers
:31:19. > :31:23.in Scotland, who leave us now Coming up here in 20 minutes, I ll
:31:24. > :31:27.be joined by our political panel. First though, the Sunday
:31:28. > :31:35.Politics where you are. a sustained bombardment
:31:36. > :31:42.from the Conservatives. They claim this is about his
:31:43. > :31:46.judgment being dodgy over No, say others, it's just
:31:47. > :31:52.desperate smear tactics against the front runner
:31:53. > :31:54.because he's Muslim. What all this may have
:31:55. > :31:57.done for many voters - and who knows, this may
:31:58. > :31:58.have been the intention -
:31:59. > :32:00.is to drown out the arguments on the central issues
:32:01. > :32:03.and challenges facing the capital. And if so, in the time remaining,
:32:04. > :32:05.can Labour's candidate convince London's electorate
:32:06. > :32:13.with his policies? I'll talk to him in a moment. After
:32:14. > :32:23.this. If the polls are to be believed
:32:24. > :32:26.this man is on course to be the Mayor of London in less
:32:27. > :32:29.than a fortnight's time. In case you haven't heard,
:32:30. > :32:33.this is his pitch to Londoners. London is the greatest city
:32:34. > :32:36.in the world that gave me the chance to go from a council estate
:32:37. > :32:39.to running a successful business, to being a minister attending
:32:40. > :32:42.a Cabinet, and now running to be But too many Londoners
:32:43. > :32:45.now are being priced This week, Sadiq Khan
:32:46. > :32:50.was at Scotland Yard meeting The Met Police are a key part
:32:51. > :32:54.of the Mayor's responsibilities and he says he wants investment
:32:55. > :32:58.on neighbourhood policing and a greater commitment to tackling
:32:59. > :33:01.violence against women and girls. On transport he says he wants
:33:02. > :33:03.to introduce a one-hour bus ticket and a freeze
:33:04. > :33:09.on public transport fares. In this election there's one or two
:33:10. > :33:12.phrases that Sadiq Khan likes So, he likes to say he was the son
:33:13. > :33:17.of a bus driver who grew He likes to say that London
:33:18. > :33:21.is the greatest city on Earth, But also, he likes to say
:33:22. > :33:25.he would be the most business-friendly mayor that London
:33:26. > :33:28.has ever seen. His manifesto promises to involve
:33:29. > :33:30.business in decision-making in key areas, all very laudable
:33:31. > :33:33.but what happens when businesses have tough questions about his
:33:34. > :33:37.promises to the electorate? For example, London First are one
:33:38. > :33:40.of the capital's best-known business lobbying groups and think it's fare
:33:41. > :33:48.freeze cannot be painless. I think it would be hard to think
:33:49. > :33:56.that any of these things can be done without taking any pain,
:33:57. > :33:58.without anyone noticing. I think there is scope
:33:59. > :34:00.for efficiency at Transport for London but it will require
:34:01. > :34:02.some difficult choices. Part of that will be
:34:03. > :34:04.about headcount, you know, inevitably there are likely
:34:05. > :34:06.to be fewer people. You know, that won't
:34:07. > :34:08.be straightforward. Part of it will be about
:34:09. > :34:10.modernising ways of working There are suggestions, too,
:34:11. > :34:13.that there might be tension between two of Sadiq Khan's key
:34:14. > :34:16.housing promises, to double house-building to 50,000 homes
:34:17. > :34:18.a year while at the same time introducing a target
:34:19. > :34:21.so that over 50% of those His Conservative rival,
:34:22. > :34:27.Zac Goldsmith, wants to build exactly the same number of homes
:34:28. > :34:30.but says Sadiq Khan's 50% affordable target means it will be harder
:34:31. > :34:33.for developers to make a profit The truth is, if you come up
:34:34. > :34:43.with targets which are realistic, which at times Sadiq Khan has
:34:44. > :34:46.come close to admitting, We need 50,000 homes a year,
:34:47. > :34:50.we know that, there's a consensus on that,
:34:51. > :34:52.and I will deliver those homes by working with Government,
:34:53. > :34:55.by getting the Government to release brownfield land, which
:34:56. > :34:57.the Government, which we own, and by growing the transport network
:34:58. > :34:59.to unlock that land. During the week, the Conservatives
:35:00. > :35:02.also had this van on the street Their message, that council tax
:35:03. > :35:06.would rise under a Labour mayor But while the Zac Goldsmith campaign
:35:07. > :35:08.do have questions about Sadiq Khan's policy platform, it's questions
:35:09. > :35:11.of another nature that are grabbing Sulaiman Ghani, the honourable
:35:12. > :35:18.member for Tooting, has appeared Anyone can make a mistake
:35:19. > :35:26.about who they appear We're not always responsible
:35:27. > :35:31.for what our political opponents say, but if you do it time
:35:32. > :35:33.after time after time, it is right to question
:35:34. > :35:36.your judgment. But if much of the battle to run
:35:37. > :35:39.London isn't being fought on policy grounds, could that be
:35:40. > :35:42.because on policy there isn't that Watched from afar, and particularly
:35:43. > :35:50.in the matter of policy, you would have to say the mayoral
:35:51. > :35:55.election of 2016 is definitely one where the two major candidates,
:35:56. > :35:58.indeed most of the major candidates, have got policies which are so close
:35:59. > :36:03.to each other that the electorate would find it very hard to find any
:36:04. > :36:07.ideological gap between them. Both Sadiq Khan and Zac Goldsmith
:36:08. > :36:10.agree that London needs 50,000 homes a year,
:36:11. > :36:16.that Crossrail 2 needs to be built, They both want to keep
:36:17. > :36:19.the congestion charge basically the same,
:36:20. > :36:22.and the similarities continue. Perhaps inevitably then
:36:23. > :36:24.the discussion becomes about who would be more effective
:36:25. > :36:41.at achieving all of this Welcome to you.
:36:42. > :36:51.Let's begin with comments from Lord sugar, Alan Sugar. Sadiq Khan has
:36:52. > :36:58.wrecked the Labour Party. Now he is turning his sights to London. What
:36:59. > :37:04.do you make of that? I am the most prisoners -- pro-business Mayor that
:37:05. > :37:07.London has ever had. I am making sure my manifesto reflects the
:37:08. > :37:11.challenges that Londoners face. I am also looking at aspiration. For
:37:12. > :37:18.example, I have a business advisory board advising me, made up of
:37:19. > :37:22.business experts. I want to set up skills for Londoners, working with
:37:23. > :37:26.today's employers to train youngsters for the jobs of tomorrow.
:37:27. > :37:29.I want to be the most pro-business Mayor that London has ever had. It
:37:30. > :37:35.will lead to more London is getting a living wage, quality
:37:36. > :37:41.apprenticeshipss jobs, growth and prosperity. What do you think of
:37:42. > :37:50.Alan Sugar's comments? It is for him to say what he things. I have
:37:51. > :37:54.brought more than 100 successful business leaders across London to
:37:55. > :37:58.support my campaign. I have managed to speak to chief executives who
:37:59. > :38:02.understand the importance of us remaining in the European Union
:38:03. > :38:07.With respect to the other candidates, the most realistic Mayor
:38:08. > :38:13.is either Zac Goldsmith or me. He wants to leave the EU. I think more
:38:14. > :38:19.than 500,000 jobs depended on this. European companies have their
:38:20. > :38:23.headquarters in London. You need to show that you are a pro-business
:38:24. > :38:35.mayor and show that you understand the importance of the EU. Alan Sugar
:38:36. > :38:45.'s... Some -- you have just been a partner in a legal aid firm, it is
:38:46. > :38:50.said. People say that being a partner in a
:38:51. > :38:55.law firm hardly qualifies as calling yourself a business person. I
:38:56. > :39:02.employed 50 people, pay taxes, ensured that people had a roof over
:39:03. > :39:11.their head and gave them skills I understand sleepless nights over the
:39:12. > :39:14.overdraft being expanded. It is important to recognise that we may
:39:15. > :39:17.be the greatest in the world, but there are too many Londoners missing
:39:18. > :39:22.out on the joys of London. Londoners are not sure about one aspect of
:39:23. > :39:30.your business credentials, and they wonder about your policy on public
:39:31. > :39:35.transport fares. If the policy of freezing them on London transport
:39:36. > :39:41.shows not to be bringing in enough money, will you review a? No. We
:39:42. > :39:43.have the most expensive public transport fares in the whole of
:39:44. > :39:47.Europe. They have increased by more than 50% in the last eight years
:39:48. > :39:52.will stop my point is, transport for London is good, but its annual
:39:53. > :39:57.budget is more than ?12 billion more than most Government
:39:58. > :40:05.departments. TEFL needs to reduce inefficiency, cut waste, and think
:40:06. > :40:12.about other ways of raising revenue. We had some freedom of information
:40:13. > :40:22.questions. Agency staff spending has doubled. Last year, they spent. .
:40:23. > :40:26.There was more than ?61 million lost in transport fare evasion. We lost
:40:27. > :40:41.?100 million in a contract with Lombardi. We need to make transport
:40:42. > :40:45.for London fit for purpose. Your figures estimate that this would
:40:46. > :40:51.cost ?450 million and it is said that you are underestimating what it
:40:52. > :40:58.would really cast. My predictions are, and it is confirmed by experts,
:40:59. > :41:03.the cost of this breed is ?452 million. He hasn't done that. It is
:41:04. > :41:09.not right to say that. It is not right is a that he has said it will
:41:10. > :41:14.cost ?450 million. You are wrong there. You and I disagree. No, he
:41:15. > :41:20.does agrees. He doesn't. Where has he said that he agrees with that? He
:41:21. > :41:24.has confirmed that it will have no impact on future investment in
:41:25. > :41:27.transport for London. That is slightly different, but the figure,
:41:28. > :41:31.because you know that you decided on that figure because you assume that
:41:32. > :41:38.inflation would be 1% of the next four years, but he says that TEFL
:41:39. > :41:43.estimate it differently. No, he has accepted how my calculations are
:41:44. > :41:48.made. The Mayor has increased the fares in the last four years by 1%.
:41:49. > :41:56.The formulae used to be RPI plus one. Fares have increased by more
:41:57. > :42:01.than 17%. I am unwilling to make Londoners pay that. The point is,
:42:02. > :42:05.you are freezing them in cash terms. You will not put them up in
:42:06. > :42:09.inflation. The commissioner will say, my other costs will go up in
:42:10. > :42:14.line with inflation, so obviously I need to get income and it comes from
:42:15. > :42:16.there is. I wonder whether it is an inflexible business approach from
:42:17. > :42:21.you which could put business investment risk. The Commissioner
:42:22. > :42:27.has confirmed that the freeze will have no impact on investment. As
:42:28. > :42:32.long as you can find those savings. -- as long as he can find those
:42:33. > :42:38.savings. If he can't, it is an underestimate. We can make
:42:39. > :42:44.efficiencies and we can increase revenue streams. Some more examples
:42:45. > :42:51.- if you think about the land that transport for London owns, it is
:42:52. > :42:59.equivalent to 16 times Hyde Park. Let's use that. We will come onto
:43:00. > :43:03.that housing. When you say it is 16 times Hyde Park, that is the amount
:43:04. > :43:12.of land that they have. How much could you develop on that? 10% is
:43:13. > :43:16.available. So, 1.6 Hyde Parks. I have also spoken to council leaders.
:43:17. > :43:23.We could have access to lots of council land. That is why homes for
:43:24. > :43:29.Londoners is so important. We will talk about housing, because it is so
:43:30. > :43:33.important. The key issue about transport, if you don't accept an
:43:34. > :43:40.accounting error that you made an underestimation, but if you are
:43:41. > :43:44.saying you are going to keep fares frozen and limiting your income can
:43:45. > :43:51.you also give us a guarantee that the pay rises for Tube workers and
:43:52. > :43:59.bus workers will be capped at inflation as well for four years? I
:44:00. > :44:03.can't negotiate a pay deal with drivers on the Sunday Politics.
:44:04. > :44:06.Could you say that that is what you would want to see? That they
:44:07. > :44:12.shouldn't have higher pay rises than inflation? Would you be able to
:44:13. > :44:17.answer that because it is important? I can say that I think it is wrong
:44:18. > :44:23.that there are more than 450 staff who are more than ?100,000. I think
:44:24. > :44:28.it is wrong that the fees spent on consultants is ?1.3 million. I think
:44:29. > :44:34.it is wrong that we spend ?61 million on fairy vision. When
:44:35. > :44:41.Schubert drivers come to you -- on their eve Asian. When Tube drivers
:44:42. > :44:47.come to you, what are you going to do about costs? Can you give us a
:44:48. > :44:48.guarantee or tell us you don't want to see their pay rises going up
:44:49. > :44:59.above inflation? I will be speaking to those who
:45:00. > :45:02.represent workers in transport for London. The mayor should be speaking
:45:03. > :45:08.with those people to engage with them. But you can see that there
:45:09. > :45:18.might be a problem for an organisation like London First? I
:45:19. > :45:22.agree with London First that Transport for London is floppy. They
:45:23. > :45:28.have two engineering departments, one doing underground and one doing
:45:29. > :45:39.service, why not merge the two? Let's turn to housing. If you're 50%
:45:40. > :45:44.demand that new homes, 50% of them should be affordable, if that
:45:45. > :45:48.dissuade developers from coming forward and developing, if it slows
:45:49. > :45:55.down building, will you look at that again? I am bringing together
:45:56. > :46:01.developers and something called Homes for Londoners. The issue isn't
:46:02. > :46:05.the number of properties built in London, the issue is making sure
:46:06. > :46:10.there are genuinely affordable homes to buy and rent in London. At the
:46:11. > :46:15.moment before homes are completed they are sold to investors in the
:46:16. > :46:19.Middle East and Asia. I want to make sure the right sorts of homes are
:46:20. > :46:26.being built in London, I'm not obsessed by 50,000... You say half
:46:27. > :46:31.of all homes, land owned by developers... If it starts to show
:46:32. > :46:34.very early on because the house builders Federation and some are
:46:35. > :46:38.beginning to say it sounds a bit prescriptive, if it starts to show
:46:39. > :46:45.early on will you say I shouldn t have had a 50% target, I will go a
:46:46. > :46:56.bit lower? Over the last 50 years we have had the least number of homes
:46:57. > :47:09.being built since peacetime. We need homes which can be part rented. . We
:47:10. > :47:13.have been priced out of our city because of a housing crisis. It
:47:14. > :47:17.isn't working. You said this week when it comes to getting permission
:47:18. > :47:22.on homes on private land the expectation is for most of them
:47:23. > :47:25.should be first dibs for Londoners. How can you tell developers across
:47:26. > :47:28.London they will not be able to market homes and get money from
:47:29. > :47:32.foreign investors to make these developments happen? What happens
:47:33. > :47:36.with developers is once they have got the land they will apply to a
:47:37. > :47:40.local authority for permission to build homes on land. Some local
:47:41. > :47:45.authorities at the moment saved to the developer we are happy to give
:47:46. > :47:51.you permission for X number of units. We want some of those to be
:47:52. > :47:56.affordable, but we want you to market those properties first in it
:47:57. > :48:02.could be Hackney or London before you go overseas. Developers want to
:48:03. > :48:07.market overseas because of health 's with their cash flow. I understand
:48:08. > :48:11.that, that's why the homes for Londoners we will set up will have
:48:12. > :48:16.the right sort of flexibility to make sure on some piece of land
:48:17. > :48:23.developers can sell overseas. The point I'm making is you describe it
:48:24. > :48:28.as a bar this week again, but this can only happen voluntarily. How can
:48:29. > :48:36.you force all London boroughs? You always cite Hackney or Camden, but
:48:37. > :48:41.you cannot force all London boroughs to market all of their properties to
:48:42. > :48:45.Londoners first. The current Mayor of London has a plan that basically
:48:46. > :48:50.allows developers to do whatever they want. Local authorities don't
:48:51. > :48:54.think the mayor is behind them. You have a situation in recently Camden
:48:55. > :49:00.and Islington where the Council negotiated with the developer.. I
:49:01. > :49:04.am asking, are you going to put in the London plan then that you will
:49:05. > :49:10.insist all London's councils do this? We want half the homes to be
:49:11. > :49:15.genuinely affordable, I will set out what I mean by that, and on public
:49:16. > :49:20.land we will be quite clear, we want to build... I don't need to rehearse
:49:21. > :49:26.because lots of housing experts think that will drive away
:49:27. > :49:31.development, nothing will happen. On private land we want first dibs to
:49:32. > :49:34.Londoners. Homes for Londoners will be local authorities, housing
:49:35. > :49:37.associations and developers to make sure we can collate the land but
:49:38. > :49:45.also make sure we have the right sorts of homes built in London. Very
:49:46. > :49:49.important on policing, holding them to account, do you think you will
:49:50. > :49:56.show more concern about police tactics than the current mayor? The
:49:57. > :50:00.important thing is to keep London safe. I'm concerned that over the
:50:01. > :50:06.last six years we have lost ?60 million from the Met Police budget,
:50:07. > :50:11.we have lost 1500 uniformed officers from our streets, and 70% of our
:50:12. > :50:15.community support officers. I'm keen to make sure we return to
:50:16. > :50:18.neighbourhood policing. It is important the public have confidence
:50:19. > :50:25.in the police service, they can provide intelligence and be
:50:26. > :50:29.witnesses. This is where your record or past as a civil rights lawyer,
:50:30. > :50:43.you have hard actions against police in the past, this is where it
:50:44. > :50:48.becomes relevant. On something like kettling and, if the police keep
:50:49. > :50:52.using that process, what would you say? It could be anything, it could
:50:53. > :50:56.be stopped and searched, the use of body cameras, it is important the
:50:57. > :51:02.police know they have a mayor on their side. This week I was talking
:51:03. > :51:07.to our armed response teams, they are our heroes keeping Londoners
:51:08. > :51:10.safe. I was in favour of another 600 joining the armed response teams but
:51:11. > :51:15.they know they have to make split second decisions and when they do
:51:16. > :51:19.they will have the mayor on their side. We heard the Prime Minister
:51:20. > :51:30.talking this week about Sulaiman Ghani, who we should point out that
:51:31. > :51:35.he said he has never supported IS, but nevertheless the point of David
:51:36. > :51:38.Cameron, the thrust of the Conservative attack, have you looked
:51:39. > :51:41.at this and wondered and are you prepared to say you should have been
:51:42. > :51:46.more careful, more challenging with any of these people in the past He
:51:47. > :51:56.was a preacher at a local mosque. I've spent my whole life around
:51:57. > :52:01.extremes. I have had extremists outside a mosque saying I shouldn't
:52:02. > :52:07.be Member of Parliament, and any Muslim who voted for me was going to
:52:08. > :52:13.hell. I voted for same-sex marriage, I have been against inequality and
:52:14. > :52:27.injustice all my life. There was a fatwa put out against me... The
:52:28. > :52:31.point about Sulaiman Ghani is that you have met him nine times and
:52:32. > :52:37.people will wonder whether you have challenged at all times his views on
:52:38. > :52:42.women or same-sex marriage. It is no secret he doesn't like me, he
:52:43. > :52:48.campaigned against me in the 20 9 election. He was invited to an
:52:49. > :52:54.event... I want to have a positive campaign... You agree it is right
:52:55. > :52:59.you should be scrutinised on this? And I have answered all questions
:53:00. > :53:03.put to me. So you are not unhappy this has been raised? I am the only
:53:04. > :53:10.candidate who has faced death threats... You do agree you have
:53:11. > :53:14.given the impression in the past... I am the only British Muslim that
:53:15. > :53:20.wants to defeat extremism. I want to use my experience as somebody that
:53:21. > :53:25.Islamic faith to make sure we keep London safe. I have a plan I want to
:53:26. > :53:29.talk about. I am disappointed that all the Conservatives want to talk
:53:30. > :53:34.about the stuff that is divisive and negative. I want to talk about
:53:35. > :53:42.housing and public transport, how we support the police, and businesses.
:53:43. > :53:45.When there is a terrorist threat against Western capitals it is
:53:46. > :53:50.important, and it is right for people to wonder where you have been
:53:51. > :53:59.all your life on this. Absolutely. My campaign has the support of many
:54:00. > :54:05.religions, rich, poor, gay, lesbian, white, black, I want to be a mayor
:54:06. > :54:13.for all Londoners. Jeremy Corbyn, is there a number of seats he needs to
:54:14. > :54:19.win? My focus laser light is on London, I'm working my socks off to
:54:20. > :54:22.make sure London returns a mayor who will be a mayor for all Londoners.
:54:23. > :54:24.Thank you. You can see a full list
:54:25. > :54:28.of all the candidates standing in the Mayoral election
:54:29. > :54:30.on the screen now. And further information is available
:54:31. > :54:32.on the BBC London website. Now, the Home Secretary has
:54:33. > :54:37.made her first major intervention She was on Andrew Marr this morning,
:54:38. > :54:41.speaking up for Remain. She was asked how immigration
:54:42. > :54:43.could be controlled if we stay Nobody who has heard
:54:44. > :54:48.me over the last few years can doubt that
:54:49. > :54:50.I think we need to
:54:51. > :54:53.control immigration. Controlling it is hard, and it's
:54:54. > :54:58.hard whether we are inside the It's hard dealing
:54:59. > :55:04.with EU migration or Harder to deal if we
:55:05. > :55:07.are still inside. Immigration is going
:55:08. > :55:08.to carry on rising very sharply
:55:09. > :55:12.if we stay inside the EU, isn't it? The thing about immigration is,
:55:13. > :55:14.it is as a government, say,
:55:15. > :55:22.we are going to change this one rule and suddenly the result is going to
:55:23. > :55:24.be what we want. You have constantly to be working
:55:25. > :55:37.at it, which is exactly what The Home Secretary having trouble
:55:38. > :55:41.getting a clear-cut answer. The Leave campaign thinks immigration
:55:42. > :55:46.has its strongest card, why isn t it making more of it? I think it is a
:55:47. > :55:49.while since the strong card within a certain group of the electorate it
:55:50. > :55:53.also backfires with another one and that has gone to the heart of a lot
:55:54. > :55:59.of disagreement that has been all the way through the last few months
:56:00. > :56:03.between the rival Brexit camps. One side of those camps thinks they
:56:04. > :56:15.should go very hard on immigration, they think it is a banker for them,
:56:16. > :56:18.the other groups are actually this deters as many people from our case
:56:19. > :56:20.as it attracts so there is a real tension there. That may be the
:56:21. > :56:22.issue. My understanding is that polling shows immigration really
:56:23. > :56:27.resonates with those who have already made up their mind to leave
:56:28. > :56:33.but for those who are still not sure, it doesn't get them to come on
:56:34. > :56:41.board. Yes, the levers of Vote Leave -- leaders have been clear since the
:56:42. > :56:46.moment they set up shop that they should talk about immigration, that
:56:47. > :56:50.if they defined their campaign on immigration they would lose, simple
:56:51. > :56:54.as that because you are simply talking to up to 30% of the
:56:55. > :57:01.electorate who have already made up their minds. And Matthew Elliott has
:57:02. > :57:05.been clear all along their campaign has got to be defined on the
:57:06. > :57:10.economy, on security, and they have got to show their option is the
:57:11. > :57:15.safest option and that staying inside the EU is the risky one. They
:57:16. > :57:19.have headlines today saying the Home Secretary has admitted we cannot
:57:20. > :57:23.have full control of our borders but watch them, they will be moving back
:57:24. > :57:27.to Obama and the economy because that is the area from which they
:57:28. > :57:35.only have a chance of winning. The consensus view seems to be that it
:57:36. > :57:42.was a bad week for Leave. What will they do now? I think they need to
:57:43. > :57:45.make some impact with something spectacular, different. You feel
:57:46. > :57:52.they have run out of momentum. They had a terrific dart, with huge names
:57:53. > :57:59.like Michael Gove and Boris Johnson, and that then seemed to be it. Every
:58:00. > :58:03.week the Remain campaign have treated this like a Lynton Crosby
:58:04. > :58:08.style general election campaign They are totally owning the agenda,
:58:09. > :58:15.which begs the question why put out Theresa May today? Why would you
:58:16. > :58:22.want to slip that in? Maybe because they think the Obama coverage will
:58:23. > :58:27.cover that up. I think Leave Haft to concentrate on immigration now. Do
:58:28. > :58:33.you think that puts people off as well? It may well but it is their
:58:34. > :58:36.strongest suit and they do have a huge amount of support on what they
:58:37. > :58:40.are saying about immigration across the country. If you have one big
:58:41. > :58:46.weapon, you have got to keep firing it. Were you surprised that Dominic
:58:47. > :58:53.Rabb didn't just rule out the idea of visas? I was actually, I'm not
:58:54. > :58:57.sure how that will go down among the Leave campaigners. I think it will
:58:58. > :59:02.be picked up that the Remain campaign will run with that, but to
:59:03. > :59:07.follow on from what Tom was saying about what Leave should do this
:59:08. > :59:11.week, I think they have got to nail this ongoing claim that the alt
:59:12. > :59:18.campaigners cannot explain what out looks like. It is very lazy
:59:19. > :59:21.criticism but quite an effective one that they cannot come up with some
:59:22. > :59:26.kind of model and it is difficult for them to prove a negative. But
:59:27. > :59:29.they need to start some kind of language which ridicules the
:59:30. > :59:37.suggestion that they cannot come up with a comparable... This is Norway
:59:38. > :59:41.or whatever. I think you need more Michael Gove and less Boris Johnson.
:59:42. > :59:44.Michael Gove made a significant speech in the week in which he said
:59:45. > :59:50.the optimistic case is to leave the European Union because he was saying
:59:51. > :59:53.Britain could have a great future outside the European Union and the
:59:54. > :59:58.Remain people are pessimistic because they are saying we have got
:59:59. > :00:08.to be part of this club. What do you get from Boris Johnson? Raising
:00:09. > :00:14.questions about whether he was being racist against the President of the
:00:15. > :00:19.United States. Voters don't like that. What voters like is optimism
:00:20. > :00:24.and substance, and that is what Michael Gove is doing. Also their
:00:25. > :00:29.big problem, absolutely part of their strategy is not to spell out
:00:30. > :00:35.what Leave looks like in any detail because they don't want to make the
:00:36. > :00:40.same mistake that Alex Salmond did, they want to give no detail at all.
:00:41. > :00:47.Then nobody can never come back about it. Michael Howard said it
:00:48. > :00:52.won't be the Norway deal, it won't be the Swiss deal, it will be the
:00:53. > :00:56.British Steel, the fifth largest economy in the world. It takes the
:00:57. > :01:00.president of the US to put trade deals into the headlines, you don't
:01:01. > :01:07.often get that, and he said if we weren't part of an EU deal, we would
:01:08. > :01:11.go to the back of the queue. Tom, you think he has already stepped
:01:12. > :01:17.back a bit from that quite blunt statement? It was interesting, the
:01:18. > :01:24.Hugh Edwards interview, which was very saccharine stuff. It got some
:01:25. > :01:30.good news headlines. I would like to see you up against him. If we have a
:01:31. > :01:37.special relationship, why do we go to the back of the queue? And Obama
:01:38. > :01:41.pointedly didn't be that. I think it was a misstep. I was sitting in the
:01:42. > :01:45.Foreign Office behind Number Ten officials on Friday when trade
:01:46. > :01:49.started coming up and you could see them shuffling. When he said the
:01:50. > :01:53.back of the queue comment, they turned around and said that is your
:01:54. > :01:59.intro, which made me think they didn't know that was coming either.
:02:00. > :02:06.I wonder if it isn't a paper tiger. The fact is there is no deal between
:02:07. > :02:10.the EU and the USA. They started talks in 2013, they are meeting in
:02:11. > :02:14.New York tomorrow for the 13th round, speaking to contacts in
:02:15. > :02:19.Washington they say there is no prospect of any ratification of the
:02:20. > :02:25.deal by this Congress. We will be lucky to get it signed before Obama
:02:26. > :02:28.steps down in January 2017, and there are now protests growing
:02:29. > :02:38.everywhere. We have pictures of demonstrations in Germany yesterday,
:02:39. > :02:45.there is a head of steam building up against it and it may not even
:02:46. > :02:49.happen. The hope of the Brexit campaigners will be that this Barack
:02:50. > :02:54.Obama comment backfires. Even if there were a queue, are we to really
:02:55. > :02:58.believe America is so short of tremendous negotiators that there is
:02:59. > :03:04.a limited number of personal available to actually make further
:03:05. > :03:10.deals? I think it is an extremely thin argument. Additionally we know
:03:11. > :03:13.that America sells us something like $56 billion worth of goods, are we
:03:14. > :03:18.really to believe they will somehow throw with that to the wind?
:03:19. > :03:27.Even without free trade, we are the big as in -- the biggest investors
:03:28. > :03:32.in America. There are 1 million Brits employed by American companies
:03:33. > :03:35.here. The US election campaign has become increasingly isolationist or
:03:36. > :03:40.stop not just Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, or even Ted Cruz, but
:03:41. > :03:47.now Hillary Clinton has come out against the Pacific trade deal,
:03:48. > :03:52.which is ahead of the queue -- is ahead of the European one. The
:03:53. > :03:58.problem with Clinton is that it was on her husband's watch that NAFTA
:03:59. > :04:02.was signed, the North American Free Trade Agreement. The argument is
:04:03. > :04:05.that all those jobs in Detroit went south to Mexico, and the Clinton
:04:06. > :04:10.brand has been badly damaged by that. She has always had to walk
:04:11. > :04:13.away from that. I don't believe that Hillary Clinton as president would
:04:14. > :04:21.be isolationist. The thing about Arak Obama is that this queue may
:04:22. > :04:26.not exist, but the United States likes to deal with regional blocs,
:04:27. > :04:32.not individual countries. One of the big challenges for Brexit is that
:04:33. > :04:37.the EU minus us is 440 million people. How important are we? There
:04:38. > :04:44.is no doubt that Obama's impact here will be big, because the Leave
:04:45. > :04:48.campaign say, when we leave the EU, we will replace any lost trade with
:04:49. > :04:52.greater trade deals with other countries that the EU stopped us
:04:53. > :04:56.from signing, such as America pulls up or bar masses, no you want.
:04:57. > :05:08.Hillary Clinton says, you certainly won't. -- President Obama says. As I
:05:09. > :05:11.look at it, it is on both the Democratic left and the Republic
:05:12. > :05:15.right, that it may become more difficult not to Britain but for
:05:16. > :05:19.anyone to do trade deals with America. America does what is in its
:05:20. > :05:26.interest. The most significant thing about Arak Obama 's remarks was
:05:27. > :05:33.homelike king Ince bestial qualities our relationship is. Didn't he make
:05:34. > :05:39.a joke about us having to sell an electric chair to the United States?
:05:40. > :05:45.The great height of our special relationship was all about pounds,
:05:46. > :05:48.shillings and pence. Someone who follows -- as someone who follows
:05:49. > :05:49.trade talks, I am grateful to the president for bringing it to the
:05:50. > :06:02.front of the agenda. The junior doctors' strike is due
:06:03. > :06:07.this week. It is only in England, but the Labour Party has come up
:06:08. > :06:13.with a suggested compromise, let's pilot the plan. There we go, Labour
:06:14. > :06:18.steps in to halt doctors' strike. People might think, that is not a
:06:19. > :06:23.bad idea, let's see if it works I would be surprised if Jeremy Hunt
:06:24. > :06:27.went for that. He would say, here is the deal, you must accept it. The
:06:28. > :06:31.BMA and the Labour Party don't really want this to go ahead. The
:06:32. > :06:35.second they start withdrawing doctors and people start dying
:06:36. > :06:42.because of it, they are in trouble in terms of public support. It is
:06:43. > :06:47.worth asking why they did not pilot it first. Jeremy Corbyn is in a
:06:48. > :06:52.corner on this, for all the right reasons. He agrees that a seven day
:06:53. > :06:56.service is needed. I think the junior doctors have done themselves
:06:57. > :07:01.no favours by being as dogmatic as they have been. Mr Hunt hasn't done
:07:02. > :07:05.himself any favours, either. He believes that what he is doing is in
:07:06. > :07:11.the interest of patients. I expect him to hold the line. Syriza May was
:07:12. > :07:20.saying, it is being piloted with 20,000 -- to Reza may.... The Home
:07:21. > :07:27.Secretary is saying it is being piloted with 20,000 doctors. I am
:07:28. > :07:32.not sure that Jeremy Hunt would want an independent forensic examination.
:07:33. > :07:37.Do you agree that if the strike goes ahead it starts to go the
:07:38. > :07:41.Government's way? Absolutely. Jeremy Hunt knows that he just needs to sit
:07:42. > :07:49.pretty and not worry too much about these last-minute offers. Tomorrow
:07:50. > :07:54.will be a fascinating day. We will find out before the strike begins
:07:55. > :08:00.which side will blink. If we are looking at a complete withdrawal of
:08:01. > :08:03.labour from doctors,, it is something that has never happened
:08:04. > :08:09.before in this country and it could be disastrous in terms of deaths.
:08:10. > :08:14.The blame will fall squarely on the shoulders of the doctors. We shall
:08:15. > :08:23.see. We have marked this week as another bad week for Remain. We
:08:24. > :08:24.should market every week and -- we should mark it every week and see
:08:25. > :08:27.what happens. We'll be back at the usual time
:08:28. > :08:31.of 11am next Sunday, and the Daily Politics
:08:32. > :08:35.is on at lunchtime all next week Remember - if it's Sunday,
:08:36. > :08:38.it's the Sunday Politics.