24/04/2016 Sunday Politics London

President Obama leaves the UK, claiming it could take up to 10

years to do a free trade deal with the UK if we leave the EU

but is America's trade deal with the EU any closer to happening?

Immigration's running at more than three times

the Government's target - but is the Home Secretary right that

Britain can only stay in the single market if it agrees to the continued

Jeremy Corbyn faces his first big electoral test as Labour Leader

in next month's local elections - will the party increase the number

as the mayoral finishing line draws closer, Labour's candidate,

Sadiq Khan, is here with us to outline why he should

And with me for the duration, three journalists whom no-one puts

at the back of the queue - or even the line.

Nick Watt, Isabel Oakeshott and Tom Newton Dunn -

they'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

So, Air Force One left Stanstead Airport a few hours ago

and the President is now in Hanover, Germany.

But the reverberations of Mr Obama's intervention in the EU referendum

On Friday, the President told a press conference

the EU, it would be at the back of the queue when it comes to doing

a free trade deal with the US - comments he was asked about in a BBC

The UK would not be able to negotiate something with the United

We wouldn't abandon our efforts to negotiate a trade deal with our

largest trading partner, the European market, but rather

it could be five years from now ten years

from now, before we were able to actually get something done.

And I'm joined now by the Justice Minister and Leave

Welcome to the programme. Mr Obama, 5-10 years for a free-trade deal

with the UK under the EU. He's right, isn't he? What was most

interesting this morning was how far he has backtracked since Friday

evening. As you said, we were told we would be sent to the back of the

queue if we didn't take his advice and stay in the EU. Now, he has said

that if Britain was independent from the EU, we could not expect to do a

free-trade deal quicker than with the EU. No one is really expecting

that, so I think the reality is that these things can take time. It has

taken almost 40 years even to get to this stage with a stalled EU- US

deal. I think we would be better placed, and we are not prejudiced by

being outside the EU in doing that. The president has made it clear that

American power will do regional deals. That is why he has put so

much energy into a specific deal with the 11 countries. He wants to

do and EU deal involving all the EU members. The only started in 20 3,

they haven't been at it for 40 years. We have been talking about it

for 40 years. That is a different matter. The negotiations started in

2013. We would be a long way behind these two megadeal. When he said we

were at the back of the queue, I was a bit startled, so I went and

checked. The US has no other bilateral negotiations for a freight

train with any other country than the EU. When you look at the 23

trade deals it has, none of them are worth an economy bigger than

Britain. Let's remember that if America signed a trade deal with us,

it would be the equivalent of the North American trade deal because...

I think we have strong mutual interest in doing it. America had a

number of bilateral free trade talks going on with about 15 different

countries. It essentially froze them because it wants to do regional

deals - why would it reopen at Mr Ross? In the last 25 years, it has

done a string of bilateral and regional negotiations, given the

collapse of WTO talks, the Pacific deal was done. The EU one is stuck

in the mud. If Britain came out of the EU, saying, we are not shackled

by the special interests of film-makers who don't want American

box sets polluting French culture, we want insist on the labelling

requirements unfettered cheese that the Greeks do. And we won't have a

dispute about the settlement mechanism that the Europeans are

concerned about and people are concerned about in this country It

is important to understand why the Americans insist on that, because

they don't trust the court systems in many European countries will stop

American firms trust British courts to resolve commercial this beautiful

stop all of these problems will be swept away, and I think we would be

well placed. If we're done with the EU and we not a member, the EU will

have free trade with United States and we don't know when we will have

it. It could give a huge advantage to the French, Germans, Italians and

Spanish. We know that the White House briefs out... The White House

regularly briefed it. If you look at White House commentary, let me just

put this to you - if America was my priority is the EU deal, the best

way of ramping up its negotiations leveraged would be to come to a

relatively quick deal with Britain. That would put the pressure on. In

trade negotiations, America had a history of doing that. Do you accept

that whatever our relationship with the EU, if we read, we can have no

full access to the single market unless we agree to free movement of

people? It depends what you mean by full access to the single market. I

think we would not see any trade barriers go up because we are the

fifth biggest economy in the world, but it means we can have proper

control of our borders and we will not be bound by the stifling

regulation that gives us a competitive disadvantage. It is

important for small businesses here. You still don't know if we would

have access to the single market. You can't tell as that. Everyone who

does who is not a member of the EU has had to agree to free movement.

It is a strawman to say, I can't tell you what the deal looks like

until we have had the referendum. I can tell you this: Look at the

options being put at their - Swiss, Norwegian, Turkish. I think because

Britain's economy is bigger than all of those combined, and because

French farmers and German car manufacturers sell as ?60 billion

more each year than we sell them, we are very well placed and mutual

self-interest suggests we would cut a good deal.

How would we have more control over borders if we left? We would have

control over who could come to work here, I understand that, if we want

in the EU any more, provided we weren't part of the single market,

but how would we be able to stop people coming here? Do you think if

we leave the EU that, if you're French or German or Italian, you

would need a Visa? There are two issues: The numbers, and I think

that as the Home Secretary conceded, we cannot control the numbers

because of free movement if we are in the EU, and that makes life

harder. The second question is, checks at the border, preventative

ones. Under UK law with non-EU countries, we can stop someone

coming in because it is not conducive to the public good. With

the EU, we can only deny entry if there is a serious, credible and

present threat. Which we do. As a result, since 2010, 6000 people have

been turned back from the EU. If you compare that with people from out

with the EU, we have registered to 60 7000. That shows the stronger

checks. I understand, but my question is, outside the EU, we

would not insist on visas for the Germans, French and so on? We would

have to look at that as part of the negotiations. At the moment, the

Obama Administration is looking at new Visa requirement and screening

from Germany, Belgium, Greece, France because of the recent

terrorist attacks. I think we should at least have the power and control

to do that to keep Britain safe Then we would need a Visa to go to

France and Germany. A final question: Why do you not want the

leader of the National front in France, Marine Le Pen, to come here?

She's one of your biggest supporters. Her views are racist and

I don't share her values. I think our party is deeply offensive. But

she is on your site. All the more reason why I wouldn't like to see

her come. So we do have control over our borders of the Home Secretary

can stop coming? People from outside the EU, rappers like snoop doggy

dog, have been barred entry because they have a offensive views. If the

Home Secretary checks with officials, we probably cannot be

nigh Marine Le Pen entry. It is another demonstration of the things

we can't do because we don't have the proper controls of our borders.

Thank you. Jeremy Corbyn will get his first big

electoral test in just under two weeks' time, when voters go

to the polls in local Opposition parties usually do

well in these contests, even when they've just

lost a general election. But with analysts predicting

that the party could actually lose councillors, party

strategists are There's a simple principle

in British politics - if you want to win elections, you need to win

seats of every shape and size. When in government, parties tend

to lose council seats. In opposition,

they tend to win them. Even Michael Foot, who went

on to lead Labour to its biggest general election defeat

ever, did pretty well to start with. In his first electoral test,

in 1981, the party took When Neil Kinnock became leader

he also managed a more And then Ed Miliband,

he picked up 857 seats. Since local government was invented

in its modern form in 1974,

there have been only two years 1982 and 1985 - when the opposition

party has actually lost seats in a local

election if it is not So far, so historically positive for

Jeremy Corbyn. The problem is, experts in the field

reckon Labour could lose 150 seats in these English

council elections. Even the party machine has been

managing expectations. You simply can't

explain away any kind of net loss of seats

in these elections. After all, a new leader

in the middle of his honeymoon period following on from

a disastrous mega-galactic shambles of a budget failure shouldn't expect

to see anything other than dramatic gains in the local

elections that follow. Anything else,

historically speaking, is It's an argument put forward by some

of his MPs. I'm not going to put

a specific number on it, but 300-400 seats would be a good

step in the We have to be ambitious,

because we are the Labour Party, and we are a

party of government. We exist in order to be

in Government and make a difference Southampton, that is where

Ed Miliband has been... The last time this batch of council

seats were contested, Labour under Southampton was one of a number

of areas where Labour failed to capitalise in the general election,

losing a Parliamentary If Jeremy Corbyn wants to be

Prime Minister in 2020, he will be expected to make inroads now in many

of the English council areas, and I think that all

leaders are judged by We've got from now until

the 5th of May to deliver positive and encouraging

results for Labour. It's always hard to compare

historic elections. There are always different

political contexts, varying numbers of seats up grabs,

but rightly or wrongly, several Labour MPs I've spoken

to will do just that, conscious that Jeremy Corbyn

could make history for the And we're joined now

from Salford by the Shadow Education Secretary,

Lucy Powell. Welcome to the programme, Lucy

Powell. Your Labour MP Carly, Stephen Kinnock, says you should be

gaining an extra 300-400 council seat in England - does that seem

right? I won't get into the predictions game. Like Stephen, like

Jeremy and the rest of the Shadow Cabinet, I am optimistic about these

elections. We are a political party and always looking to make gains and

progress at every electoral test. These elections are no different. I

won't get into the predictions business. Hold on. What about the

principle that new opposition leaders always do pretty well in

their first electoral test? I was looking at the record - Ed Miliband,

Tony Blair, Neil Kinnock, even Michael Foot, they all made gains.

We must expect Jeremy Corbyn to do the same, surely?

I have been hoping we will make progress. Do you think you will make

gains? We are looking at winning in London for the first time since

2004, we are looking to make progress in the local elections we

are looking to stay in power in Wales. Obviously in Scotland things

are difficult there and they are long-term legacy issues for the

Labour Party to deal with in Scotland but you do have to set it

into context. It has been an incredibly tough year for the Labour

Party, we suffered a crushing election defeat. That was not even a

year ago, which we weren't expecting and everybody else wasn't expecting

either. We had a long, drawn-out leadership contest. We have a new

leader in Jeremy Corbyn and it takes time for everybody to adjust to

that. But I think we have had a very positive few weeks where we have

been on the front foot, we have been effective opposition, with issues

like the Budget... We haven't got too much time. Let me put it in

context. The Tories have divided and they are in disarray, last month

brought yet another omnishambles Budget. Why would you not be poised

for big gains? I am very hopeful we will get big gains. London will be a

big gain, we haven't won since 004. What I'm interested in is how we on

the right track for winning in 020, and that is a really tough job. I

don't think anyone underestimates the challenge we face as a political

party. Let me see if I can pin you down. Maybe one of the reasons it is

not an easy job is that you may not be in tune with the public mood

This chart shows they regularly rate immigration one of their number one

concern is, ahead of the NHS and the economy, this is recent poll. Most

are not against immigration but they think the influx is too high. How

does that square with Jeremy Corbyn's view that we have not let

too many in? All of these issues we have got to think deeply about and

there is an urgency to that. Immigration, welfare, the economy,

these were all issues at the last election but that was only a few

months ago. If we knew the answer is, if we knew how we would make

labour relevant again, the Labour values I care about, how we will

make them relevant in the modern world, if I had those answers we

wouldn't be sitting here now because we would be in Government. Do you

agree with Jeremy Corbyn... We have got to spend time, doing the

difficult job of understanding how the Labour Party can be relevant in

the modern world, and that includes issues... If you let me come back to

immigration and get a specific answer out of you. Do you agree with

Jeremy Corbyn that in recent years we have not let too many in? I don't

want to get into a numbers game about immigration. I know from all

the work I do on the doorstep, immigration is a massive issue and

people have real concerns about the impact that immigration has on some

of our communities. As the Labour Party, we have to address those

That's why I thought we were right at the last election to have a

policy around the emergency rate for example on benefits for EU migrants,

a policy the Government have adopted, but I don't think simple

retail policy offers are what Labour's challenge is right now Our

challenge is over the next few years what is our relevant values that we

can offer to the public that will help us win the election. Let me

come onto education. You asked if you planned to bring academies under

local authority control and you said no, by 2020 almost every secondary

school will be a free School or an Academy, do you stand by that? Only

17% of primary schools are academies. You said nearly every

secondary, do you stand by that I don't know about primary schools,

let's see what happens over the next few weeks because the Government's

attempt to force all schools against their wishes to become an Academy is

on the rocks. They put the brakes on some schools feeling they have no

option but to become academies, which is what many schools felt over

the last few years. And I understand the policy of making every school

and Academy is difficult, I take your point, but you said every

secondary school and most primaries will be free schools or an Academy.

It is not that different from where the Government wants to end up, is

it? You are taking my comments out of context. I was talking about

Labour's policy at the next election in that circumstance, and my point

is that we have got to look anew at what is the accountability framework

for all schools? How do we make sure there are sufficient places in our

schools, that we have raising standards in our schools, we have

sufficient school improvement support for our schools, and we have

proper accountability of some of these Academy chains of which we are

seeing many more problems arising with their accountability. That is

what I will be looking at. In the short term, I will be fighting tooth

and nail the Government's plans to force good and outstanding schools

against their wishes to become academies. Jeremy Corbyn has

described academise a share -- described... Jeremy said lots of

things about the forced programme. Is it asset stripping or not? In

some cases it can be. The key question is does it meet the test of

school improvement? There is mixed evidence of whether it leads to

school improvement, as the education select committee have found. The

second question is does it give schools freedom and autonomy? How

can that be the case if you are forcing a school against its wish to

be an Academy. That is not real autonomy. And the first test is

around accountability and there are some very real issues there. Some

might call that asset stripping If our state system is being asset

stripped as your leader claims, that would be really serious so is he

right or wrong? There have been examples of financial mismanagement

in some Academy chains, we have seen those recently where directors have

been paying themselves double money by setting up arms length

organisations that they are also paying themselves from so there are

issues of financial probity which is why both Jeremy and I have been

arguing that there needs to be a much more robust financial

accountability structure. He seems to be against academies altogether.

We have got exactly the same view about this, Jeremy and I have worked

closely on these issues and that is that there are some excellent

Academy schools, there are also some excellent community schools. This

tired argument of pitting one school type against another is frankly

over. What we have got to be addressing is ensuring we have good

quality teachers and head teachers in all of our schools, something the

Government is failing to do. We ve got to make sure schools have

adequate resources, and they are facing real terms cuts to their

budgets, and make sure we have enough places for all of our

children. There is a crisis in school places and teacher shortages.

Very interesting ground which you have gone over before. I want to

show you an advert gone up for a new media spokesperson for Jeremy

Corbyn. There is a fixed term contract for Jeremy Corbyn, leader

of the Labour Party, running from December 2016 or when he ceases to

be leader, whichever is sooner. Which do you think will be sooner? I

haven't seen the advert but Jeremy has only been a leader for a few

months. OK, you're not going to tell me which would be sooner? We are

supporting him in his job and I m not going to comment on that. Very

well. Thank you very much. The party views on Europe

and immigration are well-known, but voters may not know

what Nigel Farage's Purple Army thinks about issues

like recycling and council tax. Ukip, which had never held more

than a handful of local election seats before,

achieved its first major breakthrough in 2013,

when they gained 139 seats. The following year they increased

their total by another 161 seats, performing particularly well

in parts of Essex. While in 2015, on the same day

as the general election, In that set of elections,

Ukip won control of Thanet Council in Kent, the first time the party

took control of a local council But within six months they had

lost overall control, after five councillors left Ukip,

saying they were unhappy with the council's lack of action

on a manifesto pledge to reopen So, 2016 is the last year

in the four-yearly cycle Will they be able to

maintain the momentum? We're joined now by the party's

deputy chairman, Diane James. Welcome to the programme. You have

got your referendum running strongly in the news, immigration is a huge

issue as well. What would be a good result for Ukip in these local

elections? Certainly to retain the 20 seat we will be defending this

time, but also building on that We are fielding 1400 candidates out of

the 2700 that will be available across the country. We are also

fielding candidates in the big Assembly elections - Stormont,

Holyrood... And the police crime Commissioner. Are you looking to

gain? Of course, we wouldn't be doing anything otherwise. Populist

and anti-EU parties are gaining ground right across Europe so if you

don't gain ground there must be serious doubts in this climate about

your long-term future. We are looking to gain ground and increase

the number of councillors we have got as well as membership of all of

the assemblies I have referred to. The momentum is behind the populist

parties, but certainly behind the Eurosceptic parties because what

they do say and they share in terms of issues is the negative impact of

EU membership is having on particularly for instance just

trying to plan in terms of infrastructure and other aspects.

And yet when you get a foothold in local government it doesn't go very

well. You controlled Thanet, within six months you had lost overall

control. You are still just a protest party. We are not just a

protest party. The issue you are referring to is Manston airport

very difficult in terms of the overall plans for that from not only

just the local authority but also the county council level so we don't

actually have control of Kent County Council. I'm sure if we had we could

have had a lot more import there. Equally there is this issue of a

local problem and individuals coming into government, no matter which

party they represent, understanding how slowly sometimes decisions can

be reached. Look at Boston Borough Council, you did well there in 015.

Then one Ukip councillor was suspended, the party split down the

middle because you couldn't agree on a leader, six councils carried on

under the Ukip banner, six others under the Ukip Group, it is a

shambles. You always pick up on the bad news to do with Ukip but you

never pick up on the bad news to do with other parties. This morning you

reeled off a series of good examples, but you have you raised

any of the councillors from Labour across the country who have had to

be suspended for serious reasons. Some decided to walk away from the

Ukip banner for whatever reasons, but in terms of the individuals who

have been suspended or had to stand down, that is the different ball

game and I would like you to be fair in tackling that.

My job is to put the tough questions each party. Why would people vote

for a party that might not even have a reason to exist after the

referendum? We will have a reason to exist because no one else will hold

David Cameron to account and make sure it happens. That is my view. In

terms of our counsellors, bear in mind we are the only party out there

that does not flip councillors. Probably just as well! It sounds

like you cannot be whipped. I am not into dominatrix stuff. I'm talking

about politics! It is something our cabinet ministers are accused of the

moment. There is real disquiet amongst the electorate that they

want to vote for somebody, and then they see the systems that are in

place, cabinet rather than committee, backbenchers who find

themselves in a situation where they can't contribute to decisions. And

we are talking about incursions into the green belt, housing targets and

academies. This is the sort of issue that I Ukip councillor who is not

whipped will be able to represent their community. Even if we leave

the EU, Ukip continues? Yes, it does. We will talk to the

Conservatives and Liberal Democrats about the local elections in England

next week. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland, who leave us now Coming up here in 20 minutes, I ll

be joined by our political panel. First though, the Sunday

Politics where you are. a sustained bombardment

from the Conservatives. They claim this is about his

judgment being dodgy over No, say others, it's just

desperate smear tactics against the front runner

because he's Muslim. What all this may have

done for many voters - and who knows, this may

have been the intention -

is to drown out the arguments on the central issues

and challenges facing the capital. And if so, in the time remaining,

can Labour's candidate convince London's electorate

with his policies? I'll talk to him in a moment. After

this. If the polls are to be believed

this man is on course to be the Mayor of London in less

than a fortnight's time. In case you haven't heard,

this is his pitch to Londoners. London is the greatest city

in the world that gave me the chance to go from a council estate

to running a successful business, to being a minister attending

a Cabinet, and now running to be But too many Londoners

now are being priced This week, Sadiq Khan

was at Scotland Yard meeting The Met Police are a key part

of the Mayor's responsibilities and he says he wants investment

on neighbourhood policing and a greater commitment to tackling

violence against women and girls. On transport he says he wants

to introduce a one-hour bus ticket and a freeze

on public transport fares. In this election there's one or two

phrases that Sadiq Khan likes So, he likes to say he was the son

of a bus driver who grew He likes to say that London

is the greatest city on Earth, But also, he likes to say

he would be the most business-friendly mayor that London

has ever seen. His manifesto promises to involve

business in decision-making in key areas, all very laudable

but what happens when businesses have tough questions about his

promises to the electorate? For example, London First are one

of the capital's best-known business lobbying groups and think it's fare

freeze cannot be painless. I think it would be hard to think

that any of these things can be done without taking any pain,

without anyone noticing. I think there is scope

for efficiency at Transport for London but it will require

some difficult choices. Part of that will be

about headcount, you know, inevitably there are likely

to be fewer people. You know, that won't

be straightforward. Part of it will be about

modernising ways of working There are suggestions, too,

that there might be tension between two of Sadiq Khan's key

housing promises, to double house-building to 50,000 homes

a year while at the same time introducing a target

so that over 50% of those His Conservative rival,

Zac Goldsmith, wants to build exactly the same number of homes

but says Sadiq Khan's 50% affordable target means it will be harder

for developers to make a profit The truth is, if you come up

with targets which are realistic, which at times Sadiq Khan has

come close to admitting, We need 50,000 homes a year,

we know that, there's a consensus on that,

and I will deliver those homes by working with Government,

by getting the Government to release brownfield land, which

the Government, which we own, and by growing the transport network

to unlock that land. During the week, the Conservatives

also had this van on the street Their message, that council tax

would rise under a Labour mayor But while the Zac Goldsmith campaign

do have questions about Sadiq Khan's policy platform, it's questions

of another nature that are grabbing Sulaiman Ghani, the honourable

member for Tooting, has appeared Anyone can make a mistake

about who they appear We're not always responsible

for what our political opponents say, but if you do it time

after time after time, it is right to question

your judgment. But if much of the battle to run

London isn't being fought on policy grounds, could that be

because on policy there isn't that Watched from afar, and particularly

in the matter of policy, you would have to say the mayoral

election of 2016 is definitely one where the two major candidates,

indeed most of the major candidates, have got policies which are so close

to each other that the electorate would find it very hard to find any

ideological gap between them. Both Sadiq Khan and Zac Goldsmith

agree that London needs 50,000 homes a year,

that Crossrail 2 needs to be built, They both want to keep

the congestion charge basically the same,

and the similarities continue. Perhaps inevitably then

the discussion becomes about who would be more effective

at achieving all of this Welcome to you.

Let's begin with comments from Lord sugar, Alan Sugar. Sadiq Khan has

wrecked the Labour Party. Now he is turning his sights to London. What

do you make of that? I am the most prisoners -- pro-business Mayor that

London has ever had. I am making sure my manifesto reflects the

challenges that Londoners face. I am also looking at aspiration. For

example, I have a business advisory board advising me, made up of

business experts. I want to set up skills for Londoners, working with

today's employers to train youngsters for the jobs of tomorrow.

I want to be the most pro-business Mayor that London has ever had. It

will lead to more London is getting a living wage, quality

apprenticeshipss jobs, growth and prosperity. What do you think of

Alan Sugar's comments? It is for him to say what he things. I have

brought more than 100 successful business leaders across London to

support my campaign. I have managed to speak to chief executives who

understand the importance of us remaining in the European Union

With respect to the other candidates, the most realistic Mayor

is either Zac Goldsmith or me. He wants to leave the EU. I think more

than 500,000 jobs depended on this. European companies have their

headquarters in London. You need to show that you are a pro-business

mayor and show that you understand the importance of the EU. Alan Sugar

's... Some -- you have just been a partner in a legal aid firm, it is

said. People say that being a partner in a

law firm hardly qualifies as calling yourself a business person. I

employed 50 people, pay taxes, ensured that people had a roof over

their head and gave them skills I understand sleepless nights over the

overdraft being expanded. It is important to recognise that we may

be the greatest in the world, but there are too many Londoners missing

out on the joys of London. Londoners are not sure about one aspect of

your business credentials, and they wonder about your policy on public

transport fares. If the policy of freezing them on London transport

shows not to be bringing in enough money, will you review a? No. We

have the most expensive public transport fares in the whole of

Europe. They have increased by more than 50% in the last eight years

will stop my point is, transport for London is good, but its annual

budget is more than ?12 billion more than most Government

departments. TEFL needs to reduce inefficiency, cut waste, and think

about other ways of raising revenue. We had some freedom of information

questions. Agency staff spending has doubled. Last year, they spent. .

There was more than ?61 million lost in transport fare evasion. We lost

?100 million in a contract with Lombardi. We need to make transport

for London fit for purpose. Your figures estimate that this would

cost ?450 million and it is said that you are underestimating what it

would really cast. My predictions are, and it is confirmed by experts,

the cost of this breed is ?452 million. He hasn't done that. It is

not right to say that. It is not right is a that he has said it will

cost ?450 million. You are wrong there. You and I disagree. No, he

does agrees. He doesn't. Where has he said that he agrees with that? He

has confirmed that it will have no impact on future investment in

transport for London. That is slightly different, but the figure,

because you know that you decided on that figure because you assume that

inflation would be 1% of the next four years, but he says that TEFL

estimate it differently. No, he has accepted how my calculations are

made. The Mayor has increased the fares in the last four years by 1%.

The formulae used to be RPI plus one. Fares have increased by more

than 17%. I am unwilling to make Londoners pay that. The point is,

you are freezing them in cash terms. You will not put them up in

inflation. The commissioner will say, my other costs will go up in

line with inflation, so obviously I need to get income and it comes from

there is. I wonder whether it is an inflexible business approach from

you which could put business investment risk. The Commissioner

has confirmed that the freeze will have no impact on investment. As

long as you can find those savings. -- as long as he can find those

savings. If he can't, it is an underestimate. We can make

efficiencies and we can increase revenue streams. Some more examples

- if you think about the land that transport for London owns, it is

equivalent to 16 times Hyde Park. Let's use that. We will come onto

that housing. When you say it is 16 times Hyde Park, that is the amount

of land that they have. How much could you develop on that? 10% is

available. So, 1.6 Hyde Parks. I have also spoken to council leaders.

We could have access to lots of council land. That is why homes for

Londoners is so important. We will talk about housing, because it is so

important. The key issue about transport, if you don't accept an

accounting error that you made an underestimation, but if you are

saying you are going to keep fares frozen and limiting your income can

you also give us a guarantee that the pay rises for Tube workers and

bus workers will be capped at inflation as well for four years? I

can't negotiate a pay deal with drivers on the Sunday Politics.

Could you say that that is what you would want to see? That they

shouldn't have higher pay rises than inflation? Would you be able to

answer that because it is important? I can say that I think it is wrong

that there are more than 450 staff who are more than ?100,000. I think

it is wrong that the fees spent on consultants is ?1.3 million. I think

it is wrong that we spend ?61 million on fairy vision. When

Schubert drivers come to you -- on their eve Asian. When Tube drivers

come to you, what are you going to do about costs? Can you give us a

guarantee or tell us you don't want to see their pay rises going up

above inflation? I will be speaking to those who

represent workers in transport for London. The mayor should be speaking

with those people to engage with them. But you can see that there

might be a problem for an organisation like London First? I

agree with London First that Transport for London is floppy. They

have two engineering departments, one doing underground and one doing

service, why not merge the two? Let's turn to housing. If you're 50%

demand that new homes, 50% of them should be affordable, if that

dissuade developers from coming forward and developing, if it slows

down building, will you look at that again? I am bringing together

developers and something called Homes for Londoners. The issue isn't

the number of properties built in London, the issue is making sure

there are genuinely affordable homes to buy and rent in London. At the

moment before homes are completed they are sold to investors in the

Middle East and Asia. I want to make sure the right sorts of homes are

being built in London, I'm not obsessed by 50,000... You say half

of all homes, land owned by developers... If it starts to show

very early on because the house builders Federation and some are

beginning to say it sounds a bit prescriptive, if it starts to show

early on will you say I shouldn t have had a 50% target, I will go a

bit lower? Over the last 50 years we have had the least number of homes

being built since peacetime. We need homes which can be part rented. . We

have been priced out of our city because of a housing crisis. It

isn't working. You said this week when it comes to getting permission

on homes on private land the expectation is for most of them

should be first dibs for Londoners. How can you tell developers across

London they will not be able to market homes and get money from

foreign investors to make these developments happen? What happens

with developers is once they have got the land they will apply to a

local authority for permission to build homes on land. Some local

authorities at the moment saved to the developer we are happy to give

you permission for X number of units. We want some of those to be

affordable, but we want you to market those properties first in it

could be Hackney or London before you go overseas. Developers want to

market overseas because of health 's with their cash flow. I understand

that, that's why the homes for Londoners we will set up will have

the right sort of flexibility to make sure on some piece of land

developers can sell overseas. The point I'm making is you describe it

as a bar this week again, but this can only happen voluntarily. How can

you force all London boroughs? You always cite Hackney or Camden, but

you cannot force all London boroughs to market all of their properties to

Londoners first. The current Mayor of London has a plan that basically

allows developers to do whatever they want. Local authorities don't

think the mayor is behind them. You have a situation in recently Camden

and Islington where the Council negotiated with the developer.. I

am asking, are you going to put in the London plan then that you will

insist all London's councils do this? We want half the homes to be

genuinely affordable, I will set out what I mean by that, and on public

land we will be quite clear, we want to build... I don't need to rehearse

because lots of housing experts think that will drive away

development, nothing will happen. On private land we want first dibs to

Londoners. Homes for Londoners will be local authorities, housing

associations and developers to make sure we can collate the land but

also make sure we have the right sorts of homes built in London. Very

important on policing, holding them to account, do you think you will

show more concern about police tactics than the current mayor? The

important thing is to keep London safe. I'm concerned that over the

last six years we have lost ?60 million from the Met Police budget,

we have lost 1500 uniformed officers from our streets, and 70% of our

community support officers. I'm keen to make sure we return to

neighbourhood policing. It is important the public have confidence

in the police service, they can provide intelligence and be

witnesses. This is where your record or past as a civil rights lawyer,

you have hard actions against police in the past, this is where it

becomes relevant. On something like kettling and, if the police keep

using that process, what would you say? It could be anything, it could

be stopped and searched, the use of body cameras, it is important the

police know they have a mayor on their side. This week I was talking

to our armed response teams, they are our heroes keeping Londoners

safe. I was in favour of another 600 joining the armed response teams but

they know they have to make split second decisions and when they do

they will have the mayor on their side. We heard the Prime Minister

talking this week about Sulaiman Ghani, who we should point out that

he said he has never supported IS, but nevertheless the point of David

Cameron, the thrust of the Conservative attack, have you looked

at this and wondered and are you prepared to say you should have been

more careful, more challenging with any of these people in the past He

was a preacher at a local mosque. I've spent my whole life around

extremes. I have had extremists outside a mosque saying I shouldn't

be Member of Parliament, and any Muslim who voted for me was going to

hell. I voted for same-sex marriage, I have been against inequality and

injustice all my life. There was a fatwa put out against me... The

point about Sulaiman Ghani is that you have met him nine times and

people will wonder whether you have challenged at all times his views on

women or same-sex marriage. It is no secret he doesn't like me, he

campaigned against me in the 20 9 election. He was invited to an

event... I want to have a positive campaign... You agree it is right

you should be scrutinised on this? And I have answered all questions

put to me. So you are not unhappy this has been raised? I am the only

candidate who has faced death threats... You do agree you have

given the impression in the past... I am the only British Muslim that

wants to defeat extremism. I want to use my experience as somebody that

Islamic faith to make sure we keep London safe. I have a plan I want to

talk about. I am disappointed that all the Conservatives want to talk

about the stuff that is divisive and negative. I want to talk about

housing and public transport, how we support the police, and businesses.

When there is a terrorist threat against Western capitals it is

important, and it is right for people to wonder where you have been

all your life on this. Absolutely. My campaign has the support of many

religions, rich, poor, gay, lesbian, white, black, I want to be a mayor

for all Londoners. Jeremy Corbyn, is there a number of seats he needs to

win? My focus laser light is on London, I'm working my socks off to

make sure London returns a mayor who will be a mayor for all Londoners.

Thank you. You can see a full list

of all the candidates standing in the Mayoral election

on the screen now. And further information is available

on the BBC London website. Now, the Home Secretary has

made her first major intervention She was on Andrew Marr this morning,

speaking up for Remain. She was asked how immigration

could be controlled if we stay Nobody who has heard

me over the last few years can doubt that

I think we need to

control immigration. Controlling it is hard, and it's

hard whether we are inside the It's hard dealing

with EU migration or Harder to deal if we

are still inside. Immigration is going

to carry on rising very sharply

if we stay inside the EU, isn't it? The thing about immigration is,

it is as a government, say,

we are going to change this one rule and suddenly the result is going to

be what we want. You have constantly to be working

at it, which is exactly what The Home Secretary having trouble

getting a clear-cut answer. The Leave campaign thinks immigration

has its strongest card, why isn t it making more of it? I think it is a

while since the strong card within a certain group of the electorate it

also backfires with another one and that has gone to the heart of a lot

of disagreement that has been all the way through the last few months

between the rival Brexit camps. One side of those camps thinks they

should go very hard on immigration, they think it is a banker for them,

the other groups are actually this deters as many people from our case

as it attracts so there is a real tension there. That may be the

issue. My understanding is that polling shows immigration really

resonates with those who have already made up their mind to leave

but for those who are still not sure, it doesn't get them to come on

board. Yes, the levers of Vote Leave -- leaders have been clear since the

moment they set up shop that they should talk about immigration, that

if they defined their campaign on immigration they would lose, simple

as that because you are simply talking to up to 30% of the

electorate who have already made up their minds. And Matthew Elliott has

been clear all along their campaign has got to be defined on the

economy, on security, and they have got to show their option is the

safest option and that staying inside the EU is the risky one. They

have headlines today saying the Home Secretary has admitted we cannot

have full control of our borders but watch them, they will be moving back

to Obama and the economy because that is the area from which they

only have a chance of winning. The consensus view seems to be that it

was a bad week for Leave. What will they do now? I think they need to

make some impact with something spectacular, different. You feel

they have run out of momentum. They had a terrific dart, with huge names

like Michael Gove and Boris Johnson, and that then seemed to be it. Every

week the Remain campaign have treated this like a Lynton Crosby

style general election campaign They are totally owning the agenda,

which begs the question why put out Theresa May today? Why would you

want to slip that in? Maybe because they think the Obama coverage will

cover that up. I think Leave Haft to concentrate on immigration now. Do

you think that puts people off as well? It may well but it is their

strongest suit and they do have a huge amount of support on what they

are saying about immigration across the country. If you have one big

weapon, you have got to keep firing it. Were you surprised that Dominic

Rabb didn't just rule out the idea of visas? I was actually, I'm not

sure how that will go down among the Leave campaigners. I think it will

be picked up that the Remain campaign will run with that, but to

follow on from what Tom was saying about what Leave should do this

week, I think they have got to nail this ongoing claim that the alt

campaigners cannot explain what out looks like. It is very lazy

criticism but quite an effective one that they cannot come up with some

kind of model and it is difficult for them to prove a negative. But

they need to start some kind of language which ridicules the

suggestion that they cannot come up with a comparable... This is Norway

or whatever. I think you need more Michael Gove and less Boris Johnson.

Michael Gove made a significant speech in the week in which he said

the optimistic case is to leave the European Union because he was saying

Britain could have a great future outside the European Union and the

Remain people are pessimistic because they are saying we have got

to be part of this club. What do you get from Boris Johnson? Raising

questions about whether he was being racist against the President of the

United States. Voters don't like that. What voters like is optimism

and substance, and that is what Michael Gove is doing. Also their

big problem, absolutely part of their strategy is not to spell out

what Leave looks like in any detail because they don't want to make the

same mistake that Alex Salmond did, they want to give no detail at all.

Then nobody can never come back about it. Michael Howard said it

won't be the Norway deal, it won't be the Swiss deal, it will be the

British Steel, the fifth largest economy in the world. It takes the

president of the US to put trade deals into the headlines, you don't

often get that, and he said if we weren't part of an EU deal, we would

go to the back of the queue. Tom, you think he has already stepped

back a bit from that quite blunt statement? It was interesting, the

Hugh Edwards interview, which was very saccharine stuff. It got some

good news headlines. I would like to see you up against him. If we have a

special relationship, why do we go to the back of the queue? And Obama

pointedly didn't be that. I think it was a misstep. I was sitting in the

Foreign Office behind Number Ten officials on Friday when trade

started coming up and you could see them shuffling. When he said the

back of the queue comment, they turned around and said that is your

intro, which made me think they didn't know that was coming either.

I wonder if it isn't a paper tiger. The fact is there is no deal between

the EU and the USA. They started talks in 2013, they are meeting in

New York tomorrow for the 13th round, speaking to contacts in

Washington they say there is no prospect of any ratification of the

deal by this Congress. We will be lucky to get it signed before Obama

steps down in January 2017, and there are now protests growing

everywhere. We have pictures of demonstrations in Germany yesterday,

there is a head of steam building up against it and it may not even

happen. The hope of the Brexit campaigners will be that this Barack

Obama comment backfires. Even if there were a queue, are we to really

believe America is so short of tremendous negotiators that there is

a limited number of personal available to actually make further

deals? I think it is an extremely thin argument. Additionally we know

that America sells us something like $56 billion worth of goods, are we

really to believe they will somehow throw with that to the wind?

Even without free trade, we are the big as in -- the biggest investors

in America. There are 1 million Brits employed by American companies

here. The US election campaign has become increasingly isolationist or

stop not just Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, or even Ted Cruz, but

now Hillary Clinton has come out against the Pacific trade deal,

which is ahead of the queue -- is ahead of the European one. The

problem with Clinton is that it was on her husband's watch that NAFTA

was signed, the North American Free Trade Agreement. The argument is

that all those jobs in Detroit went south to Mexico, and the Clinton

brand has been badly damaged by that. She has always had to walk

away from that. I don't believe that Hillary Clinton as president would

be isolationist. The thing about Arak Obama is that this queue may

not exist, but the United States likes to deal with regional blocs,

not individual countries. One of the big challenges for Brexit is that

the EU minus us is 440 million people. How important are we? There

is no doubt that Obama's impact here will be big, because the Leave

campaign say, when we leave the EU, we will replace any lost trade with

greater trade deals with other countries that the EU stopped us

from signing, such as America pulls up or bar masses, no you want.

Hillary Clinton says, you certainly won't. -- President Obama says. As I

look at it, it is on both the Democratic left and the Republic

right, that it may become more difficult not to Britain but for

anyone to do trade deals with America. America does what is in its

interest. The most significant thing about Arak Obama 's remarks was

homelike king Ince bestial qualities our relationship is. Didn't he make

a joke about us having to sell an electric chair to the United States?

The great height of our special relationship was all about pounds,

shillings and pence. Someone who follows -- as someone who follows

trade talks, I am grateful to the president for bringing it to the

front of the agenda. The junior doctors' strike is due

this week. It is only in England, but the Labour Party has come up

with a suggested compromise, let's pilot the plan. There we go, Labour

steps in to halt doctors' strike. People might think, that is not a

bad idea, let's see if it works I would be surprised if Jeremy Hunt

went for that. He would say, here is the deal, you must accept it. The

BMA and the Labour Party don't really want this to go ahead. The

second they start withdrawing doctors and people start dying

because of it, they are in trouble in terms of public support. It is

worth asking why they did not pilot it first. Jeremy Corbyn is in a

corner on this, for all the right reasons. He agrees that a seven day

service is needed. I think the junior doctors have done themselves

no favours by being as dogmatic as they have been. Mr Hunt hasn't done

himself any favours, either. He believes that what he is doing is in

the interest of patients. I expect him to hold the line. Syriza May was

saying, it is being piloted with 20,000 -- to Reza may.... The Home

Secretary is saying it is being piloted with 20,000 doctors. I am

not sure that Jeremy Hunt would want an independent forensic examination.

Do you agree that if the strike goes ahead it starts to go the

Government's way? Absolutely. Jeremy Hunt knows that he just needs to sit

pretty and not worry too much about these last-minute offers. Tomorrow

will be a fascinating day. We will find out before the strike begins

which side will blink. If we are looking at a complete withdrawal of

labour from doctors,, it is something that has never happened

before in this country and it could be disastrous in terms of deaths.

The blame will fall squarely on the shoulders of the doctors. We shall

see. We have marked this week as another bad week for Remain. We

should market every week and -- we should mark it every week and see

what happens. We'll be back at the usual time

of 11am next Sunday, and the Daily Politics

is on at lunchtime all next week Remember - if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics.