09/10/2016 Sunday Politics London

Theresa May was cheered by the Tory faithful

as she charted her vision for Brexit.

We'll be talking about the plan - or what we know of it -

with Lib Dem leader Tim Farron and former Tory Cabinet

The olive branch might have withered but Jeremy Corbyn has

stamped his authority on the Labour Party

with a Shadow Cabinet reshuffle that's rewarded allies

And one Ukip MEP is still in hospital following an altercation

Just what exactly happened in a week which has seen

In London, after the Brexit decision, negotiations for more

But what can the mayor and London's councils expect to get?

And we'll be talking about the tape that's derailing Donald Trump's bid

We've also reshuffled our own top team here in the studio,

and we've ended up with three journalists who show all the unity

the humour of a Conservative Party conference speech,

and the anger management of a meeting of Ukip MEPS.

that means they'll probably be fighting in a few minutes.

Yes, it's Helen Lewis, Tim Shipman and Isabel Oakeshott.

So, where else would we start but with Brexit?

And the Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has been talking

He coined a new term - full Brexit - and he was asked

if Britain was going to be leaving the EU's single market.

This is Brexit. This is full Brexit if you like. We are going to be

outside the European Union but we still, because it is over 40% of our

trade, we still want to maximise our trade with it. A final question in

the papers today. You see soft Brexiteers briefing against hard

Brexiteers and vice versa. This is terribly damaging for the Cabinet

presumably. We are all Brexiteers now. We have to make a success of

it. So, a lot of briefing against Mr Hammond after his speech to the Tory

conference. Then Mr Hammond's people briefing

against people like Liam Fox David Davis, Boris Johnson. Today, one

phrase was they were talking nonsense and garbage. When did we

get the first Brexit resignation? A good question. We have full Brexit,

open and close Brexit, hard and soft Brexit. The Prime Minister does not

want to provide a running commentary so ministers are trying to tell us

nothing but in interesting ways I do not think anyone will resign but

what is interesting as you get a situation where everyone is a

Brexiteer now but there were very different views about how this is

going to go forward. The Prime Minister herself, she did two things

last week. She gave a speech for a domestic audience and a foreign

audience. She is trying to embody the hopes and dreams of a group of

people who feel they have been left out, the people who have been left

behind on the domestic front and also voted for Brexit. By embodying

those people fighting for their causes she is having to take a hard

line on immigration. There may be no one about to resign now but we are

only 100 days into this many government and the briefing on both

sides of the so-called hard Brexit versus the so-called soft Brexit was

the Treasury. It seems to embody the soft Brexit approach. The briefing

is fierce. It is going to lead to trouble, to blood. This is a

peak-time will stop we have just come away from the Tory Party

conference where every journalist worth their salt is working the

party circuit, going to dinners It is an easy agenda to get every

cabinet minister you lunch or dine with to give you their version of

what Brexit said -- should mean There is a melting pot here which is

bubbling away. Things may become more disciplined in the week ahead.

I do not think it is sustainable for Theresa May to say she will not give

a running commentary. It is a red rag to every journalist and all her

own Cabinet. You cannot keep that going for the next few months. She

will have to give a clearer guide as to whether it is hard, soft, in or

out, whatever it is. Theresa May is going to have to deploy the smack or

firm government. She has been smacking away already. All three

Brexit is happening to be airing personal opinions. The fact they are

ministers in charge of this is totally irrelevant. There is

political and economic things at work. What no one will say is that

you can have hard Brexit but it will probably almost certainly have

economic consequences. How do you go as a politician of the country and

say we hear you want to control Iraq -- immigration but that means the

country will be poorer? People will always be straddling it in a really

uncomfortable way. OK. We'll be talking more about this as the

programme goes on, you will not be surprised to hear.

This week, Theresa May closed her party's conference

with a speech designed to grab the centre ground

She positioned the Conservatives as champion of the working classes

and pledged to help those left behind by globalisation.

We'll wait to see what any of that that means in practice.

But it was what she had to say about Britain's exit

from the EU that had the biggest immediate impact,

not least on the value of the pound, as the world began to get a clearer

We now know when the process of leaving the EU will begin.

Theresa May has set a deadline of the end of next March

for triggering Article 50, which formally begins the Brexit

That allows only two years to do a deal, so we should be out

of the EU by the end of March 2019 by the latest.

The Government will also introduce a so-called Great Repeal

Bill next year, which will end our membership of the EU.

Theresa May talked of Britain being a fully

The Prime Minister also said she will prioritise

controlling immigration by ending the free movement

Because being subject to the European Court of Justice

and free movement are key requirements of membership

of the EU single market, this strongly suggests the Prime

Minister does not see Britain remaining a member.

But there were some mixed messages about life after Brexit.

The ability of EU citizens to stay in the UK remains a grey area.

Brexit secretary David Davis said they would be 100% able to stay

while Theresa May struck a more cautious tone.

And Home Secretary Amber Rudd's plan to shame firms that

take on foreign, rather than British, staff, faced a backlash

from business and political opponents.

There was also a range of mood music about life as we head for the door.

Chancellor Philip Hammond was at one end, warning the country

to brace for a roller-coaster ride ahead.

But Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson attacked what he called

gloomadon poppers and said Britain would be more active on the world

Well, I'm joined now by the Liberal Democrat Leader Tim Farron.

And the former Conservative Cabinet minister, Iain Duncan Smith.

Let me come straight to the point, first of all with you, Iain Duncan

Smith. Is it now clear that whatever relationship we will have with the

single market, we will not be a member of the single market when

Brexit is complete? I think when you add all these things together, it

becomes, I believe, is pretty clear that what the Prime Minister said,

what has been said by a number of Cabinet ministers, if the centre of

our negotiations is that we intend to control our borders and the flow

of migrants from the European Union, which has caused, in some cases a

great deal of damage to workers and their incomes at the bottom level,

the skilled level, that means there is no way that the European Union

will be able to allow us to be a member of the single market. That is

not the same as access. Tim Farron, do you accept that is the way we are

going? Whatever access arrangements we have, and we will have some

arrangements. Even North Korea has access to the single market. But we

won't be a member. That looks to be the way the Government is taking us.

It is a massive mistake. I think Ian is wrong to say there has been a

massive decision in favour of us leaving the single market and if

that is what he is implying. It is given that a small majority voted to

leave the EU but no one voted to leave the common or single market.

It seems to me to be flying in the face of all the economic indicators

of whatever the British people want, or is best for British jobs. It

seems, for the Conservative Party, to be a reinterpretation of the

result for a hard Brexit that nobody voted for. That is strong point We

do not have too much time this morning, so I'm going to try to keep

this moving quickly. How do respond to that, Iain Duncan Smith? It is

utter rubbish. The British people made it clear decision. They were

asked a simple question. Do you want to stay in or leave the European

Union? Were they asked whether they wanted to leave the single market?

You need to have a look at the rules around this. The single market as

part of the European Union, whether you like it or not. Do you think we

should be in the single market? Do you agree with the overwhelming

majority? No, no. I am sorry. The massive benefits which exist are

asked to be able to trade with the European Union and have access.

America has access. They sell more to the European Union than we do.

Hold on. There is no point talking over each other because you are too

far-away. Let me come to Tim Farron. If you want to be in the single

market, you have to accept free movement. You have to accept the

jurisdiction of the European port. In effect, that is membership of the

EU. Isn't that what we voted against? -- the European Court. Tim

Farron I am talking to. The reality is, and I accept the result of the

referendum. It is the direction of the United Kingdom being towards the

European Union as we stand. The deal we get at the end, as Lord Kurt the

writer of Article 50, agreed with me overnight because destination is not

the same. You cannot start this process with democracy and end up

with a stitch up, which is what the British people will get. Many people

around the country voted to leave the European Union but there will

not agree, I am certain, with having imposed upon them complete exit from

any relationship with the nearest market and friends and neighbours,

which will cost tens and hundreds of thousands of jobs. Let me get you to

respond to that, Iain Duncan Smith. When article 50 was drafted, he did

not mean it to help any country leave, he deliberately designed it

so it would make it so difficult to leave it would almost be nigh on

impossible. The second thing about the point that Tim makes, which is

complete nonsense, is the added that we will lose tens of thousands of

jobs. What we are looking for is a free trade relationship with the

European Union. That is the key point. We are not leaving Europe, we

are leaving the European Union. This is the problem. There is not a

problem in that for common-sense and decent people. Hold on, Tim Farron.

Sterling has slumped at the prospect of hard Brexit as it has dawned on

the markets that the Government is heading for a so-called hard Brexit.

Doesn't that give you pause for thought? Doesn't it make you think

it might not be the right course? If you go to the airport at the moment,

you would be lucky to get 1 euro for ?1. Doesn't that make you think Not

really. What you know about the free-flowing currency is it will

fall and rise in accordance with what people speculate about and the

prospects for the future. The point to look at is what the underlying

story is for UK business. It used to be that the BBC generally spent its

whole time telling us how terrible things work if you look at the FTSE

250 or the FTSE 100. In the same period we have seen the FTSE 25 ,

the small and medium companies, at record levels high. Much higher than

before we decided to leave the European Union. Here is the other

point. There is hugely a story about a strong dollar. The pound rose

against the yen was the dollar rose against the euro, the yen, and the

pout. Here is the deal. The pound is doing our supporters a of good. --

the pound. There is no point heckling. That is my job. The point

is that the pound having fallen means British business is doing very

well. And that is a very good thing. Other than the slump in Stirling,

what has gone wrong for the UK economy since the 23rd of June?

First of all, I am not saying everything is completely calamitous.

I take the views of all of the business leaders, people who wrote

to the Financial Times yesterday, people who are former members of the

Prime Minister's business advisory council, who say that whatever your

view on leaving the European Union, departure from the single market

would be calamitous. Really worrying indicator, this 31 year low drop in

the pound, and we have not even left yet. That is what worries me. And

what worries me more than anything else is that you've got the British

business community, who now feel that the Conservative Party are

listening to the English nationalist forces that have taken over the Tory

party, rather than to good common-sense business practice. When

Roger, who, the Ukip MEP, tells you that you have gone too far here

then you probably have gone too far. Iain Duncan Smith, let me bring you

back in. We haven't got time for speeches this morning, from either

of you. Iain Duncan Smith - don t we need to give just a bit on free

movement, to secure open access If we want really good access to the

single market, we will have to give something on free movement?

Actually, I wrote about a week ago in a paper which set out how you

have control of your migration policy which is flexible enough to

allow people to come into jobs inside the UK or outside the UK And

that is the kind of flexibility which leaves the British Government

controlling the idea about how you access work through work permits.

That means for higher skilled people, it will be a very light

touch regime, but for the low skilled, which is where the most

damage has been done, you have tight regime. You say, listen to British

businesses - these are the self appointed losers of British

business. That meet you something - these are the same people who told

us before that Brexit... They told us, just like you did, Tim, that we

would crash and burn afterwards there would be a calamitous fall,

the British economy would be destroyed. Some of us had a more

lofty view. I wish everybody would get calm because what we want is

Britain to do well. It is not my party... I have got one more

question for you, Tim Farron - why have you now lost a second here in

the House of Lords, Baroness Manzoor, who says you are not

recognising the will of the people in the referendum by calling for a

second referendum? She has joined the Tories, so that's Brive - how

many more to go? Well, we are 2 ,000 up, Andrew. It is a peculiar

decision which I totally respect. You only need to look at what's

happened since June, with the Liberal Democrats gaining 20,00

members. Thousands of them from the Conservatives, hundreds since their

conference last week. You look at the by-election gains, the Liberal

Democrats winning 18 in the last few months, and half of them... You are

not set to lose her? I am always sad to lose people, but I am joined

overjoyed to have gained 20,000 Come and joiners in the studio next

time, where we can get a proper grip on this debate!

With Parliament returning tomorrow, Jeremy Corbyn has been

reshuffling his Shadow Cabinet, following his thumping win in this

And unlike previous reshuffles, it's been a pretty decisive affair,

which has seen him give big jobs to his supporters.

Mr Corbyn has moved ally Dianne Abbott to Shadow

Home Secretary, keeping Emily Thornberry at Shadow

Foreign Secretary and moving Clive Lewis to Business.

He's been replaced on the Defence brief by Nia Griffith,

There's also a job for new Labour peer Shami Chakrabarti,

who recently carried out a report into anti-semitism in the party

And chief whip Rosie Winterton is out.

She's replaced by the veteran whip Nick Brown.

You may remember him from the Gordon Brown years.

Mr Corbyn has also brought back a number

of Shadow Cabinet members, who resigned in protest

They include Jon Ashworth, as Shadow Health Secretary.

Although he's also been removed from the National Executive

Committee, Labour's ruling body where power has been finely balanced

Well, to discuss this, we're joined by the Labour MP, John Mann.

John Mann, who is a Corbynite critic. Mr Corbyn says this is the

most diverse shadow cabinet ever, the best team to take Labour forward

- what do you say? Well, it's his choice of team. And I think we

should get on with the job now. Think he has won, whether people

like it or not. And the last and we want I think is a year of

internalised, inward looking navel-gazing. Like the last year?

Like the last year. And I have said, I was not in favour of the timing of

this challenge, but we actually have to get to grips with the referendum

result and the fact that quite a lot of Labour voters voted to leave

unlike the general view in the Labour Party. There's lots of issues

we should be looking at, but we should not be looking inwards. Is

there much of an olive branch from Mr Corbyn to the Parliamentary

Labour Party in this? I would not call it an olive branch. But if I

was him, I would have done pretty much what he has done. He's won the

election. If I was leader, I might choose different people. That

probably goes for everyone of the 200-plus members of the

Parliamentary party. But I think there is a bit of a... The idea you

can negotiate a shadow cabinet or cabinet, I mean, it's important that

he has all viewpoints represented somewhere, otherwise we'll be much

weaker. And so we wait to see whether every view is going to get

proper Leanne Wood. That's vital. But he's got to make the choices. --

every view is going to get properly aired.. Quite a lot of London

representation - how does that help people like you in the north and the

Midlands? It's following the trends of Tony Blair, was always keen on

having lots of people who worked in London, and Ed Miliband even more

so. So it is not a new trait. He's chosen the people, but what's

crucial is, with ceremony people from the metropolitan area, that

they spend a lot of time out in areas like mean, not talking to the

members, not doing photocalls, they can do that if they want, but going

and talking to voters. If they do that, I've got no objection. If they

don't, then that will mean that there is not sufficient knowledge of

what the wider electorate is thinking. Those shadow cabinet

members, every week, should be out there knocking on real doors, in

areas that perhaps they are not too familiar with. Keir Starmer, your

new shadow Brexit secretary, he has said that there should be a vote on

article 50, that when the Government moves it, Parliament should vote.

What do you think of that? Well let's see what... We are quite a way

away from seeing what Google is going to do. I think what is vital

in terms of Brexit is actually to get into the detail, because there's

a lot of slogans, the full Brexit, the soft Brexit, the hard Brexit...

Actually, the issue is, what access do we get to markets, what access do

we give to our markets? And is there any form of restriction on the free

movement of labour? They are the three big issues. We need detail.

And it's the negotiation not in the British Parliament but with the

Germans and the French in particular that is vital. And of course that

hasn't begun. Mr Corbyn told us at the Labour Party conference that he

was not really that interested in controlling immigration. Keir

Starmer said this morning on the BBC that immigration has become down -

you must encouraged by that? What a coalition! Keir Starmer as the

person responsible I hope we'll be talking to those of us who supported

the Leave campaign in the Vale, and more fundamentally, getting out of

those areas where the vast majority of Labour voters voted to leave If

he's going to do his job properly, that is critical. I'm confident that

he will do that. Do you know yet what the party policy is on

immigration? I'm sure that will emerge over the time. I do not know

what the Conservative Party's ease, either. We do not know what the

response of the Germans and the French will be. They have got

elections next year. This is rather a movable feast in those countries.

Therefore, we should be in 20 new negotiations, as Labour. It's

crucial that our leadership talks and listens to Labour voters and to

those who have voted Labour in the past.

Jeremy Corbyn's re-shuffle has upset the Chair

He represents the party's backbench MPs.

In an e-mail, John Cryer said Mr Corbyn "did not

engage" in a promised plan to reunite the party by allowing MPs

Mr Cryer said he had been in talks with the leadership

with the aim of "striking an agreement which would allow

some places to be filled through elections, while the leader

But on Wednesday it became clear "a reshuffle was under way,

which had not been discussed or mentioned".

Well, we're joined now by Barry Gardiner.

He's kept his job as Shadow International Trade Secretary.

What happened to the idea of electing at least part of the Shadow

Cabinet? Well, I was part of the discussions in the Shadow Cabinet,

with Rosie Winterton, who was the chief whip. And she made it very

clear that what would need to happen is, there would need to be a vote

first of all at the NEC to change the party rules. So I don't think

anybody was under any illusion that we could have direct elections now

to the Shadow Cabinet without that change in the party rules. Is the

idea dead for the foreseeable future? Doormen, is the honest

answer. That is for Jeremy to decide. But I think what would be

clearly wrong is, if we now going to almost rerunning what was the

election contest. And it would be foolish to saddle a leader with a

group of people in the Shadow Cabinet that were out of sympathy.

And indeed, that was why the Parliamentary Labour Party, when Ed

Miliband asked us to give him the right to appoint the Shadow Cabinet,

rather than the previous system which had been elected... What do

you make of the chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party, Mr

Cryer, complaining that Mr Corbyn did not engage with him in this

reshuffle? Look, I don't know what discussions took place. John is a

very good friend. He's a very good representative of the PLP, as its

chair. But he's one of the best connected people in the party, and

the idea that anything took face without his knowledge I find it

difficult to believe. He says, Niall Quinn OMP backing him up was a

charades in the negotiations? That is a separate question. And I don't

think that's true at all. Because the Shadow Cabinet said to the

previous NEC meeting delegation to actually initiate those

negotiations. But I think John Mann, who sat here just a few moments ago,

got it absolutely right - the Labour Party now must not look inwards for

the next year, it must begin to look outwards. It must be challenging the

government on what it is doing in our education system and saying it

is wrong to segregate our children. They must be challenging the

government on housing and homelessness. I am delighted that

John has come back into the Shadow Cabinet, nobody better to take

forward our fight for housing in this country. If you want to appeal

across the country, are there not too many London metropolitan types

at the top? The four great Shadow offices of state all seemed to come

from within walking distance of each other. It's a kind of shadow cabinet

of all BMW one talents? Well, you could ever welcomed the fact that

two of those great offices of state, for the first time ever, are held by

women. -- NW1 talents. Broomstick is, it is very London centric. It is

not because you have got five MPs from the north-east in the Shadow

Cabinet, four from Greater Manchester, all of whom are women.

You've got five from Yorkshire. In terms of the population of the

country as a whole, it's very representative of whether Labour

votes are. John Ashworth accepted the Shadow bridge but is no longer

on the National Executive Committee. Does Mr Corbyn now have a majority

on the NEC, the ruling body of the Labour Party? The majority would

always be on issue by issue. I don't think anybody goes to the NEC

determined to wage wall or battle. I assure that people go there to

listen to arguments and decide what is in the best interest of the party

and the country and take Ossetians accordingly. Why was it important

that Mr Ashworth stepped down? I don't know whether it was important.

John has been a superb member of the Shadow Cabinet. He has always

represented very clearly the views of party members, and I think he

will do a fantastic job at health. We will leave it there.

I still have energy and can. When we last spoke, I put it to you that we

were massive importers of energy including gas. I came here primed

for that. Next time I will bring the power with meat!

The party with the third highest vote share at the general election

has, just since Tuesday, lost a leader, seen

the return of Nigel Farage - even if only temporarily -

and seen the favourite to take over end up in hospital

after an altercation in the European Parliament.

Our Ellie's been watching the soap opera unfold.

So, we've all heard the rumours about the internal

Well, this week, they played out in front of our very eyes on the TV

screens in the most dramatic of ways.

It was only just over three weeks ago.

18 days later, she realised that wasn't going to happen.

In her resignation statement, she said she didn't have

sufficient authority, nor the full support, of her MEP

colleagues and party officers to continue.

There was also this clue in the official form she filled

in for the Electoral Commission where she signed her name

In the meantime, Nigel Farage seemed pretty chipper, explaining

I keep getting over the wall and running for the hills.

Before I am finally free, they drag me back.

It doesn't have one because she's resigned.

The Ukip constitution is quite clear.

In these circumstances, the National Executive Committee has

the right to appoint an interim leader, which I presume it will do

at its meeting on the 17th of October.

I'm told the NEC might have met earlier but someone

is on is on a cruise, so it wouldn't be quorate.

It was starting to feel a bit like a soap opera.

It's almost like being a part of Dynasty.

By close of play, this man, who probably would have been leader

last time if he hadn't been barred from standing had thrown

But then things went really off script, when he, Steven Woolfe,

after a meeting with colleagues that went...

There are mixed accounts of what happened.

It's two grown men getting involved in an altercation.

We're talking about a dispute that finished up physically.

I understand there was an argument between some MEPs and Steven,

I think, picked a fight with one of them, and came off worst.

It later transpired that the MEPs had been arguing about reports that

Mr Woolfe had considered defecting to the Tories.

That had ended in a scuffle with this man.

It was, as people in Hull would say, handbags at dawn.

He even tweeted a picture of his hands to prove it.

But Mr Woolfe's team questioned that version of events and said his

Either way, the two men have been in touch and say

they want to meet - handbags and all -

But that might not be the end of the story.

So, part of Ukip's charm has always been to say and do

things the other party would never even dream of.

But this week has been different and a number of senior Ukip sources

have told me that what happens next will be make or break for the party.

They say that will depend on who the next leader is.

Before all this happens, Steven Woolfe, seen

as a disciple of Nigel Farage, would have been favourite.

It must surely have been obvious to anybody, having seen this,

that Steven Woolfe, and of course Mike Hookem,

I don't think Mike would put his hat into the ring.

Surely they can't now consider that either of them could stand

The party's biggest donor, Arron Banks,

It's fairly indicative of the party split between those who think

the new leader should be moulded in Nigel Farage's image,

and those who can think of little worse.

The party is bigger than any one individual.

Everybody has a responsibility within Ukip to safeguard

its reputation and that's what I'm asking all people to do now

The drama may be over for this week but with the leadership campaign

looming, there will be plenty more episodes to come.

And we're joined now by the Ukip MEP Bill Etheridge.

He was at the meeting where the "altercation"

between Steven Woolfe and Mike Hookem took place,

and he stood to be leader in the party's last

leadership contest, which only finished in September.

We have learned, while on-air, that Steven Woolfe has left the hospital

in Strasbourg. Bill Etheridge, were punches thrown? First of all, as all

MEPs we should apologise to our member ship and supporters for all

this nonsense. With regards to punches thrown, I was first on the

scene. I did not see punches thrown. I saw Mike with his hands down his

side and is Steven Wolfe halfway through and unlatched door. --

Steven Woolfe. He was on the floor. Before you got on the scene, there

could have been blows exchanged In the 15 to 30 seconds before I got

there, there is a possibility but Mike has denied that there were any

punches thrown and I have not seen any evidence that their world. The

friends of Steven Woolfe has said independent medical examinations

suggests he does have wounds and bruising which cannot be explained

by simply a fall to the floor. I am sure the chairman of the party will

look into that and see the exact information being discussed. When it

is something put out by sources or friends, let's wait and see the

actual information. Was it the idea of Steven Woolfe that the dispute

should be settled outside? Yes, Stephen stood up and said, if this

is the temperature of your comments, I think we should sort out

man-to-man. He took off his jacket and walked outside. Unfortunately,

and he has said he regrets it, Mike went outside and did the same thing

himself was that neither of them should have done it. It was foolish.

If that is response by Steven Woolfe to an argument, no matter how

heated, among his own MEPs, does that disqualify him to stand as

leader? It does not disqualify him. It says something about his

temperament. What I will say is it was not heated argument at the

start. We were discussing the fact he had been in a conversation with

the Conservative Party about joining. Only a day or two earlier

he had said he was not going to join for that we asked if that was to do

with the fact that he heard Diane James was standing down. That was

the purpose of the meeting, to find out what Steven Woolfe was doing

about the Conservative Party. Due to this altercation, we never got an

answer. I personally would like need to know what he was doing. What was

said? I and stand this happened quite quickly into the meeting. What

was it that was said which meant, take the jacket off, we will settle

this outside? Steven Woolfe had said about how upset he was that he could

not stand in the summer, his form were late by 17 minutes. Mike said

whether it is your fault and no one else's. Steven Woolfe reacted

angrily and we could get no further conversation. That was the extent of

the provocation, to say it was your fault. He was not swearing but he

basically said, that's your fault, it is your responsibility. Are you

going to stand in this leadership contest now? Up until this happens,

I was seriously considering rolling in to try to make sure we did not

have people who had been negative towards the party and towards Nigel

taking over. Now I do not feel I can support Steven Woolfe and, yes, I

will be standing. Isn't the bitter truth, your previously the last for

18 days. Two MPs have now said to step outside and we will sort this

with jackets. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Ukip is not a

proper, functioning party without Nigel Farage at the helm? You cannot

survive without him. Nigel is a fantastic leader. He has led us very

strongly and powerfully. It is up to us to take responsibility. That is

one reason I want to do it to bring the party together. Every time he

goes quickly fall apart. There is no functioning Ukip I would suggest

without Nigel Farage. Up to us to make sure we get systems in place

and make sure we have strong leadership and pull the party

together. We can do it. We have 4 million voters than 30,000 members.

They must be feeling very let down. It is up to us to make sure we do

the right thing and look after them and be there to represent them.

Thank you. We say goodbye to

viewers in Scotland, who leave us now for

Sunday Politics Scotland. Coming up here in 20 minutes,

the Week Ahead, when we'll be talking about the recording,

which some think could derail Donald Trump's bid

for the White House. First though,

the Sunday Politics where you are. This week we're talking

about where real power should lie. Has that Brexit decision made

the case stronger for devolution? We look at negotiations

going on with government about more responsibilities being transferred

to the mayor and London's councils. With me this week, Stephen Hammond,

Conservative MP for Wimbledon, and by Karen Buck, Labour MP

for North Westminster. Talks aimed at averting a series

of strikes have collapsed this week. The RMT union held those talks

with Govia Thameslink Railway over proposed changes to the role

of the conductors. A series of strikes will now be

held, starting with a three-day walk-out next Tuesday,

extending a six-month stand-off But never fear, we have

our own conciliation Well, a strike is always a sign

of failure, unfortunately. I don't think anyone on any side

would want that to happen. So, there is absolutely no

alternative to getting back We don't want commuters put

to the enormous additional distress of having an interrupted service

and, in the end, it will be resolved by people getting together

and reaching a compromise. So that should be done before strike

action rather than after. Stephen Hammond, some suggestion

this week of a social media campaign and posters trying to get people

to put pressure on the union. Coming out of the time a new offer

as well to staff at the same time as Chris Grayling

was making his speech Is the Government gradually getting

more involved in this one? But Chris is obviously

taking an interest in it, in terms of the hardship

which has been exacted And you've seen some

of the problems, some of it in terms of what's happened to commuters over

the last six months, nine months, has been a failure

of the company and some of the works done, so Chris was

right to get involved. I think what the union is doing

is indefensible now. It may well be that in the end

they have to get round the table But I think the union's

stance is indefensible. The fact is, they've

had a new offer. Very few people

are actually really believing that the union's stance

is about safety. Some of this is about saying,

"We want to protect our jobs." At a time when you look

at other parts of... Where on the Underground

do you see a guard? Where on other parts of the national

network do you see a guard on some The fact is, the drivers can operate

these trains with And this is just putting

misery on commuters, We had a go at solving it,

let's move on. On the subject of rail,

the last government indicated that it was looking seriously

at handing control of Southern and other suburban rail franchises

to Transport for London, or some of those routes, anyway

parts of those franchises. The big issue is whether you would

really transfer routes covering areas outside London

to the capital's transport agency. In City Hall there are worries

the trail might have gone cold. It's just one negotiation

going on into the possible transfer of more powers to the mayor

and to London's councils, too. Whitehall, in the heart

of Westminster, home to the country's top civil servants,

and arguably the street that Britain, by many measures,

is the most centralised state of any country

in the Western world, something we've been

gradually moving away The coming of Greater London

Authority, the Mayor and Assembly in 2000,

it's now 16 plus years old. It was a kind of devolution to

London. And now even more looks set

to come London's way. So, should Sadiq Khan be given

control over even more of your life? There is currently a negotiation

going on in the corridors of power about a new devolution package,

rumoured to include things like the justice system,

the Health Service, more So, the question is really,

what is it going to get To answer those questions,

we asked the key players involved. It's absolutely something

we're in conversation We also want to look at what we can

devolve down to our borough councils and we want to get

the relationship right between all the layers

in government. Coming back to the housing

problems we face here, we need to get the Government,

the mayor on the borough councils So if it's councils getting some

of these new powers, If we sell a council home we're

really limited in the ways We can only use a third of it

to build a new property, and it just means we are not

providing replacement council homes. We would like to see the rules

changed around that. There are planning rules which make

life really difficult Another example would be,

in recent years, you've been able to turn office accommodation

into residential accommodation through permitted development rights

without any planning permission But one key negotiation

with the Government might be hitting Under David Cameron,

Transport for London was due to take over the Government's role

in our suburban rail services. But the new Transport Secretary

Chris Grayling turned down Sadiq Khan's offer

of taking over the troubled Southern I'm disappointed the Government

has declined my offer. The Government is sending

in another team. So, does he think this

risks getting derailed? I think the change in personnel

all-around has meant that there s been some slowing down

on this programme. But we cannot afford

to lose the pace on this. The DfT starts work

on the south-eastern So we need, within the next few

weeks, to see the administrative changes to start managing

the South East rail network over And if we can get the devolution

of these services to London, we know we can run

them somewhat better. we know we can run

them so much better. In the election campaign,

Conservatives repeatedly said that their candidate, Zac Goldsmith,

would be able to win a better deal for London from the Government

than his Labour rival. We'll soon find out how much truth

there might have been to that claim. Let's pick up on the transport,

the suburban rail routes. Stephen Hammond - do you think

there has been any kind of change with Chris Grayling coming

in, is he less keen, government certainly

gave more powers to TfL. We saw that on the West Anglian

route. We've see the Overground working

well, although it's had some hiccups I think Chris will want to assess

the package again very carefully, because it does have major

implications in terms of the deficit, in terms

of accountability for It has real implications

for the new franchise. And he will want to make sure that

TfL can provide in that area the services that they claim

they can provide This is not as easy as the rest

of the network, it's more complex. I think if Chris Grayling

is checking that out, In his speech he made it clear,

he's putting passengers at the heart of everything

he does, he says. Do you get the impression he's not

convinced that transferring these to Transport for

London is the answer? But I would think that quite

rightly, the mantra has to be that the commuter and the passenger

needs to be the champion. And he will want to be absolutely

convinced that TfL can do that. Because there are some quite big

financial indications for TfL as well, and how long some of that

upgrade will take. And I'm sure that he is quite

rightly assessing that TfL can But you will know that

Patrick McLoughlin, as Transport Secretary,

and Boris Johnson as mayor, they gave a clear impression

that this was going to happen. That was pre-election and of course

Boris Johnson was not standing, but would you think there has been

some kind of change? I think as I pointed out earlier,

when Patrick McLoughlin was Secretary of State and Boris

was mayor, we looked at the various options -

the first was to do the Western Anglian option,

that was very popular with everybody, members

of Parliament as well as commuters This one has always

been more problematic. Lots of opposition, mainly

from outside London, about, who is going to be accountable

if the services go wrong? where you split the franchise,

if you're going to split it, in inner London get a great deal

as well as the outer London, making sure that TfL

can actually deliver. Obvious difficulties -

should it be something I completely understand

that there needs to be due diligence on all of this,

and there are clearly, as Stephen says, people

want to be reassured outside London that the service

will be delivered well. But I think it's absolutely clear

from TfL's transport record in recent years,

including the management of the Overground services

inside London, which were transferred earlier,

that they have got a really good record of delivering

on these projects. And the integration of the Overland

into the other parts of the network So I very much hope that there isn't

a cooling off on this. The new Transport Secretary

is looking for signs of investment, so he will probably be alarmed

by a Labour mayor, who, to win the election,

made such a reckless promise as to say was going to freeze fares

for four years or whatever, denying

himself potential income? Sadeeq's and the TfL's ability

to manage this system and ensure that there is a proper balance

between what we do on fares and investment, there's a really

good record of delivering on this. And I think that people

have benefited so much. It's understood that people have

benefited from integration, from the roll-out of Oyster

and so forth. And really, I can't see that

when you look at the track record of performance,

that there are that many worries. There's so much to gain

from all of this. In a city, and it's a rapidly

growing city, London, we need to be We have to know that there

is an ability to change to meet the needs of the growing

city and economy. On the wider issue of negotiations

or chat about what could usefully be moved to a lower level,

if you like, to the mayor, what are the important

things to you? What about the suggestion

on planning, that the mayor's policy should somehow take precedence over

national policy, is that a goer I would certainly

like to see a lot more freedom around the issues

of planning and housing. And for the reasons which London

councils have spelt out. I think there are issues

about the relaxation of development rules which have had a really

serious impact on parts of London. Too small really to bother

a national government but actually And I think they should

have the freedom to do that. I think we absolutely have to have

more freedom to use the investment on housing to meet the needs

of London, to respond to London s housing crisis, which is

absolutely catastrophic. But the other that I really hope

we can see some progress Because we do need to make sure

that we are able to act strategically to meet the needs

of London's economy. Is that something that

the boroughs should be doing, I think some of it is clearly

strategic. You look at the fact

that our young adult population in skills training, move around

the city so much that there is clearly an interest

in making sure that that kind of skills training is looked

at at a strategic level. Would you agree, say,

on the housing planning issue, it's time to let things

go from the centre? I certainly agree with Karen

that we must look to make sure that London, at the levels of government

which are appropriate, have the powers to make sure

we build more houses in London. Being able to keep more receipts

from the sale of...? There's been negotiation on that

through the housing bill last year, which increased the receipts

which will be I think it's absolutely right

that some of those... As the Minister for London

intimated, there's pretty intense discussions going on at the moment

as to the appropriate level, and at what level do

we build more houses? I also hope we look at some

of the rules on restricting some of the housing

associations at the moment. Get on and build

regardless of tenure. Let's work out the tenure

afterwards in terms But I think getting it right

to the right level is key. I also agree, there is an outbreak

of unanimity here...! I always enjoy a good scrap on this

programme, actually! There's been enough of that this

week elsewhere! Not in my party After Brexit, there will be a big

skills deficit in this country. Getting the skills agenda right

in London, making sure that local authorities are providing

the further education colleges, linked into the overall strategic

message, some of it will be coming in from the private sector

and the universities as well, is going to be key for this city

continuing to thrive. After all that is what both of us

are elected in politics to do. Moving on - they're going down

nearly everywhere else in the country, but in London

they're about to go up. The hype has come about as a result

of a re-evaluation. In some parts of the capital,

the rise has been pretty steep. Our correspondent now

reports from Waterloo. From next year, businesses

like these will find themselves All firms pay business rates based

on the value of their premises. Due to the property prices in London

soaring, business rates Business rates are going down

everywhere in the country, apart from one place -

London. Rates are going up on average 1 %,

although some London businesses say their taxes

will more than double. This person has been in the tool

trade for 30 years. Until no, he says his shops

have been thriving. He will be closing one next year,

he claims, because of the tax hikes. We've got nine branches in central

London and we will be hit severely. We're looking at a net increase

of about 26% across-the-board. The new rates come at a time

when important reforms are under way The Government is moving to councils

keeping all their business rates, and the growth

that comes with them. So, the more they can grow the local

economy, the more business rates they get in, the more

the council will keep. But are these reforms missing

a trick, when so much business Business rates have

never been a great tax. They don't relate to

profitability of companies. Lots of new kinds of Internet-based

companies can effectively avoid them whilst traditional

businesses pay them. So there's all sorts

of difficulties. Faced with the challenges

of the internet, competition from large chains and increased

rates, we might be seeing the slow Stephen, we're hurting

businesses...? We're not hurting businesses,

this is a national revaluation, and the review has come up,

and it is affecting London. I think the key is also,

local authorities have a reasonable amount of discretion in certain

areas to use small business rate I'm keen that local

authorities look at that. I think what Tony Travers has said

is that the changing way in which we do business,

it's a very good idea to allow local authorities to keep the business

rate and to grow local economies. But in the changing way this

country does business, we're going to have to look

over the next few years at whether the business rate

is the appropriate way Because if you have only corporate

taxation, how does that get down But the key thing in London

is making sure that particularly in a number of areas where councils

have the ability to use relief, And these big hikes

are mainly hitting some big They're hitting central

London particularly. But they are valuations in line

with values, that's the point. It is just that it has been six

or seven years, so it feels And this is the problem

when you delay valuations, But the really catastrophic part

of this is that it's a soaring tax rise, particularly hitting central

London, at the same time as we're And we really have to be absolutely

sure that with London being such a huge contributor

to the national economy, that we don't choke off

London's economic growth. I think the critical thing

is what we do around transitional relief,

to make sure that there is enough We do not want the small businesses

such as the ones you just saw in your report to go

out of business. It is not just about the big

players, it's about keeping Briefly, both of you,

what about the idea that in future, that all the business rates should

be retained by local authorities? Presumably it cannot work

because somebody like Westminster would make huge amounts,

and other boroughs wouldn't? Or is it just about getting

the formula right? Clearly there will always be

a degree of redistribution, because otherwise, as you say,

you would end up with a tiny part of the country enjoying enormous

wealth and income and other But coming back to London,

if London has got a population the size of Scotland and Wales

combined, we should have more powers to retain some of the money

generated and use it, including using targeted

relief, and supporting Stephen, do you think perhaps

Theresa May is not so committed to the devolutionary principle, does

not seem especially keen on this? I don't think that anything

that she said in any of her speeches, the two

speeches she made at the Tory Party Conference this week,

would lead you to that conclusion. I think she's been talking

about making sure that people everywhere in the country get

the chance to have the opportunity to live great lives

and to fulfil their potential. And she's also talked about making

sure that the regions get Now it's time for the rest

of the news in 60 seconds. London's Mayor, Sadiq Khan,

has outlined plans for greener Thames river crossings in the east

of the city. But plans for a road tunnel

from the Royal Docks to the Greenwich Peninsular

were criticised by protesters, who said he was

betraying air quality pledges. The mayor launched a new task force

to help tackle what he called the shameful rise in the number

of people It came as new figures revealed that

over 8000 people slept on the streets of the capital last

year for at least one night. That is a 7% increase

on the year before. At the Conservative Party

Conference, Theresa May called for a more even settlement

across the country. We see division and

unfairness all-around - between a more prosperous older

generation and a struggling younger generation,

between the wealth of London And Stephen Hammond,

the Prime Minister appeared to be picking up on something

Philip Hammond had been saying, about issues where London

was pretty good, doing much better, but there was a need to rebalance

the economy elsewhere. Do you feel that might signal

something for the future of London, that we might not get as much

attention as we might like? I think Philip Hammond

and Theresa May are talking in good Conservative tradition

about levelling up, We should not be affecting London,

London is a great global city, spreading wealth to other parts

of the country. We want other parts of the country,

both cities and counties, to become wealthier,

to see better productivity and to be It's about levelling

up the whole country. Are you able to form any impression

that that is what she might be heading towards, I mean after all,

there is a Labour mayor here? I think the Government needs

to put its money where its mouth is. They have absolutely hammered skills

investment, which is critical So I really think that they should

be backing off from some of these cuts that we've seen to vital

further education training. But in the end, if Sadiq Khan

is given these powers and resources in order to be able to manage even

within the existing budget, it will be done better,

it will be done more The key part of productivity

is investment in infrastructure One of the key things

coming out of this week, is that Mrs May is absolutely

certain that this country needs Are you happy with the silver

town tunnel, would you I think there is a good case

for another crossing to the east. I think we've gone through

that several times. The question is, where

it is and what it is. I have no doubt that

I would be keen to see one. Sadiq Khan had been accused by some

of giving the impression that he was not going to go

for this tunnel, that it And he has therefore been accused

by some of betrayal by going ahead with the Silver Town

Tunnel - do you agree? I do not know enough

about the details of But I know that in terms

of air quality, that was It is going to be one

of the drivers, dealing with some And traffic is very much

at the heart of that. So I think judge Sadiq Khan

on the overall progress on air quality, which I know

will be a high priority. And just finally, what about

the Silver Town Tunnel, for cyclists, put your bike on a bus

to go through the tunnel We should be encouraging

people to cycle. Is Sadiq Khan going

to break another one On that controversial

note, both of you, thank Just what exactly is the

Government's see an asking fans to recall how many foreign workers they

employ? Has Donald Trump's is at a campaign been halted ill of the

water line? Two big questions for our Week Ahead. The Home Office is

pumping out briefings as we speak, trying to clarify what the Tubman

Palacios, announced by Amber Rudd at the Tory conference. -- the

Government plan is. They wanted companies having lists of people who

worked. Now it may be just industrywide for that we're not

going to name the companies or publish any lists. And it sounds

like a classic party conference kite flyers and it has gone hideously

wrong when even the brother of the Home Secretary is hitting out at it.

Lotsa people would not have a problem imprisonable with the idea

companies having to give an idea of the proportion of foreign workers

employed. Where it gets sinister is where you are naming people and that

becomes very difficult. Does not seem that the Government, even as it

badly briefed this out, posted the Amber red speech there was never the

intention of publishing a list of there being 500 migrants working for

this company and these are the names. That would be absurd. What is

the point? The latest line is it would be a private list for

government. It reflects a bigger problem. Individually, these

measures, you can see a principled argument. There was an avalanche

building up with a hostile climate towards migrants. That might start

making people queasy. Lots of parents have been text being and

saying whether their children have a passport. You are going to need to

do this data collection. It makes people uneasy. There was a plus in

the idea. Ed Miliband had proposed something similar. The Americans do

it. The idea that we look at those industries or companies where there

is a high proportion of migrant workers, it sends a message that

that is where our skilled effort should go. We should be training the

people here already in these skills because we are short of them. That

would seem to be part of a sensible labour market policy. But that, I

would suggest to you, is entirely lost in this. It has been a

catastrophe in the way has been put out. What you have is different

levels of what Brexit looks like. The Home Secretary voted for Remain

and the Prime Minister voted for Remain. They are all trying to be

tough. If you speak to Amber Road when she does not think there should

be any controls over skilled immigration. The message wit is

coming through is we are going to clamp down on this stuff. -- which

is coming through. She is broadly liberal in outlets. Was she trying

to be more Brexit than Brexit? It is a really difficult position for that

she is running the department that will have to implement all the

things she does not believe in. Theresa May is failing to implement

proper immigration controls. She is following Mrs May in the job she has

to do. Let's move on to something rather bigger. This is this video,

broadcast, which has emerged of the Republican presidential candidate,

Donald Trump. It seems to be a watershed moment in the presidential

campaign of 2016. He is caught on tape making lewd comments about

women. It is a long tape so let s have a look at a part of it.

And there is lots more where that came from. Yesterday other tapes

came out of Mr Trump making inappropriate remarks in the past

when the microphone was also running. Yesterday in the United

States has been a remarkable day, almost unprecedented. Senior

Republicans are now poised to abandon Mr Trump as Republican

candidate. Two dozen Republican lawmakers have already disowned him.

Senior figures like Senator Mike Leigh of Utah and John McCain, who

was the Republican candidate several years ago from Arizona. Senator --

the Senator in New Hampshire who has a tough race to work. We are joined

by Jan from publicans Overseas. This is a catastrophe for your party It

is. It is not as catastrophic as people are making it. You have

listed the elites. They are the ones that loss throughout the primaries.

Jeb Bush wasted 154 million. Monitoring all the polls, it is only

making Trump's port is that much stronger. May be the elites were

right that Mr Trump was a wholly unsuitable person to be your party's

and did it. Is he unsuitable? How much of understanding what the

voters want and how much they messed up the Government plays into it I

am beyond being able to defend him. Yes, I am. Is number of people in

your party are poised to disown him? There is another part for me. As a

psychologist I wrote an international bestseller where I

interviewed 4000 men and followed slides. Some of this is not

shocking. I have experienced men in power who speak as Donald Trump

does. You may not want someone like that as president. The Republican

National committee has, as of now, frozen any further spending on the

Donald Trump presidential campaign. The Republican National committee. I

agree that they needed to do this if they wanted to even retain any women

in the party. This has been a very smart move. Basically, we need to

watch the debate tonight. I can come on your show tomorrow and tell you

whether it is all over or not. This debate could well be major in Saint

Louis. Nine o'clock UK time cost of the people who are worried now are

the senators, who are up for re-election. There are a lot of

them, a lot more than Democrats The House is all up. They are up every

two years, and governors are up for re-election as well. They are

terrified. They thought they could do is to budget with Donald Trump as

head of the ticket. Now they are really worried they cannot. There is

not time to get rid of him, as I understand it from legal opinions

which have come out. There is not enough time. Only if he is willing

to go. Clearly he is not. This interview says it all. The comments

are basically indefensible. What can you say apart from it being locker

room banter. The real danger is the debate tonight, I think this could

be the most explosive debate we have ever seen in American politics.

Donald Trump is that only play is to drag Bill Clinton into this. He said

that Bill Clinton said worse things on the golf course. There is a great

phrase from Ronald Reagan on Gary Hart back in 1988 saying, boys

should be boys but boy should not be president either. I think tonight

you will see boys being boys again. Some Republicans are saying that

Donald Trump should be replaced by the governor of Indiana. The problem

is, the ballot papers have already been printed. 400,000 have already

voted in the election in early voting and, constitutionally, it is

by no means clear that you can, at this late stage, drop the top of the

ticket and replace him with somebody else. They have not been a great

deal of opposition research done on Mike pence. This is the same as with

Bernie Sanders. You do not know until you get into the heat of the

election. There are prominent Republicans saying that is an

option. It is extraordinary to think this is the point where people have

ditched him. There has been comment after comment and relating to the

fact he was already falling in the polls after the Republican National

Convention who was becoming within a whisker that he was catching up with

Hillary Clinton. Now he has tailed away four. A senior Republican said

to me, we have lost the White House and need to do what we can to hold

on to the Senate figures really badly, we could lose that as well.

It is very serious right now. For one who would like a Republican in

the White House and to us to retain the Senate, and Congress, it is

going to be worrying. As I said we need to see what happens tonight and

then we are going to really know. Live from Saint Louis it will be on

the BBC News Channel at nine o'clock London time. Get in the popcorn and

maybe an extra bottle of Blue None! The Daily Politics will be back from

midday tomorrow. Remember, if it is Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.