11/12/2016 Sunday Politics London

It's Sunday morning and this is the Sunday Politics.

A row has broken out between Number Ten and former

Cabinet minister Nicky Morgan over Brexit and, believe it or not,

the price of Theresa May's leather trousers.

I feel as though I'm one of the people that

If you do that, you are likely to attract attention,

It's not just Nicky Morgan making life difficult

for the Prime Minister - we'll be taking a look at the rest

Fully paid-up rebel Ken Clarke joins us live.

Protestors disrupted a speech by Jeremy Corbyn yesterday,

but is his biggest problem Labour's miserable performance

Corbynite Ken Livingstone and Corbyn critic Chris Leslie

In London, four days of filthy air in the capital but City Hall is

resisting calls to ban diesel vehicles.

think of it as an early Christmas present from us.

We guarantee you won't be disappointed.

And speaking of guaranteed disappointments - I'm joined

by three of the busiest little elves in political journalism.

It's Iain Martin, Polly Toynbee and Tom Newton Dunn.

So, we knew relations between Theresa May and some

of her backbenchers over Europe weren't exactly a bed of roses.

But signs of how fractious things are getting come courtesy of this

morning's Mail on Sunday which has the details of a series of texts

from one of Mrs May's senior advisers to and concerning

the former Cabinet minister Nicky Morgan.

Mrs Morgan is one of those arguing for a so-called soft Brexit,

and has been pressing the PM to reveal more of her negotiation

She's also apparently irked Downing Street by questioning

Mrs May's decision to purchase and be photographed in a ?995 pair

She said she had "never spent that much money on anything apart

Mrs Morgan was due to attend a meeting at Number 10 this week

But that invitation seems to be off, after a fairly extraordinary

argument by text message with Mrs May's joint chief

She texted the MP Alistair Burt, another of those arguing

for a so-called soft Brexit, cancelling Nicky Morgan's invitation

and telling him to not "bring that woman to Number Ten again".

The following day Nicky Morgan texted Fiona Hill, saying

"If you don't like something I have said or done, please

If you don't want my views in future meetings you need to tell them."

Shortly afterwards she received the reply "Well, he just did.

And according to the Mail, Mrs Morgan, who you'll see

in our film shortly, has now been formally banned

So, Tom, much ado about nothing or telling you about the underlying

tensions over Brexit? Both, if I am allowed to choose both. It says

something about British politics today, that this is the most

important thing we can find to talk about, because the Government are

not giving us anything to talk about cs especially on Brexit because they

don't have a plan as we know. There is is a lot of truth that are being

spoken from this row, one is that Mrs May comes into Downing Street

with a lot of baggage including spectacular fall outs with Cabinet

Ministers in the past. Nicky Morgan being one. We heard about the row

over banning children from school. She fell out with Boris Johnson, so,

she then enters Number Ten with history. When you are in Number Ten

you start, you cannot be controversial and my way but the

high way, which is why Fiona Hill kept Theresa May in the Home Office.

You need to behave differently in the top job. It is surprising Nicky

Morgan hats taken such a robust line. She seemed such a gentle soul

as a minister. She did, Brexit has done funny things to people.

Everything has been shaken up. It reveals really how paranoid they

are, I mean you cannot have a situation really in which the, in

which you know, Number Ten has got realise if the Prime Minister's

entire stick is her authenticity and incredible connection, which is

genuine, with voters outside the Metropolitan bubble, when she

chooses to wear ?995 leather trousers you have to anticipate that

journalists and MPs are going to take the mickey, that is how life

works, but I think they are trying to run Number Ten as they ran the

Home Office, and you see that in the rows they have had with Mark Carney

and Boris Johnson this week, now you might be able to run one Government

department in that control freakish way but not Government will hold

together for too long, if it is run in that fashion. By try doing the

whole Government like one department. This is just the start,

Polly, we are still several months away from triggering Article 50. We,

The Tory party is split down the middle, the thing that mattered most

to the nation since the last war, it is not frivolous. It may look as if

it is about trousers, it is about the most serious thing. What was

split down the middle? Aren't the Euro-files and the Eurosceptics used

to be the outliers, it is now the Europhiles, it is not a split down

the middle. They won't vote against Brexit but they will, I think exert

the maximum influence they can, to make sure that it is not a Brexit, a

self-harming Brexit, to make sure that the country understand, when it

comes to that point, that there may be really hard decision to make, do

you want a real economic damage to be done to the country, to your own

wallet, in, in exchange for being able to stop free movement or is

that trade off in the end going to be just too expensive? We have seen

polls suggesting people are beginning to move, and not willing,

a poll out now saying people wouldn't be willing to sacrifice any

money at all, for the sake of stopping immigration. So if itself

comes to that trade off, the people are going to need to be confronted

with that choice. The Irony is, I think the Tories are in the most

exceptionally strong position, I mean what is happening here is that

British politics is being realigned and remade along leave and remain

lines, if the Prime Minister's luck hold, the Tories are looking at

being somewhere 45, 46, 47% of the vote with an opposition split

between a far left Labour Party and depleted Liberal Democrats, that

sound like a recipe for something similar to what happened in the

1980s. You are seeing extraordinary alliances between left and right.

The Scottish referendum rebuilt Scottish politics along the lines of

pro independence, anti-independence and now Brexit maybe doing the same.

So, rows within the Conservative Party over the price

of trousers might be new, but over Europe, not so much.

And this week's Commons vote on when the Government will fire

the starting gun on Brexit, and what it will say

about its plans before it does so, confirmed that instead

of the eurosceptics being the outsiders,

it's now the Remainers who are leading the resistance.

While the Prime Minister was schmoozing in the gold-plated

Gulf this week, back home the Commons was voting

on a Labour motion forcing her to publish a plan for Brexit.

Through some parliamentary jiggery-pokery, the Government

basically got its way, but it did provide a platform

for some mischiefmaking by Tory MPs who voted to remain,

We are getting somewhat tired, are we not, of this constant level

of abuse, this constant criticism that we are somehow Remoaners

that want to thwart the will of the people,

go back on it and that we don't accept the result.

I don't like the result, and yes, I do believe the people

It's not good enough that these things are dragged

out of the Government by opposition day motions.

I'm pleased that it's happened but I wish the Government was taking

Is Nicky Morgan really listening to her constituents

I think I'm one of the people who stuck their head

above the parapet so if you do that you're likely to attract attention,

you're likely to attract abuse, but also actually levels of support.

I'm having e-mails from around the country with people saying thank

you for what you are doing, party members around

the country saying thank you for what you are doing

and saying, and I and others will continue to do that.

I just think, as a backbench Member of Parliament,

you've got to be there, particularly when we have a weak

opposition, to ask the question that government needs to be scrutinised

on before we embark on such a huge issue.

Nobody comes into politics to become a thorn in their party leader's

side, but at the end of the day it's such a massive issue that

if you don't stand up for what you believe in,

I'm not sure what the point is of going into politics.

That puts her on a collision course with activists in her local

party like Adam Stairs, a committed leader who accuses

Nicky has promised me and the rest of our Conservative association

she will be voting for Article 50 and she will support

the Prime Minister's timetable, and we have just got to trust that

and hope that goes ahead, but there's a lot of people

who think she's taking sideswipes at the Government

The Conservatives are very popular, she wants to be a Conservative MP

and we want to see a Conservative government being

I have no idea what she's playing at, I think she just needs to get

on with her job as an MP, which she does very well,

Now let's head to Anna Soubry's constituency nearby to see

how her stance is going down with the voters.

If Anna Soubry doesn't fully back Brexit, what does

Well, she's going to have a little bit of a problem because the voters,

especially in this area, they voted to come out of the EU

so she will definitely have a little bit of a problem.

She should stick for what she believes in,

but I guess from a democratic perspective she does...

She has admitted the fact over and over again that she wanted

to remain, but her views at the moment, even in her e-mails,

depicted the fact she's anti-Brexit still.

Theresa May will host her most pro-European MPs at Downing Street

this week to discuss the countdown to Brexit.

Although now we know not everyone is invited.

And the MP leading the resistance in the Commons on Wednesday

was Ken Clarke, he was the only Conservative MP who voted

against the Government's plan to trigger Article 50 by the end

of March and he joins us now from Nottingham.

Welcome back to the programme Ken Clarke. Now, tell me this when David

Cameron resigned after losing the referendum, you had to pick a new

leader, which candidate did the Tory Europhiles like you put up to

deliver a so-called soft Brexit, or no Brexit at all? Well, I can't

speak for the others but I voted for Theresa May, I gave a notorious

interview, it wasn't meant to be, I was chatting to Malcolm Rifkind but

somebody turned a camera on, I called her a bloody difficult woman

which the Tory party probably needs, compared with Margaret Thatcher and

said I was going to vote for her, I gave a vote for one of the younger

ones first, but I told Teresa I would vote for her, she was the only

serious candidate in my view. You voted for somebody you thought was a

difficult woman, she is being difficult in ways you don't like,

your side of the Tory party, you had your chance to put up somebody more

in line with you, instead you shut up, so, why the complaints about it

not going in your direction? I am not making complaint, it is not

Teresa's fall we are in the dreadful mess, she was on the Remain side,

she made a good speech during the campaign on the referendum, setting

out the economic case for being in, setting out the security case for

being in, which was Home Secretary, she was particularly expert in, it

wasn't her fault that not a word it was reported anywhere, in the

national media. Now, my views have been the same, I am afraid

throughout my adult life, for the 50 years I have been in politics, and

my views have been the mainstream policy of the Conservative Party

throughout all that time, I don't expect to have a sudden conversion

on the 24th June, and I think what I owe to my constituency, and to

Parliament, is that I exercise my judgment, I make speeches giving my

reasons, I make the best judgment that I can, of what is the national

interest. I understand that. I would be a terrible hypocrite if I... Of

course that is not what I am asking. How many Conservative MPs do you

think you can count on to oppose this so-called hard Brexit? Is it

40, 20, 10, 5, 1? I have no idea, because Anna, and Nicky, who you

have just seen on the video who are also sticking to their principle,

they are only saying what they are been saying ever since they have

been in politics, probably may have more idea than me.

That is three, how many more? I don't know, we will find out. We are

living in a bubble in which the tone of politics is getting nastier and

the reporting is getting sillier, so it is all about Theresa May's

trousers and whether Boris has made some inappropriate jokes. What we

need if we are going to abandon the basis upon which we made ourselves a

leading political power in the world for the last 40 years and the basis

upon which our economy has prospered because Margaret Thatcher got the

others to adopt the single market and we benefited from that more than

any other member state, so now we need a serious plan, a strategy.

What is our relationship going to be in the modern world? How will our

children and grandchildren make the best union they can? We need

Parliament's approval of a White Paper and then start years of

negotiation. This will run and run. This interview hasn't got time to

run and run so let me get another question in. You seem to be quoted

in the mail on Sunday this morning as saying if the Prime Minister

sides too much with the heart Brexit group, she won't survive, is that

your view? Yes because only a minority of the House of Commons

think it is frightfully simple and you can just leave. The referendum

campaign, the only national media reporting of the issues were

completely silly and often quite dishonest arguments on both sides.

Let me just check this, explain to me the basis... Know, excuse me, I

have to interrupt because you said the Prime Minister won't survive so

just explain to our viewers why she won't survive. She will be in a

minority she starts adopting the views of John Redwood or Iain Duncan

Smith. It's clear majority of the House of Commons doesn't agree with

that and it would be pretty catastrophic if that is what we were

going to do when we turn up and faced 27 of the nation state, and

tell them we are pulling out of the biggest market in the world. How

long do you give the Prime Minister then? If you don't think she will

survive by going for a heart Brexit? I don't think she will go for a

heart Brexit. Really, surrounded by David Davis and Liam Fox? Do you

think Liam Fox will determine the policy of the Cabinet? Liam has

always been ferociously against the European Union although he served in

a government that was pro-European for about two and a half years. Does

he not survive either? You're trying to reduce it to my trying to

forecast Cabinet reshuffle is which I haven't got a clue whether there

will be a Cabinet reshuffle, they may be ministers for the next ten

years, I have no idea. Liam and me, but also Liam and the majority of

his Cabinet colleagues don't start from the same place. The way forward

is for them to produce a White Paper setting out the strategy on which

all the Cabinet are agreed. People should stop leaking the Cabinet

papers they are getting, they should stop leaking against each other, get

down and do the work when they have got the agreed strategy. I'm sorry

to interrupt again but we haven't got much time. We saw in our film

that a number of constituency members in those areas which are

strongly Remain MPs like yourself, in our case in this film it was

Nicky Morgan, the constituency party members are unhappy about this.

What's your message to them? Don't they deserve an MP that reflects

their way of thinking? Leavers are unhappy and Remainers are very

grateful. Mine don't go in for abuse... That's probably because

you're not on e-mail, Mr Clarke. I get more from Remainers. I'm a great

fan of Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan, I don't agree with them on

everything, but the views they are putting forward are the ones they've

always held and I think we are doing the Government to favour by saying

what it now depends on is your success in agreeing a policy and

then explaining to the public what you want to do. I shall be surprised

if they manage that by the end of March, I think it is best to get the

policy right first but we shall see. Have you been invited then, you say

you are being helpful, have you been invited to this meeting in Downing

Street on Wednesday for the soft Brexiteers? No, because I haven't

been joining any of these groups. It's fair to say most of my

colleagues know exactly what my views are. No doubt those that

haven't had this kind of discussion with their colleagues before have

been invited. I didn't expect to be invited. I get on perfectly well

with Theresa May but I haven't been invited, but I don't think there's

much significance in that. What do you think of the way Downing Street

has handled Nicky Morgan? I feel sorry for women in politics. I'm

glad to say men in politics don't have great lead stories about what

they are wearing. Apart from my suede shoes, I'm lucky because I'm

not a very snappy dresser. It is tedious in these days that we still

have a absurd pop newspaper stories about what they are wearing.

That commenting on the Prime Minister's trousers, is it really

grounds for banishment? No, of course not. Nikki and Teresa will

have serious political discussions and if they want to have an argument

about what they are wearing, their closest friends will advise them to

keep it private. It is absurd. Given that the party appears to be

deciding it has been all -- ordered to changes policies about Britain's

relationship with the world, it needs to be taken seriously and this

Lola. Is filling a vacuum before the serious discussion starts. Thank you

for filling our vacuum this morning and of course no one would ever

criticise how you dress. Of course. Now, seasoned observers will warn

against reading too much into parliamentary by-elections,

but they can provide a vital boost for a party leader under pressure,

or provide damaging ammunition Following a disappointing result

for Labour last week in Richmond, Jeremy Corbyn may have been hoping

for an early Christmas present at this week's

contest in Lincolnshire. In Sleaford and North Hykeham,

a constituency that supported Leave in the EU referendum,

there was little Christmas cheer for Labour as it fell from second

in 2015 to fourth place. That was at least a better

performance than in Remain-supporting Richmond Park,

where the party's candiate lost his deposit after attracting

fewer voters than the reported number of local

Labour Party members. Speaking for the Labour Party this

week, MP Vernon Coaker said their policies on other major

issues were "lost to an extent Some MPs feel that a lack of clarity

is holding the party back. This week three frontbenchers

were among the 23 Labour MPs to defy the party line and vote

against a motion to begin the process of leaving the EU

by the end of March. And a number of Labour MPs we've

spoken to since Thursday's vote have said they fear the party now runs

the risk of being squeezed by the Lib Dems and UKIP,

or in the words of one, "being cannabilised,

eaten from both ends". To compound their troubles,

a national poll released on Friday put Labour

at a seven-year low, trailing 17 It's still a season of joy

for many of Mr Corbyn's supporters - they point to a series of victories

under his leadership, including a by-election win

in Tooting and the London mayoral Though neither candidate was a

Corbynite. But there's a distinct lack

of goodwill on the party of his critics - although having

failed comprehensively to challenge him this summer,

what they intend to do This morning Diane Abbott played

down the significance of the results. The reports of the Labour

Party's demise are exaggerated, we are the largest social Democratic

party in Europe and the surging membership is down to the current

leadership. We have the right policies on the NHS, investing in

the economy, and as you know the Tories are fatally split on Europe.

And we're joined now by the former mayor

of London Ken Livingstone, and the former Shadow

Ken Livingstone, in the most recent by-election Labour collapsed from

second to fourth place, the one before that your party lost its

deposit. What is the positive gloss on that? There's nothing new in

this, where you have got seats which are solidly Tory, often voters

switched to Lib Dem to kick other voters out. We have had good swings

that indicate a Labour government so don't pay too much attention. It is

like Orpington 50 years ago. Labour voters switched just to kick the

Tories out. Don't read too much into these results, Labour did win

tooting so it is OK. First of all I don't think it was a problem with

the candidates in the by-elections, they did a really good job locally,

but there is an issue with those residents and their attitudes to the

national party, and I just think that when you have warning bells

going off like that, we have to listen to what people are saying. I

think what they are saying is they want an opposition party to have a

plan. So yes we have got to attack the Conservatives where they are

going wrong on the NHS, running headlong over the cliff for a hard

Brexit, but we also need a plan for what Labour's alternative will be.

When do we get that plant? Effectively you have got it already.

John McDonnell has gone on relentlessly for the need for a

massive public investment. For decades now under Labour and Tory

governments we haven't invested in infrastructure, our roads are a

disgrace, a broadband is antique. We need to be honest about this, if

Theresa May can come back and say I've done a deal, we are leaving the

EU, we will control our borders, we won't have to pay 350 million a year

and stay in the single market, well... But that won't happen. If we

are going to stumble along for two years heading for an economic

disaster, that's why only eight MPs voted to leave, because they knew

the harm it would do to their voters. If you have got a plan, why

are things getting worse for you in the national polls, 17 points

behind? If you look back, when I was leader of Chelsea my poll rating

went down... But you have not been as bad since 1983 when you lost an

election by a landslide. Over the next two years our economy will not

grow strongly, it will limp along at best, as we get closer to Brexit it

will get worse. All Labour MPs should be focusing on the economic

alternative because nobody ever wins an election without a credible

economic strategy. So as long as the country goes to hell in a hand

basket, Labour will be fine. That's not good enough. You're not a

commentator any more, you are part of the leadership of the party. It

is to you. I will continue to argue the case for credibility,

particularly in our policies, but the leadership cannot just sit back

and watch this drift. On the Brexit situation, the Conservative

manifesto at the last general election promised it would be yes to

the single market, why aren't we holding them to account for the

broken promise potentially they are about to do? If I had still been an

MP, I would have been voting with you, rebelling, because we are not

going to get any good deal to leave. Theresa May will stumble on for a

couple of years trying to balance... The party policies were heard from

Diane Abbott this morning is to get the best possible deal to leave. And

I will believe it when it happens. So you don't believe a central part

of Jeremy Corbyn's policy? Jeremy has accepted the fact people voted

to leave. He now said we now need to get the best possible deal and you

don't think it's achievable. I don't, because why would the other

27 members give us a better deal staying outside? You've confused me,

why are you such a big supporter of Corbyn with his policy you don't

think it's achievable? Everybody knows we are not going to

get a soft exit, so we either have the hard Brexit and we lose perhaps

millions, certainly hundreds of thousands of jobs, or we have to say

we got it wrong. I mean, you, a lot of people have been saying that all

Labour's unclear on Brexit, that is why it is going wrong, I would

suggest to you, that actually what the concentration on is the Tories

are unclear about Brexit, they are in power, that is what matters, a

bigger problem for Labour is whether Mr Corbyn's leadership will cut

through or not. I think the YouGov poll this weekend not only gave us

that double punch of a 17 point lead for the Conservatives but it had a

33 point lead, 33 point, for Theresa May over Jeremy Corbyn, so part of

the plan, think, has to be to address this leadership issue, to

make sure it is also a party that is listening to the wider public and

not just the small number of members or the trotsites in Momentum or

whoever is the latest Marxist on the... You The thing that is ox

fibbing Labour. One MP said Labour has quoted bunkum. We have has 18

months of Labour MPs stabbing Jeremy in the back and some in the front.

The vast majority of Labour MPs have stopped undermining Jeremy. You

weren't doing that well before. Can you imagine a situation in which you

have elected a new leader and the first year it is all about getting

rid of imand undermining him. I disagree with Tony Blair on lots of

policy issue, I didn't run wound saying this man is not fit to

govern. That is because you had no support for that at the time. The

idea people will take lectures from Ken on divisiveness, that is like

takes lectures from Boris Johnson on diplomacy, you have to make sure,

yes, that we find some accommodation after the leadership election this

summer, but the plan is not there right now, and you and the rest of

the leadership has to be held accountable for delivering that, I

want to hear what the plan is. It is FDR he told us earlier. If you have

got now because as we saw in the Autumn Statement, debt to GDP ratio

at 90%, you can't convince the public by saying we will throw more

money at the problem, the public want a credible plan, where the sums

add up, that you are not making promises that won't be delivered.

They want that plan. We need to point out our history, when Labour

Waugh the election in 45 Government debt was two times that it was now..

Now.. They generated exports and within 50 years we virtually paid

off that debt. Austerity is not the way to go. Our economy is a disgrace

compared with Germany. I agree. What we have to start saying, there is

decent jobs, where are they going to be coming from, can we have a

society based on fair play and prosperity for everybody not just

the wealthy, that means saying, some time, that people have to

contribute, they have to put in, so we have to listen to what the public

are saying on issues for instance like immigration, as they said in

the Brexit referendum, but make sure we have our approach set out

clearly, so people know there is a ability to manage, and control these

things, not just ignore them. Those tax dodgers who launder their money

through Panamanian banks. If we crackdown on what might be 150

billion a year of tax evasion and avoidance. That is a real outlier

estimate as you know, way the highest, you cannot build the FDR

programme on tax evasion revenues, alone, but let me ask you. You can

say to Starbucks, if you are not going to pay tax on your profits we

will tax every cup of coffee. Why don't you nationalise it? I was just

checking that would be the policy. Let me ask you this. By what time do

you get, start to get worrieded if the polls haven't given to turn

round? I mean, I think they will turn round. When do you start to get

worried? If they haven't? If in a year's time it was as bad as this we

would be worried. I don't think it will be. Jeremy and his team will

knows can on the economy, and that is wins every election. Bill

Clinton, remember it's the economy stupid. People know if you are going

to spend money they want to see where it is coming from, otherwise

they will think it is their taxes that will go up and the

Conservative, Theresa May, will scare the British public over plans

that are not properly... What do you do if things haven't got better in

12 months? We lost the leadership election in the summer but we will

hold our leadership to account. What does that mean? It means asking for

the plan, testing what the proposals are, are they properly credible, do

they make sure that they meet the test the public... You just have to

bite the bottom lip now, you privately, a lot of you think your

party is heading for catastrophe. I don't think it is acceptable that we

have this level of performance, currently, I am sure Ken agrees the

opinion polls, and those by by-election were just not good

enough. We have to show leadership, certainly on Brexit, hold the

Government to account. Attack them for the crisis in the NHS, yes and

on the economy, to deliver credible policy force, example on defending

national security and making sure we stand up for humanitarian

intervention. Final point, your party has lost Scotland. You are now

in third place behind the stories -- Tories. I never thought I would be

able to say that in a broadcast, if you lose the north too, you are

heading for the smallest Parliamentary Labour Party since the

war, aren't you. But that is our weakness, we in the 13 years of the

last Labour Government neglected rebuilding our manufacturing in the

way the Germans have done. Millions of people used to have good job, we

used to have 8 million jobs in manufacturing it is down two. It is

in the north, that Jeremy's strategy has the most relevance, of actually

getting the investment and rebuilding. All right. We will see.

Come back in 12 months if not before and we will check it out.

It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now

Coming up here in 20 minutes, we'll be talking

about Boris Johnson's tour of the Middle East after straying

off message, again, and the protestors attempting

First though, the Sunday Politics where you are.

This week a focus on transport - a mayor rebuffed over the railways.

Four other big cities have just banned diesel vehicles -

why is Sadiq Khan refusing to go down the same route?

With me Mark Field, Conservative MP for the Cities

And Rushanara Ali Labour MP for Bethnal Green and Bow.

You had your first chance to vote in parliament

Well, I felt that the plan, the idea of a plan wasn't clear enough, I

believed we should have a white paper and we shouldn't be committing

to 30th March to trigger Article 50 without some clarity on the

direction of travel, and what the Government is going to propose. I

just think it was a hostage to fortune, that is why I felt it would

be wrong to support it. We need to make sure we act in the national

economic interest and that is why I didn't feel I could support the

Government amendment and also I did not appreciate my own party adopting

the Government's amendment. That is why I didn't support either. You are

clear, you were for Remain, your constituencies were as well. Didn't

you have a pang when you start that process? . No, I think the timetable

for, the reason we are triggering by the end of March is such we will not

because of the two-year timetable have European elections in June

2019. People would be dismayed in we were votes for more. My view is, I

was disappointed with the outcome. Had it been the other way, I would

expect the losing side to play ball, and I think the reality of the

situation is what is good for the goose is good for the gander I will

have more impact by trying to make Brexit work and particularly

obviously with the City of London, to make financial services, as high

as we can in the agenda when it comes to looking at this. That is

the basic reason I thought I will support the Government and do the

best from the inside rather than shouting from the beyond. Let us

So - interesting week for the transport secretary Chris Grayling.

On Tuesday he rejected the mayor's bid to take over overground train

services through south east London - Sadiq Khan hadn't made

The next day, he was facing calls to resign after it was suggested

he never intended to hand over more control to a Labour mayor.

Tanjil Rashid fills us in on the week's shenanigans.

London suburban rail service, part of the confusing patch work of train

services Londoners use every day. In January, plans were agreed between

the Government and the last mayor to pass control of some of those

services to TFL. Since then, scan was elected mayor -- Sadiq Khan.

Chris Grayling this week rejected proposals to devolved the south-east

franchise to TFL. Angering MPs on his own side. My constituents will

regard his failure to remove the London metro services from the

wholly discredited south-east franchise as being a cop out and

failir and no sense at all as far as rail users in my constituency or I

am concerned. I know my honourable friend feels passionately about

this, I don't agree. We will have the opportunity between London, my

department and Kent to design an improved franchise for the future.

In a statement to Sunday Politics the Department for Transport

spokesman said: and that: but the Government's

motives have been called into question this week, after a letter

from 2013 was leaked,er in which Chris Grayling told the then Mayor

Boris the future. In a statement to Sunday Politics the Department for

Transport spokesman said: and that: but the Government's motives have

been called into question this week, after a letter from 2013 was

leaked,er in which Chris Grayling told the then Mayor Boris Johnson

that he would "Like to keep suburban rail services is out of the clutches

of any future Labour mayor." It sparked calls for the Transport

Secretary to resign. He has not told the truth about his motive. It is

clear he has a long-standing prejudice against the idea of a

Labour mayor ever having control of the trains. That not a legitimate

reason for taking his decision, that is a serious error of judgment and I

think he should resign. The turf war between City Hall and

the Government over London suburban rail services continues. How will

Sadiq Khan respond? He is very disappointed and so is the deputy

I'm joined by the Deputy Mayor for Transport, Val Shawcross.

You sip that is it? We are hugely disappointed. The Secretary of State

has turned down an opportunity to make life easier for Londoner, to

improve the economy, to improve the housing performance in south London.

It is really difficult at the moment, in south London, if you are

a commuter, you know, southern is in meltdown and of course south-east

has not been good at all. You are not saying that Chris Grayling

doesn't think that, or know that, but the point s as we heard in the

piece, and let us repiece Pete it you didn't put plans to provide more

frequent train, no extra capacity in peak hour, you haven't got the

money. If you were to improve things he might let you take them over. The

business plan we put in was a detailed account of how we could

improve service, was really strong cost benefit ratio, it would have

improved sever advices dramatically, if you look at TFL's track record in

running the overground, running now the west Angela line, there has been

a massive improvement in tum ber of passengers, and... You put a lot

more money into infrastructure, you spent a lot of money on that and

this time you, you are not comparing like-for-like? What we are talking

about is changing the whole way, the railway is run, from this

lackadaisical franchise to a tightly controlled contract, a concession,

with better staffing, better trains, better reliability, and we can, as

we move on, actually improve some of the frequencies. He makes it clear

you want to be involved in a partnership. Should wow be it clear

tore the average viewer, why should people out of the area be in hock,

if you like to a Labour mayor and paying his fares and conditions, but

you would under this air rangement you would have to split the trap

Chinese into two. You would have this franchise that you were in

charge of, both people trying to negotiate and work with Network

Rail. I think we have plenty of experience of showing how we can

make this work, and in fact, representatives from outside of

London were really kind on this as well, -- keen on this, we had

letters of support from Surrey, Kent, from Hertfordshire, Sevenoaks

Borough Council were disappointed too about this decision, because

they are very dependent on this commuter line. We had in the

business plan made arrangements to start this work, we could have done

this on a cost neutral basis for the Government and we would really like

an independent assessment of the business plan, because we feel it

stacks up, and so we are not going to take no for an answer on this,

because it is too important, to the lives of people in south London, and

the economy in south London. Bob Neill feels that as well, who is

right? I understand Chris Grayling's view but there is this democratic

deficit, the notion that Medway Council, Sevenoaks, even as far as

Guildford would essentially be in hock to London Mayor is not a great

situation. I accept the London Underground goes beyond the M25 into

Waltham Cross and places like that in south Hertfordshire and it has

been a success but it has half the money that has been devoted to it.

This is a mess and I think people have made a lot of what Chris

Grayling said. He made a valid .3 years ago which is that with a lot

of changes proposed, think it through when a Tory mayor is asking,

how would you feel if it was under Labour mayor and the issue is in

part because Labour Party relies on funding. You are saying you support

someone being predisposed, having been prejudiced on this matter

because he has already decided he's not... I have not said that. How do

you defend the remarks he made? The remarks were made three years ago,

not been prejudiced about it, but saying think again, if there are

whole lot of powers any mayor... Of course any Mayor of London wants to

have more power, but think through the implications. So we cannot trust

that he has looked very carefully at this business plan proposal from the

mayor and assessed it without politicising it? I don't think he

has politicised it, the case has been made very clear. The money

isn't there, there is a problem. It was fundamentally different set of

state of affairs compared to the London Overground changes in south

Hertfordshire where there was more money, and you only need to go to

those stations as I have to see the improvement in the quality of

stations and the track. That wasn't going to be applying to south-east

London and until such time as that plan is in place, it is right Chris

Grayling has said holdback. Mark is getting himself into a real knot

over this. The fact is there is cross-party agreement on TfL and the

Mayor of London having control over this. What is not clear is why Chris

railing is focusing on passenger interest, that is the priority. It

is politically motivated. Did he ask those questions of Boris Johnson

when he gave him a blank cheque and said fine, you can be in charge but

if there is a Labour mayor you can't... The point is that Chris

Grayling is not prioritising the interests of commuters. He should be

focusing on that instead of politicising the matter and Bob

Neill is. This week Sadiq Khan and you have produced a business plan

with Transport for London and Sadiq Khan has been describing transport

for London as floppy, and you can find ?4 million of cuts over five

years, so why would Chris Grayling pass control to such an inadequate

organisation? It is difficult to see what's changed since the Government

agreed in the early part of the year in the document between Boris and

Patrick McLoughlin, actually allow TfL to take control of these

franchises. He can now see that TfL is floppy. They have put forward a

detailed business case that has jumped through the hoops and the

business plan we have just put in place is a tightly managed business

plan and we know we can run this service better. I think if you ask

the passengers of south London what they think, they would like... I'm

asking about the five-year investment plan and the mayor

describing TfL as not fit for purpose so why would you, when you

are finding those cuts, why would you be given another service to run?

It is a good and strong organisation but it is ripe for reform. It has 12

layers of management in it, I'm sure even the BBC doesn't have that! It

is an organisation where some of the contracts have been gold-plated in

the past, and it has duplication within it because it was made up of

a number of... We can find a lot of savings in this organisation and we

have been public about what we are doing and how we are doing it.

Nobody has questioned, no serious questions have been thought about

the business plan that really seriously challenges it. We would

like this to be publicly examined. We would like an independent

assessment to be done on it. Let the core of professional judgment and

public opinion decide this case. Stay with us.

Four big international cities have just announced

they are going to impose a ban on diesel vehicles.

Presumably London's mayor and his deputy mayor

Given how much emphasis he's placing on tackling air pollution

Well, no, actually, as Dan Freedman reports.

Four out of the last ten days here in London have had high or very

high pollution levels, prompting these warnings at bus

And it's the most vulnerable who are most at risk according

So we have been to speak to children at a school in Hackney.

When I breathe in, it doesn't taste very nice.

I had a really bad cough for the whole week.

A couple of cars went by, as soon as they rushed

by you could hardly breathe because the air was so thick.

My son also had to take an extra puff of his inhaler,

he was coughing more in the evening, and that follows a pattern

that I have seen over the last couple of years,

since he was diagnosed as asthmatic, whenever there is a spike in air

pollution he is coughing more, wheezing more.

It can be managed with his use of inhalers, but there is definitely

And it is diesel vehicles which are doing most of the damage,

which is why campaigners are urging the mayor to ban them.

All sorts of traffic is bad, but diesel is the worst.

It is so dangerous for health, we have to get it off our streets.

It's an old fuel, it's not the future.

Madrid, Paris, Athens, and Mexico City have just pledged

to ban diesel vehicles by 2025 from their city centres.

The mayor of Paris says it is due to 2,500 deaths

a year caused by bad air, across an albeit larger

The figure is nearly four times that amount, as a result

Unfortunately we have got the perfect blend

of slow-moving traffic, not much wind, and it means

there is kind of a foggy, misty grime hanging in the air,

that you can really taste, and to boot we are getting a load

of air over from Paris which is also polluted.

It is all adding to a pretty toxic mix here in London,

sending our pollution levels incredibly high.

This week City Hall assigned ?875 million over five years

This involves money to help clean up our buses, it

will be cleaning up taxis, it will help fund the bringing

forward of the ultra low-emission zone.

But they have ruled out a ban on diesel vehicles.

That is not what we are asking the Government to do,

we feel a combination of the charging, and bringing

forward the low-emission zone, plus incentives to clean up

vehicles, to move away from dirty diesel vehicles

is a better way to go, but we need the Government's help.

If you look at the toxicity charge, that is in Central London and it

isn't on every single diesel vehicle, if you look at the ultra

low-emission zone it is only being expanded for all vehicles

around the north and South Circular, so places in outer London are really

So what is being proposed isn't enough and it isn't commensurate

So a sense of frustration in some quarters, knowing full

There is a letter here. All of these organisations, Greenpeace, every

single one of them saying we'd like some of the signals from you and the

current mayor but ban it by 2025, why not? We have a really strong

programme in place with the ultralow emissions zone and we will make a

difference with reducing air pollution in London. It's not just

focused on central London. The point was wrong there because although the

ultralow emissions zone will come into central London hopefully in

2019 which will cover all vehicles, in fact the zone for heavy goods

vehicles including buses and coaches will cover the whole of London for

that time. What is the problem with that ban, the timeline thing? We

have got a programme we are sticking to because we have funded it, we

have the legal framework, we have the consultations in place and

what's more, companies like the coach companies and heavy goods

vehicle operators have had warning in order to change their technology.

We don't want to dash back to petrol because that would have a carbon

emissions impact. It is important to get a transformation of technology.

Have you done a cost benefit analysis and worked out how much the

T charge will bring in? This is not about money, it is about cleaning up

the air in London. We have put money into the business plan we have got

to fund the infrastructure and the programme we will need to enforce

this and make sure it happens so at the moment the front end will cost a

lot of money but that's OK because... But does this bring in

more money than a complete ban? It is nothing to do with money, the

priority here is people's health. It is in central London where we get

the worst air quality and Heathrow by the way, so you will see as part

of the plan we have got, we will have cleaned up every bus in London

by the time the ultralow emissions zone comes in. We already have

electric leads coming in and we are talking to heavy goods vehicles and

coach operators so this will have a big impact. Wouldn't you want to see

it come in sooner or a complete ban? I have been lobbying the previous

mayor, as have many London MPs, and we saw him in denial, withdrawing

information about the worst affected areas like in Tower Hamlets. I have

one school which is the worst affected in the country, nearly

10,000 people die per year in London but it is a national problem as well

with 40,000 people nationally so we need action at a national level and

a London level. I'm delighted Sadiq Khan has doubled the funding... So

you are happy, but not a ban? There needs to be more urgency and it was

the same criticism I made of Boris Johnson as well. It was widely

regarded that diesel was the safer option, we now know that nitrous

dioxide is a much bigger problem for our asthmatic young children and

adults for that matter, and particularly applies at

Knightsbridge, Euston and Marylebone Road in my own constituency. I agree

we don't want to rush into anything. That was the problem, we had the

rush with diesel and now the unintended consequences that have

come into play, and many people have incentivised to go down the diesel

route. I hope in time TfL will bring it forward, I hope there is more

urgency than nine years' time for an outright ban. Thank you very much

for coming in. Now it's time for the political

news in 60 seconds. A record investment in cycling

was announced by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan,

committing 770 million to improve cycling infrastructure,

and promote cycling in the capital City Hall claim the money allocated

is double the spending on cycling made by previous Mayor Boris

Johnson. A row has broken out

between Jeremy Corbyn loyalists over proposals to split the Tottenham

constituency in two. It is claimed that Labour's

submission to the boundary commission was a clear attempt

to ensure that Mr Corbyn retained his Islington seat

by redrawing boundaries so he faced The Mayor of London has announced

that step-free access on the Underground will get

a financial boost, bringing the total number of stations

with access to more than 100. The current level of

26% will rise to 40%. Mark, central London, that cycle

lane on the embankment, supporter of that? I can understand the mentality

that says we need to have a joined up cycle lane but the trouble is

there's been a huge amount of congestion as a result of reducing

the number of lanes on what is already a very busy road. There's a

problem in constituency as well towards the Lancaster gate area,

that has become problematic so we all have constituents talking about

that. Should he maybe even tear them out if necessary? No, he should look

at where the disruption is. Boris introduced the cycle lanes and it

was done quickly which has caused a lot of frustration among drivers but

also cyclists. The thing I am keen to see is more emphasis on cycling

safety and HGV vehicles which is still the biggest factor. We are

running out of time. Now, Foreign Secretary

Boris Johnson was rebuked by Downing Street this week -

yes, again - after the Guardian revealed he had accused Saudi Arabia

of being among countries engaged in fighting "proxy wars"

in the Middle East, breaking the Foreign Office's convention

of not criticising a key UK ally in the region and annoying the prime

minister who'd just returned The Defence Secretary Michael Fallon

was asked about it And let's be very clear about this,

the way some of his remarks were reported seemed to imply

we didn't support the right of Saudi Arabia to defend itself,

and it is being attacked by Houthi terrorists from over

the border with Yemen, didn't support what Saudi is doing

in leading the campaign to restore Some of the reporting led people

to think that, and that is all... This was simply the way

it was reported and interpreted. The way it was interpreted left

people with the impression that we didn't support Saudi Arabia

and we do. Well, Mr Johnson has been

in the Saudi capital Riyadh this morning,

so how's he been received? Our security correspondent

Frank Gardner is in neighbouring Bahrain, where Mr Johnson

was earlier in the weekend. It has probably been a long time

since there has been such interest in a British Foreign Secretary

visiting the gulf region. What are the political elites there making of

it all? Well, they think to be honest it is a bit of a storm in a

tea cup this is a bit of a Whitehall story, I think a lot of people I

have spoken to tend to believe that Number Ten have made such a fuss

about this, that it has created a story in itself. That said, though,

I think that behind the scenes there was a certain amount of damage

limitation taking place between London and Riyadh, a bit of

smoothing of feathers and reassuring and the Stade Saudis tell me they

are reassured the message they are taking is. Coming from Number Ten

and they are not taking Boris Johnson's comments to heart. He is

in the dam, he has met the king, I tweet add picture of that just a few

minutes ago. He has been meeting Crown Prince, and he is now meeting

the Foreign Minister, so the Saudis got an opportunity to brief him

according to their vision of the Middle East. They will share their

security concern, which is not just what is going on in Yemen, but they

are very concerned about what they see as Iranian expansionism, that

has been a theme here at this conference in Bahrain that Boris

Johnson addressed only a day or two ago. If we put aside Mr Johnson's

supposed gaffes or even the Downing Street slapping down of him, we have

had the Prime Minister in the region earlier this week, we have got Mr

Johnson there now, can we yet divine what the May Government strategy is

in the Golf? -- Guff. In three words, in Boris Johnson's words

Britain is back. He was very quick to say not in a jingoistic running

up flags, new imperial list way, although that is Howley be seen by

some. He gave a very forceful speech which seemed to go down well the

gulf hosts here on Friday night which said Britain made a strategic

mistake in, after 1968 in withdrawing east of Suez and it will

reverse that decision, and invest ?3 billion over the next ten years in

building up its military not bases exactly but facilities -- facilities

that are here in this part of the world. There are currently 15

hundred hundred British servicemen and women in this region, seven

warships and so on. It isn't entirely true to say Britain

withdrew east of Suez because we have had a military presence on and

off here, the RAF had a base here in Bahrain during the Gulf War of 91.

In 2003, of course, British planes and troops deployed from this area,

but he and Theresa May are both saying post-Brexit, Britain's big

emphasis or one of the big pushes is going to be to redouble its ties

with gulf Arab nations, that isn't going to come as an easy bit of new,

I think, to human rights campaigners and anti-arms campaigners because a

large part of the ?7 billion of bilateral trade Britain did with

Saudi Arabia comes from arms deals and those arms are being used in the

conflict in Yemen, in some cases with tragic consequences. Thank you

very much for talking to us. Instead of concentrating on Mr

Johnson's gaffes, or Downing Street reaction to it. Frank Gardner there

has just given us a really important development, or explained what the

British are up to there now. They want to be back in the gulf big

time. Isn't that something we should be debating and discussing? It is

fascinating. It is yet another example post-Brexit I would say this

is someone who voted to Brexit, that the world is changing, and Britain's

role is going to be transformed post-Brexit. I mean just on the

Boris point, I completely agree, I think a lot of it is ridiculous, in

a Whitehall belt way stuff, but I think what is really important about

it, is that Number Ten feel threatened by him, and the reason

that these ridiculous gaffes and many of them are not even gaffes are

pounced upon is he is the main rival for the Crown, so it is high level

power play politics, and it is May trying to keep him in his place.

What do you make though, of Britain is back in the gulf? That is the big

story, is it not. Utterly bizarre, post imperial fantasy, the idea we

are back east of Suez? We are breaking off from our closest ally,

most like us, the rest of Europe, democratic, decent human rights

country, and instead we are allying ourself to perilous, dangerous,

unpleasant countries... Why should we be back in the gulf? If that is

the trade off, these are, you know, these renasty kingdoms, petty

unpleasant and unstable countries. Don't we have to keep the straits

open otherwise the oil supply collapses and the world economy will

go into the worst recession depression ever? Don't we have to be

involved in that We do, and I think what happens is if we leave Europe

and we need trade everywhere else, we have to travel the world on our

knees begging for friends from the most unsavoury people, where ever

they are, whether it is... You keep saying we are leaving Europe, that

is a geographic impossibility. Britain is part of Europe, we are

the... Not what Liam Fox is saying. The key power in Nato, we are

leaving the European Union, that is a different Tring from Europe. I am

trying to move away from Mr Johnson, or even Downing Street to... You got

yourself into a Brexit row. Everything is through the prism of

Brexit, even what you have for breakfast, when you mix up the word

like I did last week. What do you make of what Frank Gardner told us?

I am somewhere between the two. It is a nighs the line say we are back

in the Middle East and we will take this part of the world seriously,

the truth is our military is almost tiny, it is smaller than it was in

the Napoleonic wars, that is not a huge amount more. Of course there S

one of the two new aircraft carriers, that will be deployed in

the gulf, to help the Americans keep the straits of her muz open, because

it is in Europe's interest, not just Britains, Europe's interest that

these straits stay open, which is more so than America. That is what

FRANK was talking about. That is no change, British foreign policy has

been keeping the straits open... Now we have the ability do it. We don't

have an aircraft aier at the moment. Nor do we have the fleet of ships it

needs. It is a great thing to be trade morgue with the Nice, to be

turning -- Middle East, to be turning round more tax revenues and

the like. Even selling weapons. I don't know what more can be done.

You look at what has happened. BBC has had horrific reports from the

Yemen and if you look at what the weapons are being used for, is that

the trade we want? Right. Let us move on. Mr Corbyn was giving a

speech yesterday but he was inter#ru79ded by Peter Tatchell.

Peter, could we leave this to the questions please?

Peter, we are trying to make a speech here and then

Was Peter Tatchell right do that yesterday? It is a bit of a

distraction really. Jeremy Corbyn 17% in the polled is not going to be

able to change... You mean his personal rating. If you want to do

something about Syria you ought to be addressing the Government rather

than a failing Labour leader. Peter Tatchell's line was Labour in

general, Mr Corbyn in particular had not been vocal enough in condemning

what the Russians and their Assad allies are doing in Aleppo. It was

interesting Mr Corbyn had to ask Emily Thornberry if and when had

they condemned what the Russians were doing? It was unclear. Other

than Mrs Thornbury herself. There is a fascinating fault line in politics

which is the Trump administration, the way in which parts of the

British left have made themselves useful idiots once again for the

Kremlin and it its policies. I think more broadly, you consider all the

things we have been discussing, it is a national tragedy what is

happening to the Labour Party. You don't know whether to laugh or cry

watching that event. Corbyn was at a stop the war rally event only last

week, and they of course are very close to the Kremlin, they blame the

west, well they blame the west much more... They always blame the west.

And not the Russians. I agree Jeremy Corbyn having to check with Emily

Thornberry what the Labour Party's policy was on bombing Aleppo... If

and when they condemned it. He needs to no better. The fact that we are

talking about what was a pretty small scale protest, rather than

anything Corbyn said, shows he wasn't saying anything relevant. We

will get a huge amount of tweet saying the BBC are anti-Corbyn. I

understand that, that shouldn't intimidate us from saying, from

analysing what is happening, and here is one yard stick, of course it

is fundamentally the Government's choice, but it could be an indicator

of whether the Labour Party is relevant or not in only issues, in

reason pert Murdoch is making a take over bid for all of Sky and so far

you would have to bet, policy, that it is going to get through pretty

much unscathed. It is extraordinary. It is connected with Leveson, and

the fact that that has disappeared. That the idea of restraining the

press in any way at all, and virtual will I the whole of the press is

behind that, and it seems to go with allowing what wasn't allowed before.

He was judged as unfit before. He is as unfit now, to control that much

of the media, and as he was when he made the last bid for Sky. It is

time people stood up and said so. You look at the press he runs, the

cultural effect he has has on this country which has been appalling,

you know about this. Tom, I better let you have a word. I don't agree

at all Polly but the lesson for the Labour Party, is if they don't want

to have any influence at all, they have to be credible, and stand a

reasonable chance of becoming Prime Minister or becoming Government,

that is the only way they will get leverage. We need to leave it there.

I was going to say we will come back to it. We will see. The Daily

Politics will be back at noon tomorrow.

and we'll be back here next Sunday for the last show of 2016.

Remember - if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.

# We're going to have a party tonight

# I'm going to find that boy underneath the mistletoe

# What a nice way to spend the year. #