15/01/2017

:00:36. > :00:39.It's Sunday morning, and this is the Sunday Politics.

:00:40. > :00:42.Is the Prime Minister prepared to end Britain's membership

:00:43. > :00:45.of the EU's single market and its customs union?

:00:46. > :00:48.We preview Theresa May's big speech, as she seeks to unite the country

:00:49. > :00:56.Is the press a force for good or a beast that needs taming?

:00:57. > :00:58.As the Government ponders its decision, we speak to one

:00:59. > :01:03.of those leading the campaign for greater regulation.

:01:04. > :01:08.Just what kind of President will Donald Trump be?

:01:09. > :01:14.Piers Morgan, a man who knows him well, joins us live.

:01:15. > :01:16.In London this week: With the rail and Tube strikes bringing

:01:17. > :01:19.the capital to a standstill, can a political solution be found

:01:20. > :01:33.And to help me make sense of all that, three of the finest

:01:34. > :01:36.hacks we could persuade to work on a Sunday - Steve Richards,

:01:37. > :01:44.They'll be tweeting throughout the programme, and you can join

:01:45. > :01:51.So, Theresa May is preparing for her big Brexit speech on Tuesday,

:01:52. > :01:54.in which she will urge people to give up on "insults"

:01:55. > :01:58.and "division" and unite to build, quote, a "global Britain".

:01:59. > :02:01.Some of the Sunday papers report that the Prime Minister will go

:02:02. > :02:04.The Sunday Telegraph splashes with the headline: "May's big

:02:05. > :02:08.gamble on a clean Brexit", saying the Prime Minister

:02:09. > :02:10.will announce she's prepared to take Britain out of membership

:02:11. > :02:15.of the single market and customs union.

:02:16. > :02:18.The Sunday Times has a similar write-up -

:02:19. > :02:21.they call it a "clean and hard Brexit".

:02:22. > :02:24.The Brexit Secretary David Davis has also written a piece in the paper

:02:25. > :02:28.hinting that a transitional deal could be on the cards.

:02:29. > :02:31.And the Sunday Express says: "May's Brexit Battle Plan",

:02:32. > :02:33.explaining that the Prime Minister will get tough with Brussels

:02:34. > :02:36.and call for an end to free movement.

:02:37. > :02:38.Well, let's get some more reaction on this.

:02:39. > :02:40.I'm joined now from Cumbria by the leader

:02:41. > :02:47.of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron.

:02:48. > :02:52.Mr Farron, welcome back to the programme. The Prime Minister says

:02:53. > :02:56.most people now just want to get on with it and make a success of it.

:02:57. > :03:02.But you still want to stop it, don't you? Well, I certainly take the view

:03:03. > :03:06.that heading for a hard Brexit, essentially that means being outside

:03:07. > :03:10.the Single Market and the customs union, is not something that was on

:03:11. > :03:13.the ballot paper last June. For Theresa May to adopt what is

:03:14. > :03:18.basically the large all Farage vision of Britain's relationship

:03:19. > :03:22.with Europe is not what was voted for last June. It is right for us to

:03:23. > :03:26.stand up and say that a hard Brexit is not the democratic choice of the

:03:27. > :03:29.British people, and that we should be fighting for the people to be the

:03:30. > :03:34.ones who have the Seat the end of this process, not have it forced

:03:35. > :03:38.upon them by Theresa May and David Davis. When it comes though dual

:03:39. > :03:41.position that we should remain in the membership of the Single Market

:03:42. > :03:47.and the customs union, it looks like you are losing the argument, doesn't

:03:48. > :03:51.it? My sense is that if you believe in being in the Single Market and

:03:52. > :03:55.the customs union are good things, I think many people on the leave site

:03:56. > :04:00.believe that, Stephen Phillips, the Conservative MP until the autumn who

:04:01. > :04:04.resigned, who voted for Leave but believe we should be in the Single

:04:05. > :04:08.Market, I think those people believe that it is wrong for us to enter the

:04:09. > :04:12.negotiations having given up on the most important part of it. If you

:04:13. > :04:16.really are going to fight Britain's corner, then you should go in there

:04:17. > :04:22.fighting the membership of the Single Market, not give up and

:04:23. > :04:26.whitefly, as Theresa May has done before we even start. -- and wave

:04:27. > :04:30.the white flag. Will you vote against regret Article 50 in the

:04:31. > :04:33.Commons? We made it clear that we want the British people to have the

:04:34. > :04:38.final Seat -- vote against triggering. Will you vote against

:04:39. > :04:45.Article 50. Will you encourage the House of Lords to vote against out

:04:46. > :04:48.Article 50? I don't think they will get a chance to vote. They will have

:04:49. > :04:51.a chance to win the deuce amendments. One amendment we will

:04:52. > :04:56.introduce is that there should be a referendum in the terms of the deal.

:04:57. > :04:59.It is not right that Parliament on Government, and especially not civil

:05:00. > :05:03.servants in Brussels and Whitehall, they should stitch-up the final

:05:04. > :05:07.deal. That would be wrong. It is right that the British people have

:05:08. > :05:14.the final say. I understand that as your position. You made it clear

:05:15. > :05:16.Britain to remain a member of the Single Market on the customs union.

:05:17. > :05:19.You accept, I assume, that that would mean remaining under the

:05:20. > :05:22.jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, continuing free movement

:05:23. > :05:28.of people, and the free-trade deals remained in Brussels' competence. So

:05:29. > :05:33.it seems to me that if you believe that being in the Single Market is a

:05:34. > :05:36.good thing, then you should go and argue for that. Whilst I believe

:05:37. > :05:39.that we're not going to get a better deal than the one we currently have,

:05:40. > :05:42.nevertheless it is up to the Government to go and argue for the

:05:43. > :05:47.best deal possible for us outside. You accept your position would mean

:05:48. > :05:51.that? It would mean certainly being in the Single Market and the customs

:05:52. > :05:55.union. It's no surprise to you I'm sure that the Lib Dems believe the

:05:56. > :05:58.package we have got now inside the EU is going to be of the Nutley

:05:59. > :06:02.better than anything we get from the outside, I accept the direction of

:06:03. > :06:06.travel -- is going to be the Nutley better. At the moment, what the

:06:07. > :06:11.Government are doing is assuming that all the things you say Drew,

:06:12. > :06:13.and there is no way possible for us arguing for a deal that allows in

:06:14. > :06:17.the Single Market without some of those other things. If they really

:06:18. > :06:22.believed in the best for Britain, you would go and argue for the best

:06:23. > :06:28.for Britain. Let's be clear, if we remain under the jurisdiction of the

:06:29. > :06:31.ECJ, which is the court that governs membership of the Single Market,

:06:32. > :06:36.continued free movement of people, the Europeans have made clear, is

:06:37. > :06:40.what goes with the Single Market. And free-trade deals remaining under

:06:41. > :06:45.Brussels' competence. If we accepted all of that is the price of

:06:46. > :06:47.membership of the Single Market, in what conceivable way with that

:06:48. > :06:53.amount to leaving the European Union? Well, for example, I do

:06:54. > :06:57.believe that being a member of the Single Market is worth fighting for.

:06:58. > :07:01.I personally believe that freedom of movement is a good thing. British

:07:02. > :07:05.people benefit from freedom of movement. We will hugely be hit as

:07:06. > :07:09.individuals and families and businesses. Mike I understand, but

:07:10. > :07:14.your writing of leaving... There the butt is that if you do except that

:07:15. > :07:19.freedom of movement has to change, I don't, but if you do, and if you are

:07:20. > :07:24.Theresa May, and the problem is to go and fight for the best deal,

:07:25. > :07:27.don't take it from Brussels that you can't be in the Single Market

:07:28. > :07:32.without those other things as well, you don't go and argue the case. It

:07:33. > :07:35.depresses me that Theresa May is beginning this process is waving the

:07:36. > :07:41.white flag, just as this morning Jeremy Corbyn was waving the white

:07:42. > :07:43.flag when it comes to it. We need a Government that will fight Britain's

:07:44. > :07:47.corner and an opposition that will fight the Government to make sure

:07:48. > :07:53.that it fights. Just explain to our viewers how we could remain members,

:07:54. > :07:59.members of the Single Market, and not be subject to the jurisdiction

:08:00. > :08:03.of the European court? So, first of all we spent over the last many,

:08:04. > :08:07.many years, the likes of Nigel Farage and others, will have argued,

:08:08. > :08:10.you heard them on this very programme, that Britain should

:08:11. > :08:13.aspire to be like Norway and Switzerland for example, countries

:08:14. > :08:17.that are not in the European Union but aren't the Single Market. It is

:08:18. > :08:21.very clear to me that if you want the best deal for Britain -- but are

:08:22. > :08:25.in the Single Market. You go and argue for the best deal. What is the

:08:26. > :08:31.answer to my question, you haven't answered it

:08:32. > :08:36.the question is, how does the Prime Minister go and fight for the best

:08:37. > :08:41.deal for Britain. If we think that being in the Single Market is the

:08:42. > :08:46.right thing, not Baxter -- not access to it but membership of it,

:08:47. > :08:49.you don't wave the white flag before you enter the negotiating room. I'm

:08:50. > :08:53.afraid we have run out of time. Thank you, Tim Farron.

:08:54. > :08:59.The leaks on this speech on Tuesday we have seen, it is interesting that

:09:00. > :09:06.Downing Street has not attempted to dampen them down this morning, in

:09:07. > :09:10.the various papers, do they tell us something new? Do they tell us more

:09:11. > :09:14.of the Goverment's aims in the Brexit negotiations? I think it's

:09:15. > :09:17.only a confirmation of something which has been in the mating really

:09:18. > :09:24.for the six months that she's been in the job. The logic of everything

:09:25. > :09:28.that she's said since last July, the keenness on re-gaining control of

:09:29. > :09:31.migration, the desire to do international trade deals, the fact

:09:32. > :09:34.that she is appointed trade Secretary, the logic of all of that

:09:35. > :09:38.is that we are out of the Single Market, quite probably out of the

:09:39. > :09:41.customs union, what will happen this week is a restatement of a fairly

:09:42. > :09:45.clear position anyway. I think Tim Farron is right about one thing, I

:09:46. > :09:48.don't think she will go into the speech planning to absolutely

:09:49. > :09:56.definitively say, we are leaving those things. Because even if there

:09:57. > :09:59.is a 1% chance of a miracle deal, where you stay in the Single Market,

:10:00. > :10:01.somehow get exempted from free movement, it is prudent to keep

:10:02. > :10:06.hopes on that option as a Prime Minister. -- to keep open that

:10:07. > :10:09.option. She is being advised both by the diplomatic corps and her

:10:10. > :10:13.personal advisers, don't concede on membership of the Single Market yet.

:10:14. > :10:21.We know it's not going to happen, but let them Europeans knock us back

:10:22. > :10:25.on that,... That is probably the right strategy for all of the

:10:26. > :10:29.reasons that Jarlan outlined there. What we learned a bit today is the

:10:30. > :10:32.possibility of some kind of transition or arrangements, which

:10:33. > :10:37.David Davies has been talking about in a comment piece for one of the

:10:38. > :10:41.Sunday papers. My sense from Brexiteers aborting MPs is that they

:10:42. > :10:46.are very happy with 90% of the rhetoric -- Brexit sporting MPs. The

:10:47. > :10:52.rhetoric has not been dampened down by MPs, apart from this transitional

:10:53. > :10:56.arrangement, which they feel and two France, on the one front will

:10:57. > :11:00.encourage the very dilatory EU to spend longer than ever negotiating a

:11:01. > :11:03.deal, and on the other hand will also be exactly what our civil

:11:04. > :11:07.service looks for in stringing things out. What wasn't explained

:11:08. > :11:11.this morning is what David Davies means by transitional is not that

:11:12. > :11:14.you negotiate what you can in two years and then spend another five

:11:15. > :11:20.years on the matter is that a lot of the soul. He thinks everything has

:11:21. > :11:23.to be done in the two years, -- of the matter are hard to solve. But it

:11:24. > :11:29.would include transitional arrangements over the five years.

:11:30. > :11:34.What we are seeing in the build-up is the danger of making these kind

:11:35. > :11:37.of speeches. In a way, I kind of admired her not feeding the media

:11:38. > :11:43.machine over the autumn and the end of last year cars, as Janan has

:11:44. > :11:47.pointed out in his columns, she has actually said quite a lot from it,

:11:48. > :11:51.you would extrapolate quite a lot. We won't be members of the Single

:11:52. > :11:57.Market? She said that in the party conference speech, we are out of

:11:58. > :12:02.European court. Her red line is the end of free movement, so we are out

:12:03. > :12:05.of the Single Market. Why has she sent Liam Fox to negotiate all of

:12:06. > :12:09.these other deals, not that he will succeed necessarily, but that is the

:12:10. > :12:12.intention? We are still in the customs union. You can extrapolate

:12:13. > :12:17.what she will say perhaps more cautiously in the headlines on

:12:18. > :12:21.Tuesday. But the grammar of a big speech raises expectations, gets the

:12:22. > :12:24.markets worked up. So she is doing it because people have said that she

:12:25. > :12:28.doesn't know what she's on about. But maybe she should have resisted

:12:29. > :12:32.it. Very well, and she hasn't. The speech is on Tuesday morning.

:12:33. > :12:34.Now, the public consultation on press regulation closed this

:12:35. > :12:36.week, and soon ministers will have to decide whether to

:12:37. > :12:38.enact a controversial piece of legislation.

:12:39. > :12:40.Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, if implemented,

:12:41. > :12:43.could see newspapers forced to pay legal costs in libel and privacy

:12:44. > :12:53.If they don't sign up to an officially approved regulator.

:12:54. > :12:56.The newspapers say it's an affront to a free press,

:12:57. > :12:58.while pro-privacy campaigners say it's the only way to ensure

:12:59. > :13:00.a scandal like phone-hacking can't happen again.

:13:01. > :13:05.Ellie Price has been reading all about it.

:13:06. > :13:09.It was the biggest news about the news for decades,

:13:10. > :13:15.a scandal that involved household names, but not just celebrities.

:13:16. > :13:17.They've even hacked the phone of a murdered schoolgirl.

:13:18. > :13:20.It led to the closure of the News Of The World,

:13:21. > :13:30.a year-long public inquiry headed up by the judge Lord Justice Leveson,

:13:31. > :13:33.and in the end, a new press watchdog set up by Royal Charter,

:13:34. > :13:35.which could impose, among other things, million-pound fines.

:13:36. > :13:37.If this system is implemented, the country should have confidence

:13:38. > :13:39.that the terrible suffering of innocent victims

:13:40. > :13:41.like the Dowlers, the McCanns and Christopher Jefferies should

:13:42. > :13:47.To get this new plan rolling, the Government also passed

:13:48. > :13:51.the Crime and Courts Act, Section 40 of which would force

:13:52. > :13:54.publications who didn't sign up to the new regulator to pay legal

:13:55. > :13:58.costs in libel and privacy cases, even if they won.

:13:59. > :14:01.It's waiting for sign-off from the Culture Secretary.

:14:02. > :14:05.We've got about 50 publications that have signed up...

:14:06. > :14:08.This is Impress, the press regulator that's got the backing

:14:09. > :14:14.of the Royal Charter, so its members are protected

:14:15. > :14:17.from the penalties that would be imposed by Section 40.

:14:18. > :14:22.It's funded by the Formula One tycoon Max Mosley's

:14:23. > :14:28.I think the danger if we don't get Section 40 is that

:14:29. > :14:29.you have an incomplete Leveson project.

:14:30. > :14:33.I think it's very, very likely that within the next five or ten years

:14:34. > :14:35.there will be a scandal, there'll be a crisis in press

:14:36. > :14:37.standards, everyone will be saying to the Government,

:14:38. > :14:40."Why on Earth didn't you sort things out when you had the chance?"

:14:41. > :14:43.Isn't Section 40 essentially just a big stick to beat

:14:44. > :14:51.We hear a lot about the stick part, but there's also a big juicy carrot

:14:52. > :14:54.for publishers and their journalists who are members of an

:14:55. > :14:56.They get huge new protections from libel threats,

:14:57. > :14:58.from privacy actions, which actually means they've got

:14:59. > :15:08.a lot more opportunity to run investigative stories.

:15:09. > :15:10.Impress has a big image problem - not a single national

:15:11. > :15:15.Instead, many of them are members of Ipso,

:15:16. > :15:18.the independent regulator set up and funded by the industry that

:15:19. > :15:24.doesn't seek the recognition of the Royal Charter.

:15:25. > :15:27.The male cells around 22,000 each day...

:15:28. > :15:30.There are regional titles too, who, like the Birmingham Mail,

:15:31. > :15:32.won't sign up to Impress, even if they say the costs

:15:33. > :15:37.are associated with Section 40 could put them out of business.

:15:38. > :15:39.Impress has an umbilical cord that goes directly back to Government

:15:40. > :15:41.through the recognition setup that it has.

:15:42. > :15:43.Now, we broke free of the shackles of the regulated press

:15:44. > :15:46.when the stamp duty was revealed 150 years ago.

:15:47. > :15:54.If we go back to this level of oversight, then I think

:15:55. > :15:59.we turn the clock back, 150 years of press freedom.

:16:00. > :16:01.The responses from the public have been coming thick and fast

:16:02. > :16:03.since the Government launched its consultation

:16:04. > :16:06.In fact, by the time it closed on Tuesday,

:16:07. > :16:10.And for that reason alone, it could take months before

:16:11. > :16:14.a decision on what happens next is taken.

:16:15. > :16:17.The Government will also be minded to listen to its own MPs,

:16:18. > :16:23.One described it to me as Draconian and hugely damaging.

:16:24. > :16:25.So, will the current Culture Secretary's thinking be

:16:26. > :16:34.I don't think the Government will repeal section 40.

:16:35. > :16:38.What I'm arguing for is not to implement it, but it will remain

:16:39. > :16:42.on the statute book and if it then became apparent that Ipso simply

:16:43. > :16:45.was failing to work, was not delivering effective

:16:46. > :16:49.regulation and the press were behaving in a way

:16:50. > :16:54.which was wholly unacceptable, as they were ten years ago,

:16:55. > :16:57.then there might be an argument at that time to think well in that

:16:58. > :16:59.case we are going to have to take further measures,

:17:00. > :17:05.The future of section 40 might not be so black and white.

:17:06. > :17:07.I'm told a compromise could be met whereby the punitive parts

:17:08. > :17:11.about legal costs are dropped, but the incentives

:17:12. > :17:14.to join a recognised regulator are beefed up.

:17:15. > :17:17.But it could yet be some time until the issue of press freedom

:17:18. > :17:28.I'm joined now by Max Mosley - he won a legal case against the News

:17:29. > :17:30.Of The World after it revealed details about his private life,

:17:31. > :17:34.and he now campaigns for more press regulation.

:17:35. > :17:43.Are welcome to the programme. Let me ask you this, how can it be right

:17:44. > :17:47.that you, who many folk think have a clear vendetta against the British

:17:48. > :17:52.press, can bankroll a government approved regulator of the press? If

:17:53. > :17:57.we hadn't done it, nobody would, section 40 would never have come

:17:58. > :18:01.into force because there would never have been a regulator. It is

:18:02. > :18:06.absolutely wrong that a family trust should have to finance something

:18:07. > :18:11.like this. It should be financed by the press or the Government. If we

:18:12. > :18:12.hadn't done it there would be no possibility of regulation. But it

:18:13. > :18:39.means we end up with a regulator financed by you, as I say

:18:40. > :18:41.many people think you have a clear vendetta against the press. Where

:18:42. > :18:44.does the money come from? From a family trust, it is family money.

:18:45. > :18:47.You have to understand that somebody had to do this. I understand that.

:18:48. > :18:49.People like to know where the money comes from, I think you said it came

:18:50. > :18:53.from Brixton Steyn at one stage. Ages ago my father had a trust there

:18:54. > :18:56.but now all my money is in the UK. We are clear about that, but this is

:18:57. > :19:02.money that was put together by your father. Yes, my father inherited it

:19:03. > :19:06.from his father and his father. The whole of Manchester once belonged to

:19:07. > :19:11.the family, that's why there is a Mosley Street. That is irrelevant

:19:12. > :19:14.because as we have given the money, I have no control. If you do the

:19:15. > :19:25.most elementary checks into the contract between my family trust,

:19:26. > :19:29.the trust but finances Impress, it is impossible for me to exert any

:19:30. > :19:36.influence. It is just the same as if it had come from the National

:19:37. > :19:40.lottery. People will find it ironic that the money has come from

:19:41. > :19:49.historically Britain's best-known fascist. No, it has come from my

:19:50. > :19:53.family, the Mosley family. This is complete drivel because we have no

:19:54. > :19:59.control. Where the money comes from doesn't matter, if it had come from

:20:00. > :20:03.the national lottery it would be exactly the same. Impress was

:20:04. > :20:08.completely independent. But it wouldn't exist without your money,

:20:09. > :20:12.wouldn't it? But that doesn't give you influence. It might exist

:20:13. > :20:18.because it was founded before I was ever in contact with them. Isn't it

:20:19. > :20:23.curious then that so many leading light show your hostile views of the

:20:24. > :20:29.press? I don't think it is because I don't know a single member of the

:20:30. > :20:33.Impress board. The chairman I have met months. The only person I know

:20:34. > :20:41.is Jonathan Hayward who you had on just now. In one recent months he

:20:42. > :20:46.tweeted 50 attacks on the Daily Mail, including some calling for an

:20:47. > :20:52.advertising boycott of the paper. He also liked a Twitter post calling me

:20:53. > :20:58.Daily Mail and neofascist rag. Are these fitting for what is meant to

:20:59. > :21:02.be impartial regulator? The person you should ask about that is the

:21:03. > :21:05.press regulatory panel and they are completely independent, they

:21:06. > :21:10.reviewed the whole thing. You have probably produced something very

:21:11. > :21:12.selective, I have no idea but I am certain that these people are

:21:13. > :21:17.absolutely trustworthy and independent. It is not just Mr

:21:18. > :21:22.Hayward, we have a tonne of things he has tweeted calling for boycotts,

:21:23. > :21:28.remember this is the man that would be the regulator of these papers.

:21:29. > :21:34.He's the chief executive, that is a separate thing. The administration,

:21:35. > :21:43.the regulator. Many leading light show your vendetta of the press. I

:21:44. > :21:59.do not have a vendetta. Let's take another one. This person is on the

:22:00. > :22:05.code committee. Have a look at this. As someone with these views fit to

:22:06. > :22:09.be involved in the regulation of the press? You said I have a vendetta

:22:10. > :22:15.against the press, I do not, I didn't say that and it is completely

:22:16. > :22:20.wrong to say I have a vendetta. What do you think of that? I don't agree,

:22:21. > :22:31.I wouldn't ban the Daily Mail, I think it's a dreadful paper but I

:22:32. > :22:39.wouldn't ban it. Another Impress code committee said I hate the Daily

:22:40. > :22:43.Mail, I couldn't agree more, others have called for a boycott. Other

:22:44. > :22:48.people can say what they want and many people may think they are right

:22:49. > :22:54.but surely these views make them unfit to be partial regulators? I

:22:55. > :22:57.have no influence over Impress therefore I cannot say anything

:22:58. > :23:04.about it. You should ask them, not me. All I have done is make it

:23:05. > :23:10.possible for Impress to exist and that was the right thing to do. I'm

:23:11. > :23:15.asking you if people with these kind of views are fit to be regulators of

:23:16. > :23:21.the press. You would have to ask about all of their views, these are

:23:22. > :23:27.some of their views. A lot of people have a downer on the Daily Mail and

:23:28. > :23:31.the Sun, it doesn't necessarily make them party pre-. Why would

:23:32. > :23:37.newspapers sign up to a regulator run by what they think is run by

:23:38. > :23:42.enemies out to ruin them. If they don't like it they should start

:23:43. > :23:48.their own section 40 regulator. They could make it so recognised, if only

:23:49. > :23:58.they would make it independent of the big newspaper barons but they

:23:59. > :24:07.won't -- they could make Ipso recognised. Is the Daily Mail

:24:08. > :24:11.fascist? It certainly was in the 1930s. Me and my father are

:24:12. > :24:16.relevant, this whole section 40 issue is about access to justice.

:24:17. > :24:20.The press don't want ordinary people who cannot afford to bring an action

:24:21. > :24:25.against the press, don't want them to have access to justice. I can

:24:26. > :24:30.understand that but I don't sympathise. What would happen to the

:24:31. > :24:37.boss of Ofcom, which regulates broadcasters, if it described

:24:38. > :24:46.Channel 4 News is a Marxist scum? If the press don't want to sign up to

:24:47. > :24:56.Impress they can create their own regulator. If you were to listen we

:24:57. > :25:00.would get a lot further. The press should make their own Levenson

:25:01. > :25:06.compliant regulator, then they would have no complaints at all. Even

:25:07. > :25:10.papers like the Guardian, the Independent, the Financial Times,

:25:11. > :25:17.they show your hostility to tabloid journalism. They have refused to be

:25:18. > :25:21.regulated by Impress. I will say it again, the press could start their

:25:22. > :25:26.own regulator, they do not have to sign... Yes, but Levenson compliant

:25:27. > :25:30.one giving access to justice so people who cannot afford an

:25:31. > :25:34.expensive legal action have a proper arbitration service. The Guardian,

:25:35. > :25:38.the Independent, the Financial Times, they don't want to do that

:25:39. > :25:44.either. That would suggest there is something fatally flawed about your

:25:45. > :25:55.approach. Even these kind of papers, the Guardian, Impress is hardly

:25:56. > :26:04.independent, the head of... Andrew, I am sorry, you are like a dog with

:26:05. > :26:08.a bone. The press could start their own regulator, then people like the

:26:09. > :26:12.Financial Times, the Guardian and so one could decide whether they wanted

:26:13. > :26:16.to join or not but what is absolutely vital is that we should

:26:17. > :26:19.have a proper arbitration service so that people who cannot afford an

:26:20. > :26:24.expensive action have somewhere to go. This business of section 40

:26:25. > :26:29.which you want to be triggered which would mean papers that didn't sign

:26:30. > :26:32.up to Impress could be sued in any case and they would have to pay

:26:33. > :26:41.potentially massive legal costs, even if they win. Yes. This is what

:26:42. > :26:46.the number of papers have said about this, if section 40 was triggered,

:26:47. > :26:53.the Guardian wouldn't even think of investigation. The Sunday Times said

:26:54. > :26:56.it would not have even started to expose Lance Armstrong. The Times

:26:57. > :27:01.journalist said he couldn't have done the Rotherham child abuse

:27:02. > :27:05.scandal. What they all come it is a full reading of section 40 because

:27:06. > :27:12.that cost shifting will only apply if, and I quote, it is just and

:27:13. > :27:16.equitable in all the circumstances. I cannot conceive of any High Court

:27:17. > :27:21.judge, for example the Lance Armstrong case or the child abuse,

:27:22. > :27:26.saying it is just as equitable in all circumstances the newspaper

:27:27. > :27:32.should pay these costs. Even the editor of index on censorship, which

:27:33. > :27:36.is hardly the Sun, said this would be oppressive and they couldn't do

:27:37. > :27:43.what they do, they would risk being sued by warlords. No because if

:27:44. > :27:47.something unfortunate, some really bad person sues them, what would

:27:48. > :27:50.happen is the judge would say it is just inequitable normal

:27:51. > :27:54.circumstances that person should pay. Section 40 is for the person

:27:55. > :27:58.that comes along and says to a big newspaper, can we go to arbitration

:27:59. > :28:03.because I cannot afford to go to court. The big newspaper says no.

:28:04. > :28:08.That leaves less than 1% of the population with any remedy if the

:28:09. > :28:14.newspapers traduce them. It cannot be right. From the Guardian to the

:28:15. > :28:20.Sun, and including Index On Censorship, all of these media

:28:21. > :28:23.outlets think you are proposing a charter for conmen, warlords, crime

:28:24. > :28:28.bosses, dodgy politicians, celebrities with a grievance against

:28:29. > :28:36.the press. I will give you the final word to address that. It is pure

:28:37. > :28:41.guff and the reason is they want to go on marking their own homework.

:28:42. > :28:45.The press don't want anyone to make sure life is fair. All I want is

:28:46. > :28:50.somebody who has got no money to be able to sue in just the way that I

:28:51. > :28:53.can. All right, thanks for being with us.

:28:54. > :28:55.The doctors' union, the British Medical Association,

:28:56. > :28:57.has said the Government is scapegoating GPs in England

:28:58. > :29:01.The Government has said GP surgeries must try harder to stay

:29:02. > :29:04.open from 8am to 8pm, or they could lose out on funding.

:29:05. > :29:07.The pressure on A services in recent weeks has been intense.

:29:08. > :29:10.It emerged this week that 65 of the 152 Health Trusts in England

:29:11. > :29:12.had issued an operational pressure alert in the first

:29:13. > :29:19.At either level three, meaning major pressures,

:29:20. > :29:21.or level four, indicating an inability to deliver

:29:22. > :29:26.On Monday, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt told the Commons

:29:27. > :29:29.that the number of people using A had increased by 9 million

:29:30. > :29:37.But that 30% of those visits were unnecessary.

:29:38. > :29:40.He said that the situation at a number of Trusts

:29:41. > :29:44.On Tuesday, the Royal College of Physicians wrote

:29:45. > :29:47.to the Prime Minister saying the health service was being

:29:48. > :29:52.paralysed by spiralling demand, and urging greater investment.

:29:53. > :29:56.On Wednesday, the Chief Executive of NHS England, Simon Stevens,

:29:57. > :30:01.told a Select Committee that NHS funding will be highly constrained.

:30:02. > :30:05.And from 2018, real-terms spending per person would fall.

:30:06. > :30:09.The Prime Minister described the Red Cross's claim that A

:30:10. > :30:14.was facing a "humanitarian crisis" as "irresponsible and overblown".

:30:15. > :30:17.And the National Audit Office issued a report that found almost half,

:30:18. > :30:23.46%, of GP surgeries closed at some point during core hours.

:30:24. > :30:28.Yesterday, Mrs May signalled her support for doctors' surgeries

:30:29. > :30:31.opening from 8am to 8pm every day of the week, in order to divert

:30:32. > :30:38.To discuss this, I'm joined now by the Conservative

:30:39. > :30:41.MP Maria Caulfield - she was an NHS nurse in a former

:30:42. > :30:44.life - and Clare Gerada, a former chair of the Royal College

:30:45. > :30:54.Welcome to you both. So, Maria Caulfield, what the Government is

:30:55. > :30:59.saying, Downing Street in effect is saying that GPs do not work hard

:31:00. > :31:02.enough and that's the reason why A was under such pressure? No, I don't

:31:03. > :31:05.think that is the message, I think that is the message that the media

:31:06. > :31:10.have taken up. That is not the expression that we want to give. I

:31:11. > :31:14.still work as a nurse, I know how hard doctors work in hospitals and

:31:15. > :31:19.GP practices. When the rose 30% of people turning up at A for neither

:31:20. > :31:24.an accident or an emergency, we do need to look at alternative. Where

:31:25. > :31:28.is the GPs' operability in this? We know from patients that if they

:31:29. > :31:32.cannot get access to GPs, they will do one of three things. They will

:31:33. > :31:35.wait two or three weeks until they can get an appointment, they will

:31:36. > :31:39.forget about the problem altogether, which is not good, we want patients

:31:40. > :31:48.to be getting investigations at early stages, or they will go to

:31:49. > :31:51.A And that is a problem. I'm not quite sure what the role that GPs

:31:52. > :31:54.play in this. What is your response in that? I think about 70% of

:31:55. > :31:57.patients that I see should not be seen by me but should still be seen

:31:58. > :32:01.by hospital consultants. If we look at it from GPs' eyes and not from

:32:02. > :32:05.hospital's eyes, because that is what it is, we might get somewhere.

:32:06. > :32:10.Tomorrow morning, every practice in England will have about 1.5 GPs

:32:11. > :32:16.shot, that's not even counting if there is traffic problems, sickness

:32:17. > :32:19.or whatever. -- GPs shot. We cannot work any harder, I cannot

:32:20. > :32:26.physically, emotionally work any harder. We are open 12 hours a day,

:32:27. > :32:30.most of us, I run practices open 365 days per year 24 hours a day. I

:32:31. > :32:34.don't understand this. It is one thing attacking me as a GP from

:32:35. > :32:38.working hard enough, but it is another thing saying that GPs as a

:32:39. > :32:43.profession and doing what they should be doing. Let me in National

:32:44. > :32:50.Audit Office has coming up with these figures showing that almost

:32:51. > :32:54.half of doctors' practices are not open during core hours at some part

:32:55. > :32:58.of the week. That's where the implication comes, that they are not

:32:59. > :33:02.working hard enough. What do you say to that? I don't recognise this. I'm

:33:03. > :33:06.not being defensive, I'm just don't recognise it. There are practices

:33:07. > :33:10.working palliative care services, practices have to close home visits

:33:11. > :33:13.if they are single-handed, some of us are working in care homes during

:33:14. > :33:20.the day. They may shot for an hour in the middle of the data will sort

:33:21. > :33:23.out some of the prescriptions and admin -- they may shot. My practice

:33:24. > :33:26.runs a number of practices across London. If we shut during our

:33:27. > :33:31.contractual hours we would have NHS England coming down on us like a

:33:32. > :33:35.tonne of bricks. Maria Caulfield, I'm struggling to understand, given

:33:36. > :33:38.the problems the NHS faces, particularly in our hospitals, what

:33:39. > :33:42.this has got to do with the solution? Obviously there are GP

:33:43. > :33:47.practices that are working, you know, over and above the hours. But

:33:48. > :33:52.there are some GP practices, we know from National Audit Office, there

:33:53. > :33:55.are particular black sports -- blackspots in the country that only

:33:56. > :33:59.offer services for three hours a week. That's causing problems if

:34:00. > :34:04.they cannot get to see a GP they will go and use A Nobody is

:34:05. > :34:07.saying that this measure would solve problems at A, it would address

:34:08. > :34:12.one small part of its top blog we shouldn't be starting this, as I

:34:13. > :34:16.keep saying, please to this from solving the problems at A We

:34:17. > :34:19.should be starting it from solving the problems of the patients in

:34:20. > :34:26.their totality, the best place they should go, not from A This really

:34:27. > :34:30.upsets me, as a GP I am there to be a proxy A doctor. I am a GP, a

:34:31. > :34:35.highly skilled doctor, looking after patients from cradle to grave across

:34:36. > :34:40.the physical, psychological and social, I am not an A doctor. I

:34:41. > :34:44.don't disagree with that, nobody is saying that GPs are not working hard

:34:45. > :34:49.enough. You just did, actually, about some of them. In some

:34:50. > :34:53.practices, what we need to see, it's not just GPs in GP surgeries, it is

:34:54. > :34:58.advanced nurse practitioners, pharmacists. It doesn't necessarily

:34:59. > :35:03.need to be all on the GPs. I think advanced nurse practitioners are in

:35:04. > :35:06.short supply. Position associate or go to hospital, -- physician

:35:07. > :35:10.associates. We have very few trainees, junior doctors in general

:35:11. > :35:13.practice, unlike hospitals, which tend to have some slack with the

:35:14. > :35:18.junior doctor community and workforce. This isn't an argument,

:35:19. > :35:21.this is about saying, let's stop looking at the National health

:35:22. > :35:28.system as a National hospital system. GPs tomorrow will see about

:35:29. > :35:33.1.3 million patients. That is a lot of thoughtful. A lot of activity

:35:34. > :35:37.with no resources. If you wanted the GPs to behave better, in your terms,

:35:38. > :35:41.when you allocated more money to GPs, part of the reforms, because

:35:42. > :35:45.that's where it went, shouldn't you have targeted it more closely to

:35:46. > :35:49.where they want to operate? That is exactly what the Prime Minister is

:35:50. > :35:53.saying, extra funding is being made available by GPs to extend hours and

:35:54. > :35:56.services. If certain GP practices cannot do that, the money will

:35:57. > :36:01.follow the patient to where they move onto. We have no doctors to do

:36:02. > :36:04.it. I was on a coach last week, the coach driver stopped in the service

:36:05. > :36:08.station for an hour, they were stopping for a rest. We cannot do

:36:09. > :36:15.it. Even if you gave us millions more money, and thankfully NHS is

:36:16. > :36:18.recognising that we need a solution through the five-day week, we

:36:19. > :36:21.haven't got the doctors to deliver this. It would take a while to get

:36:22. > :36:25.them? That's my point, that's why we need to be using all how care

:36:26. > :36:28.professional. Even if you got this right, would it make a difference to

:36:29. > :36:32.what many regard as the crisis in our hospitals? I think it would. If

:36:33. > :36:37.you look at patients, they just want to go to a service that will address

:36:38. > :36:41.the problems. In Scotland for example, pharmacists have their own

:36:42. > :36:44.patient list. Patients go and see the pharmacists first. There are

:36:45. > :36:49.lots of conditions, for example if you want anticoagulants, you don't

:36:50. > :36:54.necessarily need to see a doctor, a pharmacist can manage that and free

:36:55. > :36:57.up the doctor in other ways. The Prime Minister has said that if

:36:58. > :37:00.things do not change she is threatening to reduce funding to

:37:01. > :37:04.doctors who do not comply. Can you both agree, that is probably an

:37:05. > :37:08.empty threat, that's not going to happen? I hope it's an empty threat.

:37:09. > :37:12.We're trying our best. People like me in my profession, the seniors in

:37:13. > :37:16.our profession, are really trying to pull up morale and get people into

:37:17. > :37:21.general practice, which is a wonderful profession, absolutely

:37:22. > :37:24.wonderful place to be. But slapping us off and telling us that we are

:37:25. > :37:29.lazy really doesn't help. I really don't think anybody is doing that.

:37:30. > :37:31.We have run out of time, but I'm certain that we will be back to the

:37:32. > :37:34.subject before this winter is out. It's just gone 11:35am,

:37:35. > :37:36.you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers

:37:37. > :37:39.in Scotland, who leave us now Coming up here in 20

:37:40. > :37:42.minutes: The Week Ahead. First though, the Sunday

:37:43. > :37:50.Politics where you are. Coming up a little later -

:37:51. > :37:57.a review into ticket office closures was one example -

:37:58. > :37:59.Sadiq Khan likes to A careful approach,

:38:00. > :38:02.based on evidence. Here with me, Bob Neill,

:38:03. > :38:07.Conservative MP for Bromley and Chislehurst, and Seema Malhotra,

:38:08. > :38:13.Labour MP for Feltham and Heston. The issue around their closure

:38:14. > :38:20.by the last mayor Boris Johnson is rumbling on and causing trouble

:38:21. > :38:23.in Sadiq Khan's mayoralty. He doesn't want to re-open them,

:38:24. > :38:26.but accepts the need to put more That's not prevented a one-day

:38:27. > :38:30.Tube strike this week, and there's the threat from the RMT

:38:31. > :38:35.of more action next month. What with the three days of strike

:38:36. > :38:37.action on Southern Rail, well, there's a bit of turmoil

:38:38. > :38:40.on the trains just now. I asked the Labour leader

:38:41. > :38:42.Jeremy Corbyn this... The Mayor of London has put 200 more

:38:43. > :38:45.staff back into stations. And I do think there is a need

:38:46. > :38:59.to have a ticket office, particularly in the big

:39:00. > :39:01.interchange stations, And that surely is something that

:39:02. > :39:10.can be discussed and negotiated. So you are saying that the Mayor

:39:11. > :39:14.should improve his offer I'm saying there has

:39:15. > :39:17.to be an agreement. We've put a lot of money

:39:18. > :39:21.into the tube system, that's good. Sadiq has managed to bring forward

:39:22. > :39:23.the 24-hour running, good. We are going to have a better

:39:24. > :39:27.Tube service in London, but I do think there is a point,

:39:28. > :39:30.and the public are telling me this, as a London MP, that they would

:39:31. > :39:33.like to see ticket offices. So you would like him to look

:39:34. > :39:36.at that and review it? I would ask him to look

:39:37. > :39:44.at it, yes, of course. Seema, the Mayor condemned

:39:45. > :39:47.the strikes, or this strike, And the reason is that I think

:39:48. > :39:55.there is common ground, and a very important area of common

:39:56. > :39:57.ground on the issue of safety on the Underground

:39:58. > :40:00.and how we manage that. What I see in Sadiq is a man

:40:01. > :40:03.who is determined to make a difference in London,

:40:04. > :40:05.and very serious about his commitment that there

:40:06. > :40:07.should be no strikes. But in doing that,

:40:08. > :40:09.you have to be clear that you are a politician

:40:10. > :40:10.that recognises and is on the same page

:40:11. > :40:13.on those issues. In my view, it's right that Sadiq

:40:14. > :40:16.commissioned the review that he did. It has led to an admission as well

:40:17. > :40:19.by London Underground that And we absolutely have to see more

:40:20. > :40:26.staff in our stations. What I want to see is really

:40:27. > :40:28.constructive dialogue. I believe that the unions

:40:29. > :40:30.have genuine concerns. We want the right answer

:40:31. > :40:32.for Londoners, though. Londoners don't want the strikes,

:40:33. > :40:35.they don't want the disruption. It's detrimental for

:40:36. > :40:36.businesses and individuals. What we want is a solution, we want

:40:37. > :40:40.to see people around the table. Sadiq Khan says there is no need

:40:41. > :40:42.to reopen, he shouldn't reopen And the independent review

:40:43. > :40:49.did not recommended it. Do you agree with that,

:40:50. > :40:51.then, that we should not Well, I want to see this be part

:40:52. > :40:55.of the ongoing discussion. Part of what came out

:40:56. > :41:00.from the travel watch report is that there should be a task force

:41:01. > :41:03.around how the staff are deployed. Whether there are specific

:41:04. > :41:05.circumstances and specific stations And to have that discussion,

:41:06. > :41:11.I think, is one that can be had People want to see that

:41:12. > :41:16.there is a negotiation. And I believe that that is something

:41:17. > :41:22.that with the leadership that we have, political leadership

:41:23. > :41:29.in Sadiq, and the intent that we solve this problem

:41:30. > :41:33.for Londoners and travellers, I think this is what we need to do -

:41:34. > :41:37.have the negotiation and make sure Do you accept that Sadiq Khan

:41:38. > :41:41.appears to be trying his hardest? He is condemning the strike and has

:41:42. > :41:43.condemned the unions. Do you hold him responsible

:41:44. > :41:51.for this strike this week? I think he could persuade his leader

:41:52. > :41:55.to have the guts to condemn this strike and persuade fellow Londoners

:41:56. > :42:00.like Seema to speak out and say, this is a political strike, it is

:42:01. > :42:04.not about safety. The travel watch review has indicated this is

:42:05. > :42:08.perfectly safe. There are more jobs being put in. This is old-fashioned,

:42:09. > :42:13.hard left militant trade union muscle, and Londoners are suffering.

:42:14. > :42:18.Any London MP with any decency and guts should speak out. Where you

:42:19. > :42:21.entirely happy with the ticket office is being removed? And have

:42:22. > :42:35.you had no concerns expressed EU? I go you have a cheap station, have

:42:36. > :42:37.you had no concerns raised to you about how to get around safety in

:42:38. > :42:40.tube stations -- you have a tube station. It seems to me that the

:42:41. > :42:42.travel watch report picked up the issues sensibly. The idea of

:42:43. > :42:46.changing the way the ticket office operated went back to Ken

:42:47. > :42:51.Livingstone's timers -- time as mayor. All of the work has been done

:42:52. > :42:55.on this. This is a case of the unions flexing their muscles on

:42:56. > :42:57.holding passengers to ransom. Unfortunately, the national

:42:58. > :43:02.leadership of the Labour Party will not speak out against it. The

:43:03. > :43:05.outcome of that is that journey Corbyn does not condemn in

:43:06. > :43:09.forthright terms of the strike that happened on Monday. Should he have

:43:10. > :43:13.done? I believe that striking is not the way forward on this issue. That

:43:14. > :43:18.is because there is genuine, Brown. It is a different situation to

:43:19. > :43:22.Southern Rail. -- there is genuine common ground. Would you expect him

:43:23. > :43:26.to say that like you have just said it? My view is this, very clearly,

:43:27. > :43:30.the issue with safety is the one that we have got to focus on. This

:43:31. > :43:35.is not about, you know, solely to get offices or not, this is about

:43:36. > :43:39.safety of people like you or me. I travel on my own late at night...

:43:40. > :43:43.Are you saying that a leader does not understand that? He thinks Sadiq

:43:44. > :43:47.Khan should reopen some of these ticket offices, whatever travel

:43:48. > :43:53.watch says, he has looked at it, he has people raising this with him, do

:43:54. > :43:57.you not think, was he right to say that and go against what the mayor

:43:58. > :44:00.says? Siddique was elected as the Mayor of London and he has to be

:44:01. > :44:04.accountable for these issues -- Sadiq Khan. The white should he

:44:05. > :44:09.ignored me Corbyn on this one? I don't think that is the issue here.

:44:10. > :44:14.I think the issue is, can we make sure a negotiation happens on the

:44:15. > :44:18.issues? I, like other Londoners, want to see us tackle this issue of

:44:19. > :44:21.safety for women and young people and everybody, we have got 24-hour

:44:22. > :44:25.is underground now, we should be making sure that these issues are

:44:26. > :44:29.addressed. Bob, you're not going to disagree with that. The report which

:44:30. > :44:33.you have supported and said was the right thing to do, of course, also

:44:34. > :44:36.said that the closure under the previous Conservative man was not

:44:37. > :44:38.done efficiently and well and not done giving confidence the

:44:39. > :44:47.passengers, would you accept that? The evidence suggests the issue

:44:48. > :44:51.around things like reassurance to the public when we have 24-hour tube

:44:52. > :44:56.is not best done by having someone locked away in a ticket office, is

:44:57. > :45:01.by having greater visibility and I suspect any Conservative mayor would

:45:02. > :45:02.adopt that approach too. So why aren't we being pragmatic about

:45:03. > :45:07.this? Let's move on. As we've been saying,

:45:08. > :45:09.the Mayor asked the passenger watchdog Travelwatch to do a review,

:45:10. > :45:12.before opting not to It's been just one of a number

:45:13. > :45:16.of reviews the Labour mayor has ordered in his first few months

:45:17. > :45:18.at City Hall. The Conservatives suggest

:45:19. > :45:37.it's a sign of weakness Horrible. We were here at half past

:45:38. > :45:40.five. I don't support it, it's ridiculous. The industrial action

:45:41. > :45:43.this week was over a dispute about closing ticket offices, something

:45:44. > :45:47.Sadiq Khan had hoped he could resolve by holding an official

:45:48. > :45:54.review of the policy. In the end though it wasn't enough to convince

:45:55. > :45:57.the trade unions to call it off. I asked the Independent Travelwatch to

:45:58. > :46:10.undertake a review around ticket office closures, their report back

:46:11. > :46:15.-- came back in December. The TSSA union said they based their decision

:46:16. > :46:19.not on the review but what members were telling them. Our

:46:20. > :46:23.responsibility is to members, not to Sadiq Khan. My job is to stand up

:46:24. > :46:31.for the people who are members of our union, and when they tell me

:46:32. > :46:34.that study that tells us that they have seen a terrible spike in verbal

:46:35. > :46:39.and physical abuse, we aren't going to stand by and do nothing. But the

:46:40. > :46:43.ticket office closures review is one of many, there's been a marked

:46:44. > :46:48.increase in them since Sadiq Khan took the reins at Hall. All the

:46:49. > :46:54.reviewing has led to accusation he is just dithering about incidents

:46:55. > :46:58.making decisions. The Conservatives on the London Assembly have been

:46:59. > :47:03.keeping a tally and reckon Sadiq Khan has called for a review 19

:47:04. > :47:08.times. It tells you he's an empty vessel basically. He loves to make

:47:09. > :47:12.promises he cannot keep and if he doesn't think he can make a promise,

:47:13. > :47:17.he will call the review because his very afraid of making any decisions.

:47:18. > :47:23.But cut the number of reviews be even higher? Andrew Gilligan was the

:47:24. > :47:28.Commissioner of cycling for Boris Johnson. He counts 32 reviews, one

:47:29. > :47:32.for every week of the mayoralty. Part of the reason we've had this

:47:33. > :47:36.blitz of reviews is that Sadiq Khan seems to find it difficult to make

:47:37. > :47:40.decisions. He's changed his position five times on Garden Bridge for

:47:41. > :47:45.instance, which is something he's got another review on now. His found

:47:46. > :47:54.it difficult to face down organised groups, tries to please both sides

:47:55. > :47:59.in the Tube strike and the almost certain result of that will be that

:48:00. > :48:02.this strikes go on longer. All of these things show difficulty in

:48:03. > :48:09.making decisions, which might prove to be one of his defining

:48:10. > :48:13.weaknesses. But just how many reviews has Sadiq Khan actually

:48:14. > :48:16.commissioned? While we were researching this story, we have

:48:17. > :48:21.people suggest 40 different subjects where at some point Sadiq Khan or

:48:22. > :48:24.one of his aides said they would review it, but City Hall say there

:48:25. > :48:28.is a big difference between an official review, like the one they

:48:29. > :48:31.did in to terrorism which came up with a document and 120

:48:32. > :48:36.recommendations at the end of it, and on the other hand one of the

:48:37. > :48:46.mayor's team saying we are looking into that, we are reviewing it. City

:48:47. > :48:49.Hall say there are 15 proper reviews, but the key question is

:48:50. > :48:51.whether all of this work will make our lives any better. There's always

:48:52. > :48:55.the question, are they reviews which are published, there is a bit of

:48:56. > :48:59.polite discussion and that's the end of it, or does something then

:49:00. > :49:04.happened? That's always a big question for reviews of this kind.

:49:05. > :49:09.The answer to that question may well be crucial to whether voters want to

:49:10. > :49:16.return Sadiq Khan to City Hall three years from now.

:49:17. > :49:23.Bob, we know your view because he did the Travelwatch review into

:49:24. > :49:28.ticket offices and acted on it. The only problem with the Travelwatch

:49:29. > :49:38.review is the unions don't take any notice of it. Can we criticise the

:49:39. > :49:42.Mayor for wanting to review and look at the evidence? I think where there

:49:43. > :49:46.is a sensible reason for it, he was trying to solve an industrial

:49:47. > :49:50.dispute and didn't succeed unfortunately, when he tries I will

:49:51. > :49:55.give him credit but on some of the other things there is really no need

:49:56. > :49:58.at all. Everybody knows for example the garden bridge was a vanity

:49:59. > :50:06.project, there is no need to have another review. At one stage was in

:50:07. > :50:11.favour of scrapping it. Any others, do you think? Should he have done

:50:12. > :50:15.one into the preparedness of terror, into fire stations. Interestingly

:50:16. > :50:19.when he did both of those, the upshot of what came out of the fire

:50:20. > :50:28.stations was it was entirely safe and satisfactory, the Terror review

:50:29. > :50:32.showed London was prepared, the work had already been done. I think there

:50:33. > :50:37.is too much of a pattern here where the review triggers a tweet and a

:50:38. > :50:39.photo opportunity and it makes the great publicity but it's not

:50:40. > :50:44.necessarily getting much done. We weren't able to interview

:50:45. > :50:46.the mayor this week, but one of Sadiq Khan's deputy

:50:47. > :50:49.mayors explained their approach. You look at the last seven or eight

:50:50. > :50:53.months since the Mayor was elected. He has secured 3.15 billion pounds

:50:54. > :50:56.to invest in affordable housing - the biggest ever deal

:50:57. > :50:58.between City Hall and He delivered the night tube,

:50:59. > :51:06.the TFL fares freeze, a police officer in every ward,

:51:07. > :51:11.the London Is Open campaign to boost The Mayor has been really busy

:51:12. > :51:16.in the last seven or eight months. But on some of the other really big

:51:17. > :51:20.decisions where he wants to make sure decisions are taken

:51:21. > :51:22.on the basis of evidence, and on some of the decisions he's

:51:23. > :51:25.inherited from his predecessor, where the decision taking appears

:51:26. > :51:27.to be ill informed or opaque, it's right that he takes advice

:51:28. > :51:30.from people with great Seema, isn't this creating

:51:31. > :51:34.a kind of impression, something about, you know,

:51:35. > :51:36.not really knowing yet I think what is very clear is that

:51:37. > :51:41.Sadiq has absolutely And, to be honest, I think

:51:42. > :51:44.Londoners recognise that, with his approval ratings going up,

:51:45. > :51:47.even in the last few months The reason why I think that this

:51:48. > :51:53.is important is because you have to have an approach where you've got

:51:54. > :51:56.the best evidence for And when you look at

:51:57. > :52:00.what Sadiq Khan's priorities are, which is putting affordable housing

:52:01. > :52:04.centre stage as well in London, making sure that we're safe,

:52:05. > :52:13.making sure that we get I mean, taxpayers want to know that

:52:14. > :52:14.you get value for money. OK, let's take something

:52:15. > :52:15.like affordable housing. We have a list, the list

:52:16. > :52:17.from City Hall here. On one of them, they put,

:52:18. > :52:19.an audit of Boris Johnson's I mean, why are they bothering

:52:20. > :52:23.with something like that, looking backwards, with the sense

:52:24. > :52:26.that it is being highly politicised, rather than concentrating

:52:27. > :52:27.on building affordable Well, I think it's also pretty clear

:52:28. > :52:32.that the cupboard was laid pretty bare when it came

:52:33. > :52:36.to housing from Boris. Right, we know that,

:52:37. > :52:39.we don't need a review to tell us. The question is, what

:52:40. > :52:40.decisions were also made, why was that the case,

:52:41. > :52:43.how do you change that? I think what is really important

:52:44. > :52:45.is a holistic approach And this is for all of our

:52:46. > :52:50.constituents in London as well, to know that you've got an approach

:52:51. > :52:53.that is going to be sustainable for affordable housing,

:52:54. > :52:55.to know that you've got an approach that is going to make sure

:52:56. > :52:58.that we are safe in London. That you haven't got overseas

:52:59. > :53:00.investment in London I think we want to make sure you've

:53:01. > :53:05.got an approach that we've got the best evidence

:53:06. > :53:07.for the best policies. You've got no problem

:53:08. > :53:08.with these reviews. If he doesn't like it,

:53:09. > :53:12.if Bob Neill doesn't like it, if other people don't like it,

:53:13. > :53:15.why doesn't he just Well, I think there are also issues

:53:16. > :53:25.around some of the decisions that Boris made, the idea

:53:26. > :53:28.that we spent a quarter and water cannons that

:53:29. > :53:32.then weren't approved. Should we have a

:53:33. > :53:34.Garden Bridge review? Shouldn't he know

:53:35. > :53:36.what he believes now? If he has got to ask the question

:53:37. > :53:39.is, he's going to be accountable for the questions that he's asking,

:53:40. > :53:42.the decisions that he's taking, if there are unanswered questions,

:53:43. > :53:45.then he would want an efficient way of doing that so that you don't go

:53:46. > :53:47.ahead spending public money for something that isn't

:53:48. > :53:49.going to deliver the Bob Neill, surely the London public

:53:50. > :53:53.wouldn't understand it if he just sort of overturned some decisions

:53:54. > :53:55.that are being taken by Boris Johnson without at least,

:53:56. > :53:58.you know, getting someone impartial or other people to come

:53:59. > :54:00.in and have a look, Two things, first of all,

:54:01. > :54:03.mayoral candidates stand Implementing his policy platform,

:54:04. > :54:06.everybody would understand... You think he should

:54:07. > :54:08.have been saying, Logic would always be

:54:09. > :54:11.that, wouldn't it? That's a good point,

:54:12. > :54:13.should he have said that, should he have said,

:54:14. > :54:15.I don't actually know

:54:16. > :54:17.what the situation is now, so I can't promise you anything

:54:18. > :54:19.for affordable housing? He wouldn't have got

:54:20. > :54:20.elected, would he? I think it's pretty clear

:54:21. > :54:24.that he's going down the road that has already seen

:54:25. > :54:27.a freezing in fair prices, that has already seen commitment to bringing

:54:28. > :54:29.more police officers, that has seen a more holistic approach

:54:30. > :54:31.to how we are going to not just deliver

:54:32. > :54:33.in the short-term but sustainably

:54:34. > :54:34.on affordable housing. Do you at least accept that

:54:35. > :54:39.if you get a comeback, and they come back with solid

:54:40. > :54:41.recommendations, they are evidence -based, they've looked

:54:42. > :54:43.at the issue, you know. You can look at them and go,

:54:44. > :54:46.fair enough, he's examined it to my satisfaction, you're

:54:47. > :54:48.not going to complain about any of these,

:54:49. > :54:49.are I've always tried not to be dog

:54:50. > :54:57.in the manger in my relationship with the Mayor, where

:54:58. > :55:00.I agree with him I will, But, for example, the fare freeze,

:55:01. > :55:04.that actually wasn't fully delivered because we

:55:05. > :55:07.have seen a fair hike. fully delivered because we

:55:08. > :55:09.have seen a fare hike. The work that was done around

:55:10. > :55:11.affordable housing delivery, signed off under the watch of Sadiq

:55:12. > :55:13.Khan with But the work started

:55:14. > :55:16.on the Boris's watch. Allow me this, because you

:55:17. > :55:20.pushed us into areas where you agree with

:55:21. > :55:22.the Mayor as well of course. One such recently was about

:55:23. > :55:25.the devolution of rail. We haven't spoken to you as you call

:55:26. > :55:27.for Chris Grayling's resignation, very unhappy with his decision not

:55:28. > :55:30.to devolve those overground services Are you being cold shouldered

:55:31. > :55:35.in the corridors of power? No, people know that

:55:36. > :55:37.I stood up for my constituents, and the support I've

:55:38. > :55:39.had from the constituency has been very significant, and the support

:55:40. > :55:42.from people in local government I think it's a great

:55:43. > :55:45.mistake that Chris Grayling unfortunately has missed an

:55:46. > :55:47.opportunity here to recognise that suburban rail services require

:55:48. > :55:50.a different treatment from rail Kent County Council this

:55:51. > :55:58.week have written to the Mayor, saying they don't agree

:55:59. > :56:01.with him that he should take over Are you not going to be

:56:02. > :56:11.at odds with a council Well, interestingly

:56:12. > :56:21.of course Kent county council until very recently

:56:22. > :56:23.supported the mayor's proposal. I'm not there to speak

:56:24. > :56:25.the Kent County Council as to why they appear

:56:26. > :56:28.to have changed their mind. But I do know for

:56:29. > :56:30.example that Sevenoaks District Council, where my services

:56:31. > :56:31.terminate, An interesting discussion

:56:32. > :56:34.actually within Kent. Now it's time for the rest

:56:35. > :56:39.of the political news in 60 seconds. London councils have called

:56:40. > :56:41.the Department for Education's revised funding plans for schools

:56:42. > :56:43."madness", claiming they would deal another blow

:56:44. > :56:45.to cash-strapped schools. More than two thirds

:56:46. > :56:48.of schools in the city, about 1,500, face budget cuts,

:56:49. > :56:50.with initial analysis suggesting inner London boroughs would be

:56:51. > :56:56.hit particularly hard. The chief executive

:56:57. > :56:59.of the London Stock Exchange has said leaving the EU could cost

:57:00. > :57:02.the City of London up to 230,000 jobs if the Government fails

:57:03. > :57:04.to provide a clear plan Chief executive Xavier Rolet said

:57:05. > :57:11.banks could not wait for clarity New figures emerged this week

:57:12. > :57:17.highlighting the extent of soaring winter pressures

:57:18. > :57:21.on the NHS in London. More than 6,000 patients a week

:57:22. > :57:24.are being left in the back of ambulances because A

:57:25. > :57:25.departments are too This is causing knock-on problems

:57:26. > :57:30.for London ambulance crews, unable Bob Neill, in the interests of your

:57:31. > :57:43.fearless independence and speaking the truth, what do you say

:57:44. > :57:56.about the current NHS crisis? We are under pressures,

:57:57. > :57:58.because the service in London is always under

:57:59. > :58:00.pressure at this time of year and across

:58:01. > :58:01.the But I think a bit of context,

:58:02. > :58:06.and actually it deserves credit for having put

:58:07. > :58:09.some ?80 billion in this Parliament into

:58:10. > :58:10.the health service system, that's more

:58:11. > :58:13.than would have happened if we had followed the Labour Party's

:58:14. > :58:15.manifesto proposals. What I do want to make

:58:16. > :58:17.sure is that we get the And in particular I

:58:18. > :58:21.want to make sure that we work across London to join up

:58:22. > :58:23.better social services and adult Because some of the delays that we

:58:24. > :58:27.get with people being discharged, making sure that there

:58:28. > :58:28.is proper follow-up. So I think there's positive

:58:29. > :58:31.work being done by the Government, and I'm very much

:58:32. > :58:33.on the Goverment's side. We know already the number

:58:34. > :58:37.of people over 80 living much longer, great news, but it

:58:38. > :58:39.puts extra pressures. There might be positive

:58:40. > :58:41.words, but there And I think it's a shame that

:58:42. > :58:55.Conservatives led by Theresa May or are in absolute denial

:58:56. > :58:58.about what is happening to our NHS. It seems to me it is

:58:59. > :59:01.a perfect storm of cuts that are seeing the Ambulance Service

:59:02. > :59:03.missing the target in every trust That have seen since

:59:04. > :59:06.the start of December alone that four out of five patients

:59:07. > :59:10.going into A have not been seen This is coming at a time

:59:11. > :59:13.when we know that my local authority alone, there have

:59:14. > :59:16.been 60% of cuts of the budget cut That is putting a huge

:59:17. > :59:20.strain on our social Combined with ?200 million cut

:59:21. > :59:23.across the country in That is the area of making sure

:59:24. > :59:27.that we have the right It's not a surprise to see what's

:59:28. > :59:30.happening to our NHS. It's the combination

:59:31. > :59:32.of decisions made over It's devastating, and the Government

:59:33. > :59:39.needs to take much more Bob Neill, the head

:59:40. > :59:42.of the NHS in London saying this week, 10% increase

:59:43. > :59:45.in activity, they are just about coping, but not sure

:59:46. > :59:47.they are going to be There's certainly pressure,

:59:48. > :59:50.nobody is going But that's as well therefore

:59:51. > :59:53.that this Conservative government is putting more money

:59:54. > :59:57.into the NHS, it has responded to Not as much as they say they are

:59:58. > :00:06.putting in. Well, significant amounts,

:00:07. > :00:08.?80 billion going in over this Seema and I agree about joining

:00:09. > :00:14.up social care with But that's not purely a money

:00:15. > :00:17.thing, it's about how Some 50% of the delayed

:00:18. > :00:22.discharges across the country come in just 24

:00:23. > :00:24.local authority areas. So it's not strictly

:00:25. > :00:26.about money, it's about getting the local Health Authority

:00:27. > :00:29.and the local council to work better That again is something

:00:30. > :00:32.which Jeremy Hunt and the rest of the Government are working hard on,

:00:33. > :00:35.and I support them and that. That is an issue that

:00:36. > :00:37.we will be returning to a lot over the next

:00:38. > :00:39.weeks and months. Thank you both through

:00:40. > :00:44.much for coming in. Now, if anyone thought Donald Trump

:00:45. > :00:51.would tone things down after the American election

:00:52. > :01:02.campaign, they may have The period where he has been

:01:03. > :01:06.President-elect will make them think again. The inauguration is coming up

:01:07. > :01:07.on Friday. Never has the forthcoming

:01:08. > :01:09.inauguration of a president been In a moment, we'll talk

:01:10. > :01:13.to a man who knows Mr Trump But first, let's have a look

:01:14. > :01:17.at the press conference Mr Trump gave on Wednesday,

:01:18. > :01:20.in which he took the opportunity to rubbish reports that Russia has

:01:21. > :01:22.obtained compromising information You are attacking our

:01:23. > :01:38.news organisation. Can you give us a chance,

:01:39. > :01:42.you are attacking our news organisation, can you give us

:01:43. > :01:45.a chance to ask a question, sir? As far as Buzzfeed,

:01:46. > :01:51.which is a failing pile of garbage, writing it, I think they're

:01:52. > :01:55.going to suffer the consequences. Does anyone really

:01:56. > :01:58.believe that story? I'm also very much of

:01:59. > :02:01.a germaphobe, by the way. If Putin likes Donald Trump,

:02:02. > :02:03.guess what, folks, that's called The only ones that care about my tax

:02:04. > :02:11.returns are the reporters, OK? Do you not think the American

:02:12. > :02:26.public is concerned? The Wiggo, Donald Trump at his first

:02:27. > :02:28.last conference. The Can will he change as President? Because he

:02:29. > :02:33.hasn't changed in the run-up to being inaugurated? I don't think he

:02:34. > :02:36.will commit he doesn't see any point in changing. Why would he change

:02:37. > :02:41.from the personality that just one, as he just said, I just one. All of

:02:42. > :02:43.the bleeding-heart liberals can wail and brush their teeth and say how

:02:44. > :02:48.ghastly that all this, Hillary should have won and so on, but he

:02:49. > :02:52.has got an incredible mandate. Remember, Trump has the House

:02:53. > :02:55.committee has the Senate, he will have the Supreme Court. He has

:02:56. > :02:59.incredible power right now. He doesn't have to listen to anybody. I

:03:00. > :03:03.spoke to him a couple of weeks ago specifically about Twitter, I asked

:03:04. > :03:08.him what the impact was of Twitter. He said, I have 60 million people

:03:09. > :03:12.following me on Twitter. I was able to bypass mainstream media, bypass

:03:13. > :03:17.all modern political convention and talk directly to potential voters.

:03:18. > :03:21.Secondly, I can turn on the TV in the morning, I can see a rival

:03:22. > :03:25.getting all of the airtime, and I can fire off a tweet, for free, as a

:03:26. > :03:29.marketing man he loves that, and, boom, I'm on the news agenda again.

:03:30. > :03:33.He was able to use that magnificently. Twitter to him didn't

:03:34. > :03:44.cost him a dollar. He is going to carry on tweeting in the last six

:03:45. > :03:49.weeks, he was not sleeping. Trump has never had an alcoholic drink a

:03:50. > :03:53.cigarette or a drug. He is a fit by the 70, he has incredible energy and

:03:54. > :03:56.he is incredibly competitive. At his heart, he is a businessman. If you

:03:57. > :04:02.look at him as a political ideologue, you completely missed the

:04:03. > :04:05.point of trouble. Don't take what he says literally, look upon it as a

:04:06. > :04:08.negotiating point that he started from, and try to do business with

:04:09. > :04:12.him as a business person would, and you may be presently surprised so

:04:13. > :04:18.pleasantly surprised. He treats the press and the media entirely

:04:19. > :04:24.differently to any other politician or main politician in that normally

:04:25. > :04:28.the politicians try to get the media off a particular subject, or they

:04:29. > :04:32.try to conciliate with the media. He just comes and punches the media in

:04:33. > :04:38.the nose when he doesn't like them. This could catch on, you know! You

:04:39. > :04:45.are absolutely right, for a start, nobody could accuse him of letting

:04:46. > :04:47.that victory go to his head. You know, he won't say, I will now be

:04:48. > :04:52.this lofty president. He's exactly the same as he was before. What is

:04:53. > :04:56.fascinating is his Laois and ship with the media. I haven't met, and

:04:57. > :04:59.I'm sure you haven't, met a party leader who is obsessed with the

:05:00. > :05:05.media. But they pretend not to be. You know, they state, oh, somebody

:05:06. > :05:12.told me about a column, I didn't read it. He is utterly transparent

:05:13. > :05:17.in his obsession with the media, he doesn't pretend. How that plays out,

:05:18. > :05:20.who knows? It's a completely different dynamic than anyone has

:05:21. > :05:25.seen by. Like he is the issue, he has appointed an unusual Cabinet,

:05:26. > :05:28.that you could criticise in many ways. Nearly all of them are

:05:29. > :05:33.independent people in their own right. A lot of them are wealthy,

:05:34. > :05:36.too. They have their own views. They might not like what he tweaked at

:05:37. > :05:42.3am, and he does have to deal with his Cabinet now. Mad dog matters,

:05:43. > :05:47.now the Defence Secretary, he might not like what's said about China at

:05:48. > :05:51.three in morning - general matters. This is what gets very conjugated.

:05:52. > :05:54.We cannot imagine here in our political system any kind of

:05:55. > :05:57.appointments like this. Using the wouldn't have a line-up of

:05:58. > :06:01.billionaires of the kind of background that he has chosen -- you

:06:02. > :06:05.simply wouldn't have. But that won't stop him saying and reading what he

:06:06. > :06:08.thinks. Maybe it will cause him some internal issues when the following

:06:09. > :06:13.day he has the square rigged with whatever they think. But he's going

:06:14. > :06:20.to press ahead. Are we any clearer in terms of policy. I know policy

:06:21. > :06:24.hasn't featured hugely in this campaign of 2016. Do we have any

:06:25. > :06:30.really clear idea what Mr Trump is hoping to achieve? He has had some

:06:31. > :06:34.consistent theme going back over 25 years. One is a deep scepticism

:06:35. > :06:38.about international trade and the kind of deals that America has been

:06:39. > :06:41.doing over that period. It has been so consistent that is has been hard

:06:42. > :06:45.to spin as something that you say during the course of a campaign of

:06:46. > :06:48.something to get elected. Ultimately, Piers is correct, he

:06:49. > :06:52.won't change. When he won the election committee gave a relatively

:06:53. > :06:57.magnanimous beach. I thought his ego had been sated and he had got what

:06:58. > :06:59.he wanted. He will end up governing as is likely eccentric New York

:07:00. > :07:03.liberal and everything will be fine. In the recent weeks it has come to

:07:04. > :07:06.my attention that that might not be entirely true!

:07:07. > :07:10.LAUGHTER It is a real test of the American

:07:11. > :07:15.system, the Texan bouncers, the foreign policy establishment which

:07:16. > :07:19.is about to have the orthodoxies disrupted -- the checks and

:07:20. > :07:23.balances. I think he has completely ripped up the American political

:07:24. > :07:27.system. Washington as we know it is dead. From his garage do things his

:07:28. > :07:33.way, he doesn't care, frankly, what any of us thinks -- Trump is going

:07:34. > :07:39.to do things his way. If he can deliver for the people who voted for

:07:40. > :07:44.him who fault this disenfranchised, -- who voted for him who felt this

:07:45. > :07:49.disenfranchised. They voted accordingly. They want to see jobs

:07:50. > :07:52.and the economy in good shape, they want to feel secure. They want to

:07:53. > :07:57.feel that immigration has been tightened. If Trump can deliver on

:07:58. > :08:01.those main theme for the rust belt communities of America, I'm telling

:08:02. > :08:04.you, he will go down as a very successful president. All of the

:08:05. > :08:07.offensive rhetoric and the argy-bargy with CNN and whatever it

:08:08. > :08:15.may be will be completely irrelevant. Let me finish with a

:08:16. > :08:17.parochial question. Is it fair to say quite well disposed to this

:08:18. > :08:19.country? And that he would like, that he's up for a speedy

:08:20. > :08:26.free-trade, bilateral free-trade you'll? Think we have to be sensible

:08:27. > :08:30.as the country. Come Friday, he is the president of the United States,

:08:31. > :08:34.the most powerful man and well. He said to me that he feels half

:08:35. > :08:38.British, his mum was born and raised in Scotland until the age of 18, he

:08:39. > :08:41.loves British, his mother used to love watching the Queen, he feels

:08:42. > :08:46.very, you know, I would roll out the red carpet for Trump, let him eat

:08:47. > :08:52.Her Majesty. The crucial point for us as a country is coming -- let him

:08:53. > :08:56.me to Her Majesty. If we can do a speedy deal within an 18 month

:08:57. > :09:00.period, it really sends a message that well but we are back in the

:09:01. > :09:05.game, that is a hugely beneficial thing for this country. Well, a man

:09:06. > :09:11.whose advisers were indicating that maybe he should learn a few things

:09:12. > :09:15.from Donald Trump was Jeremy Corbyn. Yes, MBE. Mr Corbyn appeared on the

:09:16. > :09:18.Andrew Marr Show this morning. -- yes, indeed.

:09:19. > :09:20.If you don't win Copeland, and if you don't win

:09:21. > :09:21.Stoke-on-Trent Central, you're toast, aren't you?

:09:22. > :09:26.Our party is going to fight very hard in those elections,

:09:27. > :09:29.as we are in the local elections, to put those policies out there.

:09:30. > :09:32.It's an opportunity to challenge the Government on the NHS.

:09:33. > :09:34.It's an opportunity to challenge them on the chaos of Brexit.

:09:35. > :09:37.It's an opportunity to challenge them on the housing shortage.

:09:38. > :09:39.It's an opportunity to challenge them on zero-hours contracts.

:09:40. > :09:44.Is there ever a moment that you look in the mirror and think,

:09:45. > :09:47.you know what, I've done my best, but this might not be for me?

:09:48. > :09:49.I look in the mirror every day and I think,

:09:50. > :09:52.let's go out there and try and create a society where there

:09:53. > :09:54.are opportunities for all, where there aren't these terrible

:09:55. > :09:56.levels of poverty, where there isn't homelessness,

:09:57. > :09:59.where there are houses for all, and where young people aren't

:10:00. > :10:01.frightened of going to university because of the debts

:10:02. > :10:04.they are going to end up with at the end of their course.

:10:05. > :10:10.Mr Corbyn earlier this morning. Steve, would it be fair to say that

:10:11. > :10:14.the mainstream of the Labour Party has now come to the conclusion that

:10:15. > :10:17.they just have to let Mr Corbyn get on with it, that they are not going

:10:18. > :10:23.to try and influence what he does. They will continue to try and have

:10:24. > :10:27.their own views, but it's his show, it's up to him, if it's a mess, he

:10:28. > :10:31.has to live with it and we'll have clean hands? For now, yes. I think

:10:32. > :10:34.they made a mistake when he was first elected to start in some cases

:10:35. > :10:38.tweeting within seconds that it was going to be a disaster, this was

:10:39. > :10:41.Labour MPs. They made a complete mess of that attempted coup in the

:10:42. > :10:47.summer, which strengthened his position. And he did, it gave Corbyn

:10:48. > :10:51.the space with total legitimacy to say that part of the problem is,

:10:52. > :10:57.we're having this public Civil War. In keeping quiet, that disappeared

:10:58. > :11:03.as part of the explanation for why Labour and low in the polls. I think

:11:04. > :11:07.they are partly doing that. But they are also struggling, the so-called

:11:08. > :11:11.mainstream Labour MPs, to decide what the distinctive agenda is. It's

:11:12. > :11:15.one of the many differences with the 80s, where you had a group of people

:11:16. > :11:19.sure of what they believed in, they left to form the SDP. What's

:11:20. > :11:24.happening now is that they are leaving politics altogether. That is

:11:25. > :11:27.a crisis of social Democrats all across Europe, including the French

:11:28. > :11:35.Socialists, as we will find out later in the spring. Let Corbyn

:11:36. > :11:37.because then, that's the strategy. There is a weary and sometimes

:11:38. > :11:40.literal resignation from the moderates in the Labour Party. If

:11:41. > :11:42.you talk to them, they are no longer angry, they have always run out of

:11:43. > :11:45.steam to be angry about what's going on. They are just sort of tired and

:11:46. > :11:49.feel that they've just got to see this through now. I think the

:11:50. > :11:54.by-elections will be interesting. When Andrew Marr said, you're toast,

:11:55. > :11:58.and you? I thought, he's never posed! That was right. A quick

:11:59. > :12:03.thought from view? One thing Corbyn has in common with Trump is immunity

:12:04. > :12:11.to bad news. I think he can lose Copeland and lose Stoke, and as long

:12:12. > :12:13.as it is not a sequence of resignations and by-elections

:12:14. > :12:16.afterwards, with maybe a dozen or 20 Labour MPs going, he can still enjoy

:12:17. > :12:22.what. It may be more trouble if Labour loses the United trade union

:12:23. > :12:25.elections. We are in a period of incredible unpredictability

:12:26. > :12:29.generally in global politics. If you look at the way the next year plays

:12:30. > :12:33.out, if for example brags it was a disaster and it starts to unravel

:12:34. > :12:35.very quickly, Theresa May is attached to that, clearly label

:12:36. > :12:40.would have a great opportunity potentially disease that higher

:12:41. > :12:45.ground, and when Eddie the Tories -- Labour would have an opportunity. Is

:12:46. > :12:50.Corbyn the right guy? We interviewed him, what struck me was that he

:12:51. > :12:53.talked about being from, a laughable comparison, but when it is really

:12:54. > :12:58.laughable is this - Hillary Clinton, what were the things she stood for,

:12:59. > :13:02.nobody really knew? What does Trump stand for? Everybody knew. Corbyn

:13:03. > :13:06.has the work-out four or five messages and bang, bang, bang. He

:13:07. > :13:08.could still be in business. Thank you for being with us.

:13:09. > :13:12.I'll be back at the same time next weekend.

:13:13. > :13:14.Remember - if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.