09/07/2017 Sunday Politics London

Download Subtitles




Andrew Neil and Tim Donovan are joined by Labour MPs Caroline Flint and Emma Dent Coad, as well as the Conservatives' Owen Paterson MP.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 09/07/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Donald Trump says he wants to do a "powerful" trade deal


Theresa May says other countries are ready to talk too.


But could the transitional deal with the EU that some are pushing


for scupper the Prime Minister's plans?


Having defied expectation in last month's general election,


are Jeremy Corbyn and his allies about to purge the party


The deadliest fire in London since the Second World War has


devastated a community and shocked Britain, but will the political


storm that's blown up in its aftermath help uncover


In London as City Hall argues for a special relationship with Europe


Havering council are about to vote on breaking away from the capital.


If we are darking today we apoll jierks it could be a power cut or


the BBC is trying to save money with its fuel bill! Assuming you can see


them... And with me - as always -


for TV's second most keenly watched on-screen relationships


after Love Island, the Sunday Politics panel -


Steve Richards, Julia Hartley-Brewer They'll be tweeting


throughout the programme. So - Donald Trump says a trade


deal with UK could be Theresa May says that


other world leaders, including those of China,


India and Japan, are also keen to do President and PM were speaking at


the G20 summit of the world's major President and PM were speaking at


the G20 summit of the world's major But could the transitional


deal that some want, that would keep the UK in the EU's


single market and Customs Union for several years after exit,


put paid to those plans? Here's what the man likely to be


the next Lib Dem leader - Vince Cable - told the Marr show


earlier. I'm beginning to think that


Brexit may never happen, The problems are so enormous,


the divisions within the two major parties are so enormous,


I can see a scenario We're joined now from


Shropshire by the former Conservative Cabinet Minister


and leading Brexit Ogise, it could be a power cut or


the BBC is trying to save money with its fuel bill! Assuming you can see


them... Good morning to you, Vince Cable says that he thinks Brexit may


now not happen, what do you say to that? What is new? Vince Cable


always wanted to stay in the European Union, he is chucking


buckets of water round, we had a huge vote last year, we had an


enormous vote in the House of Commons, 494 votes to trigger


Article 50, we had an election campaign in which the two main


parties took 85% of the vote they back the speech and leaving the


customs union and the single market and the ECJ and Vince Cable's party


went down in votes as did the other parties that want to stay in the


European Union. So Vince is behind history, we are going to leave, we


are on target, Michael Gove triggered leaving the 1964 London


convention so we can take back control of the seas and bring back a


sane fishing policy and more important getting environmental


gained in our marine environment, so... You think we are still heading


for the exit but Mrs May called the election because she wanted a


mandate for her version of Brexit. She didn't get it. Surely you can't


just continue with business as usual? Well, we have been over the


election, we did not get the number of sees we wanted but on votes, we


got 13.7 million, that is more than the great Blair landslide. You had


an overall majority and you lost it. That is a fact. I said that. We know


that. So you didn't get the mandate. We got the vote! We got a lot votes


and so did the Labour Party. You know we are in a Parliamentary


system where what matters is the number of seats you get in the


Commons, you know enough about the British constitution to know a that


is what determines the mandate. Not the number of votes, we are not a


Presidential system. I am First Minister throughly wear


of that. 85% of the election voted for parties that wanted to leave. If


you take votes in the Commons last week on the Queen's Speech not a


single Conservative MP abstained or voted against and the Labour Party


unwisely, Chuka Umunna triggered and amendment wanting us to stay in the


customs union and got hammered. So, I am clear that we have to deliver


this, much the most important point in all this, is if we do not deliver


a proper Brexit which means leaving the single market, leaving the


customs union and the jurisdiction of the ECJ, there will be appalling


damage to the integrity of the whole establishment. Not just political,


you, the media, and the judicial establishment. Some would say that


damage has already been done in other area, let us look at the


detail. Under Article 50 Britain leaves the EU in 20 months which


means the deal will have to be done in 15 or 16 months to allow for


people to approve it in the various Parliaments and so son. Progress has


the been glacial. We have only just begun. Why should there not be a


transitional deal that keep some of the current arrangements in place to


mitigate this falling off a cliff? As Liam said in the Commons, Liam


who? Liam Fox, this should be one of the easiest ever deals to conclude,


because already, we have zero tariffs, already we have complete


conformty on standards and already, those who are negotiating with us


have an enormous surplus, the Germans sold an enormous number of


cars, so that is the basis on which, if you look at Nafta... We haven't


even started talking about free trade yet. That is not on the agenda


yet. Let me finish. If you look at Nafta, that took 14 months, we are


starting on a basis of mutual recognition of all our standard and


zero tariffs so yes, there will be an implementation period but it is


very very important politically this is concluded fast, as a huge


economic imperative as well, because it is uncertainty about this that


will damage future investment and job, the quicker we get on with it


and we know where we are going and we can reach out to the world, we


can take advantage of the fact stated on the European Commission


website that 9 a 5% of the world's growth is going to come from outside


European Union, which is what we are seeing, we have seen sales go from


61% to 43% and it is tumbling to 43%. We cannot take advantage of


these wonderful opportunities in the wider world... Why not? Why not?


Germany does. Because they can't conclude free trade deals. Germany


runs a balance of payment surplus, it finds it possible to trade with


the rest of the EU and with the rest of the world. It has a bigger


surplus than China, if Germany can do both why can't we? They can't.


They can't conclude deal, we Trump wants to do a deal with us. You saw


Theresa May sitting down with the economies of the future, India,


China, South Korea, these are all longing to do more business with us,


we can only do that once we are out of the customs union, that is vital


for the future of this country, that is where the future growth is. The


business in this country says we should stay in the single market and


the customs union, at least through a transition period. Does that count


for nothing, is Tory party now so antebusiness it ignores the wealth


creators? I think what you are saying is that the CBI which


represents very large organisations has made that statement, but talking


to business widely, and smaller private businesses which dominate


the economy, what is vital on this is to have a rapid implementation


period. That is what is important. And there has to be clarity of where


we are going, if we are in permanent limbo which will take a enormous


amount of negotiation and will take ratification by the 27 countries and


the European Parliament as well as our own, that will drag things out.


What we need to do is a clean Claire statement of reciprocal free trade


which should be really pretty easy to negotiate because we have that,


we have conformty of standard, we have an implementation period. That


needs to be done rapidly. Latest by the next election. OK, we shall see


how simple it turns out to be. Thank you for joining us here.


What do you make of this increasing talk of transition period in which


it is not clear, we remain full members of the single market, full


members of the customs union? Which came we cannot conclude very


quickly, in Mr Trump's word a free trade deal? This is where the battle


is now heading, between Brexiteer, levers, re-levers and the lot of it.


This will be really what the only thing we could achieve in the next


negotiations, what has changed since the general election which you were


touching on there, is of course Brussels in the year 2017 are no


longer negotiating with Theresa May, they are negotiating with the House


of Commons and the you know majority for a softer Brexit, so this will


begin, the transition deal will define the rest of deal, the rest of


the final relationship, so getting the transition on the right


trajectory is crucial, hence why you have Philip Hammond making a major


play to try and keep one foot in the EU, if not necessarily in the custom


union and the single market and everyone else says get out. These


are the opening skirmishes on what will certainly be the nettle that


will will be grasped round about some time between October and spring


next year. Are you worried that the election result, the fact that she


didn't get this mandate that she had looked for and she has ended up in a


weaker position than she was before the election, is going to make


Brexit more difficult, it is going to muddy the water, it means her


idea of Brexit is not necessarily the one that become Brexit? Yes I am


worried are about as a Brexiteer, the same remain yaks would have been


trying to scupper the will of the British people as expressed in June


2016. Now they might succeed. I don't think any will succeed. We


have to stop this nonsense and the media included, of this talk of soft


Brexit an transition period. We have a transition period once we are out


when we are leading to the next process, with have to be out of the


single market, and not under the European Court of Justice. All


within the two years, all by March... That happens automatically,


then we can agree for a two, three year max, three year period we will


have a position as we move to the new deal, but I don't think there


many Leave voters, most Remain voters accept that result, unlike


the people like the CBI who are fighting against it still, they will


accept anything more than that. I think Owen Paterson is right. We are


in a situation where we will face some serious disflus the


establishment, the political world, the Melissa Reidia if we don't obey


the will of the people. What do you make of the reports in the Sunday


papers, it was only ten days ago, two weeks' ago Mr Hammond was going


to be the caretaker leader, that is a story that didn't seem to last


to be the caretaker leader, that is 48-hour, but what do you make of the


remain MPs on both sides of the House, plus peers, are going to try


to derail this repeal act, that the Government needs to push EU law on


to the UK statute book. I I think they will use it to at certain key


points to attempt to defeat the Government, not over the whole


thing, this summer reminds me so much of the summer of 92 who the


Maastricht Treaty coming into a fragile John Major Government, and


people then were plotting, in the opposite direction, Eurosceptics to


try and stop that. He won with a huge percentage of the vote. Tiny


majority, 23, bigger than she would have died for that. A shock victory.


The The summer was full of talk and plotting, some which came to


fruition in the sessions after and some will come into fruition from


this autumn on ward where you will see alliances across the Commons


manned the Lords, there will be moments of high Parliamentary drama,


I think. Sounds like a long hot autumn.


An a long hot autumn, and winter. Winter too? I thought it was all


global warming. This will add to the temperature!


Now, Jeremy Corbyn may not have won the election,


but by confounding almost everyone's expectations he is unassailable


as Labour leader for the foreseeable future.


So what does that mean for his MPs, most of whom - just a year ago -


Labour's new chairman and key cupping Ally said last week the


party may be too broad church. He also seemed to endorse the idea of


deselecting labour MPs critical of the leadership by saying if you get


deselected there must be a reason. But he has since wrote back from his


comments in another interview. Chris Williamson, the newly appointed


labour frontbencher said some of his colleagues in the Parliamentary


party think they have a God-given right to rule. He also said that if


MPs don't support the leadership's programme, local constituency


parties should find someone else who will. And in the seat of liveable


waiver treats this week, left wing supporters of Jeremy Corbyn won


several positions on the committee. One said she must get on board quite


quickly now, and also publicly apologise for not supporting Mr


Corbyn in the past. Some Labour MPs rushed to Luciano Berger's defends.


Elsewhere, a list of 49 Labour MPs was published, and they said these


usual suspects should join the Liberals. The list included


prominent former frontbencher is like Chris Leslie, Chuka Umunna and


tidying -- Heidi Alexander. And this is what the Shadow


Education Secretary and Jeremy Corbyn ally,


Angela Rayner, had to say earlier. Anyone that talks of deselecting


any of my colleagues, frankly they need to think


about actually, who are Who are making the problems


for our communities at the moment? Who have made those disastrous


policies that are hurting the people It doesn't help them if we're


fighting each other. We're joined now from


Sheffield by former Labour Cabinet Minister,


Caroline Flint. Welcome to the programme. Labour


frontbencher Chris Williamson has said, where Labour MPs don't support


the leadership's programme it's incumbent on local members to find


someone else who will. What do you make of that? I think it's very sad


that talk of deselection is the line people are taking. We had an


election where 262 Labour MPs, very different ones, have all won a


mandate from their electorate and our job is, as Angela Rayner said


this morning, is to focus on a government that is in disarray and


how we can learn from the general election to broaden our appeal but


also develop our policy is ready in time for the next election whenever


that is called so I think all talk of deselection is misplaced and


doesn't help Labour. But do you feel a purge of what is often referred to


as the moderates in your party is now inevitable? No, because we have


been here before in the 1980s when talk of deselection was suggested,


it didn't happen in the way people thought it would, and I do believe,


hearing how Ian Lee very, and I have worked with him in the 2010, 2015


government and I have worked with Chris Williamson, Ian has already


refined what he said, and what he's clearly was this deselection talk


and the way to go ahead on it is not the right way forward. We to focus


on looking outwards to understand that we have across the party


hard-working Labour MPs with maybe different views across the Labour


political spectrum, and I would have to say that Luciana is one of the


most hard-working MPs in Parliament and homework on mental health is


outstanding. That may be true, let's look at Luciana Berger's


constituency. One of the committee members on her committee says she


now has to get on board quite quickly. And even publicly apologise


for past disloyalty. The direction of travel is clear, isn't it? That


is one person on a committee in one constituency... Where there is a


majority for that point of view now. I don't think there is, and the


truth is... They took nine seat. Her constituency is all of the members


in that constituency and what I would say, and I don't know this


individual, look at the track record of Luciana and what she has done.


Jeremy, in the 20 years I have been an MP under both Tony Blair and


Gordon Brown, voted against the Labour whip on numerous occasions,


he has been very upfront and honest about this, do you know in those 20


years I never heard anybody say about Jeremy or anybody else who


didn't vote with the Labour whip that they should face deselection or


apologise. I think that represents the broad church of the Labour Party


and we should look at what brings us together rather than differences on


policy point of view and we should be looking outwards and dealing with


that and working on it. You have said that three times but it has not


happened and it may be that the people around Mr Corbyn, they think


moderates like you, your day is over. You lost the 2015 election


badly, you allowed Jeremy Corbyn to stand as leader, you failed to stop


him twice, you thought he would make a mess of the June election and he


didn't. Can you blame his supporters for wanting a career out of people


who took these positions? I think there are some people who supported


and still support Jeremy who feel that way but I don't believe they


represent the people who supported Jeremy, and I don't believe Jeremy


thinks this is in the best interests of the party. Only a few weeks ago


John McDonnell praised my work on tax transparency. Since my election


I have bumped into Jeremy and we have had a chat about what happened


in the election and Jeremy recognises that we were up against


an arrogant Tory party and has said to me he does understand this and


said to the broader Parliamentary Labour Party... If I could just


finish... What has he said about deselection? For example he said to


me that he recognised that we have won in numerous places in


outstanding circumstances but he's also said to me that he recognises


that we need to broaden our reach and understand why we were


working-class voters. That says to me that that is a leader who is up


for and open to looking at the reasons why we were successful and


the reasons we weren't and he wasn't closing down conversation on that. I


take him on his word on that. He has not said that publicly. What we need


from a leader is to challenge our party about where to go next and he


has said that, Diane Abbott has said at a conference I was at a few weeks


ago that we need now to look at our manifesto and look more clearly


issues around tax and spend policies because obviously clearly now we


have more time to look at those issues and also we may be facing a


very different election when the time comes. That's what I want from


the leadership team, talk about how we improve our message and reach,


and by doing that get away from what song, a minority I have to say, are


saying about deselection. Corbynistas like Paul Mason think


moderates like you were to blame for the defeat. He said moderates were


always attacking Mr Corbyn, that is quite popular view in the Jeremy


Corbyn wing. I think that is Paul Mason's view and he is fundamentally


wrong. When we look at the results of the last election, we can see a


continuing from 2015 where Labour is losing support among older voters


and what we see is in this election in 2017 Labour has... I think we are


at our highest point amongst the middle-class voters compared to


where we were in 1979 but the Tories are highest among working-class


voters since 1979 as well. Those working-class voters weren't voting


for a more left alternative to Labour and sadly they were voting


Tory and we have to address that because our party is this broad


church and representing working-class people is at the heart


of what the Labour Party is about and that's a discussion we need to


have. That is the depth of discussion we need to get into. That


would put's with a fighting chance of taking on a Tory party that is in


disarray. Caroline Flint, thank you for joining us.


This week it was announced that the Grenfell Tower inquiry


would hold its first public hearings in September, as it prepares


to begin to examine what caused the tragedy.


But some have warned that the situation now needs


to be de-politicised, or it will damage


In a moment we'll hear from the MP for Kensington and Chelsea


where the Grenfell Tower fire took place.


But first Emma Vardy looks at how political arguments have played


a significant part in the aftermath of this terrible event.


When you come here and you actually see it, your immediate thoughts


are about the people, not about the politics.


What happened up there is just so difficult to comprehend.


But in the days after this tragedy, there was such outrage


at governments and authorities, it became a political


storm that those in power struggled to respond to.


We want justice, we want justice, we want justice...


People vented their anger outside Kensington town Hall.


A visit to the Grenfell site by Theresa May saw her forced


At Prime Minister's Questions, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn linked


What the tragedy of Grenfell Tower has exposed is a disastrous


And speaking at Glastonbury, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell


Those families, those individuals, 79 so far and there will be more,


were murdered by political decisions that were taken over recent decades.


I can't remember a major national tragedy that has been politicised


I think using terms like murder is completely reckless


The key thing is that we try to ascertain the facts


this tragedy occurred to ensure it can never be repeated.


And as soon as you introduce emotive phrases or emotive accusations


or emotive allegations of that nature, then the discourse


The whole debate around the tragedy becomes politicised and it makes it


Some argue the political language that was used was wrong and helped


to ramp up the vitriol in an unhelpful way, but


for others, it was entirely justified.


That's what an opposition party is for, it's to challenge


the Government and to ask the right questions and I think people


round here would say thank goodness, there's somebody in politics


Pilgrim Tucker had helped Grenfell Tower residents campaign


for building improvements in previous years, and returned


I've been to meetings before the fire and I've been


to meetings since the fire, attended by ordinary residents


with no involvement in politics and they are saying very political


things about land in London and property ownership in London,


Had we campaigned harder, would we have prevented this?


Fire safety campaigners say they were trying to draw attention


to certain issues long before what happened at Grenfell Tower,


and say it's no one political party but the whole system has failed.


It's easy to say, "You've got an inquiry, let's wait for that."


We already know two very clear things.


Had the people there been protected by sprinklers,


People don't die in homes protected by sprinklers.


The second thing is the outrage that the building regulations had


They should be done year in, year out.


Generally people in house fires die in ones, twos


or threes, which doesn't make a political statement.


So the political parties haven't really needed


They weren't prepared for 70 or more people to die at once


The public inquiry, which will address some of those issues,


has already faced calls for its newly appointed


And that was a view echoed by the Labour MP


You would call on him, would you, to stand down?


I don't think there will be any credibility and some people


are saying they won't cooperate with it so it's not going to work.


I will look into this matter to the very best of my ability...


I think the attacks on the chair have to cease, I think the attacks


It actually makes it harder to get to the facts and get


to the truth and that's the most important thing now.


Some said it was unavoidable that this tragedy became political,


but will the politics help get to the truth?


I'm joined now by the Labour MP for Kensington -


who we heard at the end of that film - Emma Dent Coad.


Now this judge, leading the Grenfell inquiry, have you met him? I haven't


met him, no. So what evidence do you have that he doesn't in your words


understand human beings? Well, I am reflecting what people are telling


me out there, that they as soon as his name was announced everybody


looked up his credentials, they found a particular case he had been


involved in, the very issue that people are most worried about, post


Grenfell is they will be moved out of the borough somewhere else. This


issue about social cleansing. It was insensitive to have chosen somebody


with that on his record. Whether he made that decision according to the


rules. It is one judgment in a long career, he may be able to defend


what he did. You have said he doesn't understand human beings but


you have told us you have never met him? It is nothing to do with


meeting him. It is the system where people have to be friends in order


to work together, judged by the evidence, judge by what people have


done that, judge by merit and whether or not you can be friendly.


What has he done wrong in his career? It is symbolic the issue he


made a decision about, it is symbolic for everybody. I am


reflecting the community who are been betrayed. You don't think in


your often view you don't take the view he doesn't understand human


beings. Personally I do. I do actually but I am reflecting what


people are saying, the people who elected me, who have been badly


betrayed by the authority, they are seeing it that way, they have been


betrayed and now they see you know, they worst fear is this will be used


top socially cleanse north Kensington. What is the evidence for


that? About social cleansing? No, this will be used to do so. Whether


or not there is ever, there is no trust in somebody who has been part


of that process. He has been chosen by the Lord Chief Justice, not as


the Prime Minister as some have said. He has a long ex perness of


commercial contracts and disaster, both of which will be vital. It is a


lot to do with overlapping commercial contract, he is a


specialist in that area, what bit doesn't make his qualified and and


doesn't he reflect the independence of the judiciary? Well, we certainly


need somebody who can do the detail. This is a human disaster as much as


anything else. We need somebody who, we saw in the meeting there, there


is a lot of anger and people aren't trusting. . That would be true, we


all understand the anger, of course, but that would be true whoever was


chosen. Are you really after... Do you want someone to head up this


inquiry that will give you a show trial rather than an independent


inquiry. It is exactly the opposite. . Woe won't give us a show trial, is


he? If there is no trust, people won't co-operate with him. A lot of


people will need to co-operate with him. Some of the groups are not


involved, they are protest groups who are not representing the


victims, or the survivors, we have very little evidence that those who


directly affected by this are saying they are not going to co-operate.


Well, everybody who lives round there is a victim to some extent,


they have all been affected, myself as well, I live three blocksia from


it and a lot of the groups are very much involved in that community, not


only the people who lived there who survived, but some of the campaign


groups have been campaigning for years about social housing in area.


What sort of person to you think should head up the inquiry is this


If it has to be Martin, we need an advisory panel with representatives


from different groups who can at least advise and feed in


information, at least if we have no choice, we need at least that. But


rather than him, what sort of person? I am not sure, are you


saying he should remain but he needs to be assisted by a panel or he


should be replaced? If we have no choice, then we should have an


advisory panel to back it up. Something that people trust in. At


the moment they don't trust the process, which is understandable,


and his name was announced the same day as the Hillsborough disaster,


the criminal investigation and so on, that after 28 year, this is what


people, how people see it. They want, they don't trust the process s


it won't work proppism it is not just what I think, it is what people


who are directly involved thing. John McDonnell the Shadow Chancellor


says people who died at Grenfell were murdered by political decision


do you agree? That is a strong way of putting it. I know a lot of


people feel like that. There is massive failure of political


decision, I have seen that happening. But murder? That is an


active verb. It means you intended to kill. So for Mr McDonnell to be


right, these were political decisions taken intended to kill. I


don't share his view on that particular issue, there has been a


failure of care, for many, many years and a failure of investment


for many year, as I have seen myself. But part of the problem has


been investment. They had nine million spent on this block I was


looking at it today, the other tower blocks round it have not been clad.


Of course if they had gone on fire, the disaster would not have been on


the same scale. Nine million helped to produce this. In indeed. The


process of how that building was refurbished. It says it is to make


it look better, half a mile down the road, the tower blocks have been


clad, they were clad in mineral wool. I spent a day at a seminar by


chance understanding, it is non-combustible. Who made that


decision to use rain cladding rather than mineral wool. You were on the


the board of who took that decision. The council had no say about the


specification, we didn't have any involvement at all. It didn't come


before you, because it has tenants on it too. The TMO does, The


advisory committee to the TMO. There is the TMO. I was not there at the


time. As far as I understand a sub group decided or reviewed the


specifications of that. The housing and property committee is part of


the council. Obviously you a say, but whether or not, we don't have


any say at all over specification, I want to say somebody because I have


been accused of... That because my predecessor said I should take


responsibility, a clueing colleague of mine got beaten up for that,


there is no foundation for that allegation. I thank you for clearing


that up. Thank you for joining us too.


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, The Week Ahead.


First though, the Sunday Politics where you are.


Today must be officially the first day of summer.


Not because a weatherman told us, but because it's the season


when jobbing reporters awkwardly occupy the presenter's chair.


As City Hall argues for a special relationship with Europe,


Havering Council are about to vote on breaking away from the capital.


With me for the next 20 minutes - Barry Gardiner, Labour MP


for Brent North, Shadow Cabinet minister and a veteran of duffing up


two big beasts of the Westminster reporting fraternity,


Nick Robinson and Adam Boulton, during the election campaign.


I'm hoping I'll not need a crash helmet, Barry.


And the Conservative MP for Spelthorne on London's south


Kwasi writes on his website that his first name is one given


to boys born on Sundays in parts of Ghana.


We must start with the grim reality of Grenfell Tower,


and your reaction to the news that fire crews at Grenfell Tower


on the night reported low water pressure, radio problems


and the time it took to get high ladders -


a higher platform - for tackling the fire


It is easy to say we could have spent more money and things would


have been mitigated, my own view is that clearly there were failures in


terms of the cladding, in terms of the actual building and the


regulations that were followed and that is why we have an inquiry, we


have a judge who believe has been appointed who will look into the


facts, and hopefully will fiend out some degree of responsibility but I


don't think the fire equipment necessarily is the main focus, or


should be the main focus of the investigation, we have to find out


what happened. We have a sense of what happened. We need to get the


facts straight and we immediate to work out what the failure in terms


of regulation was a. The first thing I would like to say it is


extraordinary how Emma as a new MP has stepped up and been able to deal


with this. I think she has done a remarkable jobs, and I want to pay


tribute to the work she has done, with her community. There she was a


few minutes ago argued that Sir Martin Moore Bic should stand down,


and that is not the view, is it of the Labour leadership? No No, what


she has done is is really tried to understand the very deep anger, and


concern of her community, and to reflect that to those in authority


in Parliament. And I think she, you know, it is a very, sensitive,


incredibly difficult role she has taken on as an MP with only days of


experience. I think we should all recognise that. It is difficult,


tightrope to walks but she has done it extraordinarily well. On the


point you made about the equipment and so on, I think one of the things


that we really should see the inquiry widened out to look at, is


the way in which these supposedly compliance codes that are written,


you see, there are building regulation, and then the industry


creates compliance codes that says if you do this and this, then you


might reach the compliance... And that seems to have gone wrong here


and industry has been given too much power to water down the building


regulations. We will come back if to that in a moment. I will stop you


because the turmoil in Kensington has continued this week. At meeting


residents heckled the judge, while the council has had a shake-up in


its management imposed by the government, but will that be enough


to quell the anger in the community? The Mayor of London says otherwise.


After the dramatic silences of last week that saw the leader


of Kensington and Chelsea Council resign, the Royal Borough


Elizabeth Campbell was chosen to head the council in the presence


of the minister for London, Greg Hands.


A show of the Government's increasingly hands on approach to


And the first thing I'm going to do, is to reach out to our community,


And the second thing I'm going to do is to phone up Sajid Javid,


as Secretary of State, and ask for more help.


That's what her predecessor was criticised for not doing enough of.


Now the government's ordered a new task force to take over


It's not yet known who'll be on it, but we do know its remit.


The special focus of this recovery task force is going to be


on housing, regeneration, and community engagement.


But Labour say no task force can restore the Conservative-run


Mr Speaker, could I gently say to the Minister,


the fudge at local level about who's in control won't work.


The local community do not want the usual suspects in charge


City Hall has a more radical proposal.


What the Government should be doing is consulting local residents,


and then sending in commissioners to take over the running


While the row continues over who ought to be in charge,


residents are living in precarious circumstances.


Of the 158 families affected, only 14 have accepted offers


of temporary accomodation - like this one.


Others evacuated from the area were, this week, escorted back


It's now up to the task force to find homes for those families


I'm joined now by Eleanor Kelly, the Chief Executive


of Southwark Council who has now been drafted in as the official


spokesperson for the Grenfell Tower disaster response team.


Good morning. Thank you for coming in. Any update for us this morning


on the number of people who have been rehoused? The number of people


who have accepted temporary been rehoused? The number of people


rehousing is 16. It is starting to slowly move forward. What is the


sticking point, why is that number still so low? People don't want to


make two move, they want to move to their permanent accommodation and


for many people, they have been through such a terrible trauma they


are not ready to think about their housing option, including people who


are having their housing needs assessed on the basis of family


members who are missing, presumed dead. We hear a lot, understandably


about the sense of anger, and dislocation there is in the


community, how do you go about trying to address that? It is such a


huge challenge. There are practicalities round trying to find


homes and people wrestling with the dilemma of whether they want to go


into temporary accommodation or wait, but how do you deal with that


sense of dislocation, and anger and try and start the process of taking


it on and helping people? You have to recognise the layers and


impacts on different communities. You start with the bereaved and they


have a different type of support package. You have the survivors from


the fire and people whose homes have been destroyed in Grenfell Tower.


The Lancaster west estate is an estate made up of 1000 properties,


151 of which were destroyed, but the other 849 properties are inhabited


and those people in that community have been impacted dreadfully too.


Then you have the communities of Kensington and Chelsea, the issues


around London, and of course this was a national disaster. You have to


recognise the response and actions have to be specifically tailored and


very detailed in respect of each of those different levels. So for


instance you mentioned firstly those who are believed, what support is


being offered for them? There's a specific facility in the friends and


family assistance centre that provides a package directly to


bereaved families and individuals. It is separate from any of the other


facilities provided to any of the other communities and they are


supported in specialist bereavement services as well as the bereavement


services around housing, social care, and key workers have to be


supported in a different way to the general community. How is the


relationship working between you guys, the local authority, the Mayor


of London and government. The argument would be made layers of


complexity is necessary when responding to a tragedy of the scale


but I guess there is a possibility of that bringing conflict. I don't


see any conflict. There are probably something like 20 different agencies


across the public sector, the voluntary sector and private sector


as well as government bodies involved in this stage of the


response which has moved from rescue into recovery. And it really is


complex to get into much more steady state and get these communities back


into something much more resembling business as usual. Your reaction to


what you're hearing and the response governmentally, whether locally or


nationally, how do you think it is going? Just listening to the


account, I think people are coming together. It's obviously an


appalling tragedy, nobody can deny that, this sort of thing should not


be happening in London, but I'm struck by how people are coming


together to find answers. There is an element of politics involved but


after the tragedy, I'm actually quite surprised and pleased that


people are trying to make common cause and get to the bottom of what


went wrong and seeing how we can avert something as terrible as this


happening again. It's a fairly good response. Barry? We have to cement


things, there has to be a response to different elements of the


community, those who have suffered treatments, in precisely the way you


were saying, but also there has to be a vent for the anger and concern


and that takes us into the realms of politics because we know that


political decisions were not taken that could have averted this tragedy


and that other decisions now need to be taken and swiftly to make sure


nothing like this happens again. Thank you, and Eleanor thank you for


coming in. Carnivals, with their cacophony


and colour, have made the news this week with a row over the route


of this year's Notting Hill Carnival and a prominent human rights


campaigner arguing that the annual Pride London parade, which took


place yesterday, has "morphed into a commercialised,


bureaucratic and rule-bound event." The human rights campaigner


Peter Tatchell has criticised the Mayor of London,


Westminster Council and the Metropolitan Police


for imposing what he contends are onerous controls


and Draconian costs on the event, reducing the numbers of those


marching to 26,000. He compares the controls to the much


bigger Notting Hill Carnival, where, he argues, fewer restrictions


are in place. A spokesperson for


the Mayor responded: This year's Pride in London


parade promises to be the biggest ever with 81 floats


and 231 walking groups. Over one million people will line


the streets in an event that will celebrate London's


LGBT plus community. This week, the Notting Hill Carnival


was in the news with the Minister for London, Greg Hands,


writing to the mayor, Sadiq Khan, asking for the route of this year's


carnival to be changed, so that it did not take place


in the shadow of Grenfell Tower. Notting Hill Carnival is a firm


London tradition and incredibly important to the local community. It


should not be moved. And I'm joined by the human rights


campaigner Peter Tatchell. Address our viewer who is thinking,


gosh, Peter is moaning about this wonderful carnival that is so


mainstream now that there's all these corporate sponsors, what's


wrong with that? It is wonderful and there is huge progress but I think a


lot of people feel that the event is now over commercialised. Of course


we need corporate sponsorship to pay for it, that's fine, but it has


become too dominant and the rules and restrictions imposed by the


authorities are destroying the spontaneity of the event. I think


compared to some years ago when 100,000 people were in the parade,


to reduce it by rules to only 26,500 is a bit of an imposition. A bit


churlish, isn't it? The ethos of Pride is that it is open to anyone,


anyone who wants to celebrate LGBT communities can attend, and sadly


this year lots of people couldn't join the parade because of the


artificial numbers. From the perspective of the authorities, on


the one hand you have got the police who will be concerned about ensuring


it is safe, and I guess you have those within London who are also


conscious that whilst many will want to celebrate, others will want to


head out to central London and go shopping. There is a balancing act


to be struck. No such concerns or restrictions were imposed on the


previous weekend's anti-austerity March or other protests. They are


not bound by the same rules or Draconian costs and I think there


needs to be an even playing field for everyone. Let's broaden out our


discussion to all things London and carnivals. There's a discussion


about whether there should be re-routing of the Notting Hill


Carnival the context of Grenfell Tower. Your reactions, picking up on


the Pride celebrations, what do you make of what Peter said? I think he


has a point. Years ago there were more people and it was less


commercialised. I saw in your clip of Barclays Bank logo which is not


something you necessarily would have seen ten or 15 years ago so I think


Peter has a point but there's also the point about trying to make it


safe and if the authorities, people feel that there are certain rules


you need to have in order to keep the things smoothly running, I think


that's fair enough too. Barry, on all things Notting Hill, we have


seen a rejection of the suggestion on re-routing it because of Grenfell


Tower, what do you think? I think the mayor is right. The Notting Hill


Carnival has always been based in that community, to say it should be


taken away is to deny the essence of what it is about. It must be rooted,


part of that community. It must not see the community... The community


mustn't feel that yet again officialdom is coming in and saying


no no, we are going to take this away from you and sanitise it. You


are bursting to come in. I think Greg is being misrepresented here. I


think what you are saying is that because of this appalling event


there should be some recognition of that and in some way the Carnival...


So his point is more subtle? You yes, no one is trying to ban or


restrict things. The community themselves don't want what Greg is


saying. I let you speak, you have interrupted me, but what I'm saying


is what Greg is saying is we should have acknowledgement that something


appalling as happened. Peter, you are a veteran of carnivals and


protests and celebrations and you have strong views on Pride, what are


your views on what should happen to Notting Hill Carnival? I am pleased


there are not the owner is restrictions that have been placed


on Notting Hill carnival that have been placed on Pride. I agree the


mayor is right, I don't think the Carnival should be moved, but I do


think there should be some commemoration so tomorrow I'm


writing to the Mayor of London proposing that 3pm on the Carnival


Monday sirens should wail across west London to be followed by a


minute's stillness and silence so we can fittingly commemorate the


victims and that compromise means the Carnival can go on but we also


very importantly remember those who have died and suffered. Thank you,


very interesting. Peter, thank you for coming in.


What is he on about, I hear you ask...


well, some in one London borough are,


to coin a phrase, saying they want to "take back control."


The slogan used by outers in the EU referendum campaign has been


borrowed by those hoping to wrestle back power from the Mayor


Sadiq Khan and return it to the people of Havering -


many of whom say they're not Londoners.


Since the year 2000, City Hall has been in charge


of London's planning, police, transport,


the Fire Service, and environmental issues in the capital.


This year the mayor's budget for all of that is ?16 billion.


It's likely you spend about ?23 a month contributing


towards that as part of your council tax, but just as some


of London's Brexit heartlands wanted to take power and influence away


from the EU, now one London borough wants to be free


We want to take back control of planning,


we want Havering to leave the London planning process.


We raise tax through the GLA precept which is given over to the mayor,


then we have to beg for that money back and of course we don't get back


So you think Havering would be better off out?


Here in the London Borough of Havering, it's market day.


We are just 12 miles from the centre of London,


but do people here feel like they are part of the capital?


I feel I'm a bit, like, a bit both really.


And do you think Sadiq Khan's City Hall should have control of Havering


or do you think it should have control of itself?


I think Havering should control itself.


Go to London, it's a rat race, isn't it?


Do you think Sadiq Khan's City Hall should have control of your life?


It should be a Londoner doing the job that knows London.


And yet there are also those here, like Jazz, who wanted her Indian


restaurant to feel like part of the capital.


You would find something like this in Shoreditch,


Camden, so, you know, and this is provided


The reason we have brought the feel of London so people in Havering


don't have to travel too far out and this is more


Which suggests some here do consider themselves to be Londoners.


But on Wednesday the council will vote on a motion introduced


by Ukip to make Havering a unitary authority - a move being described


Yes, I find it slightly bizarre, to tell you the truth.


I have been slightly blindsided when I heard about this.


What is the implications for Havering having its own police


force, I don't know the details about that, or I think


I mean it does tap into a sense of people frustrated


with the people who make decisions about their lives.


A year ago it was the people over in Brussels.


Now it seems to be people in the town hall.


Sadiq Khan says he doesn't think councillors will give this


motion the time of day, but the local Conservative MP says


if it passes he will push for a change in the law.


When you have a Labour Mayor of London that looks at a borough


like Havering and thinks, ah, let's build tens of thousands


of houses in a borough like that, when it doesn't have local support,


A City Hall bureaucracy taking power away from local people,


from local politicians and from the decision-making,


you know, democratic decision-making local community is wrong.


While most here admit a Hexit seems unlikely,


it was only last year that similar frustrations led to


Culturally fascinating reflections on what is happening in Havering,


regardless to what happens about the suggestions in the council, and


Kwasi there's a history we should tap into. Absolutely, when


essentially Middlesex county council was abolished in 1965 the GLC was


created, the two district councils which made up Spelthorne had a


choice, they could decide to be part of Greater London or part of Surrey,


which is what happened. When I hear that, I reflect on a familiar


argument in my constituency. Some people say, why can't we be part of


London, but I suspect the majority want to have a distinctive


independence outside of London. They love being near London but don't see


themselves as being part of it. They can say that is a problem these


people are causing us and therefore what we will do is build a wall and


keep them over there and guard our separation, or you can say, goodness


me, we have a problem, and let's get in there and try and deal with that,


and I think that is coming out at national and local


and try and deal with that, and I think that is coming out


Now just under a year ago, Theresa May was making her way back


from Buckingham Palace having been asked by the Queen


To say it's been a tumultuous twelve months would be an understatement -


here's a reminder of the highs and lows.


I have just been to Buckingham Palace, where Her Majesty the Queen


has asked me to form a new Government and I accepted.


If you're just managing, I want to address you directly.


I know you're working around-the-clock, I know


you're doing your best, and I know that sometimes


When future generations look back at this time,


they will judge us not only by the decision that we made, but by


I have just chaired a meeting of the Cabinet, where we agreed


that the Government should call a general election to


The Conservative Party has won the most seats


and probably the most votes, then it will be incumbent on us


to ensure we have that period of stability and that is exactly


So 12 months in the life of Theresa May, and the rest of us too. I am


exhausted. I don't know what she feels like! How weak or strong is


her position and this constant reporting, more on the Sunday paper


today about groups of Tory MPs manoeuvring to bring her down in the


autumn, before the autumn after the autumn, name a month between now and


the end of the year. Is that, that has to be corrosive as well.


Absolutely. Every week there will be another story. The reality is the


stronger Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party look the stronger her


position is because it is what are the alternative, Theresa May or...


It is depending on the polls where it is Theresa May herself who is


helping to cause that boost for Jeremy Corbyn, if she is the toxic


part of the Tory party brand, and if they get rid of her the Tories would


spring back up and the Labour Party would go down or is it best for her


to soak it, literally draw out the toxins and then, I don't know, two


money, six months a year, she stands down and next leader takes the over,


next generation or David Davis and they start again, start afresh, and


she takes all the badness, the toxins with her this is thing, there


must be a hell of a lot of detailed polls right now find that out. I


don't know the answer. Can she relaunch herself? No, she will make


a big speech on Tuesday, ex tracts are being briefed into tomorrow's


papers, I have seen them. . What is the subject matter? Me. Not me, her.


There has been enough movement from BBC... It is going to be her, it


will be the relaunch. I have a purpose, still here and allow me to


stay, but the problem is, Julia is right, there is a feeling among Tory


MPs it would be ideal for her to last at least two years, suck in the


bad bit, and to have a referendum or not, and the miscalculations and


bring in a new person, untarnished. The problem over that is events dear


boy as someone once said. Brexit may go well, it may not. Talks may


produce something or she may get stuck down a hole. She is the


sticking plaster over the two side of the Tory party. She is there,


because they want her to be there and that Palacester is stilled


holding, if that seismic divide goes any further, the plaster breaks she


will go down the hole with it. David Davis said she doesn't want a


leadership election, the papers are full of briefings from what are


claimed to be from his people saying she faces abject misery, that it is


time she will have to go sooner rather than later, they clearly


haven't got the memo from DD as he is called. Publicly they have, to


declare loyalty until the moment when they feel the time has come to


be disloyal. The problem she has got is that context determines 95% of


how a leader is perceived. She can make a brilliant speech this week


about how she plans to be bold but the context is that lost majority in


the election, a hung parliament with Brexit looming. It makes it hard to


be bold, hung Parliaments are not bold. You will have to manoeuvre all


the time and it be exhausting and transparent in the scheming, a like


with the arrangement with the DUP, some of the vote it is a have


happened and it will be utterly draining, now Julia is is right. The


key question for the Tories will be if they get someone else in, does


that transform their prospects? While that is not clear, I agree she


will probably cling on, but there will be no glorious summer for her


again, the pre-election context was fantastic for her, it is really dark


now, and tough. The key thing is what you said, who would have thunk


it. You have said the Tories are frightened to call to provoke us


another election because they fear, they think Jeremy Corbyn will win.


Who would have thought we would get into that position? In the same


argument who would have thought Theresa May been so popular. Who


would have thought Jeremy Corbyn would get where he is now? That


shows there is still hope for not maybe, maybe not Theresa May, I


think that she has holed below the water line, what goes up can also


come down, but in Theresa May's defence, and I don't think she will


last very long, and I think she has been exposed, during the election


campaign for just not having enough of depth, of the fight, but to be


fair she must have a backbone of steel, a lesser man or holed below


the water line, what goes up can also come down, but in Theresa May's


defence, and I don't think she will last very long, and I think she has


been exposed, during the election campaign for just not having enough


of depth, of the fight, but to be fair she must have a backbone of


steel, a lesser man or woman holed below the water line, what goes up


can also come down, but in Theresa May's defence, and I don't think she


will last very long, and I think she has been exposed, during the


election campaign for just not having enough of depth, of the


fight, but to be fair she must have a backbone of steel, a lesser man or


woman who have gone, "I'm off now." To take the flak she is get, she is


steely as they come. It is almost a form of penance she is doing, having


brought her party to this less than glorious position, she's having to


try and kind of restore things a bit, knowing in her heart of hearts


and perhaps not as deep at that, that she will not be the


beneficiary. Absolutely not. That is what she said to the 1922 Committee


that Monday after the general election, I got us into this mess, I


am going to get us out of it. Talks to MPs this week, it is interesting,


there is pretty hard feeling settling that the new person should


come from the 2010 intake, skip a generation. The Boris, the Teresa,


the Hammonds. Bye Amber Rudd? She has a tiny minority -- majority.


There was one minister in your foyer an hour ago. Did we have a foyer? I


think about 30 of them, all of them believe it or not fancy their


chance, and for any of those to expose themselves and to lay out


their agenda they will need two-years to make these sort of


Sport Reliefs Let us turn to Labour. Well, earlier we talked


to Caroline Flint about the threat Here's what Shadow Minister


and Corbyn ally, Chris Williamson, MPs need to reflect the political


programme that is overwhelmingly supported by Labour members


and Labour supporters, and if people aren't


prepared to do that, then it will be up to members


in their local constituencies How big a change is Labour going to


undergo? To what extent will Labour now be recast in the mould of Mr


Corbyn and his wing of the party? Well in policy terms it already has


been largely recast into the Corbyn McDonnell view, although with lots


of examples of them being pretty expedient, Trident being an example.


Where they went into the election backing retention, even though


personally they are totally committed to nuclear disarmament. He


might be able to move to that position? They might but that


example of expend yen sip leads me to this. . I suspect Corbyn and


McDonnell will be thinking we are close to power do we really want 18


months of Civil War, which is what deelection battles would become, and


terrible publicity, and an imflowing a party on the verge possibly of an


election win. -- implosion. My guess is they won't and they will go out


of their way to try and stop it. John McDonnell said many times


divide a party lose elections, I don't think they will want this.


There are power battles in party, we have been talking about it in the


Tory party, and there will be moments of heightened tension


between the Labour MPs and their memberships but I don't think that


this is going to happen. If Steve is right we should be looking for signs


of them looking for signs of them hosing things down. Although, I


don't think they need to do this. The moderate wing of the party, they


are not standing up to Jeremy Corbyn any more, they are trying to get a


few Select Committee Chairmanships and survive and hope something


happens. The extraordinary thing is, given that no-one expected Jeremy


Corbyn, no-one tried to deselect him and no-one accused him of


disloyalty. We are in Soviet style show trial, you know, repent


territory. We haven't had a show trial yet. Matter of time. Apart


from Brexit. The Labour Party are united until it comes to votes on


the House of Commons on what to do about Europe. So, Brexit goes well,


that 49 will wither away a bit and start getting... If Brexit goes


badly. Vince Cable saying we need a mud referendum, huge temptation then


among Labour MPs to recalibrate and a oar gue for staying in and that


would split the partyty down the middle. You heard Owen Paterson say


85% of people voted for parties that wanted Brexit, meaning Labour and


Conservative. It is true that Jeremy Corbyn and Mr McDonnell are more


Eurosceptic than people realise. They want another election quickly,


because they don't know how, this maybe as good as it gets. None of us


know, so get an election quick because we think we might win it.


That means that they could well play game, why would they just bolster


the store Tories if a big defeat on Brexit could provoke an election. I


am guessing they will play games, if there is chance of undermining the


Government perhaps fatally to get this early election which would be


massively in their interest, theyry ahead in the poll, I think that will


do it. They have displayed expediency on Europe in the past,


possibly arguing for it why having doubts about it in the referendum,


for Remain, sorely. So yes, I think there will be, as I said earlier, in


this Parliament there will be going to be moments where it looks as if


the Government could be defeat and I think they will move towards


defeating the Government. Any remainor should be more worried


about the economics of a Corbyn left Government. On that point we better


On that point we better leave it there.


I'll be back here on BBC One at the same time next week


And Jo Co's back tomorrow with the Daily Politics on BBC Two


at the earlier time of 11am - that's because of Wimbledon.


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


Andrew Neil and Tim Donovan are joined by Labour MPs Caroline Flint and Emma Dent Coad, as well as the Conservatives' Owen Paterson MP. The political panel consists of Julia Hartley-Brewer, Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.