03/12/2017 Sunday Politics London

Good morning, everyone.

I'm Sarah Smith.

Welcome to the Sunday Politics -

your essential guide to the biggest

political stories of the week.

Coming up on today's show...

Ahead of a crucial EU summit,

is Theresa May on the brink

of a breakthrough on Brexit?

Or, after a slightly torrid week,

is she in danger of being

overtaken by events?

The ex-Labour minister

Alan Milburn quits as chairman

of the Social Mobility Commission,

saying he has "little hope"

the current government can make

the "necessary" progress.

What does this mean

for a Prime Minister who vowed

to fight against the "burning

injustice" of inequality?

And, we speak to the academic who's

carrying out economic "wargaming"

scenarios for the Labour party,

in the event it wins power.

People are going to trust us

with their jobs and their pensions

and their livelihoods.

We've got to show we

know what we're doing.

This seems like common sense to me.

In London, he is the man

with the plan but can mayor,

Sadiq Khan's vision for the capital

really solve the housing crisis?

Yes, all that coming

up in the programme.

And to help guide me

through all the week's

twists and turns, I'm

joined by Tom Newton Dunn,

Isabel Oakeshott,

and Steve Richards.

Now, the breaking news this morning

is the resignation of Alan Milburn -

the ex-Labour minister who,

for the last five years, has chaired

the Social Mobility Commission.

He says the Government is too

preoccupied with Brexit

to focus on social justice.

We'll be assessing the significance

of that in a moment.

But first, if that relationship has

turned sour for the Prime Minister,

it wasn't the only one this week.

Like all relationships, our liaison

with our European neighbours

has had its ups and downs.

Theresa May wants a deep and special

partnership after Brexit.

Thus far, money has been

the main obstacle to

an amicable divorce.

This week, a possible breakthrough.

He once said "the EU

could go whistle if they

asked for too much," now he's

practically dancing with joy.

It's a fantastic opportunity

now to get going.

Others are always harder to please.

It is not worth nearly

50 billion sterling.

No deal is better than a bad deal

and this is a very bad deal indeed.

Brussels may be on board

with the divorce bill but

there's trouble over

the Irish border.

If the UK offer is unacceptable

for Ireland, it will

also be unacceptable for the EU.

Reports suggest Stormont could be

given more power to agree bespoke

trading arrangements

with the Republic but that, in turn,

enraged Theresa May's

partners in Parliament.

The DUP could walk out

of their marriage of convenience

with the Tories if the Government

allows Northern Ireland to diverge

from the rest of the UK.

If there is any hint that in order

to placate Dublin and the EU,

they are prepared to have

Northern Ireland treated differently

than the rest of the United Kingdom,

then they can't rely on our vote.

But it was the "special

relationship" that came

under most strain.

As Donald Trump re-tweeted

Islamophobia videos,

posted by the far right

group, Britain First.

Denounced by Downing Street,

the President took to Twitter again,

telling Theresa May directly,

"Don't focus on me,

we are doing just fine."

The Prime Minister on a surprise

trip to the Middle East was plunged

into a very public row.

I'm very clear that

re-tweeting from Britain

First was the wrong thing to do.

The May-Trump mini break

in the UK might be off.

I certainly don't think he should be

should be coming next year.

Next year is supposed to be a happy

event for the Royal family.

We certainly don't want Trump

turning up in the middle

of all of that.

Meanwhile, Labour leader and GQ

magazine cover model declared

himself to be an enemy

of greedy bankers.

So, when they say, we're

a threat, they're right.

We are a threat to

a damaging and failed

system that's rigged for the few.

The Prime Minister's

closest political

friend stood in for her

at the dispatch box on Wednesday

while she was abroad but fresh

questions emerged later

in the week about

whether he'd used a Parliamentary

computer to view pornography

some nine years ago.

Theresa May will meet be EU

Commission President

Jean-Claude Juncker tomorrow.

They will discuss the revised

offer on the divorce

bill and whether talks

can now move on to trade

post-Brexit.

It has not been an easy

relationship with leaks from

previous meetings finding their way

into the German press.

Hopefully, they can put

all of that behind them.

So, we will talk through one of the

top stories for the week with our

panel in the studio. We are going to

be looking ahead to what is

happening in Brussels. The Prime

Minister is going over for a working

lunch with Jean-Claude Juncker

tomorrow. We are always saying we

have reached a critical stage in the

negotiations.

Is it a critical

point? It is. It is endgame of

chapter one. There are two chapters,

divorce and then trade. This is the

end of the first half, at the 43rd

minute. It is probably 0-0. We need

to get over the line and into

half-time and into the second half.

Wyatt is so critical is the Prime

Minister, in the next few days, she

cannot wait till the 14th or 15th of

December, have to choose to govern

is to choose. One side is saying

this is what we will act set to move

on to the second phase and the

Eurosceptics will say, we will not

access to any of that. She has to

get off the fence. One is what they

will do about easy JN the other

about the Irish border. To divert or

not diverged?

This is only the end

of the first half of the process. If

the EU agrees we can move onto the

second half. That is not guaranteed,

is it?

Tom's analogy, I will not go

too far with it because I'm not a

football expert. Brexiteers feel it

is more like 1-0 to the EU. There is

a circulation today, leave means

leave, which is signed by eminent

business people and academics. Only

a few MPs, about five of them on

now. We were discussing this earlier

and Tom made the point it is quite a

hostile thing for a Tory MP to sign

a letter like this. Many more agree

with the contents of the letter,

which sets out the set of conditions

the PM must not agree to, in their

view, must not capitulate to as the

negotiation goes forward. It is

about when free movement of people

ends and we retain the power to go

to WTO if all else fails.

We be

discussing this further with our

guests and find out what the EU had

think about it. The other big news

of the morning is that Alan Milburn

resigned from the social mobility

commission. He told and remarked

earlier why. -- Andrew Marr.

In various social mobility roles,

I've served a Labour Prime Minister,

a coalition Prime Minister,

and now, a Conservative one.

I've done so because I care deeply

about the issue and I believe

that it matters profoundly

to the country.

I've reached the conclusion, sadly,

that with the current government,

there is little if any hope

of progress being made

towards the fairer Britain

that the Prime Minister

has talked about.

The Government, probably

for understandable reasons,

is focused on Brexit,

and seems to lack the bandwidth

to be able to translate the rhetoric

of healing social division

and promoting social justice

into a reality.

That is a pretty damning statement,

the Government does not have the

bandwidth to do with anything other

than Brexit.

It is true. Brexit is

sucking up all political energy much

practical energy in Whitehall.

Beyond that, the significance of

this is not huge. I think these

commissions float uneasily in

government. If you make policy on

social justice, you can do that

within a government department if

you are serious about it. I think it

was set up partly with good

intentions in the coalition period,

partly to break off the Blairites

from Labour and get them involved

with these so called modernising

Conservative project, and the fact

that it is ending, I don't think in

itself is significant. But he is

absolutely... By the way they were

never entirely clear on policy

terms. The fact he said I am not a

status quo nor am I with Theresa

May, what are going to be the

mediating agencies? There are some

huge issues to address. Whether this

was the appropriate way to do it in

the first place, I have doubts about

it.

Thank you for that.

Well, to pick up on all of that,

I'm joined by the former

Conservative leader, Michael Howard.

Thank you for coming in. Let's start

with the claim by Alan Milburn that

the Government does not have the

time or capacity to do anything

other than Brexit. That must be a

concern to you as well.

I think he

is wrong. I share his concern about

social mobility. When I was the

leader of the Conservative Party

used to make speeches about the

British dream and the importance of

social mobility. There is always

more to be done but we have actually

made a lot of progress. Can I give

you some examples? We would all

agree that education is key to

social mobility. We have 1.9 million

children now, 1.9 million children

more than in 2010 in good or

outstanding schools.

His complaint

was not that nothing has been done

since 2010 but nothing can be done

now.

It is still happening. Income

inequality is at its lowest level

for 30 years. More taxes being paid

than under the Labour years. One of

the worst things that can happen to

a child is to live in a workless

household. The number of workless

households has been shrinking. And

implement is at its lowest level

since 1975.

-- unemployment. Theresa

May, when she became Prime Minister

last year, said this is a country of

burning injustice.

It is. There is

always more to be done. You say it

is in the past. This morning we have

had an announcement that a

considerable amount of extra money

will be devoted in helping children

facing mental health challenges in

our schools. That is important as

well in relation to social mobility.

Of course there is more to be done.

I think quite a lot of progress has

been made on social mobility and

should not forget that.

Let's move

on to wrecks it. You will have read

reports that she will offer a

divorce bill somewhere between 40

billion and 50 billion euros, maybe

slightly more. You said back in

April that you would be astonished

if the bill was anything like 50

billion euros for the you must be

producer prize.

We all started off

with aspirations. -- you must be

pretty surprised. I do not know what

the sum will be. Whatever it is it

will be a fraction of the amount we

have paid into the European Union

over the last 40 years and would pay

into the European Union for the next

40.

You are now fairly relaxed about

something around this mark?

I have

confidence in the Prime Minister and

David Davis. I want to let them

decide what is the best deal. I'm

confident we'll get a good deal. I'm

confident in the Prime Minister and

David Davies.

You know the more

money we spend on the divorce the

more bashes nevertheless many we

have to spend on other things. Our

guest last week felt it had to be

delivered to keep faith in the

process.

In the budget a few days

ago the Government promised more

than an extra £350 million for the

health service, running into almost

£2 billion.

They did not promise

that in the budget?

Over time, more

money will be available when we are

out. These payments, I don't know

what the sum would be, are going to

be spread out over many years. The

annual bill will not be anything

like that. In the end there will be

more money to spend on the health

service and other desirable things

because we will not have to make

this very large, annual contribution

we were making.

You have always been

a committed Eurosceptic. Do not

worry that the European Union seem

to be having it their way? They

wanted to discuss divorce before the

trade deals. We agreed to that. The

divorce bill seems to have gone up

substantially since Theresa May was

speaking in her Florence speech.

They are getting what they want as

we are going through the process and

we seem to be capitulating.

I do not

think that is fair. There is a huge

amount of posturing, which always

goes on in negotiations. The

approach of the European Union is in

breach of Article 50. Article 50

says the arrangements for the

departure of a member state have to

take into account the future

relationship of that state with the

European Union. You cannot take

something into account if you are

not prepared to talk about it. They

are in breach of Article 50. That is

the approach they have chosen. I am

confident. I think we will move

forward to the next phase, to pursue

Tom's analogy, I hope they will not

be injury time at the end of the

first half and I hope we will get an

agreement this month and then we can

start talking turkey.

Do you agree

with the leave means leave letter in

the paper today without demanding

the UK be free to sign employment

trade deals and note end to

restriction is by the European Court

of Justice?

I share the aspirations

contained in the letter.

You did not

sign it.

No.

Did they ask you to?

No. I am not inclined to make

demands at this stage. I think they

should be allowed to get on with the

negotiations. I have confidence in

their ability to do so. I'm

confident that in the end will get a

good deal in the interests of the UK

and of the European Union because

there is a great commonality of

interest between the two of us to

have a good relationship, a deep and

special relationship the Prime

Minister has spoken of.

You are

trying not to be a back-seat driver.

As a former leader of the Tory Party

you probably understand how annoying

that will be that you are an

interested party entitled to your

view on this. Iain Duncan Smith is

in the papers saying how important

it is to end the authority of the

European Court of Justice. Is that a

red line for you?

I have every confidence in the Prime

Minister and in David Davis and I

think they will end up with a good

deal.

They're just going to pick up

with our panel here. Listening to

Michael Howard there, very carefully

trying not to step on the Prime

Minister's toes, but clearly he

shares some sympathy with people who

do want to put some red lines on

her?

I know Michael Howard is a

forensic follower of politics, so

I'm surprised he is completely

confident about Theresa May

delivering this, given that when she

returned from the last summit, when

she made her House of Commons

statement, she was clear, to my

surprise, actually, that during the

transition, I am not surprised in

how it turned out but I am surprised

she was so clear, that the European

court would hold some sway. It has

two, because if the transition is to

be effective, it means one way or

another we will still sort of be in

the single market and Customs union

for a time and therefore the

European court will hold some sway.

And she said it. I saw Jacob

Rees-Mogg's response of horror. But

she did say it. And so that is

already I think part of the

equation. So the response of her

Brexiteers on this will be pivotal.

Iain Duncan Smith is not alone in

being absolutely resolute that the

ECJ will have nothing to do with

Britain?

Absolutely, and I think

that the concern amongst the harder

line Brexiteers is that this

transitional arrangement is a

continuation of the status quo, and

that it might even slip. Now, the

Prime Minister has try to be

reassuring on that, and there have

been indications it might slip a few

weeks but definitely not longer. But

I think that Brexit MPs want more

assurances that this will not end up

just being kicked into the long

grass.

Will those assurances be

given?

I don't think they will be.

She is going to have to compromise.

The other choice is to walk away. A

perfectly admirable choice but it is

a choice she needs to make. The

interesting question is, what do

these people plan to do about it?

What does Michael Howard plan to do

if the £45 billion bill, which he is

now accepting, it would appear, the

four MPs and some other quite senior

party figures, what do they plan to

do if the Prime Minister

compromises? Will they vote against

it, will they put their considerable

legislative weight, which Michael

Howard could do in the House of

Lords, against it?

Even though

you're being very diplomatic today,

is there a point at which you would

speak out if something you saw as

fundamentally unacceptable occurred?

That is a very hypothetical

question, Sarah!

The idea that you

might find something out of Brussels

being unacceptable is hypothetical?

Lets wait and see. I have said and I

am in danger of repeating myself, I

have every confidence in the Prime

Minister and in David Davis. I think

we will end up with a good deal. You

would in expect in negotiations like

this an awful lot of posturing.

Let

me into you because I need to ask

you about one other thing before we

go. Damian Green, you will know

there have been more stories

reported this week around the

accusation that he viewed

pornography on a Parliamentary

computer, something he absolutely

resolutely denies. If it is

discovered that he wasn't telling

the truth when he told the Prime

Minister he hadn't done this, would

it be a resigning matter?

I don't

know, that is another hypothetical

question. Damian was my

Parliamentary neighbour for many

years, he has denied it and I

believe him and I agree with those

very senior figures yesterday who

condemned the leaking of information

by these retired police officers. I

think that's a very serious matter

indeed. Policing in this country is

based on trust between the police

and the public. And if we have...

Michael Howard, thank you very much

for talking to us.

The EU has warned Theresa May

that she must satisfy Irish demands,

if the Brexit negotiations

are to move forward this week.

But ahead of a crucial

meeting between Theresa May

and Jean-Claude Juncker tomorrow,

it seems there is still work to do.

Here's the Irish Foreign

Minister, Simon Coveney,

speaking this morning.

There is no desire in Ireland to

delay this process. But at the same

time we have irresponsibility as a

government to represent the

interests on the island of Ireland,

north and south. Let's not forget

that next year will be the 20th

anniversary of the Good Friday

Agreement, which is the basis for

the peace process, and relations

between Britain and Ireland on the

island of Ireland. And we believe

that as an island, Ireland is

uniquely vulnerable and exposed to a

potential bad outcome from Brexit.

With me now is the Shadow

International Trade

Secretary, Barry Gardiner.

Obviously, it is absolutely crucial

that a resolution is found to this

problem - what is Labour's position?

I think you have to proceed here on

the basis of principles. The first

principle is, do nothing that

damages the peace process. The

second principle is, do nothing that

averages the economy. And by that I

mean both the economy and Northern

Ireland, in Ireland as a whole and

in the UK and Ireland as a whole.

Now, that means that we have to...

But that's the impossible conundrum,

how to do all of those things at

once?

It can't be impossible,

because we've got to do it. Of

course it is being made much more

difficult by the government's red

lines on this. And the government

has stated very publicly and clearly

that it wants to come out of the

customs union and the single market.

And of course, what actually creates

checks at the border is when you

have regulator we variants and when

you have product standards that are

different. So, that means that you

have to check what's coming in and

out for any tariffs that you wish to

impose. Now, that's why it has been,

I think and my party thinks, foolish

to have removed the structural

possibilities which lie in the

customs union or the single market,

from what the government's

negotiating position is.

That's very

interesting, because I can see

clearly, and so can the Irish

government, exactly how staying in

the customs union and the single

market would help resolve the

question for the island of Ireland,

but also it raises questions for the

United Kingdom. It is also

interesting because if we have a

look at what you say back in July,

who didn't sound quite as pleased

about the single market, when you

said we would in effect become a

vassal state, obliged to pay into

the EU budget and having even less

sovereignty than we do now - you

weren't so keen on the single market

then?

I am not so keen on the single

market membership as opposed to

being a member of the EU. Single

market membership without being a

member of the EU means that you do

not have a say in the rules which

you have to abide by.

But we're

leaving the EU, let's take that as a

given.

Let's talk about where we are

going forward. I was setting out

very clearly, and I don't think you

would disagree with what I said, I

was setting out very clearly the

applications of leaving the EU in

the way that the government had set

out. And those implications are

clear. I believe I set them out

correctly. Where we are now is, we

have to find a solution to this

problem. Simon Coveney was actually

earlier very clear in saying that

you don't have to have a full

solution in phase one, but there has

to be the real expectation that

we're going to be able to resolve it

in phase two. The first thing that

both sides need to say here is that

we will look at the Common Travel

Area, which has existed since 1922,

and that should be part and parcel

of the deal going forward. The

second element that I think is

really important here is to

understand precisely what the peace

settlement was, when in the Good

Friday Agreement in 1998 we set out

that there should be no security

checks at the border. That was

critically important. But of course,

security checks in those days were

in place because of the situation,

the military, paramilitary

situation. But when those security

checks were taken away, because we

were members of the single market

and because we were members of the

customs union, there were no

additional customs checks. Now, to

say that you order the Good Friday

Agreement and have no security

checks, with all the military

paraphernalia that goes with that,

does not mean that you cannot have

typified customs checks. But those

customs checks will only be put in

place if the government wants to

deregulate. My party doesn't. My

party doesn't want to deregulate, we

don't want to impose these

terrorists. The government is in a

bind here, because most of the key

players around of Brexit want to

deregulate, and that means there

have to be tariffs, and that means

they have to be imposed at a border.

Jeremy Corbyn yesterday refused to

rule out the possibility of a second

referendum on our EU membership - is

it now the Labour Party's policy

that we might vote again on this?

No, it's not.

Why did he say we have

not made any decision on a second

referendum?

That precisely says that

it is not, because policy because we

have not made a decision on it!

You

could make a decision Ameobi not to

have a second referendum?

Let's be

absolutely upfront about this. The

idea that you would have a second

referendum, I think you would say

you were going to have a second

referendum. Like the Liberal

Democrats have done. That would be

to encourage the EU to give you the

worst possible deal that there was,

so that when you're then voted on

it, everybody would say, we can't

possibly go there. The key thing, in

my view, is that it was always

foolish, always foolish, to have a

50% class one referendum. Because if

you are trying to...

That's what we

had, we are now looking at the

future. I'm talking about the

future. It sounds like Jeremy Corbyn

is saying it is a possibility that

Labour might call for one?

I am

trying to answer your question. I am

not trying to avoid it. When we go

forward, if we were to have another

referendum on the same lines as we

have had, and it were to be 52-48

the other way, what would that

achieve hammered absolutely nothing.

It would then be game on for a third

or fourth referendum. The only way

in which in my view you could

possibly contemplate a second

referendum would be if you had a

threshold which I believe should

have been there in the first place

of a two thirds majority. But that I

stress is not Labour Party policy,

it is not something that we've

decided, and Jeremy Corbyn

articulated that yesterday.

Have you

spoken to Diane Abbott, who has

written to two constituents in the

past month saying she would make the

case for a second referendum?

Diane

has already said that letter was

poorly worded Pozzo, as she called

it. I will not make any further

comment on it.

The Shadow Chancellor,

John McDonnell, came in for a bit

of flak recently when he admitted

that Labour was preparing

for possible negative scenarios,

such as a run on the pound,

if it wins power.

Speaking on the fringes

of his party's conference, he said

he was carrying out "war game-type

scenario planning" in the event

of an election victory.

John McDonnell, the man

helping Mr McDonald.

Well, the man helping

Mr McDonnell do that is

the academic Richard Barbrook.

He's also the man behind

'Games for the Many' -

the political gaming studio

that produced CorbynRun.

Ellie Price went along to meet him.

You may have seen some of these

during the election.

In May Bot, the gamer helps the PM

shoot, run and slide

her way to dystopia.

And then downloaded 150,000 times

in the first week of

the campaign alone, Corbyn Run,

which sees Jeremy Corbyn shaking

down bankers to pay

for policy pledges.

And it's one of the things

the Labour leadership think can win

them the next election.

It put an idea out there

that you can actually

engage in politics in a way

which is both a good laugh,

enjoy the game.

But actually it is quite

stimulating as well.

What happened was, that

prompted ideas about a

fair taxation system

and the policies that

were being launched.

It's new creative way into ideas.

Are you worried that

the Tories will catch on?

They most probably will catch on.

But it's not just about the medium,

it is about the message as well.

Richard, what is happening here?

It's a games jam.

Right.

People are coming together

to make app games,

laptop games, board games, getting

ready for the local elections in May

to propagate Labour's message.

And is it really working?

You have 50-odd people here, that's

hardly going to change the world.

No.

I'm from the punk generation.

I'm from the punk generation.

The first time I saw

the Sex Pistols, there were 40 or 50

people in the room.

Then, in the late-80s,

I went to the very early raves

and again there were very

small groups of people.

Yet, in both cases, these

cultures, you start off

with small groups of people

and they can suddenly

become a mass phenomenom.

And, I'm reliably informed,

it isn't just for computer geeks.

Yes, we've got people

here who are activists and have

never coded in their lives

and they're using tools,

with which you can make games

with no coding skills.

I'm not sure I believe

you but here is a challenge.

Can you make me a game?

Yes, I can.

The challenge begins.

OK.

I'm done.

That took less than half an hour.

Can I see it?

Yeah, of course.

You go up to John and he says,

"We're making games to change the

face of politics."

Then you go up to Jeremy

and he says, "for the many,

not the few."

OK, so it's not exactly Super Mario

but Labour are looking

at another kind of gaming,

so-called war-gaming.

Considering possible

future scenarios.

Something John McDonnell

talked about at the last

Labour Conference.

What if there is a run

on the pound, what happens if

there is this concept

of capital flight?

I don't think there

will but you never know

so we've got a scenario

planned for that.

Richard is also part

of the Shadow Treasury

war-gaming team, who are expected

to meet again in the next few weeks.

If people are going to trust us

with their jobs and their pensions

and their livelihoods,

we've got to show

we know what we are doing.

This seems like common sense to me.

From games jams like these,

Labour hoped to create a campaign

tool that will take them to the next

level - Downing Street.

If politics is a game,

there are novel ways to play.

And Richard Barbrook joins me now.

Thanks for coming in. John McDonnell

said the conference he was working

with you are looking at different

scenarios I possibly around on the

pound. It caused huge amount of

controversy. Can you understand why?

I was actually. Surprised that

people are surprised that political

parties are not doing this. The

military, the civil service,

Corporation Banks, they all do this.

The surprise was one would imagine

that a Labour government neither

hoped nor predicted there would be a

run on the pound and capital flight.

Given the fanaticism of the present

government, probably when we get

elected, the pound would likely go

up. You need to think about these

problems beforehand. There are

potential difficulties to foresee.

You can scenario plan for those. You

can read about problems coming up

ahead and you can talk about them

but actually to experience in a game

like atmosphere, the pressures of

making decisions... You can identify

problems and think about solutions,

try out ideas. If it does not work

you can reiterate again and again

and again.

When the Treasury does

something like this, with very

complex statistical models and huge

amounts of data, can you feed it

into a scenario?

You can on that

basis. What you can do more is test

the team coming together and seeing

how it responds under pressure. A

good example, if you think about the

National Health Service. If it were

a flu pandemic they would have to

think about how to reallocate

resources. There would be sickness

amongst staff, more people going to

hospitals and you get together a

group of people responsible for

running the NHS. You put them

together and put them through a

three-hour simulation of it and that

is the same sort of thing we are

doing. We are looking at what

happens when Labour gets in, the

first 100 days in power, for the

first budget, what would you do?

Whether it is a run on the pound or

something, you create pressures and

problems for them to create the idea

of how they have to operate as a

team.

Does that give you the

opportunity to stress test some of

the more radical policies that

Labour came up with in the last

manifesto like nationalising the

water companies or electricity firms

or something like that?

It is only

maybe in this media bubble in

Britain that we think neoliberalism

is the only alternative.

Those are

to mainstream for you to bother

about?

I said the initial simulation

as any of the first 100 days we are

looking at how we would put together

a budget. That is not really what

the focus is. It is making it

happen, the decision-making process.

That is what you are trying to train

people for. The military does this,

the civil service does this put up

if you do not do this you are in a

very bad position. The election, the

Liberal Democrats did no contingency

planning as to what would happen if

there were a hung parliament but the

civil service did. They ripped

people into becoming a junior

appendage of the Tory Party with the

disastrous results that came from

that.

Is this the kind of

discussions that a Shadow Cabinet

would be having in the run-up to the

general election anyway? That is

that fundamental job of an

opposition.

This is a fundamental

method of doing it. You are just

surprised that a political parties

doing this. If you are the military

or the civil service you use this

tool. You are just surprised... I am

surprised that you are surprised.

The other thing you are doing

separate from the war game scenario,

the apps and the games go further --

which you say can further political

engagement, are they really

spreading a message?

A good example

is the Jeremy Corbyn ran.

I have

played that. It is about mugging

bankers in the streets.

Why we have

austerities is about the tax cuts.

You reverse that and you campaign

fuel social programme. In doing so,

it shows that you are more

successful in raising revenue can

unlock certain pledges and people

join your campaign.

Stay there if

you will. I will come to the panel.

Do you think this sounds like a

useful, political tool, to sit there

in a game like atmosphere and work

hard to intimate radical programme

for government?

Yes. It sounds

sensible and not the only thing they

are doing. I can see them Maya city

of John McDonnell was to speak aloud

in any context about a potential run

on the pound. -- naivete. To prepare

for eventualities, prepare for the

first 100 days by using all kinds of

devices, is highly sensible.

Even if

it has been publicised to working

with games developers.

You kept

going on about military, war-gaming

exercises. I am co-authoring a book

on defence at the moment. In one of

the most important recent war-gaming

exercises we did with the Americans,

we were wiped out within a day

because our targeting policy was so

outdated. I think the fear in the

city is exactly that would happen

economically because your economic

policy is so outdated.

I will let

you respond to that and ask you

another question as well.

She is

just the Tory Troll.

I'm not a

member of the Tory Party. No reason

to be impolite to people. If Morgan

Stanley came here and said we want

to game out what a Labour government

would mean for business, would you

do that?

I would not do it but I

would be very surprised if they are

not already doing that.

Thank you

for coming in to talk to us.

It's coming up to 11:40am.

You're watching

the Sunday Politics.

Coming up on the programme...

We sent the Sunday Politics moodbox

- our unscientific poll

featuring plastic balls -

to South West London.

After polling suggested

the Conservative Party

aren't seen as "caring",

we asked people in

Putney what they value

more in politicians -

competence or compassion?

I think that anybody

who is in parliament

should be confident,

otherwise they shouldn't be an MP in

the first place,

whatever party they are.

-- competent.

Do they have enough compassion?

Hm?

Do they have enough compassion?

No.

But then, who does have enough

compassion these days?

Hardly anybody, my dear.

First though, it's time for

the Sunday Politics where you are.

Hello and welcome to the London

part of the programme.

I'm Ellie Price.

Joining me for the duration,

Heidi Alexander, Labour MP

for Lewisham East, the Conservative

MP for Croydon South,

Chris Philp, and Lord Adonis,

a former Labour minister,

now a non-affiliated peer, who

chairs the National Infrastructure

Commission.

Welcome to you all.

It was the centrepiece

of the 2012 Olympics,

but the glory days of what's been

renamed the London Stadium

seem a long way off.

This week the mayor, Sadiq Khan,

agreed to take over the former

Olympic stadium, and published

a highly critical review

of how it's being run.

In it he blames the previous mayor

Boris Johnson for saddling

the taxpayer, not the tenants,

West Ham United, with the bill

for the stadium's transformation

from exclusively hosting athletics

to include football.

He says that the costs

were £133 million more

than the incorrect estimates

when West Ham signed the deal.

And the stadium is now forecast

to lose £24 million in 2017-18.

Now, the mayor has agreed a deal

with Newham Council to take over

control of the stadium.

Andrew, let's start with you.

This was such a high-profile

project - what's gone wrong?

It's not a good idea in my

experience for local authorities

to start running stadia.

This is the big moral of it.

These are private enterprises, let's

be frank, these football clubs,

they make a lot of money,

they don't really need the state

to come in and help them, too.

And of course, there was a big issue

about what was going to be done

within Olympic assets and so on.

I think the lesson I draw from this

is, let these football clubs,

which have got these super

business-alert directors,

business incomes, let

them sort these things out

themselves and don't saddle

taxpayers with having to deal

with what could be for many,

many decades now the

debts which are left.

So, Boris Johnson

mishandled this, then?

Well, he was mayor at the time

but I'm not making a particularly

part political point.

Local authorities always

like the idea of the glitz

of having big stadia,

and venues and so on,

and they've got lots

of big things to do.

We're talking later

in your programme about

housing and transport -

nobody else can do those.

It's up to the local authorities

and the government to do

that, and they should

concentrate on those.

Heidi - Newham Council, the mayor

very much involved in all of this?

They're to blame?

I don't think so.

I think the report that Sadiq Khan

has published this week shows that

actually, the decisions that

Boris Johnson took when he was mayor

in response to the legal challenge

which happened in 2011,

I think he panicked

and he was quick to say,

we'll rent it out to West Ham,

when perhaps he could have held back

a little bit and adopted a more

sensible negotiating position.

So, some of the contracts massively

underestimated the costs

of transforming the stadium

from the Olympic Stadium for

use by West Ham Football Club.

I think the cost of some of this

retractable seating as well,

and Boris Johnson's decision

to have the Rugby World Cup

there in 2015 added delay,

disruption and cost.

So, I do think that Boris Johnson

has got some very serious

questions to answer.

Of course, we all know

that he had his eye on developing

career opportunities over the river

in Westminster, so

perhaps we shouldn't

be so surprised.

Chris - this doesn't make entirely

comfortable reading,

does it, for Boris Johnson?

We shouldn't forget that in the few

years since the Olympics,

we've had some fantastic

events there beside

the Olympics themselves.

We had the Athletics World Cup

in 2017, the Rugby World Cup,

and of course that whole part

of his London has

regenerated enormously,

party down to the stadium.

Those are all good things.

I think the point Lord Adonis made

was the most interesting one.

The way this got set up initially

in response to a court case,

it wasn't really Boris's choice,

but it was set up with the state

essentially running this,

taking the operational risk but also

responsibility for all the revenue,

so, naming rights and letting

out the stadium for rock

concerts and so on.

It turns out the government,

or the state, the Mayor of London,

didn't do a very good job,

and there is a real lesson

there for those people who advocate

nationalisation in other areas.

The state running what are

basically is business

enterprises doesn't work.

Sadiq Khan's line that he is now

stepping in and taking it over I'm

afraid to say is a bit disingenuous.

Via the London Legacy Development

Corporation, he has controlled

this, because they own most

of E20, the stadium owner.

So, Sadiq Khan has had a year

and a half to get this sorted out,

and it is regrettable it has

taken him that length of time

to even look at this.

So, all of this stuff

about stepping in now

is a bit of a gimmick,

I'm afraid.

He has only been mayor

for not terribly long.

Andrew Adonis - this all sounds

like a catalogue of errors

from various different parts -

a public inquiry,

what needs to be done?

I don't think looking backwards

is going to help much.

On Chris's point, I agree

with him in parts.

I don't think...

There's so many things we've got

to sort out in London.

A massive housing crisis...

Surely someone should

be held to account?

Well, it was a unique set

of circumstances to do

with what you're going to do

with Olympic assets.

We don't host Olympic Games

very often, so it was

an unusual situation.

But I don't think it's

fair to criticise Sadiq.

It was a hospital pass.

There was no easy answer to this.

And what he's trying to do

is to make the best of it,

and I think what he is proposing

to do is about right.

But the lesson I draw from this

is not that the state should retreat

from things which are important -

housing, transport,

welfare services,

all hugely important -

but running sports stadia,

I don't think we need

the Mayor of London

to be doing too much

of that in the future.

I suspect this is something

which will run and run.

It has been 18 months

in the drafting, but this week

finally saw the Mayor of London

launch his planning bible,

a so-called London plan sets rules

for all new building in the capital

and offers guidance on everything

from gender neutral toilets to a ban

on fracking within the city limits.

Most crucially, it's also a guide

of how Sadiq Khan plans

to end the housing crisis.

Will it work?

Andrew has this report.

Barking Riverside in east London.

One of the largest redevelopment

sites in all of Western Europe.

This site was first acquired

for development in 1994.

In that near quarter

of a century, they've managed

to build just 900 homes.

to build just 900 homes.

In fact it's almost an emblem

for London's failure to deal

with the housing crisis.

But this week, the mayor

was here to launch the London plan,

his bible for all new housing

developments in the capital.

And with the arrival of a new London

overground train station here,

he thinks Barking Riverside can

become a symbol of his success.

Well, we're to build

more than 10,000 homes,

a community, seven schools,

a good London overground extension,

we're going ahead with that.

Bus links here, cultural

facilities here, opening up

the river behind us,

the ambition of the council is

Barcelona on the Thames - why not?

Across London, the mayor wants

a target of 50% of new homes

to be affordable housing,

and to more than double

the rate of house

building to 66,000 homes a year.

But is Sadiq Khan's

new strategy really going to be

enough to turn those

numbers into a reality?

Here is Meridian Water in Enfield,

another vast 10,000-home site to be

built on industrial,

brownfield land.

It was launched with great

fanfare by the last mayor

Boris Johnson back in 2015.

But two years on, the future of this

site doesn't quite look

as rosy as it once did.

Just ask Barratt homes,

who were meant to be

developing the land,

pulled out on a deal thought

to be worth £6 billion.

Why?

Well, they couldn't agree terms

with the local authority.

We're around here at the moment...

Local Conservatives say the London

plan could make it harder to sign

a new deal with someone else,

due to the mayor's 50%

affordable housing target,

which they say will make it harder

for developers to make

the site financially viable.

It's clearly more challenging.

The council is talking

to its reserve bidder.

But the goalposts have now changed

from when Barratt won

the development partner status,

when the procurement

was done several years ago.

So, clearly, 50% is going to be

a major challenge to deliver this,

and it could mean that it may not

ever come about at all.

Brownfield land is expensive,

complicated to build

on and can be painfully slow.

But the mayor has ruled out building

on the green belt, and in fact,

wants to increase the amount

of green spaces in London.

So, where exactly are all his

new homes supposed to go?

If you really want to tackle this

problem, there is one silver bullet,

and that is that you need

to radically increase

the supply of land.

You can have targets for how many

homes you want built a year.

You can have targets

for how many of them

are so-called affordable,

but unless you are going to allow

the building on some

of the green space in London,

you are not going to

crack this problem.

Instead, the London plan has

another radical solution.

It scraps all limits

on housing density.

More homes are going to be squeezed

onto the little space we have,

much of which is coming

to the suburbs.

We have 54 high-rise blocks already.

So, if you look at our borough,

it's split very much

into different segments.

I think it's about how you use

design to make place work.

For years, politicians

of all stripes have lined up

to promise Londoners housing numbers

that have never been built.

The question is whether Sadiq Khan

can do something different.

Well, we've got it here,

all 500 pages of it.

It's quite a weighty tome.

I've also got James Murray,

the Deputy Mayor for

housing, joining us.

Hello, James.

James, Londoners are very used

to promises of extra affordable

housing being announced.

Ken Livingstone had the same

target, in fact, 50%

of new homes being affordable.

He didn't manage it -

why do you think you will?

What the mayor has set out

in the draft London plan,

it's hugely ambitious,

it's very bold, it's showing how

we can build 65,000 homes a year,

50% of them being affordable,

without building on green belt.

But it is hugely ambitious.

But ambitious often

means unachievable.

We're really clear

that we need government

support if we're going

to get these built.

Part of the London plan is how we're

going to start turning things around

around from the mess

that we inherited from

Boris Johnson, where there was just

13% affordable housing and no homes

for social rent...

Let's focus on your plans, though.

You saw in the film there that

having affordable housing can put

off developers and actually...

I notice you've still got your

policy to let developers go ahead

with planning just 35% affordable

homes if they don't

take a public subsidy -

that's sort of a concession,

isn't it?

We make no apologies

for being very bold and ambitious

about affordable housing.

Because when you talk to Londoners

about what they need,

what's really clear is that people

need more affordable homes,

genuinely affordable homes that

people can trust are affordable

and help people who are

struggling to rent or buy.

So, we're setting an ambitious

target of 55% overall,

which is a combination of private

led developments, public sector

land, homes we can invest

in using the investment

secured in government.

For developers, a lot

of the conversations we've been

having over the last 18 months have

centred on them wanting certainty.

If we can say, look,

if you can get at least

35% affordable housing,

you can fast track through

the planning system,

get building within two years

and hopefully everyone's a winner.

One of the key issues in this

plan is this idea of not

building on the green belt,

but concentrating on existing land,

on brownfield sites -

they're not easy to build

on, though, are they?

It's going to be very challenging.

But what we've done

through the drafting of the London

plan is done a really extensive look

across London at where

all of the capacity is.

That's really why the London plan

is so bold and so ambitious this

time around, because it's really

pushing the densities,

it's really saying, what can we get

on the brownfield sites

that we have within London?

And crucially, how can we make

sure that every borough

in London plays its part?

So, it's not just about one borough

being overdeveloped,

and others not developing at all.

This is about everywhere in London

playing its part in delivering those

thousands of homes that we need.

The issue, though, density

is go to be a problem

for both of you and your

constituents, isn't it?

People in suburbs don't particularly

want to live in high density areas?

And building on people's back

happens, as the plan suggests,

is definitely not a good idea.

What London needs

is action not words.

We've had a lot of words

from politicians.

What we need are more

homes being built.

We saw a couple of examples

in the film, in Enfield,

for instance, where the developer,

Barratt homes, was poised to build

thousands and thousands of units

on a brownfield site,

but they pulled out

because the affordable

housing target was too high

and it was financially not viable.

I fully accept the need

to build affordable housing.

But the way you make housing

affordable is to build more of it.

Under Sadiq Khan, housing starts

have gone down by 23% compared

to Boris Johnson's last year,

and even worse, housing association

and council housing starts

have gone down by 21%.

So we need action, not words.

You wanted to interject,

that wasn't the reason that

You wanted to interject,

that wasn't the reason for that

Barratt's example...?

I think we need to be

clear on a few things.

Firstly, building on gardens.

As I'm sure you probably know,

people are always allowed to put

forward planning applications

for gardens that they own.

What we're saying is that if people

bring forward those applications,

we want the green to be reprovided

in the development or nearby,

and crucially we want more homes

to be built so that more Londoners

can benefit from the

development that happens.

One of the crucial points to say

here, Chris, is that you're part

of a government who talks

about building more housing,

but the first time we met,

you lobbied me to stop a development

going ahead in your local area.

Because it was inappropriate.

So, how are we supposed

to get up to...

Let me answer that directly.

Can I answer the question?

There are sites in London

like the one in Enfield that has

fallen over on your watch,

like Croydon town centre,

like Old Oak Common,

like Barking Riverside,

that we should bring forward,

instead of inappropriate areas

like the one that you referred

to just then.

The one that you tried to block.

Can I just say, I think Chris

talks a good came here.

But what James has just alluded

to is that politicians have to stand

up and be counted on this issue.

You know, there is a tendency

to say, not at the end of my road,

not in my back garden.

London needs more homes.

If you would just let me finish.

One second, Chris.

You talk about people needing

action and not words.

What we need is action

from government.

When I first became an MP in 2010,

the first act of the coalition

government was to cut the national

affordable house-building

programme by 63%.

Anything that Theresa May has

announced in the last year

or so is playing at the edges

of this problem.

We saw a budget where the Chancellor

was pussyfooting around with saying,

we're going to do a review

into planning permissions...

We need real investment and we need

investment on a large scale.

We need five times as much

investment in genuinely affordable

homes than is going at the moment.

We also need some space.

I would like to bring

Andrew Adonis in on this.

Andrew, you saw in the film -

the silver bullet would be

building on the green belt?

We're not short of space.

There's masses of brownfield land

which can be built on.

But brownfield land is not

easy to build on, is it?

A key requirement is,

you need to be able to get to it.

And one of the big challenges

we face in large parts of London

is poor connectivity.

It is no accident that

what is driving the development

of Barking Riverside now

is the extension of

the London Overground.

It spent ten years being

a desert, that site.

I've been there.

You go to Barking, then

you to catch a bus,

and it's ten 20 minutes.

It could be half an hour

in the rush hour.

Of course people won't live

there if they can't get to work.

Once it's two stops from Barking

on the overground with direct

links all across London,

which you'll get, that place

will be transformed.

Across the parties we've realised

that over the last ten years.

Crossrail is opening next year,

the Elizabeth line.

It will transform housing densities

in the stations around.

There are plans the mayor has taken

forward, which the Government

is supporting for Crossrail 2.

That will be the new

North-South line in London.

That could itself unlock

200,000 homes, most of them

on brownfield sites,

but which at the moment

are very hard to get to.

Very quickly, James.

Briefly, if you will.

This accusation that

you are going to ruin

the suburbs that, in effect.

This whole plan is anti-suburbs?

There is an emphasis

in the plan on good design

and that is whether you are building

in the suburbs or in central

or inner London, right across London

we want to see well-designed,

high density housing.

We are very clear that everywhere

in London needs to play a part.

That includes even places

in Chris's constituency,

where he needs to get

with the programme and start

building more housing rather

than blocking developments,

where we can get more

homes for Londoners.

Right, we'll have to leave

it there, I'm afraid.

I know you'd like to come back in.

I certainly would.

Some of that's not accurate

but I'll let it go for now.

Thank you, James.

Thanks, James Murray,

for joining us.

I'm sorry to bring it up

on what is a day off for most,

but picture the morning commute,

as you squeeze into a bus

or are forced to nestle into some

stranger's armpit on a train.

You've probably come

to an obvious conclusion.

More and more people seem to be

using public transport.

Actually, according

to the stats, you're wrong.

London's population is increasing.

Its economy is growing and jobs

continue to be created.

That's why so much new transport

infrastructure is planned

from the Bakerloo line extension

to the proposed Crossrail 2,

with more people and more jobs,

the use of public transport ought

to be on the rise.

Except, if you look at the latest

official figures, it's not.

Rail journeys in London

and the south-east were down almost

5% this year, and bus journeys

have fallen by 6% in

the last three years.

As for the tube, there

were 13 million fewer underground

journeys this year than last.

It's a bit of a mystery.

I'm not sure anybody knows

what the reason behind this fall

in transport use is.

It looks as if it's something to do

with the change in the pattern

of how people use their lives.

Perhaps they've got fed up

with the Southern Railway

and the strikes and they've decided

to work at home more,

or just change their entire pattern

of approach to work.

The traditional pattern of commuting

from outer London into offices

in the centre is being disrupted

by the rise of people working

from home and elsewhere.

Places like the Collective in Brent,

where people not only work but live.

You can imagine what it would take

for me to get an office in the City.

I'd need shirts for the office,

then the amount I'd have

to pay would be much,

much greater and I would be alone

sitting in an office

working by myself.

Suddenly, the physical office

is becoming more and more redundant.

The data shows another people

who are working remotely is rising.

Our business is built on the idea

that the way we work,

the way we live and the way we play

is changing fundamentally.

If I look at our demographic,

people between the ages of 22-35,

the numbers of freelancers

is increasing fairly rapidly.

There may be other causes.

Road congestion has

consistently slowed buses down.

Cycling, too, is on the rise.

Whatever the case may be,

there are implications for Transport

for London's finances.

Their yield this year

may fall in cash terms.

That, of course, means there's less

money for future investment.

And it will begin to beg questions

about how long a fares

freeze could be sustained.

But the mayor says, it's

actually the fares freeze

that's the solution.

We've seen in London,

where we've frozen TfL fares

on the London overground,

usage has gone up.

Compare and contrast

London Overground with

the suburban lines -

Southern, South-east

and South-western, where it

has gone down by 5%.

In a statement, Transport for London

told us they have significantly

reduced their operating

costs, by £153 million.

But there are many challenges ahead

for London's transport planners.

It's counter-intuitive

stuff, isn't it?

Andrew Adonis, what do

you make of these figures?

We need to break it down

into different parts.

Bus usage has been really

seriously hit by congestion.

Average bus speeds in Central London

now are lower than they were with

the horse and carriage,

before the First World War.

The number 11 bus goes

through Central London at an average

now of three and a half miles

an hour - you could walk faster.

Is that what people are doing?

I think some people are.

Particularly when they get

into Central London.

They are walking that last bit.

That needs to be sorted out.

There are good reasons for it.

I am a great supporter

of the cycle superhighways.