28/01/2018 Sunday Politics London

Morning everyone, and welcome

to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith.

And this is the programme that

will provide your essential briefing

on everything that's

moving and shaking in

the world of politics.

Can the Conservative Party speak

with one voice on Brexit?

As Tory splits spill out

in to the open once again this week,

can the Prime Minister

reassert her authority

over a divided party?

We'll be speaking to the former

Conservative Cabinet

Minister, Theresa Villiers -

hitherto a loyal voice,

but who says she's now worried

about Brexit being diluted.

Is Jeremy Corbyn heading for a fight

with Labour councillors?

As local government chiefs accuse

the party's ruling body of trying

to intervene in local decisions,

we'll be speaking to one

of Jeremy Corbyn's key allies.

In the capital, can prefab houses

throw off their bad reputation and

prove to be the answer to the

housing crisis in London?

All that coming up in the programme.

And to help me to make sense

of all the big stories today, I'm

joined by Camilla Tominey,

Rafael Behr and Rachel Shabi.

I'm sure they certainly

won't all speak with one voice.

The newspaper headlines

make pretty grim reading

for the Government this morning.

'Tories in Turmoil',

'Brexit betrayal',

'PM told to raise her game'.

Tory Brexit divisions erupted

in public once again this week.

So, is the Government's

biggest priority now

becoming its biggest headache?

Morning, Home Secretary. They

divided cabinet?

A new cabinet since

that modest reshuffle but still the

same old Brexit split. Foreign

Secretary Boris Johnson, who spent

so much time on that infamous boss

promising extra money for the NHS,

went off Brive at the meeting on

Tuesday, pushing the government to

honour that much maligned pledge.

Do

you want to be the health secretary?

Philip Hammond was in Brussels from

where he sent a swift review.

Mr

Johnson is the foreign secretary. I

gave the Health Secretary an extra

£6 billion at the recent budget.

And

labour leader Jeremy Corbyn piled in

at Prime Minister 's questions.

Does

the Prime Minister agree with the

Foreign Secretary that the national

Health Service needs an extra £5

billion?

I think the right

honourable gentleman, as I recall

was here for the autumn budget which

was given by the Chancellor of the

Exchequer, where he announced he

would be putting £6 billion more

into the National Health Service.

Meanwhile, Jacob Rees-Mogg took on

the Brexit Secretary David Davis

over the transition deal.

We are

only actually out at the end of the

transition. That is a big shift in

government policy and a big move

away from the vault.

I do not accept

your description.

your description.

Next day, Theresa

May travelled to the World Economic

Forum in Davos to heal a different

divide, this time her special

relationship with Donald Trump.

relationship with Donald Trump. Her

Chancellor described in modest

change in Britain's relationship

with the EU. Now he was being

rebuked by furious colleagues as

well as his boss. David Davies

insists the Cabinet are united. They

want a good deal.

There is no

difference between the Chancellor

and myself and indeed the Prime

Minister, in terms of the fact we

both want a Brexit that serves the

British economy and the British

people.

The EU will set out their

bargaining position for a phase two

of the Brexit negotiations tomorrow.

But can we find an agreed British

response.

So to discuss the implications of

all of the week's events I've got my

expert panel. Welcome. Camilla,

these are quite remarkable headlines

this morning about the party being

in turmoil over Theresa May's

leadership and the direction of

Brexit policy. Let's start with

Brexit. How deep are the divide?

I

think they are very deep. The tide

has turned a bit in the last week.

Normally when you are covering these

issues in the lobby, there is

underlying hysteria. I think there

are quite a lot of people on both

sides scratching their heads,

looking at some of the editorials we

saw in the week about the Tory

party, particularly when referring

to Theresa May as a Wizard of Oz

character. A lot in the Tory party

can't disagree with that. They

regard her as a caretaker Prime

Minister. A lot of them have been

giving her the benefit of the doubt

particularly on Brexit because she

has been consistent about what

Brexit means. That did not mean

leaving the single market and the

Customs Union. -- that it must mean.

To have Boris Johnson and Philip

Hammond freelancing on the sidelines

makes her look weak and unable to

keep the Cabinet together. That

gives the general impression to the

country that they aren't quite in

charge of things and that she

particularly isn't across her brief.

The key question at the heart of

this is which of these Cabinet

ministers are reflecting the Prime

Minister pots opinion on this --'s

opinion on this. Does she agree with

Philip Hammond, or is she looking

for a more significant divergence?

This is absolutely critical. We talk

about Brexit divisions. We are used

to thinking about the division being

about Remainers and levers. That is

not the division we are talking

about. There is a group of people in

government who have now focused on

the practical technical difficulty

of what is required to get Britain

safely out of the European Union.

And they for the most part, and I

will include the Prime Minister,

have understood it is a long

incremental process. You want an

arrangement that looks pretty much

like the status quo. If there is

going to be divergence from EU

rules, it will be incremental. We

get the impression the Prime

Minister has signed off on that

approach because she is a cautious

person. The problem is the

Chancellor said it out loud. He had

the temerity to say it. This is the

plan. You have the other group of

people, the harder, more ideological

Brexiteers are not in government,

who don't have to focus on the

practical reality, look at that and

think, that doesn't sound like

emancipation and freedom, that

sounds a bit boring. When you listen

to what some of the critics of the

Prime Minister from the hard Brexit

position are saying, it is not

obvious what they are asking her to

do. What they want from her is a

sense of clarity, a sense of whether

or not she can have the confidence

to stand up and say, the Chancellor

is right. They are testing courtesy

of she can do that and she won't do

that because she doesn't want the

huge tsunami of betrayal from the

right.

It is also impossible

Bridgeford Theresa May to try and

cross. How can she reconcile these

different views of what Brexit is

going to look like at the point

where we have to start laying out

what Britain's approach will be?

That is the problem. The divisions

are seemingly irreconcilable in the

party. That is their own problem. It

has become a national problem

because they are doing it while in

government. They have a over us

while they are falling apart. That

is completely irresponsible. In

terms of where we are going to end

up, we all know. We saw from phase

one of EU that actually everything

was conceded to the soft Brexit

model was conceded two in what was

agreed to during the parameters of

phase one. It seems like, do we

really have to go through this all

again, this pretend, this bickering,

this biting, when we know in the end

we are going to end up with a

situation that is a soft Brexit

because this is where the major

constituency is in Westminster and

the country.

We have a couple of

guest to make disagree with that. We

will return to you guys later.

Well, the Cabinet Minister David

Lidington was talking

to Andrew Marr this morning,

and was asked about the backlash

on the Government's Brexit strategy

from Jacob Rees-Mogg and other

Conservative MPs.

Jacob, like everybody else, needs to

see how negotiations go. We are

about to start negotiations. I'm not

going into detail about that

process. Secondly, the very fact

that we will have left the European

Union is a big deal indeed. The bill

in front of Parliament extinguishes

the power of the European Court and

supranational EU law over the UK.

I'm joined now by the former

Cabinet Minister, Theresa Villiers.

She has written a piece in today's

Sunday Telegraph telling

of her growing concern that

Brexit is being diluted.

Thank you for coming on. What do you

mean by Brexit been diluted?

I have

consistently argued the case for

compromise and I recognise it is

necessary. What I was saying in my

article this morning was that if you

go too far with compromise,

eventually you get to the point

where we wouldn't generally be

leaving the European Union, we

wouldn't be respecting the result of

the referendum.

You are concerned

that is the direction they're

heading in?

I am concerned. We must

retain the right to divergence Romeu

laws. One of the key points of

leaving the European Union is to

ensure that we make our own laws in

our own parliaments and not be

subject to laws made by people we

don't elect and can't remove.

What

has made you concerned that is the

direction in which we are heading?

Is it Chancellor talking about

modest changes or something

happening behind the scenes?

It is a

combination of things. I think in

part the government faces a

difficult challenge convincing

people on the Leave side of the

debate. So many times in the past

there have been Prime Ministers

who've gone to Brussels and said, it

will be fine, we would bring you

back a deal, and at the last minute

there has been, territory has been

given away. We have made

compromises. I accept the need for

that. There is only so far you can

go before ultimately you find

yourself in a position where you are

deleting Brexit so much that it

isn't leaving the European Union in

a real sense.

When you hear Philip

Hammond say they will only be modest

changes to our relationship with the

EU, you think he is reflecting

government policy? Downing Street

tried to refute what he was saying.

Only actually said was, you can't

call leaving the single market and

Customs union a modest change. You

are anxious, are you, that right at

the top they are worried about

keeping fairly close alignment with

the EU?

The Prime Minister set out a

bold vision for Brexit in her

Lancaster House speech. My article

is about appealing to the government

to stick to that vision and

implemented so that once we leave

the European Union we are back in

control of our laws, money and

borders.

The Prime Minister has set

this out in Lancaster House and in

Florence. Why do you think she would

be backsliding? Makes you think

anything has changed?

I don't think

she wants to backslide. I think what

is happening is that she is under

huge sustained pressure from a range

of quarters to reverse the result of

the referendum. So in part, but I am

trying to do is to re-emphasise the

positive case for Brexit. And we

emphasise that whilst there are

those who want to soften things up

and frustrate the implementation of

the referendum, others are

enthusiastic about implementing that

vision in the Lancaster House

speech.

Were those people who want

to frustrate her? You must be

worried they are right inside the

Cabinet for you to write a newspaper

article about this. You must be

worried if his right at the top of

government?

I don't believe that. I

think the Cabinet is united in

wanting to do this.

wanting to do this.

After the

different views we had this week?

This is an issue that has divided

the country. The key battle now is

what is going to be the end state we

ask for in the negotiations? We must

ask for an end state based on the

Lancaster House speech, which means

retaining control, making our own

laws in our own Parliament. That is

how we have -- we become genuinely

an independent country again and

respect the result of the

referendum.

Do you think the

Chancellor was contravening stated

policy when he talked about modest

changes. --? Was he out of line?

I

wouldn't make too much of that one

comment. That has not wanted my

concerns. What I want to do is

ensure the case for a real Brexit is

made. I fully acknowledge the

technical scale of the exercise of

withdrawing from the European Union.

It is very complicated. That is one

of the reasons why I have had a --

advocated and supported compromise.

There is only so far you can go

without -- with compromise without

finding yourself selling out on the

people who voted to leave.

The next

phase will be about the

implementation period before we get

to the final future relationship

with the EU. We learned a little bit

more about the government approached

and that this week. David Davis made

it sound as if there will be no

changes to free movement of people

whatsoever during the two-year

transition phase. Does that concern

you? That seems to be a change in

policy.

For me, the important issue

is what happens at the end of the

transition period.

You are relaxed

about two years of transition which

looks most identical to staying in

the EU?

I accept that looks like

what is current to happen. I think

there is a case for a transition

period. I think my worry now is if

we go into the transition period

without the clearest possible

understanding of what the

arrangements are when we leave, so I

believe that we must have as much

detail as possible in relation to

our agreement with the European

Union, that we reach before the

transition period starts. If we go

into it not knowing the end state,

that would worry me.

When it comes to the end state, what

are the things you couldn't sign up

to? What's being described as easy

movement of people in and out of the

UK, would that lead to a point it

was a Brexit deal you couldn't agree

to?

The key issues are the end state

must allow the UK to run its own

trade policy and make its own

decisions on rules and regulations.

So no involvement from the European

Court of Justice?

The Government has

agreed a time limited role for that.

I don't see it as a problem but any

enlargement of that role I would see

as worrying.

Do you think there's

any possibility you could end up

voting against this in Parliament?

I'm not going to make predictions on

how I will vote on a deal that

hasn't been agreed yet. I want to

make sure we work together to try to

bridge divisions, to come up with an

agreement with the European Union

which gives us a new partnership

with them, which hopefully a

majority can be comfortable

whichever way they vote in June 2000

16.

Thank you.

Joining me now from

Newcastle is the Brexit

Minister Lord Callanan.

Can you offer any reassurance to

Theresa Villiers and any other

members of your party who are

worried about this that government

is not going soft on Brexit?

We are

not going soft, there's been no

backsliding on the Prime Minister's

Lancaster house speech. We will be

regaining control of our laws, money

and borders. We will be establishing

an independent trade policy as she

set out in her speech.

set out in her speech.

Theresa

Villiers is completely wrong when

she says she's worried Brexit is

being diluted, is she?

Yes, she is

wrong. It's not being diluted, the

Prime Minister is in charge of the

negotiations and we will be

negotiating with our European

partners in good faith, our friends

and allies, but the objectives

remain as she set out.

So it was the

Chancellor who was wrong when he

said there would only be modest

changes in our relationship?

No, the

Chancellor has said he is of the

vision the Prime Minister has set

out.

out. We will be negotiating with our

European partners to bring about

frictionless trading arrangements

but the important part of the

negotiations is that we have to

regain control of our ability to set

our own rules and undulations.

Though there may be some areas where

if there are integrated supply lines

we might want to reflect current EU

regulations but the important thing

is we decide those matters for

ourselves.

David Davis presumably

speaks for government when he is

describing the transition phase, and

he says during this implementation

period people will of course be able

to travel between the UK and the EU

to live and work. That sounds like

free movement is continuing as

before but we were told it would end

as soon as we left the EU in 2019.

We would introduce a registration

scheme so we knew he was coming to

the country.

You could do that right

now. This registration idea, this is

not something that comes about

because we have left the EU, we

could have introduced that years ago

if we wanted to. Several European

countries asked the UK citizens to

register.

Let's see what the

negotiations produced, but what we

want to do is reflect current rules

and regulations as closely as

possible so that at the end of the

implementation period, and it's

important that is strictly

time-limited, we agree with the EU

on that, at the end of that state we

will introduce a new immigration

policy and take control of our

rules, regulations and borders. It

sounds

sounds a lot like a red line that

has gone very pale pink.

We are about to have the

negotiations. We will sit down in

good faith with our European

partners, talk about how the

implementation period will work and

what the end state will be.

But we

don't have to wait to find out what

the UK Government position is

because David Davis set it out this

week and pretty much described free

movement continuing as it is.

As I

said, we are having the

negotiations, we are about to start

them, let's not give away our

positions before we do that. We want

to reach an agreement as soon as

possible so we get certainty that

business knows where we are going at

the end of the period and we move

towards the new state at the end of

a strictly time-limited

implementation period.

So would it

be helpful if the Prime Minister

were to make another speech, where

she set out clearly what the

Government's position is on the

future direction of travel on the

transition period and future end

state so that instead of listening

to Cabinet ministers with diverging

views on this, we knew from the

Prime Minister what the Government's

policy was?

The policy remains what

she set out in detail in the

Lancaster house speech followed up

by the Florence speech where she

outlined the new end state we want

to end up with and the procedures

for getting there. She set it out in

great detail, that was very clear

but we need to have under --

negotiation at the end of the day.

These are difficult, complicated and

tricky areas but we remain focused

on the end state which is we will be

leaving the single market and the

customs union, having independent

trade policy and deciding our own

rules and regulations.

The EU

Withdrawal Bill will come to the

Lords this week to your house, are

we going to see government

compromise?

We will be listening to

the debate. We showed that we were

prepared to reflect and think about

contributions made, and if people

have suggestions that we agree with

that we will improve the legislation

and of course we will do that. The

House of Lords has a very important

role and we will carry that out

effectively and we will listen to

what the debate says.

So you are

open to government amendments

changing the EU Withdrawal Bill? On

issues like Henry VIII powers or

something like that?

We have already

compromised on those areas in the

House of Commons so we will listen

to what the debate brings. Peers

take their role of scrutinising EU

legislation closely and we will

reflect on that and introduce

changes if we think they are

warranted.

Thanks for talking to us

this morning.

And you can find more Brexit

analysis and explanation on the

BBC website.

This week Labour's

ruling body, the National

Executive Committee, or NEC,

stepped in to a bitter row

about a controversial housing

project in the London

borough of Haringey.

It's led to deep divisions

between the NEC and councillors

across the country, with the Labour

leader of Newcastle City Council

calling it a "declaration of war".

With Jeremy Corbyn supporters

consolidating their grip

on the ruling body of the party,

Emma Vardy's been looking

at the new battle lines being drawn.

You might not think to look at it

but this council estate in north

London is being seen as a battle

ground for the very soul of the

Labour Party. Labour run Haringey

plans to redevelop the estate in

partnership with a private company

but the pro-Corbyn pressure group

momentum has led a campaign opposing

it.

You do not gift people's houses

to a private developer and say you

can demolish these...

When Labour's

ruling body, the NEC, intervened

telling Haringey to force the

project, some Labour supporters were

outraged.

We have now got the

National executive committee

effectively telling a Labour council

what to do and I'm thinking where

does this end?

This, some believe,

is what they see as the hard left of

the party using the row as an excuse

to get rid of more moderate Labour

council is ahead of next year 's

elections. Around a third of the

Haringey Labour group of either been

deselected or they have stood down.

How is this being seen by other

Labour council is looking on?

There's 100 names on an open letter

to the NEC today saying stay out of

local council business, and one of

them, the Labour leader of Corby

Borough Council who can be found up

there, called it a disgrace.

I

signed the letter because I wanted

to demonstrate solidarity with a

colleague, also to send a message to

the NEC that we believe it is

inappropriate to intervene in the

way they did. Labour and local

government are the people governing

here in this country, we are not in

Government nationally, we are in

Government locally and we are doing

a good job locally. We are

protecting our people.

Do you think

the NEC will listen?

I would hope

so.

The intervention that led to

this row came for the first time

since Momentum leader was elected as

one of its members.

The NEC has

expressed a view, it has not

mandated, not stormed in and taken

over, and I think for every person

you can find who is upset I can find

tenants who are delighted.

Jeremy

Corbyn's support base on the NEC has

been strengthened after recent

elections so could this lead to

sweeping changes on party policy in

the future?

Where you can see

greater radicalism is on areas of

economic policy, following Carillion

Labour has been clear they want an

end to outsourcing completely if

they are elected, that they would

like to take contracts back

in-house, and at a local of all the

tensions exist as well.

What is the

risk with upsetting councils?

Is it

causes local divisions and they want

parties to be focused on governing.

It also threatens to cause tensions

between MPs. A lot of MPs see Labour

councillors as proud bastions of the

party and see them as a barrier to

those who they think are taking too

much of a faction or ideological

approach.

What would your message

beta Jeremy Corbyn?

That the Labour

Party are very fortunate to have a

large cohort of very experienced and

talented councillors up and down the

country. We know what we are doing,

a us to get on with that.

Local

councils aside, in Parliament Jeremy

Corbyn has won the

Corbyn has won the support of many

Labour MPs who now believe he should

lead them into the next election,

but could it be the relationship

with the wider party in local

government that becomes the one that

is more difficult to manage?

Emma Vardy reporting.

Jon Trickett is a member

of the Shadow Cabinet, and also sits

on Labour's National Executive

Committee.

He joins me now from Yorkshire.

We have got the leader of Newcastle

City Council, the Labour leader,

saying this is a declaration of war,

the NEC getting involved in the

local government decision.

The first

thing to say is Labour is in

Government throughout this country

in local councils, we are very proud

of our record in local government

but the NEC took a decision the

other day, it was unanimous by the

way, nobody voted against it, and

Nick was in the room. He made a

strong case for the autonomy of

councils and in general that is what

we think too. In fact we want to

bring more powers back to local

council...

You cannot reconcile

giving more power to councils with

the idea there is a top-down diktats

on what decisions councils must

take.

Let me just finish the point

because what the NEC did was to ask

for a pause. We did it politely but

we said before that should happen,

let's have a conversation between

Haringey and the NEC and that

conversation is now taking place or

Wilby. I think this is an

exaggerated row and when people look

at the facts, we have asked for a

pause is not necessarily a change in

policy, though we think the policy

was wrong and we want a conversation

with Haringey.

You are having a

conversation between the NEC and

Haringey. If Haringey Council

refused to change their minds about

this, they will then be subject to a

diktats from the NEC, will they not?

I'm not going to go into a

speculative conversation with you

but let's remember the background to

this. This is effectively a huge

deal outsourcing huge amounts of

resources and assets in Haringey. It

is very controversial and remember

this, the NEC received a letter from

22 Labour councillors on Haringey

Council asking for a pause. We

reacted to that request from within

Haringey itself and all of this

takes in the background of problems

at Grenfell and also with the

collapse of Carillion, both of which

I think our matters we need to be

thinking about when we are thinking

in local councils about outsourcing

additional provision. I am

optimistic we will find an amicable

way forward.

It gets to a

fundamental policy aspect of the

Labour Party as to who makes

decisions and surely you say some

Labour councils were concerned about

this, the majority of Labour members

on the council were in favour of it.

The ruling body of the Labour Party

is obliged by the Constitution to

take a view where there is clearly a

dispute within one of our

constitutional elements. And there

was an absolutely clear position

that there was a dispute. We were

asked to intervene. We took a view

and asked the council to think about

it again and agreed to mediation. I

don't think this is unreasonable.

The Constitution of the party

requires the NEC from time to time

to make sure that the constitutional

elements operate within the

policies, programmes and principles

of the Labour Party. I think it is a

storm in a teacup.

It is about the

controversial issue of outsourcing.

That is something you are speaking

out about this week, saying the

Labour government would reverse

outsourcing, setting out clear rules

for companies you would give

contracts to, including the idea

that the boss should not be paid

more than 20 times more than the

lowest paid worker. It would be

quite difficult to find construction

companies to build, say, HS2 if

you're going to stick to those

rules?

Well, there are all kinds of

different contracts which are

outsourced. Some of them can be done

by the public sector, others can't.

We will be thinking about those

services which are outsourced. The

facts are if you work for the

Council or the government, the top

ratio to the average pay is 20 to

one. In the private sector it is 156

to one. That means in a year's work

by a chief executive, the average

worker has to work 156 years, almost

for working like -- lifetimes. We

don't think that is how taxpayers

want the money spent.

When you say

you won't give government contracts

to companies who don't have this 20

to one pay ratio you are talking all

government contracts?

We have said

we want to move towards a ratio of

20 to one. I don't think people

watching will have any compunction

to say that is not unreasonable. If

you are a boss you should definitely

earn more than the average pay. But

156 times? I don't think that is

reasonable.

Depends how quickly you

would move towards this. If you got

into government and took over the

management of say HS2, and there are

£7 billion worth of contracts, most

are companies which don't fit your

criteria, would you be cancelling

those contracts are maintaining

contracts with companies that don't

fit your pay rules?

Contracts which

are already left, you cannot easily

break those contracts, nor should

you want to. It would be illegal. If

the contract was operating in a way

which was contrary to the contract,

clearly we would want to look at

bringing that back in-house. It is

horses for horses -- courses.

horses for horses -- courses.

So you

would continue with the contracts

the government signed for the

construction of HS2 even though

these companies don't meet your

criteria?

In the case of HS2,

remember, it went to Carillion, and

20 Carillion after government knew

they were in trouble.

There are ten

more companies involved in this.

But

Carillion are in trouble. The truth

is the government gave them billions

of pounds, I think it was £1.4

billion, to a company which was

clearly going belly up. It is

completely wrong.

Jon Trickett, thank you. I will talk

to the panel about what we have

heard on the programme so far. In

Trieste -- interesting ideas from

Jon Trickett. It would be harder to

impose their rules about outsourcing

and private companies, wouldn't it?

Not necessarily. The Carillion thing

as come at an interesting time. It

has exposed in bold the kind of

suspicion we have had for some time,

which is that these PFIs are really

just a vehicle for private companies

to take public funding and not

deliver on the services that they

were supposed to do. It ends up

costing us more. It is in line with

a shift in public mood we have seen.

There is overwhelming support for

nationalisation across sectors, from

utilities to railways and actually

across politics. Conservative voters

favour nationalisation. It is no

wonder that we have this level of

discontent when we see something

like Carillion happen. Yes, it might

be difficult in the short term to

return some of those contracts into

public hands. But it is going to be

cheaper and more efficient and

better for everyone in the long

term, that much is clear.

Camilla,

do you think it is even possible to

impose these kinds of rules, the 20

to one pay ratio, four any company

with a government contract?

No. And

as Andrew Gilligan's piece in the

Sunday Times showed, a lot of these

ideological premises have no basis

in law whatsoever. Momentum has

suggested to Capp pay at £60,000.

What effect would that have on head

teachers in Haringey? The people in

Haringey did not vote for a

Momentum, they voted for Labour.

Haringey is a broad church. It takes

in top on one hand and Highgate on

the other. Our Momentum's policies

representative of the constituency

as a whole? No. It is deeply

worrying people are being deselected

by people with fanatical views. John

Landis man is hugely controversial

figure. He claims to be a Bastian of

socialism and socialist policies,

yet at the same time we have

discovered, and the Sunday Express

have had a lot of in-depth analysis

of his own finances, he recently

loaned £5,000 to his son's property

company, which in turn is charged

with franchising McDonald's outlets.

John Landsman is not here to defend

himself. Move on from that point.

Let me bring in Raphael first.

Haringey is emblematic of a wider

thing happening in the Labour Party.

You have got the NEC that met this

week, the first time since you had

more Momentum members elected.

Interesting to watch if it changes

the decisions they make. How

worrying will it be people to see

them getting involved in something

as local as the decisions in

Haringey?

Momentum is a complex

institution. It is not an

ideological phalanx or something

captured by the hard left. What is

very interesting about this is that

this is a tension within the left

and labour that predates Jeremy

Corbyn and Momentum. You have a

tension between people who would

start with a fixed idea of what it

means invincible to be on the left,

and people who take a slightly more

pragmatic view to get elected.

Broadly within the Labour Party at

the moment Jeremy Corbyn as won the

ideological argument. People have

been marginalised. The problem is

when you had the election last year

and labour did better than a lot of

people thought, including a lot

better than Jeremy Corbyn and John

McDonnell thought, something

switched and Labour thought, we can

do this, we can get into government.

Suddenly the pragmatic tendency

started to appear within the Corbyn

movement. The tension is not between

anti-Corbyn and pro Corbyn. It is

about how you sneak up power, not

alienate too many people. Can you

actually win, beat Theresa May and

get into government? That tension is

happening inside the head of Jeremy

Corbyn and John McDonnell. It is

happening inside the head of Jon

Trickett. We have to leave that now.

It's coming up to 11.40 -

you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up on the programme,

the Leader of the Opposition

and the leader of the free world

have been giving their advice

to the Prime Minister

on how to conduct Brexit.

We'll be discussing all

that a little later on.

First though, the Sunday

Politics where you are.

Hello and welcome to the London part

of the show - I'm Jo Coburn.

I am joined for the duration

by Siobhan McDonagh,

Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden,

and Paul Scully Conservative MP

for Sutton and Cheam.

I want to start with gun

crime in the capital.

It's gone up significantly

over the last three

years - by 44% in fact.

That's according to a London

Assembly Police and Crime Committee

report published this week,

which also found that both offenders

and victims of gun crime

are getting younger.

How are where were you of the fact

that gun crime has gone up by quite

a large percentage?

I wasn't aware

of the exact statistics and the big

jump. One of the things that comes

out of the report is we don't know

how many guns are on the street. I

was quite surprised by how many gun

crimes weren't actually to do with

gang crime. I think it is 50% of

gang crime, which means half is not.

What needs to be done?

You need to

encourage families and neighbours to

say when they think there is a gun

available. Often when people know

they are too frightened to inform

the police. We need to break that

down. I think that schools need to

be on their guard, ...

You think

there are guns in schools?

I imagine

that does happen.

that does happen. Older brothers,

co-proprietor using them because

they think they are people who want

to be detected.

Is this a lack of

intelligence by the Metropolitan

police?

A lot of it is that guns are

coming through places like the dark

web. It is tough in terms of new

technology being able to access

guns. They tend to come up with

trophy guns rather than the stuff

which is used in crime.

What is

driving this? It is in the last two

years and to some extent the UK has

been protected because it is an

island, so it hasn't been easy for

criminals to get guns onto the

mainland. What has changed?

I think

it is accessibility, either by

people coming or going, by cheaper,

easier public transport access

through the tunnel, by plane. It is

there and perhaps people feel that

they escalate upwards from knives

and it is the path that he go down.

Will this be similar to knife crime

in the sense that there will be a

spiral effect of people thinking

they need to protect themselves? Is

it not just gang-related, for

example? They will be more in

circulation.

That is why what we

need to do is lay out the facts for

the mayor. Take a lead to get the

intelligence so we don't get to the

point where it is a choice to carry

a gun.

This is a serious issue so I

don't want to make a cheap political

point. But you do need the

specialist police in order to do

this work. And at a time when our

numbers are going down, police on

the streets, particularly the CSOs,

often the people that residents are

happy to speak to, build a

relationship with, we need to build

confidence to have those networks.

It is about intelligence but police

numbers in London have been

reasonably static. It is also about

giving extra funding to Sciver. And

it is then extending that to

analysis of the dark web. -- cyber.

What if there are not enough police

officers being the eyes and the

years? Want that exacerbate the

problem?

It will certainly

exacerbate intelligence gathering.

We do need more police on the

street. We want to make sure that we

have everything in place to have

those eyes and ears.

When you think of a prefab home,

the image of post-war

homes comes to mind.

They became synonymous

with bad housing.

But could a new generation of prefab

homes - manufactured

with precision in factories -

be an answer to London's

housing shortage?

Bhavani Vadde reports.

Lorraine has been waiting for a

suitable housing for nearly two

years. In the meantime, sharing his

studio flat in mid-June with her

17-year-old daughter has been

difficult.

Cramped. Very cramped.

And depressing. She studies late at

night. I have to get up at six

o'clock in the morning to get to

work, so it is pretty hard. There is

no space for anything. Bags and

boxes everywhere.

Down the road from

the rain, could this development

provide the solution to building

housing quickly? -- from Lorraine.

The 37 flats were built in a

factory, transported to the site by

Laurie and lifted into position. The

process took five months. About half

the time of traditional methods. And

it was 25% cheaper, costing £63,000

per flat. In a new departure for the

YMCA, they have built these homes on

land bought from Merton Council. As

part of that transaction, half of

the residents come from the waiting

list of the Council and the other

half from hostels.

In terms of

quality of build, the living

experiences better than most things

out there. For just over £2 million

you can deliver just over 36 homes

very quickly for people. It is a

fantastic affordable solution. We

would love to roll out more of

these. We would love more London

boroughs to do this.

But Lorraine

lives in the borough of Merton.

There are 9000 families currently on

housing register. You need to show

some leadership in your borough to

get those homes built, don't you?

We

are showing leadership to build

properties to make sure people are

not in cramped conditions. We are

the first borough to have prefab

housing. We do need government to

help. The best way they can help is

to allow us to borrow to build.

Some

housing analysts predict that 2018

could be the year that the modern

version of the prefab home really

takes off. And not just affordable

housing development is like this one

in Mitcham.

Factory built flats are already

available to buy across London. The

developers of these ones, pocket

homes, have received £25 million

investment by the mayor to deliver

1000 affordable homes. A third of

them will be factory built.

The report concluded this kind of

technology could be the answer to

London's housing crisis.

We need

them now to start working the

market, make sure it develops. There

is certainly a demand, all we need

now is for the mayor to pull his

finger out and start taking action.

We need the main programmes of

housing in London to incorporate

modular housing, otherwise we will

be waiting too long for those homes

to come online. He has not produced

any targets for the number of

modular homes being built.

The mayor

says he is promoting factory built

homes by investing some of the £3

billion he has secured from

government to build affordable

housing.

The mayor has targets and

that is a crucial target for us, we

want to see the affordable homes

built. Modular construction is a key

role to play in supporting those

targets.

There are concerns that

savings developers may make won't be

passed on to home-buyers, but they

can be built on awkward brown field

sites, they are faster to

manufacture, and could be cheaper.

So, what's the delay?

I'm joined by Sir Steve Bullock,

Mayor for Lewisham,

and the executive member for Housing

for London Councils,

the cross party body that represents

all of London's local authorities.

Welcome to the programme, I will

come to you in a moment. Siobhan, do

you think the mayor is doing enough?

I am sure. What we know is that many

properties, we need them quickly and

we need them to be cheap and able

for people to live in them. It is up

to councils, up to the mayor, up to

the health service to say could we

use that piece of land for housing

and if the answer is yes, get those

in.

But we have heard criticism in

the film saying Sadiq Khan hasn't

set targets for the number, to

stimulate the market, why not?

There

is nothing stopping local

authorities from doing it and we

need direction from government as

well, and I believe you're right on

this programme is absolutely timely

because I think we are going to see

all sorts of interest, not just for

rent but to buy.

But Steve, words

are not enough and rhetoric will not

build these houses for

build these houses for -- rhetoric

will not build these houses.

will not build these houses.

It is

increasing the amount of

pre-manufactured that is in other

forms of construction because one of

the problems we have is we don't

have the people to build using

traditional methods.

That's because

you haven't put in the demand. If

the demand was there, surely the

production would follow.

What needs

to happen is across the country

developers need to make it clear

that we are going to do this so that

factories can be built, can get the

order books built up.

Right, why

aren't they? Everyone is sitting

here, I haven't asked Paul yet,

saying it should be done, yet no one

is signalling that they would put

either money or resources behind

production.

Hopefully after this

piece they will do. I would say to

my own counsel, let us get started,

let commercial developers get

started. We want those properties

quickly. In my borough we have 189

families in homeless accommodation,

Paul insults and has got about 350.

-- Paul in Sutton.

Paul, do you

think this is the solution?

Yes,

it's an important part of the

solution and commercial

organisations are already getting

involved. A school in my area was

expanded using modular build. It can

help in terms of extensions in

central London because you are not

disrupting traffic, but in

affordability what we need is at the

heart of the mayor's Housing

strategy so we need a closer lead

from the Mayor to drive modular

homes as an option.

Do you agree

there needs to be more of a lead

from the Mayor?

I think there is.

He's trying to promote local

authorities to do it, he's making

money available. We have got to say

to local authorities make it your

top issue because there are so many

other things going on.

You've also

got Transport for London which owns

a lot of land in London, something

like the size of Camden, so he

should be taking more of a lead and

showing it.

So you are not doing

enough and putting your money where

your mouth is?

Far from it. We have

done one, we will do two more, also

the London boroughs are working

together because doing this at scale

will be important so we can place

orders for London as a whole but

let's us get the manufacture of it.

Why not commit to a certain number,

why not say we will be bold and

build hundreds of thousands of these

homes?

I think we will, but saying

it doesn't...

Is that why we haven't

built enough houses of any

description?

We will say to the

factories, build them and we will

allocate them.

We know the

Government target is 300,000 new

houses a year, the last time we

provided that number was 1969. It

meant councils were building,

housing association is building and

the private sector was building so

unless we get an opportunity for

councils to be able to lift the cap

off their borrowing abilities, we

won't see those sort of numbers.

This is not the case that if

councils were insane -- if councils

were able to borrow that money they

could take the lead?

If they are

going to be borrowing money, they

should be borrowing it responsibly

for infrastructure locally, instead

of building a handful of council

houses.

Did you know councils can go

out and buy a shopping centre but

they can't go out and build houses.

It is absolutely right, there are

plenty of options for councils to

borrow money for local

infrastructure.

Absolutely not. The

Council like mine which has

transferred its stock to a housing

association has no ability to and

buy to build.

What is your view on

this? Haven't councils got other

options, rather than borrowing vast

amounts of money on taxpayer perhaps

in some cases for responsible

schemes?

I don't know about

responsible schemes but there are of

things councils can do. You can

borrow to some extent but there is a

cap on it. You can come up with

arrangements with companies. The key

to this, particularly with modular

building, is getting people to

accept this is a change which is

happening. There's a perception

problem here. Our friends from the

Institute of Housing Finance were in

the Lords last week trying to get

this across. We all have to say this

is the way we are going to do it in

the future.

But somebody has got to

it first.

You are talking about

large amounts of money but we are

saying this is not large amounts of

money, but councils are spending a

huge amount of money leaving people

in temporary accommodation for years

on end. We want an opportunity for

the money to be spent while in

decent homes.

That's about

priorities, making sure our

residents are calling out the

councils to say look, invest in our

own areas, not Oxford, not shopping

centres.

Is prefab housing a

long-term solution? Isn't this

another short-term solution for the

housing that needed?

Clearly you

need to make sure they are of

quality but the pre-fabs now are in

many ways better because of the

precision you can make them in a

factory.

They are fantastic, I have

been inside them.

How long do you

think they would last?

Minimum 60

years, I would say longer.

I have

heard people who believe they have

120 years. After the foundations are

built, they can construct ten houses

per day.

What would you like to see

Sadiq Khan do?

Set a target that 50%

of new housing in London is either

modular or pre-manufactured.

And if

he did that, what would the response

be from London councils?

London

councils where they are in control

would step up the amount they are

doing but we need developers to do

it too.

Would you like to see

councils have more freedom to spend

money on the provisions you have

talked about?

If they are spending

money and investing in their local

area, it is far better...

Shouldn't

you allow councils to make decisions

themselves?

There is scope for

borrowing money but it doesn't need

to be the council themselves

borrowing money and building

everything, they need to be

unlocking developers and other

options.

I'd like the Government to

require that any public body is

required to say the first use of the

sites they have is for housing.

All

right, we will have to leave it

there, thank you very much.

Now, London has its own

Mayor, its own budget

and a Minister for London too.

But is that enough to deal

with the problems and policy

questions facing the capital

when so many of these affect people

beyond London's official boundaries.

The Mayor hosted his

"Wider South East Summit" this week,

meeting council leaders from outside

London to see how they

could work together.

Separately, a new report

by the Centre for London called

on politicians to rethink

the capital's borders and how

policy is made throughout

London and the Southeast.

They say the housing shortage needs

to be dealt with by building

housing outside London,

supported by greater integration

of rail across the southeast.

They're calling it

the "Southern Superhub".

Joining me Richard Brown

from the think tank behind

the report, Centre for London.

Who actually benefits from some of

the things you are recommending

here?

I think everyone across

London, the Southeast should

benefit. London no longer operates

as a single city, about 16% of its

workers come in every day, it is

connected to towns and cities across

the south-east of England but the

planning for where the houses go

isn't really joined up. These places

are still operating like three

completely different regions.

So

what are you suggesting should

happen?

There has been progress in

recent years. For

recent years. For around the first

15 years of the mayoralty there was

this idea London would consume its

own smoke and accommodate the growth

within the city boundaries. The

cracks have been showing in that

because we have seen more and more

people moving outside and it is

causing problems in towns and cities

outside of London soaks the new

mayor has set out a plan that says a

lot more about collaboration across

the south-east. He's holding a Wider

South East Summit but we think it

needs to go further. Rather than

occasional pieces of ad hoc

regulation, there needs to be an

understanding of how this part of

the country, which creates about

half of the UK's well, how is this

part of the country going to grow?

It makes sense, quite often we are

talking about Labour-controlled

councils in the centre of London and

Tory councils on the outside and

they don't always work together

within London soaks why would they

on the outer London and beyond?

There are political difficulties and

they have been exacerbated in recent

years would sometimes accusations

London is dumping growth, dumping

people on those councils outside,

but on the infrastructure and

housing issues, there may not be as

much between them as party politics

would suggest.

Are there examples of

where it could work?

There has been

conversations about Crossrail 2,

that has been much more of a joined

up process than the first Crossrail

was.

Another layer of government

bureaucracy could come knocking if

you are going to start to put the

GLA and councils outside of London

together.

I think it needs to be a

reasonably light of Fort partnership

rather than a big bureaucratic

blunderbuss. The first thing to

think about is getting a shared

understanding of the challenges,

then if you need to think about

institutions you can do that

afterwards.

Should London's official

borders be expanded?

I don't think

so at this stage but I would agree

we need to have closer

collaboration. I have got a bit of a

green belt in our borough so you are

suddenly out into fields and a

different character in the Surrey

countryside, but that is the same as

you said about inner and outer

London so you have got to make sure

those relationships work and then

you have got to bring different

groups of people with you.

But

housing and transport, are you

saying -- you are saying there

should be collaboration so why did

the Government put paid to the sort

of collaboration Richard is calling

for?

When we are looking at the

southern franchise being renewed,

for example, definitely not with

Southern! We need to make sure the

mayor has more of a say in that but

that's not to dictate terms or be

seen to dictate terms in Surrey,

Suffolk, Sussex and Kent.

Isn't that

the worry, that in the end London

will consume those outer boroughs

for their own ends?

There is

constantly this row but London is

too big for its boots but London is

a great driver of our economic

success as a country and we

desperately need better housing and

transport. Actually I think local

councils work across boundary quite

well. In terms of the tram we have

in Mitch, we worked with Croydon

when it was Conservative, and

Liberal Democrats. People want

better for their city and region and

that will be the driver of them

working together.

But politics gets

in the way. That was clearly

demonstrated in a letter leaked by

Chris Grayling, who said he didn't

want to see more power, certainly

for the railways, being handed to a

Labour mayor.

That is really sad. I think the

mayor would do an excellent job. I

am doing a backbench debate on

poverty per children in London.

What

he was saying, the problem with the

Maher is the problem is he is

speaking to his target audience. --

mayor. That is a problem for outer

London. Sutton, in terms of

transport into London, we do not get

the attention we need from the

mayor. That will be problematic for

Kent, and Sussex.

That's all we have time for.

My thanks to Richard Brown

and of course to Siobhain

McDonagh and Paul Scully.

And with that it's back to Sarah.

Welcome back. There have been plenty

of stories this week about Tory

Brexit angst. What about the Labour

Party? Reports suggest Jeremy Corbyn

is planning a big awayday to thrash

out Brexit policy.

Healy was on Andrew Marr this

morning.

The problem with the

undermining of workers' rights and

conditions has been a serious one.

What we are saying is there would be

enforcement of the agency agenda

that the EU has put forward,

preventing wholescale groups of

workers brought in to undercut and

undermined. There has to be a

regulated environment.

If you get

that, then you could have easy

movement?

We did. We have a

recruitment crisis in the NHS now,

particularly many nurses from Poland

and other countries who have

traditionally gone to work in this

country.

We are making progress. You

have agreed to ease of movement...

Our expert panel are still here to

talk about the Labour approach to

Brexit and some of the other issues.

That was Jeremy Corbyn being

questioned on the Labour approach to

free movement of people. When they

go on their big awayday this week,

will we get clarity on the

fundamental issues? Do Labour want

us to stay in the single market and

the Customs Union?

The key thing to

understand about the Labour position

on Brexit is there a competing

constituencies the Labour membership

as to pay attention to. You have a

liberal, younger, pro-remain people,

ardent supporters of Jeremy Corbyn

but also passionate against Brexit.

They see it as a Ukip culture war

thing they hate. You have a lot of

people living in constituencies who

have voted Labour who are a little

bit Ukip in some of their cultured

views of the project. They are

ardently pro-Brexit. You have an

ideological left faction,

represented in the Labour leader's

who think the EU is a capitalist

thing and we would be better off out

of it. It is technically hard for

the Labour leader to reconcile those

views. On the Customs Union and the

single market, the Labour problem is

the same as the government problem.

Anybody understands that the UK's

interests are served by being in

essentially the single market and

the Customs Union, but also it

happens to be a fact that the UK has

voted to leave the European Union.

If you stay on the Customs Union and

the single market, the Norwegian

model, a lot of people will feel

that is not enough Brexit. They

simply don't have answers to these

questions. They recognise what

economic reality is telling them to

do and they haven't found a way of

expressing that economic reality to

the 52% of people devoted to leave.

Then you enter up with the kind of

conversation Jeremy Corbyn was

having with Andrew Marr. The policy

becomes a little bit confused as to

whether they are in favour of free

movement, easy movement. Free

movement is not a phrase he wants to

use. He doesn't want to close the

barriers. It all looks a bit

confused?

Nobody has ever suggested

ending free movement means ending

immigration completely. One of the

main tranches of the Brexit argument

was to make it fairer for non-EU

immigrants to come to the country.

Currently working occupational

shortage lists are used to get

people to come in. If we need more

doctors, choreographers, dancers,

then we should put them at the top

of the tree and say, these are the

people who want to come in. Equally,

we need seasonal workers. There is

an itinerant against uncontrolled

immigration. That is what the EU

immigration system is perceived to

be. And controlled immigration. It

has inevitably led to complaints on

the Remain side of things that we

will suddenly have no doctors and

nurses. There was a row about that

recently. The latest ONS figures

suggest there has been a 5.4% rise

in EU doctors and nurses coming into

Britain. We will see. To be fair to

Jeremy Corbyn Knipe body gave a

pretty good account of himself today

and answered questions in a fairly

straight way. He did a better job of

explaining Labour's Brexit position

than Kier Starmer has been doing for

weeks.

It has been difficult for a

Labour spokespeople to outline the

policy on Brexit. There doesn't

appear to be a clear policy. Do you

think they are moving to a position

where they will have a much more

defined approach to what they want?

First of all, I think Rafael's

description was a bit of a

mischaracterisation. The Labour

position now is we're Remainers that

accept a democratic vote has taken

place and we need to exit the EU

because that was the result. We need

to do that in a way that keeps

business and jobs and the economy

vibrant. In a way that the

Conservatives showed no particular

sign of caring about. It is not that

they think the EU is a dastardly

project, it is more like, this is

what people voted for, how do we do

it? There is no point in the Labour

Party at running the government on

Brexit. There is no point in the

Labour Party saying, this is exactly

what we would do, when the

government is the one in the driving

seat. They are controlling the

negotiations, they get to decide

what is going on. What Labour can do

in this reality is challenge the

government when they think they are

wrong, as they have done in fact

since the negotiations began. We

have got a transition period. We

have got various things. We have got

a parliamentary vote at the end of

Brexit. That is because of Labour

putting pressure on government. You

can take credit. You can put it

where you want to. We're having a

discussion about what the Labour

Party position on Brexit is. I am

saying, where is the wisdom of

Labour overrunning the government,

which is controlling negotiations?

The other thing that is important to

says the party position is very

responsive and it is changing. As I

understand that they are very

responsive to all the polling on

positions around a referendum.

How

unusual for the Labour Party to

respond to public opinion.

But

that's just democratic, isn't it,

Rafael? They are responsive to the

conversations they are having with

their EU sister parties in Europe.

They are listening to all these

things. And calibrating as things go

on.

Donald Trump had some advice as

to how we should approach the EU

negotiations. Aimed at the Prime

Minister not Jeremy Corbyn. This is

how he said he would approach

negotiations.

Would it be the way I would

negotiate? No. I have a lot of

respect for your Prime Minister. I

think they are doing a job. I think

I would've negotiated it

differently. I would have had a

different attitude.

What would you

have done?

I would have said the

European Union is not cracked up to

what it is supposed to be and I

would have taken a tougher stand in

getting out.

A few in the

Conservative Party would probably

agree with Donald Trump. Is that

helpful to the Prime Minister?

Coming after what was a helpful week

from Donald Trump in terms of

relations with the Prime Minister,

his love of Britain and his promise

of tremendous trade in Davos,

perhaps it is a bit of a slide.

Actually this morning we heard Piers

Morgan described Donald Trump, his

close friend, as a ball china shop.

That would be his approach to

negotiations. Perhaps David Cameron

should have taken more a bit Donald

Trump approach when he tried to

reform the EU from the inside, which

in the end his failure to do so led

to the referendum we are now

debating.

There are lots in the

Conservative Party, lots of

backbench Brexiteers, who think that

is what has gone wrong, that the

government has made too many

concessions to the EU, hasn't been

hard enough in the divorce period.

Yes, a lot of those people are not

in government and have not got a

practical -- practical reality of

what is required to take the UK out

of European Union. Everything Donald

Trump is said about international

policy, particularly with regard to

Europe and the European Union,

demonstrated as not have a great

understanding of what the EU is as a

project or an institution. If I was

a Tory Brexiteer I would be a bit

concerned about Donald Trump been

very enthusiastic about the project,

because for a lot of liberal minded,

moderate people in the broad

mainstream of public life and

politics, Donald Trump is absolutely

toxic. The idea that Brexit is a

sibling project -- project is

damaging. Theresa May will want to

make it distinct from what Donald

Trump is doing.

One other

intervention today is Grant Schapps

has been out in the papers. He has

said it is becoming increasingly

clear we cannot continue to muddle

along like this. Mrs May should name

a date. By that he means a date by

which she will exit Number 10 and

stopping Prime Minister. He wants a

timetable. He says if that doesn't

happen there may be a revolt.

Rachel, it is not what she needs, is

it?

Is not what she needs. It is

maybe what the country needs. She

has been put on notice. She has been

told of things don't improve by May,

which is when there are local

elections, including in major

cities, if the Conservative Party do

as badly in those as they are

expected to, and predicted two, then

there may be more moves to get rid

of her. It is not surprising, is it?

The situation is completely

untenable. We can't model along like

this, having a Prime Minister or

can't lead.

Graham Bailey, the chair

of the 19 -- 1922 committee, said he

keeps getting letters from backbench

MPs who want to trigger a leadership

contest -- contest. They say it is

getting nearly 40 mark. That sounds

like they are warning MPs, please

don't send in any more letters

because you may trigger a leadership

contest. Is that a real threat?

I

think the notion of Graham Brady

being ashen faced is probably quite

true. There are a lot of stories

today saying that eight of the new

intake are prepared to give letters

in. Some of the old schools.

Problems among Remainers and

Brexiteers. After recent may need to

do is take hold of the situation. --

what to May needs to do is take hold

of the situation. She needs a third

keynote speech on Brexit to take

control, to silence the critics.

Boris Johnson is due to give his own

landmark speech on a so-called

liberal Brexit, which I'm sure

Rachel will be looking forward to

hearing. Perhaps Theresa May should

seize the moment, take control and

put her own new stamp, so people are

not just mentioning Lancaster House

and Florence but a Newsbeat.

A big

danger for Theresa May is not

Brexit. There are a lot of Tory MPs

who think Brexit is taking care of

itself.

They are worried about the NHS. We

have to leave it there.

That's all for today.

Join me again next Sunday

at 11am here on BBC One.

Until then, bye bye.