25/02/2018 Sunday Politics London

Morning everyone, I'm

Sarah Smith and and this

is the Sunday Politics...

Bringing you up to speed on all

the political comings and goings

in Westminster and beyond.

Coming up in today's programme:

Having knocked Cabinet heads

together Theresa May

prepares - finally -

to lay out her vision for Brexit.

But can she keep her

whole party on side?

We'll be speaking to

a former Tory leader.

Waiting in the wings is this man.

But can Jeremy Corbyn unite

the opposing forces in his own party

and convince the electorate he'd do

a better job of Brexit?

The forthcoming local elections

in England ought to give us

a clue about the fortunes

of the two main parties.

We'll be previewing these

crucial council contests.

In London, the Government blames

the Mayor, the Mayor

blames the Government...

As funding and police numbers

fall, can the police

really do more for less?

All that coming up in the programme.

And as usual, we've got three

Westminster insiders who will take

us behind the headlines and tell us

what's really going on.

Today I'm joined by Iain Dale,

Kate McCann and Steve Richards.

Next month, Theresa May

will begin formal negotiations

with her European counterparts

on what the future EU-UK

relationship should look like.

This week, she will lay

out her vision of life after Brexit

and she'll declare that our "best

days really do lie ahead of us".

EU leaders beg to differ though,

and have already taken

some pre-emptive swipes.

But, while the talk is likely

to get tough in Brussels,

the key battles could be

played out closer to home.

It's known as the Brexit war

committee, but the smiles suggested

an outbreak of peace among

the Cabinet's big beasts.

For now, at least.

They'd arrived at Chequers,

the Prime Minister's country

retreat, on Thursday afternoon,

to try and agree a common position

for the next round of Brexit talks.

Eight hours later, ministers

were apparently still smiling,

having agreed on something called

ambitious managed divergences

and future trade with the EU.

One of those present

said the Prime Minister

had played a blinder,

but will it be enough to hold

the whole party together?

Earlier in the week,

a letter from the pro-Brexit

European reform group found its way

into the newspapers,

politely reminding the Prime

Minister that when we leave,

nothing but full regulatory autonomy

will be good enough.

But it's Remain-minded Tories

who could throw a real

spanner in the works.

Conservative MP Anna Soubry

announced on Thursday she had...

"Tabled a new amendment to the trade

bill to force the government to form

a customs union with the EU".

27 other EU countries also

need to be won over.

Brexit Secretary David Davis

was in Vienna on Tuesday,

colourfully describing what Brexit

will not look like.

They fear that Brexit will lead

to an Anglo-Saxon race

to the bottom, with Britain plunged

into a Mad Max style world borrowed

from dystopian fiction.

These fears about a race

to the bottom are based on nothing.

But the EU are not convinced.

European Council President Donald

Tusk arguing that the UK

was still trying to

cherry pick its future

relationship with the EU.

I'm afraid that the UK position

today is based on pure illusion.

Until now, Jeremy Corbyn

has played his Brexit

cards close to his chest.

He may begin to reveal his hand

in a major speech tomorrow and this

week he unusually raised Brexit

at Prime Minister's Questions.

This government isn't on the road

to Brexit, Mr Speaker,

it's on the road to nowhere.

Can I congratulate the right

honourable gentleman,

because normally he stands up

every week and asks me

to sign a blank cheque.

And I know he likes cheques, but,

really, that is terribly...

That was a reference to reports

that the Labour leader had held

meetings with the former

Czechoslovakian spy in the 1980s.

Mr Corbyn hit back at those reports

with a social media video,

in which he said rather cryptically,

"Change is coming to

the newspaper industry".

Publishing these ridiculous smears

that have been refuted by Czech

officials shows just how worried

the media bosses are at the prospect

of a Labour government.

They are right to be.

Tory MP Ben Bradley had to apologise

to Mr Corbyn over a tweet

about the allegations, saying...

But it wasn't all Brexit

and brush passes.

The Prime Minister began

the week announcing a review

into higher education.

We now have one of the most

expensive systems of university

tuition in the world.

Theresa May wants to demonstrate

her government isn't

simply defined by Brexit,

but navigating the complications

of leaving the EU is

an all consuming task.

If she can avoid it

consuming her career, that

could be her greatest achievement.

Steve, Kate and Iain

were watching that with me.

Let's chew over what has been

happening this week. People saying

that meeting at Chequers, the Prime

Minister played a blinder and got

the Cabinet to agree. Outside the

Cabinet, it looks like she is

assaulted on all sides by

pro-Brexit, pro had Brexit Tory MPs,

the EU, it's not as easy as all

that?

It is never going to be easy

for a Prime Minister who hasn't got

a Parliamentary majority. She is

very resilient. Whenever she's

knocked down, she bounces back

again. I think she has had quite a

reasonable week this week, starting

off on the front foot and tuition

fees and ending the week with the

meeting at Chequers. I think a lot

of commentators thought it was going

to be a disaster, that they would

agree on the way board. The proof in

the pudding will be on what she says

in the speech on Friday. We have

Jeremy Corbyn mandates and

effectively she has to up with

probably quite a lot more detail

than she has done in the past. I

think they have the basis for that

now.

Kate, we've talked a lot on

this programme about the arguments

within the Cabinet but now it looks

like the focus is now on the wider

Conservative Party. You have

probably remain MPs like Anna Soubry

saying they want to stay in the

customs union, a letter from pro

except MPs like Jacob Rees-Mogg

saying they want full regulatory

divergence. Which group is likely to

win the day?

I think what is most

interesting this week will be Jeremy

Corbyn's speech on Monday. That

comes before Theresa May's speech on

Friday. That will help tip those two

sites, as it were, and we will see

what will happen with the customs

union. Jeremy Corbyn is likely to

say he would like to stay in a

customs union that is likely to make

the Tory MPs on the Tories I'd like

Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan, who

want to back and push for a customs

union feel like they have more

control over that. Whether it is

likely not promote we are yet to

see. If Labour is shifting its

customs union position that much,

that gives Tory MPs a lot more

strength in the House of Commons

because the government has already

pushed back a vote on the customs

union because they are worried about

what is going happen.

Those pro

remain Tories on the Labour Party

believe they have the Parliamentary

arithmetic to force a defeat on the

government over the customs union,

are they right about that?

Certainly

in theory they are right. There are

enough Conservative MPs and if the

opposition vote for this, the

government faces a defeat with

profound consequences. We will not

know probably until the moment when

the vote takes place. It will be a

moment of one of these great

Parliamentary dramas, where there

will be huge pressure on Tory MPs

not to go along with this and say,

you are in alliance with Jeremy

Corbyn and so on. We won't know

until the vote but in theory they

have the numbers. It would be a game

changer if this amendment was

carried.

This is fascinating. It

means the power has gone to the

house of parliament and has left

number ten and the Cabinet, Hilary

Benn described this as a backbencher

's parliament because the government

doesn't have a majority. Is that

where the authority lies now?

In

some ideas. I'm not sure if I agree

about the Parliamentary arithmetic

because some will die with the

Conservatives, and we will hear from

one later, Frank Field. There are a

group of them. I wonder about the

numbers on the Tory benches, there

is a hard-core group of about ten or

a dozen that you think might well

support Anna Soubry's amendment but

I don't really see it going much

beyond that. But you are right, it

will be on a bit of a knife edge. If

it came to the government were

defeated on this, then we are in

uncharted waters, because the

government could actually make it a

vote of confidence. It would be very

unusual to do one on an amendment to

a bill but it is possible, or they

could call a vote of confidence that

would put Anna Soubry and all the

others in

others in a bit a tricky position.

If they did vote against the

government on a vote of confidence,

they would have to be deselected.

We

will talk about that throughout the

programme.

Listening to all that is the former

Conservative leader,

and leading Brexit campaigner,

Iain Duncan Smith.

Welcome to the programme. Do you

accept there is a significant chance

the government could be defeated on

a customs union in the House of

Commons question when you don't have

a majority there is a chance to be

defeated on anything.

I love the way

the media looks at this cost would

take a pace back, it's a government

that won the election and didn't get

an overall majority so it means

almost anything anyone is upset

about could cause a problem for the

government, fact of life. Brexit is

just one, it's a very big issue but

one of those, there has been other

issues and there will be on the

issue is following through.

It

matters to you whether we are in a

customs union with the EU?

Lots of

things deeply matter to me, beyond

Brexit. But yes. I think the key

thing is not what I believe but the

Prime Minister has been pretty clear

about this from the word go, way

before the election, during the

election importantly and even

subsequently she has made it very

clear we are taking back control,

leaving the customs union, single

market, and at the same time making

sure we get outside of the remit of

the court of justice. She has been

clear about this.

Let's pick a bit of that. In her

Lancaster House speech she said she

wanted us to have a customs

agreement with the EU, not a customs

union but customs agreement. This

controversial amendment Anna Soubry

another Superdome says they want an

agreement that enables the UK to be

able to participate in a customs

union with the EU, is there space

for that?

It depends what the detail

is. The government set it out quite

rightly on having a proper free

trade arrang ement. You can describe

a free-trade arrangement in all

different ways but a free-trade

arrangement is about us having a

clear ability to sell-out goods into

the European Union them to sell us

without artificial trade barriers

that will require arrangements that

out customs arrangements. The big

them to sell us without artificial

trade barriers and that will require

arrangements that out customs

arrangements. The behind having a

customs union and being outside a

free-trade arrangement is we are 90%

of the graces in the global economy

in the next two years, we will be

free to do that. If we are in a

customs union, you to make trade

arrangements with America,

Australia, India, where ever we want

to, where 90% of the growth is in

the global economy in the next two

years, we will be free to do that.

If we are in a customs union, you

agree do that and therefore we would

have to what the European Union to

what the European certainly be

outvoted endlessly. This is about

where does the power light and we

would almost certainly be outvoted

endlessly. This is about where does

the with the rest of the world in a

moment but exactly what you

describe, the free-trade arrangement

with no tariffs with the EU

and the

freedom to make those deals, that is

what the EU called cherry picking?

What they really called cherry

picking is this arrangement we are

talking about now, a customs union.

They have been pretty clear about

this. They said it is not

acceptable. Let's look at it from

the European Union to make those

agreements?

I want to get into the

detail on free-trade deals with the

rest of the world in a moment but

exactly what you describe, the

free-trade arrangement with no

tariffs with the EU and the freedom

to make those deals, that is what

the EU called cherry picking?

What

they really called cherry picking is

this arrangement we are talking

about now, a customs union. They

have been pretty clear about this.

They said it is not acceptable.

Let's look at it from the European

Union's standpoint. We constantly

look at what the UK once. You use is

certainly not going to agree going

into a customs union where we will

then have over any future agreement,

so we will outvote all 27 because we

that would depend on the agreement.

...

That would depend on the

agreement. The EU wants would have

enormous power against them, they an

agreement, we would have enormous

power against them, they won't agree

because it is not in their interests

to do I think what is more in

arrangement. There are lots of

countries that are already breaking

ranks with the commission about

this, Italy, Sweden, Holland said we

have to have a free-trade

arrangement.

They are not on that

yet, they are still on the

implementation phase. When it comes

to free trade, I am very, very

certain that they will want to make

an arrangement with us because it is

in their interests, arguably more

than us. , they want a free-trade

arrangement. There are lots of

countries that are already breaking

ranks with the commission about

this, Italy, Sweden, Holland said we

have to have a free-trade

arrangement. They are not on that

yet, they are still on the

implementation phase. When it comes

to free-trade, I am very, very

certain that they will want to make

an arrangement with us because it is

in their interests, arguably more

than us let's move on to trade with

the rest of the world. Why do so

absolutely convinced that the

ability to do with Australia, China,

the ones the EU has at the,

different from the ones the EU has

at increasing our trade with these

countries from inside the EU? Their

biggest

are so terribly important?

Why can't we be increasing our trade

with these countries from inside the

EU?

Their biggest free-trade we are

naturally, the UK, more than any

other country in the European

country, arguably more than most in

the world, a free-trade for free

trade the WTO has a ready said they

love the idea of us coming back as a

full voting member because we will

argue for free trade. By, global

free trade and services, which stop

because the European Union has not

wanted to push the site at all.

Do

so much more trade with China than

us from within the EU?

That is to do

with what Germany says they want to

do and go and do it Germany do so

much more trade with China than us

from within the EU? That is to do

with what Germany says they want to

do and go and do it.

Being a member

of the EU has being a member of the

EU be outside the that so why do we

have to be outside you get rid of

artificial tarry

that is not

parallel argument. By getting trade

arrangements you get rid of

artificial and delays at the borders

that allows you to increase your

trade. We want from where we are.

But at the same time, incoming stuff

is just as important. The people who

will benefit most from a free-trade

arrangement of the poorest in

society because the cost of food,

footwear and clothing will almost

certainly our trade from where we

are. But at the same time, incoming

stuff is just as important.

You might as much larger and more

important market. The skill is not

that important. The key thing is, do

you value a marketplace, is it worth

doing business with? Financial

services is an important are great

-- an important area you want to

strike agreements with. The UK's

dominant in financial services and

you cannot get a free-trade

agreement within the single market

at the moment. You cannot sell

insurance in Germany without having

a company in Germany to sell it.

They have never wanted to do

financial service is free trade. We

will be in a much better state

globally. You have seen the increase

in New Zealand's trade when they

went for free-trade and got rid of

their trade barriers.

A dramatic

increase in no global position. The

tragedy led to this and they reckon

a free-trade deal with America we

did 0.02% to the UK's GDP.

I have a

bone to pick with the BBC. There has

been a brilliant economic report are

independent, which has been given

very little coverage which is taken

apart the model that the Treasury

and the government put together. For

example, dealing with this. The

reason why you arrive at this, it

depends on what you assume to be the

actual savings on the border. The

government has only assumed a 4%

saving on getting rid of tariff

barriers. Almost every economist in

the world agrees it is nearer to 20%

saving.

This study has been covered

on the BBC it was on the Daily

Politics on Friday. It assumes zero

tariffs on absolutely everything. It

is an extremely optimistic forecast.

It assumes a 10% tariff at the end

of the day, it assumes tariffs

falling to an average of 10%, not

zero. If they went to zero it would

improve it even more. I have read

this report backwards.

One of the

officers says that while there will

be benefits from free-trade deals,

over time it would be likely we

would mostly eliminate manufacturing

in UK by the things that would be

worth it and it should not us.

That

was one of the original suggestions,

much earlier.

But he was one of the

authors of this report.

He was but

he has accepted this is not going to

be the case within this report.

They're assuming that the border

changes will mean less of a tariff

on the borders at average. That is

what happens in most other

free-trade arrangements. The point

I'm making is it has a massive

benefit to the UK for us to do this.

That is why going for a free-trade

agreement with the European Union is

the right way to go. We forget what

Europe itself once.

Labour is in a

complete mess about this. We will

talk to this about -- we will talk

to them about that.

They were in

favour of leaving the customs union

and the single market and Barry

Gardner said it was making a vassal

state if you stayed in the customs

union. We will ask Labour themselves

about that. Theresa May has made it

clear where out of the single market

and Customs union and I say to my

colleagues who want to change some

of this, just be very careful on

this one, because being invited into

a Labour Party tactical game which

will end up in real damage the

United Kingdom.

Iain Duncan Smith,

thank you very much for talking to

us.

So much for the Conservatives,

but what about Labour?

In 24 hours' time,

Jeremy Corbyn will give

a keynote speech on Brexit.

All the signs are that he will back

the UK staying permanently

in a customs union with the EU.

But over 80 senior Labour figures

have today urged Mr Corbyn to go

further and support staying

in the single market as well.

But how would that go down

with the millions of Labour

voters who backed Brexit?

Here's what the Shadow Brexit

Secretary, Keir Starmer,

said this morning.

Well, we have long championed

being in a customs union with the EU

and the benefits of that.

Obviously, it is the only way,

realistically, to get

tariff free access.

It is really important

for our manufacturing base

and nobody can answer the question

how you keep your commitment to no

hard border in Northern Ireland

without a customs union.

We have always said

that the benefits of the single

market must be there in the final

agreement and that is a really

important commitment

because in the end, however

you arrive at that, in whatever

the instrument or agreement it is,

the benefits have got to be there.

Labour is agreed on that end state.

There is obviously an argument

about how we get there.

To discuss this I'm joined by two

Labour MPs who fall on opposing

sides of the Brexit argument.

Frank Field campaigned to leave

the EU and Stella Creasy

is a supporter of the pro-European

group Open Britain.

Thank you both for coming on the

programme. Stella Creasy, you have

signed this letter to Jeremy Corbyn

to be asking not only to stay in the

customs union but also the single

market. If you're in both of them, I

really delivering on the referendum

Brexit result?

There are lots of

different combinations that still

see is leaving the European Union

but do what Labour people across

this country, and that is why there

is support across the country and

the party for this letter, which is

to protect the jobs and incomes. We

know that Brexit, any of the models,

I am horrified to your Iain Duncan

Smith dismissing the idea that

manufacturing may be at stake or the

numbers don't matter. It is a

massive hit on our economy. It is a

massive hit took peace in Northern

Ireland if we leave the customs

union. These are called labour

values and that is what we are

standing up for.

You're asking to

stay in the single market. The

problem with that is you thought an

election last year under a manifesto

which said that free movement will

end.

You cannot do both. I am in the

migration committee on the Council

of Europe. Lots of people are

willing to talk about how we make

freedom of movement work. They

recognise politicians have not got

it right across the continent. If we

are not fighting to stay in the

single market we cannot have that

conversation about what the reformed

freedom of movement might look like.

I think freedom of movement is an

important right for people in this

country. I do not want to have to

see the kids in Walthamstow

Birkenhead that their ability to

work for a company that has a base

outside the UK will be hampered by

decisions we've made. That puts them

in an austerity Britain and I do not

want to do that.

Frank Field, does

this sound like a Brexit you could

sell to any leave photo?

No, and you

know perfectly well we cannot sell

it. I am looking forward to what

Jeremy Corbyn says tomorrow because

you have hyped it up. On every vote

we have had Onuora before he came --

before he became leader, Jeremy

Corbyn and I were deeply suspicious

of this organisation which is

corrupt, it has never got its

accounts audited, it is bankrupt.

Whatever he says tomorrow he will

not be arguing to stay in the EU, he

will be arguing for the customs

union?

Please, let me finish. It is

deeply corrupt. It is bankrupt. It

has destabilised Europe with all

this pretence about it has brought

peace. Look what we have done to the

area around Russia. Given there are

number of states within Europe who

depend on our contribution, we

should be voting for a clear

decorate -- a clear declaration, we

want a free-trade area, and we have

money. What are you going to choose.

I think we should take the gloves

off in these negotiations and look

at the real power structure. They

need our money, and for reasons

which Stella Creasy has put forward,

we need access to a free-market

arrangement.

What is your problem

with Jeremy Corbyn saying that the

Labour policy will be too clearly

stay in a customs union?

Two things.

One, it goes against what we said at

the election. It goes against all

the scare tactics during the

campaign, all the major figures were

saying, you know, if you vote here,

you're leaving the customs union,

you're leaving the free market.

There was no question about what the

referendum was deciding. And the

politics of this is, are we going to

be run by a London agenda? I know

Stella Creasy has got other issues

that she reaches out across the

country, but this is essentially a

London agenda against Labour voters,

particularly in the North.

THEY ALL SPEAK AT ONCE

You have got the mayor of Liverpool

who signed this letter, the leader

of Newcastle Council.

You and I

would in the lobby fighting together

against this government's welfare

cuts.

£12 billion cuts.

That is

nothing to do with this. It

absolutely is. Even the bare minimal

model we are talking about would be

ahead on our economy and the

communities we represent. How can we

vote Forestieri the? How can you do

that to the voters, the People who

work in the Vauxhall plants in the

Wirral who are frightened they are

about to lose their jobs. How can

you do that to the People in

Northern Ireland?

Let me answer you,

please. We have been through the

courts. There is no problem about

the Good Friday Agreement being

challenged by this at all. We have

got time, I am happy to discuss it.

I think there are problems with the

Good Friday Agreement and a customs

union.

No, it will remain. If we

have time, I would love to discuss

that with you. About austerity, can

I answer that? We are net

contributor. We will have money to

be brought back. While some people

have signed the order leaders even

there, when you look at the

parliamentary arithmetic, Mrs May

almost hollowed out our vote in the

seats were only kept by a handful of

votes. These are seats which voted

very clearly to leave. That is the

act of faith. I know there are

problems about how do you give the

electorate the sovereignty to decide

an issue and then bring it back into

a representative parliamentary

system, but the vote was cleared to

leave. The bill is about leaving and

whether we support that or not and

if we do not support that, I think

Labour voters will draw their own

messages in the North.

Please do not

drive Boris's bars for the People of

those communities. You're saying

that somehow we will get money back.

All the evidence shows is that any

money you get back will be dwarfed

by what we will lose. You're talking

about £1 billion coming back.

THEY ALL SPEAK AT ONCE

You can talk across me all you like,

the numbers are there in the

government's on analysis. That is

what we have to front up to the

communities we represent.

Are you

going to write on the People's

decision to leave?

You're coming out

with all these things, we will stay

in a customs union, we will stay in

a single market, the decision was

quite clear to leave. In the north,

Labour voters voted very, very

clearly. You going to rat on them or

not? Never mind about buses and all

the rest of it.

It does matter. Let her answer. It

is about the evidence that we now

have. Democracy did not stop the day

after the referendum.

People have a

right to see the detail.

Of course

they do. Do you accept that the

government figures show clearly that

if we stay in the European economic

arrangement, which is out of the EU,

we are still going to take a 16 pelt

-- a £16 billion hit on our economy?

That worse anything you get back.

This letter is not just signed from

people across the country but people

across the trade union movement

because they because they know the

hard Brexit the government is

pushing for and why it matters

Jeremy Corbyn is fighting for the

customs union and single market

membership.

It means jobs and wages.

What we should be fighting forest

sector agreements with the European

Union. We want a free-trade area.

They have always opposed the

activities of the city. There is no

need to worry about the city. There

is a need to worry about

manufacturing and we will make

special arrangements with them. The

issue is clear, do we disguise the

fact by pretending we're going to

have a customs union or some other

arrangement which counters what the

clear declaration of northern Labour

voters actually said?

They have

changed their side. A third of

Labour voters did vote for leave.

You risk them abandoning the party.

This is not about rerunning the

referendum. It is about what kind of

deal do we get and is it in the best

interests of Britain. I believe

voters across this country have the

right to know what is likely to

happen.

THEY ALL SPEAK AT ONCE

Of course they have a right.

A right

to every bit of information going.

The key thing, we have had a

referendum and we rarely use

referendums for this reason, they

are difficult to implement. The

referendum decision was clear and

particularly clear in the North from

Labour voters. I want to keep faith

with them. I voted to come out. I

know it is harder for people who

voted to stay in. Are we going to

dress up a retreat, Agassi?

Then

there is a complicated decision for

you to make. We've been talking

about the amendment put forward by

Anna Soubry and others, an amendment

to the trade bill that will be voted

on in a few time. There is a

potential to defeat the government

is Jeremy Corbyn comes out in favour

of a customs union and whips his MPs

to vote that way. If you had the

opportunity to win a vote against

the government and bring down

Theresa May, would you vote with her

to keep her in office or against?

That is not the choice and you know

that. That will be the choice on the

day. We will have a decision, do we

continue to implement the referendum

decision. I shall be voting for

that.

Even if that is voting to prop

up the government?

It is not about

propping up the government it is

about implementing a decision of the

People. The government has a

majority on this. The idea that Anna

Soubry is going to lead all these

people into the labour lobbies is

just fairy tales. But we will see on

the night. The government will win

comfortably and double figures on

this issue.

Frank Field, Stella

Creasy, we will have to leave it

there. Thank you very much.

The local elections in May will see

many seats in the big metropolitan

councils in England up for grabs,

and the Conservatives may need

to brace for a difficult night.

A YouGov poll predicts

Labour could seize several

Conservative councils in London,

including one the Tories

have never lost before.

Emma Vardy looks ahead.

Not since the swinging '60s has

anyone done better in local

elections than Labour

could be about to.

A recent YouGov poll is predicting

Labour will sweep London

with the best results for any

party since 1968.

One of the most enduring Tory

strongholds is here.

To this day, Westminster,

with its largely affluent

population of voters,

has never had a Labour-run

authority, but if the poll is to be

believed, that could now change.

This council has been

Conservative-controlled ever

since the borough was created

in the 1960s.

But if the swing was big enough

to turn this council red,

that would top off a very good

night for Labour.

The Conservatives are at position

where they could potentially

be left with just one,

maybe two councils in all of London.

I think that would be a bad night

for the Conservatives,

but it is possible.

They are having to fight to hang

on almost everywhere

they still have representation.

But away from London,

it could be a different story.

Birmingham City Council has been

controlled by Labour since 2012.

They hold around two-thirds

of the seats here, but there

is anger over a bin dispute that

lasted for months and left tons

of rubbish on the streets

uncollected, and resentment over

budget cuts that are

affecting local services.

It does not matter who is in because

there is nothing between them,

that is the problem,

because Birmingham is basically

screwed by central government,

who have reduced all of our grants.

There has been a lot of problems

with the bin collections.

Yes, there have.

Oh, yes.

The Labour run council

got the blame for that?

Yes, I would say so.

The more it dragged

on, certainly, yes.

This will be the first all-out

election for Birmingham City Council

since boundary changes,

so there are 101 seats

here all up for grabs.

It is a place Labour should do well,

but could the party be

punished over those bins?

Back in the summer, of course,

we had the bin strike.

It was not the city's

greatest moment in time.

When I became leader of the council,

I pledged we would resolve that

dispute, which we have now done.

We, the Labour Party

here in Birmingham, are committed

to maintaining weekly bin

collections going forward

for the next four years,

a commitment I've yet to hear

from either of the

other two parties.

Here in Birmingham, the council tax

has gone up over 20% in seven years,

but services have gone down,

and people are seeing rubbish

left on their streets,

and they feel it is time

for a change.

There are plenty of other

places who survive

on fortnightly bin collections.

With council budgets

being constrained, is that

not a sensible option?

In Birmingham, we are absolutely

clear that weekly bin

collections need to remain.

Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats

and the Greens remain much

stronger in local government

than they are in Parliament,

and in May, they will be

fighting to increase

their local authority presence.

While Ukip are likely to continue

to struggle to reverse

the party's decline.

But if the story of the night

is the biggest Labour

success since the '60s,

any high-profile defeats in Tory

strongholds could start to make some

Conservative MPs worry

about their constituencies ahead

of the next general election.

Steve, Kate and Iain

are still with me.

Let's pick up on the local

elections. Kate, should Theresa May

be deeply worried about this, what

she expected a bad night and what

might the consequences be?

No doubt

she will be worried but my favourite

thing is Everything is underlined by

the fact people care more about

things than other things that is

what politics comes down to, at the

end of the day. I think Theresa May

will be worried. -- it comes down

bins. It is a battle ground for

those parties. Places like Haringey,

if you see what has happened to

Labour in those areas, and how

powerful momentum and the left have

become in local politics, you see

how much it matters to Labour. I

think the Tories will be worried,

particularly about London. As the BT

said, Labour expect to do quite well

and that is not going to look very

good. Brandon Lewis, the new

chairman of the party, said last

week we expect big losses in London.

He is setting that already. I think

the Tory party is worried. In areas

like Birmingham and other areas

around the country, Brexit is likely

to be important and I think that's

why it comes back to labour being

modelled on Brexit. People vote with

their feet. If the Tories can win

back some seats like burning in

other places, it might not be a

massive all-out loss lost them on

the night.

Expectation management

already being Manoj

already being Manoj -- being

managed. Actual voters telling us

what they think. Did they have

consequences that Parliamentary

politics?

They could do this time.

It reminds me, Steve will remember

this, 1990 when the Tories did

disastrously in local elections.

Kenneth Baker went out on the

streets and exempted we kept once

loved. I don't think that will

happen this time. Kate is right,

Brandon Lewis, the Tory party

chairman has already started to

manage expectations. He generally

believe they are in for a drubbing,

particularly in London. These will

last up for grabs in 2014 when Ukip

are doing well. In the last year,

Ukip's vote has virtually

disappeared. So all three other

parties, their votes have gone up in

by-elections. It depends where that

vote goes, Wilbur Liberal Democrats

be able to hold onto the seats they

won in that year? -- Wilbur Liberal

Democrats be able to hold onto the

six? I think it will be a drumming

but I think it will be patchy. Andy

Street has been reasonably popular

in the West Midlands. If they do

that they will have a 1990 situation

and that is all they will talk

about.

Even if they lose

Westminster?

Probably.

How important

is it for Labour to do well, do they

seem to be be -- do they need to be

seen making advances, to keep up

with the idea they are on the Tory's

heels?

I think it is important for

that whatever happens I don't think

it will have a huge impact on the

national picture because I think it

will confirm the dynamics as they

already are, in other words Jeremy

Corbyn has been in a strong position

since the general election and that

will be confirmed. Theresa May has

been in a fragile position since the

general election and that will be

confirmed. But by that point Brexit

will be reaching or coming close to

one of its several climactic son I

think that will shape the national

picture. The local elections will be

really important for local

government, who inherit the

nightmarish budget. It won't change

the national picture very much.

Iain

said Ukip's vote has been falling

and they have had their troubles

recently as well. Important to see

where their vote goes and confirms

we are moving back to two party

politics maybe?

I think it does

nationally but locally it's a

different picture because the Ukip

vote tends to go on all kinds of

directions. It doesn't necessarily

go where you think it will. So the

Liberal Democrats and the Greens do

quite well at local elections,

whereas nationally they don't do

very well at all. I think sometimes

you do see people who would vote for

any other party going for any other

party and not necessarily the Tories

and Labour. I think it comes down to

how much this comes down to Brexit.

Do people care more about Brexit or

bins question mark in areas like

London, I think Brexit and bigger

national issues will have a bearing.

Brexit one way or another will help

with your bins?

London has become a

Labour city. Huge capital city with

millions and millions has become a

Labour stronghold. That is

significant for all kinds of

reasons. It has also become as

strong as it used to be in Scotland.

Even in 2010 in the general

election, London voted Labour by a

wide margin. That is quite a

significant development.

We need to

leave it there just now, coming back

to you later in the programme.

It's coming up to 11.40,

you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Still to come...

We speak to Former Northern Ireland

Secretary James Brokenshire

about returning to Parliament

after major surgery for cancer.

First though, its time for

the Sunday Politics where you are.

Hello and welcome to the London part

of the show - I'm Jo Coburn.

Joining me for the duration,

Karen Buck, Labour MP

for Westminster North,

and Andrew Rosindell,

Conservative MP for Romford.

Welcome to you both.

Now I want to start with the speech

the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn gave

this week, in which he said that

if he became Prime Minister

he would take on the City of London,

saying finance should be

"the servant of industry,

not the masters of us all".

Karen Buck, is it wise for Labour

to use such provocative language

towards a sector that employees

350,000 people in London?

I think that absolutely we,

and I feel very strongly

that the banking industry,

the finance industry, is essential

to London's economy and essential

to the national economy.

So I very much support the need,

and the need in EU negotiations,

to have a healthy finance industry.

But I don't think it's

controversial, either,

to say that the British economy has

been too heavily balanced

towards the finance sector

and we need to rebalance that.

And even now, when we are finally

beginning to emerge ten years

after the banking crisis,

there's still a number of issues

in the banking industry that

need to be resolved.

But Jeremy Corbyn claimed the city

had undue influence over

over politics which was

pernicious and undemocratic.

Is he right?

Well, I wouldn't use those words.

I mean, I don't always have

to use all of those words,

but I think it's absolutely right

that the finance industry doesn't

always, hasn't always had

the long-term investment interests

of the wider British economy,

particularly in manufacturing,

that we need to see.

That's something that

George Osborne and David Cameron

were saying as well,

so what ever the words,

I think the issue about the British

economy and making sure finance

is a servant of that is

perfectly reasonable.

Andrew Rosindell, the Tories now can

hardly claim to be a friend

of the city because of the fears

over passporting rights being lost

in the City of London

and some bankers have said

that they will move staff

and operations if there are any

risks to that in the future.

Well, we've heard all this

for a long time and no real evidence

that there is any substantial move

away from the city.

Can you guarantee things

like passporting rights?

There's no guarantee of anything,

because the negotiations

haven't been completed.

The reality is, though,

that the European countries

need the City of London

for their own purposes as well.

So I don't see they're

going to somehow punish

the City of London.

I think the City of London

is actually getting more

worried about the prospect

of a Jeremy Corbyn government,

and how that would undermine our

financial services industry.

Right, but would you say that

actually there's too much

deregulation in the past,

supported by your government and

also the previous Labour government?

I think both governments have

deregulated, certainly the eye

was taken off the ball,

which led to some of the problems

we faced ten years ago.

And you backed that?

Well, no party can say

they are innocent when it comes

to ensuring that that situation

was dealt with at the time.

There's no doubt about that.

But let's be honest about it,

without the City of London,

the income that brings

into our economy is huge.

The jobs it creates,

and the City of London effectively

funds the entire National Health

Service.

So any policies that undermine

the strength of the City of London

will be cutting off our nose

to spite our face.

Thank you.

Now, there's going to be a major

reform of local policing in London.

The main change will see the merger

of 32 borough commands

into 12 larger units.

Police officer numbers will likely

also drop to 30,000 by April.

So what will all this mean for day

to day policing in London?

Bhavani Vadde reports.

These two young men were stabbed

to death in Camden within the space

of hours on Tuesday night.

Rising knife crime is something

the Metropolitan Police has

to tackle in the face

of severe financial pressures.

70% of the Force's funding

is from central government,

with City Hall responsible

for about 20%.

The Home Office grant

has remained the same,

at around £1.9 billion

in the past few years.

The mayor says that represents

funding cuts in real terms,

so to help plug the shortfall,

the Met is making major

changes to local policing.

The current 32 borough commands,

where each council area

has its own police team,

will be merged to 12 command units,

meaning a loss of 1500 jobs.

And Londoners will see even

fewer police officers.

The Met expects numbers to drop

below 30,000 by April,

and that's the first time that's

happened since 2003.

Officer numbers could fall even

further, to around 27,000, by 2021.

So what impact will all this have

on policing the capital?

I think we're not at breaking point

yet, but if we carry in the way that

they're talking about,

I think within the next 18-20 months

the problems will be that we can't

cope with incidents that are put

in front of us.

If we had, for instance,

what we had last year,

with London Bridge,

Westminster Bridge,

Grenfell Tower, Finsbury Park -

all these incidents happening one

after the other throughout

the course of the year,

at some stage my colleagues are just

going to be drained and not be

able to deal with it.

On the same day as those murders

in Camden, we were with officers

searching for hidden knives

in the neighbouring

borough of Islington.

The policing operations of Camden

and Islington were brought

together to test the idea

of merging borough commands.

Jessica Learmond-Criqui is the chair

of a safer neighbourhood

panel in that pilot area.

The impact of the merger

has been quite stark.

Those who suffer anti-social

crime, low-level crime

know they are not safe.

Those are areas where the Met of not

bothering to investigate,

they are not bothering to mount

investigations, they just simply

don't have the manpower,

and that is a direct result

of the pressure that they have

through the cost cuts they have

to make, because of the underfunding

by government and by the mayor.

It's a disaster for London.

The Force needs to save £325 million

by 2022 and has already cut

£600 million from budgets in recent

years, resulting in the loss

of police officers and stations.

This is highly challenging.

The reduction in numbers,

the change in the pattern of demand,

the current risk around terror

and so on is undoubtably,

it's a huge challenge

for the Met at the moment,

and coupled with the financial

challenge, it means we have to think

about doing some things differently.

Our job is to make sure we are best

able to protect London,

both from the large-scale events

and from the local needs,

and that's what we're doing

with this reorganisation.

This week, Sadiq Khan committed

an extra £110 million for the Met

in the next financial year.

He claims this means

City Hall is paying a greater

percentage of the Met's budget

than ever before.

We hope that this will future proof

the Metropolitan Police Service

for the coming years,

to enable them to deliver a better

service, with less resources.

In a statement,

the Home Office said...

The mergers will be rolled out

across London over the next year,

so will the Met be able

to do more with less?

Well, I'm joined by Liberal Democrat

peer Lord Brian Paddick, a former

Deputy Assistant Commissioner

at the Met, who was once responsible

for territorial policing

across London's boroughs.

Welcome to the programme.

Thank you.

Brian, as a former borough

commander, how would you have felt

taking over more than one borough

under your control?

Well, it's extremely challenging.

So, for example, they're

going to merge Sutton,

Bromley and Croydon.

Sutton is Liberal Democrat, Bromley

is Conservative, Croydon is Labour.

Potentially different priorities

at each different local authority.

How as one borough commander can

you manage those different demands?

But the politics aside, could you do

it physically and practically?

Well, when I was the borough

commander for Lambeth,

I struggled to be visible and to be

an effective leader just with one

borough, let alone over that

enormous geographic area.

Right, but for the people

who are being served

by the Metropolitan Police,

how will merging commands

affect your ability to do your job?

Well, I think officers,

because they are closing police

stations, they are closing places

from which officers deployed,

stations, they are closing places

from which officers are deployed,

officers are going to have to travel

longer distances to get

to the places where

they do their policing,

whether it is reporting

a crime or patrolling.

So they're going to waste an awful

amount, a lot of time travelling

from one place to another.

Time which they should be spending

either visible on the street

or investigating crime

or caring for victims.

Andrew Rosindell, do you accept that

police will no longer be as visible

as they have been if you merge

different are commands?

Oh, absolutely.

It's a catastrophe.

What Sadiq Khan is doing to boroughs

like Havering, for instance,

he's taking police off the streets

in my constituency and

sending them to Barking

and Dagenham, into Redbridge.

The police don't know those

areas from Havering,

they are higher crime,

so boroughs like Havering

are going to really suffer

through this policy.

But is that central

government's fault?

City Hall says since 2010-11

the Met's general grant funding

from the government has fallen

by more than £700 billion,

or nearly 40% in real terms.

Why aren't you making

representations to

Theresa May's government?

There's more funding needed

across-the-board, I accept that.

Right.

But the Mayor of London has

the power to increase the precept.

He's got reserves that he could use

that he's refusing to use.

But he has given extra

money, hasn't he?

And the government are giving him

more money this year,

so he has to be held to account

for what he's doing to boroughs

like Havering, which are hugely

harmed by his policies.

Do you support the idea

of merging borough commands?

I would rather not be

faced with any of these

pressures that we are dealing

with as a consequence of the cuts

in government grants.

It is up to Sadiq Khan how

he spends his money?

Yes, and what the mayor is doing,

and I have considerable sympathy

with this, is looking at ways

in which he can be sure that

when you have massive cuts

to the amount that you're able

to spend, that you would have it

spent on frontline policing,

rather than the management command

structures and indeed some

of the police stations.

In an ideal world we would not be

dealing with the fact that we have

lost £700 million and another

£350 million to come,

but that is the world we are in.

Who do you think is responsible

for funding cuts facing the Met?

70% of the budget for the Met comes

from central government.

Central government is not increasing

the amount given to the Met

in line with inflation,

therefore there is a real terms

cut in terms of funding

from central government.

It is not right to blame Sadiq Khan

for the merger of these boroughs.

That is an operational decision that

has been made by senior officers

in the Metropolitan Police Service

in response to this significant cut

in budget from central government.

Right, but actually the mayor has

said that the changes

will offer better and more

integrated local policing.

On the one hand he is blaming

central government in the way

that you have just done,

for reducing funding,

and on the other hand,

he saying that by merging these

borough commands there

will be a more integrated

local police service,

is that not correct?

If you think you have got one

borough commander now in charge

of three boroughs instead

of in charge of one,

you can say there's going to be

integrated leadership,

but the fact is, there are not

enough police officers

to be able to do the job,

they will be spread more thinly,

they will have to travel longer

distances, the public will see less

police officers, there will be less

time to investigate crime.

What would your solution be?

There has to be an increase

in the amount of money provided

by central government which is why

the Liberal Democrats at the last

general election pledged an extra

£1.2 billion for policing,

more than any other party.

Right, and you were hurt on this

issue, the Conservatives,

in the general election.

Do you accept that more money has

to be found or do you think this

is a case of the police always

asking for funds?

I do, I agree with Brian,

there does need to be more funding

from central government

but the mayor needs to do a lot

more than he is doing,

and it needs to be fairly resourced,

so outer London boroughs simply get

a raw deal from this.

You know as well as I do that outer

London is effectively funding inner

London and areas like Havering

are not getting the resources

we need to fight crime.

We are seeing a massive increase

in crime but we do not

have the resources to deal with it.

It is not really a competition.

We all need additional resources.

But in Westminster, we have lost

a third of our police since 2011

so there is a real pressure on inner

London, and what we need is to make

sure that whatever scarce

resources are available,

they are going on the frontline,

to the safer neighbourhood police

and the response team so we can give

some visible policing to people,

rather than spending more

on command structures.

I would rather not have those

choices but if that is the choice,

let's put money on the frontline.

Do you accept as a result of this

move to merge borough commands

and because of the reduction

in funding, the deputy assistant

commissioner in that film implied

something has to give.

Do you think it will happen at that

low level, burglary,

antisocial behaviour,

they just will not be investigated.

The truth is, under Sadiq,

crime has risen dramatically,

especially violent crime

and that is really

frightening people.

That was not my question.

Is something going to have to give

in terms of what the police

service is able to do?

You're right, to deal

with the violent crime,

which is what people are worried

about, what will have to give

is the low-level crime,

but we all know that low-level crime

leads to worse crime.

What we have seen, for example,

in Norfolk, at one stage,

was that police officers tend

to gravitate towards the cities,

to Norwich, leaving the rural areas

denuded of police officers

to the extent that government had

to step in and give more

money for rural policing.

There is a real danger,

Bromley, Croydon, Sutton...

The outer boroughs.

That officers will gravitate

towards Croydon because that is

where the highest crime rate is.

And Havering towards

Redbridge and Barking.

Do you think Londoners

are being put at risk by this

policy of Sadiq Khan?

If the money available

is going on to frontline policing,

I do not see why that should

be the case.

What we have seen is that

in the pilot combined areas,

there was an increase in response

times, response times improved.

In that respect, absolutely

it should not do it.

If there has been an increase

in response times, surely that has

been a positive out of this,

even though you say it should not be

a decision that had to be made

as a result of funding?

I think people are worried

about whether these command

structures should merge.

There is an argument that says,

we would really much rather

have localised command,

but what the police are saying to us

is that they will get some advantage

out of being able to pool

the resources that are available

in terms of resource policing.

I have got to correct you again.

It is not Sadiq Khan's

policy to merge boroughs.

It is the Metropolitan Police

Service's response to reduction

in the amount of money

they are getting.

That is what Sadiq Khan

says, that is what the

Metropolitan Police says.

But he supports it?

He has no choice.

He has no operational

control of policing.

It is an operational policing

decision to merge boroughs,

that is what the commissioner has

decided to do, Sadiq Khan

has to accept that.

Brian Paddick, thank you.

The NHS is something

of a battleground in the Brexit

debate, with Leavers promising more

money for the NHS, while Remainers

say Brexit threatens skilled

workers the NHS depends on.

That applies especially

to nurses in London,

as 10% of the capital's nurses

are from the EU, double

the proportion in the

rest of the country.

This week the chair

of the London Assembly's health

committee called on the mayor

and the government to offer them

a "cast-iron guarantee".

There are 5,000 nurses

from the European Union

working in London.

We know that they are very concerned

about what is happening, and I know

that because of the impact

of Brexit, less nurses are applying.

For example, last year,

we had 90% less residents of the EU

applying to work in this

country than beforehand.

We have written to the mayor,

this is the fourth time we've

written to the mayor about this,

that the mayor should put

pressure on the government,

that all those nurses,

particularly in the NHS,

who are working, should be given

a guarantee that their future

is safe here.

What they have said so far

is that they have an agreement

in principle that people working

in this country should be all right

up to 29th March 2019.

That is not good enough.

In principle is not

the same as a robust

guarantee of their future

and people need certainty.

Here in the studio, I'm

joined by Bernell Bussue

from the Royal College of Nursing,

and Alessandro Borca who is a nurse,

originally from Italy.

Welcome to both of you.

First of all, what do

you think is causing this

nursing shortage in London?

We have a general shortage

across London, over 7,000 vacancies,

of EU nationals, and we have got

14,000 vacancies across all

of London, so one in six

of our nursing posts

are vacant in London.

And that is not helped

by the uncertainties

for our EU colleagues

as to whether they are going

to have a long-term future

in the NHS in the UK.

You say it is not helped

by that uncertainty.

What is the underlying reason,

the other broader reason

for this nursing shortage?

It is a complex issue

and something that has been

going on over a number of years.

I think that we are facing

the results of poor

planning over a long period

of time around workforce.

We have also got the situation

that there has been resources

taken out of the NHS,

and on top of that, we have got

reducing numbers of people who can

come into the NHS from outside.

You're someone who came

from Italy to work here,

from the EU, as a nurse.

What are your concerns now,

bearing in mind the government has

said that the rights of EU citizens

who have settled and are working

in this country will be maintained?

Yes, of course, but the situation

now is getting worse than it

has and I have already seen some

changes in my job.

As a result of Brexit coming down,

or a result of general government

policy towards the NHS?

As a result of Brexit

and a vote in the referendum.

Why, what changes?

Because obviously people

that came from...

I am not surprised that

lots of my colleagues,

they want to come back

to their previous original country.

They came here to have a better

future, to have a better life,

and to contribute to this country,

and now with this uncertainty,

obviously, there is something

that the government

should be addressing.

And are you considering

going back to Italy?

Well, I think that is something that

I do not know, because obviously,

I want to be entitled

to remain, next year.

Andrew, can the country really

afford to lose nurses who have come

from the EU originally?

No, but nobody is suggesting

that we want to lose any NHS workers

who come from the EU or any other

country, there is no reason why

anyone should be afraid of that.

Can you give a cast iron guarantee?

Any EU citizen who is here

will have guaranteed rights,

the right to remain,

there is no issue.

All that will happen

is in the future, if there

are new NHS workers wanting to work

in the UK, whether they are from

the EU or the Caribbean,

or the Philippines or India,

it does not matter where they come

from, they will be great workers

and they will get a work permit

and be welcomed.

Does that reassure you,

if you have got that

promise from a politician,

from the governing party

that your rights will be guaranteed,

will that make you consider staying?

Well, there is a lot