Browse content similar to 18/12/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Morning, folks, and welcome to the Sunday Politics.
Hard line remainers strike back at Brexit.
Are they trying to overturn the result of June's referendum
by forcing a second vote before we leave?
Australia's man in London tells us that life outside the EU "can be
pretty good" and that Brexit will "not be as hard as people say".
Could leaving the EU free Britain to do more business
It's been called "disgusting, dangerous and deadly"
but how polluted is our air, how bad for our health,
And with me in the Sunday Politics grotto, the Dasher, Dancer
and Prancer of political punditry Iain Martin,
They'll be delivering tweets throughout the programme.
First this morning, some say they will fight
for what they call a "soft Brexit", but now there's an attempt by those
who campaigned for Britain to remain in the EU to allow the British
people to change their minds - possibly with a second referendum -
The Labour MEP Richard Corbett is revealed this morning to have
tried to amend European Parliament resolutions.
The original resolution called on the European Parliament
to "respect the will of the majority of the citizens
of the United Kingdom to leave the EU".
He also proposed removing the wording "stress that this wish
must be respected" and adding "while taking account of the 48.1%
The amendments were proposed in October,
but were rejected by a vote in the Brussels
Constitutional Affairs Committee earlier this month.
The report will be voted on by all MEPs in February.
Well, joining me now from Leeds is the Labour MEP who proposed
Good morning. Thanks for joining us at short notice. Is your aim to try
and reverse what happened on June 23? My aim with those amendments was
simply factual. It is rather odd that these amendments of two months
ago are suddenly used paper headlines in three very different
newspapers on the same day. It smacks of a sort of concerted effort
to try and slapped down any notion that Britain might perhaps want to
rethink its position on Brexit as the cost of Brexit emerges. You
would like us to rethink the position even before the cost urges?
I get lots of letters from people saying how one, this was an advisory
referendum won by a narrow majority on the basis of a pack of lies and a
questionable mandate. But if there is a mandate from this referendum,
it is surely to secure a Brexit that works for Britain without sinking
the economy. And if it transpires as we move forward, that this will be a
very costly exercise, then there will be people who voted leave who
said Hang on, this is not what I was told. I was told this would save
money, we could put it in the NHS, but if it is going to cost us and
our Monday leg, I would the right to reconsider. But
your aim is not get a Brexit that would work for Britain, your aim is
to stop it? If we got a Brexit that would work for Britain, that would
respect the mandate. But if we cannot get that, if it is going to
be a disaster, if it is going to cost people jobs and cost Britain
money, it is something we might want to pause and rethink. The government
said it is going to come forward with a plan. That is good. We need
to know what options to go for as a country. Do we want to stay in the
single market, the customs union, the various agencies? And options
should be costed so we can all see how much they cost of Brexit will
be. If you were simply going to try and make the resolution is more
illegal, why did the constitutional committee vote them down? This is a
report about future treaty amendments down the road for years
to come. This was not the main focus of the report, it was a side
reference, in which was put the idea for Association partnerships. Will
you push for the idea before the full parliament? I must see what the
text is. You said there is a widespread view in labour that if
the Brexit view is bad we should not exclude everything, I take it you
mean another referendum. When you were named down these amendments,
was this just acting on your own initiative, or acting on behalf of
the Labour Party? I am just be humble lame-duck MEP in the European
Parliament. It makes sense from any point of view that if the course of
action you have embarked on turns out to be much more costly and
disastrous than you had anticipated, that you might want the chance to
think again. You might come to the same conclusion, of course, but you
might think, wait a minute, let's have a look at this. But let's be
clear, even though you are deputy leader of Labour in the European
Parliament, you're acting alone and not as Labour Party policy? I am
acting in the constitutional affairs committee. All I am doing is stating
things which are common sense. If as we move forward then this turns out
to be a disaster, we need to look very carefully at where we are
going. But if a deal is done under Article 50, and we get to see the
shape of that deal by the end of 2019 under the two-year timetable,
in your words, we won't know if it is a disaster or not until it is
implemented. We won't be able to tell until we see the results about
whether it is good or bad, surely? We might well be able to, because
that has to take account of the future framework of relationships
with the European Union, to quote the article of the treaty. That
means we should have some idea about what that will be like. Will we be
outside the customs union, for instance, which will be very
damaging for our economy? Or will we have to stay inside and follow the
rules without having a say on them. We won't know until we leave the
customs union. You think it will be damaging, others think it will give
us the opportunity to do massive trade deals. My case this morning is
not what is right or wrong, we will not know until we have seen the
results. We will know a heck of a lot more than we do now when we see
that Article 50 divorce agreement. We will know the terms of the
divorce, we will know how much we still have to pay into the EU budget
for legacy costs. We will know whether we will be in the single
market customs union or not. We will know about the agencies. We will
know a lot of things. If the deal on the table looks as if it will be
damaging to Britain, then Parliament will be in its rights to say, wait a
minute, not this deal. And then you either renegotiate or you reconsider
the whole issue of Brexit or you find another solution. We need to
leave it there but thank you for joining us.
Iain Martin, how serious is the attempt to in effect an wind what
happened on June 23? I think it is pretty serious and that interview
illustrates very well the most damaging impact of the approach
taken by a lot of Remainers, which is essentially to say with one
breath, we of course accept the result, but with every action
subsequent to that to try and undermine the result or try and are
sure that the deal is as bad as possible. I think what needed to
happen and hasn't happened after June 23 is you have the extremists
on both sides and you have in the middle probably 70% of public
opinion, moderate leaders, moderate Remainers should be working together
to try and get British bespoke deal. But moderate Leavers will not take
moderate Remainers seriously if this is the approach taken at every
single turn to try and rerun the referendum. He did not say whether
it was Labour policy? That was a question which was ducked. I do not
think it is Labour Party policy. I think most people are in a morass in
the middle. I think the screaming that happens when anybody dares to
question or suggest that you might ever want to think again about these
things, I disagree with him about having another referendum but if he
wants to campaign for that it is his democratic right to do so. If you
can convince enough people it is a good idea then he has succeeded. But
the idea that we would do a deal and then realise this is a really bad
deal, let's not proceed, we will not really know that until the deal is
implemented. What our access is to the single market, whether or not we
are in or out of the customs union which we will talk about in a
minute, what immigration policy we will have, whether these are going
to be good things bad things, surely you have got to wait for four, five,
six years to see if it has worked or not? Yes, and by which stage
Parliament will have voted on it and there will be no going back from it,
or maybe there will. We are talking now about the first three months of
2019. That is absolutely the moment when Parliament agrees with Theresa
May or not. One arch remain I spoke to, and arch Remainiac, he said that
Theresa May will bring this to Parliament in 2019 and could say I
recommend that we reject it. What is he on or she? Some strong chemical
drugs! The point is that all manner of things could happen. I don't
think any of us take it seriously for now but the future is a very
long way away. Earlier, the trade Secretary Liam Fox was asked if we
would stay in the customs union after Brexit.
There would be limitations on what we would do in terms of tariff
setting which could limit the deals we would do, but we want to look at
all the different deals. There is hard Brexit and soft Brexit as if it
is a boiled egg we are talking about. Turkey is in part of the
customs union but not other parts. What we need to do is look at the
cost. This is what I picked up. The government knows it cannot remain a
member of the single market in these negotiations, because that would
make us subject to free movement and the European Court. The customs
union and the Prime Minister 's office doesn't seem to be quite as
binary, that you can be a little bit in and a little bit out, but I would
suggest that overall Liam Fox knows to do all the trade deals we want to
do we basically have to be out. But what he also seems to know is that
is a minority view in Cabinet. He said he was not going to give his
opinion publicly. There is still an argument going on about it in
Cabinet. When David Liddington struggled against Emily Thornbury
PMQs, he did not know about the customs union. What is apparent is
Theresa May has not told him what to think about that. If we stay in the
customs union we cannot do our own free trade deals. We are behind the
customs union, the tariff barriers set by Europe? Not quite. Turkey is
proof of the pudding. There are limited exemptions but they can do
free trade with their neighbours. Not on goods. They are doing a trade
deal with Pakistan at the moment, it relies on foreign trade investment
but Europe negotiates on turkey's behalf on the major free-trade
deals. This is absolutely why the customs union will be the fault line
for the deal we are trying to achieve. Interestingly, I thought
Liam Fox suggested during that interview that he was prepared to
suck up whatever it was. I think he was saying there is still an
argument and he intends to win it. He wants to leave it because he
wants to do these free-trade deals. There is an argument in the cabinet
about precisely that. The other thing to consider is in this country
we have tended to focus too much on the British angle in negotiations,
but I think the negotiations are going to be very difficult. You look
at the state of the EU at the moment, you look at what is
happening in Italy, France, Germany, look at the 27. It is possible I
think that Britain could design a bespoke sensible deal but then it
becomes very difficult to agree which is why I ultimately think we
are heading for a harder Brexit. It will be about developing in this
country. So, we've had a warning this week
that it could take ten years to do a trade deal
with the EU after Brexit. But could opportunities to expand
trade lie elsewhere? Australia was one of the first
countries to indicate its willingness to do a deal
with the UK and now its High Commissioner in London has told
us that life outside the EU He made this exclusive film
for the Sunday Politics. My father was the Australian High
Commissioner in the early 70s when the UK joined
the European Union, Now I'm in the job,
the UK is leaving. Australia supported
Britain remaining a member of the European Union,
but we respect the decision that Now that the decision has been made,
we hope that Britain will get on with the process
of negotiating their exit from the European Union and make
the most of the opportunities that Following the referendum decision,
Australia approached the British Government
with a proposal. We offered, when the time was right,
to negotiate a free trade agreement. The British and Australian
governments have already established a working group to explore a future,
ambitious trade agreement once A free trade agreement will provide
great opportunities for consumers Australian consumers could purchase
British-made cars for less We would give British
households access to cheaper, Our summer is during your winter,
so Australia could provide British households with fresh produce
when the equivalent British or Australian households would have
access to British products Free-trade agreements
are also about investment. The UK is the second-largest source
of foreign investment in Australia. By the way, Australia also invests
over ?200 billion in the UK, so a free trade agreement
would stimulate investment, But, by the way, free-trade
agreements are not just about trade and investment,
they are also about geopolitics. Countries with good trade relations
often work more closely together in other fields including security,
the spread of democracy We may have preferred
the UKto remain in the EU, We may have preferred the UK
to remain in the EU, but life outside as we know can
be pretty good. We have negotiated eight free-trade
agreements over the last 12 years, including a free-trade agreement
with the United States This is one of the reasons why
the Australian economy has continued to grow over the last 25 years
and we, of course, are not Australia welcomes Theresa May's
vision for the UK to become a global We are willing to help
in any way we can. Welcome to the programme. The
Australian government says it wants to negotiate an important trade deal
with the UK as efficiently and promptly as possible when Brexit is
complete. How prompt is prompt? There are legal issues obviously.
The UK, for as long as it remains in the EU, cannot negotiate individual
trade deals. Once it leaves it can. We will negotiate a agreement with
the UK when the time is right, by which we mean we can do preliminary
examination. Are you talking now about the parameters? We are talking
already, we have set up a joint working group with the British
Government and we are scoping the issue to try to understand what
questions will arise in any negotiation. But we cannot have
formally a negotiation. Until the country is out. Why is there no
free-trade deal between Australia and the European Union? It is a long
and tortuous story. Give me the headline. Basically Australian
agriculture is either banned or hugely restricted in terms of its
access to the European Union. So we see the European Union, Australia's,
is a pretty protectionist sort of organisation. Now we are doing a
scoping study on a free-trade agreement with the European Union
and we hope that next year we can enter into negotiations with them.
But we have no illusions this would be a very difficult negotiation, but
one we are giving priority to. Is there not a danger that when Britain
leaves the EU the EU will become more protectionist? This country has
always been the most powerful voice for free trade. I hope that does not
happen, but the reason why we wanted Britain to remain in the European
Union is because it brought to the table the whole free-trade mentality
which has been an historic part of Britain's approach to international
relations. Without the UK in the European Union you will lose that.
It is a very loud voice in the European Union and you will lose
that voice and that will be a disadvantage. The figure that jumped
out of me in the film is it to you only 15 months to negotiate a
free-trade deal with the United States. Yes, the thing is it is
about political will. A free-trade agreement will be no problem unless
you want to protect particular sectors of your economy. In that
case there was one sector the Americans insisted on protecting and
that was their sugar industry. In the end after 15 months of
negotiation two relatively free trading countries have fixed up
nearly everything. But we had to ask would be go ahead with this
free-trade agreement without sugar west we decided to do that. Other
than that it was relatively easy to negotiate because we are both
free-trade countries. With the UK you cannot be sure, but I do not
think a free-trade agreement would take very long to negotiate with the
UK because the UK would not want to put a lot of obstacles in the way to
Australia. Not to give away our hand, we would not want to put a lot
of obstacles in the way of British exports. The trend in recent years
is to do big, regional trade deals, but President-elect Donald Trump has
made clear the Pacific trade deal is dead. The transatlantic trade deal
is almost dead as well. The American election put a nail in the coffin
and the French elections could put another nail in the coffin. Are we
returning to a world of lateral trade deals, country with country
rather than regional blocs? Not necessarily. In the Asia Pacific we
will look at multilateral trade arrangements and even if the
transpacific partnership is not ratified by the Americans, we have
other options are there. However, our approach has been the ultimate
would be free-trade throughout the world which is proving hard to
achieve. Secondly, if we can get a lot of countries engaged in a
free-trade negotiation, that is pretty good if possible. But it is
more difficult. But we do bilateral trade agreements. We have one with
China, Japan, the United States, Singapore, and the list goes on, and
they have been hugely beneficial to Australia. You have been dealing
with the EU free deal, what lessons are there? How quickly do you think
Britain could do a free-trade deal with the EU if we leave? Well, there
is a completely different concept involved in the case of Britain and
the EU and that is at the moment there are no restrictions on trade.
So you and the EU would be talking about whether you will direct
barriers to trade. We are outsiders and we do not get too much involved
in this debate except to say we do not want to see the global trade
system disrupted by the direction of tariff barriers between the United
Kingdom, the fifth biggest economy in the world, and the European
Union. Our expectation is not just the British but the Europeans will
try to make the transition to Brexit as smooth as possible particularly
commercially. Say yes or no if you can. If Britain and Australia make a
free-trade agreement, would that include free movement of the
Australian and the British people? We will probably stick with our
present non-discriminatory system. Australia does not discriminate
against any country. The European Union's free movement means you
discriminate against non-Europeans. Probably not.
It could lead to a ban on diesel cars, prevent the building
of a third runway at Heathrow, and will certainly make it
more expensive to drive in our towns and cities.
Air pollution has been called the "public health crisis
of a generation" - but just how serious is the problem?
40,000 early deaths result from air pollution every year in the UK.
Almost 10,000 Londoners each year die prematurely.
It seems at times we can get caught up in alarming assertions
about air pollution, that this is a public health
emergency, that it is a silent killer, coming from politicians,
But how bad is air quality in Britain really?
Tony Frew is a professor in respiratory medicine and works
at Brighton's Royal Sussex County Hospital.
He has been looking into the recent claims
It's a problem and it affects people's health.
But when people start talking about the numbers
of deaths here, I think they are misusing the statistics.
There have been tremendous improvements in air quality
There is a lot less pollution than there used to be
and none of that is coming through in the public
So what does Professor Frew make of the claim that alarming levels
of toxicity in the air in the UK causes 40,000 deaths each year?
It is not 40,000 people who should have air pollution
on their death certificate, or 40,000 people who
It's a lot of people who had a little bit of life shortening
To examine these figures further we travelled to Cambridge to visit
I asked him about the data on which these claims
They come from a study on how mortality rates in US cities
First of all, it is important to realise that that 40,000 figure
29,000, which are due to fine particles, and another 11,000
I will just talk about this group for a start.
These are what are known as attributable deaths.
Known as virtual deaths, they come from a complex statistical model.
Quite remarkably it all comes from just one number and this
was based on a study of US cities and they found out that
by monitoring these cities over decades that the cities which had
a higher level of pollution had a higher mortality rate.
They estimated that there was a 6% increased risk of dying
each year for each small increase in pollution.
So this is quite a big figure, but it is important to realise
it is only a best estimate and the committee that advises
the government says that this figure could be between 1% and 12%.
So this 6% figure is used to work out the 29,000
Yes, through a rather complex statistical model.
And a similar analysis gives rise to the 11,000 attributable deaths
How much should we invest in cycling?
Should we build a third runway at Heathrow?
We need reliable statistics to answer those questions,
but can we trust the way data is being used by campaigners?
I think there are people who have such a passion for the environment
and for air pollution that they don't really
see it as a problem if they are deceiving the public.
Greenpeace have been running a campaign claiming that breathing
London's air is the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day.
If you smoke 15 cigarettes a day through your adult life,
that will definitely take ten years off your life expectancy.
If you are poor and you are in social class five,
compared to social class one, that would take seven
If you are poor and you smoke, that will take 17 years off your life.
Now, we are talking about possibly, if we could get rid of all
of the cars in London and all of the road transport,
we could make a difference of two micrograms per metre squared in air
pollution which might save you 30 days of your life.
There is no doubt that air pollution is bad for you,
but if we exaggerate the scale of the problem and the impact
on our health, are we at risk of undermining the case for making
And we are joined now by the Executive Director
You have called pollution and national crisis and a health
emergency. Around the UK are levels increasing or falling? They are
remaining fairly static in London. Nationally? If you look at the
studies on where air pollution is measured, in 42 cities around the
UK, 38 cities were found to be breaking the legal limit on air
pollution so basically all of the cities were breaking the limit so if
you think eight out of ten people live in cities, obviously, this is
impacting a lot of people around the UK. We have looked at in missions of
solvent dioxide, they have fallen and since 1970, nitrogen dioxide is
down 69%. Let me show you a chart. There are the nitrogen oxides which
we have all been worried about. That chart shows a substantial fall from
the 1970s, and then a really steep fall from the 1980s. That is
something which is getting better. You have to look at it in the round.
If you look at particulates, and if you look at today's understanding of
the health impact. Let's look at particulates. We have been really
worried about what they have been doing to our abilities to breathe
good air, again, you see substantial improvement. Indeed, we are not far
from the Gothenberg level which is a very high standard. What you see is
it is pretty flat. I see it coming down quite substantially. Over the
last decade it is pretty flat. If you look at the World Health
Organisation guidelines, actually, these are at serious levels and they
need to come down. We know the impact, particularly on children, if
you look at what is happening to children and children's lungs, if
you look at the impact of asthma and other impacts on children in cities
and in schools next to main roads where pollution levels are very
high, the impact of very serious. You have many doctors, professors
and many studies by London University showing this to be true.
The thing is, we do not want pollution. If we can get rid of
pollution, let's do it. And also we also have to get rid of CO2 which is
causing climate change. We are talking air pollution at the moment.
The point is there is not still more to do, it is clear there is and
there is no question about that, my question is you seem to deny that we
have made any kind of progress and that you also say that air pollution
causes 40,000 deaths a year in the UK, that is not true. The figure is
40,000 premature deaths is what has been talked about by medical staff.
Your website said courses. It causes premature deaths. What we are
talking about here is can we solve the problem of air pollution? If air
pollution is mainly being caused by diesel vehicles then we need to
phase out diesel vehicles. If there are alternatives and clean Turner
tips which will give better quality of air, better quality of life and
clean up our cities, then why don't we take the chance to do it? You had
the Australian High Commissioner on this programme earlier. He said to
me earlier, why is your government supporting diesel? That is the most
polluting form of transport. That may well be right but I am looking
at Greenpeace's claims. You claim it causes 40,000 deaths, it is a figure
which regularly appears. Let me quote the committee on the medical
effects of air pollutants, it says this calculation, 40,000 which is
everywhere in Greenpeace literature, is not an estimate of the number of
people whose untimely death is caused entirely by air pollution,
but a way of representing the effect across the whole population of air
pollution when considered as a contributory factor to many more
individual deaths. It is 40,000 premature deaths. It could be
premature by a couple of days. It could me by a year. -- it could be
by a year. It could also be giving children asthma and breathing
difficulties. We are talking about deaths. It could also cause stroke
and heart diseases. Medical experts say we need to deal with this. Do
you believe air pollution causes 40,000 deaths a year. I have defined
that. You accept it does not? It leads to 40,000 premature deaths.
But 40,000 people are not killed. You say air pollution causes 40,000
deaths each year on your website. I have just explained what I mean by
that in terms of premature deaths. The question is, are we going to do
something about that? Air pollution is a serious problem. It is mainly
caused by diesel. If we phased diesel out it will solve the problem
of air pollution and deal with the wider problem of climate change. I
am not talking about climate change this morning. Let's link to another
claim... Do you want to live in a clean city? Do you want to breathe
clean air? Yes, don't generalise. Let's stick to your claims. You have
also said living in London on your life is equivalent to smoking 50
cigarettes a day. That is not true either. What I would say is if you
look at passive smoking, it is the equivalent of I don't know what the
actual figure is, I can't remember offhand, but it is the equivalent
effect of about ten cigarettes being smoked passively. The question is in
terms of, you are just throwing me out all of these things... I am
throwing things that Greenpeace have claimed. Greenpeace have claimed
that living in London is equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day and
that takes ten years off your life. Professor Froome made it clear to us
that living in London your whole life with levels of pollution does
take time off your life but it takes nine months of your life. Nine
months is still too much, I understand that, but it is not ten
years and that is what you claim. I would suggest you realise that is a
piece of propaganda because you claim on the website, you have taken
it down. I agree it has been corrected and I agree with what the
professor said that maybe it takes up to a year off your life, but the
thing is, there are much more wider issues as well, in terms of the
impact on air pollution, and in terms of the impact on young
children. We can argue about the facts... But these are your claims,
this is why I am hitting it to you. It does not get away from the
underlying issue that air pollution is a serious problem. We are not
arguing for a moment that it is not. Do you think the way you exaggerate
things, put false claims, in the end, for of course we all agree
with, getting the best air we can, you undermine your credibility? I
absolutely do not support false claims and if mistakes have been
made then mistakes have been made and they will be corrected. I think
the key issue is how we are going to deal with air pollution. Clearly,
diesel is the biggest problem and we need to work out a way how we can
get away from diesel as quickly and fast as possible. Comeback and see
us in the New Year and we will discuss diesel. Thank you.
It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.
We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now
I'm Julia George and this is the Sunday Politics
Coming up later: Hanging out at the youth club -
but might these teenagers soon be hanging out on the street?
We'll take a look at proposals in Brighton and Hove to drastically
cut the money that goes to youth services.
Joining me today to discuss this and other stories are the Labour
leader of Brighton and Hove City council, Warren Morgan.
And Tim Loughton - Conservative MP for neighbouring
Let's start with an update on Southern Trains.
And the worst rail disruption in 20 years.
For three days this week, the rolling stock stood
still as drivers from the Aslef union walked out.
Transport Secretary Chris Grayling insists the Government doesn't
have the power to step in and has hinted at a change in the law that
could make this kind of industrial action more difficult in the future.
The government needs to step in and resolve it because it's
It's absolutely disgraceful and I think the PM needs to get
involved because people are losing jobs and it is completely
I don't really get the point of us of it any more.
It's really aggravating and something needs to be done
Again, ruined my journey to work so now I have to find
What's the impact, would you say, on your constituents?
This is the biggest single issue any MP in Sussex and South London
Daily dozens and dozens of e-mails, tweets of yet another disastrous day
I quoted at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday a specific
case of a constituent on life-saving cancer drug trials who has to get to
University College Hospital Who had to leave at the crack of dawn,
and expensive taxi that day, just to get to London for that.
People are losing their jobs, people are not getting to school
and colleges and now we hear that employers are not recruiting people
This is a devastating effect on constituents.
None of us underestimate the impact of this.
Warren Morgan, exactly the same question.
In Brighton and Hove, what telling you?
They are saying it is affecting our economy.
Obviously, we're very reliant on retail, on tourism,
They require really good links to London to provide that custom,
those links to business and it is having an effect.
We'll see some of the figures for that in the coming weeks.
Let's talk about the politics of all of this.
Your government says it's powerless to intervene, but, increasingly,
passengers don't seem to believe that.
The group of passengers marched to the Department for Transport this
week calling for answers from Chris Grayling.
One of them is quoted in the papers as saying,
"We are at breaking point if he fails to act.
Well, I've been pretty measured in my criticism of the government
and the Department for Transport of them management of this and now
to the unions who are completely responsible for these unnecessary
strikes which are causing such mayhem at the moment.
What the government is going to do is look at legislation about making
sure this sort of complete disruption, holding hundreds
of thousands of commuters to ransom, can't happen in the future.
That doesn't do anything for this particular dispute, though, does it?
Not immediately, but that legislation could go
What the government has also suggested and what I've said
all along, frankly this franchise is too big to manage.
I do think GTR up to managing it so I think we've got to see a change
in our franchise as soon as possible in the New Year.
But none of this will get the service back to normal
while as left and RMT continue on this crazy strike
about whose switches the button for the doors whilst,
at the same time, you can travel from London to Brighton on a Thames
link train driven by Aslef who operate the doors,
calling at the same stations on the same lines.
For goodness sake, let's suspend the strike action and talk
about any safety concerns, residual it's and get back to some
Just to come act to the politics with Warren Morgan for a moment.
The Prime Minister is calling on direct
She wants Jeremy Corbyn to call up what she referred to as his friends,
the rail union bosses, and to get them to call
It's quite a shocking abdication of a government's authority when it
says it's the opposition that should resolve a strike.
When you're elected to office, as I been in Brighton and Hove,
you have the responsibility to resolve these kinds of dispute.
They should strip Govia Thameslink Rail of their franchise.
The Mayor of London has offered to have the service run by transport
for London and that would be an interim solution.
If the government can't deliver this...
They are the ones in power and should take responsibility.
If he can't handle it then Chris Grayling should go.
The trouble is there is not a queue of people wanting to take on that
TFL, for everything you say, is just not big enough to be able
to deal with the largest train franchise in the country.
And I have no problem with taking the franchise away from them, GTR,
but somebody has got to run the railways and it will end up
with a Department for Transport running it where everyone
is criticising their not fit for purpose.
How does this end, for the people watching today who have had enough?
Everyone has got to be around the table as they are
Then I think the franchise needs to be restructured in the New Year
and more investment to sort out the hold-ups.
Also, we need to find the rail operators when they're not
bringing a decent service and I have a private members bill
on Tuesday which is changing the whole conversation system
which might give a sense of urgency to GTR that this really has got
to be resolved than they need to run a reliable system for the passengers
for the passengers that absolutely depend on it for the everyday lives.
I hope we are all not talking about it in January.
For the rest of today's programme today we're going to look at funding
for the oldest and the youngest people in our communities.
We've been hearing this week that adult social care is teetering
Will it eventually become every family for itself?
Are politicians doing anything meaningful to protect the most
Well let's examine this week's announcements.
The government told local authorities they can bring forward
council tax rises over the next two years, and a transfer of ?240
Here's the Labour leader speaking at PMQs this week.
The Prime Minister doesn't seem to be aware that 4.6 billion was cut
from the social care budget in the last Parliament
and that her talk of putting it on to local governments
2% of council tax is clearly a nonsense.
95% of councils used this social care precept and it raised less
than 3% of the money they planned to spend on adult social care.
We see many councils around the country that have taken
the benefit of social care precept and have seen the result
of more people accessing social care and needs being met.
Sadly, there are also some councils across the country,
some Labour councils, who haven't taken that opportunity
where we do see a worst performance in relation to social care.
The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition at
Warren Morgan, the government says you and other council leaders can
pull in more council tax more quickly to pay for good care
It's a sticking plaster for a gaping wound.
We can raise an extra ?1 million through this extra 1% that's been
bought forward from the end of Parliament to fund social care.
We've got increases in social care costs of ?7 million
Our total social care bill is ?150 million.
We only bring in ?125 million in total from council tax.
On top of that, we had to run 700 other services.
It is just not possible, nor sustainable.
This isn't a problem with Labour councils.
It's a problem for top tier authorities, county councils,
You've given us the figures for last year of ?8.7 million overspend,
sorry, that's the East Sussex council and yours is 3.8 million.
We've seen a lot of care homes close.
The BBC have said that one in five care homes is at risk of closure
Costs have risen because of the national living wage,
funding has not replaced that and the government is simply passing
the buck to local councils, as it has done with so many
other services, and said, this is your problem.
You raise the tax from local people, you take the blame, you take
OK, this extra council tax, which Jeremy Corbyn referred
All the Communities Secretary has done is given local authorities
the opportunity to take an extra 3% over two years rather
I don't think it's a con, but I agree with Warren that it's
Taking the politics aside, successive governments have
Social care for increasingly aged adult population is the single
biggest challenge to local governments and we've got
to grasp the nettle, come up with a long-term solution
as to how we finance it for a population that is getting
older, how we integrated much better than what's going on in hospitals.
Some parts of the country are doing it better.
There are 24 local authorities responsible for 50% of those older
people in hospital who could be discharged but there's not
If you take somewhere like Worthing, four and a half percent
of the population is over the age of 85.
People come to Worthing and live for a long time
because it's a great place, but those people place extra demands
West Sussex is not only dealing with a large elderly population,
but a very old, elderly population as well and it can only
Let's throw party politics out and sit here and say,
Look at countries like France where there is an obligation
I think you can be prosecuted if you don't visit your elderly parents in.
We need a properly funded, integrated social care and health
We've got a think tank in Brighton and Hove that
looking at and integration, looking at good examples
Of course, no solution can happen without adequate funding.
I and the Leader of the Opposition have called for money that's
earmarked for tax cuts for multinationals to be put
So much for throwing party politics at the window in this discussion!
Is it about redistributing some of the money that is
A couple of weeks ago on the programme we had the Work
and Pensions Secretary who said the pensions triple lock only
People have looked at that as a possible source of more money
It may be a combination of all of those things because there
Absolutely I think families could step up to do more
but they need to be supported to do that.
So if we want older people to be able to stay in their own homes
or close to their own families they need to have the support from
But we are wasting money at the moment.
It cost something like ?1300 to have someone in an Acute Hospital bed
when they could be at a residential home or supported in their own homes
if we integrated or joined up the system so much better
So, what's the impact of all of this on young people?
Well, in Brighton and Hove they're struggling to keep on top
of the cost of elderly care, and the draft budget
for next year includes deep cuts to youth services.
They say they come here because they feel they belong.
I never used to get out of the house.
My friend took me there once and I made friends.
It helps socialise with younger people.
I think I've grown more as a person since coming here.
This centre kind of functions as a home for a lot of people.
Some of Brighton's most vulnerable teenagers come to the Brighton youth
centre and drop-in groups like it, but these initiatives
face an uncertain future as the city council plans to cut
A move that could wipe out almost all of this kind of support.
If you weren't able to go to the youth centre,
Or I'd be on the streets with people that I shouldn't be with.
That's where I'd probably see myself.
The future generation needs this to be helped.
I think it gives a lot of people the skills to go into adulthood
and I think cutting something that is as intrinsic as this
is to youth culture I think is doing a disservice to young people
I've got friends here and got to take part in similar
activities that I would never have even considered.
The proposals affect 11 different youth groups,
eight of which operate as the Brighton and Hove Youth
Collective, a group of charities that together work with almost 3,000
young people a year in some of the most deprived
Almost ten years ago, Sophie was one of them and now
she works on to youth projects and says it was intervention
from youth workers that helped her find her way.
I think that youth work has pretty much changed my path
For me, at 14, I was vulnerable like a lot of young people
are and like a lot of young people will continue to be,
which is why I think youth work is really important because we go
Brighton and Hove City Council is struggling to balance the books
and needs to save ?24 million next year.
By pulling the funding from these groups, the City Council could
save some ?1.3 million over the next three years.
But youth workers say they're concerned about the
long-term impact of the move which they fear could leave some young
people at risk of joining gangs, left on the streets are exposed to
the dangers of drugs, alcohol and crime.
Community preventative services, that's what we see
ourselves providing, and I fear that if those start
disappearing then young people's problems and
challenges will become greater, they will still need to access other
services such as statutory mental health services or social services
and the cost will admit we be greater to the local authorities.
And is not just happening in Brighton.
Research by the union Unison says in the last six years
youth services in the UK have been cut by ?387 million.
Back in Brighton, a petition has been
launched and demonstrators have protested against the proposed cuts,
but with council budgets so tight, is there any alternatives?
Joining us now from Brighton is the Leader of the Green Party
She ran Children's Services for the council and has spent 35
Let us go straight to the Labour leader of the Council and ask why
the drastic cuts to youth services are being made. Because we've had
six years of very drastic cuts from the government and for some of these
absolutely vital services that provide a long-term saving, there is
no scope for those any more. If it wasn't youth services we would be
looking at early intervention, nurseries or children centres and
got ?24 million of cuts to make this got ?24 million of cuts to make this
year and there simply are aren't the scopes to do that. So he is saying
he has no choice, broadly. Can you see why he feels that? Yes, I was
involved in the council so I know it's a difficult choice to be made
across council budgets. I know the chair and the co-chair of the party
and the city but we need to look again at youth work because it's
such a vital service to young people. It gives them somewhere to
go and something to do and adults who aren't parents or teachers to
talk to. The support that is offered is vital to some of the most money
trouble young people in our city and trouble young people in our city and
it's a fairly small budget -- vulnerable people.
A lot of people have spent time trying to bid for the money and we
also have in-house services which are vital as well. We haven't a huge
amount of time. If you think it such a small amount, where would you cut
that from the budget instead? It's about looking across the whole
council budget and not just at children's services. I would urge
Councillor Morgan to talk to the other parties to look at what other
money might be available and the government is the main problem. They
are spending over ?1 million on the National citizenship service which
only deals with 15 and 16-year-olds and a small number across the
country and it is not being taken out widely. There are other choices
to be made. Let me put that pointed to him. Sue Shanks thinks the
argument is with your government. As argument is with your government. As
is always the case and she doesn't come up with an alternative for
funding. I was a minister for children and young people and
produced a document about the future of youth and I think it's
short-sighted where there have been cuts to youth services. I helped to
design a service that is the biggest single youth volunteering service in
the country at the moment and it's a fantastic project for many young
people and we want to have younger people coming in to put fair for
their national citizen service as well. I understand why you want to
defend that, but let's stay closer to home. Darren Morgan, the
teenagers affected by the cut cuts and the children don't have a
they're an easy target. As with they're an easy target. As with
early years services, what we wanted to do and see mentioned are planned
to transfer it to the voluntary sector, that should have happened
three or four years ago. I would ask see why she didn't begin the process
earlier. We've run out of time. We're making savings from a whole
range of 700 council services but we've now got to make some pretty
desperate savings to balance the books by March. Unison is calling
for youth services to become statutory in the same way that
I have some sympathy with that. The I have some sympathy with that. The
trouble is that youth services needed to be reformed. What certain
parts of the country have done is bring together local authorities
with voluntary organisations and businesses as well to come up with
youth sounds and services that young people want to use at times when
they want to. Into many parts of the country, youth services were not
very user-friendly for use as well. We saw how user-friendly the
services were. Is there any hope for those people who feel their youth
centres are just a complete lifeline for them? We'll keep working as long
as we possibly can to try and keep them going. I was a trustee at a
club in my ward for eight years and know the value of really good
universal open offer youth services and I would urge anyone in the city
who can help us out to step in and trying keep their sentences going.
And your last thought on this? -- to keep those services going. I think
open access services are vital and the money deduced collective gets
brings in extra money but our own in-house service is also important.
We've undervalued youth service in this country for a long time and a
lot of people who go to them will tell you how valuable they are. Just
time for some other news you may have missed in 60 seconds.
The MP for Becks Hill and Battle says many schools in his
constituency will be worse off under new government plans for school
funding. It comes after a long-running campaign by MPs in
Sussex calling for a fairer system. He says he wants a meeting to
discuss the proposals. I didn't expect that I would see a reduction
as well. Kent MP has for government support to stop lorries parking
Mid Kent asked by Minister to Mid Kent asked by Minister to
support her campaign. The government shares the desire to ensure we don't
see this parking of lorries across Kent and it's something the
government is working on and we'll find a solution.
Travellers in Brighton and Hove say they are being unfairly targeted by
new powers being given to the City Council next month. And that a new
order, people can be fined ?75 for pitching tents or caravans without
permission. That's all we've got time
for from the South East this week My thanks to our guests,
Tim Loughton and Warren Morgan. We will be back in January
with coverage of all the south east Will Article 50 be triggered
by the end of March, will President Trump start work
on his wall and will Front National's Marine Le Pen
provide the next electoral shock? 2016, the Brexit for Britain and
Trump for the rest of the world. Let's look back and see what one of
you said about Brexit. If Mr Cameron loses the referendum
and it is this year, will he be Prime Minister at the end
of the year? I don't think he will lose
the referendum, so I'm feeling It was clear if he did lose the
referendum he would be out. I would like to say in retrospect I saw that
coming on a long and I was just saying it to make good television!
It is Christmas so I will be benign towards my panel! It is possible,
Iain, that not much happens to Brexit in 2017, because we have a
host of elections coming up in Europe, the French won in the spring
and the German one in the autumn will be the most important. And
until we know who the next French president is and what condition Mrs
Merkel will be in, not much will happen? I think that is the
likeliest outcome. Short of some constitutional crisis involving the
Lords relating to Brexit, it is pretty clear it is difficult to
properly begin the negotiations until it becomes clear who Britain
is negotiating with. It will come down to the result of the German
election. Germany is the biggest contributor and if they keep power
in what is left of the European Union, will drive the negotiation
and we will have to see if it will be Merkel. So this vacuum that has
been seen and has been filled by people less than friendly to the
government, even when we know Article 50 has been triggered and
even if there is some sort of white paper to give us a better idea of
the broad strategic outlines of what they mean by Brexit, the phoney war
could continue? Iain is right. 2017 is going to be a remarkably dull
year for Brexit as opposed to 2016. We will have the article and a plan.
The plan will say I would like the moon on a stick please. The EU will
say you can have a tiny bit of moon and a tiny bit of stick and there
will be an impasse. That will go on until one minute to midnight 2018
which is when the EU will act. There is one thing in the Foreign Office
which is more important, as David Davis Department told me, they know
there is nothing they can do until the French and Germans have their
elections and they know the lie of the land, but the people who will be
more helpful to us are in Eastern Europe and in Scandinavia, the
Nordic countries. We can do quite a lot of schmoozing to try and get
them broadly on side this year? It is very difficult because one of the
things they care most about in Eastern Europe is the ability for
Eastern European stew come and work in the UK. That is key to the
economic prospects. But what they care most about is that those
already here should not be under any pressure to leave. There is no
guarantee of that. That is what Mrs May wants. There are a lot of things
Mrs May wants and the story of 2017 will be about what she gets. How
much have we got to give people? It is not what we want, but what we are
willing to give. The interesting thing is you can divide this out
into two. There is a question of the European Union and our relationship
with it but there is also the trick the polls did to London -- there is
also the polls. There is question beyond the Western European
security, that is about Nato and intelligence and security, and the
rising Russian threat. That does not mean the Polish people will persuade
everyone else to give us a lovely deal on the EU, but the dynamic is
bigger than just a chat about Brexit. You cannot threaten a
punishment beating for us if we are putting our soldiers on the line on
the eastern borders of Europe. I think that's where Donald Trump
changes the calculation because his attitude towards Russia is very
different to Barack Obama's. It is indeed. Mentioning Russia, Brexit
was a global story but nothing can match and American election and even
one which gives Donald Trump as well. Let's have a look at what this
panel was saying about Donald Trump. Will Donald Trump win the Republican
nomination next year. So, not only did you think he would
not be president, you did not think he would win the Republican
nomination. We were not alone in that. And they're right put forward
a motion to abolish punditry here now because clearly we are
pointless! There is enough unemployment in the world already!
We are moving into huge and charted territory with Donald Trump as
president. It is incredibly unpredictable. But what has not been
noticed enough is the Keynesian won. Trump is a Keynesian. He wants
massive infrastructure spending and massive tax cuts. The big story next
year will be the massive reflation of the American economy and indeed
the US Federal reserve has already reacted to that by putting up
interest rates. That is why he has a big fight with the rest of the
Republican Party. He is nominally a Republican but they are not
Keynesian. They are when it comes to tax cuts. They are when it hits the
rich to benefit the poor. The big thing is whether the infrastructure
projects land him in crony trouble. The transparency around who gets
those will be extremely difficult. Most of the infrastructure spending
he thinks can be done by the private sector and not the federal
government. His tax cuts overlap the Republican house tax cuts speaker
Ryan to give not all, but a fair chunk of what he wants. If the
American economy is going to reflate next year, interest rates will rise
in America, that will strengthen the dollar and it will mean that Europe
will be, it will find it more difficult to finance its sovereign
debt because you will get more money by investing in American sovereign
debt. That is a good point because the dynamics will shift. If that
happens, Trump will be pretty popular in the US. To begin with. To
begin with. It is energy self-sufficient and if you can pull
off the biggest trick in American politics which is somehow to via
corporation tax cuts to allow the reassuring of wealth, because it is
too expensive for American business to take back into the US and
reinvest, if you combine all of those things together, you will end
up with a boom on a scale you have not seen. It will be Reagan on
steroids? What could possibly go wrong? In the short term for
Britain, it is probably not bad news. Our biggest market for exports
as a country is the United States. Our biggest market for foreign
direct investment is the United States and the same is true vice
versa for America in Britain. Given the pound is now competitive and
likely the dollar will get stronger, it could well give a boost to the
British economy? Could do bit you have to be slightly cautious about
the warm language we are getting which is great news out of President
Trump's future cabinet on doing a trade deal early, we are net
exporters to the US. We benefit far more from trading with US than they
do with us. I think we have to come up with something to offer the US
for them to jump into bed with us. I think it is called two new aircraft
carriers and modernising the fleet. Bring it on. I will raise caution,
people in declining industries in some places in America, the rust
belt who have faced big profound structural challenges and those are
much harder to reverse. They face real problems now because the dollar
is so strong. Their ability to export has taken a huge hit out of
Ohio, Michigan and Illinois. And the Mexican imports into America is now
dirt cheap so that is a major problem. Next year we have elections
in Austria, France, the Netherlands, Germany, probably Italy. Which
outcome will be the most dramatic for Brexit? If Merkel lost it would
be a huge surprise. That is unlikely. And if it was not Filon in
France that would be unlikely. The consensus it it will be Francois
Filon against Marine Le Pen and it will be uniting around the far right
candidate. In 2002, that is what happened. Filon is a Thatcherite.
Marine Le Pen's politics -- economics are hard left. Francois
Filon is as much a cert to win as Hillary Clinton was this time last
year. If he is competing against concerns about rising globalisation
and his pitch is Thatcherite, it is a bold, brave strategy in the
context so we will see. It will keep us busy next year, Tom? Almost as
busy as this year but not quite. This year was a record year. I am up
in my hours! That's all for today,
thanks to all my guests. The Daily Politics will be back
on BBC Two at noon tomorrow. I'll be back here
on the 15th January. Remember, if it's Sunday,
it's the Sunday Politics. The most a writer
can hope from a reader West Side Story took choreography
in a radical new direction. The dance was woven
into the storyline,