29/01/2017 Sunday Politics South East

Download Subtitles




Andrew Neil and Julia George are joined by Nigel Farage, MEP. The Political Panel consists of Janan Ganesh, Julia Hartley-Brewer and Steve Richards.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 29/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Donald Trump's travel ban on refugees and citizens of seven


mainly Muslim countries sparks protests at several US airports.


And in the South-East, we need more homes built


And is it ever possible to provide the housing needed


Should she have spoken out more strongly?


We'll ask former Ukip leader and Trump confidant Nigel Farage


what he makes of the travel ban and the Prime Minister's


In London this week, the mayor, Sadiq Khan,


has been coming under pressure to explain his fares freeze


and why it doesn't apply to everybody.


And with me, the best and brightest political


panel in the business - Steve Richards, Julia


They'll be tweeting throughout the programme.


It was soon after Theresa May left the White House on Friday that


Donald Trump signed the executive order banning citizens from seven


President Trump's 90-day ban covers Iran, Iraq,


Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Syria, from


where refugees are banned from until further notice.


Donald Trump's executive order also imposes a complete ban


on all refugees coming to the US for the next 120 days.


Mr Trump said that the ban would keep radical Islamic terrorists out


But the ban has sparked protests across the US,


as people affected and already in the air were detained


US laws have begun legal action to challenge the ban, which many


At a press conference in Ankara, Turkey, Theresa May was asked


about the refugee ban three times before giving this response...


Well, the United States is responsible for the United States'


The United Kingdom is responsible for the United Kingdom's policy


on refugees, and our policy on refugees is to have a number


of voluntary schemes to bring Syrian refugees into the country.


Downing Street later issued a statement saying:


This morning, the Treasury Minister, David Gauke, was asked why


Theresa May had refused to condemn the travel ban at yesterday's


The Prime Minister is not a shoot-from-the-hip


She wants to see the evidence, she wants


to understand precisely what the implications are.


She'd been in a series of very lengthy meetings with


President Erdogan, and she's someone who wants to see the briefing and


understand it, and then will respond to that.


I think there are times where, you know, there's always


pressure to respond within a news cycle and so on.


The important thing is, we are saying we disagree with it


We're joined now from North London by the Conservative


Should the Government in general and Theresa May in particular be more


vocal in their criticism of Donald Trump's travel bans? Well, as David


just said, it is obviously right that Theresa has now said this is an


appropriate and not something we agree with in our Government, but I


wish she had said something at the time, not least because it affects


our own citizens. One of our own MPs, Nadhim, for example, because it


is also a global crisis. She had clearly built an excellent with


Donald Trump -- she had built an excellent relationship with him, but


she could have been firmer. Mrs May hasn't said any word of criticism


about the travel bans. She refused to say anything three times in


Ankara, and it is merely an anonymous Downing Street


spokesperson that has issued the subsequent mild criticism. We have


not heard from the Prime Minister at all on this matter in terms of


criticism. No, but the spokesperson will be speaking with her blessing,


so it is clearly something she has acknowledged. As I said before, I


wish she had said something at the time. The global climate at the


moment is delicate and we need our leaders to work together to address


things like the refugee crisis. Potentially, this plays into the


hands of Daesh. It is absolutely not the right message. What would you


like the Prime Minister to say? As with any new relationship, it is


about testing the boundaries. They had clearly got on well, so she


should have felt braver to say something there and then. I would


have preferred her to say, for example, I need to talk to Donald


Trump about this. It is not something I support and I want to


understand why because I believe there is a better way to deal with


the terrorist threat. I would have liked her to suggest that she would


engage with him to do that. The president has instituted a 90 day


temporary ban on people coming from seven mainly Muslim majority


population countries. The seven were on President Obama's list of the


biggest terrorist threats to the United States. Mr Trump wants this


temporary ban until he puts tougher vetting procedures in place. What is


wrong with that? Because it appeared to me that it wasn't thought through


and it was affecting ordinary citizens and some British citizens.


It can't be right that a president in that position of power can


arbitrarily come up with executive powers like that. It has already


been challenged by his own courts. So it is not the considered approach


I want to see in a global leader. Who do you believe will be hurt by


this, given that there can be exceptions on a case-by-case basis?


I think potentially, our global reputation is going to be hurt by


this. I have been to the refugee camps in Europe myself. There are


desperate people trying to free persecution who will be hurt by


this. We are trying to heal the wounds in this country not only


because of Brexit. This is a time of coming together, not about saying it


is located discriminatory against race and religion in this way. Do


you believe that Mr Trump's state visit should go ahead? Well, he is


the leader of America, so it does need to go ahead and we need to work


with him. I believe Theresa has started in a positive manner was


that she just needs to continue in that vein. If he comes to our


country, he needs to respect the way we feel about things. But yes, he is


the president, so he does need to come to the UK. There is some debate


within Westminster as to where it is appropriate for him to speak to MPs,


but it is right that he comes. But if he does come on a state visit,


should he be granted what this country has always thought of as a


great honour, which is a joint address to both Houses of


Parliament? I haven't been an MP long enough to understand the


protocol of where is the right location for him to do that, but I


believe in the past, it has been the greatest leaders, when they have


achieved great things globally, it is Westminster Hall. But there are a


number of MPs saying that is not the most appropriate place and I am


inclined to agree. You don't think he should be accorded the privilege


of speaking to a joint session of Parliament? I think there are places


where he can do that, but Westminster Hall is not yet the


right place. Thank you for joining us.


Steve, within 24 hours, we have seen the difficulty of becoming Donald


Trump's best friend. On the one hand, it could have huge advantages,


particularly for a Brexit Britain. On the other hand, if you are going


to be his best friend, you don't have to give a running commentary on


every major thing he does. Yeah. We have learned a bit about Theresa


May, that when she has to produce a set piece speech which she has time


to prepare, she can get it totally right and sometimes more than right.


When she is faced with a fast-moving story, she is leaden footed and


can't think quickly on her feet. We know, did she regret not saying


more? Evidently she did, because we got a statement from the Downing


Street spokesperson saying more. So she can't think quickly. She's going


to have to think very quickly in response to some of the things he's


going to be doing, because she will be asked about it all the time. It


does highlight the wider danger that the assumption that the special


relationship is always a safe and fertile place to be has been proven


wrong before and I think it will be proven wrong big-time in this case.


You're shaking your head. I don't see why we are responsible for


American domestic policy. I am as appalled as the next person by what


Donald Trump has done. He said he was going to do this, which was why


I did not want Americans to vote for him. In fact, what he has


implemented is much less than what he said he would do when he was


campaigning. I have always felt that the campaigning Trump was the real


Trump. But what he has done is actually constitutional. He has the


executive power to issue this order. It is within the rules in terms of a


class of aliens deemed to be a risk to the United States. It is a 90 day


limited ban. The last president who did this was a Democrat president,


President Carter. He did it in the aftermath of the Iranian crisis.


Well, given the spate of terror attacks on American territory in


recent years, you could argue that he meant well. I don't agree with


Donald Trump. But have people from these countries that he has banned


been involved in terrorist attacks? That is the absurdity. He has not


included Egypt or Pakistan. But I don't remove everyone getting in


such a state about President Carter. The reality is that it is a legal


thing for him to do. I don't like it. But it is not my territory. It


is illegal, because they have been given a right to remain by a judge


in Brooklyn and another judging Alexandra. That is a different issue


for people who have already gone through the vetting. I don't agree


with this. However, I don't think it's reasonable to say that Theresa


May, because she wants to do a deal with Donald Trump, I don't give is


reasonable to say she have to agree with each of his policies. It is


nonsense. But the issue, Janan, is not whether she needs to agree with


him. The question is that she will be questioned about him all the time


now. And although these are matters of domestic policy, the refugee


policy is international. They speak to issues that affect Britain as


well, and I would suggest that she will not get away with this


anonymous statement from Downing Street. People will demand a she


says something on the record. She would get away with it indefinitely.


These situations will recur every time Donald Trump says or does


something contentious. She will be pressed to this associate her


administration from his. She will probably be in a better logistical


situation to do so. She has spent a big chunk of the past 72 hours in


the air. She flew from Washington to Ankara, than from Ankara to London.


We don't have Air Force One, we don't have those frictionless


communications with the ground. She would have been incommunicado for


large periods of time when this story was breaking. That doesn't


excuse the stiff response when she landed and issued a statement via


Downing Street. But during that delay, she did have a plausible


excuse. She has also got a much more tricky geopolitical situation than


many other world leaders. She has to strike a favourable trade deal with


the new US president. It is all very well people saying Justin Trudeau of


Canada was much more vociferous in his criticism of Donald Trump. He is


already in Nafta, he is not striking a new deal. For how long, we don't


know. Exactly, he's trying to stay in Nafta, but he is in a less tricky


situation than she is. Now, Theresa May's was the first


foreign leader to meet President Trump and the visit


was seen as quite a coup for the Prime Minister,


keen for a new trading relationship with the United States


in the wake of Brexit. The Prime Minister congratulated


the new US President for his "stunning election victory"


but might not have intended to be pictured walking


through the White House with him That picture of Donald Trump helping


Theresa May down the steps through the White House colonnade


will be the enduring image Mrs May said the President


told her he was "100% behind Nato". And for her part, the Prime Minister


said she would work hard to make sure other Nato countries


increased their defence spending It's been announced


that there will be a new trade negotiation agreement,


with high-level talks The hope is that this will lead


to a new trade deal between the two countries as soon as


Britain leaves the EU. Mr Trump said he believed "Brexit's


going to be a wonderful thing". On Russia, Theresa May made clear


to Donald Trump her continued


backing for sanctions. And following the controversy over


the President's support for torture, Mr Trump said he would defer


to his Secretary of Defense, General James Mattis, who argues


that the practice doesn't work. And I'm joined now by the former


Ukip leader, Nigel Farage. Do you agree with Mr Trump's


decision to ban Syrian refugees indefinitely from entering the


United States? I agree with the concept of democracy, a point which


appears to be missed by almost all commentators including the BBC. He


was elected to get tough and say he would do everything in his power to


protect America from infiltration by ISIS terrorists. There are seven


countries on that list. He's entitled to do this. I didn't ask if


he was entitled, I asked if agree with it. I do, because if you just


look at what's happening in France and Germany, if you look at Angela


Merkel's policy which was to allow virtually anyone in from anywhere,


look what it led to. You said in 2013 there's a responsibility on all


of us in the free west to help some of those people fleeing Syria


literally in fear of their lives. That's the Christian community in


virtually all of those country, it is almost too late because many have


been wiped out but if you are looking for a genuine definition of


a refugee, going back to 1951, it is someone in direct fear of


persecution of their life because of their race, religion or beliefs. But


you didn't talk about only Christians, and in January 2014 you


said, I seem to recall it was Ukip who started the debate on allowing


Syrian refugees, you seem to be in favour of allowing proper refugees


into this country. If they can be defined. Mr Trump won't let any in.


He is running American policy, not British policy. Since I made those


comments, we have had the Angela Merkel madness and I think Trump's


policy in many ways has been shaped by what Angela Merkel did. He is


fully entitled to do this, and as far as we are concerned in this


country, I would like to see extreme vetting. Since 9/11 can you name any


terrorist event in the United States that has involved refugees that have


been allowed into the country? No, in fact the terrorist events have


been US citizens radicalised. When you have a problem already, why


would you wish to add to it? I would remind you that of the eight people


that committed those atrocities in Paris, five of them had got into


Europe posing as refugees so there is an issue here. But perhaps not


for America because it has the most rigorous and lengthy screening


process in the world, especially for Syrians. You have to register with


the UN agency for refugees, which then recommend certain names to


America, they then go through biometric screening, database


screening, intelligent screenings, including four separate intelligence


agencies screening you. How more rigorous would you want it to be? It


is much more rigorous than we are or the rest of Europe. This is why we


have elections, so voters can make choices and they voted for Donald


Trump to become president and he said he would put bans in place and


then move towards extreme vetting. As far as the Syrians are concerned


he's made that decision but that's what he was voted in fourth. Since


you know him, you have met him, you are confident of his, I'm testing


you on the logic of it. Not that he's democratically elected, I'm not


asking about that, I'm trying to get the case, particularly since if you


take the seven countries of which the ban applies for 19 days, again,


of these seven countries, its citizens have not been involved in


terrorist attacks in the United States. It would be a mistake to say


it is just Muslim countries because the biggest Muslim countries in the


world have not been included in this. The point is they have made


this assessment, they bought themselves 90 days to think about


the policy. This is exactly what Trump's voters would have wanted him


to do. You said the President's rhetoric on immigrants made even you


feel very uncomfortable. Because he started by saying there was a total


ban, then amended it to say there would be vetting. My guess is that


what he will do is try to genuinely help Syrian people and he will be


talking about the creation of some safe zones. Let's see. He hasn't. We


will see. I suspect something like that is coming down the trap. What


advice did you give to the president and his advisers ahead of Theresa


May's visit? That I wanted us to talk about trade and to give the


Prime Minister the impression that actually... When she has been


surrounded by her whole career by civil servants and politicians who


say that everything takes five years or seven years or ten years, to make


it clear to the Prime Minister that if there is will, these things can


be done quickly. Isn't there a danger of a British Prime Minister


who has to deal with the president of the United States, to Ally


herself so closely with such an unpredictable, controversial


president, banning Muslims in certain ways and refugees, building


a war with Mexico, threatening trade was with other countries, thinking


of ending sanctions against Russia? I missing something here, what is


controversial about defending the Mexican border? Bill Clinton spoke


in tough terms, George Bush built six miles of fence, and because it


is Donald Trump there is uproar. So you think there is no risk of the


British by Minister being the best friend of this type of president? I


think there is no risk in putting together a trade deal and no risk in


her being the bridge between America and the rest of Nato to say to Nato


members if you don't pay your 2% he is serious so on those things there


is no risk at all. It was clear from her Lancaster house speech that the


Brexiteers in the Government had won pretty much every argument in terms


of negotiations to come out. What you want from her? She was very good


as Home Secretary, Tory party conferences, the Tory press saying


this was the new Thatcher and she failed. She even failed to control


immigration from outside the European Union so yes, it was a good


speech and for many on the Eurosceptic side of the argument, I


could scarcely believe that a British Prime Minister was saying


things which I had been roundly abused and vilified for. But I have


a feeling we may be in for a very frustrating 2017. The mood as I can


see it in Brussels is that negotiating with Britain is not a


priority, they are far more worried about Dutch elections, French


elections, German elections and possibly even Italian elections. I


worry that by the end of this year we may not have made much progress


and that's why the Trump visit suddenly things brings into focus.


What if by the middle of June, for argument 's sake, the Americans say


OK we reached this position with the British, compromised on the tough


stuff, food standards and things like that, we are ready to sign a


deal now, and Theresa May is to say actually Mr Juncker says I cannot


sign this until we leave. What will they do? They cannot throw us out,


we are living anyway. But everybody agrees you can talk about the deal,


maybe even do the heads of agreement but you cannot sign a treaty until


we have left the EU. Let me predict that at the end of this year we will


find a European Union who frankly don't want to talk to us and


countries around the world that want to get on and do things and that


will be the big tension for Mrs May over the course of this year. If the


Prime Minister is giving you everything you want on Brexit, you


agree that she's trying to get from your point of view the right things.


If she delivers on that and get Brexit on the terms of which you


approve, what's the point of Ukip? You could argue that about any


political party. If we have achieved the goal that we set out to achieve,


there are right now out there 4 million people who are Ukip


loyalists. They are delighted that by voting Ukip we got a referendum,


they will be even happier if they seek us leave the European Union and


I think there is still a gap in British politics for a party that


says it as it sees it, is not afraid by political correctness and is seen


to be on the side of the little people, and that's why, with the


Labour Party is fundamentally split, and it really is totally split over


this European question, I think Ukip is in good shape. That proposition


will be put to test at the Stoke Central by-election, one of Ukip's


best prospects in the country. Some people call it the capital of


Brexit. Labour is in chaos over Article 50, is picked a candidate to


fight Stoke Central who has described Brexit is a pile of notes.


If your successor, Paul Nuttall, cannot win the Stoke by-election,


there's not much hope for you, is there? I think he will. I've always


been told don't make predictions but I think he will win. If you doesn't


it will be tough, we will still have our 4 million loyalists, but if it


does we can actually see Labour are beatable in their heartlands and


Ukip will be off to the second big stage. Nigel Farage, thank you for


being with us. It's just gone 11.25,


you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers


in Scotland, who leave us now Coming up here in 15 minutes, I'll


be talking to our political panel. I'm Natalie Graham and this


is the Sunday Politics Coming up later, we need the houses


but where should they go? We are going to visit one corner


of Kent where a whole Join me today is the Conservative MP


for Folkestone and Hythe and chairman of the Commons Select


Committee for Culture Media and


Sport, Damian Collins. The squeeze on council budgets means


less money is going from local authorities to fund theatres,


galleries and museums. It has fallen by 20%


across England since 2010. That is according to a recent


report by the Select The report also said that more


needed to be done to address the imbalance in the money


the Arts Council gives out. London gets half of all


Arts Council funding. The South-East gets the least


per head of population. So, Damian, as a Kent MP,


did the findings of the report I think it reflected


trends we have seen. We know there is pressure on local


authority budgets and some councils But the Arts Council money that


comes from central government has been maintained and the government


recognised in many ways it is a false economy to cut arts


spending because it is not only important for culture,


but we know in the South-East it is very important for economic


regeneration, tourism, and supporting the broader


creative industries as well. And yet it has dropped


quite sharply here by 20% because of local authority


funding and that is the biggest single source of funding


for the cultural sector. So that is a worrying


trend, isn't it? The local authority funding has come


down, the Arts Council not. But if you look at successful arts


projects here what you see is partnership and that was the lesson


from the report. The arts is not delivered


by local authorities, but local authorities


play a role as partners. Partnering with organisations


like the Creative Foundation That is private money coming in,


it is relying on private money to come in alongside


the Arts Council. The lesson from this is that


successful arts organisations producing great work


here in the South-East and across the country have those


partnerships in place - private funding, some


local authority money It sounds like you are not worried,


then, about this trend The fact that it has fallen by 20%


and we know budgets are going to be What we have to look


at is that we know those financial pressures exist in local


authorities, so what is The government is keeping


its money in, but successful partnerships, working with local


arts organisations and encouraging


private investment too, We look at the success in Margate


of Turner Contemporary, the Creative Foundation,


the galleries, we see those We want to share best practice


where that is happening. We saw across the country great


examples of these cultural networks, often supported by local


authorities, but at arms length. They engage with the community


and work with others as well. It goes back to the point


I raised at the beginning about this imbalance


in funding from the Arts Council, why has the government


allowed that to happen? The Arts Council funds


lots of the major museums and galleries that


happen to be in London. One of the things that we said


in the report is that the condition of funding they should do more work


in the regions through partnerships, that could be touring exhibitions


that has been seen in Folkestone, for example, they take live


streams of performances at the National Theatre in London,


this any world cinema and Ashford. They do live streaming


from the Royal Shakespeare We see more of those kinds


of cultural collaborations with the money that may go


international institutions We also said is that as funding


for the arts increases through the Arts Council,


thatt increase should go That is the change


we would like to see. The Housing Minister says


it is a unique opportunity to boost the local economy,


jobs and provide new homes. Campaigners say it is


an overwhelming tide Two very different views of plans


to build a brand-new There is no doubt that new homes


are needed in the South-East, Our reporter has been


to a village to gauge the mood. This was a protest against plans


for new development in Shepway, including the proposal for a garden


time made up of Hundreds of people took


to the streets of Hythe in the summer, before definite plans


were drawn up. That strength of feeling remains


amongst these campaigners who lives They live near the


proposed new town. They fear such a large number


of new homes will destroy the countryside, historic sites,


and ultimately their way of life. They are joining forces


to fight the plans. I get mad when people


accuse me of nimbyism. I feel passionately about the fact


that there are people in this country who need housing,


I have members of my own family who cannot get


on the housing ladder. It is precisely because this


development will not address the issue that I'm so passionately


opposed to it. The notion that there is support


for those proposals is unproven. Within the village,


there is opposition to it. The opposition is not


because it is providing housing, no one is saying that we do not need


houses, its is the sheer scale and juggernaut


that is being thrown at this. We are in danger of losing


places that are special. The proposed new town covers a large


area south of the M20, including the former


Folkestone racecourse. You can see up to 12,000 new homes


along with community facilities as well as commercial space,


new schools and GP surgeries. There is a huge shortage


of homes in the south-east. Experts estimate that we need


to build around 53,000 new homes every year until 2020


to meet the demand. The government looks set


to make housing a major But will the drive to build more


homes prompted a backlash from core Conservative voters


in the constituencies The scheme has received government


backing and the leader of Shepway District Council believes


that large developments like this, that allowed the council to plan


properly for services, Do you not take on any


of the concerns of people Of course I take on their concerns,


but I'll still have the concerns of all those who need the jobs


and homes in the future. Everybody has to recognise


there is a problem on housing so everybody across the whole


country has to take their We will be doing as the government


requires us to do, under their rules There will be multi-tenure


in what we are building, there will be homes for rent,


there will be self build, there will be shared equity,


there will be lots of opportunities But the County Council has


a very different view. There is still a lot


of detail to come. But forgive residents


for being very sceptical of these sorts of promises because you see


time and time again with these developments, we are a crowded


part of the country, we have a lot of infrastructure


already, we are water stressed as it is, our roads are gridlocked


a lot of the time, our health and social services are at breaking


point, you have to ask The communities not


being listened to. This is development by diktat


rather than consensus. So far nothing has


been set in stone. The council is drawing up a master


plan and has started Will any amount of discussion


with the communities affected reduce their opposition to such


large-scale development or world their concerns be outweighed


by the need for more Joining us now is the director


of the Kent branch for the campaign for the protection of rural


England here in Newport. I know you share many of


the concerns raised in that report. Assuming that we do need


to build 53,000 homes a year for the next five years,


how do we go about it? CPRE is all about positive planning


and really good place making. But Shepway has already got


a thousand homes lined up plan and we feel that this


is creating a pool that is good to drive yet more


household growth in an area I can understand why the locals


feel so disenfranchised Damian, you represent


many of those locals. As we heard in that report,


it is the scale of the development that is upsetting people and people


who in many cases voted for you as a Conservative


and the local Conservative council. 30% of the land was marked out


in your film will be green space. That will mean that there are green


spaces between the existing villages This scheme will be


delivered over 30 years, But nearly all of that


land is green space now. But it is also right next


to a railway station and a motorway junction,


so the heavy infrastructure you would need to support this


development is already in place. What we want to do is consult


with the community about how We need the jobs, we need


the infrastructure, we need the houses, and we have a


site that is right next to a motorway junction,


right next to a railway station that can deliver huge economic investment


that will benefit all residents But it is not just Shepway,


other parts of the south-east are facing similar dilemmas


and it is antagonising Has there been a calculation


here by the government that because this is a safe Conservative


area, you can afford This proposal has been brought


forward by the council, they have gone to the government


saying that we believe that this site next to junction 11


of M20 would be suitable It has come from the council


they are now consulting There is a large area


of land for jobs. If a big employer wanted to come


to the Shepway area and bring high-quality jobs we don't have any


big sites for them. It is about the jobs


as well as the houses. We are hearing about


the infrastructure and the jobs That is one of the


concerns you raise. The point is that Shepway Council


has been democratically elected and they have a duty to provide


these houses, don't they? They have a duty to provide


for the objectively We know that the site was put


forward by Shepway Council in their last local plan,


two or three years ago. It was soundly rejected


by an independent inspector is being I just feel that this


is a step too far in an area So where should the 53,000


homes that we need to build on the south-east


in the next year go? We should be focussing on those


places that have already got the planning permissions,


where we can actually direct the homes that we need


to where they will regenerate towns, to where they will regenerate


villages and small market towns. We should not be building on huge


expanses of what is increasingly I have heard from government


about doing this. Wouldn't it be better


if the government pulled its finger out and made sure we could build


on land authority had planning permission,


that developers are sitting on, and then we would not have


problems like this. There are sites in Shepway


where that land is being used, but the order of magnitude


and the number of homes that we need is huge,


such right writing really get these bigger schemes that we plan over 30


years, that annex and the big heavy A lot of young people


in the district who heard about these plans say,


I want a job and I want somewhere to live and I want somewhere


I can afford to live. For young people and people on lower


incomes, the biggest cost they pay they pay is housing costs


and that is because those We need more volume,


more units to be created, and jobs will be created


for young people who will We're still waiting


for the government to publish its White Paper,


was meant to come out at the end of this month that we're


still waiting for it. Some of the language used


by ministers talking about turbo-charging house-building,


accelerating development, Why do you think they are using that


sort of tone of language? I want to see a revolution


in house-building in this country to make homeownership realistic


and affordable for most And if that means upsetting people,


building on green fields that already exist in your constituency,


you're happy with that? You have to look at key


sites that would work. There are concerns being raised


by local residents who live There are also people


in our film that oppose every We really hope we can see changes


in the planning system in The White Paper that mean


that we are doing what planning should do, protecting the green


spaces and delivering. Now it is time for some of the other


news you may have missed this week The leader of Kent County Council


has written to the Home Office to ask for more money to help cover


the costs of unaccompanied child Paul Carter says by the end of this


year the council will be looking after over a thousand asylum seekers


are now adults. A leading environmental lawyer


is challenging a council for selling of 3000 acres of its downland estate


after residents The land might be bought


by an investment fund The council says the farms


will remain farms and the footpath and downland will continue to be


open to the public. And four councils in Kent have


confirmed that they are going to consider the business case


for a merger before a final decision can be taken the public will need


to be involved and approval will be required from the


Secretary of State. If plans are approved,


it would see the district councils of Canterbury,


Dover, Shepway and Thanet, Quick question, does it


concern you that councils are selling off their land


because of budget cuts? OK, I know it concerns the CPRE,


but that is all we have time My thanks to both my


guests, Damian Collins Julia will be back here next week


with all the political news and chat air-pollution. Thank you for being


here. Welcome back and let's get back


to Donald Trump's travel ban on refugees and citizens from seven


mainly Muslim countries. Earlier, the Labour leader,


Jeremy Corbyn, told ITV that a state visit by President Trump to the UK


should not go ahead I think it would be totally wrong


for him to be coming here while that situation is going on. He has to be


challenged on this. So until the ban is lifted, you don't think he should


come? I am not happy about him coming here until the ban is lifted.


Look at what is happening with those countries. What will be the long


term effect of this on the rest of the world? Is this state visit going


to become a matter of huge political debate in this country? It would be


anyway, but it is a temporary ban, so Jeremy Corbyn is on safe


territory. It will be over by April and he is not due to come until


summer. But there are three bands. There is the 90 day ban on people


coming from the southern countries. There is the 120 day ban on refugees


from anywhere in the world, and there is the indefinite ban on


Syrian refugees. So there may still be some bans in place. But bear in


mind the number of Syrian refugees and refugees from around the world


that President Obama took over his eight years. There were years when


it was not even up to 50 Syrian refugees that were taken since the


civil war has started. This is an ongoing American policy. 12,500


Syrian refugees have come in the last year. Before that, it was a


hundred and sometimes under 50. But they are reasonable numbers now,


although not something America couldn't absorb. Donald Trump is


discovering that being a president is different from being a business


man. And Jeremy Corbyn has to learn the art of leadership, having been a


backbench MP, and has struggled to do it, as we are about to discuss


with article 50. With this, you have to dramatise the politics of this,


and this is what he has done with that statement. Most controversial


ever state visit now? I would imagine so. Even regardless of any


opposition from the opposition to trump's physical presence in the


streets, the presence of demonstrators will be an


international new story. If trump's demands for the details of the visit


are quite as extreme and as picky as some of the Sunday papers have


suggested, that could also be the source of controversy. What do you


have in mind? Isn't he anxious that only certain members of the Royal


Family turn up? He doesn't want a one-on-one with Prince Charles. Who


would, though! Some people may be sympathetic on that. It is the one


subject where he is in line with British opinion. Playing golf in


front of the Queen may be a higher priority. We have to be realistic.


Given the other people from around the world that the Queen has played


host to, like the Chinese president and Saudi kings and the like, we


have had a lot worse come to visit than Donald Trump. Brexit - how


serious our neighbour's problems on this? Very serious, but they often


are with Europe. Labour were splits when we joined in the 70s, and still


won general elections, in 1974 and 1975. There were all over the place


in terms of the single currency. Blair said one thing one day and the


opposite the next day. Brown did the same.


Brown usually set the opposite of what Blair said! They won landslide


because they have the political skills to put all of the pressure on


the major government, even though their position on the single


currency was the same as major's. It is about with Europe the art of


leadership. You have to be a political conjuror, you have to


dissemble authoritative leak when you lead a divided party over


Europe, and Jeremy Corbyn to his personal credit cannot dissemble,


but he's not an individual person on this. He's leading a split party in


danger of falling apart, and you need the skills of a political


conjurer. Clearly self-evidently he's not displaying it because we


are talking about the chaotic split which will manifest itself in that


vote on Article 50. Labour and the SNP and the Lib Dems too I would


have thought will all put amendments down to the short Article 50 piece


of legislation. Do they have any chance of succeeding? No substantial


world is changing amendments. I don't think Theresa May has much to


worry about actually. I think if anything the reason she's pushed the


legal appeal is that it helps her to have a big chunk of the media and a


big chunk of public opinion worrying that the popular will of last year


is in danger of being overturned and so even if it was a completely


hopeless legal appeal, it generated headlines for a week that as an


incumbent Prime Minister trying to execute believe vote suits you


politically. I think it is a much bigger problem for Labour, we've


already seen some Shadow Cabinet issues in the previous week. You


have got to remember it's not just a majority of Labour MPs that want to


stay in the European Union, but a majority of Labour constituencies,


and a majority of labour macro voters wanted to stay as well so we


have three lines of division. One amendment that might get through if


it was called, and it is in the hands of the Deputy speaker who will


be chairing these debates, and that will be an amendment that said


regardless of how the Europeans treat our citizens in Europe, all EU


citizens here will be afforded full rights to remain. That might get


through. It may indeed and lots of backbench MPs would backpack. We all


know there will not be mass deportations, it is not legal, it


won't happen, it is simply a negotiating tactic. I agree with


those who say you shouldn't be using people as a negotiating tactic, but


the reality as it is the EU leaders that are doing that because it's


already been offered. The remain as should be attacking the EU


governments for not offering that in return. Article 50 is the easy bit


for her. I agree with other members of the panel that she will get it


through and the court case almost helps her by getting an easy journey


through Parliament, then it gets really difficult. All of this has


been a preamble and once she begins that nightmarish negotiation, there


will be opportunities for a smart opposition to make quite a lot of


the turmoil to come. Whether Labour are capable of that, let's wait and


see. The divisions in Labour are nightmarish for them but by no means


unprecedented. Arguably it was much more complicated in the early 1970s


when you had Titans on either side, big ex-cabinet ministers... Tony


Benn... Michael Foot, they were all at it. The fundamental issue of in


or out, and they won two elections, so you have got to be really clever.


But also how money more Labour MPs will resign. We shall find out this


week. The Daily Politics is back


tomorrow at midday and all I'll be back here


on BBC one next week. Remember - if it's Sunday,


it's the Sunday Politics. a free five-a-side tournament


that's for everyone. For more information,


go to the Get Inspired website.


Andrew Neil and Julia George are joined by Nigel Farage, MEP. The Political Panel consists of Janan Ganesh of the Financial Times, Julia Hartley-Brewer of talkRADIO and journalist Steve Richards.