19/11/2017 Sunday Politics South East

Morning everyone, and welcome

to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith.

And this is your guide

to all the big stories that

are shaping politics this weekend,

and a few of the smaller ones too.

Philip Hammond is getting ready

to deliver his latest Budget

on Wednesday and he's not short

of advice - to spend more,

show restraint, even

to stop being an Eyore -

but can he change the direction

of the country and his government?

Conservative Party darling

Jacob Rees-Mogg has

some advice of his own.

He thinks the Chancellor

is being far too gloomy about Brexit

- he joins me live to explain why.

The former Leave campaign leader,

Gisela Stuart, will be here debating

with pro-EU campaigner

Alastair Campbell, after taking

a trip to her native Germany

to speak to businesses

about Brexit.

And, as we wait to find out what's

on the menu for this week's budget,

we're in a diner off

the A1 in Peterborough,

finding out who people most trust

with the economy -

Philip Hammond or John McDonnell?

Add in the south-east, the village

that is safe from a proposed lorry

park, so his operation Stack still

the

All that coming up in the programme.

And with me for for all of it,

three journalists who've promised

not to show off like Michael Gove

by using any long economicky words -

although I'm not sure they really

know that many anyway -

it's Tom Newton Dunn,

Gaby Hinsliff and Iain Martin.

Let's take a look at the big

political stories making the news

this Sunday morning,

and as you might expect there's

plenty of speculation

about what might or not might be

in Philip Hammond's Budget.

The Chancellor is promising a big

investment in new technology,

including driverless cars -

which could be on the road by 2021.

He's been interviewed

in the Sunday Times,

where he talks about plans to reach

the target of building

300,000 homes every year,

or the equivalent of a city

the size of Leeds.

That paper speculates that he's

attempting to turn from "fiscal

Phil" into "hopeful Hammond"

as he tries to set out

a vision for the country,

not just a list of numbers.

The Sunday Telegraph thinks that

Mr Hammond is planning to offer

a pay rise to nurses as part

of a bid to take on Labour.

But that hasn't impressed

Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell.

He's spoken to a number of papers

and is calling for an emergency

budget to invest in public services

and help struggling households.

So that's a taste of what you might

hear on Wednesday and Mr Hammond

and Mr McDonnell have both been

appearing this morning

on the Andrew Marr Show.

I think Britain has a very

bright future ahead of it,

and we have to embrace

the opportunities that

a post-Brexit world will offer.

They will be opportunities that

are based on huge change,

huge technological evolution.

It's not always going to be easy,

but the British people have shown

time and time again that we're up

for these challenges.

For many people out there,

this is a depression.

We've had people whose wages

have been cut by 10%.

Nurses, for example.

We've had people who are now...

1.25 million food parcels handed out

in the sixth richest

country in the world.

That's what I call a recession

for large numbers of people.

We will be talking about Labour and

their economic policies in a moment,

but let's start with what we might

expect from the budget. We will talk

to our panel of political observers.

Philip Hammond is under pressure to

set out a bold vision and reset the

government's programme. Can we

expect that?

No, we can't. We have

heard enough from the Chancellor

across various broadcast and his

article in the Sunday Times. I think

we will not be getting a bold

budget. His precise words short... A

short time ago were a balanced

budget. Some Tory hearts will think.

They desperately want something to

go out and shout about, something to

capture people's imagination, and do

big and bold things, like how on

earth are they going to build those

new 300,000 houses a year? There are

good reasons why he has chosen what

appears to be a pretty staid,

Conservative budget, and that is

that they are probably unable to get

anything bold through Parliament.

His capital is so low among Tory

MPs. If you have a minority

government, it is tricky.

We have

seen ministers on programmes like

this in the last few weeks putting

in the bids for what they would like

spending on, whether it be payment

for nurses or parliament. Would he

struggled to get something radical

through the Commons?

Big ideas cost

money. That's the problem. Bold

ideas are controversial. In some

ways, Tory MPs are asking their

Chancellor to do the impossible.

Government is already doing

something big and bold, which is

Brexit. That has implications for

how much money is available, how

many risks you want to take with

everything else. What is crucial is

that he demonstrates a reputation

for competence. The reputation that

the Conservative government has for

economic competence, that many

people prefer them to Labour on the

issue of economic competence. The

worst thing he could do is come up

with a big, bold idea that

unravelled quickly. What they

absolutely don't want is to come up

with an exciting idea that falls

apart three days after the budget.

He is under pressure from

Brexiteers, who are suspicious of

him. Does he have to offer them

something?

Part of his problem is he

has to offer so many different

people different things. This is

Philip Hammond trying to be and

dynamic.

It is hard to tell

sometimes.

At least in theoretical

terms. His longer-term difficulty is

that, if you look at the economic

cycle, we are getting to a point

where we are probably overdue, if

you put Brexit to one side, overdue

some kind of correction or downturn,

if you look what has happened to

asset prices globally. What will be

worrying for the Treasury is, just

as everyone is saying we should turn

on the taps and build this or that,

we might be at the top of a cycle,

and the Treasury will want to lose

something in the armoury in terms of

probably growing the deficit if

there are economic difficulties in

the next two years, and then there

is Brexit as well.

It sounds

impossible.

I think so. Talking to

his friends and colleagues over the

last few days, he had to make a

call, which was precisely how much

can I get away with, with my

political capital being as low as it

is, with the mixed problems he had

at the last budget, and a lot of the

party disliking his approach to

Brexit. He is damned if he is,

damned if he doesn't. Universal

Credit, we are expecting a reduction

in the time it takes to wait,

business rates, affected by high

inflation... I think we will see a

problem fixing budget which will

probably do quite a lot of important

spadework in many areas.

We will

pick up on some of this later in the

programme.

Let's speak now to the Conservative

MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, this week

he helpfully launched an alternative

"budget for Brexit" and advised

the Chancellor to be less gloomy

about the consequences

of leaving the EU.

Thank you for joining us. Your

alternative budget is pretty

radical. Almost half corporation

tax, Cap Stamp duty to help the

London market. It seems you are

advocating the opposite from what we

will hear from your Chancellor on

Wednesday.

There are two parts to

the proposals I suggested. One is

that we should show that after we

have left the European Union, the UK

is open to the rest of the world. It

is about opening up to the rest of

the world. Secondly, looking at the

modelling that has been done by the

Treasury and some other forecasters,

which has been so comprehensively

wrong. The forecasts made about what

would happen after Brexit have

turned out to be hopelessly false.

The team at Cardiff University have

done some modelling based on the

classical economic principles and

what happens if you move to free

trade that would be very positive

for the economy.

You are predicting

a Brexit dividend of £135 billion,

which sounds fantastic. Why are you

right, and everybody else, including

the Bank of England and the

Institute for Fiscal Studies, why

are they all wrong?

It depends on

the type of modelling. The modelling

that have been done by the Treasury

have been based on gravity models,

which work on the basis of the

nearness of the market and the size

of the economy you are trading with.

These have been wrong in the past.

They predicted that if we joined the

euro, trade would grow by 300%. That

was then revised down to 200%, but

it is fantasyland. The model I am

working on, by Sir Patrick Minford,

who has a record of getting these

things right. He was right about the

exchange rate mechanism, right about

the euro.

Being right in the past

doesn't mean you are right about the

future. Why do you think the

Treasury will not pick up the same

numbers, if this is so obvious to

you?

I think the Treasury was

humiliated by the errors in its

forecast prior to Brexit, and is

trying to defend its position. The

short-term economic consequences of

a vote to leave was one of the most

dishonest documents to come out of

the Treasury, purely a piece of

political propaganda. They are

wounded by that and sticking to the

same script, rather than looking at

other forecasts and other experts.

You think the governor of the Bank

of England is an enemy of Brexit,

and it sounds like you think the

Treasury is opposed to it. As the

Chancellor fallen under their spell

as well, and been persuaded to be an

enemy of Brexit?

I have admiration

the Chancellor, but George Osborne,

his predecessor, was the architect

of Project Fear. He was too close to

the Bank of England and lost his

independence. That is what needs to

change. It is an opportunity in the

budget for Philip Hammond to show he

is putting aside the Treasury's

mistakes in the past. It is very

encouraging what he is saying this

morning, about a more positive

approach to Brexit.

Lord Lawson has

accused Philip Hammond of being very

close to sabotage on Brexit. He says

we need a can-do man at the Treasury

and not a prophet of doom.

I think

that Philip Hammond is an

exceptionally intelligent man, a

very thoughtful man. It is not a bad

thing to have a Chancellor who is

serious minded and steady, rather

than one who is a showman and uses

the Exchequer to interfere in

absolutely everything.

I have a lot

of confidence in the Chancellor.

When you launched your budget for

Brexit, you said the government has

to deliver the £350 million for the

NHS that was delivered during the

referendum, even though you didn't

think that promise should have been

made. Is that something they now

need to deliver wrong?

It is. This

only happens once we have left.

Politicians have to recognise that

voters don't look at the small print

of electoral policies. If you put

£350 million on the side of a bus

and say it may be available for the

NHS, it is reasonable for people to

think that is a promise. Brexit was

won by the Leave campaign, so it it

is important that they deliver on

that promise. Politicians must keep

faith with voters and deliver on

implied promises, as well as ones

that are set out in detail.

The

Cabinet will move on to talk about

the Brexit bill this week, and we

understand they may need to come up

with more money to satisfy EU

demands. The more money spent on

that is less money available for

things like spending on the NHS. Are

you worried about the size of the

exit bill?

You have your finger on

the important point. The government

will have to choose whether to give

lots of money to the European Union,

or whether to spend money on UK

public services, and that will be

part of the negotiation. On all

these issues, it comes down to

choice is the government makes. I

would encourage the government to

choose our own domestic public

services rather than expensive

schemes in continent or Europe.

Why

are you advocating that the

government should spend up to £2.5

billion on a no deal scenario?

It is important that we are ready to

leave in the event of no deal. If we

left with no deal we would on

current figures still be saving the

remains of 18 billion so we would be

saving 15 and a half billion against

paying for the financial framework.

To show we're ready on day one would

be money well spent and most would

be needed any way. We need to have

new customs arrangements in place

even if it is not for a no deal

situation.

There are suggestions

that the Government might back down

on the idea of putting the time and

date of leaving the EU on the face

of the bill. Would you be Exxon

certained if that was -- concerned

if that was remove prd the bill?

It

is in Article 50, unless Article 50

is extended by the Council of Europe

we leave on 20th March 2019 and it

makes accepts that should be the

same in -- sense that should be in

same in domestic law. But that is a

secondary concern from my point of

view. It is important that we leave

on that date.

Stay there if you

would.

We're joined in the studio

by the former minister

Stephen Hammond.

He's no relation to the Chancellor,

but he is a member

of the Treasury Select Committee

and he's one of the Tory MPs named

as "Brexit mutineers"

by the Daily Telegraph

this week - lucky him.

I'm assured you're no relation to

the Chancellor. Let's just pick up

on what Jacob Rees Mogg was saying.

How important is it to you as a

rebel that the Government does put

the date on.

I agree with Jacob it

is in the Article 50 process, the

key reason it is important is the

negotiations look like they're going

to be tricky and longer than we

expected and it may well be that we

are still negotiating up until March

2019. We could have a short couple

of weeks period of extension. Why do

harm to the economy by falling out

on a precise time? If those

negotiations need to be extended.

They won't go on for more than a

couple of weeks, because there will

be elections in Europe in June 2019

and there is no chance of a new

commission or Parliament dealing

with this. Giving it flexibility and

with this flexibility the government

said it wants flexibility in

negotiations, why give all the

advantage to the other side? Part of

that was evidenced yesterday by

somebody suggesting they will ask

for the Margaret Thatcher rebate to

be suspended. That is as a result of

putting the date on the bill.

You

did not agree with the Brexit

committee and think it is important

that we set the date and time?

I

think it is perfectly reasonable to

set the date and time and I think

these negotiations fill the time

available. The United States and

Australia agreed a free trade deal

between April 2003 and February

2004. These things don't need to be

interm Knabl if both sides want to

agree. I think the British

electorate would be very concerned

if nearly three years after the vote

to leave, we still hadn't left. I

think most people expected that we

would have left by now. The

negotiations realistically to get

through the approval of the European

Parliament and so on need to be

completed by at the end of next

year, going up to the last minute I

don't think is real is tick.

To move

on to talk about a trade deal and

getting that done, the EU need to

agree to move on and we need to

settle the divorce, cabinet are

going to be talking about the amount

that needs to be spent on that,

Stephen what manned, are you happy

for the Government to offer more?

I

hope that the Government will stick

to the Florence speech in terms of

ensuring that we fulfil our

liabilities and obligations. I'm not

clear exactly whether that is 20

billion or 40 billion and I'm not

sure the government is. If part of

the divorce bill is then some

settlement for getting the trade

deal, we will need to examine that

carefully.

Jacob Rees Mogg, is this

that might spark another war in the

party if the cabinet suggest they're

prepared to pay more?

I think we

need to go back to what you said,

that the - the EU said they want us

to settle the money first. The

Government doesn't need to follow

that. They need our money. If we

don't pay any money for the final 21

months of the framework, the EU has

about 20 billion pounds gap in its

finances and it has no legal

requirement to borrow. So it

insolvents or the Germans and the

others pay more. So our position on

money is very strong and we

shouldn't fall into the trap of

thinking just because Mr Barnier

said it it is as if he has received

tablets of stone like Moses, he has

not.

There is a sense that the

Government feels a mo generous offer

would set a good tone, the kind of

approach that Jacob Rees Mogg

suggests would not make for smooth

relations.

It probably wouldn't. But

we have to be clear what we are

paying for and what we are getting.

No one is suggesting we should hand

over money without proper scrutiny.

It may be appropriate to put money

to facilitate international trade to

secure jobs. We have to be careful

about the analysis about what the

scale and size of Brexit dividend is

and the size of payments will be.

You mustn't confuse gross and net

and there is disagreement about some

of the numbers.

On that, Jacob Rees

Mogg in his budget for Brexit

suggests in five years time we would

have a 135 billion Brexit bonus. Do

you think it is real is tick.

He is

using some analysis that has some

flaws. It is predicting a price drop

in the United Kingdom of 10%. Tariff

drops will only be 3 or 4%. It is

predicting huge productivity gains,

the likes of which we have not seen

in 20 years. Thirdly, despite his

view on modellers there is evidence

that they weren't and if you go into

the detail of the analysis, some of

the data is 14 years out of date.

Jacob Rees Mogg, you're being

hopelessly optimistic?

I don't think

that right. I think the fall in

prices comes because you make the

economy more competitive and you

take away tariffs which reduces the

price of food by 20%. That is a big

reduction. Bear in mind that the

biggest tariffs hit food, clothing

and foot wear that, harm the poorest

in society the most. The gains from

productivity come from is in

additional tariffs. Leading to other

saving and further investment I

think the modelling done by the

professor is as good as modelling

can be. That doesn't mean it is

infallible. The failure of gravity

model is well known.

Michael Gove

was accused of auditioning for the

job of Chancellor by using long

words. Do you know any good long

economic words?

I don't think that

we want to get into this type of

business actually. I think all

Conservatives and Steven and I very

much agree on this, want to show as

united a front as we can manage.

There are differences on some

aspects of policy, but in terms of

individuals we want to stand

together and support the best

interests of the government.

Thank

you.

Brexit Secretary David Davis

was in Berlin this week trying

to win the support of business

leaders there for a comprehensive

free trade deal with the EU.

He warned them against putting

'politics above prosperity'

and reportedly got a bit

of a frosty reception.

Well, the former Labour MP

Gisela Stuart was one of the leaders

of the Vote Leave referendum

campaign.

We travelled with Gisela to Germany

to meet the business leaders

she says will help secure a good

trade deal for the UK.

Here's her film.

I was born and brought up

in this part of Germany,

and although I've lived in the UK

for the past 40 years,

and represented the constituency

of Birmingham and Edgbaston for 20

years, my family still live here,

and I've kept many links.

I was chair of Vote Leave,

and together with only a handful

of other Labour MPs,

we campaigned to leave

the European Union because we

thought the country would be

better off outside.

It's hard to remember now, but back

in the 1970s, when we joined

the European Economic Community,

people thought that by joining

the club we would see the kind

of economic miracle Germany

experienced in the '70s back home.

The "Deutsche Wirtschaftswunder"

would come to Britain.

But, of course, it didn't.

Within a few short years

of the devastation of World War II,

Germany had emerged as

the largest economy in Europe.

Germany's extraordinary

success is down to

the pragmatism of its business.

German Mittelstand is family

dominated, forward-thinking,

long-term thinking, reliability,

are very important values.

Changing moods on a political

landscape and changing frameworks

are toxic for our way of doing

business, and we want

that to go away.

German business is not given

to making big political statements

out of step with government policy,

but talk to those in decision-making

positions, and it is clear

that they want to secure a good deal

with the United Kingdom.

BMW employs almost 90,000

people here in Germany,

and exports just under

1 million cars annually.

The UK is a vital market.

What we are really seeking right now

is more clarity, more certainty,

because in our cycle of investment,

cycle of development,

it's about a seven-year or so period

that we look at,

but we are now, of course, starting

to think about what comes next,

and what we need to see now

is what is going to be

the trading relationship,

how are the logistics going to look,

what is going to be

the requirements for people

moving across the continent?

Because all of these things

are important to us today.

And, by the way, they will be just

as important tomorrow.

Berlin is well aware that

if the European Commission

is allowed to put up trade barriers

against Britain, it will be

German business, German consumers

and German employees

who will suffer.

TRANSLATION:

I think it's very

important that we complete

the first phase successfully.

The first phase of the negotiations,

which looks at the financial

consequences of Great Britain

leaving the EU.

And then it's not a question

of punishment payments.

It's about when you are part

of a multilayer, contractual

obligation and you want to leave

that, then of course it takes

a whole lot of obligations

which you have to deal with,

so both sides are satisfied and can

live with the consequences.

It isn't everyone's interests

for the UK to part on good terms.

Of course there was going to be

upset when the UK voted to leave,

but creating uncertainty over

the terms of UK's exit will simply

have a disruptive effect

on exports to UK markets.

Far better to have a sensible,

amicable negotiation that results

both sides being able to trade

together and work

together post-Brexit.

Markus Krall is managing

director of Goetzpartners,

and heads the Financial

Institution Industry Group.

Is it true to say that,

if we negotiate Brexit well,

then a good Brexit can actually

strengthen the United Kingdom,

the European Union and Germany?

It's absolutely true.

I think that this

is about two things.

One, about proving that

free trade is possible

between a European Union that is

smaller and a former member country.

If you don't prove that free

trade is possible there,

then the question becomes,

what is Europe standing for?

Number two is, I also

believe the free trade,

free market and democratic and less

bureaucratic approach that Britain

has chosen as the path

into the future is a role

model for Europe.

The time has come both

for the United Kingdom

and for the EU to be more clear

about what kind of

deal we can achieve.

Both sides need to be bold.

As long as we remain open to free

trade and sensible co-operation,

we can arrive at something that

will benefit both sides.

But one thing's obvious -

if we are an open and free trading

economy, we've got one big

cheerleader on our side,

and that is German business.

That was Gisela Stuart

setting out her case

and we'll be hearing

from the opposite side

of the argument in the coming weeks.

Gisela Stuart joins us in the studio

now, as does Alastair Campbell.

He used to work for Tony Blair

in Number 10, set up

the New European Newspaper

to campaign against Brexit,

and is so pro-European that at this

year's Labour conference

he was heard playing Ode

to Joy on the bagpipes.

Welcome both of you.

We will start with your point in the

film, that you think the German

business once the EU to offer the UK

a generous deal because it is in

their interests, yet the president

of the German equivalent of the CBI

said that defending the single

market must be the priority for the

EU, and another says that the

cohesion of the remaining member

states remains the highest priority.

The president of the CBI just after

the referendum said that it would be

in nobody 's interest to introduce

tariffs and trade barriers. On the

UK side, I don't think there's a

full understanding that economic

interests are incredibly important,

that they are trying to cover

economic interests on the cohesion

of the 27. I think different

economic interests will raise the

head of different countries. The

German auto industry is as important

as the financial sector is here. The

banking crisis is far from over, but

the big riffs which were going on is

that the E U is losing its second

biggest net contributor. Countries

like Germany want a deal with the UK

that is a free open market. There

are other tensions in the EU that

wants to become more protectionist,

and that is a bad thing.

Looking at

the film there with the Jacob

Rees-Mogg interview. No matter what

side of leave you are, it is

delusional and all driven by wishful

thinking. You could find a

businessman who says Brexit will be

good for Germany. The vast bulk of

British businesses think this is a

disaster, as do the vast bulk of

European businesses. One of the

delusions on which they ran their

campaign is the idea that they need

us more than we need them. That is

not true.

Be you self about £80

billion more in goods and services

into the UK than we do to them, and

Germany has one of the biggest

deficits. It is in their interest.

Of course it is, but it is a myth

that they need us more than we need

them. The damage that will be done

to us, even with a good deal. Let's

be frank, where these negotiations

are, Theresa May is either going to

end up with a bad deal and dumber or

no Deal. A bad deal is bad, and a no

deal is a catastrophe.

You are

setting up ideas that which were not

there to begin with and knocking

them down. Delusional.

35 billion,

the Brexit bonus.

If we had a

referendum, it was a democratic

decision. I know you don't like it

and that a lot of business would

have preferred to stay with the

status quo. We have had the

referendum. Undermining political

institutions is in no one's

interests. It is functioning

democracies which lead to economic

stability.

Theresa May fought an

election Inc on a hard Brexit that

was rejected.

As we heard from BMW,

there is uncertainty for business.

There will be elections, European

elections, in 2019. There will be a

change of the Commission and the

parliament. We have a narrow window

to implement the mandate for the

referendum which Parliament voted

for. So rather than you undermining

this country, why don't you work

together to get the best deal?

Because we totally disagree.

You

don't want a good deal?

I'm in

favour of a good deal, and I could

give them some advice as to how they

get a good deal. First, you have a

cabinet that has an agreed strategy.

18 months in, they don't have that.

I am not undermining a deal. I am

continuing to pose questions about

what they are trying to do and how

they are trying to do it. This is

democracy. Democracy is the ability

for Parliament, which is not doing

its job properly, and the public, to

keep scrutinising, and if they want

to change their mind, having the

right to do that.

You were trying to

encourage the Taoiseach yesterday to

play hardball with the UK.

I am on

the side of the UK, and I am worried

that if we go down the path that we

are being taken down, and Theresa

May and Boris Johnson and the rest

of them, this shambolic path, we are

going to do fundamental, lasting

damage to the country we love. I

don't care about the Civil Aviation

Authority. I care about Britain. --

I don't care about the European

Union. If every lorry going into the

UK today was stopped for just two

minutes, we would create an instant

17 mile traffic jam. These people

just don't care...

I am not these

people! Let us not conflate... You

either decide that you are

implementing a democratic decision

of a referendum that was called and

over 17 million voted.

You will not

stop me debating it. Just as Nigel

Farage...

Stop talking about Nigel

Farrell Raj. Vote Leave was not

Nigel Farage. There is no desire in

Germany to punish the United

Kingdom.

They are behaving

reasonably.

There is a battle of

protectionism and free market going

on. If we implement this properly,

give businesses the kind of

incentives they want, we can get a

good deal. So you want a bad deal?

You are driven by wishful thinking.

Gisela Stuart, you are saying that

business will intervene to prevent

things like tariffs being put in

place? They are leaving it a bit

late to put pressure on.

You will

find that business is laying out the

kind of things they need to get

those deals. I can find as much

fault with the speed of the

progress, but what I really do

resent is that you are actually

encouraging other countries to

undermine...

Know I am not! I spoke

out in support of the Irish

Taoiseach because I spent a lot of

time with Tony Blair and his team on

the Good Friday Agreement. The

people who are driving this hard

Brexit without thinking it through,

still no answer on how you do Brexit

in our island without a hard border.

I think the Irish Taoiseach is right

to call out the government on the

incompetence and the fact they have

not thought it through.

You accept

the result of the referendum and the

fact that we will be leaving the EU?

I accept the result of the

referendum, but I do not accept that

the country will definitely leave,

because the country is entitled to

change its mind. As the chaos and

costs mount, the public is entitled

to change its mind and will change

its mind.

There is no evidence at

the moment.

Come out with me!

Allow

me to finish the sentence. There is

a changing of mind happening, a

crystallisation. Unlike you, I have

fought five elections and I have won

five elections. I have probably

spoken to more people like you.

You

may do, I'm just saying, come out on

the road with me...

40% of the

population in the middle just want

us to get on with it. What that film

showed is that if you want to make

it a self-fulfilling prophecy that

it's a disaster, which I don't. I

want to implement a deal that is

good for British jobs. The rest of

the world is changing in terms of

technology. Currently, Germany

hasn't even got a government, and

nobody is laughing about that.

And

they are stable without a

government!

Let's leave it there.

It's coming up to 11.40,

you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up on the programme,

we'll be looking at the latest

opinion polls and we'll bring

you the results of our moodbox

asking whether Phllip Hammond

or John McDonnell should be running

the economy.

Hello, I'm Julia George,

and this is the Sunday Politics

in the south-east.

Coming up later, we'll hear

from young men in Kent who have been

affected by mental health issues.

Why do so many like them find it

so difficult to get help?

On today's programme

we are joined by Helen Wakeley,

Conservative MP for Faversham

and Mid Kent, the Labour leader

of Brighton and Hove City Council,

Warren Morgan, and we are joined

by Liam Collins who is the head

teacher of Upton's Community

College, a secondary school in East

Sussex.

It is great to have

you all with us this week.

Now in recent weeks,

parents teachers and head teachers

have been to Westminster to press

the government to announce

more money for schools

in next week 's budget.

They say school finances

are at breaking point,

setting standards and meaning larger

class sizes and fewer

subjects on offer to pupils.

So far, the Treasury has not

given any signals that

more money is coming.

Liam Collins, what is the situation?

Are you really struggling

with money now?

Yes, we are reaching a point

where the cost increases

that we are facing are starting

to have a real impact.

From next year we will be having

to spend £500 less per pupil

than we would have done five years

ago, simply because of the costs

of inflation, national insurance,

pension contributions.

At that has for us is that clearly

we take our message of spending

the public purse very carefully,

we have to make significant cuts

and in the main in schools that

means cuts to staffing.

OK, so teaching staff,

front line staff?

Front line teaching staff,

pastoral workers, associate staff

that look after the admin side

of school, and on top of that we had

a councillor that worked

with as three days per week

and we no longer can afford

to councillor working for us.

I want you to hold that thought,

because we will be talking

about young people's mental health

later on, so you have had to get rid

of, you cannot afford

the school counsellor.

That's right.

What about all things,

structure, that sort of thing?

The biggest cut that we face

is the cut to the capital

expenditure grant, which meant

that we went from £140,000 per year

to this year £12,000,

so really what we are doing is band

aid repairs to the school,

where we can, but on top

of things like that,

we have an IT system that is now

four years old and we can

replace that IT system,

so we are at that point

with lots of other areas

in the school as well.

Judging by the fact that there have

been marches to Westminster

by teachers and headteachers up

and down the country,

this is not only happening in this

one school in East Sussex.

Let's go to Warren Morgan,

leader of pregnant of City Council.

What are you hearing

from your schools?

We have had a delegation of parents

and teachers led by Steve Coogan

who is a Brighton resident,

go up and project some

of the statistics on to the side

of the House of Commons.

Now we are facing a small increase

but it is not enough to keep up

with the pressures of cost inflation

and we are worried that

the standards in our schools

will start to slip at a time

when we need our pupils

to be competitive.

Helen Wakeley, what are you hearing

from schools where you are?

And do you talk to them

about the financial pressures?

Yes, since I have been an MP I have

had many conversations with schools

and parents in my area,

and the good news that my area,

like Liam's area, it is one

that is benefiting from an increase

in funding source schools

in Faversham and Kent

are getting a 6% increase,

some of our worst funded schools

are getting more than 10% rise

in their funding and headteachers

have said to me they think this

is really good news and the really

welcome the increase in funding

and it is going to take the pressure

off them and enable them to make

the investments they want to make.

They clearly don't think it is

enough otherwise they would not be

marching on Westminster.

Liam Collins, here is a chance,

what did you want from

the Chancellor in the budget?

For as we want a fair funding

across the whole of the UK,

that is the first part of it.

If my school where in Greenwich

for example I would get

an additional million

pounds per year.

I would also want more funding

across the whole education system.

For as we have a 2% increase next

year which is again, that's great,

but it does not cover anything

near the cost that we have coming

out at the same time so a 2%

increase in legal fees with a 9%

increase in our cost

is still, you can do

the maths, a 7% cut overall.

Warren Morgan, let's not

about what the £1.3 billion extra

that the government like the tell us

it is giving to schools.

To be clear, we know

it is not new money,

it is in the department already.

But it is still extra for schools.

It is nowhere near enough to offset

the 3 billion real terms cut

that this government has enacted

since they came to power in 2010.

So the reality is that school

budgets are falling back

and at a time where as we will

discuss later, there are issues

like mental health to address

and the best place to address them

is through early intervention

in schools, and we can see that

schools can't afford to do that.

1.3 billion, Helen Wakeley,

it is not new money.

It is in the department already.

Interesting the most senior civil

servant in the Department

for Education has recently admitted

they have not yet worked out

where that is, the 1.3 billion,

or indeed where all of it is going

to come from.

The right thing the department

is doing is looking for efficiencies

within it to make sure that as much

money as possible goes

to the front line in schools.

That is the right...

But they have not found that money.

Schools themselves have made

efficiency savings and I know

it is tough in schools in the last

few years, the good thing is that

now the money they are getting

is going up and it is fantastic.

I do think, we know that even doing

the squeeze over the last few years,

school standards have improved

and now is the time really to move

the conversation on and be focusing

on making the most of the money

that we have.

Should we move the conversation

on our keep hammering the government

on why it is that they are spending,

for instance, we know that

per capita, in relation to GDP,

we are as this is an Oxfam study,

we are 109th out of 152

countries on education

spending as a share of GDP.

You are seeing her spending

is fantastic, we are behind

Kazakhstan and Cambodia.

We spend more than Germany

and Singapore, both of those

countries are doing better than us,

so money is not

the whole answer here.

What really matters is having really

great teaching and really great

experience for pupils in schools

and moving beyond the academic

to vocational opportunities,

we have T levels coming...

But schools are scrapping vocational

subjects because they haven't got

enough money to run them.

Saw a few weeks ago

I was at the Abbey School

which is doing a particular

vocational study, they are investing

in that right now so we are seeing

really great vocational stuff

going along side

the academic subjects.

Liam Collins.

Clearly from a school 's point

of view we are not talking

about the fact that in East Sussex

we are heading for class

size is well above 30,

and if you look at as getting

the same amount of money is Hackney,

we are talking about 3300 extra

teachers that we can employ.

Education is going to suffer.

We are faced with a class of 30-32,

it becomes harder, 35 it

becomes really hard.

As you start to hear about schools

that are teaching classes of 40.

Can I pick up on the

point about Hackney?

Because I am one of the MPs that has

worked really hard for us

to have a fair funding formula...

Hold on a second, on the fair

funding formula, this week,

today, these questions

are about the budget,

it is about the whole pot.

Fair funding is one thing

about dividing up the pot

but the question this week is surely

is the pot big enough

in the first place?

We have to be careful

that it is a fair funding

formula that we have,

that similar schools in different

parts of the country will now be

getting similar amounts of money

and the school in a more deprived

area with more challenging,

challenged pupils, will of course

have to get extra money...

Can I just say...

you cannot just get extra money...

The money that I have talked

about has no deprivation in it,

that is just the pier pupil funding.

Hackney almost get double

the amount of money that

skills in East Sussex get.

Warren, you want to come in on this.

In Maidenhead in the Prime

Minister's own constituency

to schools this week have appealed

to parents to provide them

with the most basic equipment

for teaching children,

my partner is a special,

is a special needs teacher

in a school and she has

had her hours cut back

to two days per week.

This cannot be right

if we as a nation are going

to compete with Germany

and Singapore post Brexit

as the government seems

to expect we will.

A really quick thought

from Helen Wakeley,

because you are the PPS

to Justine Greening,

Justin Greening is the Secretary

of State for Education

and you will know what nobody else

in this room can tell us,

has she had a discussion

with the Chancellor?

And did she walk away

happy about the budget?

To be clear I am here in my capacity

as the member of Parliament

for Haversham and mid Kent 's...

But you are also the PPS

to Justine Greening...

You, like me, will have to be little

when the next week to find out

what is in the budget.

So has she had a conversation?

As I said we have to wait

until Wednesday next week to find it

what is in the budget.

OK, that does not tell

is whether she has had

the conversation or not

or whether she walk away happy

but I understand that is as far

as Helen Wakeley wants to go

on that one.

Now we have all talked about how

this leads into our next subject,

I wonder if your child has had

to wait for help with self harm,

anorexio, crippling

anxiety, or depression.

The money available for young

people's mental health treatment

does vary dramatically from place

to place, in Canterbury in average

of £60 is spent on each child

who uses CALMS but it is just

£11 in Hastings.

Our reporter Briony Williams has

meant the young people from Kent

who has managed to get help

with their mental health problems

but only thanks to a charity.

Hi, my name is Matt,

and when I was 13 I developed

an eating problem.

Hi, my name is Ollie,

I suffer from severe anxiety

and I used to punch walls

as a way of coping.

I am Will, I suffered with isolating

myself and over exercising,

and now I have learned that is not

the best way to deal with it.

Matt, Ollie and Will are all

from Folkestone and have suffered

with mental health problems.

The impact on their lives

has been enormous.

If I had carried on going the way

I was I would be a very unhealthy

and maybe my career in sport

would have been a lot shorter.

Because I would have

been over exercising

and I would have burned out.

If I got really worked up

I would punch walls or kick out,

kicks bins or something,

stupid little petty

things, easily avoidable.

I was scared because I was scared

of the judgment, I was not really

getting it but if someone looked

at me I would instantly

think, do I look fat?

Do I look awful?

Why are they looking at me?

And then sometimes I would just go

without eating for days on end.

But Matt Ollie and Will are not

alone, in 2015 across the Southeast

just under 47,000 young people

where referred to child and

adolescent mental health services.

Around two thirds were put

on a waiting list for treatment

and just over 9000 were turned away.

Not only that, many children wait

a long time to be seen by mental

health professionals and some just

fall out of the system.

A major report by the children's

Commissioner for England published

last month recommended young

people's mental health services need

a complete overhaul.

The earlier you help someone,

the earlier the offer support

treatment, the it is,

the shorter the long-term impact

of that is going to be.

Children tell me that they struggle

to get support, that is either

someone to talk to in the first

instances where problems develop

or indeed appointments and referrals

into the more specialist CALMS.

And research I undertook last year

showed that actually even children

with life-threatening conditions,

a significant number of them,

about 14%, where being turned away.

When Theresa May became

Prime Minister she stood

on the steps of Downing Street

and said she wanted to make mental

health a priority and to fight

the burning injustice that those

with mental health problems face.

In the past year, the NHS has spent

an extra £100 million on mental

health services for young people.

But in a recent report

by the health watchdog

the Care Quality Commission,

it made clear that services

across the country are patchy so it

makes it very difficult to tell

whether vulnerable people

in the south-east are getting

the care that they need.

If Matt, Ollie and Will had been

referred to child and adolescent

mental health services in Kent,

they would have been turned away

because there are issues

were not severe enough.

Instead they have all had help

from the charity AdAction but has

created its own schools programme

to give early support

to those suffering.

I think at the moment

there is a really big gap

between what universal services can

support in Kent and what specialist

mental health services are picking

up in terms of referrals for young

people, what we are trying to do

is to bring some of that gap,

identify young people earlier rather

than later so we can try and support

them in the best way possible.

It is majorly important that people

like Addaction into schools

because otherwise there are some

people who you look

at them and you think, oh,

nothing is wrong with them,

but inside they are deeply hurting.

Having someone to talk

to and being in the situation

and talking about it is a big help

because I have been able to feel

comfortable about talking

about mental health.

Now I am happy with my friends,

my life at school, my life at home

and everything about it,

and being able to talk about things

comfortable as well and spreading

the message and making sure that

other, especially male teenagers

are able to talk about things that

might be going on in your life

is a very rewarding feeling.

Liam Collins, you work

with children, young people,

everyday, why do you think so many

seem to be suffering

from mental health problems?

I think the pressure with young

people is far greater than I can

remember when I was a teenager,

and just the simple fact of dealing

with the pressures of exams,

it seemed less important

when I was in school to get the best

exam results you could because there

were lots of skilled options

you could take, and that is

part of the pressure.

That pressure starts very early,

you get students that arrive

with others in year seven

who are already anxious about exams

after their SATS primary school,

and on top of that, social media

is clearly linked heavily

to how students feel

about themselves, about the pressure

that they are under.

That has just as much to do

with reading how perfect someone

else's life on social media

is as it is about getting horrible

comments about your own

life on social media.

I just think that everything is very

heightened for young people now,

and I think that we need to spend

more time working with those young

people, giving them out

of the starting point

for their own first aid

about mental health.

Helen, you run the parliament

to grip on mental health

and I know that you are,

you have done a lot of thinking,

perhaps none of us have really got

the answers as to why it happens

to so many young people,

what do you think?

I think this is very true,

we don't understand enough

about what is at the root

of the rise in mental health

problems with young people,

we know that there are factors,

we know that there is pressure

at school and we know that social

media is probably a factor,

sleep deprivation, teachers talk

about, lifestyle changes,

problems at home, there could be

many factors contributing to this.

I think one of the things we have

to do as a country is really

understand what is at the root

of the problem, what is causing

the mental health problems will be

make sure we take the right action

as a country to help these kids.

Do you want to add to

that at all, Warren?

I think one of the things

that we see in Brighton and Hove

is where you have an increase

in poverty, and increase in in work

poverty where families are working

to the jobs to make ends meet,

and those children are not getting

the help and attention

that they might need

from their parents,

so there are social factors in play

here as well as social media,

as well as the exam pressure.

It is, located, isn't it?

There is a desperate

need for more funding.

Liam, I must press you are the fact

that the Lib Dem peer Baroness Darcy

this week called for a dedicated

councillor in every school.

You have just let

yours go school, why?

Because we just can't afford them.

It is a simple amount of money,

the councillor cost us

nearly £18,000 a year.

I have to make a choice

between having a teacher teaching

a curriculum in a school

or a counsellor so what we are doing

is we are making sure

that we still have a counsellor

on the school site,,

we use our hardship fund

on the school site,

we use our hardship fund

which is where we raise money

for that fund, to pay for students

who can afford the counsellor

and then we means test other

students coming in.

Coming back to social factors

briefly, we talk about middle-class

neglect in the school that I am at,

parents are working very hard,

they leave in the morning at five

a:m., get the train to London,

comeback at 8-9 o'clock at night,

and the students also have a real

issue in terms of having a close

relationship with parents.

Let's talk about the

government respond at here.

What people remember Theresa May

about one year ago standing

on the steps of Downing Street

and talking about the fact

that she wanted parity

for mental health alongside

physical health issues.

Leading mental health charities not

long ago I think it was a fortnight

ago wrote a letter to ministers

accusing the premise of sitting out

an ambitious targets,

they say services cannot go

on with current levels of funding.

People don't feel that she has lived

up to that promise at all.

People who work in this field.

What I see and I spend a lot of time

with people in the mental

health campaign groups,

whether it is Rethink, Mind,

these organisations,

they feel a lot is going on.

To improve middle health.

One of the things they Prime

Minister did is she launched a seat

you see review of mental health

in young people, the first time that

sort of thing has been done,

which reported that in the summer

and came back with similar

conclusions to the children's

Commissioner, that mental health

services are not good enough,

too patchy, not enough data.

So doing something is getting

someone to point out

that it is terrible and not enough

is being done?

The starting point, one

of the problems with mental health

services for children and young

people is a huge lack

of data, that is one

of the points of the children's

Commissioners report.

The introduced a set

of metrics to start measuring

but it is not enough.

We do not enough evidence.

And as it were talking

about a moment ago there is not

enough understanding

of what is causing these

problems, we must make sure

we understand what is going on.

Everyone is talking

about the dangers of the wait

for treatment, have you seen

children who have had to wait long

periods of time for referrals?

Yes, we spent a lot of time talking

to students about mental health

and then we recognise students that

have mental health problems

and they are looking at 18

month waiting lists.

To even get to CALMS.

To even get to CAMS.

Warren?

Every day, every week,

every month is too long a wait

for a child who needs that support,

who needs that well funded

service to intervene.

We have in Brighton and Hove,

we have community mental health

nurses going into primary

and secondary schools

to provide that help,

we have campaigned like I am whole

which encourage a challenge

to the stigma of mental health,

but we can't wait, we need funding

in the budget to be able

to support those services.

In the report from the children's

Commissioner, it said even children

with life-threatening conditions,

14% of them are being turned away.

We don't eat data or metrics

to note that that is wrong,

and something needs to be

done about it.

Certainly we need action to be taken

out of the two provide prompt

services to children and as you say

the waiting times are

just not acceptable,

whether it is life-threatening

or some of the long waiting times

for instance for autism diagnosis,

so we need action taken quickly

and it is not just about

the money, there is a whole

workforce challenge here.

And I know that the local children

and adolescent mental health

service known as CALMS,

they are working really

hard on making sure

that they have the workforce

and are training people up

to provide middle health care,

it is not just money,

it is having the people to do it.

Liam, at this point,

thank you so much for joining us

to talk about your school

and children's mental health,

it has been really lovely to have

you with us on the programme today.

Thank you.

Now we move on to a story that

Helen is going to talk

to as a little bit about,

can Kent hope with

more Operation Stack?

Thousands of lorries blocking

the M20 when there are delays

at Dover for Eurotunnel.

We might have to cope with more

of it, the government has withdrawn

plans for a huge lorry parked

near Hyde which was supposed

to solve the problem.

Here is a flavour of

the reaction to that decision.

This was only ever a knee

jerk political decision,

because at the time of July 2015,

that summer of Operation Stack,

the governments did not

like seeing it in the news.

They just needed to listen

to what the solutions

were at the solutions

are to have an integrated suite

of solutions to deal

with Operation Stack,

not one bit lorry park.

It is fantastic news.

It is good news for the people

of Stanford and it is good news

for common sense because we have

said from the start

that the thing would never work.

We need further action quickly

to make sure that Operation Stack

is managed as well as possible.

It has had a huge impact

on our industry and the people

of Kent in the past that it has got

to get better.

So some of the villagers nearby

delighted, that the road haulage

people are not impressed at all,

and we saw some of those pictures.

This does mean more Operation Stack

the minute everything goes wrong

at Dover and Eurotunnel,

that is the only solution.

My position on it is that we cannot

go back to what we had

in the summer of 2015,

we cannot have the M20 closed

and Kent at a standstill,

which was a nightmare

whether it was for people

getting their kids to school,

getting to hospital,

businesses, we cannot

have that again.

I know the government tried to do

the best they could and fast forward

having a lorry park and that has

not worked out.

We can't let the government off

the hook that easily,

they clearly did not do the job

properly because if they had it

would not have had the financial

obligations on back interfaces.

This was a mess up, I nearly

said something more rude

by the government, wasn't it?

I know they were tied to do it

as quickly as possible,

it was always going to be very

difficult to do such a major thing.

How much money has been wasted?

Some people have said £15 million

on getting to the point

where they have had to say actually

be can't do it after all.

The key thing is they have

recognised they cannot defend this

judicial review in the moving

on and there are two things

that they are moving on to do.

One is beginning the process to go

through the proper planning process

so we can have the lorry holding

areas that we need and the other

is there are much more innovative

solutions being talked

about and I am reassured by this,

that if we have to use

the M20 for lorries,

if that should happen,

we can keep it flowing to ways

which is what we want.

We have heard about movable

barriers but all of that

is going to take time.

Let's talk about March 2019.

We are supposed to be leaving

the EU and if there is,

and there clearly is at the moment,

it does not look like there will be

any contingency in place,

you have heard the select committee

this week talking about

Operation Stack on steroids.

It will be so bad if there is a mess

up at the port if there are problems

with customs that we have not

seen anything yet.

Clearly that would be

absolutely unacceptable.

My colleague Charlie Elphick

deserves some credit for this,

he has been doing a huge amount

of work pushing the government

to make sure they are looking

at the processes at Dover

and the customs and to make sure

that, Brexit date we have

smoothly flowing traffic.

We don't have that long

to wait until that.

Thank you both and thank

you to Warren and Helen.

That is it for this week.

We will be back next week

with all of the news and chat

Philip Hammond will deliver his

Budget on Wednesday -

he's moved it to the Autumn

if you remember - and he'll be

hoping it can help re-define

the Government in the eyes

of the public.

But when it comes to

the economy, do people trust

the Conservatives, or Labour?

Here's Ellie Price

with the moodbox.

MUSIC: The Road to Nowhere

by Talking Heads.

All eyes will be on the Chancellor

this week as we find out

what he has been cooking

up in his Budget.

So we have pulled off the A1

near Peterborough to ask people here

who they trust with the economy -

is it the Chancellor,

Philip Hammond, or is it

Labour's John McDonnell?

No 7.

Which one's Tory?

I voted Conservative

for the last two

elections, don't feel very confident

now, so I'm going to swap.

If I said to you which

of these characters

would you trust with the economy,

what would you say?

The one who's currently

running it, because they

seem to be bringing

the deficit down.

Labour.

Why?

Because I'm an NHS worker.

For me, it's just about

spending, public spending.

Labour always overspend.

John McDonnell, I think

capitalism as we know it is tanked

and I think we need

a radical re-think.

Broken his egg, who do you trust

more on the economy?

No one.

Why?

Because they never come up trumps

with anything that they

reckon they're going to do.

If I had to make you

choose one of them?

The man that's there, Hammond.

I wouldn't trust

Philip Hammond with a

bag of marbles or a plastic ball!