:00:39. > :00:40.Morning, folks, and welcome to the Sunday Politics.
:00:41. > :00:42.Hard line remainers strike back at Brexit.
:00:43. > :00:45.Are they trying to overturn the result of June's referendum
:00:46. > :00:48.by forcing a second vote before we leave?
:00:49. > :00:51.Australia's man in London tells us that life outside the EU "can be
:00:52. > :00:55.pretty good" and that Brexit will "not be as hard as people say".
:00:56. > :00:58.Could leaving the EU free Britain to do more business
:00:59. > :01:04.It's been called "disgusting, dangerous and deadly"
:01:05. > :01:07.but how polluted is our air, how bad for our health,
:01:08. > :01:16.In the South, who doesn't love the Christmas lights in the town centre?
:01:17. > :01:26.The question is, who And with me in the Sunday Politics
:01:27. > :01:30.grotto, the Dasher, Dancer and Prancer of political
:01:31. > :01:33.punditry Iain Martin, They'll be delivering tweets
:01:34. > :01:42.throughout the programme. First this morning,
:01:43. > :01:47.some say they will fight for what they call a "soft Brexit",
:01:48. > :01:51.but now there's an attempt by those who campaigned for Britain to remain
:01:52. > :01:54.in the EU to allow the British people to change their minds -
:01:55. > :01:57.possibly with a second referendum - The Labour MEP Richard Corbett
:01:58. > :02:01.is revealed this morning to have tried to amend European
:02:02. > :02:02.Parliament resolutions. The original resolution called
:02:03. > :02:05.on the European Parliament to "respect the will
:02:06. > :02:08.of the majority of the citizens of the United Kingdom
:02:09. > :02:24.to leave the EU". He also proposed removing
:02:25. > :02:29.the wording "stress that this wish must be respected" and adding
:02:30. > :02:32."while taking account of the 48.1% The amendments were
:02:33. > :02:44.proposed in October, but were rejected by a vote
:02:45. > :02:47.in the Brussels Constitutional Affairs Committee
:02:48. > :02:49.earlier this month. The report will be voted
:02:50. > :02:51.on by all MEPs in February. Well, joining me now from Leeds
:02:52. > :03:01.is the Labour MEP who proposed Good morning. Thanks for joining us
:03:02. > :03:07.at short notice. Is your aim to try and reverse what happened on June
:03:08. > :03:11.23? My aim with those amendments was simply factual. It is rather odd
:03:12. > :03:16.that these amendments of two months ago are suddenly used paper
:03:17. > :03:21.headlines in three very different newspapers on the same day. It
:03:22. > :03:27.smacks of a sort of concerted effort to try and slapped down any notion
:03:28. > :03:32.that Britain might perhaps want to rethink its position on Brexit as
:03:33. > :03:37.the cost of Brexit emerges. You would like us to rethink the
:03:38. > :03:43.position even before the cost urges? I get lots of letters from people
:03:44. > :03:50.saying how one, this was an advisory referendum won by a narrow majority
:03:51. > :03:53.on the basis of a pack of lies and a questionable mandate. But if there
:03:54. > :03:56.is a mandate from this referendum, it is surely to secure a Brexit that
:03:57. > :04:01.works for Britain without sinking the economy. And if it transpires as
:04:02. > :04:05.we move forward, that this will be a very costly exercise, then there
:04:06. > :04:09.will be people who voted leave who said Hang on, this is not what I was
:04:10. > :04:14.told. I was told this would save money, we could put it in the NHS,
:04:15. > :04:28.but if it is going to cost us and our Monday leg, I
:04:29. > :04:32.would the right to reconsider. But your aim is not get a Brexit that
:04:33. > :04:35.would work for Britain, your aim is to stop it? If we got a Brexit that
:04:36. > :04:38.would work for Britain, that would respect the mandate. But if we
:04:39. > :04:41.cannot get that, if it is going to be a disaster, if it is going to
:04:42. > :04:44.cost people jobs and cost Britain money, it is something we might want
:04:45. > :04:49.to pause and rethink. The government said it is going to come forward
:04:50. > :04:55.with a plan. That is good. We need to know what options to go for as a
:04:56. > :04:59.country. Do we want to stay in the single market, the customs union,
:05:00. > :05:03.the various agencies? And options should be costed so we can all see
:05:04. > :05:11.how much they cost of Brexit will be. If you were simply going to try
:05:12. > :05:15.and make the resolution is more illegal, why did the constitutional
:05:16. > :05:24.committee vote them down? This is a report about future treaty
:05:25. > :05:29.amendments down the road for years to come. This was not the main focus
:05:30. > :05:35.of the report, it was a side reference, in which was put the idea
:05:36. > :05:46.for Association partnerships. Will you push for the idea before the
:05:47. > :05:51.full parliament? I must see what the text is. You said there is a
:05:52. > :05:57.widespread view in labour that if the Brexit view is bad we should not
:05:58. > :06:02.exclude everything, I take it you mean another referendum. When you
:06:03. > :06:08.were named down these amendments, was this just acting on your own
:06:09. > :06:14.initiative, or acting on behalf of the Labour Party? I am just be
:06:15. > :06:19.humble lame-duck MEP in the European Parliament. It makes sense from any
:06:20. > :06:24.point of view that if the course of action you have embarked on turns
:06:25. > :06:28.out to be much more costly and disastrous than you had anticipated,
:06:29. > :06:32.that you might want the chance to think again. You might come to the
:06:33. > :06:38.same conclusion, of course, but you might think, wait a minute, let's
:06:39. > :06:42.have a look at this. But let's be clear, even though you are deputy
:06:43. > :06:50.leader of Labour in the European Parliament, you're acting alone and
:06:51. > :06:54.not as Labour Party policy? I am acting in the constitutional affairs
:06:55. > :06:58.committee. All I am doing is stating things which are common sense. If as
:06:59. > :07:02.we move forward then this turns out to be a disaster, we need to look
:07:03. > :07:09.very carefully at where we are going. But if a deal is done under
:07:10. > :07:13.Article 50, and we get to see the shape of that deal by the end of
:07:14. > :07:18.2019 under the two-year timetable, in your words, we won't know if it
:07:19. > :07:22.is a disaster or not until it is implemented. We won't be able to
:07:23. > :07:31.tell until we see the results about whether it is good or bad, surely?
:07:32. > :07:36.We might well be able to, because that has to take account of the
:07:37. > :07:39.future framework of relationships with the European Union, to quote
:07:40. > :07:44.the article of the treaty. That means we should have some idea about
:07:45. > :07:48.what that will be like. Will we be outside the customs union, for
:07:49. > :07:51.instance, which will be very damaging for our economy? Or will we
:07:52. > :07:56.have to stay inside and follow the rules without having a say on them.
:07:57. > :08:00.We won't know until we leave the customs union. You think it will be
:08:01. > :08:04.damaging, others think it will give us the opportunity to do massive
:08:05. > :08:09.trade deals. My case this morning is not what is right or wrong, we will
:08:10. > :08:13.not know until we have seen the results. We will know a heck of a
:08:14. > :08:16.lot more than we do now when we see that Article 50 divorce agreement.
:08:17. > :08:20.We will know the terms of the divorce, we will know how much we
:08:21. > :08:25.still have to pay into the EU budget for legacy costs. We will know
:08:26. > :08:29.whether we will be in the single market customs union or not. We will
:08:30. > :08:34.know about the agencies. We will know a lot of things. If the deal on
:08:35. > :08:38.the table looks as if it will be damaging to Britain, then Parliament
:08:39. > :08:42.will be in its rights to say, wait a minute, not this deal. And then you
:08:43. > :08:47.either renegotiate or you reconsider the whole issue of Brexit or you
:08:48. > :08:50.find another solution. We need to leave it there but thank you for
:08:51. > :09:00.joining us. Iain Martin, how serious is the
:09:01. > :09:04.attempt to in effect an wind what happened on June 23? I think it is
:09:05. > :09:08.pretty serious and that interview illustrates very well the most
:09:09. > :09:13.damaging impact of the approach taken by a lot of Remainers, which
:09:14. > :09:18.is essentially to say with one breath, we of course accept the
:09:19. > :09:21.result, but with every action subsequent to that to try and
:09:22. > :09:25.undermine the result or try and are sure that the deal is as bad as
:09:26. > :09:30.possible. I think what needed to happen and hasn't happened after
:09:31. > :09:35.June 23 is you have the extremists on both sides and you have in the
:09:36. > :09:40.middle probably 70% of public opinion, moderate leaders, moderate
:09:41. > :09:50.Remainers should be working together to try and get British bespoke deal.
:09:51. > :09:54.But moderate Leavers will not take moderate Remainers seriously if this
:09:55. > :10:04.is the approach taken at every single turn to try and rerun the
:10:05. > :10:08.referendum. He did not say whether it was Labour policy? That was a
:10:09. > :10:13.question which was ducked. I do not think it is Labour Party policy. I
:10:14. > :10:19.think most people are in a morass in the middle. I think the screaming
:10:20. > :10:22.that happens when anybody dares to question or suggest that you might
:10:23. > :10:26.ever want to think again about these things, I disagree with him about
:10:27. > :10:31.having another referendum but if he wants to campaign for that it is his
:10:32. > :10:35.democratic right to do so. If you can convince enough people it is a
:10:36. > :10:41.good idea then he has succeeded. But the idea that we would do a deal and
:10:42. > :10:45.then realise this is a really bad deal, let's not proceed, we will not
:10:46. > :10:51.really know that until the deal is implemented. What our access is to
:10:52. > :10:55.the single market, whether or not we are in or out of the customs union
:10:56. > :10:59.which we will talk about in a minute, what immigration policy we
:11:00. > :11:04.will have, whether these are going to be good things bad things, surely
:11:05. > :11:09.you have got to wait for four, five, six years to see if it has worked or
:11:10. > :11:13.not? Yes, and by which stage Parliament will have voted on it and
:11:14. > :11:18.there will be no going back from it, or maybe there will. We are talking
:11:19. > :11:21.now about the first three months of 2019. That is absolutely the moment
:11:22. > :11:35.when Parliament agrees with Theresa May or not. One arch remain I spoke
:11:36. > :11:44.to, and arch Remainiac, he said that Theresa May will bring this to
:11:45. > :11:51.Parliament in 2019 and could say I recommend that we reject it. What is
:11:52. > :11:54.he on or she? Some strong chemical drugs! The point is that all manner
:11:55. > :12:00.of things could happen. I don't think any of us take it seriously
:12:01. > :12:06.for now but the future is a very long way away. Earlier, the trade
:12:07. > :12:08.Secretary Liam Fox was asked if we would stay in the customs union
:12:09. > :12:15.after Brexit. There would be limitations on what
:12:16. > :12:19.we would do in terms of tariff setting which could limit the deals
:12:20. > :12:25.we would do, but we want to look at all the different deals. There is
:12:26. > :12:29.hard Brexit and soft Brexit as if it is a boiled egg we are talking
:12:30. > :12:33.about. Turkey is in part of the customs union but not other parts.
:12:34. > :12:41.What we need to do is look at the cost. This is what I picked up. The
:12:42. > :12:45.government knows it cannot remain a member of the single market in these
:12:46. > :12:49.negotiations, because that would make us subject to free movement and
:12:50. > :12:53.the European Court. The customs union and the Prime Minister 's
:12:54. > :12:58.office doesn't seem to be quite as binary, that you can be a little bit
:12:59. > :13:01.in and a little bit out, but I would suggest that overall Liam Fox knows
:13:02. > :13:07.to do all the trade deals we want to do we basically have to be out. But
:13:08. > :13:12.what he also seems to know is that is a minority view in Cabinet. He
:13:13. > :13:17.said he was not going to give his opinion publicly. There is still an
:13:18. > :13:25.argument going on about it in Cabinet. When David Liddington
:13:26. > :13:27.struggled against Emily Thornbury PMQs, he did not know about the
:13:28. > :13:32.customs union. What is apparent is Theresa May has not told him what to
:13:33. > :13:40.think about that. If we stay in the customs union we cannot do our own
:13:41. > :13:45.free trade deals. We are behind the customs union, the tariff barriers
:13:46. > :13:50.set by Europe? Not quite. Turkey is proof of the pudding. There are
:13:51. > :13:55.limited exemptions but they can do free trade with their neighbours.
:13:56. > :14:02.Not on goods. They are doing a trade deal with Pakistan at the moment, it
:14:03. > :14:06.relies on foreign trade investment but Europe negotiates on turkey's
:14:07. > :14:11.behalf on the major free-trade deals. This is absolutely why the
:14:12. > :14:16.customs union will be the fault line for the deal we are trying to
:14:17. > :14:19.achieve. Interestingly, I thought Liam Fox suggested during that
:14:20. > :14:23.interview that he was prepared to suck up whatever it was. I think he
:14:24. > :14:31.was saying there is still an argument and he intends to win it.
:14:32. > :14:37.He wants to leave it because he wants to do these free-trade deals.
:14:38. > :14:42.There is an argument in the cabinet about precisely that. The other
:14:43. > :14:46.thing to consider is in this country we have tended to focus too much on
:14:47. > :14:50.the British angle in negotiations, but I think the negotiations are
:14:51. > :14:54.going to be very difficult. You look at the state of the EU at the
:14:55. > :15:00.moment, you look at what is happening in Italy, France, Germany,
:15:01. > :15:05.look at the 27. It is possible I think that Britain could design a
:15:06. > :15:08.bespoke sensible deal but then it becomes very difficult to agree
:15:09. > :15:16.which is why I ultimately think we are heading for a harder Brexit. It
:15:17. > :15:20.will be about developing in this country.
:15:21. > :15:23.So, we've had a warning this week that it could take ten years
:15:24. > :15:25.to do a trade deal with the EU after Brexit.
:15:26. > :15:27.But could opportunities to expand trade lie elsewhere?
:15:28. > :15:30.Australia was one of the first countries to indicate
:15:31. > :15:32.its willingness to do a deal with the UK and now its
:15:33. > :15:35.High Commissioner in London has told us that life outside the EU
:15:36. > :15:51.He made this exclusive film for the Sunday Politics.
:15:52. > :15:53.My father was the Australian High Commissioner in the early
:15:54. > :15:56.70s when the UK joined the European Union,
:15:57. > :16:04.Now I'm in the job, the UK is leaving.
:16:05. > :16:06.Australia supported Britain remaining a member
:16:07. > :16:09.of the European Union, but we respect the decision that
:16:10. > :16:14.Now that the decision has been made, we hope that Britain
:16:15. > :16:19.will get on with the process of negotiating their exit
:16:20. > :16:22.from the European Union and make the most of the opportunities that
:16:23. > :16:28.Following the referendum decision, Australia approached
:16:29. > :16:31.the British Government with a proposal.
:16:32. > :16:34.We offered, when the time was right, to negotiate a free trade agreement.
:16:35. > :16:40.The British and Australian governments have already established
:16:41. > :16:43.a working group to explore a future, ambitious trade agreement once
:16:44. > :16:55.A free trade agreement will provide great opportunities for consumers
:16:56. > :17:00.Australian consumers could purchase British-made cars for less
:17:01. > :17:06.We would give British households access to cheaper,
:17:07. > :17:12.Our summer is during your winter, so Australia could provide British
:17:13. > :17:15.households with fresh produce when the equivalent British or
:17:16. > :17:23.Australian households would have access to British products
:17:24. > :17:35.Free-trade agreements are also about investment.
:17:36. > :17:39.The UK is the second-largest source of foreign investment in Australia.
:17:40. > :17:46.By the way, Australia also invests over ?200 billion in the UK,
:17:47. > :17:48.so a free trade agreement would stimulate investment,
:17:49. > :17:54.But, by the way, free-trade agreements are not just
:17:55. > :17:58.about trade and investment, they are also about geopolitics.
:17:59. > :18:02.Countries with good trade relations often work more closely together
:18:03. > :18:05.in other fields including security, the spread of democracy
:18:06. > :18:19.We may have preferred the UKto remain in the EU,
:18:20. > :18:22.We may have preferred the UK to remain in the EU,
:18:23. > :18:24.but life outside as we know can be pretty good.
:18:25. > :18:27.We have negotiated eight free-trade agreements over the last 12 years,
:18:28. > :18:29.including a free-trade agreement with the United States
:18:30. > :18:41.This is one of the reasons why the Australian economy has continued
:18:42. > :18:44.to grow over the last 25 years and we, of course, are not
:18:45. > :18:54.Australia welcomes Theresa May's vision for the UK to become a global
:18:55. > :19:00.We are willing to help in any way we can.
:19:01. > :19:25.Welcome to the programme. The Australian government says it wants
:19:26. > :19:28.to negotiate an important trade deal with the UK as efficiently and
:19:29. > :19:35.promptly as possible when Brexit is complete. How prompt is prompt?
:19:36. > :19:40.There are legal issues obviously. The UK, for as long as it remains in
:19:41. > :19:46.the EU, cannot negotiate individual trade deals. Once it leaves it can.
:19:47. > :19:51.We will negotiate a agreement with the UK when the time is right, by
:19:52. > :19:57.which we mean we can do preliminary examination. Are you talking now
:19:58. > :20:01.about the parameters? We are talking already, we have set up a joint
:20:02. > :20:04.working group with the British Government and we are scoping the
:20:05. > :20:09.issue to try to understand what questions will arise in any
:20:10. > :20:17.negotiation. But we cannot have formally a negotiation. Until the
:20:18. > :20:20.country is out. Why is there no free-trade deal between Australia
:20:21. > :20:27.and the European Union? It is a long and tortuous story. Give me the
:20:28. > :20:31.headline. Basically Australian agriculture is either banned or
:20:32. > :20:37.hugely restricted in terms of its access to the European Union. So we
:20:38. > :20:42.see the European Union, Australia's, is a pretty protectionist sort of
:20:43. > :20:46.organisation. Now we are doing a scoping study on a free-trade
:20:47. > :20:51.agreement with the European Union and we hope that next year we can
:20:52. > :20:55.enter into negotiations with them. But we have no illusions this would
:20:56. > :21:01.be a very difficult negotiation, but one we are giving priority to. Is
:21:02. > :21:05.there not a danger that when Britain leaves the EU the EU will become
:21:06. > :21:11.more protectionist? This country has always been the most powerful voice
:21:12. > :21:16.for free trade. I hope that does not happen, but the reason why we wanted
:21:17. > :21:21.Britain to remain in the European Union is because it brought to the
:21:22. > :21:26.table the whole free-trade mentality which has been an historic part of
:21:27. > :21:31.Britain's approach to international relations. Without the UK in the
:21:32. > :21:34.European Union you will lose that. It is a very loud voice in the
:21:35. > :21:38.European Union and you will lose that voice and that will be a
:21:39. > :21:44.disadvantage. The figure that jumped out of me in the film is it to you
:21:45. > :21:49.only 15 months to negotiate a free-trade deal with the United
:21:50. > :21:54.States. Yes, the thing is it is about political will. A free-trade
:21:55. > :21:58.agreement will be no problem unless you want to protect particular
:21:59. > :22:03.sectors of your economy. In that case there was one sector the
:22:04. > :22:09.Americans insisted on protecting and that was their sugar industry. In
:22:10. > :22:11.the end after 15 months of negotiation two relatively free
:22:12. > :22:17.trading countries have fixed up nearly everything. But we had to ask
:22:18. > :22:22.would be go ahead with this free-trade agreement without sugar
:22:23. > :22:26.west we decided to do that. Other than that it was relatively easy to
:22:27. > :22:31.negotiate because we are both free-trade countries. With the UK
:22:32. > :22:35.you cannot be sure, but I do not think a free-trade agreement would
:22:36. > :22:41.take very long to negotiate with the UK because the UK would not want to
:22:42. > :22:45.put a lot of obstacles in the way to Australia. Not to give away our
:22:46. > :22:50.hand, we would not want to put a lot of obstacles in the way of British
:22:51. > :22:54.exports. The trend in recent years is to do big, regional trade deals,
:22:55. > :23:00.but President-elect Donald Trump has made clear the Pacific trade deal is
:23:01. > :23:05.dead. The transatlantic trade deal is almost dead as well. The American
:23:06. > :23:09.election put a nail in the coffin and the French elections could put
:23:10. > :23:14.another nail in the coffin. Are we returning to a world of lateral
:23:15. > :23:21.trade deals, country with country rather than regional blocs? Not
:23:22. > :23:25.necessarily. In the Asia Pacific we will look at multilateral trade
:23:26. > :23:28.arrangements and even if the transpacific partnership is not
:23:29. > :23:34.ratified by the Americans, we have other options are there. However,
:23:35. > :23:38.our approach has been the ultimate would be free-trade throughout the
:23:39. > :23:43.world which is proving hard to achieve. Secondly, if we can get a
:23:44. > :23:47.lot of countries engaged in a free-trade negotiation, that is
:23:48. > :23:54.pretty good if possible. But it is more difficult. But we do bilateral
:23:55. > :23:59.trade agreements. We have one with China, Japan, the United States,
:24:00. > :24:04.Singapore, and the list goes on, and they have been hugely beneficial to
:24:05. > :24:11.Australia. You have been dealing with the EU free deal, what lessons
:24:12. > :24:18.are there? How quickly do you think Britain could do a free-trade deal
:24:19. > :24:21.with the EU if we leave? Well, there is a completely different concept
:24:22. > :24:27.involved in the case of Britain and the EU and that is at the moment
:24:28. > :24:31.there are no restrictions on trade. So you and the EU would be talking
:24:32. > :24:35.about whether you will direct barriers to trade. We are outsiders
:24:36. > :24:40.and we do not get too much involved in this debate except to say we do
:24:41. > :24:46.not want to see the global trade system disrupted by the direction of
:24:47. > :24:51.tariff barriers between the United Kingdom, the fifth biggest economy
:24:52. > :24:55.in the world, and the European Union. Our expectation is not just
:24:56. > :25:00.the British but the Europeans will try to make the transition to Brexit
:25:01. > :25:06.as smooth as possible particularly commercially. Say yes or no if you
:25:07. > :25:09.can. If Britain and Australia make a free-trade agreement, would that
:25:10. > :25:14.include free movement of the Australian and the British people?
:25:15. > :25:21.We will probably stick with our present non-discriminatory system.
:25:22. > :25:26.Australia does not discriminate against any country. The European
:25:27. > :25:27.Union's free movement means you discriminate against non-Europeans.
:25:28. > :25:31.Probably not. It could lead to a ban on diesel
:25:32. > :25:34.cars, prevent the building of a third runway at Heathrow,
:25:35. > :25:37.and will certainly make it more expensive to drive
:25:38. > :25:39.in our towns and cities. Air pollution has been
:25:40. > :25:41.called the "public health crisis of a generation" -
:25:42. > :25:43.but just how serious is the problem? 40,000 early deaths result from air
:25:44. > :25:57.pollution every year in the UK. Almost 10,000 Londoners each
:25:58. > :26:03.year die prematurely. It seems at times we can get caught
:26:04. > :26:10.up in alarming assertions about air pollution,
:26:11. > :26:12.that this is a public health emergency, that it is a silent
:26:13. > :26:16.killer, coming from politicians, But how bad is air quality
:26:17. > :26:24.in Britain really? Tony Frew is a professor
:26:25. > :26:28.in respiratory medicine and works at Brighton's Royal Sussex County
:26:29. > :26:30.Hospital. He has been looking
:26:31. > :26:32.into the recent claims It's a problem and it
:26:33. > :26:38.affects people's health. But when people start
:26:39. > :26:40.talking about the numbers of deaths here, I think
:26:41. > :26:42.they are misusing the statistics. There have been tremendous
:26:43. > :26:48.improvements in air quality There is a lot less pollution
:26:49. > :26:52.than there used to be and none of that is coming
:26:53. > :26:56.through in the public So what does Professor Frew make
:26:57. > :27:00.of the claim that alarming levels of toxicity in the air in the UK
:27:01. > :27:03.causes 40,000 deaths each year? It is not 40,000 people
:27:04. > :27:06.who should have air pollution on their death certificate,
:27:07. > :27:08.or 40,000 people who It's a lot of people who had
:27:09. > :27:13.a little bit of life shortening To examine these figures further
:27:14. > :27:19.we travelled to Cambridge to visit I asked him about the data
:27:20. > :27:24.on which these claims They come from a study on how
:27:25. > :27:29.mortality rates in US cities First of all, it is important
:27:30. > :27:36.to realise that that 40,000 figure 29,000, which are due to fine
:27:37. > :27:42.particles, and another 11,000 I will just talk about
:27:43. > :27:50.this group for a start. These are what are known
:27:51. > :27:53.as attributable deaths. Known as virtual deaths, they come
:27:54. > :27:58.from a complex statistical model. Quite remarkably it all comes
:27:59. > :28:01.from just one number and this was based on a study of US cities
:28:02. > :28:05.and they found out that by monitoring these cities over
:28:06. > :28:09.decades that the cities which had a higher level of pollution had
:28:10. > :28:15.a higher mortality rate. They estimated that there was a 6%
:28:16. > :28:21.increased risk of dying each year for each small
:28:22. > :28:26.increase in pollution. So this is quite a big figure,
:28:27. > :28:29.but it is important to realise it is only a best estimate
:28:30. > :28:32.and the committee that advises the government says that this figure
:28:33. > :28:38.could be between 1% and 12%. So this 6% figure is used
:28:39. > :28:41.to work out the 29,000 Yes, through a rather
:28:42. > :28:47.complex statistical model. And a similar analysis gives rise
:28:48. > :28:52.to the 11,000 attributable deaths How much should
:28:53. > :28:59.we invest in cycling? Should we build a third
:29:00. > :29:02.runway at Heathrow? We need reliable statistics
:29:03. > :29:05.to answer those questions, but can we trust the way data
:29:06. > :29:09.is being used by campaigners? I think there are people who have
:29:10. > :29:14.such a passion for the environment and for air pollution
:29:15. > :29:16.that they don't really see it as a problem
:29:17. > :29:22.if they are deceiving the public. Greenpeace have been running
:29:23. > :29:25.a campaign claiming that breathing London's air is the equivalent
:29:26. > :29:27.of smoking 15 cigarettes a day. If you smoke 15 cigarettes a day
:29:28. > :29:33.through your adult life, that will definitely take ten years
:29:34. > :29:35.off your life expectancy. If you are poor and you are
:29:36. > :29:38.in social class five, compared to social class one,
:29:39. > :29:40.that would take seven If you are poor and you smoke, that
:29:41. > :29:45.will take 17 years off your life. Now, we are talking about possibly,
:29:46. > :29:48.if we could get rid of all of the cars in London
:29:49. > :29:51.and all of the road transport, we could make a difference of two
:29:52. > :29:54.micrograms per metre squared in air pollution which might
:29:55. > :29:59.save you 30 days of your life. There is no doubt that air
:30:00. > :30:02.pollution is bad for you, but if we exaggerate the scale
:30:03. > :30:05.of the problem and the impact on our health, are we at risk
:30:06. > :30:08.of undermining the case for making And we are joined now
:30:09. > :30:32.by the Executive Director You have called pollution and
:30:33. > :30:38.national crisis and a health emergency. Around the UK are levels
:30:39. > :30:47.increasing or falling? They are remaining fairly static in London.
:30:48. > :30:54.Nationally? If you look at the studies on where air pollution is
:30:55. > :30:59.measured, in 42 cities around the UK, 38 cities were found to be
:31:00. > :31:03.breaking the legal limit on air pollution so basically all of the
:31:04. > :31:07.cities were breaking the limit so if you think eight out of ten people
:31:08. > :31:12.live in cities, obviously, this is impacting a lot of people around the
:31:13. > :31:19.UK. We have looked at in missions of solvent dioxide, they have fallen
:31:20. > :31:24.and since 1970, nitrogen dioxide is down 69%. Let me show you a chart.
:31:25. > :31:32.There are the nitrogen oxides which we have all been worried about. That
:31:33. > :31:37.chart shows a substantial fall from the 1970s, and then a really steep
:31:38. > :31:42.fall from the 1980s. That is something which is getting better.
:31:43. > :31:51.You have to look at it in the round. If you look at particulates, and if
:31:52. > :31:59.you look at today's understanding of the health impact. Let's look at
:32:00. > :32:05.particulates. We have been really worried about what they have been
:32:06. > :32:11.doing to our abilities to breathe good air, again, you see substantial
:32:12. > :32:15.improvement. Indeed, we are not far from the Gothenberg level which is a
:32:16. > :32:23.very high standard. What you see is it is pretty flat. I see it coming
:32:24. > :32:29.down quite substantially. Over the last decade it is pretty flat. If
:32:30. > :32:32.you look at the World Health Organisation guidelines, actually,
:32:33. > :32:36.these are at serious levels and they need to come down. We know the
:32:37. > :32:41.impact, particularly on children, if you look at what is happening to
:32:42. > :32:46.children and children's lungs, if you look at the impact of asthma and
:32:47. > :32:50.other impacts on children in cities and in schools next to main roads
:32:51. > :32:54.where pollution levels are very high, the impact of very serious.
:32:55. > :32:59.You have many doctors, professors and many studies by London
:33:00. > :33:03.University showing this to be true. The thing is, we do not want
:33:04. > :33:09.pollution. If we can get rid of pollution, let's do it. And also we
:33:10. > :33:12.also have to get rid of CO2 which is causing climate change. We are
:33:13. > :33:17.talking air pollution at the moment. The point is there is not still more
:33:18. > :33:21.to do, it is clear there is and there is no question about that, my
:33:22. > :33:27.question is you seem to deny that we have made any kind of progress and
:33:28. > :33:33.that you also say that air pollution causes 40,000 deaths a year in the
:33:34. > :33:39.UK, that is not true. The figure is 40,000 premature deaths is what has
:33:40. > :33:49.been talked about by medical staff. Your website said courses. It causes
:33:50. > :33:53.premature deaths. What we are talking about here is can we solve
:33:54. > :33:57.the problem of air pollution? If air pollution is mainly being caused by
:33:58. > :34:01.diesel vehicles then we need to phase out diesel vehicles. If there
:34:02. > :34:05.are alternatives and clean Turner tips which will give better quality
:34:06. > :34:10.of air, better quality of life and clean up our cities, then why don't
:34:11. > :34:13.we take the chance to do it? You had the Australian High Commissioner on
:34:14. > :34:20.this programme earlier. He said to me earlier, why is your government
:34:21. > :34:27.supporting diesel? That is the most polluting form of transport. That
:34:28. > :34:33.may well be right but I am looking at Greenpeace's claims. You claim it
:34:34. > :34:37.causes 40,000 deaths, it is a figure which regularly appears. Let me
:34:38. > :34:44.quote the committee on the medical effects of air pollutants, it says
:34:45. > :34:53.this calculation, 40,000 which is everywhere in Greenpeace literature,
:34:54. > :34:57.is not an estimate of the number of people whose untimely death is
:34:58. > :35:01.caused entirely by air pollution, but a way of representing the effect
:35:02. > :35:04.across the whole population of air pollution when considered as a
:35:05. > :35:10.contributory factor to many more individual deaths. It is 40,000
:35:11. > :35:20.premature deaths. It could be premature by a couple of days. It
:35:21. > :35:22.could me by a year. -- it could be by a year. It could also be giving
:35:23. > :35:27.children asthma and breathing difficulties. We are talking about
:35:28. > :35:38.deaths. It could also cause stroke and heart diseases. Medical experts
:35:39. > :35:45.say we need to deal with this. Do you believe air pollution causes
:35:46. > :35:53.40,000 deaths a year. I have defined that. You accept it does not? It
:35:54. > :36:00.leads to 40,000 premature deaths. But 40,000 people are not killed.
:36:01. > :36:05.You say air pollution causes 40,000 deaths each year on your website. I
:36:06. > :36:09.have just explained what I mean by that in terms of premature deaths.
:36:10. > :36:15.The question is, are we going to do something about that? Air pollution
:36:16. > :36:19.is a serious problem. It is mainly caused by diesel. If we phased
:36:20. > :36:25.diesel out it will solve the problem of air pollution and deal with the
:36:26. > :36:32.wider problem of climate change. I am not talking about climate change
:36:33. > :36:36.this morning. Let's link to another claim... Do you want to live in a
:36:37. > :36:42.clean city? Do you want to breathe clean air? Yes, don't generalise.
:36:43. > :36:46.Let's stick to your claims. You have also said living in London on your
:36:47. > :36:52.life is equivalent to smoking 50 cigarettes a day. That is not true
:36:53. > :36:57.either. What I would say is if you look at passive smoking, it is the
:36:58. > :37:01.equivalent of I don't know what the actual figure is, I can't remember
:37:02. > :37:07.offhand, but it is the equivalent effect of about ten cigarettes being
:37:08. > :37:13.smoked passively. The question is in terms of, you are just throwing me
:37:14. > :37:15.out all of these things... I am throwing things that Greenpeace have
:37:16. > :37:20.claimed. Greenpeace have claimed that living in London is equivalent
:37:21. > :37:24.of smoking 15 cigarettes a day and that takes ten years off your life.
:37:25. > :37:29.Professor Froome made it clear to us that living in London your whole
:37:30. > :37:33.life with levels of pollution does take time off your life but it takes
:37:34. > :37:37.nine months of your life. Nine months is still too much, I
:37:38. > :37:42.understand that, but it is not ten years and that is what you claim. I
:37:43. > :37:46.would suggest you realise that is a piece of propaganda because you
:37:47. > :37:50.claim on the website, you have taken it down. I agree it has been
:37:51. > :37:54.corrected and I agree with what the professor said that maybe it takes
:37:55. > :37:59.up to a year off your life, but the thing is, there are much more wider
:38:00. > :38:03.issues as well, in terms of the impact on air pollution, and in
:38:04. > :38:09.terms of the impact on young children. We can argue about the
:38:10. > :38:13.facts... But these are your claims, this is why I am hitting it to you.
:38:14. > :38:18.It does not get away from the underlying issue that air pollution
:38:19. > :38:23.is a serious problem. We are not arguing for a moment that it is not.
:38:24. > :38:27.Do you think the way you exaggerate things, put false claims, in the
:38:28. > :38:34.end, for of course we all agree with, getting the best air we can,
:38:35. > :38:37.you undermine your credibility? I absolutely do not support false
:38:38. > :38:42.claims and if mistakes have been made then mistakes have been made
:38:43. > :38:47.and they will be corrected. I think the key issue is how we are going to
:38:48. > :38:51.deal with air pollution. Clearly, diesel is the biggest problem and we
:38:52. > :38:56.need to work out a way how we can get away from diesel as quickly and
:38:57. > :38:58.fast as possible. Comeback and see us in the New Year and we will
:38:59. > :39:00.discuss diesel. Thank you. It's just gone 11.35,
:39:01. > :39:03.you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers
:39:04. > :39:13.in Scotland who leave us now On today's show, do
:39:14. > :39:21.they know it's Christmas? We all like to see the twinkling
:39:22. > :39:25.lights in the town centre at this time of year but who should
:39:26. > :39:27.pay for them? Or the businesses who benefit
:39:28. > :39:32.from the feel-good and the spend But first let's meet the two
:39:33. > :39:37.politicians who will be Duncan Enright is the leader
:39:38. > :39:40.of West Oxford District And Royston Smith is
:39:41. > :39:48.the Conservative MP for Southampton. And adult social care was back
:39:49. > :39:53.in the news this week. Not that it's ever very far out
:39:54. > :39:56.of it with this announcement in the House of Commons
:39:57. > :39:58.from the communities and Local Government Secretary Sajid Javid
:39:59. > :40:02.about the extra money that councils now will be allowed to raise
:40:03. > :40:06.through the council tax precept. Councils will be granted
:40:07. > :40:09.the flexibility to raise the precept by up to 3% next year
:40:10. > :40:14.and the year after. This will provide a further
:40:15. > :40:19.?208 million to spend on adult social care in 2017-18
:40:20. > :40:28.and ?444 million in 2018-19. I think everyone acknowledges
:40:29. > :40:35.that there is a crisis but it's not It's a crisis of people working,
:40:36. > :40:41.particularly elderly people at home on their own,
:40:42. > :40:45.volunteers, carers, it's everything. There is a shortage of money
:40:46. > :40:52.but it isn't just money . We all need to look at what's
:40:53. > :40:55.going on and then refocus So the Prime Minister answered
:40:56. > :41:00.criticism of the amount of money She said it's about how
:41:01. > :41:05.you spend the money. No, I think it's about how you spend
:41:06. > :41:12.the money and health and social care I've got some personal experience
:41:13. > :41:17.of that in my own family. I've seen six carers come
:41:18. > :41:20.into my house, three for my mother and three for my father
:41:21. > :41:23.at the same time. Now that is money that is available
:41:24. > :41:27.but not being used terribly well. I'm not blaming anyone for that
:41:28. > :41:31.because they were both assessed by different people,
:41:32. > :41:34.but there is a good example about We need more money, and spend
:41:35. > :41:39.what we could better and mobilise a task force of volunteers
:41:40. > :41:42.and others to help people at home where they are
:41:43. > :41:46.much safer and better. Do you think putting more money
:41:47. > :41:53.in at the moment would help deal with a crisis that Royston
:41:54. > :41:55.admits there is? The crisis of the moment is largely
:41:56. > :42:00.to do with lack of resources. NHS is short of money
:42:01. > :42:06.and social care. Both are affecting each other
:42:07. > :42:09.which is a real problem, so we do But we also need to work incredibly
:42:10. > :42:15.closely together and concentrate on the people who provide the care,
:42:16. > :42:19.so the NHS staff, social care staff, We need to reward them
:42:20. > :42:26.appropriately for that There's bringing forward money
:42:27. > :42:39.and saying councils can raise more. There is an inherent problem that
:42:40. > :42:42.councils who are most need have We have to look at the fairness
:42:43. > :42:47.of this right across the country so the richer areas will have more
:42:48. > :42:50.ability to raise money We are short of staff also we find
:42:51. > :42:59.it hard to recruit staff because of the cost of living
:43:00. > :43:02.being high and it's hard for people to afford to live in our area,
:43:03. > :43:05.so all these interlocking problems. Does that concern you,
:43:06. > :43:08.the problem with how much money can 1% or 3% now is getting
:43:09. > :43:12.on for ?3 million extra You can look at leafy suburbs
:43:13. > :43:22.and say they are much more wealthy, but if you have one house
:43:23. > :43:26.which is Band G, as opposed to 15 houses anything between A-C, you are
:43:27. > :43:28.raising the same I don't think it stands up
:43:29. > :43:32.to scrutiny about more money Some of the calculations suggest it
:43:33. > :43:40.could vary between ?5 It depends, it does,
:43:41. > :43:49.but most people that live in Band G houses, there are a few of
:43:50. > :43:51.them by definition. You have many more A, B, C and D
:43:52. > :43:56.houses and they generate more money. Local authorities are
:43:57. > :43:59.desperately short of houses. All of their services, roads,
:44:00. > :44:07.schools, so we have to do ... National government is the one
:44:08. > :44:09.which is hiked money out If it's a crisis we think
:44:10. > :44:13.it is, it's just going 2016 certainly seemed like one damn
:44:14. > :44:19.thing after another as a social historian Arnold Toynbee put it,
:44:20. > :44:23.whether it's been Brexit, celebrities have left
:44:24. > :44:25.for the green room in the sky The damn thing feels like it's
:44:26. > :44:38.come thick and fast. Will 2016 be remembered
:44:39. > :44:39.as especially tumultuous, Joining us now is Doctor Jennings
:44:40. > :44:46.from the University of Southampton. There's been a lot of
:44:47. > :44:53.events which have taken My expert opinion on why
:44:54. > :44:59.the experts were wrong. I think there has been a sense
:45:00. > :45:03.in which Brexit wouldn't happen. The government, the Prime Minister
:45:04. > :45:08.and the Chancellor put their weight behind the remain campaign,
:45:09. > :45:12.the polls were mixed, much more mixed than people were thinking,
:45:13. > :45:16.but there was a status quo bias that when push came to shove,
:45:17. > :45:18.people wouldn't want to face The same in America,
:45:19. > :45:27.a sense that people thought, although Hillary Clinton wasn't
:45:28. > :45:30.popular, she had a favourable rating, but when push came to shove,
:45:31. > :45:34.Donald Trump was seen as too risky It is a different world now,
:45:35. > :45:41.so you just change all the equations and come up with a slightly
:45:42. > :45:44.different result or do you say, let's just go down to people
:45:45. > :45:46.thinking differently I think we have to accept there's
:45:47. > :45:52.been some big shifts in what public and countries are thinking
:45:53. > :45:53.about the problems Policy challenges,
:45:54. > :46:01.an ageing population, stagnant economic growth,
:46:02. > :46:04.they're more acute than I think And voters are actually highly
:46:05. > :46:14.distrusting of politics. There's been a huge shift in public
:46:15. > :46:17.opinion, don't trust politics and government to solve the problems
:46:18. > :46:19.they face and they're Everyone on all sides of politics
:46:20. > :46:23.needs to see that voters have got A lot of the talk has been
:46:24. > :46:29.about national politics. Is there a feeling people
:46:30. > :46:35.care about more what's What is important of local politics
:46:36. > :46:42.is we are seeing a fragmented, in England, Wales and Scotland,
:46:43. > :46:45.and Northern Ireland, If you go to a city,
:46:46. > :46:52.London, the Shire towns, there's different politics
:46:53. > :46:56.going on in terms of the attitudes of local people, about issues
:46:57. > :47:00.like migration and economic growth. That really is a challenge
:47:01. > :47:06.for national policymakers because local public has different
:47:07. > :47:08.views about how to deal That's certainly something which
:47:09. > :47:13.happened in the American election. Royston, we've seen Theresa May come
:47:14. > :47:16.through and David Cameron go. Did you see any of
:47:17. > :47:21.these things coming? Last week's lottery numbers,
:47:22. > :47:30.that's about it really. When I left the Guildhall that night
:47:31. > :47:41.and walked home with a spring in my step we had come out the way
:47:42. > :47:47.I wanted, an hour later he was resigning and I did
:47:48. > :47:49.not see that coming. Why people like yourself would never
:47:50. > :47:55.ask him anything other than do you think you could stay on having
:47:56. > :47:58.lost a referendum but I We all wrote a letter
:47:59. > :48:02.to the Prime Minister on the day of the referendum saying whatever
:48:03. > :48:06.happens, we don't want you to go. It is tinged with a great
:48:07. > :48:11.deal of disappointment No, media types talk about it
:48:12. > :48:20.endlessly but you do know that we have got
:48:21. > :48:22.a fixed term parliament. I will ask the expert
:48:23. > :48:24.but there are ways around it. I don't think they will
:48:25. > :48:28.change the legislation. Many people would have to fight
:48:29. > :48:31.an election and they feel don't want to just yet I don't see Labour
:48:32. > :48:36.going for that. You know you get the end of a Tory
:48:37. > :48:39.government that's fair enough. The reality is, we have to change
:48:40. > :48:42.legislation and pass a vote of no-confidence
:48:43. > :48:44.in the Prime Minister and I'm not about to be one person who does that
:48:45. > :48:47.because I have every confidence With your predictive technologies,
:48:48. > :48:57.you said Jeremy Corbyn should go at the beginning
:48:58. > :49:02.of the year and then he joined You are reasonably pleased
:49:03. > :49:07.with the result you got them? He's picking up honours
:49:08. > :49:18.anti-politics move that is sweeping across not just the country
:49:19. > :49:20.but the whole world. This is a strange time but it's not
:49:21. > :49:23.surprising I think that people feel uneasy when they talk about taking
:49:24. > :49:26.back control because so many things Out-of-control politicians as well,
:49:27. > :49:30.so globalisation has had an impact which means national governments,
:49:31. > :49:32.local government, they feel they can't influence
:49:33. > :49:34.the way their communities develop and the well-being and the income
:49:35. > :49:37.of people in towns and cities, doesn't depend on just what happens
:49:38. > :49:39.locally or nationally Do you think it's a good
:49:40. > :49:42.time for politics? It is a great time to be
:49:43. > :49:46.researching politics, but I think actually it is a good
:49:47. > :49:49.time for politics in the sense that much is up for grabs and actually
:49:50. > :49:52.we are having to reconsider fundamental questions
:49:53. > :49:54.about what politics is for. People who've been disengaged
:49:55. > :50:00.from politics have been re-engaging. People have taken
:50:01. > :50:02.politics for granted. They need to say, actually,
:50:03. > :50:05.I need to participate because the people who run
:50:06. > :50:08.from economic model we've had for the last 30 years
:50:09. > :50:11.and the need to stand up On one level you could say it's
:50:12. > :50:17.mistrusting of politics that We've have the referendum
:50:18. > :50:22.and people are very engaged. The referendum from that point
:50:23. > :50:25.of view has energised people. Do you find that
:50:26. > :50:27.in the constituency? of new members joining at once,
:50:28. > :50:41.and I wondered why that was. But actually, we didn't see this
:50:42. > :50:54.new wave of people coming. It's people that are just
:50:55. > :50:57.energised with a referendum and other things have happened
:50:58. > :50:59.recently and now want to get involved, which is really refreshing
:51:00. > :51:02.actually because if we needed anything, we do need some new blood
:51:03. > :51:05.in all this and it's all right for Duncan and I to talk
:51:06. > :51:07.about politics needs These new people,
:51:08. > :51:21.they will change things. Recycled anyway, after
:51:22. > :51:27.such a tumultuous year, we need a bit of something
:51:28. > :51:30.to provide some festive spirit. And what better than twinkly lights
:51:31. > :51:37.in the town centres? Has it all been a bit bah
:51:38. > :51:40.humbug in the last year or is there some light shining
:51:41. > :51:43.in the darkness? We sent Frankie out
:51:44. > :51:44.in search of illumination. It's the most wonderful
:51:45. > :51:52.time of the year. In all its sparkling
:51:53. > :52:01.twinkling glory. Behind each bulb, a string of tinsel
:52:02. > :52:04.and the all-important And it's not Santa and his elves
:52:05. > :52:11.that gets the bill but usually In Southampton, the council spent
:52:12. > :52:18.?52,000 and say it's worth it. Last year we got over 1 million
:52:19. > :52:26.visitors falls on average, 60% spend between ?5-?20 each which
:52:27. > :52:28.is phenomenal. As a council and a city,
:52:29. > :52:30.working with partners, we are trying to take advantage
:52:31. > :52:41.of that and why shouldn't we? But is it time for hard up councils
:52:42. > :52:44.to pull the plug on Christmas decorations in an attempt
:52:45. > :52:46.to save cash? If it's in the town
:52:47. > :52:48.centre I think the local I don't think the local
:52:49. > :52:55.authority should pay for it. In some places, where they don't,
:52:56. > :52:57.business improvement districts Business improvement district
:52:58. > :53:01.is when local businesses come together to vote to invest
:53:02. > :53:03.in the local area and, in Reading, part of that means
:53:04. > :53:06.the Christmas lights. Between them, over 500 businesses
:53:07. > :53:11.will be spending ?400,000 over five They want to attract as many people
:53:12. > :53:17.as possible because 40% of their annual turnover is made
:53:18. > :53:22.over the Christmas period. Christmas is a key part
:53:23. > :53:27.of the business plan. And so we had a resounding
:53:28. > :53:29.vote in favour. I think there's an expectation
:53:30. > :53:32.amongst the public as well that there are Christmas lights
:53:33. > :53:35.and good Christmas lights Here in Bournemouth,
:53:36. > :53:45.the council put ?44,000 Beyond that, the town centre assign
:53:46. > :53:51.a portion of their budget In Winchester, the City Council
:53:52. > :53:58.spent nearly ?7,000 on decorations. The local bid contributed around
:53:59. > :54:00.?45,000 for the city centre lights In Oxford, the City Council
:54:01. > :54:06.pays for everything. Over the years, Southampton
:54:07. > :54:15.City Council's feeling about Christmas has been a little
:54:16. > :54:18.bah humbug for them some years they've had lights
:54:19. > :54:21.and others none at all. But despite having to save ?40
:54:22. > :54:26.million over four years, it hss reintroduced the lights
:54:27. > :54:28.and decorations last year Budget time is always
:54:29. > :54:36.extremely difficult. We are still being savagely cut
:54:37. > :54:45.by central government. As a council, we can
:54:46. > :54:47.continue to work with local businesses,
:54:48. > :54:49.work with our partners so that we can still have a growing,
:54:50. > :54:53.thriving local economy. And does the taxpayer think
:54:54. > :54:57.it's value for money? If you didn't have the lights
:54:58. > :55:01.you wouldn't have it. I think there should
:55:02. > :55:08.be more, actually. I went to London yesterday
:55:09. > :55:11.and it was brilliant up there. Look at the people,
:55:12. > :55:16.the shoppers, the children. Five or six years ago
:55:17. > :55:19.there was hardly anything. It's lovely, but the public
:55:20. > :55:24.should be spared. Christmas now is
:55:25. > :55:32.commercial, isn't it? Commercial or not, whoever pays,
:55:33. > :55:35.it looks like the lights won't be So who should be paying,
:55:36. > :55:51.the businesses or the councils? Is it different solutions
:55:52. > :55:56.for different places? It all comes down to
:55:57. > :55:59.the community anyway one way All the areas I know,
:56:00. > :56:04.we've looked at council spending in that clip,
:56:05. > :56:07.but everywhere I have been, the shops pay a lot towards making
:56:08. > :56:10.the towns look beautiful and it's It is a special time and it's
:56:11. > :56:15.keeping the high streets alive and there's a lot of pressure
:56:16. > :56:18.from online retailers so it's really good I think to make a bit
:56:19. > :56:22.of a splash and make the place look beautiful and Oxfordshire looks
:56:23. > :56:26.beautiful at the moment. Winchester seems to be the Christmas
:56:27. > :56:33.capital or tries to think it is, and they have a lot of money
:56:34. > :56:37.spent on it. It's a thing of pulling people
:56:38. > :56:41.from one town centre to another. The idea of the retailers is to put
:56:42. > :56:50.on the best display they can and hopefully people will go
:56:51. > :56:52.to their shops and not For Southampton, you know,
:56:53. > :57:00.who should pay or shouldn't, Although the German
:57:01. > :57:04.market takes away some The German market pays to be
:57:05. > :57:08.there in the first place. That comes along to run a market
:57:09. > :57:10.over the Christmas period, so there is a revenue contribution
:57:11. > :57:13.to the Council from that. I don't think the businesses lose
:57:14. > :57:16.much business because they don't sell the same product so it brings
:57:17. > :57:20.people in the cars there something they come in for and that should
:57:21. > :57:22.help the businesses. I think the businesses should pay
:57:23. > :57:24.unless it's a business It's going to have a business
:57:25. > :57:33.improvement centre for the future. When you are running the council,
:57:34. > :57:39.you were the Grinch. It was an experiment, Peter,
:57:40. > :57:52.if I may put it that way. What I thought was an expected
:57:53. > :57:59.was and what I hoped was that if the council didn't continue
:58:00. > :58:01.to fund the Christmas lights, and they were tired and shabby
:58:02. > :58:05.by then anyway, and we were told we had to invest a lot
:58:06. > :58:07.more to bring them back, actually I believed na vely it
:58:08. > :58:10.would turn out that the businesses would do that themselves
:58:11. > :58:13.because they were the ones that If we were keeping the business
:58:14. > :58:17.rates, you could from the business rates or whatever say we will invest
:58:18. > :58:20.in the town get more in and more business rates and then we can spend
:58:21. > :58:31.it on social care and the rest. But if we're just paying
:58:32. > :58:33.so the town looks nice, businesses can do particularly well
:58:34. > :58:37.when they are competing against other towns,
:58:38. > :58:40.I don't think that's a function You have free parking
:58:41. > :58:42.in West Oxfordshire. Yes, free parking, yes,
:58:43. > :58:44.and that's another thing which hopefully goes
:58:45. > :58:46.to keeping our high streets It you got away you thought
:58:47. > :58:53.you would lose shoppers to Oxford? No, small businesses,
:58:54. > :58:55.retail businesses in the area. They benefit, we think,
:58:56. > :58:57.and pay business rates, and contribute to a healthier
:58:58. > :59:01.community because we A regular round-up of the political
:59:02. > :59:17.week in the South in 60 seconds. No trains and no end in sight
:59:18. > :59:22.for the Southern rail dispute. Commuters stranded working
:59:23. > :59:26.from home, vented their Travelling with you is
:59:27. > :59:31.like a form of torture. Outside the Department
:59:32. > :59:37.for Transport, protesters to the Transport Secretary for him
:59:38. > :59:41.to play with with no Oxford, he had something to smile
:59:42. > :59:49.about, the new Chilton service. We are carrying more passengers
:59:50. > :59:51.today than Victorian times With Syria dominating the news,
:59:52. > :00:14.at PMQs, Victoria Prentice raised the shortage of prosthetic limbs
:00:15. > :00:16.in Aleppo 's Hospital. And the Guildford fringe is one
:00:17. > :00:21.of the first to offer their company a salary upfront rather
:00:22. > :00:25.than a share of takings. So you're backing Jeremy
:00:26. > :00:27.Corbyn anti-austerity, Are you backing the union strikes,
:00:28. > :00:31.causing trouble for commuters? I'm backing investment
:00:32. > :00:35.in the railways and the unions are onto something a little quiet
:00:36. > :00:37.safety and investment We have a steam powered government
:00:38. > :00:41.trying to wreck our 21st-century railway and I'm really pleased
:00:42. > :00:43.to see incidentally Oxford and London that Labour should be
:00:44. > :00:45.going, investigating new services. You don't think the use of strikes
:00:46. > :00:50.and industrial muscle is going to leave Jeremy Corbyn
:00:51. > :00:54.tarred with a bad brush? You know industrial relations
:00:55. > :01:03.are not going the right ACAS is the way to go and I'm sorry
:01:04. > :01:08.they haven't made more movement this week to solve it
:01:09. > :01:10.because all the people who rely on those services,
:01:11. > :01:15.it's a desperate time for them. The unions' fault or
:01:16. > :01:17.the government's fault? I think this is gone on for far too
:01:18. > :01:21.long and the government should have stepped in earlier to mediate
:01:22. > :01:26.if ACAS wasn't going to find a way forward but I think it's gone
:01:27. > :01:29.on for far too long. We can argue matters all day
:01:30. > :01:31.long but passengers, when you were just half an hour late
:01:32. > :01:39.on a train, some of these people are taking four hours
:01:40. > :01:42.or the train does not turn up at all and it on and on and
:01:43. > :01:45.on and it doesn't matter now whose fault it is ,
:01:46. > :01:48.they have to sort it out. Politics needs to sort it
:01:49. > :01:51.out one way or another. So that's the Sunday
:01:52. > :01:53.Politics in the South. We're off now until
:01:54. > :01:58.the 15th of January. And for the last time,
:01:59. > :02:03.in 2016, from us here on the Sunday Politics in the south,
:02:04. > :02:06.it is back to Andrew. Will Article 50 be triggered
:02:07. > :02:20.by the end of March, will President Trump start work
:02:21. > :02:23.on his wall and will Front National's Marine Le Pen
:02:24. > :02:48.provide the next electoral shock? 2016, the Brexit for Britain and
:02:49. > :02:50.Trump for the rest of the world. Let's look back and see what one of
:02:51. > :02:54.you said about Brexit. If Mr Cameron loses the referendum
:02:55. > :02:57.and it is this year, will he be Prime Minister at the end
:02:58. > :02:59.of the year? I don't think he will lose
:03:00. > :03:13.the referendum, so I'm feeling It was clear if he did lose the
:03:14. > :03:17.referendum he would be out. I would like to say in retrospect I saw that
:03:18. > :03:23.coming on a long and I was just saying it to make good television!
:03:24. > :03:29.It is Christmas so I will be benign towards my panel! It is possible,
:03:30. > :03:33.Iain, that not much happens to Brexit in 2017, because we have a
:03:34. > :03:37.host of elections coming up in Europe, the French won in the spring
:03:38. > :03:42.and the German one in the autumn will be the most important. And
:03:43. > :03:45.until we know who the next French president is and what condition Mrs
:03:46. > :03:51.Merkel will be in, not much will happen? I think that is the
:03:52. > :03:56.likeliest outcome. Short of some constitutional crisis involving the
:03:57. > :04:02.Lords relating to Brexit, it is pretty clear it is difficult to
:04:03. > :04:06.properly begin the negotiations until it becomes clear who Britain
:04:07. > :04:11.is negotiating with. It will come down to the result of the German
:04:12. > :04:16.election. Germany is the biggest contributor and if they keep power
:04:17. > :04:19.in what is left of the European Union, will drive the negotiation
:04:20. > :04:26.and we will have to see if it will be Merkel. So this vacuum that has
:04:27. > :04:30.been seen and has been filled by people less than friendly to the
:04:31. > :04:34.government, even when we know Article 50 has been triggered and
:04:35. > :04:38.even if there is some sort of white paper to give us a better idea of
:04:39. > :04:45.the broad strategic outlines of what they mean by Brexit, the phoney war
:04:46. > :04:51.could continue? Iain is right. 2017 is going to be a remarkably dull
:04:52. > :04:57.year for Brexit as opposed to 2016. We will have the article and a plan.
:04:58. > :05:02.The plan will say I would like the moon on a stick please. The EU will
:05:03. > :05:08.say you can have a tiny bit of moon and a tiny bit of stick and there
:05:09. > :05:13.will be an impasse. That will go on until one minute to midnight 2018
:05:14. > :05:19.which is when the EU will act. There is one thing in the Foreign Office
:05:20. > :05:23.which is more important, as David Davis Department told me, they know
:05:24. > :05:27.there is nothing they can do until the French and Germans have their
:05:28. > :05:31.elections and they know the lie of the land, but the people who will be
:05:32. > :05:35.more helpful to us are in Eastern Europe and in Scandinavia, the
:05:36. > :05:40.Nordic countries. We can do quite a lot of schmoozing to try and get
:05:41. > :05:44.them broadly on side this year? It is very difficult because one of the
:05:45. > :05:48.things they care most about in Eastern Europe is the ability for
:05:49. > :05:53.Eastern European stew come and work in the UK. That is key to the
:05:54. > :05:57.economic prospects. But what they care most about is that those
:05:58. > :06:03.already here should not be under any pressure to leave. There is no
:06:04. > :06:08.guarantee of that. That is what Mrs May wants. There are a lot of things
:06:09. > :06:12.Mrs May wants and the story of 2017 will be about what she gets. How
:06:13. > :06:18.much have we got to give people? It is not what we want, but what we are
:06:19. > :06:23.willing to give. The interesting thing is you can divide this out
:06:24. > :06:27.into two. There is a question of the European Union and our relationship
:06:28. > :06:36.with it but there is also the trick the polls did to London -- there is
:06:37. > :06:40.also the polls. There is question beyond the Western European
:06:41. > :06:46.security, that is about Nato and intelligence and security, and the
:06:47. > :06:49.rising Russian threat. That does not mean the Polish people will persuade
:06:50. > :06:54.everyone else to give us a lovely deal on the EU, but the dynamic is
:06:55. > :06:58.bigger than just a chat about Brexit. You cannot threaten a
:06:59. > :07:02.punishment beating for us if we are putting our soldiers on the line on
:07:03. > :07:06.the eastern borders of Europe. I think that's where Donald Trump
:07:07. > :07:12.changes the calculation because his attitude towards Russia is very
:07:13. > :07:20.different to Barack Obama's. It is indeed. Mentioning Russia, Brexit
:07:21. > :07:23.was a global story but nothing can match and American election and even
:07:24. > :07:27.one which gives Donald Trump as well. Let's have a look at what this
:07:28. > :07:30.panel was saying about Donald Trump. Will Donald Trump win the Republican
:07:31. > :07:43.nomination next year. So, not only did you think he would
:07:44. > :07:47.not be president, you did not think he would win the Republican
:07:48. > :07:52.nomination. We were not alone in that. And they're right put forward
:07:53. > :07:58.a motion to abolish punditry here now because clearly we are
:07:59. > :08:02.pointless! There is enough unemployment in the world already!
:08:03. > :08:07.We are moving into huge and charted territory with Donald Trump as
:08:08. > :08:14.president. It is incredibly unpredictable. But what has not been
:08:15. > :08:21.noticed enough is the Keynesian won. Trump is a Keynesian. He wants
:08:22. > :08:26.massive infrastructure spending and massive tax cuts. The big story next
:08:27. > :08:32.year will be the massive reflation of the American economy and indeed
:08:33. > :08:36.the US Federal reserve has already reacted to that by putting up
:08:37. > :08:42.interest rates. That is why he has a big fight with the rest of the
:08:43. > :08:46.Republican Party. He is nominally a Republican but they are not
:08:47. > :08:51.Keynesian. They are when it comes to tax cuts. They are when it hits the
:08:52. > :08:55.rich to benefit the poor. The big thing is whether the infrastructure
:08:56. > :09:01.projects land him in crony trouble. The transparency around who gets
:09:02. > :09:05.those will be extremely difficult. Most of the infrastructure spending
:09:06. > :09:10.he thinks can be done by the private sector and not the federal
:09:11. > :09:16.government. His tax cuts overlap the Republican house tax cuts speaker
:09:17. > :09:20.Ryan to give not all, but a fair chunk of what he wants. If the
:09:21. > :09:24.American economy is going to reflate next year, interest rates will rise
:09:25. > :09:31.in America, that will strengthen the dollar and it will mean that Europe
:09:32. > :09:35.will be, it will find it more difficult to finance its sovereign
:09:36. > :09:41.debt because you will get more money by investing in American sovereign
:09:42. > :09:45.debt. That is a good point because the dynamics will shift. If that
:09:46. > :09:52.happens, Trump will be pretty popular in the US. To begin with. To
:09:53. > :09:55.begin with. It is energy self-sufficient and if you can pull
:09:56. > :10:01.off the biggest trick in American politics which is somehow to via
:10:02. > :10:07.corporation tax cuts to allow the reassuring of wealth, because it is
:10:08. > :10:10.too expensive for American business to take back into the US and
:10:11. > :10:14.reinvest, if you combine all of those things together, you will end
:10:15. > :10:22.up with a boom on a scale you have not seen. It will be Reagan on
:10:23. > :10:26.steroids? What could possibly go wrong? In the short term for
:10:27. > :10:31.Britain, it is probably not bad news. Our biggest market for exports
:10:32. > :10:35.as a country is the United States. Our biggest market for foreign
:10:36. > :10:39.direct investment is the United States and the same is true vice
:10:40. > :10:43.versa for America in Britain. Given the pound is now competitive and
:10:44. > :10:49.likely the dollar will get stronger, it could well give a boost to the
:10:50. > :10:53.British economy? Could do bit you have to be slightly cautious about
:10:54. > :10:58.the warm language we are getting which is great news out of President
:10:59. > :11:03.Trump's future cabinet on doing a trade deal early, we are net
:11:04. > :11:06.exporters to the US. We benefit far more from trading with US than they
:11:07. > :11:12.do with us. I think we have to come up with something to offer the US
:11:13. > :11:18.for them to jump into bed with us. I think it is called two new aircraft
:11:19. > :11:26.carriers and modernising the fleet. Bring it on. I will raise caution,
:11:27. > :11:31.people in declining industries in some places in America, the rust
:11:32. > :11:35.belt who have faced big profound structural challenges and those are
:11:36. > :11:40.much harder to reverse. They face real problems now because the dollar
:11:41. > :11:46.is so strong. Their ability to export has taken a huge hit out of
:11:47. > :11:49.Ohio, Michigan and Illinois. And the Mexican imports into America is now
:11:50. > :11:56.dirt cheap so that is a major problem. Next year we have elections
:11:57. > :12:05.in Austria, France, the Netherlands, Germany, probably Italy. Which
:12:06. > :12:10.outcome will be the most dramatic for Brexit? If Merkel lost it would
:12:11. > :12:20.be a huge surprise. That is unlikely. And if it was not Filon in
:12:21. > :12:24.France that would be unlikely. The consensus it it will be Francois
:12:25. > :12:35.Filon against Marine Le Pen and it will be uniting around the far right
:12:36. > :12:42.candidate. In 2002, that is what happened. Filon is a Thatcherite.
:12:43. > :12:49.Marine Le Pen's politics -- economics are hard left. Francois
:12:50. > :12:54.Filon is as much a cert to win as Hillary Clinton was this time last
:12:55. > :13:03.year. If he is competing against concerns about rising globalisation
:13:04. > :13:07.and his pitch is Thatcherite, it is a bold, brave strategy in the
:13:08. > :13:14.context so we will see. It will keep us busy next year, Tom? Almost as
:13:15. > :13:19.busy as this year but not quite. This year was a record year. I am up
:13:20. > :13:21.in my hours! That's all for today,
:13:22. > :13:24.thanks to all my guests. The Daily Politics will be back
:13:25. > :13:26.on BBC Two at noon tomorrow. I'll be back here
:13:27. > :13:28.on the 15th January. Remember, if it's Sunday,
:13:29. > :13:32.it's the Sunday Politics. The most a writer
:13:33. > :14:13.can hope from a reader West Side Story took choreography
:14:14. > :14:30.in a radical new direction. The dance was woven
:14:31. > :14:34.into the storyline,