27/11/2016 Sunday Politics West


Andrew Neil and David Garmston are joined by Jonathan Ashworth MP, Lord Paddy Ashdown, the founder of Cobra Beer Lord Karan Bilimoria, and the founder of Wetherspoons Tim Martin.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 27/11/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



It's Sunday morning and this is the Sunday Politics.


Was Fidel Castro a revolutionary hero or a murderous dictator?


After the Cuban leader's death, politicians divide over his legacy.


Can the NHS in England find billions of pounds' worth of efficiency


The Shadow Health Secretary joins me live.


Should we have a second Brexit referendum on the terms


of the eventual withdrawal deal that's struck with the EU?


Former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown and former Conservative cabinet


The west, the Government wanted go head-to-head.


And with me, Tom Newton Dunn, Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.


They'll be tweeting throughout the programme


Political leaders around the world have been reacting to the news


of the death of Fidel Castro, the Cuban revolutionary who came


to power in 1959 and ushered in a Marxist revolution.


Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson described the former leader


as an "historic if controversial figure" and said his death marked


Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said Castro was "a champion of social


justice" who had "seen off a lot of US presidents"


President-elect Donald Trump described the former Cuban leader


as a "brutal dictator", adding that he hoped his death


would begin a new era "in which the wonderful Cuban people


finally live in the freedom they so richly deserve".


Meanwhile, the President of the European Commission,


Jean-Claude Juncker, said the controversial leader


was "a hero for many" but "his legacy will be judged


I guess we had worked that out ourselves. What do you make of the


reactions so far across the political divide? Predictable. And I


noticed that Jeremy Corbyn has come in for criticism for his tribute to


Castro. But I think it was the right thing for him to do. We all know he


was an admirer. He could have sat there for eight hours in his house,


agonising over some bland statement which didn't alienate the many


people who want to wade into attacked Castro. It would have been


inauthentic and would have just added to the sort of mainstream


consensus, and I think he was right to say what he believed in this


respect. Elsewhere, it has been wholly predictable that there would


be this device, because he divided opinion in such an emotive way.


Steve, I take your point about authenticity and it might have


looked a bit lame for Jeremy Corbyn to pretend that he had no affection


for Fidel Castro at all, but do you think he made a bit of an error


dismissing Castro's record, the negative side of it as just a floor?


He could have acknowledged in more elaborate terms the huge costs. He


wanted to go on about the health and education, which if you actually


look up the indices on that, they are good relative to other


countries. But they have come at such a huge cost. He was not a


champion of criminal justice. If he had done that, it would have been


utterly inauthentic. He doesn't believe it. And he would have


thought there would be many other people focusing on all the epic


failings. So he focused on what he believed. There are times when


Corbyn's prominence in the media world now as leader widens the


debate in an interesting and important way. I am not aware of any


criticisms that Mr Corbyn has ever announced about Mr Castro. There


were four words in his statement yesterday which is spin doctor would


have forced him to say, for all his flaws. He was on this Cuban


solidarity committee, which didn't exist to criticise Castro. It


existed to help protect Castro from those, particularly the Americans,


who were trying to undermine him. And Corbyn made a big deal yesterday


saying he has always called out human rights abuses all over the


world. But he said that in general, I call out human rights abuses. He


never said, I have called out human rights abuses in Cuba. In the weeks


ahead, more will come out about what these human rights abuses were. The


lid will come off what was actually happening. Some well authenticated


stories are pretty horrendous. I was speaking to a journalist who was


working there in the 1990s, who gave me vivid examples of that, and there


will be more to come. I still go back to, when a major figure diet


and you are a leader who has admired but major figure, you have to say


it. That is the trap he has fallen into. He has proved every criticism


that he is a duck old ideologue. But he is not the only one. Prime


Minister Trudeau was so if uses that I wondered if they were going to


open up a book of condolences. I think it reinforces Corbyn's failing


brand. It may be authentic, but authentic isn't working for him.


When I was driving, I heard Trevor Phillips, who is a Blairite, saying


the record was mixed and there were a lot of things to admire as well as


all the terrible things. So it is quite nuanced. But if you are a


leader issuing a sound bite, there is no space for new ones. You either


decide to go for the consensus, which is to set up on the whole, it


was a brutal dictatorship. Or you say, here is an extraordinary figure


worthy of admiration. In my view, he was right to say what he believed.


There was still a dilemma for the British government over who they


sent to the funeral. Do they sent nobody, do they say and Boris


Johnson as a post-ironic statement? There is now a post-Castro Cuba to


deal with. Trump was quite diplomatic about post-Castro Cuba.


And Boris Johnson's statement was restrained. The thing about Mr


Castro was the longevity, 50 years of keeping Marxism on the island.


That was what made it so fascinating.


Before the last election, George Osborne promised the NHS


in England a real-terms funding boost of ?8 billion per year by 2020


on the understanding that NHS bosses would also find ?22 billion worth


Since last autumn, NHS managers have been drawing up what they're calling


"Sustainability and Transformation Plans" to make these savings,


but some of the proposals are already running into local


opposition, while Labour say they amount to huge cuts to the NHS.


Help is on the way for an elderly person in need in Hertfordshire.


But east of England ambulance call operators


they're sending an early intervention vehicle


with a council-employed occupational therapist on board.


It's being piloted here for over 65s with


When they arrive, a paramedic judges if the patient can be


treated immediately at home without a trip to hospital.


Around 80% of patients have been treated this way,


taking the strain off urgently-needed hospital beds,


So the early intervention team has assessed the patient and decided


The key to successful integration for Hertfordshire being able


to collaboratively look at how we use our resources,


to have pooled budgets, to allow us to understand


where spend is, and to let us make conscientious decisions about how


best to use that money, to come up with ideas to problems


that sit between our organisations, to look at things collaboratively.


This Hertfordshire hospital is also a good example of how


You won't find an A unit or overnight beds here any more.


The closest ones are 20 minutes down the road.


What's left is nurse-led care in an NHS-built hospital.


Despite a politically toxic change, this reconfiguration went


through after broad public and political consultation


with hospital clinicians and GPs on board.


It's a notable achievement that's surely of interest to 60% of NHS


trusts in England that reported a deficit at the end of September.


It's not just here that the NHS needs to save money and provide


The Government is going to pour in an extra ?8 billion into the NHS


in England, but it has demanded ?22 billion


worth of efficiencies across the country.


In order to deliver that, the NHS has created 44 health


and care partnerships, and each one will provide


a sustainability and transformation plan, or STP, to integrate care,


provide better services and save money.


So far, 33 of these 44 regional plans, drawn up by senior people


in the health service and local government,


The NHS has been through five years of severely constrained spending


growth, and there are another 4-5 years on the way at least.


STPs themselves are an attempt to deal in a planned way


But with plans to close some A units and reduce the number


of hospital beds, there's likely to be a tough political battle


ahead, with many MPs already up in arms about proposed


This Tory backbencher is concerned about the local plans for his


I wouldn't call it an efficiency if you are proposing to close


all of the beds which are currently provided for those coming out


of the acute sector who are elderly and looking


That's not a cut, it's not an efficiency saving,


All 44 STPs should be published in a month's time,


But even before that, they dominated this week's PMQs.


The Government's sustainability and transformation plans


for the National Health Service hide ?22 billion of cuts.


The National Health Service is indeed looking for savings


within the NHS, which will be reinvested in the NHS.


There will be no escape from angry MPs for the Health Secretary either.


Well, I have spoken to the Secretary of State just this week


about the importance of community hospitals in general,


These are proposals out to consultation.


What could happen if these plans get blocked?


If STPs cannot be made to work, the planned changes don't come


to pass, then the NHS will see over time a sort of unplanned


deterioration and services becoming unstable and service


The NHS barely featured in this week's Autumn Statement


but the Prime Minister insisted beforehand that STPs


are in the interests of local people.


Her Government's support will now be critical for NHS England


to push through these controversial regional plans,


which will soon face public scrutiny.


We did ask the Department of Health for an interview,


I've been joined by the Shadow Health Secretary,


Do you accept that the NHS is capable of making ?22 billion of


efficiency savings? Well, we are very sceptical, as are number of


independent organisations about the ability of the NHS to find 22


billion of efficiencies without that affecting front line care. When you


drill down into the 22 billion, based on the information we have


been given, and there hasn't been much information, we can see that


some of it will come from cutting the budget which go to community


pharmacies, which could lead, according to ministers, to 3000


pharmacies closing, which we believe will increase demands on A and


GPs, and also that a lot of these changes which are being proposed,


which was the focus of the package, we think will mean service cuts at a


local level. Do they? The chief executive of NHS England says these


efficiency plans are "Incredibly important". He used to work from


Labour. The independent King's Fund calls them "The best hope to improve


health and care services. There is no plan B". On the sustainable


transformation plans, which will be across England to link up physical


health, mental health and social care, for those services to


collaborate more closely together and move beyond the fragmented


system we have at the moment is important. It seems that the ground


has shifted. It has moved into filling financial gaps. As we know,


the NHS is going through the biggest financial squeeze in its history. By


2018, per head spending on the NHS will be falling. If you want to


redesign services for the long term in a local area, you need to put the


money in. So of course, getting these services working better


together and having a greater strategic oversight, which we would


have had if we had not got rid of strategic health authority is in the


last Parliament. But this is not an attempt to save 22 billion, this is


an attempt to spend 22 billion more successfully, don't you accept that?


Simon Stevens said we need 8 billion, and we need to find 22


billion of savings. You have to spend 22 billion more efficiently.


But the Government have not given that 8 billion to the NHS which they


said they would. They said they would do it by 2020. But they have


changed the definitions of spending so NHS England will get 8 billion by


2020, but they have cut the public health budgets by about 4 million by


20 20. The budget that going to initiatives to tackle sexually


transmitted diseases, to tackle smoking have been cut back but the


commissioning of things like school nurses and health visitors have been


cut back as well. Simon Stevens said he can only deliver that five-year


project if there is a radical upgrade in public health, which the


Government have failed on, and if we deal with social care, and this week


there was an... I understand that, but if you don't think the


efficiency drive can free up 22 billion to take us to 30 billion by


2020, where would you get the money from? I have been in this post now


for five or six weeks and I want to have a big consultation with


everybody who works in the health sector, as well as patients, carers


and families. Though you don't know? I think it would be surprised if I


had an arbitrary figure this soon into the job. Your party said they


expected election of spring by this year, you need to have some idea by


now, you inherited a portfolio from Diane Abbott, did she have no idea?


To govern is to make choices and we would make different choices. The


budget last year scored billions of giveaways in things like


co-operating -- corporation tax. What I do want to do... Is work on a


plan and the general election, whenever it comes, next year or in


2020 or in between, to have costed plan for the NHS. But your party is


committed to balancing the books on current spending, that is currently


John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor's position. What we are


talking about, this extra 30 billion, that is essentially current


spending so if it doesn't come from efficiency savings, where does the


money come from? Some of it is also capital. Mainly current spending. If


you look at the details of the OBR, they have switched a million from


the capital into revenue. Why -- how do you balance spending?


That is why we need to have a debate. Every time we ask for


Labour's policy, we are always told me a debate. Surely it is time to


give some idea of what you stand for? There's huge doubts about the


Government 's policy on this. You are the opposition, how would you do


it? I want to work with John McDonnell to find a package to give


the NHS the money it needs, but of course our Shadow Chancellor, like


any Shadow Chancellor at this stage in the cycle, will want to see what


the books look like a head of an election before making commitments.


I am clear that the Labour Party has to go into the next general election


with a clear policy to give the NHS the funding it needs because it has


been going through the largest financial squeeze in its history.


You say Labour will always give the NHS the money it needs, that is not


a policy, it is a blank cheque. It is an indication of our commitment


to the NHS. Under this Conservative government, the NHS has been getting


a 1% increase. Throughout its history it has usually have about


4%. Under the last Labour government it was getting 4%, before that


substantially more. We think the NHS should get more but I don't have


access to the NHS books in front of me. The public thinks there needs to


be more money spent on health but they also think that should go cap


in hand with the money being more efficiently spent, which is what


this efficiency drive is designed to release 22 billion. Do you have an


efficiency drive if it is not the Government's one? Of course we


agree. We agree the NHS should be more efficient, we want to see


productivity increased. Do know how to do that? One way is through


investments, maintenance, but there is a 5 million maintenance backlog.


One of the most high risk backlogs is something like 730 million. They


are going to switch the capital spend into revenue spend. I believe


that when you invest in maintenance and capital in the NHS, that


contribute to increasing its productivity. You are now talking


about 5 billion the maintenance, the chief executive says it needs 30


billion more by 2020 as a minimum so that 35 billion. You want to spend


more on social care, another for 5 billion on that so we have proper


care in the community. By that calculation I'm up to about 40


billion, which is fine, except where do you get the and balance the


account at the same time? We will have to come up with a plan for that


and that's why I will work with our Shadow Treasury team to come up with


that plan when they head into the general election. At the moment we


are saying to the NHS, sorry, we are not going to give you the


investment, which is why we are seeing patient care deteriorating.


The staff are doing incredible things but 180,000 are waiting in


A beyond four hours, record levels of people delayed in beds in


hospitals because there are not the beds in the community to go to save


the NHS needs the investment. We know that and we know the


Government's response to that and many think it is inadequate. What


I'm trying to get from you is what your response would be and what your


reaction will be to these efficiency plans. Your colleague Heidi


Alexander, she had your job earlier this year, she warned of the danger


of knee jerk blanket opposition to local efficiency plans. Do you agree


with that? Yes. So every time a hospital is going to close as a


result of this, and some will, it is Labour default position not just


going to be we are against it? That is why we are going to judge each of


these sustainability plans by a number of yardsticks. We want to see


if they have the support of local clinicians, we want to see if they


have the support of local authorities because they now have a


role in the delivery of health care. We want to see if they make the


right decisions for the long-term trends in population for local area.


We want to see if they integrate social care and health. If they


don't and therefore you will not bank that as an efficiency saving,


you will say no, that's not the way to go, you are left then with


finding the alternative funding to keep the NHS going. If you are


cutting beds, for example the proposal is to cut something like


5000 beds in Derbyshire and if there is the space in the community sector


in Derbyshire, that will cause big problems for the NHS in the long


term so it is a false economy. An example like that, we would be very


sceptical the plans could work. Would it not be honest, given the


sums of money involved and your doubts about the efficiency plan,


which are shared by many people, to just say, look, among the wealthy


nations, we spend a lower proportion of our GDP on health than most of


the other countries, European countries included, we need to put


up tax if we want a proper NHS. Wouldn't that be honest? I'm not the


Shadow Chancellor, I don't make taxation policy. You are tempting me


down a particular road by you or I smile. John McDonnell will come up


with our taxation policy. We have had an ambition to meet the European


average, the way these things are measured have changed since then,


but we did have that ambition and for a few years we met it. We need


substantial investment in the NHS. Everyone accepts it was


extraordinary that there wasn't an extra penny for the NHS in the


Autumn Statement this week. And as we go into the general election,


whenever it is, we will have a plan for the NHS. Come back and speak to


us when you know what you are going to do. Thank you.


Theresa May has promised to trigger formal Brexit negotiations


before the end of March, but the Prime Minister must wait


for the Supreme Court to decide whether parliament must vote


If that is the Supreme Court's conclusion, the Liberal Democrats


and others in parliament have said they'll demand a second EU


referendum on the terms of the eventual Brexit deal before


And last week, two former Prime Ministers suggested


that the referendum result could be reversed.


In an interview with the New Statesman on Thursday,


Tony Blair said, "It can be stopped if the British people decide that,


having seen what it means, the pain-gain cost-benefit analysis


John Major also weighed in, telling a meeting


of the National Liberal Club that the terms of Brexit


were being dictated by the "tyranny of the majority".


He also said there is a "perfectly credible case"


That prompted the former Conservative leader


Iain Duncan Smith to criticise John Major.


He told the BBC, "The idea we delay everything simply


because they disagree with the original result does


seem to me an absolute dismissal of democracy."


So, is there a realistic chance of a second referendum on the terms


of whatever Brexit deal Theresa May manages to secure?


Lib Dem party leader Tim Farron has said, "We want to respect


the will of the people and that means they must have their say


in a referendum on the terms of the deal."


But the Lib Dems have just eight MPs - they'll need Labour support


One ally is former Labour leadership candidate Owen Smith.


He backs the idea of a second referendum.


But yesterday the party's deputy leader, Tom Watson, said that,


"Unlike the Lib Dem Brexit Deniers, we believe in respecting


To discuss whether or not there should be a second referendum


on the terms of the Brexit deal, I've been joined by two


In Somerset is the former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown,


and in Shropshire is the former Conservative cabinet minister


Paddy Ashdown, let me come to you first. When the British people have


spoken, you do what they command, either you believe in democracy or


you don't. When democracy speaks, we obey. Your words on the night of the


referendum, what's changed? Nothing has changed, Andrew, that's what I


said and what I still believe in. The British people have spoken, we


will not block Parliament debating the Brexit decision, Article 50, but


we will introduce an amendment to say that we need to consult the


British people, not about if we go out but what destination we would


then achieve. There is a vast difference in ordinary people's


lives between the so-called hard Brexit and soft Brexit. Soft Brexit,


you remain in the single market, you have to accept and agree on


immigration. Hard Brexit you are out of the single market, we have many


fewer jobs... Why didn't you say before the referendum there would be


a second referendum on the terms? Forgive me, I said it on many


occasions, you may not have covered it, Andrew, but that's a different


thing. In every speech I gave I said this, and this has proved to be


true, since those who recommended Brexit refused to tell us the


destination they were recommending, they refuse to give any detail about


the destination, if we did vote to go out, it would probably be


appropriate to decide which destination, hard Brexit or soft


Brexit we go to. They deliberately obscure that because it made it more


difficult to argue the case. It wasn't part of the official campaign


but let me come to Owen Paterson. What's wrong with a referendum on


the terms of the deal? We voted to leave but we don't really know on


what conditions we leave so what's wrong with negotiating the deal and


putting that deal to the British people? This would be a ridiculous


idea, it would be a complete gift to the EU negotiators to go for an


impossibly difficult deal because they want to do everything to make


sure that Brexit does not go through. This nonsense idea of hard


Brexit and soft Brexit, it was never discussed during the referendum


campaign. We made it clear we wanted to take back control, that means


making our own laws, raising and spending the money agreed by elected


politicians, getting control of our own borders back, and getting


control of our ability to do trade deals around the world. That was


clear at all stages of the referendum. We got 17.4 million


votes, the biggest vote in history for any issue, that 52%, 10% more


than John Major got and he was happy with his record number of 14


million, more than Tony Blair got, which was 43%, so we have a very


clear mandate. Time and again people come up to me and say when are we


going to get on with this. The big problem is uncertainty. We want to


trigger Article 50, have the negotiation and get to a better


place. OK, I need to get a debate going.


Paddy Ashdown, the EU doesn't want us to leave. If they knew there was


going to be a second referendum, surely there was going to be a


second referendum, surely their incentive would be to give us the


worst possible deal would vote against it would put us in a


ridiculous negotiating position. On the contrary, the government could


go and negotiate with the European Union and anyway, the opinion of the


European Union is less important than the opinion of the British


people. It seems to me that Owen Paterson made the case for me


precisely. They refuse to discuss what kind of destination. Britain


voted for departure, but not a destination. Because Owen Paterson


and his colleagues refused to discuss what their model was. So the


range of options here and the impact on the people of Britain is huge.


There is nothing to stop the government going to negotiate,


getting the best deal it can and go into the British people and saying,


this is the deal, guys, do you agree? Owen Paterson? It is simple.


The British people voted to leave. We voted to take back control of our


laws, our money, our borders. But most people don't know the shape of


what the deal would be. So why not have a vote on it? Because it would


be a gift to the EU negotiators to drive the worst possible deal in the


hope that it might be chucked out with a second referendum. The


biggest danger is the uncertainty. We have the biggest vote in British


history. You have said all that. It was your side that originally


proposed a second referendum. The director of Leave said, there is a


strong democratic case for a referendum on what the deal looks


like. Your side. Come on, you are digging up a blog from June of 2015.


He said he had not come to a conclusion. He said it is a distinct


possibility. No senior members of the campaign said we would have a


second referendum. It is worth chucking Paddy the quote he gave on


ITV news, whether it is a majority of 1% or 20%, when the British


people have spoken, you do what they command. People come up to me and


keep asking, when are you going to get on with it? What do you say to


that, Paddy Ashdown? Owen Paterson has obviously not been paying


attention. You ask me that question at the start. Owen and his kind have


to stick to the same argument. During the referendum, when we said


that the Europeans have it in their interest to picket tough for us,


they would suffer as well. And that has proved to be right. The European


Union does not wish to hand as a bad deal, because they may suffer in the


process. We need the best deal for both sides. I can't understand why


Owen is now reversing that argument. Here is the question I am going to


ask you. If we have a second referendum on the deal and we vote


by a very small amount, by a sliver, to stay in, can we then make it


best-of-3? No, Andrew! Vince Cable says he thinks if you won, he would


have to have a decider. You will have to put that income tax, because


I don't remember when he said that. -- you have to put that in context.


Independent, 19th of September. That is a decision on the outcome. The


central point is that the British people voted for departure, not a


destination. In response to the claim that this is undemocratic, if


it is democratic to have one referendum, how can it be


undemocratic to have two? Owen Paterson, the British government, on


the brink of triggering article 50, cannot tell us if we will remain


members of the single market, if we will remain members of the customs


union. From that flows our ability to make trade deals, our attitude


towards freedom of movement and the rest of it. Given that the


government can't tell us, it is clear that the British people have


no idea what the eventual shape will be. That is surely the fundamental


case for a second referendum. Emphatically not. They have given a


clear vote. That vote was to take back control. What the establishment


figures like Paddy should recognise is the shattering damage it would do


to the integrity of the whole political process if this was not


delivered. People come up to me, as I have said for the third time now,


wanting to know when we will get article 50 triggered. Both people


who have voted to Remain and to Leave. If we do not deliver this, it


will be disastrous for the reputation and integrity of the


whole political establishment. Let me put that you Paddy Ashdown. It is


very Brussels elite - were ask your question but if we don't like the


answer, we will keep asking the question. Did it with the Irish and


French. It is... It would really anger the British people, would it


not? That is an interesting question, Andrew. I don't think it


would. All the evidence I see in public meetings I attended, and I


think it is beginning to show in the opinion polls, although there hasn't


been a proper one on this yet, I suspect there is a majority in


Britain who would wish to see a second referendum on the outcome.


They take the same view as I do. What began with an open democratic


process cannot end with a government stitch up. Contrary to what Owen


suggests, there is public support for this. And far from damaging the


government and the political class, it showed that we are prepared to


listen. We shall see. Paddy Ashdown, have you eaten your hat yet? Andrew,


as you well know, I have eaten five hats. You cannot have a second


referendum until you eat your hat on my programme. We will leave it


there. Paddy Ashdown and Owen Paterson, thank you much. I have


eaten a hat on your programme. I don't remember!


It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.


We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now


Hello and welcome to the Sunday Politics here the glorious west of


England. Coming up, forget Hinckley, we are talking about the other fast


energy Project held up by delays. Every home in Britain will be able


to upgrade to a smart meter by 2020. We are all meant to be getting smart


meters very soon, it is part of an ?11 billion scheme that is meant to


save you money on your bills, so why have only a few of us bothered so


far. And two high-energy politicians join


me in the studio this week, so don't reach for the off button. The Labour


MP for Bristol West, bang Debonair, and Ukip's deputy chairman William


Dartmouth, welcome to you both. I want to you about this week's big


story, the Autumn Statement, and it has emerged that the cost of leaving


Brexit according to the office of fiscal responsibility is ?58


billion. Worth it, William? This is yet another wonky estimate to a lot


of people -- from a lot of people who have produced wonky estimates in


the past, including the great financial crash of 2009. My


colleague, I have never met him: the same side of the political argument,


professor Patrick Minford, as pointed out the many flawed


assumptions which this estimate is based. As many people still know, we


are still in the European Union until such time as we leave. Which


is over two years ago, so these estimates can't be taken seriously.


On the off chance that they are right, would it be worth it? We have


always argued that either the UK is a sovereign country or it's not. And


the fact of the matter is we need to retain control of our laws and have


an end to open borders, stop making payments to the European Union and


also a repatriation of fishing. And that cost 58 billion, that is OK? I


also disagree with it because the fact of the matter is we have


actually dodged a bullet by getting out. I will bring Thangam Debbonaire


in. 58 billion, you call that dodging a bullet? If we had stayed


the Greek crisis is still going on, the Greek crisis is still going on,


the statistics are just not right. What price would have been


acceptable. Would 5 billion? 2 acceptable. Would 5 billion? 2


billion? What we need to talk about this week is there is 122 billion


black hole in the country's finances, 58 which can be accounted


for by Brexit alone and things will get worse, as you know, when we


leave. As we come out of the single market, firms in my constituency and


across the west will not be able to trade in the same way. 3 million


European workers are doing a great job in Britain, where are they going


to go? As it is likely to be down to MPs whether they trigger Article


could you proceed with Brexit, what will you do? We have said all along,


people didn't vote for chaos. What I have said very clearly is I want to


know what the Government's plan is an all they have said so far is


occasionally breakfast, so they have occasionally breakfast, so they have


no plan, so at the moment, there is nothing to vote for. We can't


trigger Article 50 without knowing that. Would you vote for article 52


be triggered at the moment? No, there is no plan, we need to know


what the planners. I point out that China, not a member of the European


more goods to the European Union more goods to the European Union


than we do. You do not have to be a member to have access to the single


market and that is the big Lie constantly being put forward. Q1 to


explain what the rules are? I can explain what the rules are? I can


explain them. Do you want to put explain them. Do you want to put


tariff barriers on... The average is 3.5%. 3-point fibres of more than


they have to do at the moment. So long as we stay in the single


market, the 85% of the British economy that doesn't trade with the


EU is subject to the full burden and wait... All of the businesses I have


spoken so, the university, the hospitals, the aerospace industry,


do not shout over me, the financial services, they have all said they


need to be in the European single market. You need to get out more,


with respect. It is a good thing you added that. It is that macro if I


dare say it, Ukip's turmoil at the top is taking its toll. In Swindon,


several senior officers have quit and the former chairman has claimed


the party is going nowhere. With a new leader due to be announced on


Monday, what next for the party that was once team Farage?


The rise and rise and rise of Ukip in the west, from European elections


to council contests, taking votes from the blues and, especially


recently, the Reds. Politically, Swindon is always a tight fight


between Labour and Conservative but Ukip have made quite an impact in


recent years. At last year's General Election, they came third in the


town. The town's membership swelled and help to deliver a strong vote


for leaving the referendum but since then, things have gone badly


backwards. The Ukiah Independence party... He stood for Parliament


last year as well as in Council and Police and Crime Commissioner


elections and was Swindon chairman, but John Short has now quit. I left


because I was totally dissatisfied with what was happening with the


party, with all of the infighting and the way in which it was going.


It was not going anywhere, nationally, or even centrally, and


all of the infighting and the way in which they were destroying the


party, I thought, I don't want to be part of this. In just five months,


Ukip has had two leadership contest, top contenders quitting the party


and scuffles in Strasbourg. It is sad, it has lost its way, they need


to sit down and get it sorted out. It shows you it is chaos, that


somebody should sit down, a group should sit down and really resolve


it. So no more campaigning for him or dozens of others Swindon members


who have also left the party. Numbers are down across the west


Country and in Filton and Bradley Stoke, the chairman is staying loyal


but feels let down. To have the sort of business going on at the top is


frustrating and all we want to do is get on and do the work of the party


and essentially what they want to do and what they want to achieve and we


have kind of been hindered in that way, it has been a massive


frustration. One minute, you think you have got a leader and the next


minute you haven't, and the next minute, they are having a punch-up


in the European Parliament. All of that is nonsense and we need to


concentrate on the job in hand, get our own club in order and move


forward again. He was greeted with fanfare in 2012 when, as a


Conservative councillor, he defected to Ukip. The party was entering a


purple patch. It culminated in the referendum of 2016, a turning point


for Britain and possibly for Ukip. William, is this the beginning of


the M4 Ukip? As Figaro absolutely not before I say anything else, I do


want to apologise to our supporters for the disorganisation of the last


three months. The fact of the matter is there is a leadership election


going on now, there will be a new leader on Monday and we will all get


behind the leader. You haven't done that before. It is going to happen


now. There are many MPs, many of the political establishment, Tony Blair,


Peter Mandelson and the rest, who are trying to unpick the referendum


result. In terms of Parliamentary constituencies, over 400


constituencies actually voted to leave and it is important that it is


carried through. I will predict that those characters will have a fight


about them, as your members do. You have fisticuffs, don't you? I have


already apologised for that but I would say that all parties have


divisions. The Parliamentary Labour Party has the no-confidence vote in


its leader. The Conservative Party is heavily split on Brexit and the


terms and the Liberal Democrats, their chief concern seems to be to


overturn the referendum result. We have all have some problems but from


Monday onwards, it is a new chapter. It will be interesting to discover


whether having a new leader allows you to come up with a plan for


Brexit, because so far what you have done in Ukip is campaign the


something which is a bit like going out for a walk without any clue


where you are going. When the country voted, it didn't know what


it was voting for. You told people on the sides of lorries there would


be 350 million is a week... That was our campaign, we were excluded. It


was the Mark Rowley campaign, where people voted on information that


wasn't accurate. This is one we will never be able to reverse -- the


Lives campaign. John Major and Tony Blair are now saying it could be


reasonable to have a second referendum or at least a vote on


what negotiations are, would you support that? What I would support


is as having a clue from the Government as to what the plan is.


The single market, the customs union, completely ad? What are they


going to do about the trading rules between the country? We don't have a


single clue. I think other leaders have been quite right to weigh in


and say we need to talk about this. It should be scrutinised properly


because we will never be able to reverse this. There is and I am


determination to unpick the referendum result and at the risk of


being repetitive, the big advantage of staying in the single market is


that less than 15% of the British market is accounted for -- the


disadvantage. I wish the point had been made. We could be like


Beauvais, we heard a million times, and Norway is in the single market


-- like Norway. No one who knows anything about it has seriously put


forward the Norway option. There are various different ways of managing


it and I come back to a point I made earlier on, the three biggest


exporters to the European Union, Russia, China and the United States,


have access to the single market and do not have trade agreements. And


they have do pay for it, that's the point. You know full well they do.


We are paying up already more in... I must just make this point we are


already paying more... In payments to the EU... Let me ask you this,


you are supporting Mr Nuttall for the leadership of Ukip, is that


right? I have put out a statement to that effect. What is interesting,


Thangam Debbonaire, Ukip did get an enormous victory with the


referendum, Mr Trump has won in the United States, why are people going


to -- why aren't people going to parties like yours when they are


disaffected? That is a good question. We need another General


Election until we can get a decent answer to that question. People are


asking all sorts of really interesting questions. They want to


know what public services... They are saying Labour isn't the answer.


It is varying, we have won various council elections, we won the


control of the Council and a mayor, control of the Council and a mayor,


so in Bristol, people have voting Labour. OK, we will leave it there.


Thank you. Now, it is costing two Thank you. Now, it is costing two


thirds the price of a nuclear power station that has had none of the


attention. The Government's roll-out of smart meters to every home in


Britain as sale by almost unnoticed but like kinky, it is another


example of a flagship energy scheme buffeted by technical problems and


delays. On this quiet Bristol Street,


digital revolution is about to take place. I have come to install your


gas and electricity meters for you today. This is a scene the


Government wants repeated on every doorstep. Energy suppliers offering


customers a smart meter. I wanted to be more aware of my costings, I am a


single mum, I have three girls and lots of appliances, just to see


where my money is going each month. After an hour's work in the garage,


the new meter is installed. It will transmit how much gas and


electricity she uses back to the supplier every half an hour. It


means accurate bills and an end to meter readings. Mum of three Kelly


now has new instructions for her daughters. Lights off, charges


unplugged in the evening, mummy is watching the smart meter. Just


having this new gadget in the home is close to gently remind you to use


less. Studies show consumption of gas and electricity can drop by


average of ?33 per year, but all of average of ?33 per year, but all of


that could be wiped out in the short term if the cost of installing them


is passed on from suppliers through bills. Currently, most of our homes


electricity meters... It was a electricity meters... It was a


Conservative manifesto pledge that everyone should be offered a smart


meter by 2020. Only 7% of homes have one now. Sam Smith another broken


promise. So we ask the advice of two suppliers from Bristol. There still


remains challenges in rolling out smart meters to every home, some


technology barrows that we need to as an industry overcome. It is


possible but exceptionally challenging. The programme was


initially delayed at the national level. You are using business big


for it is not possible. It is very challenging but it is a mighty


target. Experts at GCHQ Cheltenham have been called in to ensure that


smart meters are safe from hackers and cyber security isn't the only


concern. I like to think of it as the biggest infrastructure project


is two thirds the size of Hinkley is two thirds the size of Hinkley


point, so an initial capital cost of some ?11 billion but some people may


think it will grow to 14 billions. It is not the cost of the programme,


it is the complexity. Whether or not you by the Government argument over


smart meters, the truth is it is the start of something much bigger.


Washing machines that turn themselves on when they are full,


fridge freezers that order your shopping. This is what they call the


Internet of things and all of our homes are set to become much


smarter. To take a sneak glimpse into the future, I was invited


inside Bristol's data Dome. Here, they lay out the possibilities


of what all this data from our new gadgetry really means. For


politicians, there is now a raft of new ways of knowing what it


selectors are up to as they try to plan for the future.


Smart meters are just another example of connecting more and more


things around us up to the Internet. For example, your feet bit on your


hand is a thing that takes data, your car is sending data to the


Internet, your house can send energy data or other data and there are


loads of examples, both from medicine and transport and energy,


and this isn't a bad thing, but how we manage all this data is a big


question for us. So one small step for a homeowner, one giant leap for


the energy industry and, who knows where we might end up?


It is all very well but what about an iron that can iron your shirts?


Are you two going to get one? I am going to get one, I have not been


offered one. I think it is gigantically expensive. As the man


on the film said, estimated at 11 billion, it is much more likely to


be 15 billion and there is a credible estimate published in the


Daily Telegraph saying the most it is going to save is maybe ?11 per


year. That is per household. And I think there are very, very serious


questions about whether this is the right thing we should be doing with


that amount of money. There are lots of other infrastructure problems in


the country. I agree there are a lot of infrastructure problems if we are


going to compete on the global market to sort out but I think smart


meters, it is a good idea to give people information about how they


can use electricity and other fuels more efficiently but this project is


a good example of the Government going wrong. Three years, it is


overdue by three years. We haven't of the costs are going about the


benefits are going down so we have been called for an urgent pause and


review so we can see if the project needs more tweaking, if it is worth


continuing with and we need to work out what is the best way to help


people to be more energy-efficient and at the moment, this isn't


working. They have offered me one and coming in a couple of weeks to


fit it. It is a 90 minute appointment, so you can imagine what


that is going to be across the country if every single person gets


this. But I shall be looking and saying, that has got go off. Big


projects were big investments and we have a huge problem on our hands,


climate change, one of the clear and present dangers we are not facing up


to enough in this country. Donald Trump doesn't think that, what about


Ukip, climate change? We are very sceptical about climate change and


we have to be very, very careful with climate change in that it is


not just used as an argument to push through a lot of unnecessary, job


destroying, wealth destroying regulations and that very much seems


to be... Using energy efficiently is a good idea. Climate change is a


clear and present danger. Being a denier is very last century. No one


has ever been accusing me of being 21st century before. We are all in


favour of energy efficiency and ensure elation... Insulation is one


way of using energy. It is free to the consumer at the point of


delivery, if you like, but we all have to pay for it, a couple of


hundred pounds on our bills a year, two thirds the cost of Hinkley, you


must have some doubts? That is why I have a problem at the moment, the


Government's own report, which they sneaked out during Trump week hoping


nobody would notice, it's spotted just that, the cost benefit ratio


isn't working. There is a lot of work to do, we cannot carry on as we


are with the current role of the programme, the smart meters will not


work with the new technology. I will turn the lights out on that


particular discussion. Time for a canter through the west's political


week in 60 seconds. On Tuesday, the west's MPs let off


steam at a debate about trains. It was called by Charlotte Leslie, who


was concerned about the electrification of the great Western


mainline being delayed. This is about the south-west being sick of


being the poor relation in our nation's transport projects while


other high-speed projects go roaring on.


The leader of Somerset County Council labelled the Chancellor's


Autumn Statement and missed opportunity. He had wanted extra


funds for social care. Things will start to fall down, hopefully not in


Somerset, but in other areas of the country, services are really


struggling. But the Chancellor did grant the Wellington Monument in


Somerset million pounds for restoration work. Wheelchair


Ramblers will also receive a million, the money coming from


banking fines. -- Wiltshire air. And many to keep the seagull population


under control. The birds' aggressive behaviour has been upsetting local


residents. They take your fish and chips.


Thangam Debbonaire, you are in that debate about electrification, what


do you think of the delay? Well, I am furious, actually. They are all


sorts of myths being put about about the postponement, postponing it for


many years. We don't know when it will come back and it is a missed


opportunity but it is typical of this Government, which this week has


failed to deal with the clear and present danger we are in with


Brexit, the ?122 billion black hole in our finances and where is ara


electrification, it is a small part of it. It is all money, I suppose.


William, Europe is electrified. We should cancel high-speed rail link


two, in which billions have been spent already and nothing to show


for it and electrified line all the way to Penzance. That is what would


be in the interest of the south-west and the country as a whole. It is


down to money, though. John McDonnell wants to spend 500 billion


on investment. What he wants a slightly more complicated than that.


To conjugated to go into right now but the most important thing is we


need to sort out investment and skills in the 21st century. And that


is we have time for. My thanks to my we will see you again at the same


time next week, have got to make sure London is


open. Thank you. Andrew, back to you.


Is Theresa May serious about curbing executive pay?


Who will be crowned Nigel Farage's successor as Ukip leader?


And can the Lib Dems pull off a by-election upset in Richmond?


So,,, on pay talk about the executive of what executives get


compared to the average worker in the company, giving shareholders


real power to vote down pay rises if they don't like them, which is


pretty much what Ed Miliband proposed in the general election in


2015. Is she serious about this? She is very serious, and the Tory party


probably does owe Ed Miliband an apology for trashing his ideas and


2015 and then putting them all up for votes in November 20 16. She is


very serious, and this all comes back to her desperate fear that


unless capitalism reforms itself and becomes more acceptable to the just


about managing or even 78% of the country who are not earning vast


wealth at anywhere near the figures you see in the City, serious things


will happen and the political sense of trust will implode. She has


already been bartered down by her own Cabinet on this. She wanted to


go further and make workers on the board mandatory. They have managed


to stop that. What will her fallback position be on workers on the board


if she is not able to get it into some claw? We would like to have


workers on the board, but whatever they do on the board there will have


no voting powers on the board. When you look at what was leaked out over


the weekend, that we should know the ratio of the top to the average and


that shareholders who own the company should determine, in the


end, the highest-paid salaries, you kind of think, what could the


possible objection be to any of that? Two things. One, I agree with


Tom that she is deadly serious about this agenda and it comes under the


banner, that sentence in the party conference speech about "It's time


to focus on the good that government can do". She is by instinct more of


an interventionist than Cameron and Osborne. But she is incredibly


cautious, whether it is through the internal constraints of opposition


within Cabinet, or her own small C Conservative caution in implementing


this stuff. Part of the problem is the practicalities. George Osborne


commission will Hutton to do a report which came out with similar


proposals, which were never implemented. It is quite hard to


enforce. It will antagonise business leaders when she's to woo them again


in this Brexit furore. So there are problems with it. And judging by


what has happened so far, my guess is that the aim will be genuinely


bold and interesting, and the implementation incredibly cautious.


Does it matter if she annoys some business leaders? Isn't that part of


her brand? Will there be problems on the Tory backbenches with it? I


think there will be and I think it does matter at this sensitive time


for when we are positioning ourselves as a country and whether


we are going to brand ourselves as a great city of business, implementing


quite interventionist policies. Any suggestion that the government can


control how much the top earners get, I think would be received in a


hostile way. What would be wrong with the shareholders, who own the


company, determining the pay of the higher hands, the executives?


Morally, you can absolutely make that argument but to business


leaders, they will not like it. Ultimately, this will not come down


to more than a row of beans. There was a huge debate about whether


there should be quotas of women on boards. In the end, that never


happened. All we get is figures. But quotas of women, for which there is


a case and a case against too, that was a government mandate. This is


not, this is simply empowering shareholders who own the company to


determine the pay of the people they hire. There is a strong moral


argument for it. Strong economic argument. But the Tory backbenchers


will not like this. The downside is that this is a world where companies


are thinking about upping sticks to Europe. No, they say they are


thinking of that. Not one has done it yet. Others have made massive


investments in this country. But is it not an incentive for those making


these threats to actually do it? In Europe, bankers' pay is now mandated


by Brussels. It is a vivid way of showing you are addressing the issue


of inequality. I think she will go with it, but let's move on to Ukip.


I think we will get the result tomorrow. There are the top three


candidates. Paul Nuttall, Suzanne Evans and on my right, John Reid


Evans. One of them will be the next leader. Who is going to win? It is


widely predicted to be Paul Nuttall and is probably the outcome that the


Labour Party fears most. Paul Nuttall is a very effective


communicator. He is not a household name, far from it, but people will


begin to learn more about him and find that he is actually quite a


strong leader. Can people Ukip together again after this shambolic


period since the referendum? If anyone can, he can. And his brand of


working collar, Northern Ukip is the thing that will work for them. Do


you think he is the favourite? It would be amazing if he doesn't win.


His greatest problem will be getting Nigel Farage off his back. He is


going on a speaking tour of North America. A long speaking tour. Ukip


won this EU referendum. They had the chance to hoover up these


discontented Labour voters in the north, and all he has done is


associated with Ukip with Farage. But Nigel Farage is fed up of Ukip


and will be glad to be hands of it. The bigger problem is money. If it


is Paul Nuttall, and we don't know the results yet, but he is the


favourite, if it is him, I would suggest that that is the result


Labour is frightened of most. To be honest, I think they are frightened


of Ukip whatever the result. Possibly with good cause. The reason


I qualify that is that what you call a shambles over the summer has been


something that goes beyond Monty Python in its absurdity and madness.


That calls into question whether it can function as a political party


when you have what has gone on. The number of leaders itself has been an


act of madness. In a context which should be fantastic for them. They


have won a referendum. There is a debate about what form Brexit should


take, it is a dream for them, and they have gone bonkers. If he can


turn it around, I agree that he is a powerful media communicator, and


then it is a threat to Labour. But he has got to show that first.


Indeed. The by-election in Richmond in south-west London, called by Zac


Goldsmith over Heathrow. Has it turned out to be a by-election about


Heathrow, or has it turned into a by-election, which is what the Lib


Dems wanted, about Brexit? We will know on Thursday. If the Lib Dems


win, they will turn it into an EU referendum. It seems incredibly


close now. The Lib Dems are swamping Richmond. They had 1000 activists


there yesterday. That is getting on for 100th of the population of the


place! If the Lib Dems don't manage to win on Thursday and don't manage


to turn it into an EU referendum despite all their efforts, it will


probably be a disaster for the party. What do you hear, Isabel? I


hear that the Lib Dems have absolutely swamped the constituency,


but this may backfire. I saw a bit of this myself, living in Witney,


when the Lib Dems also swamped and people began to get fed up of their


aggressive tactics. I understand that Zac Goldsmith is cautiously


optimistic that he will pull this one off. Quick stab at the result? I


don't know. But we are entering a period when by-elections are


acquiring significant again. If the Lib Dems were to make a game, it


would breathe life into that near moribund party like nothing else.


Similarly, other by-elections in this shapeless political world we


are in are going to become significant. We don't know if we are


covering it live on Thursday night yet because we have to find at the


time they are going to declare. Richmond are quite late in


declaring, but if it is in the early hours, that is fine. If it is on


breakfast television, they be not. I want to show you this. Michael Gove


was on the Andrew Marr Show this morning. In the now notorious


comment that I made, I was actually cut off in midstream, as politicians


often. The point I made was not that all experts are that is nonsense.


Expert engineers, doctors and physicists are not wrong. But there


is a subclass of experts, particularly social scientists, who


have to reflect on some of the mistakes they have made. And the


recession, which was predicted that we would have if we voted to leave,


has gone like a puff of smoke. So economic experts, he talks about.


The Chancellor has based all of his forward predictions in this Autumn


Statement on the economic expert forecasters. The Office for Budget


Responsibility has said it is 50-50, which is the toss of a coin. But


what was he supposed to do? You would ideally have to have a Budget


that had several sets of scenarios, and that is impossible. Crystal ball


territory. But you do wonder if governments are right to do so much


of their fiscal projections on the basis of forecasts which turn out to


be wrong. They have nothing else to go on. The Treasury forecast is to


be wrong. No doubt the OBR forecast will prove not to be exact. As you


say, they admitted that they are navigating through fog at the


moment. But he also added that it was fog caused by Brexit. So Brexit,


even if you accept that these forecasts might be wrong, is causing


such a level of uncertainty. He put the figure at 60 billion. That could


come to haunt him. He hasn't got a clue. He admitted it. He said,


Parliament mandates me to come up with something, so I am going to


give you a number. But I wouldn't trust it if I were you, he basically


said. I agree with you. The man who borrowed 122 billion more off the


back of a coin toss was Philip Hammond. It begs the question, what


does that say about the confidence Philip Hammond has in his own


government's renegotiation? Not a huge amount. I agree. Philip Hammond


quoted the OBR figures. He basically said, this is uncertain and it looks


bad, and on we go with it. It is a very interesting situation, he said.


He was for Remain and he works in a department which regards it as a


disaster, whatever everyone else thinks. I have just been told we are


covering the by-election. We are part of the constitution.


Jo Coburn will have more Daily Politics tomorrow


And I'll be back here on BBC One next Sunday at 11.


Remember - if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.


to signify the Africans who were here.


The story of Henry VIII and his six wives


and into the private lives of Henry's six wives.


My heart is filled with sorrow. I am not a fool.


Something is happening to crime fiction.


It's getting darker, bloodier, more real


and now more likely to be written by women.


That's my job, really - killing people for fun and profit.


Well, to the east of England, actually, to Peterborough,


Andrew Neil and David Garmston present the latest political news, interviews and debate. They is joined by shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth MP, Liberal Democrat peer Lord Paddy Ashdown, the founder of Cobra Beer Lord Karan Bilimoria, and the founder of Wetherspoons Tim Martin. The political panel comprises Isabel Oakeshott, Tom Newton Dunn and Steve Richards.

Download Subtitles