15/01/2017 Sunday Politics Yorkshire and Lincolnshire


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 15/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Is the Prime Minister prepared to end Britain's membership


of the EU's single market and its customs union?


We preview Theresa May's big speech, as she seeks to unite the country


Is the press a force for good or a beast that needs taming?


As the Government ponders its decision, we speak to one


of those leading the campaign for greater regulation.


Just what kind of President will Donald Trump be?


Piers Morgan, a man who knows him well, joins us live.


Later on the Sunday Politics: Is the devolution revolution


Why Yorkshire's political leaders are divided over a proposal


for an elected mayor covering the whole county.


And to help me make sense of all that, three of the finest


hacks we could persuade to work on a Sunday - Steve Richards,


They'll be tweeting throughout the programme, and you can join


So, Theresa May is preparing for her big Brexit speech on Tuesday,


in which she will urge people to give up on "insults"


and "division" and unite to build, quote, a "global Britain".


Some of the Sunday papers report that the Prime Minister will go


The Sunday Telegraph splashes with the headline: "May's big


gamble on a clean Brexit", saying the Prime Minister


will announce she's prepared to take Britain out of membership


of the single market and customs union.


The Sunday Times has a similar write-up -


they call it a "clean and hard Brexit".


The Brexit Secretary David Davis has also written a piece in the paper


hinting that a transitional deal could be on the cards.


And the Sunday Express says: "May's Brexit Battle Plan",


explaining that the Prime Minister will get tough with Brussels


and call for an end to free movement.


Well, let's get some more reaction on this.


I'm joined now from Cumbria by the leader


of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron.


Mr Farron, welcome back to the programme. The Prime Minister says


most people now just want to get on with it and make a success of it.


But you still want to stop it, don't you? Well, I certainly take the view


that heading for a hard Brexit, essentially that means being outside


the Single Market and the customs union, is not something that was on


the ballot paper last June. For Theresa May to adopt what is


basically the large all Farage vision of Britain's relationship


with Europe is not what was voted for last June. It is right for us to


stand up and say that a hard Brexit is not the democratic choice of the


British people, and that we should be fighting for the people to be the


ones who have the Seat the end of this process, not have it forced


upon them by Theresa May and David Davis. When it comes though dual


position that we should remain in the membership of the Single Market


and the customs union, it looks like you are losing the argument, doesn't


it? My sense is that if you believe in being in the Single Market and


the customs union are good things, I think many people on the leave site


believe that, Stephen Phillips, the Conservative MP until the autumn who


resigned, who voted for Leave but believe we should be in the Single


Market, I think those people believe that it is wrong for us to enter the


negotiations having given up on the most important part of it. If you


really are going to fight Britain's corner, then you should go in there


fighting the membership of the Single Market, not give up and


whitefly, as Theresa May has done before we even start. -- and wave


the white flag. Will you vote against regret Article 50 in the


Commons? We made it clear that we want the British people to have the


final Seat -- vote against triggering. Will you vote against


Article 50. Will you encourage the House of Lords to vote against out


Article 50? I don't think they will get a chance to vote. They will have


a chance to win the deuce amendments. One amendment we will


introduce is that there should be a referendum in the terms of the deal.


It is not right that Parliament on Government, and especially not civil


servants in Brussels and Whitehall, they should stitch-up the final


deal. That would be wrong. It is right that the British people have


the final say. I understand that as your position. You made it clear


Britain to remain a member of the Single Market on the customs union.


You accept, I assume, that that would mean remaining under the


jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, continuing free movement


of people, and the free-trade deals remained in Brussels' competence. So


it seems to me that if you believe that being in the Single Market is a


good thing, then you should go and argue for that. Whilst I believe


that we're not going to get a better deal than the one we currently have,


nevertheless it is up to the Government to go and argue for the


best deal possible for us outside. You accept your position would mean


that? It would mean certainly being in the Single Market and the customs


union. It's no surprise to you I'm sure that the Lib Dems believe the


package we have got now inside the EU is going to be of the Nutley


better than anything we get from the outside, I accept the direction of


travel -- is going to be the Nutley better. At the moment, what the


Government are doing is assuming that all the things you say Drew,


and there is no way possible for us arguing for a deal that allows in


the Single Market without some of those other things. If they really


believed in the best for Britain, you would go and argue for the best


for Britain. Let's be clear, if we remain under the jurisdiction of the


ECJ, which is the court that governs membership of the Single Market,


continued free movement of people, the Europeans have made clear, is


what goes with the Single Market. And free-trade deals remaining under


Brussels' competence. If we accepted all of that is the price of


membership of the Single Market, in what conceivable way with that


amount to leaving the European Union? Well, for example, I do


believe that being a member of the Single Market is worth fighting for.


I personally believe that freedom of movement is a good thing. British


people benefit from freedom of movement. We will hugely be hit as


individuals and families and businesses. Mike I understand, but


your writing of leaving... There the butt is that if you do except that


freedom of movement has to change, I don't, but if you do, and if you are


Theresa May, and the problem is to go and fight for the best deal,


don't take it from Brussels that you can't be in the Single Market


without those other things as well, you don't go and argue the case. It


depresses me that Theresa May is beginning this process is waving the


white flag, just as this morning Jeremy Corbyn was waving the white


flag when it comes to it. We need a Government that will fight Britain's


corner and an opposition that will fight the Government to make sure


that it fights. Just explain to our viewers how we could remain members,


members of the Single Market, and not be subject to the jurisdiction


of the European court? So, first of all we spent over the last many,


many years, the likes of Nigel Farage and others, will have argued,


you heard them on this very programme, that Britain should


aspire to be like Norway and Switzerland for example, countries


that are not in the European Union but aren't the Single Market. It is


very clear to me that if you want the best deal for Britain -- but are


in the Single Market. You go and argue for the best deal. What is the


answer to my question, you haven't answered it


the question is, how does the Prime Minister go and fight for the best


deal for Britain. If we think that being in the Single Market is the


right thing, not Baxter -- not access to it but membership of it,


you don't wave the white flag before you enter the negotiating room. I'm


afraid we have run out of time. Thank you, Tim Farron.


The leaks on this speech on Tuesday we have seen, it is interesting that


Downing Street has not attempted to dampen them down this morning, in


the various papers, do they tell us something new? Do they tell us more


of the Goverment's aims in the Brexit negotiations? I think it's


only a confirmation of something which has been in the mating really


for the six months that she's been in the job. The logic of everything


that she's said since last July, the keenness on re-gaining control of


migration, the desire to do international trade deals, the fact


that she is appointed trade Secretary, the logic of all of that


is that we are out of the Single Market, quite probably out of the


customs union, what will happen this week is a restatement of a fairly


clear position anyway. I think Tim Farron is right about one thing, I


don't think she will go into the speech planning to absolutely


definitively say, we are leaving those things. Because even if there


is a 1% chance of a miracle deal, where you stay in the Single Market,


somehow get exempted from free movement, it is prudent to keep


hopes on that option as a Prime Minister. -- to keep open that


option. She is being advised both by the diplomatic corps and her


personal advisers, don't concede on membership of the Single Market yet.


We know it's not going to happen, but let them Europeans knock us back


on that,... That is probably the right strategy for all of the


reasons that Jarlan outlined there. What we learned a bit today is the


possibility of some kind of transition or arrangements, which


David Davies has been talking about in a comment piece for one of the


Sunday papers. My sense from Brexiteers aborting MPs is that they


are very happy with 90% of the rhetoric -- Brexit sporting MPs. The


rhetoric has not been dampened down by MPs, apart from this transitional


arrangement, which they feel and two France, on the one front will


encourage the very dilatory EU to spend longer than ever negotiating a


deal, and on the other hand will also be exactly what our civil


service looks for in stringing things out. What wasn't explained


this morning is what David Davies means by transitional is not that


you negotiate what you can in two years and then spend another five


years on the matter is that a lot of the soul. He thinks everything has


to be done in the two years, -- of the matter are hard to solve. But it


would include transitional arrangements over the five years.


What we are seeing in the build-up is the danger of making these kind


of speeches. In a way, I kind of admired her not feeding the media


machine over the autumn and the end of last year cars, as Janan has


pointed out in his columns, she has actually said quite a lot from it,


you would extrapolate quite a lot. We won't be members of the Single


Market? She said that in the party conference speech, we are out of


European court. Her red line is the end of free movement, so we are out


of the Single Market. Why has she sent Liam Fox to negotiate all of


these other deals, not that he will succeed necessarily, but that is the


intention? We are still in the customs union. You can extrapolate


what she will say perhaps more cautiously in the headlines on


Tuesday. But the grammar of a big speech raises expectations, gets the


markets worked up. So she is doing it because people have said that she


doesn't know what she's on about. But maybe she should have resisted


it. Very well, and she hasn't. The speech is on Tuesday morning.


Now, the public consultation on press regulation closed this


week, and soon ministers will have to decide whether to


enact a controversial piece of legislation.


Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, if implemented,


could see newspapers forced to pay legal costs in libel and privacy


If they don't sign up to an officially approved regulator.


The newspapers say it's an affront to a free press,


while pro-privacy campaigners say it's the only way to ensure


a scandal like phone-hacking can't happen again.


Ellie Price has been reading all about it.


It was the biggest news about the news for decades,


a scandal that involved household names, but not just celebrities.


They've even hacked the phone of a murdered schoolgirl.


It led to the closure of the News Of The World,


a year-long public inquiry headed up by the judge Lord Justice Leveson,


and in the end, a new press watchdog set up by Royal Charter,


which could impose, among other things, million-pound fines.


If this system is implemented, the country should have confidence


that the terrible suffering of innocent victims


like the Dowlers, the McCanns and Christopher Jefferies should


To get this new plan rolling, the Government also passed


the Crime and Courts Act, Section 40 of which would force


publications who didn't sign up to the new regulator to pay legal


costs in libel and privacy cases, even if they won.


It's waiting for sign-off from the Culture Secretary.


We've got about 50 publications that have signed up...


This is Impress, the press regulator that's got the backing


of the Royal Charter, so its members are protected


from the penalties that would be imposed by Section 40.


It's funded by the Formula One tycoon Max Mosley's


I think the danger if we don't get Section 40 is that


you have an incomplete Leveson project.


I think it's very, very likely that within the next five or ten years


there will be a scandal, there'll be a crisis in press


standards, everyone will be saying to the Government,


"Why on Earth didn't you sort things out when you had the chance?"


Isn't Section 40 essentially just a big stick to beat


We hear a lot about the stick part, but there's also a big juicy carrot


for publishers and their journalists who are members of an


They get huge new protections from libel threats,


from privacy actions, which actually means they've got


a lot more opportunity to run investigative stories.


Impress has a big image problem - not a single national


Instead, many of them are members of Ipso,


the independent regulator set up and funded by the industry that


doesn't seek the recognition of the Royal Charter.


The male cells around 22,000 each day...


There are regional titles too, who, like the Birmingham Mail,


won't sign up to Impress, even if they say the costs


are associated with Section 40 could put them out of business.


Impress has an umbilical cord that goes directly back to Government


through the recognition setup that it has.


Now, we broke free of the shackles of the regulated press


when the stamp duty was revealed 150 years ago.


If we go back to this level of oversight, then I think


we turn the clock back, 150 years of press freedom.


The responses from the public have been coming thick and fast


since the Government launched its consultation


In fact, by the time it closed on Tuesday,


And for that reason alone, it could take months before


a decision on what happens next is taken.


The Government will also be minded to listen to its own MPs,


One described it to me as Draconian and hugely damaging.


So, will the current Culture Secretary's thinking be


I don't think the Government will repeal section 40.


What I'm arguing for is not to implement it, but it will remain


on the statute book and if it then became apparent that Ipso simply


was failing to work, was not delivering effective


regulation and the press were behaving in a way


which was wholly unacceptable, as they were ten years ago,


then there might be an argument at that time to think well in that


case we are going to have to take further measures,


The future of section 40 might not be so black and white.


I'm told a compromise could be met whereby the punitive parts


about legal costs are dropped, but the incentives


to join a recognised regulator are beefed up.


But it could yet be some time until the issue of press freedom


I'm joined now by Max Mosley - he won a legal case against the News


Of The World after it revealed details about his private life,


and he now campaigns for more press regulation.


Are welcome to the programme. Let me ask you this, how can it be right


that you, who many folk think have a clear vendetta against the British


press, can bankroll a government approved regulator of the press? If


we hadn't done it, nobody would, section 40 would never have come


into force because there would never have been a regulator. It is


absolutely wrong that a family trust should have to finance something


like this. It should be financed by the press or the Government. If we


hadn't done it there would be no possibility of regulation. But it


means we end up with a regulator financed by you, as I say


many people think you have a clear vendetta against the press. Where


does the money come from? From a family trust, it is family money.


You have to understand that somebody had to do this. I understand that.


People like to know where the money comes from, I think you said it came


from Brixton Steyn at one stage. Ages ago my father had a trust there


but now all my money is in the UK. We are clear about that, but this is


money that was put together by your father. Yes, my father inherited it


from his father and his father. The whole of Manchester once belonged to


the family, that's why there is a Mosley Street. That is irrelevant


because as we have given the money, I have no control. If you do the


most elementary checks into the contract between my family trust,


the trust but finances Impress, it is impossible for me to exert any


influence. It is just the same as if it had come from the National


lottery. People will find it ironic that the money has come from


historically Britain's best-known fascist. No, it has come from my


family, the Mosley family. This is complete drivel because we have no


control. Where the money comes from doesn't matter, if it had come from


the national lottery it would be exactly the same. Impress was


completely independent. But it wouldn't exist without your money,


wouldn't it? But that doesn't give you influence. It might exist


because it was founded before I was ever in contact with them. Isn't it


curious then that so many leading light show your hostile views of the


press? I don't think it is because I don't know a single member of the


Impress board. The chairman I have met months. The only person I know


is Jonathan Hayward who you had on just now. In one recent months he


tweeted 50 attacks on the Daily Mail, including some calling for an


advertising boycott of the paper. He also liked a Twitter post calling me


Daily Mail and neofascist rag. Are these fitting for what is meant to


be impartial regulator? The person you should ask about that is the


press regulatory panel and they are completely independent, they


reviewed the whole thing. You have probably produced something very


selective, I have no idea but I am certain that these people are


absolutely trustworthy and independent. It is not just Mr


Hayward, we have a tonne of things he has tweeted calling for boycotts,


remember this is the man that would be the regulator of these papers.


He's the chief executive, that is a separate thing. The administration,


the regulator. Many leading light show your vendetta of the press. I


do not have a vendetta. Let's take another one. This person is on the


code committee. Have a look at this. As someone with these views fit to


be involved in the regulation of the press? You said I have a vendetta


against the press, I do not, I didn't say that and it is completely


wrong to say I have a vendetta. What do you think of that? I don't agree,


I wouldn't ban the Daily Mail, I think it's a dreadful paper but I


wouldn't ban it. Another Impress code committee said I hate the Daily


Mail, I couldn't agree more, others have called for a boycott. Other


people can say what they want and many people may think they are right


but surely these views make them unfit to be partial regulators? I


have no influence over Impress therefore I cannot say anything


about it. You should ask them, not me. All I have done is make it


possible for Impress to exist and that was the right thing to do. I'm


asking you if people with these kind of views are fit to be regulators of


the press. You would have to ask about all of their views, these are


some of their views. A lot of people have a downer on the Daily Mail and


the Sun, it doesn't necessarily make them party pre-. Why would


newspapers sign up to a regulator run by what they think is run by


enemies out to ruin them. If they don't like it they should start


their own section 40 regulator. They could make it so recognised, if only


they would make it independent of the big newspaper barons but they


won't -- they could make Ipso recognised. Is the Daily Mail


fascist? It certainly was in the 1930s. Me and my father are


relevant, this whole section 40 issue is about access to justice.


The press don't want ordinary people who cannot afford to bring an action


against the press, don't want them to have access to justice. I can


understand that but I don't sympathise. What would happen to the


boss of Ofcom, which regulates broadcasters, if it described


Channel 4 News is a Marxist scum? If the press don't want to sign up to


Impress they can create their own regulator. If you were to listen we


would get a lot further. The press should make their own Levenson


compliant regulator, then they would have no complaints at all. Even


papers like the Guardian, the Independent, the Financial Times,


they show your hostility to tabloid journalism. They have refused to be


regulated by Impress. I will say it again, the press could start their


own regulator, they do not have to sign... Yes, but Levenson compliant


one giving access to justice so people who cannot afford an


expensive legal action have a proper arbitration service. The Guardian,


the Independent, the Financial Times, they don't want to do that


either. That would suggest there is something fatally flawed about your


approach. Even these kind of papers, the Guardian, Impress is hardly


independent, the head of... Andrew, I am sorry, you are like a dog with


a bone. The press could start their own regulator, then people like the


Financial Times, the Guardian and so one could decide whether they wanted


to join or not but what is absolutely vital is that we should


have a proper arbitration service so that people who cannot afford an


expensive action have somewhere to go. This business of section 40


which you want to be triggered which would mean papers that didn't sign


up to Impress could be sued in any case and they would have to pay


potentially massive legal costs, even if they win. Yes. This is what


the number of papers have said about this, if section 40 was triggered,


the Guardian wouldn't even think of investigation. The Sunday Times said


it would not have even started to expose Lance Armstrong. The Times


journalist said he couldn't have done the Rotherham child abuse


scandal. What they all come it is a full reading of section 40 because


that cost shifting will only apply if, and I quote, it is just and


equitable in all the circumstances. I cannot conceive of any High Court


judge, for example the Lance Armstrong case or the child abuse,


saying it is just as equitable in all circumstances the newspaper


should pay these costs. Even the editor of index on censorship, which


is hardly the Sun, said this would be oppressive and they couldn't do


what they do, they would risk being sued by warlords. No because if


something unfortunate, some really bad person sues them, what would


happen is the judge would say it is just inequitable normal


circumstances that person should pay. Section 40 is for the person


that comes along and says to a big newspaper, can we go to arbitration


because I cannot afford to go to court. The big newspaper says no.


That leaves less than 1% of the population with any remedy if the


newspapers traduce them. It cannot be right. From the Guardian to the


Sun, and including Index On Censorship, all of these media


outlets think you are proposing a charter for conmen, warlords, crime


bosses, dodgy politicians, celebrities with a grievance against


the press. I will give you the final word to address that. It is pure


guff and the reason is they want to go on marking their own homework.


The press don't want anyone to make sure life is fair. All I want is


somebody who has got no money to be able to sue in just the way that I


can. All right, thanks for being with us.


The doctors' union, the British Medical Association,


has said the Government is scapegoating GPs in England


The Government has said GP surgeries must try harder to stay


open from 8am to 8pm, or they could lose out on funding.


The pressure on A services in recent weeks has been intense.


It emerged this week that 65 of the 152 Health Trusts in England


had issued an operational pressure alert in the first


At either level three, meaning major pressures,


or level four, indicating an inability to deliver


On Monday, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt told the Commons


that the number of people using A had increased by 9 million


But that 30% of those visits were unnecessary.


He said that the situation at a number of Trusts


On Tuesday, the Royal College of Physicians wrote


to the Prime Minister saying the health service was being


paralysed by spiralling demand, and urging greater investment.


On Wednesday, the Chief Executive of NHS England, Simon Stevens,


told a Select Committee that NHS funding will be highly constrained.


And from 2018, real-terms spending per person would fall.


The Prime Minister described the Red Cross's claim that A


was facing a "humanitarian crisis" as "irresponsible and overblown".


And the National Audit Office issued a report that found almost half,


46%, of GP surgeries closed at some point during core hours.


Yesterday, Mrs May signalled her support for doctors' surgeries


opening from 8am to 8pm every day of the week, in order to divert


To discuss this, I'm joined now by the Conservative


MP Maria Caulfield - she was an NHS nurse in a former


life - and Clare Gerada, a former chair of the Royal College


Welcome to you both. So, Maria Caulfield, what the Government is


saying, Downing Street in effect is saying that GPs do not work hard


enough and that's the reason why A was under such pressure? No, I don't


think that is the message, I think that is the message that the media


have taken up. That is not the expression that we want to give. I


still work as a nurse, I know how hard doctors work in hospitals and


GP practices. When the rose 30% of people turning up at A for neither


an accident or an emergency, we do need to look at alternative. Where


is the GPs' operability in this? We know from patients that if they


cannot get access to GPs, they will do one of three things. They will


wait two or three weeks until they can get an appointment, they will


forget about the problem altogether, which is not good, we want patients


to be getting investigations at early stages, or they will go to


A And that is a problem. I'm not quite sure what the role that GPs


play in this. What is your response in that? I think about 70% of


patients that I see should not be seen by me but should still be seen


by hospital consultants. If we look at it from GPs' eyes and not from


hospital's eyes, because that is what it is, we might get somewhere.


Tomorrow morning, every practice in England will have about 1.5 GPs


shot, that's not even counting if there is traffic problems, sickness


or whatever. -- GPs shot. We cannot work any harder, I cannot


physically, emotionally work any harder. We are open 12 hours a day,


most of us, I run practices open 365 days per year 24 hours a day. I


don't understand this. It is one thing attacking me as a GP from


working hard enough, but it is another thing saying that GPs as a


profession and doing what they should be doing. Let me in National


Audit Office has coming up with these figures showing that almost


half of doctors' practices are not open during core hours at some part


of the week. That's where the implication comes, that they are not


working hard enough. What do you say to that? I don't recognise this. I'm


not being defensive, I'm just don't recognise it. There are practices


working palliative care services, practices have to close home visits


if they are single-handed, some of us are working in care homes during


the day. They may shot for an hour in the middle of the data will sort


out some of the prescriptions and admin -- they may shot. My practice


runs a number of practices across London. If we shut during our


contractual hours we would have NHS England coming down on us like a


tonne of bricks. Maria Caulfield, I'm struggling to understand, given


the problems the NHS faces, particularly in our hospitals, what


this has got to do with the solution? Obviously there are GP


practices that are working, you know, over and above the hours. But


there are some GP practices, we know from National Audit Office, there


are particular black sports -- blackspots in the country that only


offer services for three hours a week. That's causing problems if


they cannot get to see a GP they will go and use A Nobody is


saying that this measure would solve problems at A, it would address


one small part of its top blog we shouldn't be starting this, as I


keep saying, please to this from solving the problems at A We


should be starting it from solving the problems of the patients in


their totality, the best place they should go, not from A This really


upsets me, as a GP I am there to be a proxy A doctor. I am a GP, a


highly skilled doctor, looking after patients from cradle to grave across


the physical, psychological and social, I am not an A doctor. I


don't disagree with that, nobody is saying that GPs are not working hard


enough. You just did, actually, about some of them. In some


practices, what we need to see, it's not just GPs in GP surgeries, it is


advanced nurse practitioners, pharmacists. It doesn't necessarily


need to be all on the GPs. I think advanced nurse practitioners are in


short supply. Position associate or go to hospital, -- physician


associates. We have very few trainees, junior doctors in general


practice, unlike hospitals, which tend to have some slack with the


junior doctor community and workforce. This isn't an argument,


this is about saying, let's stop looking at the National health


system as a National hospital system. GPs tomorrow will see about


1.3 million patients. That is a lot of thoughtful. A lot of activity


with no resources. If you wanted the GPs to behave better, in your terms,


when you allocated more money to GPs, part of the reforms, because


that's where it went, shouldn't you have targeted it more closely to


where they want to operate? That is exactly what the Prime Minister is


saying, extra funding is being made available by GPs to extend hours and


services. If certain GP practices cannot do that, the money will


follow the patient to where they move onto. We have no doctors to do


it. I was on a coach last week, the coach driver stopped in the service


station for an hour, they were stopping for a rest. We cannot do


it. Even if you gave us millions more money, and thankfully NHS is


recognising that we need a solution through the five-day week, we


haven't got the doctors to deliver this. It would take a while to get


them? That's my point, that's why we need to be using all how care


professional. Even if you got this right, would it make a difference to


what many regard as the crisis in our hospitals? I think it would. If


you look at patients, they just want to go to a service that will address


the problems. In Scotland for example, pharmacists have their own


patient list. Patients go and see the pharmacists first. There are


lots of conditions, for example if you want anticoagulants, you don't


necessarily need to see a doctor, a pharmacist can manage that and free


up the doctor in other ways. The Prime Minister has said that if


things do not change she is threatening to reduce funding to


doctors who do not comply. Can you both agree, that is probably an


empty threat, that's not going to happen? I hope it's an empty threat.


We're trying our best. People like me in my profession, the seniors in


our profession, are really trying to pull up morale and get people into


general practice, which is a wonderful profession, absolutely


wonderful place to be. But slapping us off and telling us that we are


lazy really doesn't help. I really don't think anybody is doing that.


We have run out of time, but I'm certain that we will be back to the


subject before this winter is out. It's just gone 11:35am,


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


in Scotland, who leave us now Coming up here in 20


minutes: The Week Ahead. Hello, you're watching


the Sunday Politics Coming up today: Could


we finally see one mayor The idea has split


Labour down the middle. Teachers say there is a cash


crisis in education. Will the government's new funding


formula sort it out? I speak to colleague after colleague


after colleague across the country. I know a lot of people


and we are all in this together. We'll be discussing those subjects


and more with our guests today, who are Julian Smith,


Conservative MP for Skipton and Ripon, and Louise Haigh,


Labour MP for Sheffield Heeley. So what's been the big story


for you this week, Louise Haigh? Obviously the NHS has


dominated headlines. I raised a case of a constituent


of mine this week whose husband tragically died whilst


he was waiting two and a half hours I think we are really, I know


we overuse this word quite a lot, but I think we are really


seeing a crisis in the NHS at the moment and we have had countless


examples raised in the house this week so I think it will continue


to rumble on in the coming months. What caught your eye


this week, Julian Smith? It has been the rebranding


that has been taking place, which hasn't gone as well


for Jeremy Corbyn, and the fact that policies on immigration


and the economy change within the space of about six hours,


and then by the end of the week one of the bright,


young, potentially future leaders of the Labour Party and the official


opposition has resigned his MP seat. We may discuss that a little


bit later, but first... This year some of England's


biggest cities will choose But there'll be no such


elections taking place One of the proposed


mayoral contests, in the Sheffield City Region,


has been postponed. And now one senior Labour MP has


suggested going back to the drawing board and creating a single mayor


for the whole of the Yorkshire and Humber region, a proposal


which been rejected by other Labour MPs representing South


Yorkshire constituencies. Behind closed doors at a union


headquarters in Wakefield, Yorkshire's Labour council leaders


met on Friday to hear a new proposal for devolution,


but it's the Government's policy Even though they're not in office,


when it comes to devolution in Yorkshire, Labour is very much


in the driving seat. That's because the Government has


made it clear that it's up to individual local councils


to decide who it is that they partner up


with to form devolved regions, and here in Yorkshire virtually


all of the big local So when the Shadow Cabinet minister


responsible for constitutional change says that he wants Yorkshire


to be run by a single mayor with a big devolved region covering


the whole of the county including North Lincolnshire, then that


proposal carries some weight. We're all agreed, something


big has to happen. Now, exactly how we do it,


I think we're beginning to get towards a solution


and I put my idea forward. It's a personal idea and I think


it's won some people to it. Other people said that it was


already their idea and one or two people said we needed to know


some more details. Look, we started a debate


and I wanted to hear the views of ordinary Yorkshire folk as well,


by the way. Devolution for South Yorkshire,


the Sheffield city region, run by an elected mayor with extra


powers and money has already been signed and was due to be launched


in four months' time. But last week, it was postponed


for a year, so does the all I don't think the Sheffield city


region is dead at all. This is about an overarching deal


that can actually bring more It's a Yorkshire voice that we're


talking about here today and therefore we're behind it,


but I'm here for Doncaster, making sure the residents


are supported and businesses because that's how we're going


to continue growing that economy. But the Government minister


responsible for devolution says these 11th hour Labour proposals


are totally unworkable. I'm not convinced all


of the councils will agree to that in that area anyway,


and you are then undoing a deal which has already been done


which makes it even What I think we should be focusing


on is we've got a good deal for South Yorkshire,


let's look at East, West and North Yorkshire


where I think very definitely, A lot of people who live in York


and Harrogate work in Leeds, the Humber ports serve


the West Yorkshire economy. Instead of trying to mess everything


up that we've already negotiated, let's deal with the bits


where we don't have a deal already. And the respected thinktank that


looks at how to revive urban areas says trying to stretch devolution


to the whole of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire makes


no economic sense. If leaders choose to go down


the all Yorkshire approach, I think there are some questions


and some issues that we would want clarity on, which our how


are at the Leeds city region, how is Sheffield city region really


going to benefit from that. I think those will be


questions that the leaders Well, the Government


appears to be quite clear. If negotiations start again,


devolution, whatever form it takes in Yorkshire,


could be delayed for years Well, Louise Haigh, do


you support your Labour colleague, Jon Trickett's proposals


for a single directly-elected mayor John has put forward his personal


view, it's not mine. The Sheffield city region deal


is already on the cusp Alright, it's been delayed a year


because of the problems around the Chesterfield judicial review,


but what is needed is the best possible deal for the whole


of South Yorkshire and the Sheffield city region and I believe


it's that economic area, Jon Trickett is the man in charge


of devolution so this is a major You have just heard him saying that


clip that that is his personal view. But he's in charge of your


policy on devolution. The whole point of devolution


is for local areas to decide We will not dictate from Westminster


what's the right area or the right deal for devolution and local


authority leaders have already decided amongst themselves


in the Sheffield city region, and I think if we can


still deliver on that then Yorkshire as an economic


area doesn't actually Sheffield doesn't have very much


in common with York or Harrogate in the same way it has


with Chesterfield and the wider Sheffield city region


which encompasses South Yorkshire as well and that is the point


about these devolution deals, they are based on economic areas


and other Sheffield and city MPs agree with me, as do


the local authority leaders. Julian Smith, we seem to have come


full circle on this story and many people will be


scratching their heads. Why doesn't the government step


in and intervene between warring I think the Sheffield deal,


the South Yorkshire deal, We have obviously got this legal


issue at the moment but I am pleased that local MPs are supportive of it


because it will mean about ?1 billion more over the next


30 years for the region and it will be a great asset


for that part of Yorkshire, but we now have got to seize


the opportunity of coming up with a deal for the rest


of Yorkshire, and east, west and north of Yorkshire


still hasn't come together. I know that the minister is working


incredibly hard with local councils, and I call on them yet again to make


sure that they seize this opportunity because this is money,


this is growth, this is an opportunity to control


affairs here in Yorkshire. If it is so good, why aren't council


leaders gunning for it I think that discussions are getting


more positive but we need particularly the West Yorkshire


councils to get more enthusiastic It will bring huge opportunity


for our region and I think will be absolutely the best thing to do


for this area. Louise Haigh, are you absolutely


convinced this Sheffield city deal, with an elected mayor,


will ever, ever happen? We heard from Ros Jones,


mayor of Doncaster, she is tempted Barnsley as well, we are told, could


be tempted by an all Yorkshire deal. I think that it's right,


especially with the year-long delay now that if there is going to be


that delay then people should look I personally don't think Barnsley


and Doncaster would be best-served in a wider Yorkshire deal


but that is up for Barnsley I am still convinced it could well


happen in May 2018 but I think a big problem with this is because these


powers and this money has been very rigidly tied to the idea


of an elected metro mayor to be quite honest I'm not convinced that


what people want are more layers I think that has been part


of the problem that has David Cameron was right when he said


people in Yorkshire hate each other more than they hate


the other regions. Councils are talking and there have


been more positive talks in the last few weeks and I am confident


that we will come to a deal for the rest of Yorkshire and I am


absolutely certain the government is not going to unpick


the Sheffield deal. That's here to stay and now the rest


of Yorkshire needs to get going and come to a conclusion


after many, many months, where Manchester, where Liverpool,


where Birmingham are steaming ahead and we're losing out and we've got


to grasp the opportunity now and I call particularly on West


Yorkshire council to get on with it. What happens to all of this


money if we don't get a mayor for various parts


of Yorkshire, ?13 million a year that other cities are


getting, where does it go? I think that we have got to realise


that there is a devolution agenda. London benefits from that,


from having an ambassador, it is now Sadiq Khan


and it was Boris Johnson, whatever the colour,


this is an opportunity for a senior individual to seize control and get


the best deal and the best We will no doubt come back


to this subject as 2017 But now, there are claims that many


schools in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire are facing


a cash crisis. The government says our education


system is better funded than ever. But many teachers claim


they are having to do more for less, and a new funding formula


for schools looks set to create Since 2010 Huntington School


in York has, in real terms, lost hundreds of thousands of pounds


off its budget. And the remaining ones are teaching


more to avoid further redundancies. We have cut everything we possibly


can, so everything like gas, electricity, cleaning, all of those


have been pared to the bone. We have got new textbooks


for new courses that we cannot afford to buy and students


and parents have to dig into their pockets and start buying


those things and that is where The government says the education


budget is at an all-time high and the overall budget


is protected against inflation, but unions say the figures don't


consider things like It also doesn't take


into account things like pension schemes, National Insurance


and annual pay rises. But could things be


different in the future? The government is consulting


on changing the way that Under the current funding formula


money is allocated to individual schools is based on how much


they got historically. And generally bigger


cities getting more money. But a new funding formula


being proposed will take things like low attainment,


deprivation and school Beverley and Holderness Conservative


MP Graham Stuart has spent years campaining for fairer funding


and welcomes the change. It is the first time


that we will have a school funding formula that is based objectively


on pupil need and it is welcome and we will see a big improvement,


not least in Yorkshire. Some schools, like those


in York and Barnsley, will get more money,


but to pay for that, others in places like Bradford


and Wakefield will get less. In real terms the education sector


is in a tight position in the next few years,


with a small overall reduction, but generally in the context


of the public sector being protected, compared


to what would happen if you didn't have this funding distribution,


nearly all the schools in my constituency are better off


and Yorkshire is better off The National Union of Teachers says


this new formula will mean real term cuts in funding to around 90%


of schools in England. I'm getting increasingly


concerned about the future. We're going through a period


when children's needs are not going to be met,


we've got a government that seems hell-bent


on funding its own pet projects, such as grammar schools,


free schools, academies. Money is going out of the system


on testing which could be better spent on the children


who are in the schools now, The Department for Education says


the NUT's figures are misleading and under the new formula more


than a fifth of the schools budget will be on pupils with extra needs,


but John Thomsett is still I feel really uncomfortable


about benefiting from that change of structure when other people


are getting less. My colleagues across the country


will be getting less if we get more, because there is no more money


going into the system, A national funding formula,


we want one, but we want sufficient funding for everybody,


not redistributing the same pot Well, Julian Smith, you saw


there a headteacher in York who says he has cut everything he possibly


can and that parents and children are now


buying their own textbooks, do you accept that many schools


are facing a financial crisis? I accept that it is challenging


for schools, as it is in all parts of the public services,


as a result of the continued difficult situation our economy


is in following the Labour years But we do need to continue


to be efficient. I mean, I have got three secondary


schools in very close proximity in Skipton,


they are all doing individual ordering, individual organisation


of their back offices and their schools and I would


like them to do more, more shared opportunities and make


more of the money that is available, but the exciting thing


about the announcement by Justine Greening is that


for schools in North Yorkshire and Yorkshire generally this


is a big opportunity. It will mean, as Graham Stuart says,


it will mean more money and it is going to mean particularly


those rural schools that were underfunded within the formula


are getting more money. Let me put that to Louise Haigh,


because we hear all the time that historically there hasn't been


a level playing field when it comes to the funding of schools


and actually something has Firstly let me say it is totally


bizarre to hear a Tory MP say he wants to see schools making more


of shared services because of course that is what we had when schools


were under working in local authorities and as academies


and free schools have been brought forward schools have gone away


from that so that is why we see more But there are two things


here with school funding, firstly, as was said at the beginning of that


clip, the new schools funding formula doesn't take into account


the 8% rise in costs and pressures from increased pupil numbers,


which the National Audit Office has said, basically schools


are seeing 8% inflation. Sheffield has historically been


underfunded under the current system, so we are going to see quite


a significant increase of 5.6% but it is still a real terms cut


and that is what the teacher was saying there and that is what


Julian's Tory colleague was saying, that the education sector as a whole


is seeing a real terms cut. But we are also seeing,


as the teacher said at the end there, that it's robbing Peter


to pay Paul. Some schools are going


to seriously lose out in order for others to benefit


and that is fundamentally unfair. We heard this week that more


children are being taught The BBC featured a school


in Yorkshire where 46 pupils What we need to focus


on is outcomes... Are super-sized classes


going to be the norm? I don't think they necessarily


will be but we need 1.6 million more children in good


or outstanding schools, still about a million or more pupils


at poor or improving schools and we have to do better,


we have got to raise standards and that has to be a focus,


and obviously class sizes are important, but we need to focus


on the outcomes, and those outcomes have been very,


very good since 2010 and we need to keep going and keep pushing


for higher standards. I will let you just respond briefly


on this, Louise Haigh. Well, clearly the two biggest


factors in education and in delivering those outcomes


are class sizes and are the quality of teaching, and last year we saw


the highest number of teachers leaving the profession


because of pressures in the education system


and because of the reforms that we have seen over the last


two Tory governments. Another subject I'm sure


we will come back to during 2017. Let's get some more of the week's


political news now. Trudy Scanlon has our


round-up in 60 seconds. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn says


he will not step in to help if his MPs face deselection


by their constituency party, Some MPs who do not support


the current leadership I do not, as a leader,


dictate to interfere MPs have unanimously backed


the so called Claudia's Law which will give families greater


control of the affairs of missing people such


as the Yorkshire chef, The bill was proposed by Thirsk


MP Kevin Hollinrake. Filibustering meant


Great Grimsby Labour MP Melanie Onn's bill to protect


workers' rights post Dewsbury MP Paula Sheriff got


a reprimand from the Speaker of the House after barracking


the Prime Minister during PMQ's If she were behaving in another


public place like this she would probably be subject


to anti-social behaviour order. She later tweeted she would never


stop fighting with everything You will be glad to hear we do not


issue ASBOs for unruly Louise Haigh, when the Red Cross


said the NHS was facing a humanitarian crisis,


I mean, do you go along with that description,


or was it overblown, The fact that we have had


the Red Cross coming in to help A departments out is quite


embarrassing for our country really, the NHS is our proudest institution


and we really are seeing it The cuts that we have been seeing,


not just on the NHS, but right across the system and not


least on social care do not happen in isolation,


they all have a knock-on effect. If you don't receive that care


in your home and you can't get in to see your GP,


you're going to end up in A in some shape or form and it is not


a problem unique to trusts. I think only one in 152 trusts


hasn't been in deficit. NHS facing a humanitarian


crisis, Julian Smith? The NHS is performing better


than at any time in its history, but it doesn't mean that there


aren't huge challenges and I think it's really important


when we are discussing the NHS to talk about what amazing work


it is doing and the good things that are happening and the fact


that there are also these challenges and that Tuesday after Christmas,


it treated more patients, more A referrals than at any


time in its history. Because people can't


get in from elsewhere. It is not just people


want to go to A They don't want to go


there unless they absolutely have to and the cuts elsewhere in the NHS


have an impact. The challenges in the NHS are not


just to do with money, it is due Since I became an MP in 2010 people


are living 12 months longer In terms of social care,


many councils say they don't have the budget to be able to care


for people in their own homes. That is why the Chancellor made


the announcement to allow greater freedoms to introduce higher


precepts for social care. The government is putting


in significant funds to that and we are trying to get councils,


NHS and social care There is more to do but let's not


lose sight of the fact that the NHS is performing really well with these


significant challenges The NHS is a huge issue and I know


it has been discussed already at length on Sunday


political programmes today. He is all over the place,


on immigration, on a pay cap, it's all gone wrong


for him, hasn't it? There were several messages out


of the relaunch on Tuesday. I think on immigration clearly


there is a big debate to be had, there is a big debate


to be had in the country. The Tories don't have a clear


immigration policy so I don't think it's fair


to suggest the opposition should have a very, very clear


one at the moment. We have big questions


to answer out of Brexit. Let's be honest, there


is going to be a different approach from my London colleagues


as there is from our We have different attitudes


towards immigration Is Jeremy Corbyn right


to suggest that he won't step in where popular Labour MPs,


such as Hilary Benn, I don't think Hilary Benn faces any


sort of deselection challenge I find it very hard to believe


that might be the case, but it is ultimately for members


to decide and for my members to decide whether they reselect me


as a candidate and it would be quite alarming if the leader


is stepping on either side. I think this is a devastating


statement that the leader of the Labour Party made


to undermine his MPs and this is the final piece of his jigsaw


of ensuring his Momentum MPs get selected, and when we put


the boundary changes through... I'm sorry, no leader


has ever stepped in to This will be the end of moderate


MPs, this is a key moment in the Labour Party's parliamentary


switch to left wing Labour MPs. If Labour do not perform well


in those forthcoming by-elections, Mr Corbyn surely can't carry


on, can he? Well, it will be entirely


up for Mr Corbyn. I think we are facing


a challenging time in Copeland, that's obviously a Leave


constituency, that so it will be a very serious test


but I have confidence we have strong local candidates and I think


that is very important that we do have local candidates in both


of those seats and we will be putting our all into making


sure that we do win. Thank you both for your thoughts


today, to Julian Smith And, as always,


we shall now hand back Now, if anyone thought Donald Trump


would tone things down after the American election


campaign, they may have The period where he has been


President-elect will make them think again. The inauguration is coming up


on Friday. Never has the forthcoming


inauguration of a president been In a moment, we'll talk


to a man who knows Mr Trump But first, let's have a look


at the press conference Mr Trump gave on Wednesday,


in which he took the opportunity to rubbish reports that Russia has


obtained compromising information You are attacking our


news organisation. Can you give us a chance,


you are attacking our news organisation, can you give us


a chance to ask a question, sir? As far as Buzzfeed,


which is a failing pile of garbage, writing it, I think they're


going to suffer the consequences. Does anyone really


believe that story? I'm also very much of


a germaphobe, by the way. If Putin likes Donald Trump,


guess what, folks, that's called The only ones that care about my tax


returns are the reporters, OK? Do you not think the American


public is concerned? The Wiggo, Donald Trump at his first


last conference. The Can will he change as President? Because he


hasn't changed in the run-up to being inaugurated? I don't think he


will commit he doesn't see any point in changing. Why would he change


from the personality that just one, as he just said, I just one. All of


the bleeding-heart liberals can wail and brush their teeth and say how


ghastly that all this, Hillary should have won and so on, but he


has got an incredible mandate. Remember, Trump has the House


committee has the Senate, he will have the Supreme Court. He has


incredible power right now. He doesn't have to listen to anybody. I


spoke to him a couple of weeks ago specifically about Twitter, I asked


him what the impact was of Twitter. He said, I have 60 million people


following me on Twitter. I was able to bypass mainstream media, bypass


all modern political convention and talk directly to potential voters.


Secondly, I can turn on the TV in the morning, I can see a rival


getting all of the airtime, and I can fire off a tweet, for free, as a


marketing man he loves that, and, boom, I'm on the news agenda again.


He was able to use that magnificently. Twitter to him didn't


cost him a dollar. He is going to carry on tweeting in the last six


weeks, he was not sleeping. Trump has never had an alcoholic drink a


cigarette or a drug. He is a fit by the 70, he has incredible energy and


he is incredibly competitive. At his heart, he is a businessman. If you


look at him as a political ideologue, you completely missed the


point of trouble. Don't take what he says literally, look upon it as a


negotiating point that he started from, and try to do business with


him as a business person would, and you may be presently surprised so


pleasantly surprised. He treats the press and the media entirely


differently to any other politician or main politician in that normally


the politicians try to get the media off a particular subject, or they


try to conciliate with the media. He just comes and punches the media in


the nose when he doesn't like them. This could catch on, you know! You


are absolutely right, for a start, nobody could accuse him of letting


that victory go to his head. You know, he won't say, I will now be


this lofty president. He's exactly the same as he was before. What is


fascinating is his Laois and ship with the media. I haven't met, and


I'm sure you haven't, met a party leader who is obsessed with the


media. But they pretend not to be. You know, they state, oh, somebody


told me about a column, I didn't read it. He is utterly transparent


in his obsession with the media, he doesn't pretend. How that plays out,


who knows? It's a completely different dynamic than anyone has


seen by. Like he is the issue, he has appointed an unusual Cabinet,


that you could criticise in many ways. Nearly all of them are


independent people in their own right. A lot of them are wealthy,


too. They have their own views. They might not like what he tweaked at


3am, and he does have to deal with his Cabinet now. Mad dog matters,


now the Defence Secretary, he might not like what's said about China at


three in morning - general matters. This is what gets very conjugated.


We cannot imagine here in our political system any kind of


appointments like this. Using the wouldn't have a line-up of


billionaires of the kind of background that he has chosen -- you


simply wouldn't have. But that won't stop him saying and reading what he


thinks. Maybe it will cause him some internal issues when the following


day he has the square rigged with whatever they think. But he's going


to press ahead. Are we any clearer in terms of policy. I know policy


hasn't featured hugely in this campaign of 2016. Do we have any


really clear idea what Mr Trump is hoping to achieve? He has had some


consistent theme going back over 25 years. One is a deep scepticism


about international trade and the kind of deals that America has been


doing over that period. It has been so consistent that is has been hard


to spin as something that you say during the course of a campaign of


something to get elected. Ultimately, Piers is correct, he


won't change. When he won the election committee gave a relatively


magnanimous beach. I thought his ego had been sated and he had got what


he wanted. He will end up governing as is likely eccentric New York


liberal and everything will be fine. In the recent weeks it has come to


my attention that that might not be entirely true!


LAUGHTER It is a real test of the American


system, the Texan bouncers, the foreign policy establishment which


is about to have the orthodoxies disrupted -- the checks and


balances. I think he has completely ripped up the American political


system. Washington as we know it is dead. From his garage do things his


way, he doesn't care, frankly, what any of us thinks -- Trump is going


to do things his way. If he can deliver for the people who voted for


him who fault this disenfranchised, -- who voted for him who felt this


disenfranchised. They voted accordingly. They want to see jobs


and the economy in good shape, they want to feel secure. They want to


feel that immigration has been tightened. If Trump can deliver on


those main theme for the rust belt communities of America, I'm telling


you, he will go down as a very successful president. All of the


offensive rhetoric and the argy-bargy with CNN and whatever it


may be will be completely irrelevant. Let me finish with a


parochial question. Is it fair to say quite well disposed to this


country? And that he would like, that he's up for a speedy


free-trade, bilateral free-trade you'll? Think we have to be sensible


as the country. Come Friday, he is the president of the United States,


the most powerful man and well. He said to me that he feels half


British, his mum was born and raised in Scotland until the age of 18, he


loves British, his mother used to love watching the Queen, he feels


very, you know, I would roll out the red carpet for Trump, let him eat


Her Majesty. The crucial point for us as a country is coming -- let him


me to Her Majesty. If we can do a speedy deal within an 18 month


period, it really sends a message that well but we are back in the


game, that is a hugely beneficial thing for this country. Well, a man


whose advisers were indicating that maybe he should learn a few things


from Donald Trump was Jeremy Corbyn. Yes, MBE. Mr Corbyn appeared on the


Andrew Marr Show this morning. -- yes, indeed.


If you don't win Copeland, and if you don't win


Stoke-on-Trent Central, you're toast, aren't you?


Our party is going to fight very hard in those elections,


as we are in the local elections, to put those policies out there.


It's an opportunity to challenge the Government on the NHS.


It's an opportunity to challenge them on the chaos of Brexit.


It's an opportunity to challenge them on the housing shortage.


It's an opportunity to challenge them on zero-hours contracts.


Is there ever a moment that you look in the mirror and think,


you know what, I've done my best, but this might not be for me?


I look in the mirror every day and I think,


let's go out there and try and create a society where there


are opportunities for all, where there aren't these terrible


levels of poverty, where there isn't homelessness,


where there are houses for all, and where young people aren't


frightened of going to university because of the debts


they are going to end up with at the end of their course.


Mr Corbyn earlier this morning. Steve, would it be fair to say that


the mainstream of the Labour Party has now come to the conclusion that


they just have to let Mr Corbyn get on with it, that they are not going


to try and influence what he does. They will continue to try and have


their own views, but it's his show, it's up to him, if it's a mess, he


has to live with it and we'll have clean hands? For now, yes. I think


they made a mistake when he was first elected to start in some cases


tweeting within seconds that it was going to be a disaster, this was


Labour MPs. They made a complete mess of that attempted coup in the


summer, which strengthened his position. And he did, it gave Corbyn


the space with total legitimacy to say that part of the problem is,


we're having this public Civil War. In keeping quiet, that disappeared


as part of the explanation for why Labour and low in the polls. I think


they are partly doing that. But they are also struggling, the so-called


mainstream Labour MPs, to decide what the distinctive agenda is. It's


one of the many differences with the 80s, where you had a group of people


sure of what they believed in, they left to form the SDP. What's


happening now is that they are leaving politics altogether. That is


a crisis of social Democrats all across Europe, including the French


Socialists, as we will find out later in the spring. Let Corbyn


because then, that's the strategy. There is a weary and sometimes


literal resignation from the moderates in the Labour Party. If


you talk to them, they are no longer angry, they have always run out of


steam to be angry about what's going on. They are just sort of tired and


feel that they've just got to see this through now. I think the


by-elections will be interesting. When Andrew Marr said, you're toast,


and you? I thought, he's never posed! That was right. A quick


thought from view? One thing Corbyn has in common with Trump is immunity


to bad news. I think he can lose Copeland and lose Stoke, and as long


as it is not a sequence of resignations and by-elections


afterwards, with maybe a dozen or 20 Labour MPs going, he can still enjoy


what. It may be more trouble if Labour loses the United trade union


elections. We are in a period of incredible unpredictability


generally in global politics. If you look at the way the next year plays


out, if for example brags it was a disaster and it starts to unravel


very quickly, Theresa May is attached to that, clearly label


would have a great opportunity potentially disease that higher


ground, and when Eddie the Tories -- Labour would have an opportunity. Is


Corbyn the right guy? We interviewed him, what struck me was that he


talked about being from, a laughable comparison, but when it is really


laughable is this - Hillary Clinton, what were the things she stood for,


nobody really knew? What does Trump stand for? Everybody knew. Corbyn


has the work-out four or five messages and bang, bang, bang. He


could still be in business. Thank you for being with us.


I'll be back at the same time next weekend.


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


Download Subtitles