15/01/2017 Sunday Politics

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.

In London this week: With the rail and Tube strikes bringing

the capital to a standstill, can a political solution be found

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. 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.