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.
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.