27/11/2015 Daily Politics

Jeremy Corbyn says he's not keen on war but today he's locked in battle

The Labour leader says he won't back David Cameron's plan to bomb

At least half the Shadow Cabinet and many Labour MPs are now in open

Two have even suggested, on the record,

We'll have the latest in this developing row.

Whatever Labour formally decides, there is likely a majority of MPs

in favour of extending RAF airstrikes from Iraq to Syria.

I'm against the air strikes generally simply

because I think it will encourage more terrorism in this country.

It only takes a few of them to get in and

Turns out there was an extra 27 billion quid

down the back of a Treasury sofa, allowing George Osborne to U-turn

We speak to the independent number cruncher who found the money.

A slightly curtailed programme today due to the Davis Cup tennis.

But with us today is the columnist and broadcaster Jenni Russell.

Jeremy Corbyn is fighting to contain a Shadow Cabinet rebellion today

after he said he told MPs he could not support RAF airstrikes

Yesterday, the Shadow Cabinet tried to come up

with an agreed response to David Cameron's plan to deal with IS.

They failed but agreed to meet again on Monday

But divisions within Labour's top team spilled out in to the open

when Mr Corbyn wrote to all his MPs saying he would not back the

The Labour leader had omitted to tell the Shadow Cabinet he

Several Labour frontbenchers are muttering about resigning

if the leader orders his Shadow Cabinet to fall in line.

This morning two Labour MPs even suggested Mr Corbyn should resign

A free vote would seem the only way out of the mess.

But Shadow Development Secretary Diane Abbott, says MPs need to get

It's not for me to say whether there will be a free vote.

Jeremy has made his position clear, as is appropriate as leader

of the party and I think, in the end, party members will want

MPs to unite behind the leader, because what Jeremy is saying

about Syrian bombing is what party members are saying.

Joining me now is the Labour MP Jim Fitzpatrick.

He was a minister under Gordon Brown.

And James Schneider is spokesman for Momentum, the campaign group closely

They are urging their members to lobby Labour MPs to oppose British

Welcome to you both. You listen to the Prime Minister yesterday. What

broad conclusion did you come to? Do you broadly support him? I think I'm

inclined to support the government depending on the motion. I want to

see what the Shadow Cabinet recommend and the parliamentary

Labour Party discussion overnight will say, but the Prime Minister

clearly indicated he had listened to the previous defeat, had learned a

lesson post-Iraq and set out a 7-point plan which tended to respond

to the concerns that people have been racing about extending the

action from that in Iraq across the border into Syria. What do you say

to that, James? I don't think the case has been made, I don't think

the case has been made, there were four conditions which needed to be

met which was passed in the most recent Labour Party conference and I

think the membership is overwhelmingly opposed to bombing

and I think Jeremy Corbyn are showing very strong leadership on

this by saying quite clearly what he thinks. Is there anything the Prime

Minister could have said? To convince you? I can't see how things

David Cameron would've said, given what he said in the past about

Syria, I think, ways in which we could be acting more robustly in

Syria, but that would require certain preconditions which are very

much not been met, so we did a conference plan deal with the

refugees, the only military action needs to be subordinated to regional

diplomatic efforts to come up with some kind of... But these already

underway. Military action is not underway. It has not been

subordinated to that process. No, but diplomatic action is already

underway and everything we know, although they have not fallen apart,

it would take a long time for this diplomatic action to bear fruit.

Meanwhile, we know the intelligence services who met the Shadow Cabinet

on Wednesday night, ISR planning terrorist attacks in the West

including in terrorist attacks in the West

will we do in the interim as a terrorist attacks in the West

for diplomatic progress? But the case for additional bombing in

Syria, that will prevent Isis attacks and

Syria, that will prevent Isis what should we do in the interim

given that we what should we do in the interim

security services to avoid attacks here. With Paris, they were planned

and organised. here. With Paris, they were planned

want to abolish that? No, he does not. He signed a petition in April.

No he didn't. He may have signed. I don't read the details. He may have

signed a manifesto which don't read the details. He may have

one line out of very many lines. don't read the details. He may have

Politicians, you sign manifestos but you don't agree with every single

line on it. He held this document up in front of a camera. I can't

respond to John McDonald. I'm sorry. You voted against air strikes in

2013. I did because the proposition was to bomb President Assad and I

felt the experience of Iraq, we took out Saddam Hussein, there was no

felt the experience of Iraq, we took post-conflict plan, we crated a

vacuum and extremists moved into that vacuum. I think it is certainly

vacuum and extremists moved into part of the strategy which it wasn't

in 2013 and had we taken out President Assad, IS would've filled

it in. Now the world has moved on, we have peace talks in Vienna, the

recent atrocities in Paris and Tunisia, Iran and Russia and Saudi

Arabia and around the table in Vienna for the first time. There's a

different set of circumstances. ISR still growing, subjugating the

Muslim community in the territory they held, throwing gay people off

the roofs of tall buildings, beheading people, and we have 5

million Syrian refugees as a result. We have to do something to contain

IS and address this issue. Let me look at the Labour Party 's response

to this. There was a long Shadow Cabinet discussion yesterday. It

didn't come to an agreement. The agreement would be that they would

meet again on Monday and mull things over. Why did Jeremy Corbyn without

telling the Shadow Cabinet right to MPs pre-empting discussions by

saying he's against it. He's entirely entitled to lead his

position as leader of the party in the same way as other members of the

Shadow Cabinet. But why didn't you tell a Shadow Cabinet? Until they

discovered Jeremy Corbyn in this letter, they could not express their

own opinions. Why did he not tell a Shadow Cabinet that that is what he

was doing at the Shadow Cabinet meeting? No shadow minister knew

that was what was going to do. As Hilary Benn said this morning,

Jeremy is elected as leader on overwhelming majority. He is

entitled to make his opinion very clear. But why did you not tell a

Shadow Cabinet? I don't know what goes on in Shadow Cabinet. You seem

quite well-informed. I don't know what goes on in Shadow Cabinet at

all. But he is entirely right to show leadership and shows the

position is going to take. I'm not arguing with you about that. Do you

expect to be heavily lobbied by momentum this weekend to vote

against the government? Yes. How would you respond? As I have been

doing so, by individually e-mailing my constituents and expressing an

opinion to them, to be honest, but I'm inclined to support the

government, the game plan yesterday was a Shadow Cabinet was most to me

to consult over the weekend their constituencies and reflect on the

prime ministers statement and the evidence and come back on Monday to

make a decision and a recommendation. Jeremy clearly, I

think when they arrive in the chamber, body language indicated he

is opposed and was not going to support it. He tested the Shadow

Cabinet and the majority are opposed to him so therefore he's going above

their heads to use his momentum to put pressure on MPs and Shadow

Cabinet members so when he recalls the saddle Cabinet on Monday, maybe

some of them will have changed their mind. If they don't, the only place

you can go is a free vote. If momentum members discover the

majority in the parliament to Labour Party constituents are against

bombing, they are faced with a member like this, who is going to

vote with the government and abstain on the issue at least, what should

happen to these MPs? Exactly as Jim said, they should respond to each

position, and there's a normal debatable for the snow threat

implied by Google writing to an MP to express an interest. You don't

think it MPs defy Mr Corbyn on this issue, they should face calls for

deselection? No I do not think so. They should vote on their

conscience? Yes, there should be no deselection. There will be no

deselection of MPs on this issue. You are smiling. There's always a

minority in any constituency party disagree with their candidate and

who will want to deselect him. I think there's a real chance now they

will be an orchestrated attempt to deselect MPs and with a boundary

changes the government are proposing for the next Parliament, there will

be a lot of contests created as a result of geographical changes so a

number of MPs I think will face a challenge. I don't see any way out

of this for Labour. Except a free vote. Do you? I think every thing

else is impossible, there's no possibility members of the Shadow

Cabinet to our prepared to support air strikes are going to change

their minds over the weekend. The problem for Jeremy Corbyn is the

British public thinks there is no circumstance whatsoever he would

ever back any kind of military action. We know he would ever back

any kind of military action. We know his opposed military action over 30

years and has already said he's against it in this situation, which

may well be the right thing to believe, but the problem is he does

not look like the leader who would ever agree in any circumstance. He's

not going to change his mind and a Shadow Cabinet about change theirs.

He's never supported the action against the IRA, the Falklands,

Kosovo, he was against that. It's a default position. I don't understand

why it's a great show of strong, courageous leadership to stick to

your guns and go, yes, we're going to have a war, it's somehow a

failure bishop not stepping up to it. If you just say clearly, watch

opposition is... That wasn't Jenny 's point. There's no point having a

debate with Mr Corbyn because he's always opposed any kind of military

action which involves the West. At Labour Party conference, it was

voted through by the delegates at conference, the conditions that

would need to be met and those conditions have not been met. All

right. Are you in favour of a free vote? Momentum does not have a

position on it and it's not for me to say full setup to Jeremy and the

Shadow Cabinet. I don't want to second-guess it. Does the cabinet

take place before the Shadow MP? Yes. He would have to say of the PLP

what he agreed position as or they would be an agreement? Jeremy will

be reporting to them at 6pm on Monday and telling as the

recommendation which will then be discussed among the PLP but, yes,

Shadow Cabinet will come to one imagines a conclusion before the

PLP. You had better order in the popcorn. Gentlemen, thank you very

much. So, the Prime Minister laid out

his comprehensive plan yesterday to take the fight to so-called

Islamic State in Syria. The Prime Minister might have

convinced MPs We've been watching in the House

of Commons whose decision it is, mood-changing possible

mind-changing, on whether we should But what do people

outside think about it? I'm against

the air strikes generally simply because I think it will encourage

more terrorism in this country. Isil is an enormous problem but I

don't believe this is I think we should, to be honest,

yeah. I really do because of everything

that's going on at the moment. It only takes a few

of them to get in and So I agree with it, yeah, I really

do. I'd want to know for

a start precisely what the objective was of these strikes, who they were

aimed at, and what the endgame was. They've got to be stopped but then

there's the civilian casualties as well to take into consideration,

so it's a very difficult call. I wouldn't like to be voting

on that myself. We're watching other people do it,

and obviously our allies are doing it, so maybe we

should get involved as well. At the same time,

they're really bad people. And I think, in order

for the bad people to succeed, it's You should be involved

because they are troubling The whole world has been troubled

by them. I think it's

a very unclear situation. I think there's a lot of countries

that are already involved and it's very difficult to understand

the impact that we would have in Peter Kellner is the President

of the polling organisation YouGov. Welcome back to the programme,

Peter. Let's begin with the changing mood of public opinion in the round.

What is now the majority British view in extending our bombing to

Syria? It is exactly the opposite to what it was two years ago before the

Government's defeat. Then we found at YouGov, 2-to-1, the public were

opposed to air strikes against President Assad, now it is two to

one in favour of air strikes against Isil in Syria. And I assume that is

Tunisia, Paris, Jihadi John, the rise of Islamic State beheadings and

so on? That is right. I think what happened two years ago, it blew up

suddenly, if you remember the stories of chemical weapons, it

happened in the summer, MPs were on a break and Parliament was recalled

and there wasn't the time, either at Westminster or the general public,

for the Government to prepare the ground and this time it is well

prepared. And do we have data on the attitude of the Labour membership,

such as it is in a largely expanded form in the course of Mr Corbyn's

leadership election and subsequently? Yes, because we polled

in September, when we called Corbyn's victory more or less spot

on, and ask them what we think and the Labour Party membership now is

strongly against, 2-to-1 against bombing, but Labour voters are two

to one in favour of bombing, so you have got out there, in the Labour

Party out in the world, this contrast

Party out in the world, this has, and remember, it doesn't have

enough to form a Government, it will need to win over more people but the

Labour membership, they back the need to win over more people but the

party leader. So if you are like Jim Fitzpatrick, the MP who we have just

had on who is minded to vote with the Government

had on who is minded to vote with would argue there is a disconnect by

those people who are now Labour activists and the wider

those people who are now Labour community, in the sense of people

who vote Labour and the country at community, in the sense of people

large. There is a clear disconnect and it is not only on this issue, it

large. There is a clear disconnect is a whole range of other issues.

You find public like, for example, the

Government's public like, for example, the

like it, on the public like, for example, the

nationalisation. The people who voted the Jeremy Corbyn,

nationalisation. The people who Party electorate but if there was a

new leadership election today, the membership would vote

new leadership election today, the but people outside in the country

think very differently. But but people outside in the country

understand that Labour activists who are very much against the bombing in

Syria, they don't want, the data tells us, they don't want Mr Corbyn

to try do, to whip the Labour Party into line. They would be

to try do, to whip the Labour Party a free vote. He

to try do, to whip the Labour Party Dianne Abbott earlier, saying Labour

Party members Dianne Abbott earlier, saying Labour

Corbyn's position, that is right, but if you are going to

Corbyn's position, that is right, line of what Labour Party members

want, by an even bigger line of what Labour Party members

they oppose bombing, they want a free vote for all MPs to do what

they want, 70%. These figures really go to the heart of Labour's dilemma,

because we get told all the time by those who elected Mr Corbyn and that

he won by 60%, let him get those who elected Mr Corbyn and that

it, and there is huge Democratic those who elected Mr Corbyn and that

logic in that. The problem is the people who elected Mr Corbyn would

seem not to be that representative not only of the country

seem not to be that representative but of the 9 million people who

voted Labour at the last election. That is right, that is why Labour is

in so much difficulty, and polling 27%. The Tories have a 15 point

lead. 27%. The Tories have a 15 point

legitimately got a feeling they are responsible to the people who

elected them in May, they have a personal mandate from their voters

and four Corbyn to say my mandate from this very small number of

people, 300 - 400,000 people there in the Labour Party trumps your

responsibility to the 9 million people who voted Labour just doesn't

wash. If it responds entirely to fit a lectureship -- it electorate

should, it will be a small party, it needs to respond to the people who

voted for it. The Conservatives may well find themselves in the same

position over Europe, where the party membership is in a very

different place to Conservative voters. It is across the western

world, with, on the whole, declining party memberships. Labour's is up on

the last few months but way down from what it was 30 or 40 years ago.

Increasingly, you get the obsessives, look at the tea party

Republicans in the States. It is a problem with parties across the

Western world, a disconnection with the activists and the wider

electorate in all countries. The answer would be that if everybody

who was concerned about the future of the Labour Party now joined it in

order to swamp the is, but people would rather stay home and watch TV

-- the Corbyn followers. And what is wrong about? It is a wider

phenomenon and all the more interesting than that.

In his Autumn Statement and Spending Review delivered on Wednesday,

not just to pull a rabbit out of the hat, but a rabbit worth ?27 billion.

He announced that the Office for Budget Responsibility's forecasts

for the public finances showed a significant improvement

compared to their previous assessment in July.

The surprise extra money comes from a combination

and lower interest payments on the nation's debt.

Because interest rates are going to stay low for the foreseeable future.

VAT is now expected to magic up an extra ?11.5 billion by 2020-21

after the OBR decided its previous forecasts were too pessimistic.

The Government also expects to get more money

from National Insurance Contributions and Corporation Tax.

So the Chancellor is set to borrow ?8 billion less

over the next five years than he planned to in July,

over the next five years than he planned to in July.

Despite waving his magic wand to increase capital spending,

reverse cuts to tax credits and protect the overall police budget,

Add to defence, almost everything that moved, he is able to spend

more. And I'm joined now by the man who

found all that extra cash Chairman of the Office for

Budget Responsiblity, Robert Chote. When did you discover that there was

more than we thought? Well, gradually over the period running up

to the forecast. The largest single contributor to this ?27 billion,

which we should remember is just a quarter of 1% of GDP, it doesn't go

as far as we used to -- it used to when we were young, is lower debt

interest. Because the bank said lower interest rates for the

foreseeable future, it doesn't cost much to service our debt? That is

part of it and simply, the rates on the financial market at which the

Government can borrow are lower than they were in July, so all you need

Reuters screen and an abacus to know that but it was apparent everybody

as we went along. The Bank of England thing would have been harder

for people to calculate in advance. But you have adjusted your model as

well, the model you use for forecasting tax revenues

underestimated what tax revenues would be? In a couple of areas. On

the VAT one, these are both situations in which the models were

being used before the OBR existed. The one for VAT in particular, as

the public spending cuts have mounted, that has started to show us

over estimating the amount that is deducted from VAT because of the

flows within Government, so that becomes apparent, so we flagged that

in October and said it was likely to improve the position by about ?3

billion at the end of the forecast. But did you adjust your projections

for tax revenues without knowing what was happening to tax revenues

in this financial year in particular? Because of weak tax

revenues, the deficit in October was the worst since 2009. Yes, we don't

get prerelease access to the actual release that comes out on the day,

but all of the raw material that goes into that from the HMRC, we

have most of that, so if we had that release, the forecast wouldn't have

looked... It wouldn't have changed, even though the most recent evidence

we have, it suggests that even as the economy grows by other two and a

half percent this year, the tax revenues have actually been weaker

than forecast, you have still adjusted the forecast to have

stronger tax revenues on the year is out. You are judging it is weaker on

the performance of the year-to-date extrapolating that. There are a

number of reasons why we would expect the deficit to four passed at

the end of the year than the beginning. For example, there have

been measures that will boost self-assessment for tax revenue that

will come in in January. There is a change in Stamp Duty which changes

the year on year profile which will look better because the Stamp Duty

policy came in in December, in the fourth quarter of the year. There

are numbers that the Office for National Statistics have said it is

going to put into the back data that we have put into the forecast, but

they will take time to put it into the back data. There are also the

Government announced spending cuts within this year in June which had

not yet shown up in the numbers, so for a whole set of those reasons, we

think the year-on-year comparison will look better in the fourth

quarter of the year than it does in the first three. That said, there is

always considerable uncertainty. The average error for forecasting the

budget in this part of the year is half a percent of GDP, twice the

size of the rabbits you referred to. When did you inform the Chancellor

that he had this unexpected windfall? Some of it would have been

obvious to anybody looking at the path of interest rates. But when did

he realise there would be ?27 billion more in the OBR projections

compared with July? As we say in the document, we hand the final

pre-measures forecast, ie what would happen if he sat on his hands and

did nothing, on November nine. So he had some advanced notice that the

fiscal position gave him a bit more wiggle room than he had beforehand?

That is right and then the moving parts stopped moving and he had a

clearer picture by mid-November. Although this is not a matter to

you, are you surprised that he spent most of this 27 billion? I mean, if

you were repairing the roof while the Sun was shining, wouldn't you

put some of this away for a rainy day? As you say, that is in my

judgment to make. He has a target to balance the budget in 2019-20 and on

the policies he has announced that the moment, we think he has a margin

of about ?10 billion. If you look at the average size and distribution of

forecasting errors over the last 25 years or so, that suggest about 55%

chance of forecasting errors over the last 25 years or so, that

suggest about 55% chance he has to decide how big a cushion he once

when setting out spending plans for a number of years. Assuming no

external shocks to the economy, which none of us can predict. Lucky,

Lucky Chancellor. He is also taking an immense gamble. Robert is a

brilliant economist but the one thing that trumps the OBR's

projection so far is they have all been optimistic and all been wrong,

so for the Chancellor to base all of his spending decisions today on the

assumption that in four years' time inflation, growth, jobs and economy

and taxation receipts will all be the same as the OBR expect now is

fantasy politics. But he will adjusted as he goes on. He will, but

he was able to jump out of this hole on the basis of hope. Forecast in

the economy is more complicated than forecasting what is -- less

complicated than forecasting what is going to happen in Syria, but it is

still difficult. Thank you. We will be back on Sunday with a Sunday

Politics as the countdown to that Syrian vote gathers pace, 11 o'clock

Sunday morning, the by. -- goodbye.