19/04/2016 Daily Politics

Hello, and welcome to the Daily Politics.

The Justice Secretary Michael Gove accuses his cabinet

"like children who can be frightened into obedience",

but are Leave campaigners waging their own campaign of fear?

The Chinese will do something about the over-production of steel,

so says the business secretary, but does the UK steel industry need

direct government intervention to survive?

It's an age-old technique used by MPs to wreck legislation

they don't like, but is full time about to be called

And if it does, will it be televised?

There is a tendency in the Labour Party to organise revolutionary

politics in the Labour Party and outside it.

All that in the next hour and with us for the whole

of the programme today left-wing-activist-turned-journalist

and writer, former Channel Four News and Newsnight

Yesterday was George Osborne's turn, today Justice Secretary Michael Gove

takes centre stage in the EU referendum debate, setting out why

he believes quitting the EU would be an act of liberation

It follows Treasury forecasts an exit could cost

households ?4,300 a year - a figure that has been heavily

Michael Gove warned that a vote to stay in the EU is 'the real

danger', arguing that Eurozone countries have a permanent

and unstoppable majority allowing them to overrule British interests.

And that "Britain has lost control of a vital area of power

and the European Court will increasingly decide

Turning on his opponents, Mr Gove said the Remain campaign,

led by Prime Minister David Cameron, "treats people like mere children,

capable of being frightened into obedience by conjuring up

The Justice Secretary's speech comes the day

argued that Britain would be "permanently poorer" outside the EU.

But Michael Gove argued: "The report from the Treasury is an official

admission from the IN campaign that if we vote to stay in the EU then

immigration will to continue to increase by hundreds of thousands

One of the most striking things about the debate on Britain's future

relationship with Europe is that the case for staying

is couched, overwhelmingly, in negative and pessimistic terms.

While the case for leaving is positive and optimistic.

Those of us who want to leave, believe that Britain's

That our country has tremendous untapped potential,

which independence would unleash and our institutions,

values and people will make an even more positive

difference to the world, if we are unshackled from the past.

I'm joined now by the Justice Minister and leave Campaigner,

Dominic Raab and the Labour MP Chuka Umunna from

First of all, is the Remaining campaign treating people like me are

children capable of being frightened into obedience by conjuring up a new

bogeyman every night? No, and if everyone is conjuring up anything it

is the leave campaign. Me and Dominic have particular views, we

are not impartial and we want our side to win, but there is a bank of

independent people from the IMF and Unison and unite who argue that we

are better off in. The Leave campaign would have you believe that

the Unite and Unison are working together with a band of socialists,

all raucous rated by President Obama on George Osborne's behalf, to

oppose bricks it. It is pure fantasy. Are you indulging in

fantasy politics, accusing other team -- sides of conjuring up the

bogeyman? We have cross-party consensus and unions like the RMT

right the way through to economists like Nigel Lawson, the former

Chancellor, making the Case for going out. There is a risk reward

calculation on both sides. What Michael Gove wants to do is say,

hang on, you are talking about the risks of leaving the EU but what

about the risks of staying in with the Eurozone crisis. Also today,

critically, he set out the positive vision outside of the EU. What was

the positive vision? The majority of what Michael Gove said this morning,

hearing the interview this morning, saying it was all about the fear of

staying in. Take your time and have a read of the whole thing. It repays

it. First of all, there is no lottery ticket say that being in the

EU or outside is a win, it is a balance of risk and reward. But he

set out the brighter prospects outside the EU. The ability to

control regulation. You can take different views, but it has a huge

impact on small businesses. The EU commission concedes it hits small

businesses ten times as hard as normal businesses. In this country

small businesses create 85% of new jobs. Secondly he talked about the

brighter prospects if we are independent and more energetically

trading from Latin America to Asia. The EU has been a poor negotiator of

trade agreements and it doesn't have a single agreement with a big

economy. We can argue that there are a whole range of positive

opportunities outside the EU that people like Chuka Umunna completely

discard. Isn't that the problem for the remaining campaign? They can

talk about Project Fia, but the idea of a brighter future of change and

looking beyond what we have now does feel like an easier case to argue in

a more passion away than for the status quo which is more difficult

when you rely on establishment bodies and institutions like the

IMF. Lave McCluskey and Dave Prentice might have something to

say. I don't buy the idea that we get trampled over by our partners in

the European Union and we don't get our way. Nine out of ten times we

are on the majority side when there are votes on the European Council.

And it is suggested that some how things are imposed on high and we

don't have a role to play in the rules and regulations that come out

from it. But I see this in bigger terms. I think we are dealing with a

lot of cross-border issues, whether it is terror, the environmental

contrast Rafiq unfolding with climate change. Those things do not

know borders. -- catastrophe. When you are looking at these things, and

Paul has written a lot about it, the power of multinational companies

which seek to play different jurisdictions against each other

saying if you don't adopt a lower level of labour protection in that

country we will take business elsewhere. And what actually the

European Union enables us to do is set minimum standards and prevent

that race to the bottom. We will come back to security in a moment

because one of the big problems for Leave is what does it look like.

That question is repeatedly posed because you don't have a document to

actually answer this. We can't negotiate with the EU before the

referendum. That is an aunt Sally. You can provide an alternative. We

have. I'm not saying it's a criticism but there was no document

are put through so in certain terms you are doing something that may

happen but you don't know for sure. That is the same as the Remain

campaign. We know what it looks like. Look at the Eurozone crisis on

the way it unfolded. The EU feels like it is on a permanent state of

crisis. The truth is there is far greater uncertainty around the

prospect of the EU than there are in making, modestly, but in clear ways,

the very concrete areas where we can actually change things. Like border

controls. You couldn't anticipate the migration crisis in the way it

unfolded and the EU has not been able to deal with it. That migration

crisis would be there, notwithstanding whether the EU would

be there or not. But one might say if the EU cannot deal with a

migration crisis... So it has no pull on a migration crisis? Let me

finish my sentence. If you look at what is driving the migration

crisis, we had growing jihad is in Africa and more coming into the EU

zone from Africa and also the problems in the Middle East. Those

things would subsist whether we were in or out of the European Union. I

am by no means saying the European Union is perfect and it needs

reform, and you can only reform it if you are at the table, not outside

the room. What about the Eurozone crisis? You couldn't have predicted

that? We are not in the Eurozone but George Osborne said we did feel

buffeted by the crisis. This goes to the heart of one of the Leave

campaign's biggest weaknesses. They say if we leave we will be part of

the single market so we have all the benefits but we will not have to pay

a fee and we won't be subject to any of the rules that come with being

part of the single market. No country outside of the EU has that

kind of arrangement, and why would members that we leave in the EU, why

would they give us a deal that they have not given themselves? That is

the problem with the Michael Gove speech. Many German and French

menaces have articulated that argument. Dominic Raab, I'm going to

put this to you, the French economy minister suggested that Britain

would be completely killed in trade talks if the country chose to leave

the EU. I'm not saying he is right, but this is the response we get, and

maybe they would say that at the moment because they don't want

Britain to leave the EU. But you have to ask yourself, if you want a

trade deal with all the pluses and advantages and none of the tariffs

and quid pro quo freedom of movement is, why would they give it? First of

all, I hope the French economic minister keeps talking. The idea

that Britain would be apocalyptically off the cliff edge

if we left the EU is silly. Neither the head of the CBI, the British

ambassador to the EU, nor the Prime Minister takes that position.

Thereau risk and reward ratios with in or out. The reason I think we

would have a strong trading relationship is that we are the

fifth biggest economy in the world and the EU firms sell 60 billion

more than we sell them. There is a strong mutual interest. The only

reason we would be in trouble is if the EU was going to behave in an

utterly vindictive, spiteful way. And that would run against its own

interests. I would say this, is that the kind of club you want to be part

of? I'm not saying, because it is a bit of a strawman argument, that we

would not be able to trade with our European partners. But there would

be a deal to be done. It is a question of the terms. In terms of

the risk and reward we are talking about, 44% of exports go to the EU.

On average, if you look at the other 27 member states, just 5% goes. But

the point is, for hours, we have far more to lose on imports and exports.

Let him finish his point. On world trade, I led a delegation, trade

delegation to Beijing in 2013 and you know what the Chinese said to

make and I went to the International Department of the Chinese Communist

Party, as you do, and they said to me, we don't understand why are

there some people who want to leave the European Union in your country?

When you negotiate with us, whatever it may be, intellectual property, a

concern of small businesses in China, you are sitting on one half

of the table with half a billion other people negotiating with 1.3

billion, why do you want to sit in the corner on your own? Can I ask

about China? So why does the EU not have a trade deal with China but

Switzerland does? But Switzerland has a deal that Michael Gove doesn't

want to emulate my got the impression. We have surely got

bigger economic clout than Switzerland. Paul Mason, on the

figures, one with talk about the Leave campaign quoting ?350 million

but has been argued against, that we pay, they say, to the EU, and we

hear that households would be worse off, maybe not individually, but the

June ?4300 per year, does it resonate the public? -- to the June.

It doesn't resonate with me because I've been on the end of so many Bank

of England reports where you cannot see the inner workings and I never

trust them. The idea you can put a figure on it per family is

ridiculous. The Brexit debate will be about principle. I am convinced

of the principle that Michael Gove outlined there, that the European

Union is not democratic and is incapable of becoming democratic.

That is why, philosophically, I would support Brexit. My problem is

that what we have gone on to is what is the proposal? Michael Gove says

we are like a hostage in the back of the EU car. I don't want to be a

hostage in the back of the car of Michael Gove and Boris Johnson.

Given the choice on the 23rd of June, I think Brexit will happen

anyway for the reasons David Cameron suggest because we got a deal in

Brussels that we are already half out. In ten years, we will be out. I

just don't want to come out with an ultra right wing Tory government and

no chance for the left or social democracy to have its say within

that framework. Is that the problem for attracting voters to your side?

The co-chairman of the Leave is there and Stuart Digby Jones. I take

Paul's point. The reality is that the anyway the British people have a

choice is between those two models is if we are outside of the EU, so I

understand that people feel different way on the left in

relation to things like the working Time directive. They don't get a say

at all if they are outside. Isn't it true that this is less about the

merits or not remaining in the EU but more than the viewers have

become spectators of the war in the Conservative Party? You could say

the same on the left? It's not the same as the blue on blue attacks.

Jeremy Corbyn is being attacked left right and centre for being

passionate about it. That is a good deflection, but it has been, as a

result of a split in the Conservative Party, you must accept

it? There are different views in the Labour Party on both sides and

different views on the Tory party, and the average person watching

probably thinks that's healthy. The overwhelming majority of the labour

movement is absolutely behind continuing with membership of the EU

because we think it is best for security, prosperity and jobs. One

thing I would ask you to consider, Michael Gove, kind of weird seeing

them next to each other like that, doing this speech from the position

of being a champion of democracy, and one of the things that is

curious is he has a lot to say about democracy with the EU but very

little to say about democracy here where you can get into government

with less than 25% of the support of registered electors. It illustrates,

does this by care about democracy or is there something else. Before I

let these two go, Paul Mason, Jeremy Corbyn's conversion, is it credible?

I think it is. Does he believe He is attempting to lead a party. You

cannot criticise him for not trying to build consensus in his party.

Like me, there are many people in the Labour moment who are sceptical

of Europe. I'm sceptical mainly on dome crass sane free movement but,

you know, the choice will be, on 23rd, whether or not to hand over to

Boris and Michael Gove and they could have come and said - let's do

something, let's create the debate about the future Britain outside

Europe beforehand, but they didn't. That's been their choice. It is

clearer and clearer this week, that that is not their choice. I will

have to stop it there. I promised I would do security, and I did not. I

will come back. When you are invited.

The question for today is which leading politicians has

spent ?10,0000 on their official parliamentary

Was it a) The Home Secretary Theresa May?

c) The Lords Speaker, Baroness D'Souza?

or d) Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon?

At the end of the show, Paul Mason will give us

Now, the Business Minister, Sajid Javid, was meeting with other

steel-producing nations yesterday, trying to persuade the Chinese,

The Chinese deny that they're dumping steel on the world market,

leading to huge losses at steel plants like Port Talbot,

which is threatened with imminent closure.

This is what Sajid Javid had to say after that meeting.

Well overproduction is the number one issue to tackle.

I don't think anyone expected an overnight solution to that

but the discussion today, with all of these countries coming

together, something we pushed for and pushed for China's

participation, will help make the difference.

With regard to Tata, the sales' process, the formal

We are starting to be approached by interested parties.

It is too early to say much about them at this stage

but the important thing is, as we said all along,

we will do everything we can to help with that sales' process.

The steelworkers of Britain deserve nothing less.

And we're joined now by the Conservative MP, John Redwood.

Does the outcome of the talks mentally change anything? I hope

it'll lead on to a resolution. We know the Chinese have said they will

take out a lot of capacity in their own domestic market which would be

extremely good news but we also know, of course, the big export

threat to the UK steel industry has come from the continent of Europe,

not from China and the rest of the EU exports about six times as much

into the UK as the Chinese do. So we still have a problem, even if the

Chinese take out enough capacity. Do you agree that will make a ditches,

even if they lower capacity it could then Hayesen a resolution? Very,

very slowly. They have a social unrest issue in China. Number one,

as Mr Redwood says, there is also the issue of what is the balance of

the European steel industry in Europe? And for us, for me in the

Labour Party, people I speak to in the Labour movement, what is

important is we save every job. That's one thing. That's what we are

not hearing, a plan right now. You can't rush around fwrusles to

Beijing without a plan for steel. Even Thatcher had a plan for coal,

didn't she? There doesn't seem to be the ability for this Conservative

Government to have a plan for anything. Do they not have a plan?

Is the Government sort of making it up as it goes along by saying it is

not going to happen overnight, it is still too early to say, we are not

going to commit our sefts to saving every job in the way that Paul Mason

has just outlined, is that because there isn't a plan? I think there is

a developing plan. The Government isn't in full charge. They have to

deal with EU requirements. They have to deal with the very difficult

steel market. They have to deal with the people who currently own the

assets. The Government doesn't own everything, it is not all powerful.

But rhetoric... I believe the businessminister and the Prime

Minister when they say they want to save the Port Talbot works. I'm not

saying they are going to save every job, of course we want to save as

many as possible but we need to save capacity and the technology related

to it. Is it sustainable in the long term, even if you reduce pension

liability and did something about energy costs which are are the

things we could do something about, is it sustainable in the lock term?

When McDonald's automated part of the restaurant do touch screen they

said they weren't losing a single job, they are not doing it to get

rid of jobs, it is to reorder the business. A commitment like that

from the Government would be one thing. If you ask is it viable,

there is an argument in the steel industry, we have Conservative

governments who have not taken seriously industrial policy. I'm in

favour of doing it f it had to happen. It didn't work, before, did

t nationalising steel It did. In what way The steel industry

functioned and had a competitive. Was it competitive If you

nationalise t it doesn't have to. You can do things for the good of

the country, security and jobs The nationalised industry lost aer if

tune, created false hopes, and created five, very, very large works

and -- lost a fortune. Most have gone or are now under threat T

started with the awful problems over Ravenscraig. Let's in the Dell in

the past. We have the same aim - to save as many jobs as possible and

keep a businessic steel-making capacity and technology of the

sophisticated steels which has to belinged. The plan surely must be to

get a buyer, an organiser, entrepreneur, a company to stand

behind. Why are they not lining up? I understand there are buyers in

discussion, but it depends on what we are allowed to do EU subsidy

rules limit what the Government can offer by way of financial cross. EU

domestic rules and energy rules many dear energy. I want the Government

to do much more on cheaper energy. One of the reasons the German

industry sells so much into Britain is they have had much more energy

subsidy than we have in or been allowed to have in the EU. Would you

like to hear the Government saying they want it save every job at Port

Talbot. I would like them and they will say they will save as many jobs

as possible at Port Talbot. You shouldn't give false hope to people.

It is a difficult situation. You have to allow that the a new owner

may have to make adjustments. If a new owner can't be found. You say

there are some in discussion. But I haven't seen that much evidence of

people queueing up to take-to-. Paul Mason is right in a sows, you can

make a priority F it is so important and such an intrinsic part of our

manufacturing history and life in the UK, why not put the money in? We

do it for other things. We did it for the banks and their balance

sheets arguably are still not that healthy. Why don't we do it for

steel? Government has said it is prepared to put money in, but it has

to do it within the rules. The Belgium Government is having a levy

to get money back which the state offered part of the Belgium

industry. The Italian industry Sunday a commission. I think the

Germans have defied the shengen agreement and Dublin 3. Occasionally

a country can say - we are doing it ourselves, take us to the ECJ. Do

you think ideology are tonight Tories going forward with that?

There is the European element but the problem with the ideology, is

Sajid Javid sitting there and thinking it would solve itself. If

they said to Tata Steel, this country profound by believes in the

steel industry and we will back whoever own it is with money and

state aid, with fighting against dumping, for all I accept it is not

the main issue here with some smaller plants, if it had done, that

the Government sets rules of behaviour and big international

businesses move in and they say - OK, we can predict what can going to

happen for ten years. I think the market forces ideology, made them

take their eye off the ball and now 40,000 people are going to pay for

what. What I would do, Mr Redmond, I would stick money in upfront and say

- there is money for whoever buys it upfront, state aid and see who ko.s

I think I'm certain that is the reason why some of the interested

parties areaway right now. I think the Government is saying - there is

Government money available under the rules but the Government has to take

legal advice and it cannot low noeingly break European law. The

Civil Service interrupt European rules. Tell them to butt out They

will be telling ministers the Italians and Belgians are already in

deep trouble over this very thing. I will finish it now. Thank you very

much. Now, roll up, roll up,

roll up your sleeves and get your working hands

on the hottest economic Proving there is nothing taxing

or sinister about going left, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has

invited his favourite economists to get out of Westminster

and deliver a series John McDonnell, Shadow Chancellor

welcomes the world On the new Economics Bill,

there has been advice from the brightest left side

of the brain, Mariana Mazzucato. Then economic cocktails served

with a bowl of Joseph Stiglitz. Empressario John McDonnell himself

chatted to Danny Dorling, not to be confused with Dany Dyer,

although that would have been Then, there was the wisdom

of Ha-Joon Chang, followed by the economic equivalent

of being hit by a scooter driven by a well-groomed Greek rock

star, Vanis Varoufakis. Top of the bill tomorrow,

the gritty growl of reformed revolutionary,

TV personality, Paul Mason. What a performance there from Giles

with his guide it Labour's economic lecture tour.

But what policy is emerging from all this economic wonkery,

and will it help Labour win the next election?

Well, to discuss that we're joined by the Blairite

Blairite commentator? Let's have that discussion afterwards.

Paul Mason, Ed Balls said in January 2014, there will be no more

borrowing from day-to-day spending. Last month John McDonnell said they

believe the Government should not need to borrow to fund day-to-day

spending. The same thing. I don't think it is. I think the fiscal

policy he underlined is looser on current spender. It can be looser if

we hit the zero band with interest rates and we have. At a time like

this, I would interrupt that - I'm in the Shadow Chancellor - but I

would say we have nor leeway on current spending and certainly on

investment spending and as I'm going to be outlining in my lecture for

him this week, in any case, fiscal policy is not the main thing. Once

you have an unor the docks monetary policy as we have, printing money,

guaranteeing no interest rate rises for a certain period, you have a

spill-over between fiscal and monetary policy that allows a future

Labour Chancellor to stimulate the economy. It is not radically

different. Ed Balls talked about stimulating the economy. The

Government is strangling the economy. Even if you stimulated it

mildly, I would argue, it would feel a lot divan, and again, you would

have a predictable environment for the expansion of the NHS, and the

education sector and in science and R that isn't happening right now.

Well, John McDonnell has said he is against austerity and that those

cuts that the Tory Government - - well, he has said he wouldn't put in

place the sort of cuts the Tory Government is proposing because

there would be growth in the economy from the investment that the Labour

Party would make. That is a departure from Labour before Well

reforically, yes, but we are just - I have come here to commiserate with

Paul, you know, he's backed John McDonnell, who was the campaign

manager for somebody called Jeremy Corbyn. He should have been the

campaign manager for Liz Kendall, Liz Kendall was saying those things

during the leadership campaign, you have to balance the current

spending... She was a good candidate. She was a very good

candidate. And she argued for fiscal responsibility which John McDonnell

has now adopted. I know you want to get out of what is said by invoking

the lower bound escape hatch. But you can't possibly agree with Liz

Kendall's approximatelicy which John McDonnell has adopted for normal

fiscal times. He is talking about fiscal responsibility. He needs to

try to get the public to trust Labour and he is really doing the

same things As certainly the previous Labour fwroencht and almost

the Tory Government. The reason all governments have had fiscal rules is

because they make sense 678 there is a cross-party academic agreement

that, this is how it works - if the economy hits a rough patch, you

spend some more now, to make it grow and then later the growth helps you

pay back what you borrowed. That's the basic principle of all fiscal

policy, but to formalise it stops you. This is I think the reason why

McDonnell has done this. It stops your own supporters, the unions,

people in the Labour momentum, etc, thinking that everything can be

sorted by tax rises on the rich, or, you know, spending boosts. It

signals to your own party that there are limits to these things and that

other things have to take over, like industrial policy, like

nationalising the steel industry and like boosting monetary growth. But

he is going to, John McDonnell and if Labour were in power, add to the

deficit. If you add the deficit you run over

the debt. The deficit thing is doable. The thing is, Ed Miliband

failed to get elected with those sorts of arguments, the Tory

arguments, talking about fiscal responsibility, saying he'd balance

the books and saying he would be responsible. Those aren't Tory

arguments. That is what Ed Miliband echoed. Isn't it time for Labour to

choose a different path? Paul has admitted they had chosen the same

path, having debt as a share of trade in GDP by the end of the

parliament and that is something that you and Jeremy Corbyn

supporters condemned as neoliberalism. Wait until they, we,

get our hands on the Office for Budget Responsibility and when it

starts to calculate the real impact of fiscal stimulus on growth there

will be a lot more allowed, even under the John McDonnell rules. And

you can do more QE. That is what I will say in the lecture. So you

don't want an independent Office for Budget Responsibility? I wanted to

be independent of the Treasury, not using the Treasury Dome of fiscal

multipliers that don't agree with the IMF. We should use fiscal

multipliers that say... Osborne's kind of does. The Obi produce the

answers he wanted without producing any of the growth he wanted -- the

Office for Budget Responsibility. That is why he is reversing out of

austerity. He is 4.5 billion out of his own austerity plan. He has

reversed a position occupied by Ed Balls in the last Parliament. John

McDonnell and his supporters do not disrespect Ed Balls's plan but we

just need a different one going forward. In the end what will be

more credible for the public? Fiscal rules, whether you stick to them,

whether they are artificially made, do they make any difference question

it showed by the last election they clearly did make a difference, even

if the Tories argue that way. Labour will be Prime Minister, strange

though it might seem to the Westminster bubble, if they tell the

British people that is a believable story about how children get decent,

secure jobs and have a diva -- decent lifestyle without having to

win the X factor will be a professional footballer. I would

actually agree with that. I think that is how Labour could win an

election. But I don't see how they can possibly do so under Jeremy

Corbyn. Why not? Because that is not what they are offering the British

people. They are offering the British people anti-American is and

fantasy economics and that is not a programme that the British people

will want. What about this fantasy economics you spoke about? What is

the fantasy bit? The fantasy is what they really believe as opposed to

what John McDonnell has said before the budget suddenly it decided to

adopt that, which is conventional economic thinking, that you should

balance the books over the economic cycle. You think that would be

abandoned if they came to power and they would revert to some sort of

socialist doctrine you think they still hold by? I don't think John

McDonnell really believes it, so I don't think he has any credibility

in arguing for it but I think that is the base from which any party

hats to approach the general election, and you cannot convince

people to give you that vote. He is not saying to balance the books over

the cycle. Balance the current books. It does say that, in five

years' time. It was Gordon Brown who had an economic cycle -based rule.

The rules of Ed Balls the current government are not cycle -based.

What does infrastructure involved? A lot of it is not just building

tunnels under the Pennines, it is about building the capacity of the

workforce. There's a lot you can do under the label of infrastructure

that actually cascades not into steel construction for example. At

the end of the cycle, over five years, under the current fiscal rule

that Labour is trying to implement all would implement, you would get a

big infrastructure boost early on in any parliament and it would

stimulate growth and draw jobs in. What would happen to the debt and

deficit? The deficit might rise over the short-term, but that is the

idea, but debt would come down as a part of GDP because over time the

growth would come. Are you going to be a convert? If they're going to

convert to conventional economics, fiscal responsibility, then I am all

for it. The Blairites in the Labour Party have always been in favour of

that and it's good to hear them come on board. The question is whether

they really believe it. John Rentoul, thank you.

Now, the pavements of Britain are thronged with sweaty, lycra-clad

runners training for Sunday's London Marathon.

Our Ellie's amongst them, and she's gathered together some fellow

Westminster Village runners about to embark

The weather is getting better, the sun is shining, the temperature has

lifted and what else would you want to do on a Sunday morning banged

over a gentle 26.2 mile I have three Labour MPs with me and

we like to keep them on their toes at the Daily Politics, and here they

are, running towards me. I don't normally get politicians running

towards me. Hello chaps. Amanda, this is your first London Marathon.

How do you feel? Incredibly nervous. I am excited because I'm assured

that the crowd will carry you along, but very, very nervous about the

whole thing. Dan Jarvis, a long way to be carried. How many have you

done? This is my sixth London Marathon. Always hard work but a

great event. The atmosphere is wonderful and the opportunity to

raise money for Cancer Research is to good an opportunity to miss. You

are the first Cabinet minister to run the marathon. No pressure. I've

got to complete it. This will be my fit and I have to complete it --

fifth. I have been running much in the last month, I can tell you.

Getting his excuses in early. Amanda, apparently there is

something called maranoia. Have you got any of that? I know that I want

to do it and I want to think all the way through why I am doing it, and I

think it's one of those things that will carry me through to the end. Is

it paranoid or mad? It is madness, but it would be mad not to do it

such a good cause. There is something lovely about this week in

particular. You don't need to do any more running, just eat a load of

carbohydrates. I haven't done a huge amount of running before these

weeks, so I'm getting the excuses in again. We can look forward to the

race. The atmosphere is wonderful and the level of support is

incredible. I think it's really important we come together to

contribute and be involved and do our bit. You said jokingly, but

having the time to do it, but it does take a lot of time. Why do you

do it? What is about running that goes with politics? The first is to

raise money for a good cause and the charities and the impact they have,

and the is quite selfish, you feel $1 million crossing the line. And in

the training running up to it there are a lot of MPs running around the

parks of London, late at night, and you are running through it --

through Green Park, and it gives you a structure and stops you drinking

and eating too much and it is a focus from Christmas until the end

of April. Danny Connor you are sandwiched between some

conservatives, and there are five Conservatives doing this and five

Labour politicians but none of the other parties are taking part. Is

there any rivalry here? Yes there is. I have been reasonably close in

previous years and he has given me a bluff about some problems with his

knee. I'm not buying it at all. I think we will be close to each other

on Sunday. A bit of friendly rivalry, I think. I should point out

it isn't just the politicians running this Sunday, there are some

very dedicated political journalists who will be trying to give these

politicians a bit of a run for their money. But we will see. It's a long

way to go. Hey, wait for me, guys. That could have been very nasty. I

actually ran with LA last weekend, no it can't be last week in, it

feels like ages ago and I did a half marathon I thought I might need a

hip replacement at the end. You have run a marathon? Yes, 20 years ago.

The London Marathon is superb. A great social occasion and one of

these institutions that holds the country together. It's great to see

the MPs having a go. What was your time? 3.5 two. That's quite good.

It's better to go slowly, carefully and finish. Did you run the whole

thing? I ran like a whip into the first six miles and then had to be

almost carried around after that. -- I ran like with it. It does take a

big chunk out of your life, and not drinking in London, as one of those

MPs said, quite difficult. Now MPs use the technique to talk

out legislation they don't like. But a committee of MPs is proposing

reforms aimed at putting an end to what's sometimes

known as a "filibuster", calling it "a fraud

on the people we represent". Here's the Conservative MP,

Philip Davies, speaking at the debate on a bill to end

hospital car parking So if we are already

seeing this huge increase in parking fees for people,

I don't want to introduce a bill which would see people

have to pay even more. This is something

that was highlighted by the British Parking Association

back in 2009, following the scrapping of hospital carparking

charges in Scotland. They say car parks need to be

physically maintained, Charges were not introduced

to generate income but rather to ensure that key staff,

bona fide patients and visitors Without income to support car park

maintenance, funds which should be directed to health care

have to be used instead. There is also a very big

geographic inequality... Mr Deputy Speaker, this speaker has

already been speaking for an hour and nine minutes

and what we are getting now And the Conservative MP

Philip Davies and Labour MP Julie Cooper, who introduced that

bill on hospital car Why did you do it, Philip Davis?

Isn't it a bit of a low rent technique to adopt, filibustering?

Filibustering is not allowed, and the speaker will pull you up. But

that is filibustering, isn't it? Lots of people, on a Friday with

bills that are ill thought through, worthy sentiments, and this is a

prime example, but it hadn't been given proper consideration on the

detail and application and it would have seen five out of six carers

paying more than car parking. It was ill thought through, so this bill

did not deserve to go through. But should it be talked out? Every

parliamentarian uses whatever procedures are in place to deliver

the outcome they want. This is how the Labour Party got into the Jeremy

Corbyn situation by MPs saying they did not want to be the leader of the

party, but let's give him ago and they ended up with a leader they

want. You have to use what procedures you have got at your

disposal to get the outcome you want, and every MP uses procedures

to get the outcome they want. If they didn't they would not be used

-- doing their job properly. Let's pick up on that it was ill thought

through. Julie, do you want to come back? I totally disagree. I spent a

lot of time researching the bill and I spoke to people on all sides of

the house, including some Conservative members, Liberal

Democrats, Scottish National party, the Green party, various supporters

of the bill. I had been advised earlier on when selecting the

subject that it was wise, if you hope to have any progress, that you

had an issue that was noncontroversial and every party

thought they could get behind. The whole point of the bill committees

that follow one in the second readings are to iron out the details

and I spent a lot of time with people far more experienced than I

am preparing bills and there was a sound prospect in the bill but it

was not to be thanks to filibustering. What do you say to

the claim that MPs can and should adopt any technique that is

available to their disposal if they think believes, as he put it, ill

thought through? What happens is outrageously dishonest and

undemocratic. I welcome the work done by the procedure committee

since that episode that is actually looking to bring reform, because one

thing my bill to do was to raise the whole issue in the public mind. Had

I been successful, a million carers and their families would have

benefited. Just to correct what Philip said, no carers would have

paid extra charges and a million carers would have benefited, so it

had a lot of public attention. And they were quite rightly disgusted at

what they saw was spoiled on the part of some MPs. Is that not what

it is? It is bored, because you do it because you can, speaking for one

hour and 52 minutes, and were you being undemocratic? I was blocking a

bill I thought was ill thought through. It's not the first time

you've done it. Lots of bills go through. It's noncontroversial. But

you did it on the compulsory emergency first aid education bill.

That was a bad bill as well. The point about Julie's bill, if you

don't mind me saying so, five out of six carers it wouldn't have applied

to and only applied to people with an underlying claim to carers

allowance. We had no idea how the hospital would determine that claim,

how it would be managed, whether if there was a dispute between the

hospital and the carer whether there would be some new parking ombudsman

who would resolve complaints, whether the money to pay for this

would come from the hospital on the doctors and nurses, from the

government or from higher parking charges and everybody else which

would have meant five out of six carers would have paid more. Julie

couldn't and is the questions. She hadn't even spoken to Burnley

Hospital. She had spoken to other parties. This was very much a soul

campaign, not a party campaign, so you took it upon yourself to wreck

the bill. The point is this. If a hundred MPs turn up on Friday to

support a bill and it passes through, irrespective of what I do

over how long anybody speaks, if Julie couldn't muster 100 MPs out of

650 to support the bill and she claimed she had all the support,

where were they? If a hundred MPs had turned up, it have passed. The

point is that more senior MPs have sat through so many sessions that

they know how it works on a Friday, but Philip and a couple of his

colleagues sit there Friday after Friday, every time a Private members

Bill comes through. Did you get the support? Yes, I did get the support.

Where were they? The important thing is that going forward the committee

looks at improving the process so we can have a fair situation and an

honest boat. A number of colleagues -- an honest boat. A number of

colleagues said that they support carers in Parliament and then they

refused to vote against it. Many of the issues that Philip mentioned I

had discussed with the Minister before the bill was presented and he

made it plain that the government did not want to support it, so let's

have an honest debate. Should there be moves to get rid of this option?

No. I think the system works well in the sense if the bill has the

support of 100 MPs it can go through without anybody blocking it but

gives a mechanism to block bills. Otherwise people come with a worthy

sentiment and expect everybody to faun all over it and pass it on the

nod. We are passing legislation, it it is serious business, it should

the be able dom with a worthy sentiment and go through. Do you

think it is worth keeping? Absolutely not. The balance is not

what happens in Parliament. If a large corporation wants the law

changed they don't ask an MP to put a Friday morning bill in. They go

and get an ordering counsel, they get statute changed and ministerial

decisions and they are in there, as we speak, consultants being paid

tens of thousands a week to do that. Business can get any change it wants

to into government but the public has to go through petitions which

are never listened to or private members bills and somebody pops up a

and stops them. The minimum you can do, is streamline and make clear but

a there are some crazy ones. Make clear that the private member's

bill, that the procedure - but in the end, I think it is only the

beginning of participatory democracy, which is what we need in

this country. Do you think it'll put people off, other MPs coming forward

with private members bills Absolutely definitely. I would think

ten times, 100 times before I give up a Friday to support a private

member's bill, even on a very worthy issue. It is a total waste, and a

disrespect of British Parliament and even more than that, it is a

disrespect to the British public. It is insulting for them for them to be

- 1 million careers could have benefited and many of them and their

families tuned in that morning tloisen to see the -- to listen it

see the charade that passed for debate. All right. Thank you for

both of you. I won't let you talk out the rest of the programme.

Talk of a steel crisis reminds us of a time, not so long ago,

when workers were out on strike, stock markets were crashing

and the far left in British politics were agitating for a revolution.

Including, it appears, one young journalist from Wigan.

Times have now changed and these days Paul Mason has recanted his

"revolutionary marxism" in favour of "radical social democracy".

In a moment we will find out why, and hear from Peter Taaffe,

the General Secretary of the Socialist Party

and former chief of militant, about why he thinks a revolution

But first, let's go back to 1987 and hear the views

There undoubtedly was the demand for a forum where the left could come in

from the cold. For many be the so-called outside left the Labour

Conference was a disaster. Since then it has been greatly lifted but

the problems of the world stock market. The world will never be the

same again. There is no way back for Thatcher and Reagan and it'll be the

end of monetaryism. Tony Benn had hoped it could be a family reunion

for the left but it was a family with immense strain. As well as over

1,000 Labour MPs, there were many people from way outside the party

like Socialist Work and entryist like Workers Power. There a tendency

within the Labour Party To do what? Build revolutionary politics inside

the Labour Party. I'm joined now by Peter Taaffe,

General Secretary of the Socialist Party and founder

of the entryist Militant Group which caused Labour so many

problems in the 1980s. Welcome to the programme. I hope you

enjoyed doing yourself. That jumper was superb. Why didn't you show me

at that age. You were part of a ginger group... Ginger. Well a

groups agitating for revolutionary politics but when George Osborne

accused of you being a revolutionly Marxist, you denied it. Why? Because

I'm in the one now. Thatcher destroyed the miners, we had

extrajudicial force used against working class people. There were

riots on the streets. We were fighting a battle for the survival

of working class communities, which we lost, which I am terribly sorry

about. There are people in emmer vale and Wigan, Leigh, where I come

from, still living with that and we were right to fight it. Why aren't

you still fighting? The world that has emerged is different. The global

economy, the possibility for social just tis that is has emerged have to

be recalibrated from where you start with. For me, personally ut journey

I have taken, I think the revolutionary left politics of the

197 #0gs and 80s had a fatal weakness of failing to understand

that what most working class people, ordinary people that work now, let's

leave aside the labels, what they want is an area of self-control

within capitalism, within the system. That's what people like Nye

Bevan fought for that.ings a what, as a trade unionist and MP, and

that's what I would fight for now. Are you disappointed by this change

of heart. Paul Mason says he is adapting to the world as it is

today. You are stuck in the 1970s and 80s? No, I think he has changed

his position and it is greatable, as he has explained. I think there is

more of a case today for the battles we fought 30 years ago and they won

some of those battles. It wasn't all losses. We are the people, that was

Militant, now the Socialist Party who took on thatch-and-a-half in

Liverpool and defeated her. She was forced to give big concessions to

the working class of people. We also mobilised 18 million people to

defeat the poll tax. If you read Mrs Thatcher's biography, you will see

she admit in there that that battle, Paul, led to her resignation. It

wasn't the EU. Those lessons are relevant today. What does Jeremy

Corbyn's election to the leadership of the Labour Party represent? What

does the Bernie Sanders phenomena in America represent? Where he has

talked about revolution, you have articulated that. You have left at a

time when perhaps, Britain and America are ripe for revolution.

Bernie Sanders talk of revolution is about a political revolution in

America, throwing money out of politics. You as co-thinkers inside,

I think in is he atle you have one City Councillor Yes. But there is a

big thing happening, horizontally among young people. We mean by that,

not involved in hierarchial groups. There are people on the streets of

Paris, every night fighting for social justice, not a Leninist

revolution. The poblted of that has gone. Number two, yes, the struggle

we won things through fighting the poll tax, your own collaborator,

Tommy Sheridan was heroic I would argue and Scottish people followed.

Yes, jailed in that time. And the point is what do we do now, it has

to be a mixture of resisting the austerity and the injustice that is

have been inflicted be o people and parliamentary action. Why don't you

- why don't you just come in, join the Labour Party, give yourselves -

as we did... On the last question. As we did in '97. I was part of the

Labour Party. Why don't you? We would like to join the Labour Party.

In the same way as the... Do you still want a Leninist mai,

coalition? In the same way as the co-op. The idea of Leninism as a

hierarchial, centralised... Do you still believe in it? We believe in

parties. We don't believe we will be a spontaneous movement that can

overthrow the most ruthless, capitalist class we have had in

history. They are absolutery ruthless. They have been trained to

rule. The phenomenon you have mentioned, it is a step forward. The

Jeremy Corbyn movement is a step forward. Because would you like it

to be the sort of party you want it to be, this overthrow of the

capitalist class. We believe that will be arrived at by democratic

discussion and debate. We would like to be part of the Labour Party. Paul

wrote a very interesting article in the Guardian in which he said - it

can't be now that - centralised, a topdown party. We agree with that.

Why not a featheration, different organisations in different parties.

Do you think there is still, a swell of support for that sort of

sentiment? Stls not among young people and young people, in other

words, are way ahead of the kind of fossilised leftism of the 20th

Century. They have realised that you can have your own personal

revolution, you can do quite a lot on your own and the key difference

for me is that so many people have decided that, you know, in spending

your entire life to enforce labour to do things or Knight night or the

RMT, do it yourself -- or Unite. The point is you don't need a

hierarchial organisation and structure, you don't need T with a

cell phone you can do more than you can. I think that's childish,

frankly. What you have explained in your book about post capitalism, is

the enormous oppressive apparatus that the ruling class worldwide has

bilted up. You give a good phrase where you said think about Manila in

Gothenberg. You talked about the head of Prudential insurance saying

the minimum wage is the enemy of young people. They are ruthless. Do

you think that by coming together in the kind of general discussion, that

we will be able to overthrow this capital class, it is childish? The

only way is by building a mass party. Social counter-parlance. Are

you still close to Jeremy Corbyn? In a sense, yes, we support Jeremy

Corbyn. We would like to be part of his project but Jeremy Corbyn is

unfortunately, he is trapped behind enemy lines. Who is the enemy? Who

is the enemy? Some are the Blairites, one of whom you have had

in here today. They don't want what Jeremy Corbyn stands for. Paul know

this is. We have two parties in one in the Labour Party. We have the

Jeremy Corbyn Labour Party and we have the old, discredited remnants

of the Blairites. We want a real struggle to build a party that

represents the overwhelming majority. Briefly, do you think

Peter and his supporters are threatening the potential success of

Jeremy Corbyn? 123450 not so far, they can't win a single election

against him. Labour San alliance of the left and right. It is unusual

the left is leading. That's what the Blairites can't get their head

around. I will have to finish it there. Thank you very much. Now time

to find out the answer to our quiz: The question was which leading

politicians has spent Was it a) The Home

Secretary Theresa May? C) The Lords' Speaker,

Baroness D'Souza? Or D) Scottish First Minister,

Nicola Sturgeon? It is the Lords' speaker. Nearly

?10,000. It is, it is Lady D'Souza. Well done you. You don't get a cash

prize but you can probably take a mug.

Free membership of the Socialist Party for a year. From all of us,

goodbye.