11/07/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

reported Andrea Leadsom is to pull out of the race to become

Conservative leader and Prime Minister.

Mrs Leadsom had faced criticism over the weekend after appearing

to suggest she'd make a better leader because she's a mother.

We'll have the latest reaction to this breaking story.

Angela Eagle is preparing to challenge Jeremy Corbyn

His supporters say party members will elect him again -

but will he automatically get on the ballot?

Tony Blair was not on trial and the Chilcot report passed no

verdict on his guilt - but could the Prime Minister

who took us into the Iraq War now be held in contempt of parliament?

And promises and predictions - who will hold the rival camps

to account for the promises and predictions made

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

of the programme today Conservative MP and former deputy speaker

of the House of Commons, Nigel Evans, and the former

Labour Leadership hopeful Chuka Umuna.

First this morning that breaking news that Andrea Leadsom

is preparing to pull out of the Conservative leadership race.

Laura, this is incredible. This is the latest and very dramatic turn of

events after a fast-moving weekend of news developments. What has

happened? Just when you think you might be able to pause for breath

for a single second around an hour and a half ago someone suggested to

me it might be worth watching very carefully what Andrea Leadsom was

going to be doing today. I suppose my hackles rose like any reporter.

She has had a bumpy couple of days after the story in The Times

newspaper and Morgan Quaintance suggested she had taken what has

happened in the last couple of days so seriously and found the first few

days of the leadership race a bruising and so difficult that I

understand just in the last 24 hours she has decided to quit. That of

course will be a disappointment for many of her supporters, people who

had grown to know her and admire her to the course of the EU referendum

campaign. More to the point, the big picture is however difficult we will

hear it has been for Andrea Leadsom when she comes out in ten minutes or

so, this could mean that subject to how the Tory party decides to

proceed, potentially within days Theresa May will be installed as

Prime Minister. And she will move into Number Ten Downing St and David

Cameron will move out. In 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers has

got to decide exactly what happens next. But it seems this means rather

than there being a contest and rather than Tory members or anyone

around the country having a say, that Theresa May will be subject to

a coronation, something that she herself said she did not want to

happen. But people do talk about it because she was so far ahead in

terms of support within her own party. And she's the only one

remaining if Andrea Leadsom says she is dropping out of the race. Do you

expect her to make a statement right there for your standing? Expect that

at about 12:15pm that she will confirm that she is running out.

There had been suggestions that Theresa May should not be the only

candidate, she has the overwhelming backing of Tory MPs, almost 200 of

them, 60% or so of the Parliamentary party voted for her in the second

ballot and they have even been a tradition begun by some Conservative

MPs, including Grant Shapps, who was trying to press for this idea of a

coronation. If the political moments that we are in, it is because of

that, but this is not normal given that just two weeks or so ago, we

voted to leave the European Union. We are at a historical junction and

that is where the demand for Theresa May just to take over immediately

came from. As I say it will be for the 1922 Committee, the internal

backbench group of MPs, to decide what the next move is if as we

expect, and as this press pack expect, Andrea Leadsom comes out to

confirm that she's the race. Many people were disappointed and upset

that David Cameron decided immediately that he would step down,

the expectation of course is he would stay until September. Once the

contest was over. It now seems strange if he then extends that,

even though it now is clear that we're going have Theresa May as the

next Prime Minister, why not just hand over immediately? Yes, I just

lost those last couple of words, but extraordinary to think that just

three weeks ago David Cameron repeatedly said, I will not resign

if I lose the referendum, there will be no need for me to go. Senior

colleagues on both sides of the EU debate said that, that he did not

need to quit, even if the two modules referendum result meant

leaving the EU. But how wrong they were. He changed his mind, they

changed their minds, and now it appears the extent of the shake-up

that the referendum has caused right across British politics has upended

everything. There will now be no contest. There are of course

leadership contest going on all over the place, arguably also the result

of the referendum. But for the Tories, there will now just the

succession, a handover to Theresa May rather than a contest. I

understand from Andrea Leadsom, the main reason she will give today is

the pressure and what she sees as the abuse she has been given before,

as she decided to run. Of course critics will say if she could not

take the pressure of the early days of the leadership campaign, it is

not likely she would have been able to handle the pressure of being

Prime Minister very well. We will here in a few minutes her

explanation in her own words. We are going to hear from her but Kelis a

bit about interest you where she made those comments about being a

mother and that somehow she would have a greater stake in the future

of the country. Theresa May does not have children. That that led to the

abuse that this became overwhelming for her. On Friday night The Times

newspaper had a dramatic headline following a very long interview one

of the senior columnists had carried out with Andrea Leadsom. In that

interview she suggested that she had a very real stake in the future

because she has a large family. She has talked repeatedly about herself

as a mother and grandmother, she has talked about that a lot. When she

was invited to suggest comparisons between herself and Theresa May, she

was asked why she would be a more persuasive candidate. She suggested

that part of that was because of her position as a mother as someone with

that kind of empathy and that kind of sympathy. She also said in that

interview that she did not want that to become a factor in the leadership

campaign, in fact she said it would be horrible people made that an

issue in the campaign. But the diplomatic version upset about this

is that at best she was being naive. She was not misquoted, her problem

was she did not like the way that the Times newspaper had used the

comment she made in that lengthy interview. So strange 48 hours, and

The Times newspaper even had their journalist out defending the way

they used. But for Andrea Leadsom it was probably part of what had been a

couple of days of not unusual, but quite bruising encounters with the

press. We are just keeping an eye, I think she's about to come out. As

soon as she comes out we will duck out of the way. We will carry on

talking while she prepares to come out. Here are some members of her

team. We expect her to come out in the next couple of minutes. Stay

with us but I go first to studio guests while we wait for Andrea

Leadsom to come out. Thank you very much for the moment. John Redwood,

who supported the leadership of Andrea Leadsom is here. Your

reaction? Congratulations to Theresa May and I wish you every success as

leader and Prime Minister. I hope she will take on board the things

that most excited me about the Andrea Leadsom campaign, one is

economic optimism, we have a number of policies and measures but we want

the bank and the government to take urgently. The other was a speedy and

sensible exit from the EU, by means of primary legislation, sorting out

borders the same time. And I would recommend that strongly to her, if

she wants to build a united party, we had a voice and a point and I

hope that she will take that on board. There is Bernard Jenkin, in

Duncan Smith, close supporters of Andrea Leadsom. It looks as if

they're lining up outside. And presumably Andrea Leadsom will

appear in front of them and the gathered press to talk about why she

has decided to pull out at this critical time of the and in fact has

left the path open for Theresa May to some extent to be anointed as the

next Conservative leader and Prime Minister. What we do not know at the

moment exactly is how the process will unfold. And we have yet to hear

probably from the 1922 chair. The sooner the better, I hope, the

advantage is that we foreshortened the debate. That will have to be

confirmed. Of course we hope to hear from Graham Brady, head of the 1922

Committee that he will be able to plant exactly what will happen. He

will probably make a statement at around 12:30pm outside the Houses of

Parliament. And that will set out and clarify exactly what will

happen. Let's see if this is Andrea Leadsom. No, more of her supporters

coming out. Tim Walton, I do not think they can fit that many more

people on the steps! This was the decision that she made overnight.

She has not had that much time to think about it. As we heard from our

political editor the abuse that followed the interview that she gave

at the weekend seemed to have become too great for her. And the scrutiny

would have continued as would be expected of someone who wants to be

Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party. Let's see if

this is Andrea Leadsom. Yes. Let's hear what she has decided. Good

morning. Good morning, everyone. This morning I have written a letter

to Graham Brady the chair of the 1922 Committee, and I would like to

read it to you. The best interests of our country inspired me to stand

for the leadership. I believe that in leading -- leaving the EU, a

bright future awaits were all our people can share in a new

prosperity, freedom and democracy. The referendum result demonstrated a

clear desire for change. Strong leadership is needed urgently to

begin the work of withdrawing from the European Union. Nine weeks

leadership campaign at such a critical moment for our country is

highly undesirable. Business needs certainty. A strong and unified

government must move quickly to set out what an independent, United

Kingdom framework for business looks like. It is also essential that

current EU workers in the UK and the businesses that employ them know

where they stand. The Conservative Party was elected only last year

with a strong manifesto of the we now need a new Prime Minister in

place as soon as possible, committed to fulfilling that manifesto as well

as implementing the clear instructions from the referendum.

Theresa May carries over 60% of support from the Parliamentary

party. She is ideally placed to implement Brexit on the best

possible terms for the British people. And she has promised that

she will do so. For me personally to have won the support of 84 of my

colleagues last Thursday was a great expression of confidence for which I

am incredibly grateful. Nevertheless this is less than 25% of the

Parliamentary party and after careful consideration I do not

believe that this is sufficient support to lead a strong and stable

government, should I win the leadership election. There is no

greater privilege than to lead the Conservative Party in government.

And I would have been deeply honoured to do it. I have however

concluded that the interests of our country are best served by the

immediate appointment of a strong and well supported Prime Minister.

I'm therefore withdrawing from the leadership election and I wish

Theresa May the very greatest success. I assure her of my full

support. Thank you very much. Her Andrea Leadsom, was it a mistake

to run? Why have you changed your mind, Mrs Leadsom? Andrea Leadsom

giving a statement it up she read out the letters she has sent to the

chairman of the 1922 committee, who will be the person who will announce

the timetable that will lead to Theresa May becoming leader of the

party and then Prime Minister. To take you through some of the

comments she made, she said that having left the EU, or the British

people having decided to leave the EU, a bright future awaits and

strong leadership is needed. She said she felt the mind week campaign

would be highly undesirable because business needs certainty. -- nine

week. She has changed around him and slightly because she felt that

actually it would have been fine to spend a few months with a leadership

contest that would have been but at the grassroots but lets talk to

Laura Coombs BOE, our political editor, who was trying to ask some

questions of Andrea Leadsom. -- Laura Coombs Berg. If you can hear

me, what did you make of the reasons she gave in terms of saying that

long campaign would have been undesirable when what the country

needs is strongly do ship, and business needs certainty? I think as

ever, I suspect there will be public reasons and private reasons. Her

public reasons were very clear. She said that a long contest, nine weeks

stretching out over the summer, was not the right thing the moment for

the country and in the wake of our vote to leave the European Union,

and she referred to Theresa May having the overwhelming backing of

Conservative MPs, over 60% of them, and that will have weighed on Andrea

Leadsom's mine. Privately, people who are close to her have told me

this morning that the abuse she felt she had been getting from some of

her colleagues and the press attention had been too much. As ever

in politics, there will be a combination of reasons that changed

her mind but in Andrea Leadsom's words, she wants a swift appointment

of Theresa May to become an extra minister and she has decided to

withdraw from the race. Laura Kuenssberg, thank you very much. We

will let you try to get some work that of Andrea Leadsom.

John Redwood, you must have been disappointed. She was your woman and

she has stood down. I am disappointed but it shows why I

like. Decent and honest and cheese but the national interest before her

own ambitions. -- she has put. Her campaign, supported by me, was about

early and smooth exit from the EU by an international legislation, not

getting too entangled in all these procedures that the EU wants to

enforce on us, and being optimistic when there is blended to be

optimistic about an economic prospects and cheaper bows first and

foremost. Was she naive to run in the first place? The abuse that you

been talking about and the unhappiness about quite a lot of

Tory MPs is a factor because we've seen what happens in the Labour

Party when the MPs don't agree with the members of the view of the

number should. She was very worried that she would win the membership,

which she might well have done, but not carried of the MPs with her and

makes it very difficult. Should she have run in the first place? Did she

not have enough experience? Was naive to think that she could have a

chance at not just leading the party by becoming Prime Minister? Very

different from David Cameron and other leaders who have become leader

and become Leader of the Opposition? I believe in democratic petition and

I don't expect to be on the winning side. I have been on the losing side

are great number of times. It is a way of making your case and

influencing policy and we now wish to convert this into a win for the

nation because the main points she was putting forward are vital to a

successful Premiership by Theresa May, which is what we now all wish

for. Nigel Evans, she did say very clearly in that letter that she read

out that Theresa May is ideally placed to execute Brexit, and she

has promised to do so. In that is an implicit threat, isn't there, but

you have promised to do, even as a remain in the EU referendum, but you

have promised, Theresa May, to do the right thing and carry out the

will of the people. Did you sense that from her comments? Absolutely.

I spoke to Theresa may just over a week ago and I talked to her about

Brexit. I'm a Brexiteer and I want to see this happen as quickly as

possible. I want to see the wishes of the British people carried out

and I got that commitment from Theresa and that's why I was happy

to support Theresa May. She said she is going to but a Brexiteer in

charge of the withdrawal of the European Union. That now needs to

happen. And this expression is Nigel being gobsmacked. Who says politics

is boring? At the moment, I would not want to predict what's going to

happen in the next five minutes, never mind the next 24 hours.

Congratulations to Theresa May. I am absolutely certain she will make a

great Prime Minister. Jeremy Corbyn would dream of 84 members! 84 is a

substantial number and the party will now unite behind Theresa May

and absolutely support her in withdrawing the United Kingdom from

the European Union as quickly as possible. I know Graham Brady is

going to make a speech at the moment. I'm secretary of the 1922

and I did chat to the vice-chairman just before coming on the air

because this is uncharted water. Did you get a sense of what is going to

say? No, inasmuch as he has taught already to the permanent secretary.

You only have to wait ten more minutes to find out what the

procedure is going to be but like John, I want this now to happen as

quickly as possible and the 1922 didn't want it to drag out to the

9th of September. We wanted it to be a far tighter win and one of the

reasons Andrea has used is that we can now get on with the process of

government and I think that now needs to happen as quickly as

possible. Let's look at this in contrast to the Labour Party in

terms of leadership contests. They sorted it out, the Conservative

Party. There is now going to be, and we know who it is, a new leader and

Prime Minister. Why can't the Labour Party sought itself out? We are

going to have a contest now because there has been a challenge. It was

going to be launched at the double bass programme. Who knows? Things

change every hour. There will be a challenge in the Labour Party. Can I

say something about the politics of this, in the spectre of Andrea, who

I know very well? I like her personally very much. I disagree

with her fundamentally on a lot of things and from my own experience, I

think one of the things this illustrates is that if you are going

to launch - and I speak from personal experience 2- a leadership

campaign, it helps if you've spent many months preparing at Aberdeen

basin of the structure. Did you have sympathy if it was a case of too

much but because it was the sort of thing you experienced? I wasn't

preparing to run a leadership contest, I was preparing to run a

business, innovation and skills department Inan Ed Miliband

government and Theresa May has been planning this for some time. She

wasn't very present on the field of the EU referendum campaign. I think

part of the reason she didn't do so was a tactical reason in order to

win a potential leadership contest but two things I would say. A

Theresa May government is going to be dominated by Brexiteers. It will

be a Vote Leave government in essence. And I still think that

Theresa may has a lot to prove in showing that she can unify the

country and I just think of the disgraceful role she played in the

Islam phobia campaign that was waged against Sadiq Khan in the London

mayoral election. I think she has a lot to prove on that front. Will be

discussing that and a lot more detail now we know she is going to

be bid and Prime Minister. Just briefly to you, will you all unite

behind Theresa May? Will there be any problem, do you think, with Tory

MPs who are disappointed about Andrea Leadsom dropping out? I hope

not that I thought we had two very good winning candidates. We were

going to have a democratic argument but we are now in the position we

are in. We all had goodwill but there will be rebellions from time

to time, as there are under all leaders. Some of them will be from

her own supporters, I suspect, because they won't all be satisfied.

She's now got to balance the ticket and I do sincerely recommend to her

those two fundamental issues from our campaign, economic optimism. We

need to lift spirits and tell people there is not going to be a

recession, we can get through this fine things are going to be much

better. We can be more prosperous, and we need to have a smooth exit

which I think means doing it at pace. Doing it right now? OK, thank

you. So Angela Eagle is launching her

challenge for the Labour leadership She says she wants to "heal

the party" to give them a chance of winning

the next general election. Also sharing his views on the Labour

leadership this morning has been Unite General Secretary Len

McCluskey - and he had some strong words for those who want to get rid

of Jeremy Corbyn, calling it This was an attempted

political lynching. Designed to bully and bludgeon

Jeremy Corbyn, this deeply decent and kind man,

out of the job This is not just about

Jeremy Corbyn and his position, the coup has

snowballed into a wrecking Labour Party itself, destroying it

at least temporarily, as a The big question in all

of is whether current leader Jeremy will automatically be on the ballot

paper in a new leadership contest - with both sides arguing

a different case. Angela Eagle says she expects

Jeremy Corbyn to have to be nominated by 20% of Labour MPs

and MEPs in the same way that The precedent for this

is Tony Benn's challenge to Neil Kinnock's leadership

in 1988, when Kinnock had to gather endorsements from members

of the Parliamentary Labour Party But Mr Corbyn and his supporters say

things have changed since then and that as the incumbent

he will automatically be They say the party rules state

that it is only "challengers" to the leadership who are required

to collect nominations and that they have legal advice

to back up this view. Now that Angela Eagle has triggered

the process it is possible other challengers will emerge -

former Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Owen Smith is yet

to decide whether to run himself. It is the party's National Executive

Committee who must make the final decision regarding the nominations

process and the timetable for the election -

they are expected to meet tomorrow. Other questions surround the current

membership of the Labour Party - over 100,000 people have joined

the party since the EU referendum - many stating their support

for Jeremy Corbyn. Once a leadership contest starts

the party will allow people to become "registered supporters" -

a system introduced for the contest last year which allows people

to vote in the leadership ballot by Let's speak to the Samuel Townend

from the Society of Labour Lawyers, who has given legal advice

to the party in the past. Welcome to the programme. What is

your legal opinion on the rules? Does Jeremy Corbyn need to get the

requisite nominations or not, to be on the ballot paper? The truth is,

Jo, that the rules are unclear on that point. Oh. Although there is

one part of the rules which says that potential challenges require

20% of the European and Parliamentary Labour Party to

nominate, there are other parts of the rules which talk about how

nominees have to present their nominations to the general secretary

in order to stand. So there is no doubt differing legal views given on

that point. So in the end it will be a political decision, if you like?

It will come down to the ruling executive who will decide, I presume

from what you've said. Have you seen the legal advice that has been given

to Iain MacCormick all, who is the general secretary of the Labour

Party, which states that Corbyn does need those nominations? No, I

haven't. The only legal advice available was an Jeremy Corbyn's

Twitter feed last night and I think it's been on the Huffington Post a

week or so ago, which was very clear and unambiguously stating that he

does not require the nominations. However, it also goes from a legal

point of view too far, in my view, in that it says it is an arguable

that it requires the nominations. But the rules themselves do not

address the position where you have an incumbent leader and whether or

not he or she requires the nominations. So it can't be an

arguable. There is an argument to be had and that, as you say, will be,

at least initially, determined by the NEC, which I understand is

meeting tomorrow. So just to be clear, the body of opinion in the

Labour Party that says he has to be on the ballot paper, that is not

necessarily the case? It could be argued that he could be kept off,

which, as you say, leaves it ambiguous in terms of any sort of

legal challenge. Because the key passage from the rule book reads,

"Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by

potential challenges each year prior to the annual session of party

conference". In this case any nomination must be aborted by 20% of

the combined members of the PLP and the EPL pee, which is the European

Parliament rebate the party. "Any nomination," in your reading of it,

does that mean anyone, or is that assuming that the incumbent isn't

included? The legal advice goes both ways on that, I suspect. So

ultimately, as you say, it will be a political decision for the NEC

tomorrow, albeit that they will take legal advice. I understand that

legal advice has been given to the party but as I say, I don't know

what it says. And then ultimately, if the worst comes to the worst, the

disgruntled side, which ever it might be, may decide to pursue

matters further in the courts. Thank you very much.

A few minutes ago Angela Eagle launched her leadership bid. Let's

have a listen. These are dark times for the Labour Party and dangerous

times for our country. A referendum designed to settle an argument in

the Conservative Party has resulted in the country being torn apart. Our

economy damaged. Our society hurt. And at this time with a failed Prime

Minister and a tiny number of Conservative Party members choosing

the next one, our country needs a strong Labour Party. We alone can

hold this right-wing Tory government to account and then replace it by

winning a general election. APPLAUSE .

Jeremy Corbyn is unable to provide the leadership that this huge task

needs. I believe that I can. Angela Eagle launching her leadership bid.

Saying that Jeremy Corbyn does not have the leadership skills to

continue in the role. Christine Shawcross, who sits on the national

ruling executive, known as the NEC, joins us now. You're on the NEC,

we've just heard from Samuel talent the lawyer who said it would be up

to the NEC to interpret the leadership rules. In your mind, Ayew

clear that Jeremy Corbyn is on the ballot paper? I think it is clear

from those rules, when the rules were tidied up in the late 1990s,

the paper that went to conference had the explanation column and this

requires potential challengers to get nominations. This is papers that

went to conference and it refers only to potential challengers. But

he said it is arguable, and in this case it says any nominations must be

supported by 20% of all the members in parliament and in Europe. Do you

accept that? But it's clearly refers to the sentence before which talks

about challengers leading nominations and that any nomination

must get 20%. So the rules are perfectly clear. Does everyone agree

with you on the NEC, I understand it is evenly split? I have not seen

this, we have not had legal advice or any recommendations out yet we

will have to see what is put to the meeting. When you see both sets of

legal advice as members of the NEC at the meeting tomorrow? I should

imagine so. There will be a report. We have the advice that Jeremy

Corbyn is automatically on the paper in any case. That is the advice that

has been presented to Ian Nichol. If you cannot agree, you know the

members of the NEC, you know how they will split in terms of voting,

what will happen if you cannot agree? I think there are enough

people on the NEC, whether they supported Jeremy Arnott, to

understand that the party expect the Democratic contest and anything that

looks like it is keeping someone off a ballot paper deliberately, this

will not go down well with the membership and people on the NEC

will understand that. What do you say to that, Chuka Umuna, should he

be on the ballot paper? I'm a lawyer, I have read the rules and it

is not clear what the rules say. And to pretend otherwise is absurd.

Essentially the NEC will make a political decision on this. You have

the Parliamentary party of MPs, we are Parliamentary party, we believe

in implementing socialism through Parliament and that is why it

matters whether or not your reader can command the confidence of its

MPs. MPs by the way you have a mandate from 9.3 million Labour

voters. You have a problem in the sense that we've got to reconcile

that mandate that they have from 9.3 million Labour voters with the

mandate he has fun children 31,000 members and that is why this process

should hopefully enable to reconcile those. I take issue with Len

McCluskey, by the way. I will come to that in a second. First the

response from Christine Shawcross about the legitimacy of MPs being a

parliamentary deadlock city and without their support Jeremy Corbyn

is not illegitimate leader. -- democracy. The rank-and-file

membership one to work with the Parliamentary Labour Party. We

support MPs and we feel many of them older position to us doing a lot of

that leafleting and knocking on doors. If we are to respect the

Parliamentary Labour Party it needs to be a two-way process. They need

to respect the democratic decision that was made barely ten months ago.

What I would say in respect of Christina, I have known her for some

time and know that she is a campaigner and goes out on the

doorsteps and has done the work for the Labour Party. Luckily I see a

lot of new people who have come into the party who often have been

members of other parties especially the Green Party, socialist workers

party, who come in and tell existing members in my constituency party who

do all the work, off you go. We're not doing that and that is why there

is an area of agreement I have with Diane Abbott is money when she spoke

of a split in the Labour Party. There is not going to be a split. I

do not see how Ondray first past the post electoral system which we must

abolish and in my view replace with abortion or representation, how the

new party could come into being. And further to be a split it would

require people like me to walk away. I have been a member and have worked

hard to get Labour government elected, working hard on civil

partnerships and the rest, in the face of people campaigning to stop

us doing that, for 20 years. I'm not walking away from my party at this

junction and for people who have been members just for two minutes,

saying the Labour Party can no longer be a broad church. It is

straightforward. And statements from people like Len McCluskey, I presume

he's speaking about Chuka Umuna, speaking of bullying the Labour

Party and being a lynch mob, is that the sort of language you think will

unite the party? It is a disgrace, that language. I am a member of the

Labour Party and have been twice as long as Chuka Umuna. I have seen the

branches being integrated with now twice as many people active in my

branch of the Labour Party, coming to the meetings and doing all the

work, going out on doorsteps. There has been talk about this but I think

his people returning, not entering. People left over the Iraq War. The

kind of bullying and intimidation that we have not seen for a long

time in the Labour Party stop piracy issue that people have on the

current leadership is competent. We had a vote last Monday and were

instructed to abstain on an increase in employment tribunal fees. I ask

what the Labour Party is doing abstaining on a vote like this. And

then too late in the day, the whip was slightly changed and we did

nothing on that issue. If I was Business Secretary, if we had won

the election last year, we would have abolished the very unfair and

unjust employment tribunal fees scheme. That harms members of the

Unite union. And nothing was done about it on Monday so I'm not

surprised why you have half of the Unite union members saying they want

to see change. In the end it is not the members who suffer about the

communities that the Labour Party was set up to serve, hard-working

people who need a Labour government implement promoting their values.

There is a charge of incompetence, or lacking leadership skills, to win

the next election. You believe that Jeremy Corbyn can win the next

general election? Absolutely. They have been a lot of reverses against

the Tories was Jamie has been leader, we have won by-elections

with increased majorities. The man is brave and principled, honest and

inspiring, he inspired all these members to join the Labour Party,

for more than other political party put together. Why then cannot

convince MPs like Chuka Umuna, if it is so clear in your mind and so many

new members, why is 80% of the Parliamentary party accusing him of

being a poor leader? At the last two general elections we lost with

policies very much on the austerity light, Tory light theme. That is

ridiculous. What was that about heckling and bullying! That is why

the Labour Party membership were keen to have a different kind of

politician leading us. John McDonnell has just adopted exactly

the same economic position in respect of our fiscal policy as Ed

Balls and to suggest that somehow we're standing on an austerity like

Digg it is ridiculous. We would have introduced a blacklisting enquiry,

which the Conservatives refuse to do, would have introduced more

stringent rules on zero hours contrast. -- contract. I would

project this version that we are warmed up version of the Tory party.

How dare anyone suggest that. We're saying we are going to make cuts as

well, not as bad as the Tory party but making cuts. No wonder that

working-class people are not inspired. But of course John

McDonnell has said he would have hands-on economic competence, that

he would instruct some cuts to be made. Was he wrong? I think there is

a big difference, every difference in the world between the kind of

policies on which we fought the last two general elections, and the kind

of policies that the later leadership are now espousing. --

Labour leadership. You are fundamentally disagreeing, you say

you will not walk away from the party but would not be better to

allow Jeremy Corbyn to be on the ballot paper, define that leadership

contest and if you believe so strongly that members will support

your view, then win the leadership contest. Do you back Angela Eagle

question mark I'm pleased Angela has challenged and think it was right

for people in the party to say if the Parliamentary Labour Party has

no confidence, where is the challenger. I welcome the challenge

from Angela Eagle and think we should have a robust debate. In the

end I do not know, I think this will be a political decision. What do you

think that he should be on the ballot paper? I think we should

follow the rules we have, but you need to get nominations. He accepted

that. And let's not forget, when you'll connect was challenged for

the leadership back in the day, Jeremy Corbyn was one of the leading

people to challenge him. And they seem to demand that you'll connect

get nominations then so it seems slightly contradictory now to say

that because Germany is in the leader 's office, he should not also

had to stand. Well you can chose to get those nominations, it is not

clear whether he had to. When you have got little parties, we are not

protest groups, I believe, I do not agree, I think the leader of

momentum yesterday said winning elections. Not matter but I think

winning elections and implemented Labour values are mutually dependent

things. So having a leader who can implement an agenda through the

Parliamentary party is so important. Andrea Leadsom could see where the

Tories were going to head and that is part of the reason that she

pulled out. So you still want Jeremy Corbyn, it seems he will not do that

at the moment, he has made it clear that he is going to stand with a

powerful union behind him, but in terms of going ahead you think that

Angela Eagle would make a better Prime Minister than Jeremy Corbyn?

Yes, and I believe people watching this programme not only want a

Labour Party which is electable but once a credible opposition, join our

party to make it happen because at the moment many people do not think

they have a choice of the next general election. Angela Eagle will

give them that. If it comes to it and in the end Jeremy Corbyn is not

automatically on the ballot paper, will you and others at that stage

leaves the Labour Party, and decide it has been a stitch up and break

away? We have been through quite a few stitch ups over the past few

years and have seen quite a few tweaks to the Labour Party rules

since you'll connect's time. Angela Eagle put out a memo to all members

saying she respected their views, she would work with whoever they

voted for and so on. I voted for her as deputy leader on that basis. And

less than a year later she has gone back on that. I think we need a

leader that we can trust. And if he's not automatically on the ballot

paper and does not get the requisite emanations, what would you do Chris

Rock there will be a big campaign, it is impossible to say now what

might happen, but certainly I have always encouraged people to stay in

the Labour Party and fight for what we believe in. Thank you very much.

Back to the news that Andrea Leadsom has pulled out

Leaving the field clear for Theresa May to become Prime Minister.

Graham Brady, the Chairman of the 1922 Committee which oversees

the conduct of Conservative leadership elections,

has made this statement in the past few minutes.

Following the decision of Mrs Andrea Leadsom to withdraw

from the Conservative leadership contest, the

right honourable Mrs Theresa May is the only remaining candidate.

The process is now that I, as chairman

of the 1922 committee, and the board of the Conservative Party, must

formally confirm that Mrs May is the new leader

I will make a further statement as soon as I am in a

I've had a very useful conversation with Rob

Semple, and we will be seeking to get

answers from the party board during the course of this afternoon.

Will Theresa May be Prime Minister by the end of the day?

I think we need to respect the process.

There are constitutional things which need to be followed as

But clearly we are going to be in a position to answer

those questions much sooner than we had previously anticipated.

Can you give us an idea of how long we might be waiting?

Playing a straight bat, Graham Berry Dee outside the Houses of

Parliament, stating the obvious, that Theresa May will be premised,

it is just a matter of time and working through the due process but

as he said, it won't be nine weeks away, it will be much sooner. And of

course as soon we know, we will tell you.

Now - there were strong criticisms of Tony Blair and his decision

to take Britain to war in Iraq in last week's Chilcot Report,

but Sir John did not rule on the legality of the war

or the former Prime Minister's guilt.

But now a cross-party group of MPs is attempting to have Mr Blair held

in contempt of Parliament and yesterday on the Andrew Marr

Show, Jeremy Corbyn suggested he would be supporting the move.

I urge colleagues to read the Butler Report and read

the Chilcot Report about the way in which Parliament was denied

the information it should have had, the way in which there was lack

of preparations for the post-invasion situation

in Iraq and the way there were the assertions of weapons

Parliament must hold to account, including Tony Blair, those who took

That is surely what a Parliamentary democracy is about.

Let me try and finish with a yes or no.

So vote for the contempt motion, yes or no?

Well, I haven't seen it yet but I think I probably would.

And we're joined now from Aberdeen by one of those campaigning

for Tony Blair to face Contempt of Parliament charges,

Alex Salmond, just explain to our viewers, what does content of

Parliament actually mean in practice? A contempt motion, if it's

carried, then would have a range of potential penalties. It would mean

that someone could be dragged to the Baro the House of Commons, it means

they could be stripped of their Privy Council ship, it would mean

they could be barred from ever holding public office again. The

exact range of penalties would be determined by a Commons committee

but first you would have to have the verdict before you got the sentence.

Right, and in terms of the verdict this would be a motion that would

say that Tony Blair had deceived Parliament, is that right? This

would be a motion that says exactly that he held Parliament...

Parliament holds him in contempt because of his behaviour and it

would illustrate the range of evidence for that, which is amply

demonstrated in Chilcot. The most powerful aspect in my mind is that

over a period of almost 18 months, if you juxtapose the private members

that work given to George W Bush, the American president, with the

public statements given to Parliament on the people, it is

quite clear that Parliament was misled on a series of issues over a

series of months. This wasn't a single mistake or two, this was a

deliberate campaign of deception, as Jeremy Corbyn rightly said, and dog

any Parliament worth its salt must have the courage to rise to the

question of Parliamentary accountability. But Sir John Chilcot

also said in a report that the legal basis for the walk was reached in a

way that was far from satisfactory. He didn't explicitly say it was

illegal. He also said clearly that Tony Blair didn't lie, that there

wasn't a deliberate intention to take the country to war on a false

premise, even though we know now that weapons of mass destruction

didn't exist in Iraq. On the first of these, that wasn't within

Chilcot's terms of reference to rule the war illegal, as you well know,

and as you probably also know, the government is denying a Freedom of

Information request at the present moment which would set out what the

range of background papers was as to why that was excluded from Chilcot's

terms of reference. You greater Chilcot as the background for your

motion and he didn't talk about the legality or illegality of the war.

He said the legal basis was unsatisfactory but can I just repeat

the point, what you require for a contempt motion is to show that over

a period of time, the Prime Minister was saying one thing in private to

the resident of the United States of America, involving, for example,

speculation on Regine changed toward the end of 2001 doc by the summer of

2002, he was committing himself unconditionally to be with the

President of America come what may and by the spring of 2003,

princesses were going on in the United Nations which Chilcot

described as undermining the authority of the United Nations.

These juxtapose with what he was saying to Parliament and to people.

What he was saying to Parliament was something else entirely. He was

saying to Parliament that this war was not about regime change, it was

about weapons of mass destruction. He gave knowing the mission that he

committed himself to war, the contrary he said he was striving for

peace. On the United Nations he told parliament that he would only go

against the will of the night of nations if there was an unreasonable

veto from a single country. All of these areas, over a period of time,

he was misleading parliament by saying one thing in private to the

American president and another thing totally in public to Parliament and

the people. That is contempt. Let's about a Chuka Umunna. Is there

enough evidence, as Alex and has set out, to show that Tony Blair misled

Parliament on number of occasions? I think Chilcot is inconclusive on

that and I think Alex Salmond is in no better position than Chilcot to

pass judgment on the legality or not. He is not just fighting the

legality. Alex Salmond is citing a whole range of issues. Most of the

people who cite that cite the summit between the president of the USA and

Tony Blair in Crawford, Texas. We will be with you whatever, he said

that memo. He was accused of committing to taking military action

whatever and that was denied there was apparently no evidence for it,

according the Chilcot Report. I wasn't in Parliament at the time. I

fundamentally disagreed with the decision to go to war because I

didn't feel it was a last resort I felt the weapons inspectors should

be given more time to do their work. At the time, I wasn't a public

figure, I wasn't on the record as saying this, but that was my

position. But I think the most important thing, given all the death

and bloodshed, is that we learn lessons from the mistakes that were

made and they are never repeated again and I think that would be far

more useful for us. If this motion is passed off contempt, I'm not too

sure what it really achieves. That's the issue. Is this posturing or are

we actually trying to make sure that we don't have bloodshed in the

future but also that where we believe we can make a difference and

reduce blood to the world by acting to terribly, that people feel they

can take that decision. Where does this get us? Where does it get us,

Alex Salmond? We've had seven years way to the Chilcot Report. Was

thorough, it was fairly conclusive in terms of the blame at it laid the

doors of many, many people including Tony Blair. Is that not now the end

of it? Let me help Chuka Umunna with his evidence. If he reads even the

summary on page 34, a memo from Jack Straw to Tony Blair, which reads,

"When Bush graciously accepted your offer to be with him all the way,"

and if he bothers to read the full report, as I have done, he will find

ample evidence. To answer the question about why we should do

this, there is a question beyond the processes of government to one of

Parliamentary accountability because, I was in Parliament and on

the record, against the Iraq war on every possible occasion. I accept as

a collective responsibility of Parliament to critically examine

what we are being fed by the Executive of the date and one of the

ways you can establish that is to show that Parliament believes in

that process of accountability now and just as we should accept

collective responsible is evil Parliamentary failures, you

illustrate that by holding those who misled Parliament to account, so

that a sequence of events such as the Iraq disaster never happens

again. Thank you. My Jill Evans, a last word on this. The Speaker has

to decide that this motion is put to the House. What do you think John

Bercow will do? I don't know is the answer. John has been incredibly

good at allowing Parliament as much say as events as possible. So I

would not be surprised at all if this motion is actually put to

Parliament and let them have their say. I've been an MP for 24 years, I

don't believe in that period I've had a contempt motion coming before

Parliament. I think it was the 1950s the last time somebody was dragged

to the bar of the House to apologise but I've got used since June 23 to

uncharted waters so we are where we are. Thank you. Let's go back to our

main story, Andrea Leadsom's erratic announcement that she is withdrawing

from the Conservative leadership race. -- dramatic announcement. In

the last few mitts, Theresa May's campaign manager, Chris Grayling,

has made this statement. Theresa is currently on her way back to London

from Birmingham and she will be making a statement later today but

on her behalf, I'd just like to say that she is enormously honoured to

have been entrusted with this task by so many of her Parliamentary

colleagues. As Andrea's statement made clear this morning, now is the

time for us to unite as a party and to get on with the job of doing

everything we can to secure a strong and prosperous and successful future

of our country. I know, we all know, that Theresa will do everything she

can to equip our country for the challenges that lie ahead. Chris

Grayling, spokesman for Theresa May, and she is making her way back to

London, as you would expect, bearing in mind the fast-moving events.

Listening to that archive and the of the Mirror and Lucy Fisher of the

Times, who are on College Green. At the beginning of the programme,

Nigel Evans said he was gobsmacked by what had happened. How have you

responded? Politics is changing at the world in speed. It has been

since the Brexit vote. Nothing is certainly more but today we do have

a new Prime Minister, it's Theresa May, and because Andrea Leadsom

pulled out, in her statement avoiding the motherhood row which we

believe she couldn't stand any more and she was in tears and a broken

woman over it, and why she's gone, she ignored that, but it remains

that 199 Conservative MPs have now picked the Conservative Prime

Minister of Britain. We thought it would be 150,000 Tory members, but

it is an even smaller group. The only thing we could say with

certainty was it was going to be a woman but that was where it stopped.

What was your reaction when you heard that Andrea Leadsom was

stepping out? Again, very surprised. I don't think any of us necessarily

saw this coming today. I think this is going to spark a big conversation

now about whether there is going to need to be a general election. Of

course in the UK we don't have a presidential system but many people

might think, we voted for David Cameron as Prime Minister, it's not

OK to have just a tiny handful of MPs select the chief of our country.

Do you think there should be a general election, Kevin Maguire? I

do. I don't think Gordon Brown's correlation worked very well for

him, Labour Britain. It is really a quasi-presidential system now

because of the importance of the Prime Minister and the profile of

the Prime Minister. It means the government will be led, the country

will be led, the nearly four years by somebody who wasn't elected at a

general election. Under the fixed in Parliament act, there are only two

ways to have a general election. One is a vote of no-confidence in the

government or the other is two thirds of MPs voting for an early

election. If Theresa May as Prime Minister, after she's had her kitten

heels under the Cabinet table for a few months, decides she wants one,

she could challenge Labour in its very sorry state to actually go for

early general election. It would be very hard for an opposition party,

who are supposed to want power, who are supposed to want to govern now,

supposed to want an election, to resist that offer. What about the

Brexit negotiations? One Andrea Leadsom read out her letter to

Graham Brady, she said Theresa May now will have to step up and push

ahead with the Brexit negotiations. Will they happen much more quickly,

do you think? I don't know about speed but I think we've seen

Brexiters coming out on social media, feeling quite annoyed at the

speed at which Theresa May has been correlated. I think they were

inspecting this nine week campaign, during which time the word hoping to

extort from her much further promises and confirmations asked

what she plans to do with Brexit so I think there will be concern among

Brexit MPs and campaigners. That's going to be critical now, isn't it,

Kevin Maguire, on exactly how those negotiations pan out, or there will

be bitter disappointment from many Google? Absolutely and Lucy appoints

as Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, who is going to be leading the

negotiation team. The Brexit group art going to want to buy a strong

part. I have a sense of grievance but is astonishing that now all the

levers have left the race, it is going to be a remain a. It is almost

a mirror image to what we got in the vote for the referendum. It is a

topsy-turvy world. Briefly on the Labour contest, Lucy, do you think

Jeremy Corbyn will be on that balance paper automatically?

Personally, I can't see how this contest goes ahead without him being

on it. Tomorrow we have the importance of National Executive

Committee meeting which will decide the legality of whether he

automatically gets on or need 51 MPs' signatures. I think there will

be such a sense of injustice if he's not on the contest. Many people we

think don't even support of thing, this is an cricket, Andy Goodge to

groundswell of support even from people who don't support him. In the

closing seconds of the programme, do you agree with that, Kevin, and if

so would he win again? He would win again and he should be allowed to

stand for basic democratic reasons but given politics is so crazy at

the moment, Labour could well try and keep him off. At the party split

at that point? I think it would splinter and fracture but quite how

fundamental the split is we don't know. You could have two bits of the

party that hate each other trying to live together. You'd better get back

into Parliament. Something might have changed in the time you been

speaking to be. I don't want to predict what is going to be on the

programme tomorrow because there are many hours to go but that's it for

today. Thank you to our guests, particularly you two for being our

guests of the day. One of the news is starting on BBC One now. Al be

back tomorrow. By. -- the one o'clock