Neil Kinnock, former leader of the British Labour Party (1983-1992) HARDtalk

Welcome to HARDtalk, I'm Stephen Sackur.

Britain's Labour Party has rediscovered its enthusiasm

Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has comprehensively quashed a rebellion

by his own disaffected MPs, and seems convinced that British

voters are ready to embrace radical-left politics.

Problem is, the opinion polls tell a different story.

But then, the polls are not always accurate.

My guest today is Neil Kinnock, former leader of the British Labour

He led Labour through a period of internal warfare

Will Labour regain power in his lifetime?

Thank you. In recent months you have been a player in the battle for the

soul of the Labour Party, and your side lost. How much does it hurt? I

am slightly depressed by the outcome, although I recognise that

it was inevitable. The reason for my depression is the fact that there

are huge numbers of new members of the Labour Party, many of them

young, who have got the strongest sense of purpose, and decent ideals,

that I regret are going to be hugely disappointed themselves when an

effective bid for democratic power is not made, and not successful,

under the current leadership. As I have said before, unless there is

radical and rapid change, Cobleigh won't see another Labour government

in my lifetime. And that is dismaying for me, but it could be

very disillusioning for them. And the many people watching and

listening to this, that will be a hard proposition to understand.

Because Jeremy Corbyn, who has now been leading the party for a year,

and has just won an overwhelming mandate for a second time to lead

the party, has encouraged a huge number of people to join your party.

You are now the biggest mass membership political party in all of

Europe. Something very positive seems to be happening, and yet here

you sit saying I am depressed, and I don't think we can win power again

in my lifetime. That doesn't seem to add up. Well, as I said, I am much

more depressed about the prospects for the younger generation coming

through then I Mfor any prospects for myself. At this young generation

are actually highly enthusiastic, very excited, very committed... Yes.

And they believe in Jeremy Colburn, so why can't you? I want to see

their hopes, their decent desires fulfilled by securing a Labour

government, which is the only feasible way in which our party, our

country, makes durable, regressive change. And these young people have,

for the very best reasons, overwhelming numbers, very positive

reasons, hitched their wagon to a star that could go pale. And that is

what bothers me most about the current situation. Well, any star

can go pale, but you haven't given Jeremy Colburn a chance. He has only

led the party for one year. As I have already said, in that year

there has been a stunning rise in the mentorship of the party. He has

just, at the Liverpool party conference, laid out the platform.

He calls a 21st-century socialism. He presented ten points, all of got

whoops and hollers of applause from the mass militia, the ranks of

people inside the hall. I put it to you again that something is

happening inside the Labour Party that you don't seem to get, but

hundreds of thousands of members do. Is a lifelong democratic socialist,

many of the propositions delight me. I don't just agree with them, I

enthusiastically support them. The problem is, as we all know, that

elections, and the broad appeal to a doubting public, they are not won in

rallies or with whoops or with slogans that you can print on a

T-shirt. They are won by the arduous process of establishing policies

that the public consider to be relevant to their needs, and their

hopes, and on that basis, securing the political power needed to turn

these objectives into the law of the land. Are you saying, Neil Kinnock,

but after your very long political career, an MP at 28, leader of the

Labour Party at 41, after all this experience and commitment to your

party, you don't fundamentally believe that the British public will

ever embraced true socialism? I don't think the public... That seems

to be what you are saying. I would never make the idea that the British

public won't embrace socialism. Well, given the chance than! For

instance, the way in which over decades the British public in huge

majorities have embraced all the basic practical vegetables and the

decent consequences, the liberation that has come, from having a

national health service. That is definitely a democratic socialist

institution which is a massive value, and valued by the British

people. Now, when that kind of practical argument and illustration

is offered, you find the British people have got no objection at all

to collectively provided opportunity and care for individual need. At

that is precisely what Jeremy Corbyn is now talking about. He is offering

specifics, renationalisation of the railways, perhaps more

nationalisation as well. He is talking about fundamental

redistribution, taxing the rich and big corporations to allow more money

to be ported to services and the welfare and everything else. He is a

socialist in a way that Tony Blair was never a socialist, Gordon Brown

was a socialist. You say you are a socialist. What is not to like?

Well, the question is, can Jeremy Corbyn and what he stands for, his

record, his lifetime objectives, stand the test to which he will be

subjected, obviously, necessarily, in a democracy? And, as a

consequence of that, attract the breadth of support... They keep on

coming back to this word, the wide support, of people from all

backgrounds, and indeed all politics, to secure electoral

victory? Now, I can make, I will make the argument for Democratic

Socialism, because I find it profoundly inspiring, and practical

in meeting the needs of the British people. I really don't... Or I

remain to be convinced, let me be as charitable as I possibly can, remain

to be convinced, that Jeremy Corbyn and the people associated with him,

can make that kind of appeal, with the force in the brat to make it

convincing to the degree that people will shift their votes in order to

vote Labour, and keep on voting Labour in order to secure electoral

power. You are from south Wales. You know it very well, it is one of the

tribal heartlands of the Labour Party. Yes. So is the north-east of

England, the north-west of England. These are places in the recent past

where Labour has seen its performance dip dramatically. And I

wonder why you think the Labour Party of the day is failing to

connect with its traditional working class core support? In one way you

have offered a clue to the answer. Yourself, by using the term, I am

not criticising you for doing it, tribal heartlands. It the use of

terms like that, and the thinking that goes behind it, that led to...

It is a term the Labour Party use. Absolutely, and I have always

deplored it, always. I am on record over 30 years ago and many times

since saying don't speak of these as our natural vote. Our core vote.

Because the reality is, out of that attitude grows a complacency in

which eventually people come to think that they are taken for

granted. I mean, I mix and mingle lot, including in South Wales, I was

there yesterday. And what has been communicated to me for years is the

idea, we are being taken for granted. Of course we are Labour, we

will always vote Labour, but we are being taken for granted. Now, then,

in those circumstances, you add to that the industrialisation on a

gigantic scale, and the impoverishment of communities that

are just about getting by, and in those circumstances, a Labour Party

that appears to take the vote for granted is always going to put some

of those votes in jeopardy. And despite the individual efforts of

MPs and party members and councillors and trade unionists to

retain the Association and the support of people, they are less

inclined to follow their views with their vote than they have been for

decades, because they have thought they were being taken for granted.

They are wrong, actually. I can demonstrate that they are wrong, but

I cannot overcome the feeling that gradually has grown and must be

addressed. Here are the words of John Cruddas, senior figure in the

party, who wrote a report in why Labour lost the election. Labour is

losing the connection with large parts of the voting population who

are either pragmatists in their voting habits or social

conservatives who value family, work, Venice, and in a patriotic

sense, their country. Now, this is a sort of blue Labour argument that,

the idea that the Labour Party has lost touch with this important part

of working Britain. And one of the key issues it has lost touch on his

Europe, and you represent those people in Labour who have lost

touch. No, not lost touch at all. In incidentally, I don't like the term

Lou Labour, by the way. Well, let's not get stuck on terms. The point is

you were one of the most Europhile people inside Labour, and Labour

voters in their droves during the 23 June referendum ignored your advice

and voted to get out of Europe. Because of those very feeling that I

began to enumerate, about feeling, to use the term, left behind. Not

effectively represented. This associated from the main thrust of

the Labour Party. And, as I say, that is what has got to be

addressed. Not only Europe. It wasn't losing touch on that. What

you found in the Labour campaign... It certainly was losing touch. 4% of

Labour MPs supported Brexit, 52% of the electorate voted for it. And

actually, there are 150 Labour MPs who sit in constituencies where the

majority of voters voted for Brexit, so Labour did lose touch with the

argument. No, I don't think it did, because Labour would have been doing

itself in the community is that it represented a grave disservice by

simply lining up with the leave vote, which in our view, and I think

that time sadly will demonstrate the validity of that view, those very

communities will be amongst those who will lose most as a consequence

of the uncertainty and the disruption and the disadvantage that

will calm from leaving the world's biggest single market, and the

advantages of security at all levels that we get from being in the

European Union. As a former commissioner, I understand your

deeps and Aviva European project. It is not to do that, it is not to do

with that. If we are talking about how and why Labour is out of touch

with its vote, here is the issue, more than any other. I won't let

that phrase passed. Many years before I became a commissioner, ICQ

a gigantic change in the policy of the Labour Party from one that was

very antagonistic towards membership of the European community, led the

European Union, and one that was positively engaged and in favour. So

that predates me being the commissioner. I think it is very...

Happy to accept that, but let us get to the point. Labour now has a

choice to make, just as the Tories do, but we talk to the Tories so

let's not worry about than. We are talking to you now. Labour has a

choice to make. What is it propose to do with Brexit? What kind of

Brexit that the Labour Party envisage? Now, people like Ed

Miliband have been talking about this, Andy Burnham and others,

senior figures in the party, saying it would be huge mistake to bang on

about how wrong it was to vote for Brexit and to focus on the 48% who

did vote for Brexit. We may need now to have a positive vision of what

can be outside the European Union. You agree with that? Right, that's

fine. I totally agree with that. So no rerunning of a referendum, which

Bella Smith was proposing. Had never been in favour of that. A decision

has been made. Two objectives that the Labour Party, and indeed I hope

eventually the government, will pursue. The first is to put together

an effective set of purposes that should be pursued in the Brexit

negotiations. And prime among those is securing a stable and continuing

engagement with the single market, with all the advantages that it

implies. That told me nothing. There will

obviously be an engagement in the single market. Will we have the sort

of access that comes with membership even if we are not members and that

would require us to accept, for example, freedom of movement. Let's

get to the core issue of immigration. Should labour now set

targets and limits on immigration. Should it talk the language of many

of the core voters, whether they live in Wales or Sunderland or

wherever, regard, they regard immigration as a fundamental problem

and they want it ended or at least curbed. In the process of those

decks of negotiations is to try to establish the maximum engagement in

the single market on the most favourable terms. And as part of

that recognise the concerns that were registered on the 23rd of June,

there is no way of evading VAT and I would not want to. To try and get an

arrangement which will mean that there is a form of controlled

migration that would serve the needs of the British people, the British

economy, the vital services like the NHS and find an equilibria which

means we can gain the biggest was able in economic advantage while not

inflicting disadvantage on ourselves. You are dancing so

delicately around this. It is just simple. Let's get to and white, yes

or no. There are no yes or no answers. But the government does not

have the faintest idea of what it is trying to do. Yes and no answers are

in short supply. Now it is your chance. Do you believe the time has

come to be clear. No freedom of movement? That is like saying Brexit

means Brexit. What the hell does that mean? It is straightforward. If

you want full access to the single market, Europe says it will need to

maintain the principle of freedom of movement. You are also saying we're

going to be outside the single market, we will negotiate a trade

deal with it but it will clearly be nowhere near the same sort of deal

that you would if you were inside. The preferred option for the

well-being of the British people and the economy must be to maximise our

engagement in the single market. The terms on which that can be secured

as something that nobody yet knows. You say to me... Jeremy Corbyn is

straightforward. He says he wants no limits on freedom of movement. If he

right or wrong? I don't think it is a realistic appraisal of the

attitude registered by the 52% and, many others to recognise huge

advantages to migration but also recognised the need to manage it in

a way that does not stabilise and generate Dow and even resentment in

the way that we have seen manifested in recent months. It is not asking

for perfection to say here we are at the beginning of the negotiation

process, a government should be setting out objectives and I

certainly think the Labour Party should be and seeking to ensure that

the benefit for our country, despite Brexit, is maximised and then to

negotiate the basis on which there can be a accomplished. Nothing could

be less dancing. It is an acknowledgement of the great under

known, the vague stands of the government. Anyone who does not

acknowledge that is being foolish. You said in this interview as you

said before, Jeremy Corbyn's triumph in the region since election, you

still do not believe with him as leader you can imagine Labour

getting back into government in your lifetime. So... I work for him. They

have never been any reservation or doubt about that. I just think that

as long as Jeremy is a and as long as he carries with him the baggage

and some of these dances that he had adopted, he diminishes our chances

of securing broad electoral support which is absolutely vital. Is it not

therefore incumbent upon you at this point because Jeremy Corbyn is

stronger than ever before, incumbent upon you to think of an tentative

way to do centre-left politics. If you want to represent the people

that you say you want to represent and get back into power for them and

you say it is impossible and inconceivable to imagine Jeremy

Corbyn leading you to power, you'd better find another way. Dividing or

deserting the Labour Party does not even begin to impinge upon my

thinking. As you may know from other sources I have made that case very

obvious publicly and in the Parliamentary Labour Party with

great support. That is not going to happen. It must not happen because

there is no possibility of any grouping in the Labour Party leaving

the party with its traditions and constitution, its objectives, its

identity, its affections, its affiliations in somebody else's

ownership. You sound tribal. I am not sounding title at all. The

reason I am a member of the Labour Party and joined them when I was 14

years and and have been delighted and honoured to be a member of the

party ever since, even if I have never been leader, is because I

generally do believe that the it is only by collective contribution and

asset for individual emancipation, opportunity, care, security that we

will ever make real progress. That is what you believe in and you still

believe that the Labour Party is the only vehicle you can imagine

fighting for that within. Who, in your view, is the leader that

ultimately can get you to the destination of power? You clearly do

not think it is called in. I can't give you a name for two reasons.

One, I do not really know because there is a collection of talented

young people who will be there for many years. One of them will emerge.

Secondly, even if I did know a name I would not destroy their chances by

giving it to you. That is an indictment of the way the party has

left Neal kick behind. It is inevitably and true in any party. --

Neal Kinnock. Before we end the interview I would like you to

reflect on what has happened in your lifetime. You thought struggles

against Militant Tendency. They want to come back to the party because

they see Jeremy Corbyn as their guy and they believe that the far left

politics they fought for in the 80s can now be bought to fruition under

Corbyn. You sit there and think, what, all of that fight and I have

lost? Derek and the others may enjoy the idea of a better leadership that

has embraced some of the ideas that have been put forward. That is up to

them. He was on this programme not long ago saying just that. For them,

politics is a hobby in any case. That is fine for them. There is a

huge difference between joining up in order to be self-indulgent about

your own priorities and being part of a movement that is a credible

probability of securing enough votes to win the next general election. It

is just not there. That has never particularly interested Derek Hatton

and people like him. The important thing is to focus entirely... Jeremy

Corbyn was good enough to say it yesterday. The purpose of the Labour

Party protest, campaign, those things are vital. But it's purpose

is to secure political power, Parliamentary power in order to

secure improvement in our country. That is the first time he has spelt

that out, actually, and I think that it is a little bit of a jewel to be

cherished because that is the basis on which the Labour Party in the

leadership and the member ship must be judged. How serious are they

about securing that breadth of support? Are their convictions did

enough to stand the test of compromise? And using the answer is

no? Well, I hope I am wrong. There are people there who have got that

capability is our enough and who have a high enough intelligence to

know that we must secure that breadth of support and they will

work for it. We will continue to work for it and I will. We have to

stop right now and then this interview. Thank you for being an

HARDtalk.