10/07/2016 Sunday Politics Wales

Jeremy Corbyn will be challenged for the Labour Party leadership

by his former shadow cabinet colleague, Angela Eagle.

So what makes her so sure she can win?

She's the favoured candidate of Tory MPs, but will Theresa May win over

the party's grassroots to become the next Prime Minister?

And if she makes it to Number 10, what will her premiership be like?

We'll hear from May-supporter, Chris Grayling.

And after two tumultuous weeks following the referendum result,

a leading Remain campaign insider gives us her candid account

Plaid Cymru say Tony Blair should come before MPs to answer for Iraq.

And as UK labour faces a leadership challenge, what next

And with me - Janan Ganesh, Helen Lewis and Isabel Oakeshott to

help guide us through the political maelstrom - they'll be tweeting

throughout the programme using the hashtag #bbcsp.

The battle to take over from David Cameron as Conservative Party

leader and Prime Minister has rapidly moved into its final phase

- a vote of Conservative Party members who must choose

between the Home Secretary and remain supporter Theresa May,

and the business minister and Leave campaigner Andrea Leadsom.

Speaking at the launch of her campaign, Theresa May said

she wanted to unite the Conservative Party - and the country.

If ever there was a time for a Prime Minister who is ready

and able to do the job from day one, this is it.

We have immediate work to do, to restore political stability

To bring together the party and the country.

And to negotiate a sensible and orderly departure

But more than that, we have a mission to make Britain

a country that works, not for the privileged and not

for the few, but for every one of our citizens.

I've been joined by the leader of the commons, Chris Grayling,

who was one of four cabinet ministers to campaign to leave

the EU but who is now supporting Theresa May -

Why are you supporting Mrs May as a Leaver? The key thing is having a

person who is right for the job. David Cameron chose to step aside, I

regret that. We need someone to step into his shoes in whom I have

confidence that they will deliver Brexit. I have known Theresa for a

long time. She is a determined politician. Having got a mandate

from the public to deliver Brexit, she will do that. What assurances

have you sought from her? I have sought assurances that she means

Brexit is Brexit. The country has spoken. The country has given us a

clear direction to follow. The next Prime Minister has to follow that

Matt and I am confident that Theresa May is committed to that. But Brexit

can mean one of several things. They're of a. So what do you say to

Tory twos, who were on your side, that she will water down the Brexit

terms? That is not right. It is not just me, we have a range of Tory

Leavers who are backing her, because we think she has the weight and

experience to deliver. But I am not sure what assurances you have got

that she will deliver as you would want her to. For example, can you

guarantee to our viewers that she will not settle for a British

version of Norway's relationship with the EU, or Switzerland's

relationship? We have said all along that we want a UK solution. It is

not about trying to replicate someone else. We have a clear

mandate to end the principle of unfettered free movement in the UK

from elsewhere in the European Union. We saw Lily 200,000 people

arrive in the UK last year. The British public want that to change.

Theresa May palmist "Control of free movement. That needn't be the same

as the end of free movement. What does she mean? That is what we

campaigned on for four and a half months, taking back control. What I

find unacceptable is that we cannot control the flow of people into the

country. There will be times when we need to recruit particular skills

and we need to allow people to move within businesses. We need to have a

managed system. It is all about control. It is about our government

being able to decide when, how and where the number of people who can

come and live and work in the UK. But for some EU citizens, would

there still be an automatic right to compare? It will depend on what our

rules are. The whole point is that it is about control. At the moment,

we cannot set limits on the number of people who live and work here.

The clear mandate from the British public, something that Theresa

recognised and said so in her opening speech last week we have to

take back control of our migration. But we don't know what that means.

It means our parliament being able to set limits on the number of

people who can live and work here. What sort of limits? That will be

decided depending on whether we have skills needs, housing shortages and

circumstances. None of us think we will erect barricades at Dover and

nobody can ever live and work in the UK. But it is fundamental that

ultimate control should reside with our government. Why do you trust has

me on free movement when after six years at the Home Office, she

couldn't even get non-EU debt migration below 100,000, which was

the promise, never mind overall net migration? First of all, we spent

five of those six years in coalition with the Liberal Democrats. She was

not stopped from doing anything. We have just passed our first

conservative only immigration act that will allow us to close the bank

accounts and taking away the driving licences of people who overstate.

One of the problems is people who come here legitimately for a short

time, but never go. But she was so far out. Net migration was three

times the target she agreed to six years ago. Why would you trust her

to get it right when so far, she's got it wrong? If you look at the

flow of migrants from inside the European Union, she had no ability

to control that. But she has not controlled those from outside. We

have just passed our first Conservative only immigration act.

There have been limits to what we could do in coalition. As Theresa

May herself said the other day, it is difficult because people are

constantly looking for new ways around our system. I believe the

acts we past two months ago will make a difference. Were our borders

safer under Mrs May than they were in 2010? Our borders are safe in

terms of counterterrorism. What has she done to make us safer? A huge

amount has been done to protect our borders. In Calais, we now have a

much better system of border control. We have been able to resist

enormous pressure from people who want to come in illegally. What has

she done to make British borders safer? She'd traduced new measures

on the immigration front -- introduced new measures. She

negotiated international agreements so that Abu Qatada was ported to

Jordan. In my view, she has done a huge amount to improve the security

services. As Home Secretary, she is responsible for MI5. They have done

a fantastic job protecting us. Will she rule out a second referendum?

There is no question of a second referendum. One of her supporters,

Dominic Grieve, says people can change their minds. We are all clear

that there is not going to be a second referendum. We can't just say

to the British public, we don't like what you said, so we are going to

ask again. Those of us who campaigned for Leave would not serve

in a government that chucked away the first result and decided to have

another go. Speaking of the campaign, do you regard the promises

vote leaves made during the referendum as sacrosanct? I said to

you that a campaign group can only make recommendations. But you made a

number of promises. You promised explicitly that the status of EU

citizens already here would not change. Mrs May is not promising

that. I cannot conceive of a situation where we want to end the

rights of EU citizens who are here to not remain. There are always

individual circumstances... But she is talking about them being a

bargaining chip. You said during the campaign, there will be no change

for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK. Mrs May is not

saying that. For those who have been more than five years in the UK, that

is legally the case. But we want to make sure we can protect our own

citizens in other EU countries. It is right that a UK Government should

have its own system. But during the campaign, you never said there will

be no change to EU citizens here, provided the EU looks after our

citizens over there. That was never a condition. Now are you saying it

is? I don't think there will be any change on either side. Everyone will

take a grown-up approach might it would be too damaging to do

otherwise. But we must look after the interests of our own citizens.

So why doesn't she say that? She says she doesn't want to agree

anything until she sees how they treat our citizens. Are you

comfortable with the line she has taken? The only people who support

her on this are the BNP. She has said what I have said. I am

expecting all it is except those who have committed criminal offences to

be able to stay -- all EU citizens. That is right and proper, but we

must make sure we can look after the rights of new cases and is. Has Mrs

May guaranteed to you that we will be out of the EU by the next general

election? She has said we will trigger article 50 around the end of

this year. There is then a two-year time frame and the next general

election is 2020. So I can't see any circumstance in which we would not

leave by then. Gone by 2020. Chris Grayling, thank you.

After a protracted campaign of resignations, a massive vote

of no confidence from his MPs, and an attempt by his deputy

to negotiate some sort of compromise deal with the unions,

it's now clear the Jeremy Corbyn will face a leadership challenge.

Some suspected it might fizzle out, but Angela Eagle has finally

announced she will go for the top job after all, saying she wants to

explain her vision for the country. It comes after Labour's deputy

leader Tom Watson called off a debate over Jeremy Corbyn's future,

saying there was no realistic prospect of reaching a compromise

because of this to Corbyn's refusal to stand down. That provoked an

angry response from Unite leader Len McCluskey, who said Tom Watson's

actions today can only look like an act of sabotage, fraught with peril

for the future of the Labour Party. So what happens now? Angela Eagle

needs to get the backing of 20% of MPs and MEPs. The magic and Amber is

currently 51. There is also the prospect of another senior Labour

figure like Owen Smith throwing his hat into the ring. The big question

remains over whether Jeremy Corbyn automatically gets onto the ballot,

or whether he needs to get 51 nominations himself, a difficult

task, given that the Labour leader lost the vote of no-confidence among

his MPs by 172 votes to 40. But if he does get on the ballot paper, it

is Angela Eagle who has the difficult job. Over a quarter of a

million people voted for Mr Corbyn in the last Labour leadership

election. Nearly 60% of the vote. Since the EU referendum, nearly

130,000 people have joined the Labour Party. But it is unclear how

many of them want to help or hinder Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

Jeremy Corbyn appeared on the Andrew Marr programme

a little earlier on BBC One - and was in no mood

Why time-limit a leadership when I've been elected

by a very large number of members and supporters

an election somewhere results in a different leader,

But I would be irresponsible if I walked away

from a mandate that I was given and a responsibility I was given.

I ask colleagues to respect that as well.

Why are you challenging Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour leadership? I

think it's clear that he has lost the confidence of MPs in the

parliamentary party. Tom Watson, Howard deputy leader, who has his

own mandate Rosie Winterton, the Chief Whip, John Quire, the chair of

the Parliamentary Labour Party and a friend of Jeremy's, have been going

to try to say to him that he needs the confidence of the Parliamentary

party to continue. He's not listening. You can't leave behind an

office door. Maybe he is not listening because he has a huge

mandate from the party membership. As Labour leader, he has won every

by-election and he has won the London mayoral election, the largest

party in the local governor elections. Why wouldn't he carry on?

We lost seats in the local government elections when we have a

Conservative government. We should be doing better. Polling shows that

we are 7% behind the Conservatives, even after all the tumult they have

been through and more importantly, we lost the EU referendum.

That was not his fault. No, but he wasn't connecting with Labour voters

and he did not put the argument across, and so I think we need a

strengthened Labour Party and an opposition which can unite so we can

heal the country. Unfortunately I don't think Jeremy Corbyn can do

that job. Other than Trident, what are the major policy differences?

I'm on the left, any party IDs will be anti-austerity, what has happened

in our heartlands, they have been hit by six years of Conservative

cuts -- any party I lead. That is Jeremy Corbyn, that is his position,

as well, what are the differences? I want to be a strong united

opposition to get into government. Jeremy was asked in that interview

three times whether he thought he could win a general election and he

did not say yes. For our supporters and for the people we came into

politics to represent, we need a Labour Party that can position

itself as a strong united opposition and win a general election. In your

view that is having a leader as a winner, but what are the major

policy differences? I don't think Jeremy has managed to get across a

strategy for winning. I'm on the left and my politics came out of

what happened when I was growing up when my parents, they were prevented

from fulfilling their opportunities because we had Labour governments I

was able to fulfil mind, and I want a Labour Party that can deliver

that. Jeremy does not talk about that. We will move on. He is the

incumbent leader, should he not be on the ballot against you as a

right? The Labour Party rules and the way it is done, and Jeremy

Chardy know this, Tony Benn challenged Neil Kinnock in 1988 --

Jeremy should know this. It is not clear he had to do this. Neil

Kinnock can't remember if he had to do this, or whether he did it to

show the strength. Putting aside the roles, most people watching this

programme, not just Jeremy Corbyn fans, they will find it strange that

the man who won the leadership fairly and decisively, now

challenged by you, is not automatically allowed to defend his

title? That is not clear from the Labour Party rules, the National

executive committee will make a decision on that. Anyone who aspires

to lead the Parliamentary party who can't get 51 members, 20% of the

Parliamentary party, to back them, they are not going to be able to do

the job properly and we are in challenging times, the Brexit vote,

a government which has gone missing in action. We need a strong lead

from the Labour Party if we are going to protect our communities who

are going to be the hardest hit. Nothing of that lead is coming from

Jeremy at the moment. You are the self-styled party of fairness, don't

you think it will offend against natural justice against most

people's idea of fairness if the incumbent who is challenged by you

is not allowed to fight you in an election? Work that seem incredible?

Forget the rules, just offends against fairness. I don't know what

the outcome is going to be of the decision-making process. I'm ready

to fight a leadership challenge and have debates about the future of our

party with anyone, Jeremy or anyone else who seeks to stand. Len

McCluskey, the most important person in the Labour Party, perhaps. Not

say that. I have a lot of respect him, but that is a big perhaps. He

says keeping Jeremy Corbyn of the ballot would cause lasting division

in the party. It would. This is not about the Labour Party being split,

this is about it being an effective and united opposition to make our

democracy work so we can challenge is Conservative government which has

done such damage with the Brexit vote. I want to say that if you

think we should have a strong and effective Labour Party and a strong

democracy, challenging the Conservatives, join the Labour Party

now. Do it today, you can do it online. 130,000 new members have

joined Labour since the referendum. Who are they? The Labour Party

nationally knows who they are. Have they been vetted? I have no idea at

what the Labour Party office are doing about the new members. But it

is important that people who think that we need a strong opposition,

jaundiced battle now, joined the Labour Party, make us stronger --

join this battle now. The 130,000 people who have joined already, they

should be allowed to vote? That is a matter for the National if sect of

committee to decide, they were in the past. -- National executive

committee. There is no point in them joining if they can't. We opened up

the ?3 membership which was a feature the last campaign. 150,000

people are going to be picking the next Conservative Prime Minister, we

have had nearly that number joining in the last week. Jeremy Corbyn

would say he won by over 235,000 voting for him. You expect to be the

only challenger? I have no idea. What about Owen Smith? We have

spoken, but not recently, I've got no idea, I'm concentrating on

launching my campaign which I will be doing tomorrow. It would be

absurd for you and Owen Smith or someone else from the middle of the

party, the moderate left, to split the anti-Corbyn vote? We have got to

get on with doing our planning and see what happens in the future. I'm

concentrating on getting my campaign up and running, launching it

tomorrow, and joining a battle to have a stronger and united Labour

Party which can give hope back to our country. You voted for the Iraq

war. Do you regret that? I do, and if I had known what I know now, I

would not have supported it. The important thing from the Chilcot

Report is that we learn the lessons of that so those mistakes can never

be made again in the future. John Prescott this morning, he also voted

for it, he says he now regards the war as illegal. Chilcot has not said

that. I'm asking you. It is important that we learn the lessons.

Do you think it was illegal? The evidence at the time and the

Attorney General's opinion at the time was not to that effect and it

is no good trying to second-guess what happened subsequently. We need

to learn the lessons and we need to make sure that if anything like that

happens in the future we have more robust ways of testing these

assertions, but I also think we have a country divided at the moment. You

have said that. Very uncertain about the future. You have said that. We

have got to address those problems. I understand that. But forgive me,

we have not got much time, they will be a motion before Parliament next

week holding Tony Blair for contempt of Parliament because of Iraq, how

will you vote? I have not seen the motion yet. We have got to make

certain that we don't spend our time in Parliament exacting revenge and I

think Tony Blair has been put rightly through the mill about the

decisions he took, the Chilcot Report did that, and I think we

should... We would be far better at learning the lessons and making

certain that we don't fall into the same mistakes if God forbid they

should be a future occasion where these decisions are made. -- there.

Final question, you talk about uniting Labour and the country,

taking on the Tories, but if you lose and Jeremy Corbyn wins or the

reverse, isn't there a clear indication that your party could be

heading for a serious schism? Either way. We need to heal the party under

effective leadership, so we can have a chance of winning the general

election which might come much sooner than we all think. And that

is my main aim with launching this leadership campaign. If he wins, you

will accept the result? You have to accept the result of any... You

would go back into the Shadow Cabinet? You have to accept the

result of any democratic process but I'm focused on winning this and I'm

not going to speculate about what happens afterwards. Angela Eagle,

busy summer head, thank you. It's clear the battle inside Labour

is about to get nasty - in the last hour, the MP

who initiated the vote of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn,

Margaret Hodge, had this to say I'm beginning to think he's

actually a devious man, who is more concerned

with destroying the Labour Party than he is with creating a force

that can win an election in such difficult times and which

will unite the party. There we are. We have heard from

Chris Grayling and Angela Eagle and Jeremy Corbyn this morning. Helen,

whatever the outcome, it looks like this ends badly for Labour. It is

very interesting. In the new statesman we did an issue about

whether Labour should split, and we said, no, but are now talking to

Labour MPs who are openly talking about this, people who are tribally

Labour and are not metropolitan, they are saying this cannot be sewn

back together. The big question, if Jeremy Corbyn gets on the ballot and

gets 50 MPs, I think he will win, but if he doesn't get on, that

becomes a case of his faction splitting off, so the battle is...

Everyone is imagining a split, but it is who gets left with custody of

the party. Control of the Labour brand, which is powerful. The union

funding is on a downward slope, already, the trade union is going to

reduce that further, Labour have had very little success with big donors

under Jeremy Corbyn. There is a fundamental force at work. The

party's grassroots once a different Labour Parliamentary party and the

Parliamentary Labour Party would like a different grassroots. One or

the other has to go its own way. You can't reconcile them. The texture of

the grassroots has changed in the past year, since the party was

opened up by Ed Miliband to new members. It might be changing in the

other direction even as we speak 130,000 new members since June, the

equivalent of the size of the Tory party, it is possible the bulk of

those people are people that might be, since the referendum campaign,

might want a party that is moderate. We don't know that. Angela Eagle is

taking a punt on the idea that those are relatively centrist voters, but

what I'd take from her and Owen Smith, is not a massive amount of

enthusiasm for running for this big ship, they don't radiate glee at the

prospect of becoming leader, so I wonder if the idea is to have an

interim leader who is moderate and then before 2020 and onto someone

who they think can win a general election. It is a big part on her

part. She sounded so miserable. -- punt. She sounded very depressed

about the idea of launching aided ship contest and that is because

there is no resolution to this. -- launching a leadership contest. If

she wins it is a pyrrhic victory, but if she loses, it won't be

resolved, and it feels like it will not be resolved until the next

general election, when the public and determine what kind of Labour

MPs they both like to fight for that election. It could be a bloodbath.

Last year it was quite lively, and this year, there might be a lot of

screaming at the Labour Party conference. It would be worth the

price of admission to both party conferences this autumn.

The referendum result came as a shock to many, not least those

Lucy Thomas was deputy director of Britain Stronger In.

In an exclusive for the Sunday Politics, she talks to fellow

campaign insiders about how the referendum was lost.

We are absolutely clear now that there is no way

Right up until the end, we thought Remain could win.

I'm Lucy Thomas, and I was deputy director of that campaign,

and one of those that was there from the beginning.

This is the story of what we did and why,

but why, in the end, it wasn't enough.

So let's go back to where it started.

We launched Britain Stronger In Europe on a cold October morning

Cue the usual jokes about our organisation.

We set out to persuade people that Britain was stronger,

safer and better off in Europe than we would be out on our own,

and that leaving was a leap in the dark, a risk

As a nation of Eurosceptics, we always knew it would be tough,

but I'm not sure we were prepared for what the early research showed.

When we presented that and we discussed it

with you and the team, I think everybody sort

God, this is going to be harder than we thought.

So we built a campaign based on numbers.

It's the economy, stupid, and it had been proven to work

in the Scottish referendum and the general election.

One of the reasons why some of the specific warnings

would have bounced off people was because it sounded

like scaremongering, because it wasn't evidence.

It was just saying, if we vote to leave,

it will cost this many jobs or this much growth

And people said they were crying out to hear from the experts.

to economists, scientists to defence chiefs, they all spoke

for themselves, and the weight of expert opinion was overwhelming.

if the UK was to leave the European Union.

Material slowdown in growth, notable increase in inflation.

In a sense, we were the victims of our own success in the early

part of the campaign, because we landed our economic

We pushed the Leave campaign from Norway to Canada to Albania,

and then finally pushed them entirely off the single market.

Of course, what it meant was that that was the moment

Nigel Farage's approach to this referendum, and to make it

Imagine what will happen to public services...

When I first saw their PPB, the one with all the arrows

implying that millions of people from all sorts of countries

including Turkey and possibly other countries that aren't in the EU

are going to come and move to Britain, and I showed

that to focus groups, it was very powerful,

because it captured the anxiety and fear and emotion

people have at the prospect of being overwhelmed

and these are all terms I would hear in the focus groups.

and the literature that was used off the back of it was very powerful.

I also knew, of course, that it was purposefully choosing

So we always knew that immigration was a problem,

around this table, that lots of the discussions were heard.

Some wondered, was there more we could do to get EU leaders

to show more flexibility on free movement, maybe?

But to others, that meant fighting the rest of the campaign

on immigration, when we needed for it to be back on the economy.

If you could solve the problem of free movement, it would have been

If you can't solve the problem of immigration, moving

on to immigration might make things worse, not better.

But given what we did know, it made sense to stick to the economy.

But it became clear that for some people,

that economic risk didn't mean anything.

I spoke to one man in my constituency who was out one day,

He was voting to leave because of all those concerns

"I understand your concerns about that.

What do you think about the argument that leaving would be

he said, "What do I care about the economy?

There are lots of people in Britain who do feel passed over,

They don't see what the future could hold for them or their children,

This referendum was a chance to attach that anger to the EU.

Shouldn't Labour have been able to reach out to those voters?

The brutal truth is that the leader of the Labour Party did not

campaign with authenticity, passion, conviction

He said he was for Remain, but it was on quite a narrow basis,

in terms of what the broader argument could be.

Polling took place during the campaign that showed half

that our official position was for Remain.

So I think more could have been done, yes.

And whether it was true or not, the Leave campaign was determined

The power of the 350 million a week can't be overstated.

In focus groups, it is quite unusual for floating voters who aren't

interested in politics to have internalised a campaign fact

or number so that it comes out spontaneously, and it did.

When we would say, have you noticed that some people are saying that

isn't actually true, people would say, "Vaguely,

but it's still a very big number, isn't it?"

In the final debate, just days before the vote,

the Leave campaign came armed with their catch-all phrase

Taking back control of our country and our system.

We can take back control over our laws.

We can take back control over our taxes.

We can take back control over our borders,

They were being presented with a simple solution, which was,

if you think this is a problem and migration is putting pressures

on our public services and jobs, we can take back control.

The way I would put it was that we had a complex truth

up against a simple lie, and we see what happened.

And what happened will be talked about for decades.

Though we built the biggest ever cross-party, cross-sector campaign

with over 40,000 volunteers, we didn't win the day.

This was a campaign where experts were dismissed

and conventional wisdom thrown out of the window.

Many doubt if campaigns will ever be the same again.

And Matthew Elliott from Vote Leave will be looking at how their

campaign won the referendum on the Daily Politics. Isabel, having

looked at that and seen what they are now saying, I now find myself

surprised that Remain lost by only four percentage points. Right. The

bottom line is that their big argument on the economy, they went

grossly over the top at the beginning. They tried to create what

pollsters call a settled view, which then becomes difficult to dislodge.

But in doing so, they went so far over the top that their claims

became unbelievable, and simply adding more experts to its got no

response from the electorate. Secondly, and more importantly, they

had no answer on the immigration question. I think the majority of

people who voted Leave, whether or not they would admit it, well, in

their heart of hearts, voting so because of immigration, and Remain

had no answer on that. You didn't have to be a rocket scientist or

even a psephologists work-out that immigration was going to be the big

issue. We have spoken about it on this programme months before the

campaign began, and yet even by the end of the campaign, they still had

no answer to the immigration issue. That is the legacy of years of

British politics, when no one will make a positive case for

immigration, or a case for the trade-off, where you say we accept

immigration because of the economic benefits. The economic argument

failed because people didn't feel that all these years of prosperity

in the City of London had any translation to the real economy. So

when we said it would be terrible for the City of London, people

thought, what has that got to do with me? Was there anything Remain

could have done to have won? I think a different renegotiation in January

or February by the Prime Minister Cold War which secured some tangible

concession on -- by the Prime Minister, some negotiation which

achieved a concession on immigration would have done it. People didn't

feel they were getting that, and therefore, it was very interesting.

It wasn't the internal dynamics of the campaign that was at fault. The

reason they didn't have a answer was because Cameron didn't come back

with something solid. So it was Angela Merkel what lost it? Yes, and

I am sure she is now bitterly regretting not giving Cameron

something. The other thing is that I know that when the Britain Stronger

In Europe campaign had their early meetings before the campaign

officially began, they had a discussion about identifying five

positive things about being in the EU that we can sell to voters, and

they couldn't come up with any. That was again part of the problem. They

failed to put a positive case, it was just Project Fear. It was also

David Cameron what lost it, because for years, to get selected in the

Tory party, you had to be Eurosceptic. He then had a career

saying it would not be a problem if we leave, and then pivoted to say

the sky would fall in. A lot of voters concluded, that is typical of

the political elite. Making it up as you go along.

It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now

Coming up here in 20 minutes, the Week Ahead.

Hello, welcome to Sunday Politics Wales.

In a few minutes, is the Labour Party about to split?

With Angela Eagle challenging for the leadership, will the Welsh

And playing the man, not the ball, Alun Cairns tells us how

he plans to capitalise on Wales's footy success.

But first, Plaid Cymru want Tony Blair to appear before MPs,

and possibly face sanctions, in the light of the conclusions

Plaid's parliamentary leader is Hywel Williams,

Good morning. What exactly do you want to see happening now following

this report? Well, we think the evidence of the Chilcott report is

quite damning. We want MPs to have the opportunity to debate what sort

of sanctions we should take against Mr Blair and bring him before the

house so that he can hear the verdict. Possibly, also stripped of

some of his titles, some sort of symbolic punishment for him for what

he did in taking us into this unjust and illegal war. The original plan

was for an impeachment. That seems to be off the cards, it

is a contempt motion next week which will need the support of a majority.

Do you think you'll get that? Circumstances have changed

enormously since we brought the case for impeachment before the house in

2006. I think the opinion has changed. There will be many more MPs

who are anxious to make their views known.

I hope we succeed. The problem, I guess, that you have is that we have

this report, 12 volumes, 2.6 million words, it will take four weeks to

read through it at the average pace, but two or three days after the

report comes out you are already calling for Parliament action

against Tony Blair. You don't even know what is in the report.

I've read the executive summary which is 150 pages, and a large

chunks of the evidence itself. This case has been in preparation for a

long time. We were calling for impeachment in

2006. But not the outcomes, and not what

Chilcott has said, you had no time to look at what is actually in the

report. There are details of the report

which tell us that he has a case to answer.

The most obvious one is that he decided well beforehand to take us

into war, before even telling the House of Commons.

He agreed with President Bush and the evidence is now well known.

And there is that notorious memo he sent to Mr Bush saying I will be

with you, whatever. That says he had decided well

beforehand what would happen. In that sense he misled the House of

Commons. But that's not unnecessarily

misleading the house, he says a case was made in order to go to war, he

took evidence from the head of MI6 and what the Chilcott enquiry

evidence shows, but you haven't seen it because you haven't read it is

that he was misled by MI6 who didn't give him the picture. You are being

unfair to blame by not reading the whole report.

Mr Blair is anxious to off-load the blame. He says there were mistakes

in process, what happens day-to-day, there were mistakes by everyone else

including the intelligence agencies, but he thinks he's right. I think

he's wrong, and the evidence is against him. There will be the

opportunity for MPs to debate this and we will have had more time to

look at the evidence, but it is very clear indeed, from what I've seen

already, that he has a case to answer and I think it is a damning

case. But John Chilcott was saying that

his hope was that maybe governments in future would think again, all

think more carefully about going into war. Would your efforts be

better spent trying to achieve that rather than trying to lay blame at

the door of Tony Blair, when we've had a report which has looked at it

sadly that? There are families of the 179 people

were killed, from the UK, and 24 civilians. As well as hundreds of

thousands of Iraqis who were killed. People are looking for basic

justice. He misled the highest court in the

land, the House of Commons, the Parliament of the UK. I think he

should face the consequence of that. But the problem you have is that he

doesn't necessarily have to come and dance in the House of Commons. You

can't force him to go there. He is unlikely to agree to come there

voluntarily. The highest and the lowest in the

land eventually can be summoned to Parliament. We are the people

assembled eventually and if they tell people to come they are to

come. Well, there we are. Thank you for

Well, we'd all love to have been watching Wales in the Euro

Even so, the team's success exceeded all expectations.

The Welsh Secretary told this programme the publicity this success

They say all good things must come to an end and on Friday night

Chris Coleman's men arrived in Cardiff today hero's welcome.

But the team's adventure may yet yield more Welsh success.

The Secretary of State for Wales has followed all the action over

Kicking every ball, he believes what the players have

Even if I went to the Chancellor to asking for a huge sum of money

in terms of billions or millions, we never could have bought this

This really has put Wales on the map.

The international currency of football should

The huge sums of money and investment that goes behind it,

and we now need to position ourselves to exploit that positively

instead of having the photograph of a castle from Scotland,

or maybe a castle from Wales, we can now have some

superstar football players who are recognised internationally.

The Welsh government is already looking to build

This promotional video was broadcast in Germany this week.

In terms of the number of people who are accessing our website,

the Visit Wales website, we are seeing a huge number

of people finding out what it is to visit Wales.

So there has been a marked increase in interest by would-be visitors.

The challenge for us, and what we need to do,

is make sure we convert that interest into actual visits.

But to what extent can Ben's blocks and Gareth's goals realistically

Professor Max Munday has previously assessed the economic impact

of Swansea's promotion to the Premier League on the city.

When a club comes up to the championship,

to the premiership, we are getting a year or many,

Part of that is related to television revenue and hope.

You get additional tourism and income coming into the city.

This is a bit different, we are talking about

My first point would be that it is going to be much more

difficult to quantify the economic effects related to what has been

Ironically, with so many thousands of fans following the team

in France, Professor Munday believes there is an apartment that Wales has

missed out on money that would otherwise

Nevertheless, there could be a post-tournament dividend, he says.

We have to admit that things are very uncertain in the Welsh

and UK economy at the moment, the leadership elections,

There is a great deal of uncertainty.

Anything that can give a little confidence can be very

It may be impossible to properly measure what the national team's

success means for Wales, but after 58 years in

the footballing wilderness, is it's not welcome enough that such

The Labour Party is facing its most serious crisis in decades.

With falling support in its heartlands,

and Angela Eagle's decision to challenge for the leadership, few

In a moment, two senior Labour figures tell us what the party needs

First, in a personal essay, the former minister and Rhondda AM

Leighton Andrews outlines the challenges ahead.

Nine years ago when I was appointed Deputy Minister for regeneration

by Rhodri Morgan, all you would have seen here on the site

of the old steelworks in Ebbw Vale were diggers and bulldozers.

Now you'll find a hospital, a school, a college,

new housing and the Gwent archive all located on this site.

None of this could have happened without millions of pounds

Despite that, this area, Blaenau Gwent, recorded the highest

Why did valleys areas like Ebbw Vale, Rhondda Cynon Taff,

Torfaen, Neath Port Talbot, Caerphilly and Merthyr

Turn Their Backs On The European Union?

Welsh Remains campaigners believe, above all, this has been

A populist revolt against the political elites.

The referendum vote has certainly exposed a sharp division

between the leadership of the National Assembly,

both the Welsh Labour government and the official opposition

of Plaid Cymru, and the majority of the people of Wales.

The truth is, that these values are precisely the kind

of post-industrial areas, former mining or steel producing

areas, which have lost jobs to globalisation.

Where working-class people feel at left behind.

Overall, in the EU referendum campaign, the biggest driver

of the Brexit message was immigration in Wales,

But the South Wales valleys are not places which have had significant

But immigration is a proxy for a range of other issues.

Perceived pressure on public services, the alleged

undercutting of wages, the insecurities of change,

But the referendum wasn't the first warning sign for Welsh Labour.

In May's Assembly election Labour haemorrhaged votes to Plaid Cymru

Plaid Cymru and Ukip both blame Labour, after 17

years running Wales, for the valleys being in decline.

It's a powerful message, which is particularly attuned

The challenge for the Welsh Labour government is to instil

a sense of hope and belief, not only that things can get better,

In a time of falling public sector budgets, that is a really

But, unless new impetus can be found, these could be

I'm joined now by the former Shadow Welsh Secretary Nia Griffith

and the leader of the PCS union in Wales, Corbyn

Thank you for coming in. Let's pick up on what Leighton Andrews was

talking about there, there are issues at a UK level, but in Wales,

that disconnect Leighton Andrews is talking about between the Labour

government and its former heartlands, the industrial South

Wales valleys. Should that be a concern to leadership in Wales? It

is a considerable concern. Where you would have had a job in the

steelworks and the opportunity to get a mortgage to buy a house,

people are seeing temporary jobs and agency work, they see that a lot of

regeneration has been focused on Cardiff. Or, as Leighton pointed

out, project in Ebbw Vale and that don't actually generate the sort of

industrial jobs they would want to apply for. We see a lot of young

people taken on by agencies, on, off, zero hours contracts, split

shifts, I transport costs to get those jobs. We need to look a lot

more carefully at a tailored offer to what we are doing in the valleys.

So what needs to happen? When we put these points to Carwyn Jones a

couple of weeks ago he sort of sad, old, we'll see how it goes. There

doesn't seem to be real concern at the top of the party.

We need to dissect in more detail what is happening. We can't say we

need a brand chips and regeneration, but then we need to think about

transport, are we asking these young people to go and live somewhere

else? To live in Cardiff, for example or are we able to make sure

they have transport links in the wrong communities. We probably have

to get a lot more local in our response, and really work very

closely with local communities. Highlighting baby problems of people

who live in the communities, but what about the problems facing the

Labour Party not being able to connect with those people. The fact

that so many people took the decision to vote you kept in some of

the areas that have been mentioned is a big concern for me. And for

many others. Ultimately, people didn't vote Ukip because everyone

who voted Ukip is a racist, they voted you can because they felt

disenfranchised. They felt the areas they live in not invested in on the

right way. There are not being invested in on the right way. Their

moral many is shiny shops and amenities you can offer. There is

only so many voluntary jobs that you can do that potentially permanent

job. More often than not, as we have just said, it leads to zero

contract. So what is Labour doing? I think that we as a recognised trade

unions within Wales have a partnership agreement with the Welsh

government, we are going to be working closely with the Welsh

government to get the message out to the valleys. To start speaking to

our own members within those areas, speaking to the public about what is

actually happening. Ultimately, you have to remember we have had six

years of massive cuts, massive austerity, 900 million lost to the

Welsh economy because of welfare cuts, 62,000 job cuts in Wales since

2010 and employers not playing a living wage.

They are real issues. But that is the point Leighton Andrews finished

on in his report, a dwindling public sector pouch, unless they can be a

fresh impetus on the Welsh government you are talking about

lost valleys. How do you get, with dwindling public services, fresh

impetus in the Welsh government when they have been in power for 17 years

and the heartlands are no longer listening?

The cuts have been devastating and we have to look beyond the public

sector. We have to look at some of the carp industries in my yearly, in

Llanelli. We need more permanent jobs and fewer agency jobs. We need

to look at ways of trying to guarantee that so that we work with

the private sector to make a more stable environment and a better

environment, with better working additions. We have to focus much

more specifically on job offers rather than, perhaps, some of the

bigger more exciting projects we have also got going. We need to make

sure that people who need to access jobs are actually able to do so and

are not stopped from doing so by travel barriers or by this awful

business of the revolving door, in, out from all the time. Carwyn Jones

recently met with the trade unions, post-Brexit, he talked about the

impact of Brexit and what that means for Wales. The trade unions put

forward a proposal that they should be a summit, there should be a

coming together public sector and private sector within Wales, and

what we should be doing is working together to ensure that of their

recognition, will once you have union recognition there is more

chance of better terms and conditions under better way forward

for everybody. Looking at the way forward, talking rugby Welsh

situation, the UK level, it is frankly a bit of a mess in the

Labour Party right now. Angela Eagle will stand against Jeremy Corbyn,

you were on the front bench, and have resigned, what you make of this

situation? The issue we are facing now is that we may have a General

Election very soon. It may not be a four-year term, until the next

election. The reason may has said... Yes, I hear what they are saying,

that when they are faced with trying to push through difficult

legislation with half a dozen of their MPs able to block that the

rebel and then the temptation to have a General Election,

particularly if they see a weakened Labour Party is going to be very

strong. Our concern is that we don't want to see another four years of

this shambolic Tory government. If that opportunity were to arise we

want to be in a position where we could action the win a General

Election so we can't begin to turn the ship around. But if Jeremy

Corbyn is allowed to stand, and for the legal complaint about that,

there is a good chance he will win. And then you go into this election

with a leader that clearly, a majority of MPs in Westminster,

don't support. If we do have a leadership contest and Jeremy Corbyn

stands they will be a very vibrant discussion in the party about who

would make the best leader. What we need is a leader who can win

general elections. We need a leader who can unite the party, we need a

leader who can show... But you have that. Jeremy Corbyn has not been

tested at the General Election. He has an overwhelming mandate and the

people splitting the party is on the disloyal MPs who are challenging him

with a vote of no-confidence. Many party members say to me that we

recognise that you see what is happening at a much closer quarters,

all of us have been out campaigning over the last three months up and

down the country, and the message we are taking back to Jeremy is that,

yes, people like them moved the left. They likely aren't just a

ready programme, that is something that any new leader would want to

carry forward, certainly Angela Eagle want to. But they don't see

him as able to galvanise the party into a really strong opposition for

a General Election. You are a Corbyn support what do you make of that,

this idea that members of the party like the shift to the left? 60% of

the membership voted him in as leader only nine months ago, some

people say we've had 126,000 new members. Only over the last few

months since all this drama actually kicked off. And, ultimately, what

you have to remember is that Jeremy Corbyn does have a big appeal.

There's been all this talk about... There is a particular sort of person

who is joining the party because they want to support Jeremy Corbyn,

but ultimately they are joining them as they believe he is the right

person for the job. We are running short of time. You know there is

this challenge against him. What if the decision from the Labour

committee says, actually, he doesn't have an automatic right to stand, he

won't that the support of MPs, what would you do then? Ultimately, this

could lead to a legal challenge which would be... Ultimately, Jeremy

Corbyn is the party who has been elected into the position and we

believe the party rules are different and we believe that as the

existing leader of the Labour Party he should automatically be on the

list. If it takes a call to make that decision, that is where it will

have to go. That could lead to is written in the party. Do you think

it could lead to respect and the party?

It would be a real shame. But it could happen. Now is the time to

come together and fight the Tories, not fight amongst ourselves.

Do you think it could lead to is bit in the party?

In a lot of people who did vote for Jeremy Corbyn last year are saying

we don't think he can win a General Election so I think that is a

discussion and the debate we will have in any sort of leadership

contest. The NEC will set the rules, we will have a precise discussion as

You can follow all the latest on Twitter.

But for now that's all from me, let's go back to Andrew.

for London will look after the franchise in a few years' time.

And with that, it's back to you, Andrew.

So, will Angela Eagle succeed in replacing Jeremy Corbyn? And our

senior Tories discussing plans for a centre ground party with the Lib

Dems? Or questions for the week ahead.

And joining us is the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron.

Welcome back. Will the Liberal Democrats campaign to rejoin the EU,

come the next general election? We have to see what am I of the land

will be. It could be October, it could be made 2020. But just like

every other Liberal leader since 1955, I believe, I will have in my

manifesto a question that there are a commitment that Britain is better

off at the heart of Europe. Chris Grayling said to us this morning

that he thinks he will be -- we will be out by the next election. If it

is October, all bets are off, but if the parliament goes its term and we

are out of the EU and into the 2020 election, would you like your party

to have a commitment to rejoin? I want to be part of Europe and I

would like to be part of the European Union. If you had asked the

12 months ago, I would not have predicted that we would have left

the EU. I would not have predicted that Jeremy Corbyn would lead the

Labour Party or that David Cameron would have resigned. In four years'

time, the lie of the land could be very different. But I am trying to

work out if you feel so strongly about it, will you accept the

referendum result, or will you try to get us back into the EU? I accept

the referendum result. At the moment, the trajectory is towards

Brexit and we have to accept that. I have no time for MPs who say we

should be undoing the result. That does not mean I give up my campaign

for Britain to be in the EU. As has been said by others, you have an

election, and if you lose, you accept it, but you don't give up

your principles. So I hope it will remain in the EU and I hope it will

be the choice of electors if that is the case. Politicians must not force

that on people. But didn't we just vote to come out? The 52% were very

clear over what they voted against. That was all they were asked to do.

They were not asked to vote for one of the five or six potential exit

strategies, whether it be for access to the single market, some level of

free movement, or whether it is the almost North Korea option but a

handful of people prefer the UK to have. It seems to me to be right

that the British people, before we leave the EU, are given the choice

as to what they want. So you want a referendum on the terms of

departure? Well, nobody has voted for what comes next. People voted to

leave the EU, but it seems right to me that having made the choice two

weeks ago, the British people should also be allowed to choose what is

the next step. That sounds like a referendum on the terms to me. Which

I am not in favour of, because we have seen that people are busy. We

have representative democracy for a reason, and some decisions are

better thrashed out by people elected by voters to do that, rather

than putting everything to a referendum. But Tim has a point.

There is no problem with people campaigning for another referendum.

In 1975, we had a referendum and it wasn't like all the anti-Europeans

accepted the decision. They carried on campaigning for another 40 years.

So it could be another 40 years before he gets another referendum.

He is a young lad. Who knows? I would be about Gladstone's age by

them. I agree with you in one sense that we don't want to go to the

public with a referendum on every issue. The problem is that this

government, in a chaotic way, has established that principle, which

means that it would be wrong and anti-democratic for the MPs to then

overturn what the electorate have done. That means that in terms of

endorsing what happens next, and the 52% may have 52 the ideas of what

exit looks like. That is fine, but Britain needs to choose what happens

next. And they need to choose whether they prefer the status quo

before Article 50 is invoked. Oh! Well, I think there was a real

danger that MPs will, over a course of time, basically diluted Brexit

and not deliver it properly. I thought it was interesting that

people like Chris Grayling or arguing that Brexit is safer in the

hands of Theresa May. Why is he during that when she was a Remainer?

Because he says she has the backing of the majority of Tory MPs. Of

course, in Parliament, most MPs are for Remain, and he says that only

Theresa May can push through Brexit, which is counterintuitive, but makes

sense when you think about it. Surely no government can agree to a

referendum on the terms, because Europe would then say, so you need

another vote? You are getting nothing. It would be like Congress

announcing a referendum on a trade deal with another country. Why would

that country do a deal when it is subject to domestic politics? So I

think another referendum is unlikely, but I fear that the

entirety of the next parliament will be taken up by the process of

extrication. What did you say about article 50? If the legal

interpretation that once one has invoked article 50, the matter is

out of our hands, that is like jumping out of a plane without being

sure whether you have a parachute. It seems to me that the bridge

people should be allowed to check the safety of the parachute. That

means, do we know what we are going into? If we decide collectively that

we should be in the single market, for example, as many Brexiteers

believe, then for us to press the button to leave the European Union

without any guarantee that we would have that access would be foolish to

stop are you saying we need another referendum before we press article

50? We will need to check the legal advice, but I would not want us to

be in a legal position where there is no turning back. But the issue is

whether you need a vote of parliament to trigger article 50. To

my mind, that is a detail. What I am really bothered about is whether the

UK puts us in a position where there is no turning back and we have to

settle for whatever bad deal we might get. But once you trigger

article 50, that is it. The problem is, if you have done that, my

understanding is that there is and then an opportunity for us to

negotiate. We get what we are given, and it might be a really bad deal.

My job is to make sure to get a good deal. The discussions now might all

be over exit over the next few years. It is going to move on from

being stuffed for the political classes, as people experience the

fact that they have less to spend on holiday, that their savings are

worth less. People will begin to realise the reality. Let me ask you

this. There is an indication from the Sunday Times... Do you want to

rebrand your party? Do you think that the term Liberal Democrats is

tarnished? No, I don't. Our party has nearly doubled in size since the

last election 13 months ago, and it has gone up by another 16,000 in the

last fortnight. There is a movement among young people joining the

Liberal Democrats, who see the chaos in the other two parties. How about

the Labour Democrats? If you look at the other parties, we are now the

marketplace where progressives and moderates from other parties can

safely gather. We are open to talking to others in other parties.

One of the good things from the referendum, not the result, was the

fact that many of us shared platforms with people who we

discovered we agree with more than just on the European Union. Have you

got any Tories in your cross hairs? I have talked to lots of people.

Answer the question. That would not be fair. I have talked to loss of

people. Politics is really fluid. Do you buy this realignment? For it to

happen, the Lib Dems would need both Andrea Leadsom to be the Tory leader

and Jeremy Corbyn to stay as the Labour leader. It requires a lot to

happen. If Leadsom did become Tory leader and Jeremy Corbyn were

strengthened as Labour leader, you have not just a centrist party

potentially, but a very big centrist party. What I would issue as a

warning is that that party would still be subject to all the

squabbles that any existing party suffers. Were I and Tim to join, for

example, there would be a debate about what centrism means. Is it

social democracy or something more economically liberal? Does it mean

commitment to the European Union, or honouring the referendum and getting

out? It would be no less prone to internal disagreements. Dubai the

story this morning that there were 20 Tory MPs threatening to leave if

Andrea Leadsom should become leader? I didn't buy that at all. It sounded

like 20 years he fits to me. In relation to a realignment, it is

interesting, what will happen to the UK Independence Party. Tim said the

Lib Dems world where the marketplace is, but think about all those people

that voted, for a righty of reasons, for Brexit, and what happens to

Ukip. I think we will see that rebranding under a different name is

some kind of people's party, and that could pick up a lot of Lib Dem

and Labour votes. Is Tim Farron right to be confident with the

position the Lib Dems are in? Last man standing, possibly the token

male leader after all this. The joy for the Lib Dems is that they have a

clear position and they are most gunning to be a majority party. They

can have a focus that other parties don't have. We shall see. We have

run out of time. The Daily Politics is back at midday on BBC Two all

this week. I will be back here on Sunday on BBC One at 11 o'clock.

Remember, if it's Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.