24/11/2015 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 24/11/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


A Russian fighter jet is shot down by Turkish warplanes


Moscow denies the plane was in Turkish airspace.


We'll have the latest on this developing story.


George Osborne boosts funding for the NHS in England


by ?4 billion - but can the health service deliver huge


efficiency savings AND deliver David Cameron's promise of a 7 day NHS?


The SNP forces a vote in the commons on the renewal of the


UK's trident nuclear deterrent, as the government confirms the cost has


And Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage go head-to-head


over Britain's membership of the EU at an Oxford Union debate.


When I worked in the EU it took 15 years for them to sign the


definition of chocolate. Anything that takes a decade and a half to


decide is no sinister superstate. And with us for the whole


of the programme today, the former Labour Secretary Alan Johnson,


who is now heading up Labour's Yes So,


this morning the Turkish government confirmed two of its warplanes


shot downa Russian fighter jet which it says was flying in Turkish


airspace on the border with Syria. Turkey says its pilots warned


the Russian plane ten times in five The Kremlin denied the plane was


in Turkish airspace, and says it's a 'very serious


incident' but that it's too early to Let's talk now to our Moscow


Correspondent, Sarah Rainsford. A couple of, contradictory versions?


The Turkish and the Kremlin have both sought to undermine but they


say is the fact that this Russian plane didn't enter Turkish airspace,


the statement we have got from the Defence Ministry earlier today said


that the plane was in Syrian airspace at all times and said it


could actually prove that, it said there was objective information and


proof of that, we haven't yet seen that. It also said that unlike the


Turkish military, which is saying this Russian plane was shot down in


the sky by the Turkish jets after violating its airspace, Russia is


saying that it believes the plane was shot down from the ground,


suggesting it is rebel air forces in Syria that brought down the plane.


So keep points of contradiction, the picture is starting to emerge. The


key question is how Russia responds. We haven't heard from resident


putting yet, we may hear from him later, he is meeting the King of


Jordan today -- President Putin. We understand there is a meeting of


Nato being convened to discuss the issue so the response of Russia will


be critical now in what is a delicate situation. The fate of the


pilot and crew will be critical as to whether this situation


escalates? I think it will. Certainly one of the key elements in


terms of Russia's response. We understand from videos that have


emerged that at least one of the pilots who ejected from the plane as


it was brought down was killed, whether on the ground or whilst


injecting, or when the plane was struck, the fate of the second pilot


is still unclear. Officially speaking both pilots's fates are


unclear. Russia says it is working to establish the circumstances. But


the suggestion that two pilots may have been killed will contribute to


the whole discussion and the fervour around what happens next. Russian TV


has been quite belligerent in its response so far, one channel is


talking about the need for retribution. President Putin may


come at this from a position of trying to calm things down, but


certainly it complicated the situation around Syria, where I


think Russia had been hoping for increased cooperation with the


coalition against Islamic State targets, Russia had been targeting


them for almost two months. They had been hopes that campaign could be


co-ordinated with the US-led coalition, this obviously


complicated that situation further. We're joined now


by the foreign affairs analyst, Tim Marshall and by Colonel Bob


Stewart, a former British army officer and a Conservative member


of the defence select committee. Obviously this is hugely sensitive


and potentially very dangerous because we're talking about two


countries that aren't exactly mad about each other, particularly over


the border area between Turkey and Syria, but the Russians have not


gone so far as to blame anyone yet and they are saying it's too early


to draw conclusions, is that a note of optimism? Very much so. There are


reasons to believe this will play out diplomatically over a few days,


it will be a huge dramatic row but it is, where was that plane? It was


over a border town, which is right on the border, they are both going


to claim the opposite. Crucially, the Turkish Foreign Minister Lavrov


will be meeting his opposite number tomorrow, and all the noises coming


out of Moscow say they will try and deal with this diplomatically. That


is why they need call heads, if people say and do the wrong things,


this type of incident can spark a war. At the moment the signs are


that it won't. There is an extraordinary meeting of Nato at the


moment, how do you think that will be handled? Very carefully! The fact


is, I agree with what Tim has said, it makes the urgency of coordination


of the air assets above Syria something that perhaps Nato will be


talking about. You have coalition jets in the skies and also Syrian


jets, so this is very important, the imprecations are, we have to get it


together. We will come onto how it might affect David Cameron making


case for air strikes on little later. But let's get back to this


border area because the reports coming out say that there was


already unhappiness because there is a Turkish minority on the border


area, they were feeling pursued by Russian air strikes, they weren't


hitting I S necessarily, but the rebel groups. Is that the


background? Whether that is directly related and they took the plane down


from the ground, we will find that out. The Syrian top men are several


thousand, they are of Turkish origin but they are Syrian. -- the Syrian


Turkmen. They are in a stronghold area of the government, there has


been a lot of heavy fighting, the Russians have been putting in air


strikes against them, they are absolutely furious about it, they


would regard it as in their interest to bring down the Russian plane. If


the pilot or both of them with the Syrian Turkmen and there is footage


of some Turkmen advancing up a hill to trees with a parachute in it,


that is the next question. What will they do with the pilot and what will


the Russians do about that pilot? That is the background, it is the


Syrian Turkmen part of Syria where this has happened. The airspace has


become more crowded since the Russians intervened, how does that


intervene making a case for British air strikes in Syria? It's


potentially damaging but with the way this was panning out, resolution


20 to 49 of the UN Security Council, David Cameron due to


response to the Defence Select Committee on Thursday, it depends. I


agree, it looks as if Russia is not going to make a big deal of that,


certainly we need Turkey and Russia to be working together, not at odds


with each other. What do you think it will do, will it make David


Cameron's case on Thursday more difficult? I don't think it'll have


much impact. I think it will have impact but it will be seen... We had


to get real. If this threat from Daesh is touch the great deal -- is


such a great threat to our country, we now have 22 and 49 resolutions


which say, nations of the world, understand this is a real threat. We


are going to have to start thinking about who else we might have to deal


with, and that does include President Assad's Syria, we may have


to deal with him and others in that area to deal with such a great


threat. Is that how you see it? If we are talking about rules of


engagement, because this will focus minds on those rules and how we


would be able to participate if and when the boat happens? I am not


entirely with him, in public opinion and the wavering opinion in the


house, those who are thinking, I'm not sure if we should get involved,


it will concentrate minds. The Americans and the Russians talk to


each other about how not to crash into each other, the French and the


Turkish have been part of the process and of the British get


involved, they will have to get involved by Nato. Basically you ring


each, my plane is here, your plane is there, did that happen today?


Possibly not. It's a very dangerous situation. The French and the


Russians have been getting together increasingly closely, for almost a


joint military action. That will also complicate the talks. Everybody


has got to talk around the same table and that's what I do agree on.


They have to talk to the Syrians, they are flying as well. It's a


mess. Just before we go on, Al Jazeera are reporting by pilots are


dead, so I will come to you for a response on that -- both pilots. Is


it a mess that Labour MPs are going to want to vote in favour of,


British air strikes? Like MPs across the house, Labour MPs will be


looking at what David Cameron's plan is. This is very different to August


2013. What happened in Paris is obviously a game changer, the UN


resolution makes it clear that we would... I want to know what happens


after this, because you won't win this from the air, there has to be


ground forces going in afterwards. Not British or American, they should


be led by Syria. This is where Bob's question comes in, who is our


enemy here? Assad or Isis? Can't fight them both at the same time. Do


you think Jeremy Corbyn is right to be cautious and not back air


strikes. He is right to be cautious, MPs across the house will be


cautious, this will not be a parade for Cameron. He hasn't laid up the


ground yet. Maybe he will but he hasn't done it yet. That's the


pilots being dead change things? A tragedy but frankly, they are in a


martial profession, in diplomatic terms, it won't make much difference


if President Putin decides to soft-pedal on it. If they died as


they came down, it actually makes things less complicated. That there


is no hostage or prisoner of war situation. If they were killed on


the ground, the Russians might feel they need to respond.


In just 24 hours, George Osborne will get to his feet


in the House of Commons to deliver his Spending Review - covering


But today he has announced a big chunk of his review in advance.


This morning the chancellor confirmed that front line NHS


services in England will get an extra ?3.8 billion above


Those able to cast their minds back will remember the Conservatives made


a pledge to give the NHS ?8bn by 2020 over and above inflation to


The Chief Executive the NHS England has asked for it to be front-loaded


and the increase in funding forms part of the spending review to be


unveiled tomorrow. This follows weeks of intense negotiations with


NHS bosses who are concerned that NHS trusts in England are on target


for a ?2 billion deficit this year. The medicine may leave a bitter


taste in the mouths of nurses as the Chancellor is expected to phase out


publicly funded bursaries and replaced them with student loans.


The extra money also comes at a price. It must be used to contribute


towards the government's goal of a seven-day NHS and the service must


still make agreed efficiency savings of ?2 billion. -- 22 billion.


We promised that the people's priority would be this


In this spending review, we are making a huge ?10 billion commitment


We are giving the money up front so the NHS can implement its own plan


There have to be savings elsewhere in Government spending to pay


for this but it just goes to show you can only have a strong NHS


Joining us now from Nottingham is Janet Davies,


Chief Executive General Secretary of the Royal College of Nursing.


Do you welcome this injection of cash?


Absolutely. We know trusts are struggling at the moment, and there


is a need for investment in our NHS and we welcome that injection of


cash we are hearing about. But we are concerned about other things


where we have no details, that student nurses themselves may be


paying for some of that by losing their bursaries and going for loans.


What impact would that have? A number of things, student nurses


are not the same as others, 50% of their time is spent in clinical


practice. They have longer terms, a longer year. Not able and money in


bars etc because of their clinical commitments. The second concern is


we do not want some of the lowest paid professional groups to be


landed with a huge debt at the end of training.


In fact, if we look at salaries for nurses, it may not say too much


because unless the Government is intending to give a large pay rise


to nurses, then they will never pay that back, they will never earn


enough to pay the loan back. One of the big concerns is whatever scheme


we are looking at, not only can we increase the number of student


nurses which we need to do and not put them off, but we take account of


the age of student nurses. The average age is 29. Many people come


into nursing as a second career and we should welcome that, people with


life experience offered on a second career. Compassionate, intelligent


individuals. Many of these people would not be able to access a loan


under the current system because they have done a degree, accessed


other courses or had a loan. We do not want to restrict access. We have


worked for years to widen access. Thanks you for talking to us about


the impact that could have if money is taken away from student nurses in


terms of bursaries. We're joined now by the Conservative


MP Dr Dan Poulter, who was a health minister in the coalition


government. Welcome back. We have seen an angry


reaction from junior doctors in terms of the offer being made by the


Government. What about this reaction from nurses if their bursaries are


going to be taken away, lowest paid in the NHS? It is difficult to make


these vacation until we know what the Chancellor says tomorrow.


The important thing is to welcome the huge funding to the NHS, ?3.8


billion is much needed. Important when we have an NHS increasingly


struggling with finances that we put this money in upfront.


It gives the NHS breeding time to put in place the efficiency savings


on procurement, back office savings. The money being put in is


probably a minimum amount the NHS needs to get through a challenging


period. How much should it be to see the NHS through the next years?


The Government has committed ?10 billion. The key is to make


efficiency savings. Is that doable? It will be


challenging. To make it possible, to realise those efficiencies, it is


important to prime the NHS with money now to get through a difficult


winter. And allow breathing space to invest in mental health services,


primary care, make sure the money goes where...


Stretching the pot of money beyond the realms of imagination.


If it is correct that actually bursaries for nurses will be cut, is


it right to take the money out of the pockets of NHS workers to pay


for this? We have to see what the Chancellor says.


It is difficult to speculate in advance. The challenge with nursing


was there was difficulty getting people to enter the profession, one


reason why bursaries were introduced, mostly because nurses


generally tend to be older, or have family or financial commitments.


Bursaries were introduced for this reason.


In your experience, would this be a major blow to nurses?


It would. We had a problem with midwives, when the birth rate


suddenly came up again. We have a problem with agency workers who are


very expensive. Growing our own workforce is an essential part of


planning ahead. Bursaries are a major part. Janet was eloquent in


the short time she had available, most people think of students as


being 18-25. Having time available to work in pubs and bars while they


are studying. Student nurses cannot do that.


It would be a hugely retrograde step.


Dan can't speak frankly but I think he would feel the same.


He is smiling. I was fairly frank. I know as


Secretary of State you looked at some issues and one challenge was


facing nursing and that a free is older people are entering these


professions with financial commitments and it was a challenge,


part of the reason the bursaries were introduced. The impact of this


on what that will mean for recruitment had to be carefully


evaluated. A traditional recruitment of overseas nurses has reduced in


busy years which means it is more important to focus on getting a


stream through from Britain. Let us talk about the funding.


This money will give the NHS enough time to make the savings, ?22


billion savings, do you think that is doable? A welcome investment.


I cannot understand why in an error when we had a defence spending


Review the Government is committed to 2% of GDP on defence, 0.7% of GDP


on international development, but the 9% of GDP spent on health has


disappeared. In our time in the early days of the Labour Government


we were committed to raising the average we spend on health, the


amount, to the European average. That has suddenly gone. I am not


sure where we are now but I guess it is around 7%.


It is, 7.4%, and it will fall from that.


Why do we as a commitment from the nation, as we're doing it on


development, why not one help? Even with the extra money, public


funding for the NHS will fall as a share of GDP, can that really be


done when we have got rising population, more medicine, higher


bills, can it be done if we are not going to commit even to the amount


of spending other European countries do?


In the long term, I agree with Alan, there is a rising demand on the


health service, which comes from an ageing population, where by 2018 who


will have 3 million people with long-term conditions to care for.


That is a human challenge and very expensive. There are some


efficiencies that can be made. On procurement, buying in bulk,


economies of scale. Not enough to deal with a bigger


financial challenge. Trusts are ?1.6 billion into the red in the first


six months of the financial year, the worst on record.


A challenging situation, no doubt. Does there need to be more money?


The Chancellor has made an announcement to give the NHS


breathing space. Important investment needs to be


made and some of that will need to go into technology which could drive


about ?10 million of efficiency and deliver better care to frail people.


Some say that needs to be a fundamental change. On local


authorities being able to increase council tax to plug the gap in


social care funding, is that the right way to go in terms of trying


to shift the association with the tax increase on two local


authorities? Local authorities have a responsible for local services so


there is an argument to say that it allows local authorities to make a


case to raise more money. They say 2% would be enough. There is no


doubt that you cannot differentiate between health and social care, it


is one system, and unless we properly fund the social care system


be that through local or national means, it will have a knock on


effect on vulnerable people and NHS. Thank you.


Yesterday we had updated figures on the cost of replacing Trident,


when the Government published its Strategic Defence And


The latest estimate is that manufacturing four replacement


submarines is likely to cost a total of ?31 billion. That's


an increase on previous estimates, which put the cost at around ?25


In case costs overrun, the Government will also set aside


another ?10 billion. The first submarine will enter service


in the early 2030s, later than originally planned.


The Government said the new cost plan reflected


a "greater understanding" about the design and manufacture


This is the SNP defence spokesman in Parliament. What do you hope to


achieve from the opposition debate today?


When we were elected in May, we were elected on three platforms, one was


to get the maximum devolution of power to Scotland and delivery. And


to oppose the austerity agenda. The third was to oppose Trident renewal.


Within the first six months of us being elected, we have fulfilled


that promise we made to the Scottish people. The motion has no legal


force, it is sure to be defeated. You are just playing politics, you


just want to expose the divisions within the Labour Party?


I am astonished that you think we would have to take this boat to the


House of Commons in order to expose the divisions within the Labour


Party. Those divisions are there for all to see.


You want to make them more evident. This is an entirely legitimate


motion to take to the Scottish Parliament, to the House of Commons.


Scotland has spoken very strongly against Trident, the Scottish


Government has opposed Government, the Scottish parliament is opposed.


It is not a devolved issue. The Scottish chart watchers are


opposed, the SNP, Green party -- Scottish churches.


We have a legitimate right to come here and put forward the case


against Trident. There is a consensus in Scotland and we are


articulating that. Alan Johnson, they are not playing


politics, they have a right to hold this notion, it is not exposing


divisions which are there for all to see.


Of course they can put down as the motion. We will abstain. It will not


have the slightest effect on the renewal of Trident. In 2007 when we


were in Government, we had a vote on the principle of whether we should


renew Trident. I was one of those marching through with my colleagues


and it was over well. The next stage in between Grzegorz Krychowiak is


the main gate. No manufacturing. On a replacement until we have gone


through the main gate, that is the big decision next year. I can't


understand why the Government are not confirming whether there will be


a vote. That is where Renton and all elected MPs will have a meaningful


say. We know what the SNP, where they stand.


Whether the mud stands, and labour policy is to renew Trident. The


leadership was to review that decision. If that wrong? To review


it? Perfectly sensible to review it. We do not know where Labour stands.


We do. We do not stop they may be reviewing it, our current policy is


determined at conference has not been changed, we are in favour of


multilateral nuclear disarmament. Brendan and I would agree, the


question is how is it best to proceed to a non-nuclear...


What I would say is I don't see how you can hide behind a fig leaf of


multilateralism while committing to spend 167,000 million pounds on a


new generation of nuclear weapons. How much? You cannot argue we make


the world a safer place by investing that amount of public money on more


weapons of mass destruction. That cost has gone up. ?31 billion, not


?100 billion. Let us take those figures it has gone up by ?6 billion


with ?10 billion as contingency. The lifetime costs of Trident, 167,000


million pounds, the lifetime cost. That is ridiculous, that includes


decommissioning. It has gone up from ?25 billion. ?625 million a year


over a 50 year life span. It is expensive. It is not excessive.


Rendon asked... This is the thing with the unilateral side, they


question the integrity of anyone who dares suggest that we are safer as a


country if we have a nuclear deterrent. I have seen no argument


to suggest it is safer now than in 2007. We took a decision in


Parliament to begin the process of Trident renewal.


security is I would argue vehemently that Trident undermines our national


security, because it's not a defensive weapon, it's a political


weapon. It is there to secure the UK's place at the top table of the


UN Security Council. It is a vanity project, and incredibly expensive


and ultimately worth vanity project, because these weapons can never and


will never be used. Your party is in favour of remaining part of Nato, so


you just don't want nuclear weapons on the Clyde? Not at all, we want


rid of nuclear weapons. If you are accusing us of hypocrisy, I suggest


you go around just about every other member of Nato and do the same.


You've got to start disarmament somewhere, and we're not even asking


the Labour Party to agree to disarm, we're asking them not to renew, not


to spend 167,000... It's not that... Hang on, Brendan. Allen, isn't it a


problem that we won't know where Labour stands for a long time,


because... We know where Labour stands now. It could change. The


Labour Party had a policy, has a policy as you say, it could change


and we're not going to know and the voters want no until there has been


this long process. Political parties review their policies... This is a


key decision! It is but our policy is we are in favour of retaining


Trident. We are reducing the number of warheads and our nuclear


capability... Scottish Labour are against it. They decided they were


against it, the National party decided not to... Brendan, what is


your party's position on supporting military action in Syria? Very


briefly. If we are led to believe, as we were told during the


referendum campaign, that we are a family of nations, and this


particular section of the family says, they do not want Trident


nuclear weapons, and you say, too bad, we're going to foist them upon


you, it's unacceptable. Brandon, can I just ask you, what is the SNP


position on supporting military action in Syria? We have set


unequivocally, that there has be a chapter seven resolution, that the


government cannot come back and offer up what they are offered up in


the past and expect us to meekly accept what they offered up, there


has to be a chapter seven resolution and there after we will look at what


the government has to say. You weren't satisfied with the human


resolution passed on Friday? I don't think you can accept that the


enabling resolution on Friday was a green light or has given legal


legitimacy for military action, it has to be a chapter seven


resolution. Yesterday, the Prime Minister


announced ?12 billion worth of extra defence funding as part


of the Government's Strategic He plans to spend the money on two


5,000-strong strike brigades, additional F35 jets, maritime patrol


aircraft and high-altitude drones. Here's a reminder of the PM's


statement, Over the course of this Parliament,


our priorities are to deter state-based threats, to tackle


terrorism, to remain a world leader in cyber security, and ensure we


have the capability to respond To meet these priorities, we will


continue to harness all the tools Coordinated through the


National Security Council to deliver This includes support for our


Armed Forces, counter-terrorism, international aid and diplomacy, and


working with our allies to deal with At the moment, this country's


overwhelming focus is on the threat we face from terrorism, and how we


can best ensure the defeat of Isil. Labour supports


the increased expenditure to strengthen our security services


announced to protect However,


faced with the current threat, the public will not understand or accept


any cuts to front-line policing. We are naturally focused


on the immediate threats today, but it is disappointing there is


insufficient analysis in the national security strategy, of the


global threats facing our country, Inequality, poverty, disease,


human rights abuses, climate change, I have no idea why members opposite


find food security such Most of his statement was


about the importance The importance of shipbuilding


on the Clyde. The importance of having high


morale amongst our Armed Forces. "Why do we have to be able to have


planes, transport aircraft, aircraft carriers, and everything else to get


anywhere in the world, why?" Is it the same honourable gentleman


sitting opposite us thinking of all these uses for our


Armed Forces when, a few months ago, What did you make of Jeremy


Corbyn's performance there? It wasn't his finest hour but it's


difficult to respond to these issues. I think the general issue


about Jeremy is he believes very strongly in the issues he has been


involved in in the past, whether it is stop the War, CND, and he's not


could change, he was elected as leader with all of that and he's not


going to change overnight. It might cause in the difficulty at certain


debates across the dispatch box, but by and large, it was a refreshing


change. Towards the end, when I was watching yesterday, there were


hardly any Labour MPs on the benches behind Jeremy Corbyn at one point,


and the Conservative benches were chatting all the way through, they


weren't really listening to what Jeremy Corbyn was saying. Is that


the profile you want for the leader of the party? Suspect that the


expectation was that the Defence Secretary was going to announce the


result of the spending review and that Vernon Coker would have been


responding so it was a surprise to me that the Prime Minister did it


himself, that means Jeremy as Leader of the Opposition would have to do


it. But it looked to me as if Jeremy was the last minute trough did in...


It wasn't an issue he would have been steeped in, as I am not


either,... You are not the leader of the Labour Party. There were some


issues, I think it was) to raise. His general point was, you can


defend your country, of course, with new weapons and replacing weapons,


but the issues that cause wars or in ration the food and hunger and water


security. Why are some of the parliamentary colleagues in the


Labour Party surprised by Jeremy Corbyn? Theistic into his


principles. He hasn't changed his views. -- he is sticking to his


tentacles. Yet there are Blairite MPs who have openly defied him in


the House of Commons on things like shoot to kill, on the fact he said


Jihadi John should have been arrested and not killed by a drone


attack. Is it right openly defied a leader in the house? I think he's


the last person to talk about MPs defining leadership, that is part of


what he has been doing for 30 years. -- defying the leadership. Whoever


won the leadership election, this will be a tough time in terms of the


new leader... Is it right for MPs like Ian Austin and Emma Reynolds to


stand up... It is right for them to stand up at parliamentary Labour


Party meetings and state their views. What about in the Commons?


You are referring to the statement the Prime Minister made last week,


and in fact, Jeremy Corbyn changed his comment on shoot to kill, I


think a lot of people were making it plain in the light of the Paris


attack, that yes, we must ensure that our security services are


properly equipped. So Jeremy Corbyn was wrong? He was wrong to say that


shoot to kill for Jihadi John, as he was termed was wrong. Are you


worried about Labour trailing so far behind in the polls? The latest one


has them 15 points behind. There was another one that showed us only two


points behind yesterday. The polls get interesting as you get closer to


a general election. At the moment I don't think anyone should be driven


by the polls. I want Labour to be back in power, we are seeing what


has happened lost the election. I think anyone who was elected leader


in this last election would be given a period of two years, there was


talk about people only standing for a certain period and having another


election. I think the party would be reluctant to go into another


election with a leadership that didn't look as if they could win


that general election and that would have counted if Liz or Andy or if it


had won it. Does it work having a section of the party at total odds


with the leader of the party? Whether it be defence, national


security. It is very difficult, you have to have confidence in the


parliamentary Labour Party to lead the Labour Party. There are some


people who believe that the answer to that is to change the


parliamentary Labour Party, that isn't going to happen. You have to


have the confidence of the political party you are leading in Parliament.


Margaret Thatcher resigned because she got close on 200 votes in the


first round but went because she didn't have sufficient support.


We've been joined now by Simon Hardy, a spokesman for the Left


Unity Party which, over the weekend, voted to suspend its plans to stand


in next year's elections, and support Jeremy Corbyn instead.


Tell us why. We've set up three or so years ago in response to the fact


that a lot of people... Labour Party was in standing up for the values


they wanted. Now with Jeremy Corbyn, it is beholden on anyone who shares


his values and principles to get stuck in and make sure he can make a


good job of being leader. You're confident he will be able to remould


the Labour Party in his image? I think he absolutely has to. The fact


that so many in the Labour Party, the core voters are leaving the


party, 70 of their strategists think the only way they can win elections


is by being a shadow of what the Tory party are saying, Jeremy Corbyn


is the best hope to try and turn that around, win back those people


and put principles of social justice at the mainstream of British


politics today. Do you agree, you have been a light version of the


Tory party? It is the kind of rubbish I have heard spouted all my


political life. He needs to be in a difficult and macro different


political party. The accusation goes, there is arms of the Labour


Party should be... Jeremy Corbyn never went off onto forming


organisations to stand against the Labour Party and fight them. This


guy despises the Labour Party and has no place in the Labour Party.


What do you say to that? I'm not a member and I certainly don't despise


the Labour Party that Jeremy Corbyn represents. The Labour Party that


this country needs... He's a middle-class intellectual. I know


that you are bitter because you can do that didn't win the election but


you need to let me speak because you're being a bit rude. The point


is that Jeremy Corbyn is a mainstream politician, against


austerity, against the war, against racism, against nuclear weapons...


We are all against that. A lot of people are responding to the


message, thousands are joining the party now, not because of Yvette


Cooper, if people like you were to get behind Jeremy and the politics


he represents, the Labour Party might have a fighting chance on a


national and local level of changing this country for the better, that's


rubbish, that's common sense. I have been with Jeremy all the time, he


never went off on one of these flights of fancy. He never agreed


with you. We introduced sure start, we reduced child poverty, we


attacked pensioner poverty, we gave trade unionists the right to be


represented, the right not to be sacked for going on strike you have


done none of that. All you have done is print out your leaflets despising


the Labour Party and suggest that over here is a plausible


alternative. You have added doesn't work so you would come into the


Labour Party and you won't be welcome.


If he is saying trade unionists, activists around the country... Are


not welcome in the Labour Party, that is a very...


I am an anti-racist, what makes you different?


But the principles at heart of the Labour Party, they have always been


the principles. All this Tory light rubbish.


Have you been welcomed into the Libby Path -- Labour Party?


I haven't joined... Have you been welcomed by Jeremy


Corbyn? I haven't had an official response


but I know Jeremy Corbyn has said he welcomes people with the same values


as him, similar to my values, joining the Labour Party and


fighting to make it the kind of party that can win the election in


2020. The response by Alan is indicative of the kind of


undermining going on by some people in the Labour Party and the right


wing press attacking Jeremy or casting doubt on him because I am


not sure they are really behind the 60% of the Labour Party members who


voted for Jeremy Corbyn to become leader.


Are you undermining? Should some of your colleagues stop undermining


Jeremy Corbyn? We should back our elected leader,


that is what we should do. Right. No more undermining. But we


shouldn't allow people to suggest that antiracism is somehow the


preserve of some left wing students union group who have now decided to


join the Labour Party. Thank you very much.


Now, much has been written on how the Conservatives secured


But the lurid accounts of one element


of that campaign will be making for increasingly uncomfortable


The Road Trip 2015 scheme saw a volunteer army of young Tories


bussed into marginal seats to campaign on the ground.


But Mark Clarke, who ran the scheme, has since been banned


from the party after accusations of bullying, harassment and blackmail.


But how exactly Road Trip 2015 was run, and who knew how much and when,


has seen the party's chairman, Lord Feldman,


and former co-chairman Grant Shapps facing awkward questions.


Giles has been looking into the story.


Give us the background, who has been accused?


Mark Clark has been banned for life by the party which is interesting.


The 2014 brainchild, a former 2010 Conservative candidate in tooting, a


successful in winning his seat which was a surprise to some. He had been


dubbed as going to the top by Tatler.


Shortly after losing, his then girlfriend came out and said


publicly he was not fit to be an MP and he did subsequently get removed


from the candidate list. In 2014, he came back with road


trip, bussing in Young Conservatives into marginal constituencies in the


campaign and get them campaigning vigorously on the ground. The party


was happy with that, it was sanctioned and part funded by


Central office. Funding was livid with the blessing of the co-chairs


Grant Schatz and Lord Fellman. On the ground, Mark was in charge. 38,


in charge of a lot of activists in their 20s over weekends bust into


these areas. There is another dimension to this


story. This idea was about securing seats for the Conservatives but


transparently and joked about as a rehabilitation tour for him. I put


that point to him face to face in June, his answer was, it certainly


did not hurt. Where are we now with this? Big


problems. They are starting to come to the


doorstep of senior figures in the party, particularly Grant Schatz.


There are lurid headlines of sexual impropriety, blackmail, bullying.


That aside, what we know, one of the things which is tragic, we probably


would not know this if it hadn't been for the death in September of a


Young Conservative Elliot Johnson who in a note after his death named


Mark Clark and accused him of bullying him. Johnson had also


accused Clarke of pinning him to a chair in a pub, and recorded


secretly Mark Clark him threatening him. Edit Johnson saying he had


properly done this before. We know now a lot of other people thought


that. There is a heated e-mail exchange from August, one month


before edit Johnson died. I have this here, between Paul Abbott and


Mark Clark. Whilst explaining, a nasty exchange, about how much he


has had to do with road trip and keep it on the road, and defending


Mark Clark when in fact their work he says people in CC HQ only to shut


it down, he says this included dealing with all the complaints made


about road trip and your behaviour from associations, activists, MPs,


candidates, of which you are well aware. It shows the aid was well


aware of existing complaints which had been made. Grant points at the


moved on from the chair when major allegations were made. Lord Feldman


who said he did not know about these allegations until August, has been


criticised and countered by a new MP who told Newsnight he knew about


them much sooner. The problem is coming closer to senior members of


the party. We will keep coverage on it, thank


you. Think of the famous fights


in history. But who could forget


Clegg versus Farage? The then Deputy Prime Minister


and the leader of Ukip went head-to-head over


Britain's membership of the EU, in a TV debate during the campaign for


the European elections last year. They must have missed each other


because, last night, they staged a rematch at one


of the world's most famous debating And, just to let you know,


the dress code was formal. Here, they queue for five hours


in the cold to get In the 1930s, the Oxford Union


became world-famous when students here voted not to fight in a war


for King and country. Tonight, they are grappling with


another generational issue, As usual, the audience is full


of politicians in training. I want to be a Prime Minister, and,


if not, an adviser to the I addressed the General Assembly,


like, 12 times in my life. Here come the former president


of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso,


and Nick Clegg speaking in favour. Opposing is Tory MP Bill Cash


and Ukip leader Nigel Farage. It appeared the Eurocrat strategy


is to love-bomb the UK. The single market, or internal


market as we sometimes call it, in fact to a large extent was pushed


by Britain, by Margaret Thatcher. We had a great European Commission


president such as Roy Jenkins. Enlargement, the fact today, the


Czech Republic and central European countries are members, that was


very much a project of Margaret Things got tetchy when Bill Cash


raised the Paris terror attacks. The important point


about the question of the Over the past 20 years,


90% of terrorist acts committed in European lands were committed


by domestically-born European No one is denying


the fact that that is the case. What I'm saying is the Schengen


arrangements, and the border issue, has created the circumstances


in which these people came in. Nick Clegg lost an election,


but has gained a sense of humour. When I worked in the European Union,


it took 15 years for the European Union to decide


the definition of chocolate. Anything that takes


a decade-and-a-half to decide I don't want my little children to


grow up in a United Kingdom which is broken apart, and


the remains of which are drifting That is not a proud future I want


my country, for my children, for my country,


not the proud future I would argue Yes, Nick Clegg being applauded


by a group of students. Nigel Farage, on the other hand,


went for I want you, please, to think


of Britain and the EU being In the early days,


it was pretty good. But it's been getting increasingly


rotten over the last 25 years. Of course, a lot of people said, no,


you must stay with him. I know he makes all the rules


and the laws in the house. I know he forbids you


from making your own friends. Then, the votes, done in the same


way as they do it in Parliament. The Oxford Union voting that Britain


and Europe are better together. And we've been joined by the


Ukip MP Douglas Carswell. Is this what it is going to be like,


debates like this? More evenhanded than yesterday.


Does this excite the voters? When people realise that we have been


part of this club for 40 years, it costs us ?350 million a day, enough


to build a new hospital every week, people will realise we could change


this and open ourselves up to the world and be an international


player. Rehashing these arguments, maybe


there are no new arguments to be made, but if we are looking at 18%


of undecided, is that what will sway them?


The extraordinary thing is how close both camps are. I will be interested


in Alan and his view. About the third have made up their


mind they are in favour of saying, but 30% going the other way.


Everything is to play for Hutcheon of staying.


Pragmatic, sensible economic debate is what is needed from our side to


win. More than half the public according to a recent poll Hutcheon


recent poll want to leave the European Union, the first time in


that monthly survey. That does not subvert -- surprise


me. A lot of people on my side of the


debate thought this would be a walk in the park. It won't be.


There are awful lot of people who will focus on this over the coming


months. I believe Britain is stronger and safer in Europe, better


off. That debate will happen to be had. I hope we can ignite the same


excitement as in Scotland. Britain, if we leave the EU, in Scotland,


where every vote counts, not like Parliamentary elections, including


Northern Ireland, I hope we can generate that enthusiasm. You talked


about the economics being Central, what about immigration?


That poll was done in light of the Paris attacks. Do you think that is


inflection of public anxiety? It would be unfortunate if anyone


used scare tactics... Has Nigel Farage done that?


We must make certain we do not say things that appeal to our worst


instincts. The way to win is to show people we can be a better country,


more international, we can control our borders but we're not going to


close them. We are part of a club which has lost control of migration


and monetary policy. If we take back control, that is the sensible thing.


We can be an international country, outward looking, open to the world,


but in control of our destiny. That is the tone we need to strike.


Douglas is the sensible voice of this debate and Nigel isn't. We


still have free movement outside the EU, we will be weaker.


Thanks to all my guests, especially Alan Johnson.


'..Viking, North Utsire, South Utsire, East Forties,


Download Subtitles