:00:37. > :00:41.Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:42. > :00:44.It's set to be a big political week, with the government poised to hold
:00:45. > :00:49.a Commons vote on whether to extend air strikes into Syria.
:00:50. > :00:52.The position taken by Jeremy Corbyn and Labour could prove decisive.
:00:53. > :00:55.He's against military action and is about to meet with
:00:56. > :01:01.But with many MPs thought to back air strikes, can he find
:01:02. > :01:08.The Conservative Party chairman Lord Feldman -
:01:09. > :01:11.a close ally of the Prime Minister - comes under fire over
:01:12. > :01:14.the handling of claims of bullying, blackmail and sexual harassment in
:01:15. > :01:18.Is it the job of the government to tell people how
:01:19. > :01:24.As a committee of MPs backs a tax on sugary drinks, we'll be asking
:01:25. > :01:37.I'm normally against tax, but you see these fat kids, and one glass of
:01:38. > :01:38.non-Diet Coke is the equivalent to about eight spoonfuls of sugar, I
:01:39. > :01:42.probably got that wrong! And we'll be looking at those MPs
:01:43. > :01:46.hoping to make the cut and win by a whisker - yes, it's the annual vote
:01:47. > :01:54.to find parliament's best beard. All that in the next hour and with
:01:55. > :01:57.us for the whole of the programme today the Conservative MP Neil
:01:58. > :02:02.Parish and the Labour MP Rupa Huq. So first today let's talk
:02:03. > :02:07.about whether the UK will extend The RAF is already carrying out
:02:08. > :02:13.bombing raids against the so-called Islamic State
:02:14. > :02:17.in Iraq, and the government has been making the case that British jets
:02:18. > :02:19.should also be able to target Ministers have spent the weekend
:02:20. > :02:27.trying to persuade wavering MPs to back a possible government
:02:28. > :02:33.motion to approve the bombing. They've continued to insist they
:02:34. > :02:35.will hold a vote on air strikes only if it is certain
:02:36. > :02:38.it has the clear support of the Commons, which means winning
:02:39. > :02:41.the backing of many Labour MPs. Let's have a listen to
:02:42. > :02:44.the defence secretary Michael Fallon, who yesterday took to the
:02:45. > :02:48.Andrew Marr Show to make his case. We've already got permission to deal
:02:49. > :02:51.with Isil in Iraq at the edges, helping
:02:52. > :02:54.the Iraqi government push back Isil, but it makes no sense simply to be
:02:55. > :02:58.dealing with Isil in Iraq. When Isil is headquartered in
:02:59. > :03:01.North East Syria. Now, Isil is not just
:03:02. > :03:04.a threat to Iraq and Syria. Isil is a very direct
:03:05. > :03:06.threat to this country. Let me put it this way, last year
:03:07. > :03:15.there were 15 Isil-related attacks worldwide, and this year there
:03:16. > :03:19.have already been 150 attacks. We've seen this recently,
:03:20. > :03:22.not just in Ankara and Beirut, we've There is a very direct threat to
:03:23. > :03:36.this country from letting Isil Rupa Huq, has David Cameron and
:03:37. > :03:41.Michael Fallon convinced you have the case for air strikes against
:03:42. > :03:45.Isil in Syria? Need them have been on the phone to me, as has been
:03:46. > :03:49.reported, that Labour MPs have been phoned by conservatives the
:03:50. > :03:55.weekend, none of them have got me on speed dial. Would you like a call
:03:56. > :03:59.from them? This is a very difficult decision, and there is no right
:04:00. > :04:02.answer, what ever happens it looks like blood will be shed and lives
:04:03. > :04:06.will be lost, it is a difficult question. You will be asked to make
:04:07. > :04:12.a decision, what is your thought at the moment? We need the least bad
:04:13. > :04:17.outcome, I need to look at what I'm presented to vote on, but at the
:04:18. > :04:22.moment I'm not minded to vote for targeted air strikes on Syria. Can
:04:23. > :04:27.you be persuaded? It is unlikely, we have a messy civil war with at least
:04:28. > :04:32.six different sides, and tragic as the events of Paris were, and they
:04:33. > :04:34.are sickening and shocking, but a 3 figure number of people lost their
:04:35. > :04:39.lives going to a pop concert, and I'm not sure there is a direct
:04:40. > :04:43.correlation that we should start bombing now as a result of that.
:04:44. > :04:48.What about your colleagues in the Labour Party? Most of the people
:04:49. > :04:53.I've spoken to are very sceptical about air strikes right now. Most of
:04:54. > :04:59.your Parliamentary colleagues? There are 232 of those, I speak to most of
:05:00. > :05:05.the new intake and there is not a big appetite for it, I don't think.
:05:06. > :05:10.In your mind, Labour MPs, their views against air strikes are
:05:11. > :05:13.hardening? The figure of 70,000 Free Syrian Army troops who are waiting
:05:14. > :05:20.for us to join them, that does not seem credible for many people. Even
:05:21. > :05:23.Julian Lewis, very respected defence expert, the chair of the select
:05:24. > :05:30.committee, and a conservative, he said that, in the house on Thursday.
:05:31. > :05:35.They are too many unknowns. Where do you stand? I will back the Prime
:05:36. > :05:39.Minister and I believe we need to do with Isil in Iraq and also in Syria
:05:40. > :05:43.where their headquarters are, and we have had some good effect in
:05:44. > :05:48.rolling back some of their territory. The more territory they
:05:49. > :05:54.have, the more money they get, the more potential they have two cores
:05:55. > :05:58.grieve to ourselves and our allies -- two cores grieve.
:05:59. > :06:03.grieve to ourselves and our allies complex situation, but as Liam Fox
:06:04. > :06:04.said on Thursday, Isil dislike and fight against everything we
:06:05. > :06:11.represent in the way of free speech and freedom and they want to destroy
:06:12. > :06:13.us, so we have got to take action. If they can be heard a
:06:14. > :06:17.us, so we have got to take action. dentist, her only crime was to deal
:06:18. > :06:24.with female patients as dentist, her only crime was to deal
:06:25. > :06:29.deal with these people, and making it out to be complex, that does not
:06:30. > :06:36.give the excuse not to take action. Pretty much every military expert
:06:37. > :06:42.has said without grand -- ground troops, Isil cannot be defeated. Is
:06:43. > :06:47.there one ready to move in? There are troops there, it is a difficult
:06:48. > :06:51.situation, we probably have got special advisers and special troops
:06:52. > :06:56.there, who can help, and I think we will need to do more there. I don't
:06:57. > :07:00.think any of us at this stage want to put ground troops onto the
:07:01. > :07:05.ground, but we do accept that you will need those troops in order to
:07:06. > :07:10.get rid of Isil, but we will weaken them, we have got some very smart
:07:11. > :07:12.weapons which will actually help. Hilary Benn, the
:07:13. > :07:16.weapons which will actually help. Secretary is convinced that, as
:07:17. > :07:19.well. That the advances of Isil in Iraq have been restricted,
:07:20. > :07:22.well. That the advances of Isil in same could be said of Syria. There
:07:23. > :07:27.has been bombing for the past same could be said of Syria. There
:07:28. > :07:29.and arguably Isil have grown and got stronger, and so I'm not convinced.
:07:30. > :07:34.Where? In Syria? I'm stronger, and so I'm not convinced.
:07:35. > :07:41.a year now, stronger, and so I'm not convinced.
:07:42. > :07:45.current mission -- the original coalition for bombing, they don't
:07:46. > :07:51.have the same aims, we are getting into some tricky situations. The
:07:52. > :07:54.world is not perfect, these people will destroy the very fabric of what
:07:55. > :07:59.we believe in, we have got to take action against them, in this
:08:00. > :08:03.imperfect world. Those people who did the Paris thing, they were
:08:04. > :08:08.Belgian and French nationals, I don't see how bombing Syria... Their
:08:09. > :08:15.resources come from the Middle East, very much from the ordeal which Isil
:08:16. > :08:21.is selling. They are linked. -- very much from the oil. Where ever they
:08:22. > :08:25.are national song, they are still linked to Isil and we have got to
:08:26. > :08:31.deal with them -- where ever they are nationals from. Bombing is
:08:32. > :08:35.indiscriminate and there are always unintended consequences, I have had
:08:36. > :08:39.representations from a British Arab group which said World Heritage
:08:40. > :08:46.sites will be destroyed. Many of them have been destroyed already.
:08:47. > :08:49.Isil have destroyed them. Let's hold it there for a moment, you
:08:50. > :08:52.articulating the difficult arguments and decisions which MPs are going to
:08:53. > :08:57.have to make on this issue if a vote comes forward. The Labour position
:08:58. > :09:00.on whether to comes forward. The Labour position
:09:01. > :09:03.strikes into Syria will prove decisive this week.
:09:04. > :09:06.But it could also prove decisive for the future of Jeremy Corbyn's
:09:07. > :09:09.party, because a major split has developed between Mr Corbyn and many
:09:10. > :09:14.of his MPs over whether to support or oppose further military action.
:09:15. > :09:16.The Corbyn-supporting grassroots group Momentum spent the weekend
:09:17. > :09:19.emailing Labour Party members, urging them to lobby MPs to support
:09:20. > :09:30.Mr Corbyn has said he will not support British air strikes,
:09:31. > :09:37.but that's not the position of much of his Shadow Cabinet.
:09:38. > :09:39.Deputy leader Tom Watson and Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn
:09:40. > :09:41.are just two of the senior party figures in
:09:42. > :09:49.After criticism of Mr Corbyn's stance by some Labour MPs, Unite
:09:50. > :09:52.general-secretary Len McCluskey suggested public dissenters were
:09:53. > :09:56.guilty of trying to exploit disagreements over Syria to try and
:09:57. > :10:00.oust Mr Corbyn - something he said would "sicken all decent people".
:10:01. > :10:04.The debate now comes down to whether or not Labour MPs receive
:10:05. > :10:10.Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has made it clear he supports allowing
:10:11. > :10:14.all MPs to vote freely, according to their conscience,
:10:15. > :10:18.as a decision to go to war should be "above party politics".
:10:19. > :10:21.But this morning shadow international development secretary
:10:22. > :10:24.Diane Abbott said that the party membership, and the
:10:25. > :10:27.country, wants to see Labour oppose the air strikes, and that that would
:10:28. > :10:33.On Sunday, Jeremy Corbyn said that despite Labour tensions he wasn't
:10:34. > :10:36.going anywhere, and that as leader it was up to him to decide
:10:37. > :10:41.if the party should collectively oppose action in Syria.
:10:42. > :10:44.Well, in about an hour Jeremy Corbyn will meet his shadow cabinet,
:10:45. > :10:47.so it's set to be a turbulent day for the leadership and the party.
:10:48. > :10:52.Our deputy political editor James Landale can tell us more.
:10:53. > :11:00.Has significant is today for the Labour leader and be party? Hugely
:11:01. > :11:03.significant. Essentially the inconsistencies that have existed
:11:04. > :11:07.since Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party will come
:11:08. > :11:10.to a head, this is a crunch point. What we are seeing, a power struggle
:11:11. > :11:16.about where authority lies within the Labour family. It Jeremy Corbyn
:11:17. > :11:20.decides to whip his MPs and said they should follow him and oppose
:11:21. > :11:26.extending military action to Syria, is argument will be will be that he
:11:27. > :11:29.has a mandate from his party, he's newly elected, and this is the
:11:30. > :11:36.decision a leader makes, and he will give evidence through an e-mail, and
:11:37. > :11:39.we are assuming he will say there is a fair amount of support for his
:11:40. > :11:42.position, and he will present the Shadow Cabinet with a position,
:11:43. > :11:49.saying, this is my point but I'm going to be a leader, I will make
:11:50. > :11:52.that decision. And then the Shadow Cabinet will have to make a decision
:11:53. > :11:56.as to whether they will challenge that. What is coming to a head, the
:11:57. > :12:02.power struggle which has been lingering for some weeks between the
:12:03. > :12:07.Shadow Cabinet and Jeremy Corbyn. They could choose not to resign, but
:12:08. > :12:10.that would leave Jeremy Corbyn asserting his power over the Shadow
:12:11. > :12:16.Cabinet in that instant, in order to keep the party together, the Shadow
:12:17. > :12:21.Cabinet together at the very least. No one is issued and there will be
:12:22. > :12:26.mass resignations, it is possible for members of the Shadow Cabinet,
:12:27. > :12:30.they could decide to vote against the party and then almost challenged
:12:31. > :12:34.Jeremy Corbyn to sack them -- no one is assuming they will be mass
:12:35. > :12:40.resignations. That is one potential option, and others, the members of
:12:41. > :12:44.the Shadow Cabinet could decide to resign beforehand, but if a decision
:12:45. > :12:50.is made today, do they resign immediately? Do they wait on to a
:12:51. > :12:54.motion is put before the House of Commons? There is no point in them
:12:55. > :12:59.resigning now, if David Cameron decides to not do a vote in 48
:13:00. > :13:02.hours, that's a possibility. James, thanks.
:13:03. > :13:06.To discuss this we're joined by Dan Hodges of the Daily Telegraph, and
:13:07. > :13:08.Rachel Shabi, who is a contributing writer for The Guardian.
:13:09. > :13:11.And of course our guests of the day Rupa and Neil are still here.
:13:12. > :13:20.Rupa, should the party be whipped to that view? There is a good argument
:13:21. > :13:27.of having a free vote, Jeremy Corbyn has often voted against the whip,
:13:28. > :13:32.and so it would be part of his open inclusive top-down leadership, and
:13:33. > :13:38.given the range of opinions with the Labour Party, that is a good idea.
:13:39. > :13:41.John McDonnell has said that he does not think Jeremy Corbyn is minded to
:13:42. > :13:46.that, would you think it is a mistake if he puts his win on the
:13:47. > :13:49.Shadow Cabinet? The only people who like the stories about a split
:13:50. > :13:52.party, that is the Conservatives, but the headlines in the Tory press
:13:53. > :13:58.would be more obvious, if it was a whipped vote. This is an issue of
:13:59. > :14:03.conscience, and there is a point when it goes above party politics. I
:14:04. > :14:07.was with Ken Clarke last week, the Conservative who held many great
:14:08. > :14:11.offices of state under many governments, he said he was against
:14:12. > :14:16.the Iraq war, and sometimes these are conscience decisions which are
:14:17. > :14:21.above party politics. Yes, we know some of them already, is it a matter
:14:22. > :14:27.of conscience, or is it, as Diane Abbott has said, oppositions of war
:14:28. > :14:32.and peace, you have got to have an agreed position and if you are Her
:14:33. > :14:37.Majesty 's loyal opposition? The Labour Party will be asked to fulfil
:14:38. > :14:41.its primary function as the official opposition, and to pass judgment on
:14:42. > :14:45.whether the country should go to war and clearly they are going to fail
:14:46. > :14:48.in their obligation to do that one way or another, we will not have a
:14:49. > :14:52.coherent position within the Labour Party and that is a shameful
:14:53. > :14:59.situation, but that is the reality of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.
:15:00. > :15:10.It is clear that Jeremy Corbyn is minded to whip his party. He is
:15:11. > :15:13.going into that meeting intending to whip the shadow candidate. We heard
:15:14. > :15:18.Diane Abbott saying on his behalf that a free vote would be to hand
:15:19. > :15:20.the victory to David Cameron. I think Jeremy Corbyn has misjudged
:15:21. > :15:24.his Shadow Cabinet. I think he felt over the weekend that the bullying
:15:25. > :15:27.we have seen from groups like Momentum and the pressure he was
:15:28. > :15:30.putting on the Shadow Cabinet would bring them into line. I think when
:15:31. > :15:35.he goes into that meeting he will find out it has not been success.
:15:36. > :15:41.Has Jeremy Corbyn mishandled it so far? Dan Hodges calls it bullying
:15:42. > :15:46.tactics from the likes of Momentum, letter sent out to MPs saying that
:15:47. > :15:48.they must consult their constituents, and pressure will be
:15:49. > :15:52.brought to bear if they did not come back with a view against air
:15:53. > :15:56.strikes. I don't know if it is bullying if you are being asked to
:15:57. > :15:59.consider carefully a significant decision which the Conservatives
:16:00. > :16:09.have failed to make a case in favour of. And I don't want to do a -- I
:16:10. > :16:14.don't want to diminish this, but this is not about the Labour Party,
:16:15. > :16:18.it is about Syrians and Iraqis and really quite damaging consequences,
:16:19. > :16:21.potentially, for the rest of Europe. And I think what Jeremy Corbyn is
:16:22. > :16:27.trying to do is change the flavour of the politics that we are having,
:16:28. > :16:31.and that is one of the reasons he was voted for so overwhelmingly, and
:16:32. > :16:35.that is why he has this mandate from the Labour Party faithful who oppose
:16:36. > :16:39.air strikes because, again, there has not really been a convincing
:16:40. > :16:42.case in favour of those strikes. It's clear that we should do
:16:43. > :16:47.something about Islamic State but it's not necessarily clear that the
:16:48. > :16:51.something should be bombing. There are plenty of other alternative is
:16:52. > :16:54.not being discussed. Does he not better reflect Labour Party members
:16:55. > :16:59.and many constituents in Labour constituencies around the country
:17:00. > :17:06.with blue it is not the job to reflect Labour Party members, it
:17:07. > :17:11.is. -- it is not the job to reflect Labour Party members, it is to
:17:12. > :17:17.reflect the country. There is a very large plurality. You can't possibly
:17:18. > :17:24.say that. Let down finish and I will come back to both of you. In support
:17:25. > :17:29.of military action. The important thing has to be said, the opponents
:17:30. > :17:32.of war are trying to construct this is a debate about people of
:17:33. > :17:35.principle who oppose war against these Blairite warmongers, that is
:17:36. > :17:41.not the case. There are people on both sides who have very strongly
:17:42. > :17:45.held convictions. And as we've seen over the weekend and as we've seen
:17:46. > :17:50.in terms of the nature of the debate as has come from the Jeremy Corbyn
:17:51. > :17:54.camp, it is actually the Corbin supporters making it into a
:17:55. > :18:01.political issue, and the Corbynites turning this into a loyalty test to
:18:02. > :18:05.the leader of the Labour Party and that is absolutely shameful. Isn't
:18:06. > :18:10.that true? Len McCluskey made his statement, Diane Abbott made her
:18:11. > :18:12.statement this morning. There were veiled threats to those in the
:18:13. > :18:18.Shadow Cabinet and other MPs who do not follow what the line will be
:18:19. > :18:23.from Jeremy Corbyn when he knows that they are at odds with his own
:18:24. > :18:29.Shadow Foreign Secretary, his own deputy leader, isn't the fate of the
:18:30. > :18:32.Labour Party important in this, too? Here we are talking about Jeremy
:18:33. > :18:36.Corbyn politicising the decision by politicising what he is doing. If
:18:37. > :18:41.you heard him talk on Andrew Marr on Sunday he was presenting the case
:18:42. > :18:44.against air strikes. I'm not saying that the people who support air
:18:45. > :18:48.strikes are unprincipled, and just saying they have failed to make a
:18:49. > :18:51.convincing case. We need to have that conversation and that's what
:18:52. > :18:55.he's trying to do, and that's why he's asked for MPs to go back to
:18:56. > :18:59.their constituents and have that conversation. With respect, he is
:19:00. > :19:03.entitled to do that, but a large number of the people in the Labour
:19:04. > :19:07.Party disagree with him from a point of principle. They think there will
:19:08. > :19:10.be a threat to this country if we do not intervene. The difference
:19:11. > :19:14.between the camps is that Jeremy Corbyn is allowed to put forward his
:19:15. > :19:17.view, the opponents of Jeremy Corbyn are being told that if they disagree
:19:18. > :19:24.with Jeremy Corbyn they will face deselection. Now that is bullying.
:19:25. > :19:27.with Jeremy Corbyn they will face Well, Len McCluskey
:19:28. > :19:30.with Jeremy Corbyn they will face said that, he said they will be
:19:31. > :19:36.playing with fire. The director of Momentum has published, who also
:19:37. > :19:40.edits the website, published an article
:19:41. > :19:44.edits the website, published an deselection. You are not seriously
:19:45. > :19:49.sitting there... They have no constitutional process. You are the
:19:50. > :19:56.one turning this into a schoolyard debate, we are trying to have debate
:19:57. > :20:01.about whether to go into Syria or not. Let him speak. Are you
:20:02. > :20:03.seriously saying that there are not letters going round, there is not
:20:04. > :20:06.pressure being brought to bear on your colleagues to be deselected if
:20:07. > :20:10.they don't do what Jeremy Corbyn your colleagues to be deselected if
:20:11. > :20:14.does on this issue? I've not heard of a real MP who has had that.
:20:15. > :20:17.You've not heard it? of a real MP who has had that.
:20:18. > :20:23.one myself, I voted for Yvette Cooper for leader. What about
:20:24. > :20:28.threats of deselection? Some of this is just media hot air and in reality
:20:29. > :20:32.this is bigger than Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, this is about going to
:20:33. > :20:42.war. Has he or his supporters made it an of loyalty? Has it really come
:20:43. > :20:48.out of the ether in that sense, or is it as a result of briefings on
:20:49. > :20:52.both sides? In the end, if there is not a free vote, which you are
:20:53. > :20:55.calling for, which John McDonnell is calling for, would you expect Shadow
:20:56. > :21:00.Cabinet members to stick to their guns and defy what would be the will
:21:01. > :21:04.of the leadership? The thing is, it should be of no surprise that Jeremy
:21:05. > :21:11.Corbyn is anti-war, it has been country be consistent for 35 years.
:21:12. > :21:15.You nominated him, didn't you? So did 35 other people. Did you regret
:21:16. > :21:19.it? No, I did not want a contest of three people saying the same thing,
:21:20. > :21:25.I wanted all wings of the party reflected. Do you think that Shadow
:21:26. > :21:29.Cabinet members who, as a matter of conscience, would like to vote for
:21:30. > :21:33.air strikes, should resign if there is a whipped vote by Jeremy Corbyn?
:21:34. > :21:37.It's not for me to tell them whether they should resign. Would you expect
:21:38. > :21:41.them to on a matter of conscience? I expect them to do what their
:21:42. > :21:46.conscience tells them they should do. But we are trying to shift the
:21:47. > :21:50.conversation away from an orthodoxy that for decades has had a military
:21:51. > :21:54.interventionist take on the fight against terror. We are trying to
:21:55. > :21:57.change that. One of the reasons Corbyn was elected was to change
:21:58. > :22:02.that, so let's have that conversation. And he has support for
:22:03. > :22:06.it. Shouldn't it be dissenting MPs come if you like, Dan Hodges, who
:22:07. > :22:10.have been accused of trying to plot and out Jeremy Corbyn, who should
:22:11. > :22:16.fall into the line that Rachel Xavi says is prevalent? To answer your
:22:17. > :22:19.question, if there is a whip, it is quite clear that members of the
:22:20. > :22:23.Shadow Cabinet that wish to vote against it should resign, they have
:22:24. > :22:25.a principle of collective responsibility. Jeremy Corbyn is
:22:26. > :22:33.doing everything he can to destroy that principle. Perhaps they are.
:22:34. > :22:37.Again, I'm very sorry, I know this is difficult for you to understand.
:22:38. > :22:43.I know it is difficult for you to understand! It may come as a shock
:22:44. > :22:46.to you that there are people of conviction and principle that
:22:47. > :22:53.disagree with you. That's fine. I know that is a shock. There are
:22:54. > :22:57.people out there who genuinely believe if we do not act against the
:22:58. > :23:04.Isis threat we will see 200 people dead in London, and you may disagree
:23:05. > :23:08.. They are convinced of their view without the same kinds of threats
:23:09. > :23:12.and intimidation. You keep saying it is Corbyn that has created the
:23:13. > :23:17.politics of this, that is my issue with you. Well who has, Father
:23:18. > :23:21.Christmas? It is not about whether people should have a principled
:23:22. > :23:24.opposition to him, that is fine, but let's have the debate without
:23:25. > :23:29.getting distracted into this schoolyard brawl that you are trying
:23:30. > :23:37.to create. You are letting your hate for Corbyn blind your judgment. With
:23:38. > :23:42.respect, it is the hatred of the Corbynites for those who have any
:23:43. > :23:45.different view to them, which is why we saw the comments from Len
:23:46. > :23:48.McCluskey, why we have had the threats from Momentum and continuing
:23:49. > :23:51.threat of deselection. Both of you will have to leave it there but we
:23:52. > :23:56.will of course keep you updated in what happens on BBC News.
:23:57. > :24:00.The question for today is all about beards.
:24:01. > :24:06.Nice change of tone, there. Yes, you came appropriately attired in that
:24:07. > :24:07.sense, Dan. Which hirsute Member of Parliament
:24:08. > :24:09.is tipped to win the Parliamentary beard of the year
:24:10. > :24:12.for a record sixth time? Is it Paul Flynn, Stephen Crabb,
:24:13. > :24:17.John Spellar or Jeremy Corbyn. At the end of the show Neil and Rupa
:24:18. > :24:23.will give us the correct answer. One of the lesser-noticed proposals
:24:24. > :24:27.in George Osborne's spending review last week was the decision to cut
:24:28. > :24:34.what's known as short money. It was introduced
:24:35. > :24:36.by the then-Leader of the House It was designed to help opposition
:24:37. > :24:41.parties "more effectively fulfil The bill for the taxpayer
:24:42. > :24:55.this year is ?9.3 million. The amount each party gets depends
:24:56. > :24:58.on how many MPs they have and how many votes they got
:24:59. > :25:01.at the last election. So most of the money this year,
:25:02. > :25:03.nearly ?5.8 million, And the SNP also get
:25:04. > :25:07.a sizeable chunk - they've received So cutting taxpayer funding
:25:08. > :25:10.for politicians is bound to prove popular with many,
:25:11. > :25:12.but it hasn't gone down well with others including the
:25:13. > :25:31.Labour Party - and shadow Commons Hello, how are you? I'm fine, and
:25:32. > :25:36.you? We will come onto that. Every part of the political sector --
:25:37. > :25:41.public sector is making a contribution to cuts. The short
:25:42. > :25:45.money is there so that all parties can do a proper job of criticising
:25:46. > :25:50.the government. The government has the whole of the civil service, and
:25:51. > :25:52.a budget to be able to go and visit whatever institution, so for
:25:53. > :25:58.instance the prisons minister can visit prisons, surely so should
:25:59. > :26:05.opposition portfolio holders like the shadow ministers be allowed to
:26:06. > :26:07.visit prisons as well. But shouldn't there be a contribution from
:26:08. > :26:14.opposition parties or political parties in general to tackling the
:26:15. > :26:15.deficit? I would be right behind that if it weren't for the fact that
:26:16. > :26:19.what the government has done in this same period is increase the number
:26:20. > :26:24.of special advisers party political appointees have gone up from 79 to
:26:25. > :26:29.103. An extra cost of ?2.5 million every year all going to party
:26:30. > :26:32.members. And George Osborne has got ten special advisers. And they did
:26:33. > :26:37.say they would reduce that bill, they said that in 2010 and they
:26:38. > :26:41.didn't. But on principle you would not be against a reduction in the
:26:42. > :26:45.amount of short money? I'm happy to see, if we are considering the whole
:26:46. > :26:49.cost of politics, but on top of that the government has added ?2.9
:26:50. > :27:04.million per year by appointing more members to the House of Lords, 240
:27:05. > :27:06.more members, the fastest any Prime Minister has ever appointed
:27:07. > :27:09.ministers, all again for party political covers, and I think that
:27:10. > :27:11.is a problem. In the end we have a constitutional settlement in this
:27:12. > :27:14.country which is that Her Majesty 's loyal opposition play a vital part
:27:15. > :27:16.in making sure the government does a good job. It is wrong for the
:27:17. > :27:19.government single-handedly and unilaterally to cut that money. If
:27:20. > :27:21.you were to win in 2020 of course you could say it would be the Tories
:27:22. > :27:24.that would have less short money. That's very unfair because when we
:27:25. > :27:28.were in government we introduced it in the first place, and in 1997 when
:27:29. > :27:32.the Tory party thought it was down on its knees and never going to
:27:33. > :27:37.recuperate, we travelled short money. They claimed ?45.7 million.
:27:38. > :27:42.We have been honourable in this and the government is being utterly
:27:43. > :27:47.despicable and dishonourable. So, despicable and dishonourable? I
:27:48. > :27:53.would not go as far as to say that. We have cut back the civil service
:27:54. > :27:56.by about ?2.5 billion. What about special advisers? They have not been
:27:57. > :28:00.cut as much as they should have been, they have gone up, I access
:28:01. > :28:04.the figures. I believe that overall we have taken the right decisions to
:28:05. > :28:07.reduce the cost of government. I think people out there in expect
:28:08. > :28:14.opposition parties to raise money, to fund themselves to a degree we
:28:15. > :28:18.had to do that. You took ?45.7 million. That does not fund the
:28:19. > :28:21.political party. Naturally the Labour Party takes a great deal of
:28:22. > :28:26.money from trade unions and we get money from other sources as well.
:28:27. > :28:33.But I don't think people necessarily expect taxpayer money to fund
:28:34. > :28:39.politics. That may be, but why is it that the number of special
:28:40. > :28:41.advisers, the number of paid appointments by the government has
:28:42. > :28:48.gone up, if this government is so committed to trying to reduce the
:28:49. > :28:51.amount of money that is spent by taxpayers on this particular area?
:28:52. > :28:54.Why is it that we have seen large numbers of people brought into the
:28:55. > :29:00.House of Lords? It is growing in some areas. Let me deal with the
:29:01. > :29:05.situation vis-a-vis the House of Lords. When we came into government,
:29:06. > :29:10.after ten or 12 years of Blair government, we actually had 28% of
:29:11. > :29:16.the members of the House of Lords. Therefore there is a really good
:29:17. > :29:20.reason. That's a good way of deflecting. You have appointed...
:29:21. > :29:25.I'm not going to take you on the nose. You have appointed people into
:29:26. > :29:29.the House of Lords, the Prime Minister has appointed ten times as
:29:30. > :29:32.many barren since he became Prime Minister than there Runnymede, and
:29:33. > :29:39.yet he goes on about democracy. He wants to cut the number of elected
:29:40. > :29:46.MPs but increased the number of unelected figures. Dent or shout
:29:47. > :29:49.because nobody can hear you. Chris, go ahead. Another interesting
:29:50. > :29:54.thing, the government has decided, there is also cram more money that
:29:55. > :29:58.goes to opposition parties, it has decided to not cut that because they
:29:59. > :30:02.do not have a majority in the House of Lords, so they will let that go
:30:03. > :30:06.on. It is utterly reprehensible, the way the government is behaving. It
:30:07. > :30:10.is unconstitutional, and quite a lot of Tory MPs, and to be honest I
:30:11. > :30:16.think Neil agrees, he is smiling, he is going to go back and tell them.
:30:17. > :30:19.Your lips are sealed, is the expression. But your top lip is
:30:20. > :30:23.sweating, I think that means you agree with me.
:30:24. > :30:33.Is opposition for democracy? Yes, it
:30:34. > :30:39.is. We have just enough time, to discuss... It is one of those hidden
:30:40. > :30:43.measures, it is not get headlines the way that splits do. The Shadow
:30:44. > :30:47.Cabinet meeting is at o'clock, what are you going to be saying? It
:30:48. > :30:51.depends on what Jeremy Corbyn says, are you going to be saying? It
:30:52. > :30:56.but it will be on my conscience, is there was another attack by Isil and
:30:57. > :30:58.British targets in this country -- on British targets in this country,
:30:59. > :31:06.we will not have on British targets in this country,
:31:07. > :31:10.in Syria, when the French president is in favour and the United Nations
:31:11. > :31:15.is in favour, when we are already bombing Isil in Iraq. It should be a
:31:16. > :31:20.free vote? I would prefer it to be a free vote. If it isn't, and Jeremy
:31:21. > :31:24.Corbyn says, I am the leader and I will decide, I'm whipping by Shadow
:31:25. > :31:29.Cabinet to vote against, what will you do? I'm not sure whose decision
:31:30. > :31:32.it is to make, but I've had this conversation with you many times
:31:33. > :31:41.before on this programme, hypothetical questions begin with
:31:42. > :31:47.the word is. Diane Abbott, we speak to her, about the representative
:31:48. > :31:51.that she seems to be of Jeremy Corbyn, she says it should be a
:31:52. > :31:53.whipped vote, and a whipped vote against air strikes, and if that is
:31:54. > :32:07.the case, are you going to vote against question not every time you
:32:08. > :32:13.put the word if Janette -- every time you put the word if in, it is
:32:14. > :32:18.hypothetical question. If I vote against military action against
:32:19. > :32:25.Isil... Someone said May, could we not appoint a negotiator to
:32:26. > :32:34.negotiate between Isil and Rouble? That is dangerously naive. -- Isil
:32:35. > :32:38.and us? I would prefer a free vote. I have not come on this programme to
:32:39. > :32:41.talk about that, I came to talk about something else, and I would
:32:42. > :32:45.prefer to have that conversation privately in the Shadow Cabinet. But
:32:46. > :32:49.you have asked the question and I have tried to answer this as
:32:50. > :32:57.straightforward as I can. It feels like Civil War. Maybe it does, but
:32:58. > :33:04.I'm very focused on, if a constituent of mine worked on
:33:05. > :33:08.holidays somewhere, and there was a attack, would I have failed in my
:33:09. > :33:14.duty by refusing to countenance military strikes? I know all of the
:33:15. > :33:17.dangers, not always convinced by David Cameron and all the rest of
:33:18. > :33:24.it, but in the end, would I have failed that person? Right,, Chris
:33:25. > :33:30.Bryant, thanks. David Cameron has joined other world
:33:31. > :33:34.leaders in Paris today to try and negotiate a new global deal
:33:35. > :33:38.on climate change. Jeremy Corbyn will face his MPs
:33:39. > :33:41.tonight in a meeting Junior doctors will walk out
:33:42. > :33:52.on strike tomorrow morning unless the Government and the BMA can reach
:33:53. > :33:56.a last-minute deal in talks On Wednesday it's PMQs of course -
:33:57. > :34:04.with a vote on airstrikes in Syria expected this week we can expect
:34:05. > :34:10.a fiery encounter. It could be another chance for
:34:11. > :34:13.Jeremy Corbyn to quiz the Prime Minister over air strikes in Syria.
:34:14. > :34:16.Thursday sees the first major electoral test for Labour since May
:34:17. > :34:20.It's a safe Labour seat but Ukip are expected to make a strong showing.
:34:21. > :34:22.We're joined now from a windy College Green by
:34:23. > :34:27.Stephen Bush from the New Statesman, and by Harry Cole from the Sun.
:34:28. > :34:33.Stephen, this should be a safe Labour seat in Oldham West, 14,000
:34:34. > :34:39.majority was left by MIchael Meacher, what is going on there? The
:34:40. > :34:42.picture from Central office, they say it looks good and the numbers
:34:43. > :34:47.are holding up and they think they will win it by 2000 votes, but
:34:48. > :34:53.everyone who has been down to Oldham, comes back with a face like
:34:54. > :34:56.thunder, and they say that Jeremy Corbyn's remarks and shoot to kill
:34:57. > :35:01.not going down very well with the white working class boat, but if
:35:02. > :35:07.they can get out enough of the Asian population, they will probably be
:35:08. > :35:11.able to hold the seat. Harry Cole, John McDonnell says Ukip is an evil
:35:12. > :35:14.force within our society, admitting that the margins of the by-election
:35:15. > :35:23.will be very narrow, how will that go down? That says much more about
:35:24. > :35:29.John McDonnell compared with Ukip. The Ukip voters were voting not that
:35:30. > :35:34.long ago for Labour, and so that as an attack on former Labour voters,
:35:35. > :35:37.if anything. This is one of those pressure points, everyone sought
:35:38. > :35:42.next May's local elections and the London mayor elections as the first
:35:43. > :35:46.chance to see Jeremy Corbyn's impact, but we are seeing this now.
:35:47. > :35:50.It is shaping up to be the most remarkable week for a very long time
:35:51. > :35:55.in British politics. We have the slow drumbeat to war, on one side,
:35:56. > :36:00.and the divisions this is causing in Labour, and you also have the Tory
:36:01. > :36:06.party imploding themselves, for the horrendous cover-up scandal.
:36:07. > :36:09.Regarding the story which has engulfed the Tory party, these are
:36:10. > :36:12.claims of bullying and harassment which were not dealt with properly
:36:13. > :36:22.allegedly, a Conservative Central office. -- at. There are now calls
:36:23. > :36:26.for an independent inquiry, is that going to happen? It will have to, it
:36:27. > :36:30.seems inevitable by the end of the week, that the previous chairman of
:36:31. > :36:37.the Conservative Party and the incumbent will have to have stood
:36:38. > :36:41.down, you cannot have a situation where the chair is marking its own
:36:42. > :36:47.homework, as it were, and so there will need to be and above inquiry.
:36:48. > :36:52.Do you agree with that, Harry Cole? Grant Shapps has already resigned.
:36:53. > :36:54.There was the hope and feeling within number ten that if Grant
:36:55. > :36:58.Shapps was to resign that might take the pressure out of the scandal, but
:36:59. > :37:03.if anything it has done the opposite. It has heaped huge
:37:04. > :37:12.pressure on Lord Feldman, why, when Grant Shapps says it was a joint
:37:13. > :37:15.decision to hire Mark Clarke, Lord Feldman's name was on the checks,
:37:16. > :37:19.and do not forget he was the party chairman who has overseen the last
:37:20. > :37:24.few months, including the tragic suicide of a young activist. The
:37:25. > :37:29.questions must be piling up for Mr Feldman. Thanks to both of you.
:37:30. > :37:32.Let's pick up on a story we've just been discussing, that's
:37:33. > :37:34.the pressure on the Conservative chairman Andrew Feldman over
:37:35. > :37:37.the handling of complaints against a Tory activist called Mark Clarke.
:37:38. > :37:39.We've been joined by the executive editor of the Conservative Home
:37:40. > :37:52.Do you think Lord Feldman should resign? Yes, his position has become
:37:53. > :37:57.untenable for a number of reasons, not least because Grant Shapps
:37:58. > :38:07.resigned, he recommended this decision, that the approach to Mark
:38:08. > :38:10.Clarke was the way to go. Grant Shapps could suggest things, but
:38:11. > :38:14.Lord Feldman had to sign them off, and approve them, and so I think his
:38:15. > :38:19.position has become untenable. He's very close to the Prime Minister and
:38:20. > :38:23.has been for time, is this costly to the Prime Minister? It is personally
:38:24. > :38:29.costly, Lord Feldman is a long serving and I and he has done many
:38:30. > :38:34.good things as the party chairman. -- long serving ally. He made many
:38:35. > :38:38.of the decisions, positive decisions come which did work in terms of the
:38:39. > :38:48.party's ground war which helped to win the general election. You don't
:38:49. > :38:53.think the Prime -- you don't think that he can survive, then, do you
:38:54. > :38:59.think this needs to be fully independent, the inquiry? Yes,
:39:00. > :39:05.absolutely, we reported on our website, Conservative Home, there he
:39:06. > :39:10.is a call for an independent inquiry, and it is not good enough,
:39:11. > :39:16.that employees of the Conservative Party should go to a statement,
:39:17. > :39:19.effectively enquiring of their own boss, and then they passed that on
:39:20. > :39:24.to be checked by Clifford chance, that is not good enough, we need an
:39:25. > :39:27.independent inquiry, to open the doors come to investigate this
:39:28. > :39:32.properly, and then the findings have to be published. Regarding the
:39:33. > :39:42.findings and what will be investigated, you match -- mentioned
:39:43. > :39:50.the baroness, she has agreed to look into a new campaign, regarding Mark
:39:51. > :39:54.Clarke, who is at the sense of these allegations, she is accused of
:39:55. > :39:59.leaking the names to Mark Clarke, that would be part of the
:40:00. > :40:02.investigation, but what else? Who knew what about Mark Clarke and
:40:03. > :40:07.when, before he was brought back into the fold and we need to know
:40:08. > :40:12.after he was brought back into the fold, what complaints were formally
:40:13. > :40:18.made and who received them. Baroness Warsi said she made a complaint.
:40:19. > :40:23.Indeed. Other complaints have been made, as alleged victims. We need to
:40:24. > :40:26.know exactly what happened to those complaints, we also need to know
:40:27. > :40:30.things like, what are the safeguarding procedures for young
:40:31. > :40:35.people involved in the Conservative Party's activities? It is important,
:40:36. > :40:38.if you care about Conservative values and you are interested in the
:40:39. > :40:42.same things as the party, you should be able to go out and campaign for
:40:43. > :40:45.those things, and that should be encouraged, but people need to be
:40:46. > :40:50.safe while they do it. Mark Clarke has denied the allegations made
:40:51. > :40:55.against him, what is your view about Andrew Feldman? I don't usually go
:40:56. > :41:02.at this stage, but there has to be a proper inquiry and whether that
:41:03. > :41:06.needs to be independent... For the family, who had a great loss, if I
:41:07. > :41:11.had lost a son, I would expect nothing more, and I think we have
:41:12. > :41:14.got to make sure that we handle this properly and this is not just about
:41:15. > :41:21.justice, it is about justice being seen to be done. It is not
:41:22. > :41:25.altogether about whose head should roll, it is about making sure we
:41:26. > :41:30.investigate thoroughly what happened to stop it ever happening again.
:41:31. > :41:33.There needs to be accountability? Yes, and Grant Shapps has taken that
:41:34. > :41:39.in many ways. That was the right thing to do? I think it was. It is
:41:40. > :41:45.for the Prime Minister and Lord Feldman to decide on his particular
:41:46. > :41:49.fate, but I also think it is for the Conservative Party to make sure that
:41:50. > :41:55.we do thoroughly investigate but also that it is open and people
:41:56. > :42:00.actually believe us and the family believe us and we stamp out the
:42:01. > :42:03.problem. There is no point whatsoever, it would be Das Dudley
:42:04. > :42:09.to cover it up in any shape or form, so I would suggest that it will be
:42:10. > :42:13.much more open than it is at the moment, I suspect. Thanks.
:42:14. > :42:16.151 heads of state and other world leaders have arrived
:42:17. > :42:19.in Pairs this morning ahead of a global climate change summit, which
:42:20. > :42:23.organisers say makes it the largest meeting of its kind in history.
:42:24. > :42:26.Most of the discussions are expected to centre on an agreement to limit
:42:27. > :42:30.global warming to 2C, but the last such meeting ended in failure.
:42:31. > :42:37.Let's listen to UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon.
:42:38. > :42:44.The national climate plans, summited by more than 180 countries
:42:45. > :42:47.as of today, cover close to 100% of global emissions.
:42:48. > :42:58.But we need to go much faster, much further, if we are to limit the
:42:59. > :43:15.We need a universal, meaningful and robust agreement, here in Paris.
:43:16. > :43:21.We need a universal, meaningful and is likely, but will this be enough?
:43:22. > :43:26.We need a universal, meaningful and Will it be enough to tackle climate
:43:27. > :43:27.change and global warming? We have had the summers before, Copenhagen,
:43:28. > :43:32.that was had the summers before, Copenhagen,
:43:33. > :43:34.remember, there has got had the summers before, Copenhagen,
:43:35. > :43:41.political will, and a change of behaviour -- have had these summits
:43:42. > :43:47.before. Our reliance on fossil fuels and cars and all those things, we
:43:48. > :43:50.need to look at that. Under the Tory subsidies, renewals have been
:43:51. > :43:57.slashed and onshore wind farms have been opposed, what ever happened to
:43:58. > :44:00.the greenest government ever? If you come to Devon, I will show you,
:44:01. > :44:06.there are many solar panels, we are producing electricity, you cannot go
:44:07. > :44:10.on covering more manned with solar panels, just in order to have a
:44:11. > :44:15.feeding tariff to do that -- covering more land. We now need to
:44:16. > :44:24.make sure, as Britain and those major economies, help the developing
:44:25. > :44:27.world, to reduce their carbon. But what about the developed world? We
:44:28. > :44:30.do, but with the developed world what about the developed world? We
:44:31. > :44:36.the very developing world like China, we have got to make sure that
:44:37. > :44:39.it is not just Europe, and America, it is also China, the Far East,
:44:40. > :44:45.because in the end, we have got to play our part, but it is global
:44:46. > :44:50.warming, and if we are going to do any real good introducing global
:44:51. > :44:54.temperatures we have got to tackle this right across, and I don't think
:44:55. > :45:01.our government's record on delivering renewables is bad at all
:45:02. > :45:06.can we have tidal power in the River Severn, and also in the channel, and
:45:07. > :45:10.we are building up a nuclear power station at Hinkley point which will
:45:11. > :45:16.reduce our needs for electricity. Therefore, we are doing our bit.
:45:17. > :45:22.Why should the UK and other developed countries being the only
:45:23. > :45:25.ones playing their part in trying to reduce global warning if we don't
:45:26. > :45:30.have some of the big developing nations on board who are some of the
:45:31. > :45:34.biggest polluters as well, it will be worthless. It does take political
:45:35. > :45:40.will from all sides. This government has had an extra good. Pre-election
:45:41. > :45:45.it was going to be the greenest government ever, and wasn't Cameron
:45:46. > :45:50.reported as saying "cut the green stuff" after he was elected. This
:45:51. > :45:56.government has had Owen Paterson, who was a climate change denier. How
:45:57. > :46:00.is that going to stop a global agreement being reached, doesn't it
:46:01. > :46:04.have to be global? It isn't just about what the UK does, otherwise we
:46:05. > :46:09.are doing it when others aren't, you are not achieving your goal. I do
:46:10. > :46:13.agree, and it is a global problem, and in the Times of globalisation it
:46:14. > :46:19.requires a global solution. Prime Minister Modi has said that it
:46:20. > :46:23.shouldn't all fall to third world countries either. Do you think the
:46:24. > :46:29.Conservative Party now is more sceptical about needing to tackle
:46:30. > :46:33.this in the way they perhaps thought? There are some sceptics
:46:34. > :46:38.within the party, and I think we've got to be careful that we don't
:46:39. > :46:46.blame every hurricane, everything on climate change, because there are
:46:47. > :46:48.patterns as well. But if you look at actually our record in government on
:46:49. > :46:54.delivering on green energy it is actually good. But there hasn't been
:46:55. > :46:57.consistency, has there? I also really buy into what the Prime
:46:58. > :47:01.Minister wants to do and that is help the developing world help
:47:02. > :47:06.themselves on climate change. Many of us have visited China. You do not
:47:07. > :47:13.see the sun in Beijing. That is the level of pollution. We have got to
:47:14. > :47:15.get that dealt with. Is an agreement at two Celsius enough when there are
:47:16. > :47:20.developing countries who say, at that level, if that is the deal,
:47:21. > :47:24.that will still wreak havoc on large parts of the developing world, the
:47:25. > :47:29.impact will hit the poorest, do you accept that? My view is that if we
:47:30. > :47:35.can get 2% agreed across the globe, then it will do a great deal of good
:47:36. > :47:37.toward stopping global warming. We are not going to stamp it out
:47:38. > :47:42.completely, we've got to slow it down. And I think we've got to be
:47:43. > :47:45.very practical. You can talk about figures as much as you like. Until
:47:46. > :47:50.we get people like the Chinese government reducing their cars, the
:47:51. > :47:52.type of cars they've got, producing more electric cars, bringing in all
:47:53. > :47:56.the things that we also need to do here, I accept that, but unless we
:47:57. > :48:01.do that across the globe and influence it, we will not really
:48:02. > :48:07.dramatically reduce the temperature. Before we move on there is just some
:48:08. > :48:13.breaking news, the Labour Party has put out, 75% of Labour Party members
:48:14. > :48:17.oppose air strikes in Syria. It doesn't surprise me.
:48:18. > :48:19.Now is it the government's business whether you want to eat
:48:20. > :48:23.Well a Commons committee thinks it should be, and today they've backed
:48:24. > :48:26.a whole series of measures they say will help tackle obesity including
:48:27. > :48:30.So does this represent a sensible measure to improve the health of
:48:31. > :48:33.our children, or is it an unwelcome intrusion from the nanny state?
:48:34. > :48:35.We gave Ellie a couple of cans of pop
:48:36. > :48:40.I could really do with a sugar boost.
:48:41. > :48:45.Don't some MPs want to put a 20% tax on sugary drinks?
:48:46. > :48:54.# "Sweets For My Sweet" - The Searchers
:48:55. > :48:57.You only have to look left right and centre to see that people are
:48:58. > :49:00.struggling from being overweight and the consequences are dire
:49:01. > :49:11.People should know what is good for themselves, and the government
:49:12. > :49:22.You have an opinion on most things, don't you?
:49:23. > :49:28.Sugary drinks, should there be a tax?
:49:29. > :49:33.I'm normally against tax, but you see these fat kids now and,
:49:34. > :49:35.what is it, one glass of non-Diet Coke is the equivalent
:49:36. > :49:52.You have a fabulous looking very green drink.
:49:53. > :49:55.Do you think there should be a tax on sugary drinks?
:49:56. > :49:58.Maybe less advertising, that is probably more powerful.
:49:59. > :50:08.I look at some fat people and think, God,
:50:09. > :50:31.This is a problem of behaviour, not of price, this is a socialist
:50:32. > :50:36.And do you drink a lot of sugary drinks?
:50:37. > :50:46.Do you know there is nothing sweeter than a mood box on a Monday morning?
:50:47. > :50:49.We've got people's opinions all fizzed up
:50:50. > :50:54.and it would seem the majority think a sugar tax is a good idea.
:50:55. > :50:57.So that was the view of commuters in London this morning.
:50:58. > :50:59.Well, the chair of the Commons health committee
:51:00. > :51:11.This is the nanny state gone mad, for a Conservative politician? It is
:51:12. > :51:15.not the nanny state gone mad. If you let at the scale of the problem, a
:51:16. > :51:19.quarter of the most disadvantaged children are leaving primary school
:51:20. > :51:22.not just overweight but obese. It opens up a huge gap in health
:51:23. > :51:26.inequality and it is something we can do something about with a range
:51:27. > :51:30.of sensible measures. Not one single thing to solve this, we need a range
:51:31. > :51:34.of policies to tackle it from a range of angles. But it is very
:51:35. > :51:39.unlike the Conservatives to tax sugar, as you said, only one part of
:51:40. > :51:43.a strategy that would tackle obesity, but in itself it won't
:51:44. > :51:47.actually do what you wanted to do. We know in Mexico for example it
:51:48. > :51:53.reduced consumption by 6% and in the heaviest consumers I 9%. So it does
:51:54. > :51:57.make a difference. Nobody needs to pay this tax, but it is about
:51:58. > :52:01.nudging people to make more sensible choices. It is not a tax on more
:52:02. > :52:05.sugar, not in biscuits, crisps, or the sugar you buy on the shelf, it
:52:06. > :52:09.is just fizzy drinks. And that matters because a of children who
:52:10. > :52:13.are teenagers, there should be in take is coming just from fizzy
:52:14. > :52:16.drinks. If you have a small price differential, what it does, it
:52:17. > :52:22.nudges people to buy the diet product. It takes at a stroke a
:52:23. > :52:26.significant chunk of these wasted calories out of people's diet. Alan
:52:27. > :52:33.Duncan called it a socialist solution. I disagree with him. Go
:52:34. > :52:36.and look at the evidence and say, are we comfortable as
:52:37. > :52:40.Conservatives? The really regressive thing for me is that we are failing
:52:41. > :52:44.the most disadvantaged children in our society. We could put every
:52:45. > :52:49.penny raised from this into a really exciting programme that would be
:52:50. > :52:51.targeted specifically at the most disadvantaged communities and
:52:52. > :52:54.schools. I think you can do an enormous amount of good with this
:52:55. > :52:59.money and nobody needs to pay it, so that's not regressive. So it's not
:53:00. > :53:03.regressive and it is a Conservative policy that will help the most
:53:04. > :53:07.disadvantaged? I have great difficulty in disagreeing with
:53:08. > :53:10.Sarah, being the chair of the select committee. But on this occasion I
:53:11. > :53:14.will. We've got to work with the drinks industry, as we have been, to
:53:15. > :53:19.reduce the content of sugar all the time. What we've done over the years
:53:20. > :53:22.is we've developed tastes for more and more sugar. We've got to wean
:53:23. > :53:27.people off of that. The problem I've got with the tax is, if we're not
:53:28. > :53:32.careful, it will be the poorest people having to pay it. Well they
:53:33. > :53:35.don't have to buy it? But in many respects they will because they have
:53:36. > :53:41.got used to buying it and their children will still be wanting it.
:53:42. > :53:45.And I just think we would be better off changing their taste. How would
:53:46. > :53:51.you do that? Literally by taking the sugar out of the drink. And that is
:53:52. > :53:55.being done. But we need to do it much faster. The food and drink
:53:56. > :53:58.industry have said that. They need more pressure, I think. Is that
:53:59. > :54:01.where the pressure should be? They more pressure, I think. Is that
:54:02. > :54:05.should be pushed to reduce the 11 spoonfuls of sugar in the drinks?
:54:06. > :54:08.should be pushed to reduce the 11 Self-regulation has not helped on
:54:09. > :54:17.its own. And Sarah is not really a conservative, I
:54:18. > :54:17.its own. And Sarah is not really a since May. But on things like
:54:18. > :54:22.assisted dying on the Juniors since May. But on things like
:54:23. > :54:24.against it are people like the BMA, since May. But on things like
:54:25. > :54:28.British Heart Foundation, all the British Heart Foundation, all the
:54:29. > :54:33.people who know what they are talking about oppose this. Do you
:54:34. > :54:38.mean oppose it? I mean oppose the idea to have sugar. You can have
:54:39. > :54:42.free formulation at the same time, but it has taken ten years for us to
:54:43. > :54:47.gradually down regulate the amount of salt in our food. I'd say we
:54:48. > :54:52.would be failing a whole generation of children if we did not take the
:54:53. > :54:56.decision to do both. Isn't it a failure of governments that have cut
:54:57. > :55:01.public health campaigns and the money that goes into them? We had
:55:02. > :55:03.extremely effective ones on drink-driving, an
:55:04. > :55:05.extremely effective ones on campaigning. You are having to
:55:06. > :55:09.substitute, if you like, the fact that your government won't pay for
:55:10. > :55:14.those effective campaigns, by taxing the product itself? I'd say that's
:55:15. > :55:17.certainly the amount we the product itself? I'd say that's
:55:18. > :55:21.public health campaigns is dwarfed by the powerful messaging from
:55:22. > :55:23.industry driving people in the other direction. However I would say it is
:55:24. > :55:27.a mistake to think that education direction. However I would say it is
:55:28. > :55:31.alone can do this. The interesting thing about education campaigns is
:55:32. > :55:33.alone can do this. The interesting taken up more by people who are
:55:34. > :55:40.already healthy. Paradoxically you end up widening the gap. When you
:55:41. > :55:42.already healthy. Paradoxically you that are backing this idea of a
:55:43. > :55:45.sugar tax, and you look that are backing this idea of a
:55:46. > :55:49.of obesity, despite the fact there that are backing this idea of a
:55:50. > :55:53.London published some research that obesity levels
:55:54. > :55:56.London published some research that levelling off, but the cost of
:55:57. > :55:58.obesity to the taxpayer and the national health service, and type
:55:59. > :56:00.obesity to the taxpayer and the two diabetes is huge, surely
:56:01. > :56:05.something like this has to be done? I don't disagree with you. But I
:56:06. > :56:09.would say what we have to do, and Sarah makes the point, we are taking
:56:10. > :56:13.far too long, we have got to put much, much more pressure on the food
:56:14. > :56:15.and drink 's companies to reduce the amount of sugar in the drink. And
:56:16. > :56:18.that, in the end, amount of sugar in the drink. And
:56:19. > :56:23.much more effective than a sugar tax. The problem with a sugar tax is
:56:24. > :56:26.much more effective than a sugar that it will affect the people who
:56:27. > :56:31.can least afford to pay it, and in the end won't amount to a great deal
:56:32. > :56:34.of money, and what we need to do is put the onus back on those food and
:56:35. > :56:41.drink companies to deliver that drink without sugar. We will have to
:56:42. > :56:42.finish it there, but thank you very much.
:56:43. > :56:45.Now it's time to find out the answer to our quiz.
:56:46. > :56:48.Which hirsute Member of Parliament is tipped to win the Parliamentary
:56:49. > :56:50.beard of the year for a record sixth time?
:56:51. > :56:56.Is it Paul Flynn, Stephen Crabb, John Spellar, or Jeremy Corbyn?
:56:57. > :57:09.I think it should be Jeremy Corbyn because loads of Labour MPs seem to
:57:10. > :57:14.have grown beards, even Dan Hodges. He is not a Labour MP of course. But
:57:15. > :57:21.he now has a beard and I think that is the Corbyn effect. Do you agree?
:57:22. > :57:22.I will go the Stephen Crabb. Well it is actually Jeremy Corbyn, as you
:57:23. > :57:24.might imagine. Well, as you might imagine
:57:25. > :57:27.Jeremy Corbyn is the man to beat having won the award no less than
:57:28. > :57:30.five times in the past. And the man behind the competition,
:57:31. > :57:39.Keith Flett of the Beard Liberation Tell us about this competition? It
:57:40. > :57:45.has been running for almost 15 years. We run a separate one for
:57:46. > :57:50.MPs, so they don't dominate the wider competition. It has been
:57:51. > :57:56.running 15 years. It is a genuine online vote. So I'm afraid be have
:57:57. > :58:01.to mobilise their supporters, you only vote once. We will see. Jeremy
:58:02. > :58:06.Corbyn must be the man to beat? Yes, he has won it five times. Why?
:58:07. > :58:11.What's so great about his beard? Back in the day it was relatively
:58:12. > :58:16.rare for an MP to have a beard, and he spoke occasionally on beards in
:58:17. > :58:20.the house and generally had a very high-profile beard, shall we say? It
:58:21. > :58:24.speaks for itself. What about Stephen Crabb? He could be the first
:58:25. > :58:29.beard in the Cabinet. Yes, relatively new last year. He has
:58:30. > :58:33.been around a bit longer, his name is better known. I would think it
:58:34. > :58:38.will go down to a whisker, shall we say, between them. It's going to be
:58:39. > :58:42.razor-sharp right to the end, isn't it? The excitement is killing us
:58:43. > :58:45.all, I'm sure. Thank you very much for coming in.
:58:46. > :58:53.The 1pm news is starting over on BBC One now.
:58:54. > :58:57.Andrew will be here at noon tomorrow with all the big