03/12/2015 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 03/12/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon folks and welcome to the Daily Politics.


The ayes to the right 397, the noes to the left, 223, so the ayes have


Parliament decides and RAF tornadoes take off for their


first sorties over Syria - but will MPs votes hasten the defeat of IS?


Last night's vote left Labour MPs and the Shadow Cabinet split.


What will be the consequences for Labour MPs who defied


the apparent will of the majority of party members?


IS, Isis, Isil or Daesh - what should we call the Islamist


And after a dramatic night in the Commons,


why the palace of Westminster is such a popular setting for fiction?


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


of the programme today, the Daily Mail's parliamentary


So the Government won last night's vote with 397 in favour


In the Conservative Party there were seven rebels who voted against


the airstrikes, and seven who abstained on the Labour benches.


153 voted against the government, 66 in favour


And that balance was reflected in the Shadow Cabinet,


with 17 voting against extending airstrikes but 11 voting in favour,


So we heard David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn opening the debate


Let's get a taste now of some of the other contributions in over


10 hours of deliberations ahead of last night's vote, including


an impassioned plea from the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Hilary Benn, for


Labour MPs to support the government's plan to extend air


I find this decision as difficult as anyone to make.


I wish I had, frankly, the self-righteous certitude


of the finger-jabbing representatives of our new


Who will no doubt soon be contacting those of us who


But I believe, I believe that Isil-Daesh has to be


confronted and destroyed if we are to properly defend


I believe that this motion provides the best way to


When you are thinking about the hard choice that has to be


You may feel pious about it, looking back on the wrong decision


But a very similar decision confronts us tonight.


Instead of having dodgy dossiers, we now have bogus battalions


This twisted perversion of Islam that is to Islam what fascism is to


nationalism, that is to Islam what communism is


to socialism, this vile, Stalinist death cult, this dreadful regime,


Sadly, the only way to stop it is not through talks.


These are people, this is a group that does not wish to speak to us.


They have defined us clearly in their theology as infidel.


They have taken the readings of Mohammed of the Wahhab and


They have defined us, sir, as people who must die or convert.


We are being asked to intervene in a bloody civil war of huge complexity.


We are being asked to do it without an exit strategy


and no reasonable means of saying we are going to make a difference.


We should not give the Prime Minister that permission.


I hope the house will bear with me if I direct my closing remarks to


my Labour friends and colleagues on this side of the house.


As a party, we have always been defined by our internationalism.


We believe we have a responsibility, one to another.


We never have and we never should walk by


And we are here, faced by fascists, not just their calculated brutality


but their belief that they are superior to every single one


of us in this chamber tonight, and all of the people we represent.


They hold our belief in tolerance and decency in contempt.


They hold our democracy, the means by which we will make


And what we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated.


And it is why, as we have heard tonight, socialists


and trade unionists and others joined the International Brigades in


It is why this entire house stood up against Hitler and Mussolini.


It is why our party has always stood up against the denial


And my view, Mr Speaker, is that we must now confront this evil.


It is now time for us to do our bit in Syria.


And that is why I ask my colleagues to vote for this motion tonight.


A snapshot of some of the contributions in the debate on


Syrian air strikes finishing with Hilary Benn, widely regarded as the


standard speech of the ten hour debate. It prompted applause on both


sides of the House of Commons, which under parliamentary convention you


are not meant to do. Quentin, how did it shape up as a parliamentary


occasion? Not particularly well until half past nine. Then it really


took off when Hilary Benn was on his feet. It was most like seeing a


plane take off from an aircraft carriers. We shot off the runway at


speed. That was a speech, as you got a flavour there, it had repetition,


variety, emotion, anger. It also directed against the fascists of our


enemy. That was what was brilliant about the speech. He computed it


through a perfectly reasonable Labour ideology of standing up


against fascists and his own side suddenly saw there was a good reason


for supporting the bombing action. Do you think he swung some Labour


votes? I do. Stella Creasy has said she was persuaded. I suspect some


others work, too. It was a slightly bigger majority than expected. The


day began with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.


David Cameron made a stupid mistake when he made a remark that a private


meeting of Conservative MPs about some terrorist sympathisers opposing


the war. Stupid thing to do. That led to lots of interruptions of his


speech. Jeremy Corbyn started pretty well by attacking Mr Cameron on that


point. Once he had gnawed the meat of the bone on that particular


pointy and very little to say. He was really dislodged by a question


from John Woodcock about whether or not he supported action in Iraq. And


after that, Mr Corbyn was going nowhere. He responded to that in a


rather tetchy way. We saw perhaps that Jeremy Corbyn is not quite as


tolerant as congenial a colleague as he might claim to be. We saw 's


strong speeches from Margaret Beckett and Alan Johnson. There were


Tory rebels as well. Seven voting against the Government, seven


abstaining. Any strong contributions from them? Use -- might you saw some


clips area. A Conservative MP from Twickenham was close to tears at one


point talking about the emotion. I think if you are an MP you should


not be a big Bertie about this but she was obviously moved. Margaret


Beckett, very strong. That speech was text and around two Labour


waverers. And Julian Lewis, a powerful voice in the Conservatives,


was raising some questions that he would say, perhaps we might agree,


the David Cameron was perhaps not quite able to answer, about the


strength of the Syrian Armed Forces. Where does Labour go from here? I


think it goes into a therapy suite! I cannot see there is much


likelihood of the two sides of the Labour Party getting on with each


other. It is ludicrous. In the press lobby at Westminster you have two


teams of briefers. One briefing for war, the other against. This cannot


continue. You need unity as a party if you are going to make sense of


the political arguments. Technically I said Labour rebels.


They were not rebels in the sense it was a free vote. No but I think we


can understand there was a tremendous amount of pressure on


Labour MPs to do as Jeremy Corbyn and the Stop the War Coalition


wished. In that sense there was a rebellion, a rebellion against the


corporate leadership. It is a nice point about whether it was whipped


or not but that is the basic reality.


After last night's vote, RAF planes wasted no time embarking


on a campaign they've been planning for months.


Four RAF Tornados took off from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus


It's the first sortie in a mission that will also involve


Tornado planes can carry the Brimstone missile - a weapon that's


particularly effective at hitting moving targets with great accuracy.


There are hundreds of different armed groups fighting in Syria,


The government's forces are concentrated


around Damascus and in the west of the country.


To the north and south of them are the so-called moderate rebels,


In the north, along the Turkish border, there are the


Our bombs will be targeting so-called Islamic State.


They control a huge swathe of territory across Syria and


The Defence Secretary has confirmed that last night they hit the


Omar Oil Fields in eastern Syria, very close to the Iraq border.


It is targets in Raqqa - IS' de facto capital


- that are likely to be the focus for the bombing, which is


Meanwhile, the Russians have said they soon hope to have more than


They also claim to be hitting IS targets, but intelligence suggests


that many of their bombs are, in fact, falling on targets of the


moderate rebel forces that we're relying on to fight the ground war.


This is what the Defence Secretary said this morning.


There was a lot of talk in the House of Commons about bombing Raqqa.


This is about cutting off the Daesh terrorists, cutting off their supply


routes, dealing with the oil and the smuggling and making sure that they


can't reinforce their efforts in Iraq and that they don't become a


safe haven for terrorist attacks in Britain. There are plenty of targets


in eastern Syria that the French and the other air forces involved


With this strong decisive vote in the House of Commons, the RAF is now


able to strike in Syria, just as it has already been striking in Iraq.


That was the Defence Secretary. We're joined by Frank Gardner and by


Crispin Blunt. Frank Gardner, the Tornado jets had


their first bombing raids in Syria. They chose to go to these oilfields


in the east. They have already been attacked by American and other


allied planes. On October the 21st there was a much bigger attack than


there was last night. What happens next in the British effort over the


skies of Syria? Well, the Tornado pilots did not choose the targets.


They were selected for them. They were selected by the operation


centre and cat are but it would have been done with political approval by


Michael Fallon. It was done very carefully. You can imagine how


politically disastrous it would be if the very first air strike carried


out by an RAF plane went and mistakenly bombed a school or a


hospital, or there were civilian casualties. The RAF say that in over


400 air strikes they have conducted in Iraq over the past year, there


has not been a single civilian casualty. It is hard to validate


that on the ground. You cannot do the bomb damage assessment. You have


no freedom of access. They have not had any reports of civilian


casualties. Where do they go from here? Britain is sorting into a


wider air campaign predominantly by the Americans but also that the


French and in conjunction with the Russians, who are doing their own


targeting. Britain will have some say in what the targets are. They


have got officers and analysts in Qatar who are poring over satellite


maps and intelligence and looking at what the targets are. But


essentially we will be a small cog in a very big machine run by the


Americans. The oilfields are being hit, the


ones under control of Islamic State because they get revenues from them,


by selling the oil to be but you live in areas controlled by Islamic


State. But we are told it is also exported and Turkey has been


mentioned as somebody who pays for this oil. Do we have any evidence of


where this oil is going beyond that which is not sold domestic league?


Yesterday, the Russian military rolled out what they said was


conclusive satellite evidence of the supply of Isis controlled oil to


Turkey. It is part of the ongoing spat between anchor and Moscow. What


actually happens in practice is that oil is produced in eastern Syria and


sold by Isis to middlemen, smugglers. Then it gets transported


across-the-board -- across the border into Turkey and is also sold


to the Assad regime. It is hard to find evidence to say the Turkish


government bought the oil or the Syrian government did. These are


paperless transactions, it is no good trying to hit the banking


system because it's not done through that, it is cash in hand through


smugglers and middlemen. It's been going on for quite some time. I have


to say that the Russians have taken an incredibly proactive role in


hitting the vast com boys of oil tankers that are the economic


lifeline for Isis. They have really been the first to do this in a big


way. The lead is now being followed by the Americans. There is a kind of


belated attempt to choke off Isis' revenues from oil. Don't go away


because we've got lots more to talk about with you and Crispin Blunt.


We're joined now from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus by our correspondent,


That is the base where the RAF jets left overnight. It is busy and


crowded in the skies in the conflict area in Syria. How difficult is this


mission for the British jets and their fighter pilot? Essentially, in


terms of the risks because the skies are so crowded, certainly, obviously


as far as Britain and the coalition led by the US are concerned, it is


absolutely all coordinated with them, through the air operations


centre in Qatar. They will be coordinating, deciding which planes


are going where, from which country. That is all co-ordinated.


To what extent it is coordinated with Russia is another matter but my


understanding is there has been an agreement between the US and Russia


to prevent any accidents happening. In theory, it should all be


co-ordinated to prevent any problems. They have returned safely


from the first mission. What is the scope, looking ahead, to the British


air offensive? In terms of the number of aircraft, it is about to


double. They have eight Tornados based here at the moment but there


are another eight on the way. Six typhoons and another two Tornados


coming and also a transporter bringing all the ground staff and


the crews, etc, over. In terms of capacity, it is about to double. In


terms of scope, how often, the targets they are going to hit, is


another matter. The targets are more difficult because ice is clearly


know they are under attack from multiple air forces from different


countries. They can't be as open as they were being above ground. They


need to be much more hidden, particularly in Raqqa. There are


reports that they are much more mingled into the civilian


population. As we saw from Sinjar, which was retaken by the Kurds


recently, the Isis militants had been digging tunnels to protect


themselves there. The targets are more difficult but there is a


significant intelligence gathering operation going on, not fees with


the bridges biplane which has been flying over Syria for some time. One


of the criticisms here has been that British forces will make little


material difference to the offensive already underway in Syria. What is


your assessment? I think that probably, any contribution is going


to be welcomed, however small. Obviously, it is limited because the


RAF as limited resources so it is a limited contribution but it does


help. Certainly, the RAF are talking up the technology they have. There's


been a lot of talk about the Brimstone missile which is very a


it, which poses less risk of civilian casualties. -- very


accurate. They say it is fairly unique so they can bring it to the


operation. It means with extra crews and aircraft coming in, it takes the


strain off some of the other countries. It is a contribution but


absolutely, yes, it is limited. But again, the other issue is if bombing


really works, whether it will succeed in defeating Isis.


Obviously, everyone says it won't, it can impact and weaken them but it


won't be defeated until brown forces go into absolutely take them out.


Richard Galpin in Cyprus, thank you. Frank Gardner is still with us in


Broadcasting House and Crispin Blunt is with us in the studio. Crispin


Blunt, let me come to you and pick up the points made from Cyprus on


ground forces. The government has made something, some would say much


of the 70,000 disparate fighters on the ground that are not part of


Islamic State and not part of al-Masirah and other hardline


organisations -- al-Nusra. But aren't these the people the Russians


are striking? They appear to be. What is happening here is that you


have an exercise of the Russians trying to strengthen the regime's


position by some of their targeting on Isis but some on these people.


You have got the Saudis and other countries who are continuing to


provide lethal weaponry, which we are not, to these people, to try to


strengthen their position before we get into ceasefire talks. Frankly,


this should stop on both sides. We need a ceasefire and we need the


transition process to happen so we can get both of these forces after a


ceasefire, and with a transitional government then turning their guns


on Isil. That is not going to be enough, 70,000, the Syrian army,


with 200,000 plus effective, I understand, is not going to be


enough. They are going to need significant support from the


surrounding Sunni nation in a military said on the ground and very


possibly from the rest of the international community as well in


order to take on these 20-40,000 fighters in Iraq and Syria, many of


whom are determined to fight to the death. But none of that is going to


happen very quickly. If it is to happen, doesn't it mean that Britain


has two except that for a transition -- has to accept that transition


period of indefinitely, President Assad is there and not much on the


ground can happen without the Russians being onside? Things are


moving. Our language has changed about President Assad. What the


Foreign Secretary was saying to the select committee in the summer was a


very firm line on Assad and by September, it changed. We are


envisaging a role for Assad at the beginning of a transition process.


If we and the Americans have dropped the precondition that he must go


before talks can be entered into, that is enabling the talks to happen


and with a target date of them starting on January the 1st, the


Saudis are assembling the opposition spokesmen for these talks now, it


seems, in Riyadh. There is a date, the 1st of January, for the talks to


commence. The Russians need to deliver the Assad government to the


talks because they have got to get out of the position they are in


otherwise they will be there in definitely trying to support a


regime under assault from well over half its population. Frank Gardner,


the politicians on both sides of the debate yesterday, those who were in


favour of bombing and those who were against, made much of the Vienna


talks, said there was real progress being made that some kind of deal


could be done among the disparate anti-Assad forces but also involving


Mr Assad and involving the Russians. Are they not really, this diplomatic


move, aren't they really still at ground zero? No, if you were to use


the analogy of Matt Every, I would say they are at camp one, no longer


at base camp. They are not very far up the mountain but slightly ahead


of where they started. The big difference, I think, the big


positive is, and I never thought I would hear myself say this, is that


Russia is involved. When Russia joined in the air strikes on their


own agenda at the end of September, a lot of people, huge amount of


people, especially in the Middle East said it was a disaster and it


would be another Afghanistan, which would mobilise the whole Middle East


against them. It has not done that. It is true that a lot of the


strikes, in fact the bulk of them have been hitting what most beagle


would consider to be the wrong targets. They have been hitting the


non-Isis rebels who are the biggest threat, just as Crispin Blunt said,


to President Assad. But the fact is, they are at the table and so is


Iran. Both of those countries are the ones who can, when they choose,


at the right time, make Assad go. The problem here is that if you


force President Assad out in a rush, you risk the whole regime


collapsing and the next thing will be Isis in the massacres and nobody


wants that. The trick is to get -- in Damascus and nobly wants that.


The trick is to get enough of the regime to leave so it is except a


ball to the rebels who have spent the last four years fighting the


Assad regime but not so many that the entire country collapses and you


have total and keep throughout what is left of Syria. I would suggest


that is quite a mid-Ishant's trick that will be required. It is -- a


magician's trick. This diplomatic process has been going on the whole


time and has not been very effective so far, not for want of trying.


People ask why people aren't talking but they are. Part of the problem is


that the people who have been turning up to the smart, fancy


hotels in Geneva and elsewhere have not really been representative of


the people doing the fighting. The people doing the most effective


fighting against President Assad have been the Islamists, who said we


do not share the West's vision of a future for Syria. They are not


really pluralistic. The people who have spent four years in the


trenches, as it were, fighting away, if they are of a Sunni Islamists


went, they will not be interested in sharing government and power with


Allah whites, who they have been fighting, or Christians for that


matter. There is a long-term problem. But the government's view


and maybe I will let Crispin Blunt say what that is because I don't


want to be accused of being a spokesman for anyone! Quite right.


Not that he is, either. Are the allies all in place? We learn that


Turkey is keeping the border open for its own reasons, it could be


buying Islamic State oil and we have learned recently that both the


Saudis and the UAE have moved their fighter planes, their bombers away


from action in Syria or Iraq to the Yemen, where they are leading the


war themselves. Can we count on them? Hopefully, Yemen, there is a


prospect of some kind of settlement there. It has been made much off by


the Saudi Foreign Minister for at least a month but they are still not


there yet. There is a hope that there would be the forces of the


Emirates and Saudi Arabia are available to redeploy. There's no


shortage of aircraft which is the issue in the Syrian theatre. To use


Frank's analogy of base one, at least we are there and you can see a


route to the summit which you could not see before. There were always


barriers in the way, conflicting national interests which would


always prevent the international community getting there. Now those


have been cleared out of the way. You can see in the detail in Vienna


Wyatt is going to work. Jordan, for example, is identifying which of the


Islamic groups are so beyond the pale that they will never be part of


a transitional governor at because they reject the whole concept. In


addition to Isil and al-Nusra. The process is in place and it is in all


the nations' interests to defeat Isil, bring the civil war to an end.


You have the unity of interest which I believe is means that finally the


international community might get its collective act together, and can


see a way to sorting this. Frank Gardner has gone to do another


interview because he is a man much in demand for obvious reasons,


because he is across the street like no one else. One other question for


you, meanwhile, the British role in the bombing raids continues. Do you


by the government's emphasis on how the Brimstone missile is so superior


to anything else that anyone else has? Well, it is a marginal


additional capability to the whole effort of the coalition. If you need


to take out a target with a low lethality warhead, so there is


rather less collateral damage than other weapons would create, with a


high precision capability, Brimstone is your weapon. But it's marginal?


If you have France, Russian and US air forces queued up over Syria and


the target appears, the likelihood of them saying, "stop! Wait for the


Royal air force to get loaded up and fly over and do this because they


have exactly the right weapon buzzword, you probably want to


engage the target that is a beard but if you can plan these things and


you have the time to do all the planning, to get it right, then it


is a good bit of extra. How many of these missiles do we have? I don't


know but they are not as expensive as some. The Saudis are the only


other country that have bought this missile. Have they been using them?


Apparently they are using them in the Yemen. Not in Iraq or Syria?


They have the capacity to use them over Syria but for them, the Yemen


is their current preoccupation. So is the claim fewer civilian deaths,


is that the idea? That is one of the benefits, one of the claims being


made for this missile. But the one thing we do know is that there have


been many civilian deaths in the Yemen but we need to leave it there.


So Her Majesty's Armed Forces are now at war with Isis militants


in Syria, but another war has been raging in the run-up to the vote


and that's the one inside Her Majesty's Official Opposition.


Labour MPs who backed airstrikes came under pressure on social


And some were sent graphic images, which included dead children.


They have also been threatened with deselection.


That means they would no longer be the Labour Party candidate in their


And anti-war demonstrators protested outside the home of Stella Creasy,


the Labour MP for Walthamstow in North London.


And on Twitter this morning, left-wingers are calling


on the 66 Labour MPs who backed military action to be deselected.


We're joined now by Nancy Taffe, a member of Waltham Forest for Corbyn,


who is active in Stella Creasy's constituency.


You would like to see Stella Creasy deselected, is that right? Yes, I


would. I am active in Waltham Forest for according. One of the things we


are arguing for, Stella has called a meeting this weekend in her


constituency, and we will be putting a motion to that meeting calling for


her resignation, for a vote of no-confidence because of her role in


voting for this war. We believe that the majority of residents in Waltham


Forest are opposed to her actions. And it is an absolute disgrace that


she called a meeting before this vote where the constituents were


urged to turn up and express their opinions. They did so. She took a


photograph. She tweeted it and said the majority of people at the


meeting did not support air strikes on Syria, and yet she went ahead and


voted for them. Are you working with the Labour Party locally on this


attempt to have heard deselected? You say she is holding this meeting


on Sunday. I cannot speak for the Labour Party in Walthamstow. I'm a


member of the Socialist party. But within the community in


Walthamstow, among activist inside and outside the Labour Party, there


has been a huge swell of sentiment against this war, which was


expressed in a local demonstration outside a local mosque. Of lies are


being told about that demonstration. It was families with candles and jam


jars. We marched from the local mosque to the Labour Party offices


and one of the chance was, what do we want? Peace. When do we want it?


Now. What evidence you have that those people who are against air


strikes want to get rid of Stella Creasy as their MP? You just have to


look at what is happening on social media amongst many people who said


they voted for Stella Creasy, people who said they went out and campaign


for Stella Creasy. I stood against Stella Creasy as a socialist. But


there are people who genuinely believed that Stella Creasy was


anti-war because she always said she was anti-war. Genuinely believed


that she stood as a socialist. And on that one issue, very important


issue, you think all of those people would now like to see her


deselected? What we are saying is, we will be putting this motion to


the public meeting. We will take this motion throughout the


constituency of Walthamstow and we urge other Labour Party members in


ward to take this motion or similar motions to demand mandatory


reselection. They called a conference to change the rules. You


could easily have a conference to make mandatory reselection in the


heart of the new Labour project, the Corbyn project if you like, and make


this a Democratic party to readmit people like myself back into the


Labour Party so we have a genuine anti-austerity and anti-war party.


I'm going to welcome viewers in Scotland. In the studio is Labour MP


John Mann and Shelley Asquith from the pro-Corbin pressure group,


momentum. Does Nancy Taaffe have the right to try to use the democratic


process is available to her to try to deselect the Labour MP, Stella


Creasy? She stood against the Labour Party. She got a pitiful vote. And


she is part of the militant tendency. We don't want them in the


Labour Party. They are nothing to do with the Labour Party. Her language


shows the obscure nature of these Trotskyites, who talk to themselves


all the time but claimed to talk on behalf of the people. Nancy Taaffe,


what do you say to that? I wish that John Mann would engage in political


debate rather than slurs. It would be easy for me to say he is a member


of the millionaire tendency, he represents a past, a romp that


existed around Tony Blair. And the Corbyn supporters represent the


future. What is happening inside Walthamstow Labour Party in the


general community is a warning to people like John Mann, who are


sitting comfortable on their nice MP salaries, who march into the


chamber, vote for war and then accuse all of those good anti-war


activist outside of being irrelevant. We will come back to


John Mann, who did not actually vote for air strikes. That shows it is


nonsense. She cannot even work out who voted what. What they are doing


to Stella Creasy is outrageous. Bully boy tactics. We had them from


the militant tendency before with Peter Taff, I don't know if he is a


relative. He was a nasty person. I saw their bully boy tactics, trying


to abuse people, break-up meetings. We had that in the late 1970s. The


militants were in the middle of it. If that comes back into the Labour


Party, the Labour Party is dead and buried as a credible force.


Can I come back on that? That is an insult to all good socialist in the


Labour Party who fought Blair. Do not forget, the legacy of Blair has


been played out in the politics of John Mann. These are the people who


hijacked the Labour Party. He can make all of the personal slurs he


wants, but he represents the old Blairite right. We need to get rid


of MPs like him. Nancy Taaffe is appealing to Labour


Party members, perhaps like you. Is that what you want to see in the


Labour Party? This sort of squabbling, which is quite brutal.


Of course not, we what we want to see healthy debate. Abuse thrown at


anyone on either side is totally unacceptable and cannot be


tolerated. It should be investigated by the NEC. But that is a small


minority of people who have been vocal about Labour not supporting


the war. There are a lot of people who have been protesting peacefully


and holding people to account. You say the abuse should stop and it is


not acceptable, it should be investigated by the NEC if there are


concrete examples. Wets look at some of the tactics used and deployed.


John Mann has said some of it is disgraceful. Tweeting MPs with


pictures of dead children, is that acceptable? I'm not going to sit


here and say what is acceptable and what is not. If it is illegal abuse


it should be reported. I think that things like marching outside a


constituency office, as somebody who has worked in a constituency office,


I think that is legitimate. But it is about how that is conducted. This


is an issue that gets people very emotive and people will want to hold


their MPs to account. There is a difference, isn't there, between


tweeting examples of dead women and children for people who voted for


air strikes, and people legitimately pro-testing outside the homes and


offices of MPs? What is wrong with that? It is a coordinated attempt to


bully people. I was still getting abuse this week. I will not use the


language because it is highly inappropriate. There is not a word I


have not been called. That is just in the last week. As it happens I


totally disagreed with David Cameron. I was part of creating the


amendment that was put forward by Graham Allen and others. But


nevertheless, I still got the abuse. What has been done to Stella


Creasy, this isn't socialist democratic progressive politics.


This is the mob. I think what Jeremy Corbyn needs to do is to remove


these people from the Labour Party. We don't want them, we don't need


them. If momentum agreed with that, they could join in. I have noticed


what they have been saying in Nottingham, rather and Lincolnshire


to me. It is unacceptable. You part of the bully boy tactics? Of course


not. I am not involved in bullying anybody. I e-mailed my MP like lots


of different people. They are not all doing that, are they? There is


an echo chamber as well. Of course it is unacceptable but most people


just want answers, just want to hold their MPs to account. Should MPs do


with their local parties tell them to do or use their own judgment? If


they were elected, like Stella Creasy, with more than 28,000 volts


compared to Nancy, who got 394, but Nancy said she made a mistake,


Stella Creasy, involving for air strikes. Should MPs do whatever


their local parties tell them to do? No, I think they need to listen to


the wider constituency. She has got a mandate. You have to balance what


you think is right and what your constituents are telling you. She


came to her own decision in the end. You have to have the balance and you


have to listen to the electorate. Would you like to see people like


her deselected if they do not reflect the view of the majority of


Labour Party members in constituencies? No, I don't think


that is the answer. John and Jeremy have said there will not beady


selections. I don't see that happening. But there does need to be


some level of accountability. I think that is what we are going to


see from the membership and from the wider electorate. Nancy Taaffe says


she would like to come back into the Labour Party. Would you like to see


that happen? The Socialist Party is a rival party. A party against us.


Currently that is obviously not the way it runs. If she was to come back


would you welcome her? It comes under certain rules and regulations,


I suppose. I don't know. But you do agree with her on her views on the


war? We definitely agree on air strikes in Syria. Nancy, sorry.


Firstly, Stella Creasy is a member of the co-operative party and the


Labour Party. She has a dual membership. The Labour Party was


born out of a federal structure. There is no reason why I cannot be a


member of the Socialist Party and the Labour Party under a federal


structure. We have heard of John Mann talking about expulsions and


suspensions. There is no more a bullying tactic than that. We oppose


all personal slurs, all bullying tactics, but we are struggling for a


democratic accountability within the Labour Party. Corbyn himself has


said we have to wait three years. If Stella calls a meeting and absorbs


all of the anger and thinks nobody can touch her, nobody can deselect,


she will betray the members in Walthamstow.


So now we're bombing them in Iraq and Syria.


During yesterday's debate David Cameron said that henceforth


But the BBC came under fire from one MP for the terminology it uses.


Can I thank you for that change in terminology and all members of


Parliament across the House for their support in this. Would the


Prime Minister join me in urging the BBC to review their bizarre policy?


They wrote to me to say they could not use the word Daesh because it


would breach their impartiality rules. We are at war with


terrorists. We have to defeat their ideology. We have to be united. Will


he join me in urging the BBC to review that bizarre policy?


I agree with my honourable friend. I have already corresponded with the


BBC about their use of IS, Islamic State, which I think is even worse,


frankly, than either saying so-called IS or indeed Isil. But


Daesh is clearly an improvement and I think it is important that we all


try to use this language. Rehman Chishti joins us now,


along with Shashank Joshi, Senior Research Fellow at the


Royal United Services Institute. Welcome to you both. You are a


politician. What has it got to do with you what the BBC says? We are


not a state broadcaster. It has nothing to do with you. What it has


to do with me is like everyone else, the first duty of the state is to


detect its citizens there when I see a report by a military expert who


says Miniter reaction can to grade, contain and control Daesh but you


have to defeat the entity, the idea. For me, when you see the BBC using


the word Islamic State, this terrorist organisation has


deliberately chosen to call itself Isil, Isis, Islamic State, to give


it the legitimacy and the appeal which is sucking in thousands of


people from around the world to its poise and ideology, including 800


from here in the UK, then on that basis, I think we have a more


responsibility to defeat them in their entirety by using force but


also defeating the ideology and appeal. If we call them what you


want, they are going to lose but your muck that's it? They will lose


in relation to recruiting people to their poisoned ideology. Why? Orange


maggot let me give you an MOD reference, Isil's strength is based


in large part on the success of its brand image which is due to the


group's ongoing appeal and recruitment efforts. Yes, you can


destroy an entity but when you get the poisoned ideology, sucking


people in from the UK, we have a duty to ensure we use the right


terminology, not to let anyone get sucked into this poisonous ideology.


There's a bomb and we have two address it. Is there a problem? It's


very when tensioned but Daesh means Islamic State, it's the same thing.


It doesn't. It in Arabic acronym that means Islamic State. You are


telling us what we should do but you can't agree with what it means? I


recognise some in the region feel it has pejorative connotations because


it is an acronym and it sounds a bit silly. You don't get to dominate the


conversation. You finish your point and I will come back for you. What


does the D stand for? State. It is DA I S H. The way we spell it and


the way the French cosmic spells it is D8 E S H of someone who so is


discord and is a bigot. That is why we should refer to them in that way


and you used the word Daesh in your article before. I comply with the


house styles of the publications are right. I don't have a problem with


using it, I don't think it is offensive and I agree many people


feel has some satirical value and that is a good thing. But overall,


the amount of time we devote to this absurd issue in every parliamentary


debate I watch on this subject makes me despair. That is five minutes we


could be debating issues of ground forces or strategy. Its displacement


tactic like a politician because someone like you commie Hajrovic fun


with this and you've made a bit of a name for yourself with this and that


is how parliamentarians were, they can talk about it and the SNP talks


about this a lot rather than talking about the issue. View have been


talking about the issue as well? I have... You have a clear view of the


issue? You voted for bombing? Can I say that when as individuals who


deliberately used the name is lamb, it is my faith, link to a terrorist


or -- Islam, my faith, link to a terrorist organisation, who have


chosen to call themselves is a mistake to get legitimacy and appeal


and when you see Islamophobia increasing by over 300% in this


country by deliberately linking, inadvertently, a terrorist


organisation with Islam, we have a duty to ensure we use the right


terminology. I don't think that British has been diminished by using


it with British National Party. Or Hezbollah, we don't imply it is


divinely faction because it means Army of God. We use the names


organisations big which does not legitimise or science in them. That


is not correct because we use the word Boko Haram, a terrorist


organisation in Nigeria who don't call themselves that. They call


themselves the preachers of the Prophet's message but local people


said, "we don't want to link our faith to this organisation" and the


BBC uses Boko Haram. If they can use that as a pejorative, they can use


Daesh. Is going to make a blind bit of difference to some kid in


Bradford who is thinking of going to join Islamic State? Let me put it


this way, two years ago, I spoke to Peter Neumann, one of the world's


leading experts on counter radicalisation and extremism and he


said what I say in relation to addressing this poisonous ideology,


that using the right words makes a difference. When you have people in


the country who are disillusioned and disturbed and some are clearly


dangerous and therefore they get sucked in and if we can use a word


which will help us, it won't help us completely but help us address


people being sucked into this poisonous ideology, I think we have


a duty to use that term. Are you poisonous ideology, I think we have


aware, if your expert has ever met a kid from Bradford? The professor I


reported about is the one who has been looking at the terrorists in


Syria and his organisation at Kings College London is looking at the


Internet they are using and their backgrounds. He's a world expert and


he understood the point I've made. Maybe you should get him on? Maybe


we will. The hard truth is that the people we are talking about our


Islamic, people may not like their version of it but it is an Islamic


and they do things in the name of that religion and it is a state, at


least a proto- state. It levies commissions on trucks passing


through its land, it taxes the people who are in it and it provides


services. It is a proposed eight. I think we can recognise some of what


they do has elements of statehood, taxation, public services, a very


well structured machine which is in part inherited from Saddam


Hussein's intelligence organisation. In no way does that mean we can


accept it as a state in the long run. But the point is really, North


Korea is the DPRK, the Democratic people's Republic of Korea. So what


the East German republic! Are any of us seriously taken in by these


absurd naming conventions? The Germans were Nazis so we used a


pejorative term. That may have been offensive to national socialist. Our


discussions on word! The BBC didn't want to put anyone up


for an interview this afternoon "The BBC uses the name the group


itself uses, using additional descriptions to help make it clear


we are referring to the group as they refer to themselves,


such as 'so-called Islamic State' We also note newspapers refer to the


group as Islamic State or Isil." That's cleared that up. While we


have been on air, Justice Secretary Michael Gove has confirmed the


criminal courts charge will be abolished from December the 24th,


saying that while the intention behind the policy was honourable, in


reality, the intent has fallen short. Our legal correspondent Clive


Coleman has been across this story and can tell is more. What is


happening? Let me tell you why the child was so highly, perhaps


universally unpopular and with just about everyone working within the


criminal justice system. It was introduced in April and it is


mandatory, it has to be imposed. It is not means tested and it is


imposed on top of everything else, so in top of -- double fine,


compensation, prosecution costs order and the victim surcharge. And


it is hefty, starting at ?150 for someone who pleads guilty in a


Magistrates' Court, rising to ?1200 for some of who is found guilty


following a trial in the Crown Court. That has led to widespread


opposition, so far, at least 50 magistrates have resigned, just the


other week, we had a powerful report from the Justice committee that


found that the charge is unjust and grossly disproportionate to people's


ability to pay and critically, and this is based on a lot of anecdotal


evidence, it creates perverse incentives for people to plead


guilty, effectively making a commercial decision to avoid the


higher criminal courts charge. Today, Michael Gove has bowed to the


pressure and has told initially the magistrates Association and just


recently to Parliament that the charge will be scrapped from the


24th of December. Is this Michael Gove's tax credits climb-down


equivalent? I don't think we can say that because Chris Grayling brought


this in, not Michael Gove. But I can't remember the imposition of a


financial penalty which has been so universally opposed. We are talking


about magistrates, the senior judiciary, lawyers, nobody has


really spoken up in favour of the charge. It was designed to partly


paid for the costs of the criminal courts. Interestingly, Michael Gove


has said this whole morass of fines and charges and penalties is very


complex and he has ordered a review into all of that. He has not


reversed the idea that guilty Biba will pay something their court


costs. Lots of real-life drama in Westminster in the last few days but


our guest of the day has used his knowledge


our guest of the day has used his basis of a work of fiction. His


novel, The Speaker's Wife, its book shelf this month.


And we're also joined by former BBC political reporter Terry Stiastny,


whose Westminster based novel, Acts of Omission,


Westminster is full of intrigue, power and relationships but we work


in this bubble, as it is sometimes called. What makes you think it has


broader appeal? I think in Parliament at least, it is


tremendous theatre. You have vanity sometimes in Parliament. You have


been out and verbal violence, all the Vs. You have a tremendous Kofler


new voices and all of these people wriggling up the greasy pole. It is


tremendously jolly as a place to watch even if some other things they


are talking about are so jolly witches what makes it gripping. Is


that what it is? All novels need conflict of some sort and as we've


seen in the last two days, you have every kind of conflict, between


individuals, parties, conflicts of ideas and within families. It is


great, a big called on. A lot of the best novels are set in closed


worlds, whether it is the world of espionage, or in all sorts of


interesting, different places where people are thrown together in that


environment. You have to make it interesting make people understand


why are real characters with flaws and good qualities as well. So you


can make the sort of parochial, some might think, politics appeal to a


more global audience like that? Absolutely, you read a murder


mystery set in a big country house and you don't necessarily have to


have been to one, and you can read about Tudor history and will fall


and find it fascinating. It is about finding out what the world is like.


Fiction gives you a bit of covering fire, too. What are you saying? My


book is plainly a work of fiction, The Speaker's Wife! It is not about


Sally Burgo. I did wonder when I first heard about it! You can convey


troops about politics without being factual. Is it overused? Or


underused as a setting, Westminster? Absolutely, you could


have so many more stories. I think it's brilliant but you have to


relate it to the wider world, explain why it matters and why it's


not just about little people fighting each other, Wyatt matters


to the world at large. It was used more, Anthony Trollope used


Parliament a lot and in the 1950s we had a lot of Parliamentary novels.


We've had Michael Dods but since then, not quite so much. Although


Andrew Marr might have done one or two! The setting for yours is the


loss of a computer disk containing the names of British informants to


the Stasi which brought up issues of transparency and privacy in the


background is obviously Westminster. Were you thinking of a particular


audience or just writing something because of your background knowledge


as a political correspondent? I was just writing a story I found


fascinating, where I said to myself, what if this happened? It has a


kernel of truth in something that happened but I took it further. What


I also did was relating it to Berlin and the conflicts you had then in


the Cold War, trying to make it not just about Westminster, where


sometimes the stakes can feel small, but bigger ideas about the world


around us. Your title could draw people in even under full


presenters, The Speaker's Wife! There is one of them in my book but


you won't find Sally Burgo. You will find a speaker who is a pernicious


little hobgoblin but that again must be in tidy fictional! Entirely!


I thought you regarded as documentary. I don't know why you


think that. I read your column. The character of John Bercow is straight


out of fiction in some ways. Not in the book! And my libel lawyers asked


me today that. What about Chris Mullin's fictitious very British


coup? Is that becoming a reality? You could argue he predicted Jeremy


Corbyn's rise in fiction. A lot of the things have happened, discs


going missing, secret going missing. The thing with my book, Acts Of


Omission is that some of the people are trying to do good but they are


terribly flawed. It is not a conspiracy but it is people messing


up, who are out of their depth and struggling. Have you read each


other's books? Not yet. You had better get going.


The One O'Clock News is starting over on BBC One now.


I'll be back tonight on BBC One at 11.35 for a special episode of


This Week, with the latest from the Oldham West and Royton by-election.


That coverage will continue through the night. Labour is battling it out


with Ukip. I'll be joined by Michael Portillo,


Alan Johnson, Emily Maitlis and Marin Alsop, the first woman to


conduct the Last Night of the Proms. If you want to see all the


candidates in the by-election, they are on the BBC website. Hope you can


join us. It's a weeknight, Roger.


I won't ask again. You think some loveless coupling


is going to solve all our problems? It's a weeknight, Roger.


I won't ask again. We just don't know who


the bad guys are any more.


Download Subtitles