04/12/2015 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 04/12/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


A convincing win for Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party


So is Mr Corbyn as electorally toxic at his critics suggest?


As British planes continue to bombard IS targets in Syria,


further doubt is cast on the Prime Minister's claim that 70,000


rebels on the ground are ready to help eradicate IS.


David Cameron seems to be having a bit of trouble convincing other


European leaders to agree to his plans for the UK's new


So will he win any significant reforms?


He used to hug huskies and talk about the environment.


We look back at David Cameron's decade as Conservative leader.


When I first heard David was standing, my reaction was that that


was ambitious, but not to be taken terribly seriously.


And with us for the whole of the programme today are


Francis Elliott, political editor of The Times, and Ben Chacko,


Now, the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has hailed a vote of confidence


in his party after it comfortably held the Oldham West and Royton


Mr Corbyn headed to Oldham this morning


This campaign shows just how strong our party is, not just here in


President Obama, but all over the country. It shows the way we have


driven the Tories back on tax credits, on police cuts, on their


whole austerity agenda and narrative -- here in Oldham. It shows just how


strong, how deep-rooted and how broad our party, the Labour Party,


is for the whole of Britain. Thank you very much, everybody,


for your support for Jim. Now let's look in more detail


at the by-election result. Labour's candidate Jim McMahon


won comfortably with 17209 votes, Ukip came second with 6,487 votes,


with the Conservatives Turnout in the by-election was 40%,


down from 60% Compared with the general election


in May, there was a swing And Labour's share of


the vote increased by 7%, while the Adam Fleming was in Oldham last


week. They vote of confidence for Jeremy Corbyn? If only it was as


simple as that. That is what the Labour leadership and Jeremy Corbyn


supporters are saying. They say Ukip tried to make it into a referendum


on Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. I saw plenty of examples of Ukip having a


leaflet with Jeremy Corbyn's face plastered over it. But when you


spoke to people on the streets in Oldham West, it was not hard to find


Labour supporters who were unconvinced about Jeremy Corbyn.


Some people really didn't like him. Some Labour supporters were a bit


nonplussed by him. But it looks like they all came out and voted in large


numbers, despite that. The Labour fear was that their core supporters


wouldn't come out and vote at all. So it is difficult for Jeremy


Corbyn's supporters to say this is a ringing endorsement of him, but


equally if God for Jeremy Corbyn's opponents to say that Jeremy


Corbyn's leadership subject for Labour in Oldham, because it didn't.


The result was better than many Labour MPs expected, even if he was


not at the centre of this campaign. He only went once up there and


rushed up there following the result. Where does that leave those


who have criticised Jeremy Corbyn from within the Parliamentary Labour


Party? Well, it has deprived them of the opportunity that some of them


were hoping for, which was to be able to go out on the airwaves and


say, we nearly lost Oldham West, or we lost it because of Jeremy


Corbyn's leadership. Now, any attempt to get rid of him or creates


some Momentum to get rid of him will be put off to further in the


future. So it deprives his opponents of that, and it has given his


supporters and other Jimmy Choo to say, it was Jeremy Watt won it for


us, although it is not possible to prove that. Ukip did not do as well


as they hoped, although they came second. All of these results are


about managing expectations. Nigel Farage is not happy? To put it


mildly. He has been on the airwaves this morning, saying it was a fix.


He said the postal votes were bent on Twitter in this constituency. And


he went even further when he spoke to our colleagues on BBC Breakfast


this morning, when he said that because of migration and the


behaviour of ethnic minority communities when they vote, in some


areas of Britain, democracy is dead when it comes to by-elections like


this. I am talking particularly about by-elections. Don't forget, we


have had time. We have had Birmingham. We have repeatedly had


evidence of fraud within the postal voting system. I think it is


democracy should be clean. And with this system, it is not. And there is


a second big element to why Jeremy Corbyn got this victory. It is an


observation. I am not commenting, but the Northern correspondent of


the Guardian wrote last Saturday that she knocked on doors in streets


in Oldham where nobody spoke English, never be heard of Jeremy


Corbyn, but they were all voting Labour. So there is a large ethnic


vote in this country, in our cities, who vote Labour. In one of the boxes


last night, it was 99% Labour. The electoral process is almost dead in


those areas. According to Ukip sources, this morning, they are


reviewing the evidence they have got and then deciding whether to proceed


with a formal complaint with the returning officer in Oldham or to


the police. Oldham Council say they have not received a complaint from


Ukip yet, and Greater Manchester say the same thing. Nigel Farage talked


about the Guardian north of England correspondent. I was with her on


Friday at prayers at old central mosque a week ago today, along with


the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative candidates. And all of


us saw some of the worshippers arriving at the central mosque at


Friday prayers, cutting their postal votes and their polling cards. It


was just a handful of people, maybe three or four. I did not ask anyone


about it, but it was an interesting thing to see. We have spoken to


Oldham central mosque today, who say they do not have a of allowing


political campaigning on their site. So they say there are lots of


reasons people might have brought their postal vote along, maybe to


discuss it with their friends and family, talk about how they were


going to vote. They wanted to reinforce that there have been no


official complaints of electoral fraud in Oldham West and Royton.


Before I let you go, tells about another story regarding MPs'


expenses? You are getting your money's worth today! Yesterday, it


lost compliance officer, he is the ombudsman for the Parliamentary


expenses watchdog, published a report about the goings-on with the


MPs' expenses system between April last year and March this year. And a


little noticed paragraph. They said there were three cases that were


considered so serious about MPs' expenses that they were referred to


the Metropolitan Police for investigation. This morning, we have


had a statement from the Metropolitan Police, saying that one


of those cases has been dropped. But we understand a member of MPs' staff


was issued with a caution. Another two cases of MPs' expenses are now


officially being investigated by the Metropolitan Police. We don't know


who these MPs are or how much money it is concerning or any details like


that, you can bet that Fleet Street's finest will be trying to


work out who these people are. We are not aware of any arrests, or


even if these MPs themselves have been interviewed by the police.


Ben Chacko, do you think they will be breathing a sigh of relief in


Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell's leadership? They will be in courage


by the result. A lot of people have been talking as if Jeremy is some


sort of massive electoral liability, and that has been proved wrong.


There was a swing to Labour since the general election, doubly


impressive when you think that he is -- it was a new candidate. So this


blows out of the water the idea that the new Labour Leader is unpopular.


Although he didn't go to the constituency, people are saying it


was because they didn't want him there and it might damage the


chances of Jim McMahon, a popular local candidate. I think Jeremy is


often damned if he does and damned if he doesn't on these questions. He


did go to Oldham. He may not have been there all the time, he has a


lot to do. But if he had done badly, people would have said this is a


referendum on Jeremy's leadership. Now that he has done well, people


are saying it has nothing to do with Jeremy, which doesn't wash. He has


passed his first test. Absolutely. Had he failed, you could be sure we


would be all over Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. I take issue with you on


the idea that Jim McMahon wasn't a factor in this. As a council Leader,


he is a rising star and a popular figure. The name recognition was


extremely strong on the doorstep, as I understand it, and they ran a very


hyper local campaign. They did everything they could not talk about


Jeremy, so it is not really a mandate for Corbyn. These people


will now get back in their box. There will be those Sunday -- those


Sunday columns which would have said, Jeremy must now go, will


quietly be toned down or dropped. They might be rewritten.


Now, despite the euphoria of today's victory, it hasn't been the best


week for Labour, with the party's divisions over Syria dominating much


Reports that some MPs who voted in favour


of air strikes have been abused on social media have reignited


concern that MPs not toeing the leader's line will be deselected in


But what's the current process for incumbent Labour MPs


Normally, if a sitting MP wishes to stand for re-election, he or she


must first win a majority of votes in a so-called trigger ballot.


In this, members of a local constituency party's units and


affiliates, including trade unions, are entitled to vote on a simple


To be re-selected, an MP needs a majority


of yes nominations from those individual units and affiliates.


If unsuccessful, a full selection procedure for a new


prospective parliamentary candidate is undertaken, in which the current


MP's name is automatically placed on the shortlist.


If successful in the trigger ballot, the MP then must receive


the endorsement of Labour's National Executive


Committee to be the official party candidate in that constituency.


But boundary changes due to be introduced in time for the next


election will reduce the number of constituencies from 650 to 600.


This has some self-styled moderate Labour MPs, such as Simon Danczuk,


worried they'll lose out to more left-wing candidates


in the selection process for the new constituencies.


Some Labour MPs sceptical of Mr Corbyn's leadership have expressed


worry that the new grassroots group Momentum may prove to be


But Momentum has explicitly said it "will not campaign for the


deselection of any MP", which, it says, is "entirely a matter


Last week, Jeremy Corbyn said he wanted to make it crystal clear


he did not support any changes to Labour's rules to make it easier


Joining me now via webcam is Labour MP Stephen Kinnock.


Do you welcome the presence of this grassroots organisation Momentum in


the Labour Party to I don't have a problem with any group that wants to


give its views, advise the Labour Party. We are an open and listening


organisation. What I do not accept is if that group is involved in


orchestrating a campaign of intimidation or bullying against any


of our Labour MPs. I think if there is evidence of that sort of


orchestration going on, disciplinary processes need to take place


immediately, particularly where there are members of the Labour


Party involved. I want to keep the debate civilised. Have you got any


evidence that there is an orchestrated campaign of


intimidating MPs that do not agree with some of the basic policies of


momentum? No, what I have seen is people going to Stella Creasy's


house, Peter Kyle's office. We need to examine carefully who those


people were. If there is evidence any of the people involved for party


members, the disciplinary procedures need to start. When you have


demonstrations like that, it only takes one smart Alec to throw a


stone through a window. Sometimes people's families are involved.


Going to people's homes and doing this is completely unacceptable. We


need to look carefully at who is involved in these mobs on the


streets. And if Labour Party members are involved, there have to be


consequences. But as yet you do not know if they were Labour Party


members? I don't know. That is why it has to be investigated. I welcome


the fact that Jeremy and Tom Watson have condemned this. The same goes


for appending -- sending pictures of severed heads and calling people


warmongers. We have to be careful with the language we use. That


creates a permissive environment in which things can escalate and


become, in the worst case, even violent. The mob on the streets,


Stephen Kinnock is talking about, do you not see it like


Stephen Kinnock is talking about, do acceptable for people to protest


outside the offices of MPs or abused their staff on the phone if they


have not voted in a way they think they should? It is


have not voted in a way they think acceptable to abuse anybody's staff


on the phone. I don't think acceptable to launch personal


attacks. But protesting outside a constituency office not intimidate


E. I think a lot of MPs are overreacting to the understandable


anger when they do not respect the feeling in the party more widely,


when they do not respect the leader. So you say these are Labour Party


members? I have been at Momentum meetings and you see a mix of


people. I don't know if there is any evidence that Momentum have


organised this. You have a huge number of new people in the Labour


Party. A lot of the old constituency party meetings are dull and


workmanlike. This is an effort to make the party more fun for young


people coming in. But they are not happy with some of the MPs, members


of Momentum? They have said they are not involved with any campaign of


intimidation but they are not necessarily happy with the views of


some Labour MPs? Of course they are not. You mentioned Simon Danczuk.


There are certain MPs, and I would include him, who have actually


really given... They have not missed a single opportunity to stick the


knife into the new leadership. We have a much bigger membership of the


Labour Party now. And we do have a difference of opinion between Labour


Party members and the parliamentary party. I think there needs to be


some patience and understanding on both sides of that golf. There are


MPs who are flagrantly disrespecting that change and disrespecting their


leader and people get angry about that. Do you accept that, that there


are MPs like Simon Danczuk who are provocative and inflaming feelings


which are obviously quite tense within the Labour Party? That there


is a big gap between the Labour Party, the Parliamentary Labour


Party, and the leadership? I think some of what Simon has written in


the Daily Mail is unfortunate. I condemn personal attacks in general.


Jeremy has rightly distanced himself from personal attacks and talks


about a new kind of politics. Both sides have to play that game. What I


would say is that MPs are not delegates. They are not the


delegates of their membership. They have to take the views of their


membership into account. But we represent our constituencies. When


we go to parliament we are representing our constituencies. The


key thing for us is the whip. That is decided by the Shadow Cabinet.


While I accept the point that the voice of members is important, we


are not delegates going to a conference. We are members of


parliament elected by a constituency. Should centrist MPs be


worried about the selection? I hope not. The key is, are you an MP that


is performing and delivering? Are you standing up for your


constituents in Parliament? Are you being an ambassador for your


constituency in Parliament and taking decisions according to your


conscience, but also according to the whip? If you are delivering all


of those points, then it is absolutely unacceptable that there


is any and a fifth column within the Labour Party organising against


people because you do not happen to have the same political view as that


fifth column. A fifth column developing. Is that how people feel


within the Labour Party to and people certainly feel that. And some


people would object to hear that they are overreacting to being


trolled. What about the selection? We have conflated two things. The


SNP had the same problem. Nicola Sturgeon had a massive problem with


online trolls in Scotland. It took them a while to get there. They have


done so. They have to have a better disciplinary procedure to separate


out people overstepping the mark. Momentum had a point when they say


they are just a vehicle. The party is a mass movement. It is a


different political organisation. It is there to become more closely


aligned with the party leadership. But deselection is really all about


the boundary review. In London, I hadn't appreciated this until today,


that is all up for grabs. No London MP can be sure who is going to go


through this procedure that you mentioned. They do feel very, very


nervous and uncertain and freaked out. I just think they need to get


better at kind of knowing who their members are and consulting with


them, perhaps. These seats will all be up for grabs following the


boundary review. Isn't there an overreaction from MPs who are saying


there are under pressure -- they are under pressure, when actually you


are going to have to go through this process of a boundary review? Is


that to me? Yes. Let's not panic. The fact is we have a leader who was


1001 when he entered the race. He is now leader of the Labour Party.


Clearly an earthquake has hit the party. We have to come together,


figure out where we're going, get some cohesion back into the party,


let's close that gap between membership and PLP. The boundary


reviews will will not take place. I may well be affected. I may have a


trigger ballots and if I do I will be fighting as hard as I can to


retain my seat. But in the end, are you out there as an MP standing up


for your constituencies and doing what you are supposed to do? Those


who are have to continue as MPs. It would be unprecedented. Normally


when MPs are reselected, it is a formality. Is it acceptable for


people to say to MPs, you did not vote the right way on Syria, you


will face deselection, which is what has been reported? But they need to


fall in line or face deselection. MPs have to be held to account for


what they have done. A lot of people in this country feel that a lot of


MPs in Westminster Philae have a job for life, it is very comfortable. If


they won big majorities, they have the trust of their constituents. If


they are doing a good job, that is a different matter. I don't think MPs


should feel they have an automatic right to be there party candidate


automatically. Do you think it is right to fill the Labour Party with


grassroots members like Momentum who will have a bigger voter influence


in the selection process? I don't think that is quite right. There has


been a huge influx of new members to the Labour Party and these people


want to have a say on who is going to be standing at the next election.


I don't think there is anything sinister about that.


The prime lister has insisted British warplanes will help to bring


about a settlement in Syria, despite the claim that the UK action will


not make any difference. The Prime Minister claimed there were 70,000


opposition fighters who could take on IS in Syria. This morning it is


reported that senior military figures had serious doubts about the


claim. Here is a reminder of what David Cameron said last week.


In Syria, the situation is more complex.


But as the report I'm publishing today shows, we believe there are


around 70,000 Syrian opposition fighters,


principally the Free Syrian Army,


who do not belong to extremist groups, and with whom we


In addition, there are the Kurdish armed groups,


who have also shown themselves capable of taking territory,


holding territory and administering it


And crucially relieving the suffering that the civilian


population had endured under Isil control.


I'm joined now by Elizabeth Quintana,


at the Royal United Services Institute.


Is that figure reliable, 70,000 fighters? Charles Lister from


Britain's Institute is probably the best authority. There are around


75,000 forces from 100 different factions in Syria. That is in


addition to the larger groups. The problem is they are rather


disparate. They are fighting in specific areas and defending local


populations in those areas. And they have not really been properly


supported by the West and so do not have that unified grouping as Jabhat


al-Nusra have. Yes, they do exist. If you add the other groups, that is


more than 100,000. And people in Syria. There are significant numbers


but could they be used in a unified effort? Probably not at the moment.


You have written today about the reliability of that figure in terms


of David Cameron using it. And the bases for his argument to back air


strikes. The worry among some military officials was not actually


the political number that was used. It was using any number. Using any


number would possibly lead, exactly as has happened, into a debate about


whether that is the right number or not. It is our understanding that


there was a concern raised as this information document was produced,


that this was a mistake. An entirely understandable concern given recent


history of intelligence documents produced to justify military action


in that part of the world. It has already led us to


in that part of the world. It has Defence Select Committee


in that part of the world. It has them bogus battalions of


in that part of the world. It has fighters. Is this going to echo the


criticisms of the Iraq war? It is. I'm sure that The One Show are very


worried about that. -- I'm sure that Downing Street are very worried


about that. We have no evidence that David Cameron was told about these


concerns. So the analogy is not exact. But yes, Cameron was under


pressure about this figure before our story, during the debate, even


before the debate. Those warnings appear to have been accurate. This


is now going to be a question of, why did you use this


is now going to be a question of, that figure? How wise was it for the


Prime Minister to use it as a that figure? How wise was it for the


for residing meant? -- for his argument? Very reasonably people


were asking whether there was anything other than air strikes in


the plan. What the Prime Minister was trying to do is say, yes, we are


aware of the fabric of Syria and we have seen this week the US and


announce an increase in special forces, which will conduct raids


alongside Kurdish and Iraqi special forces from Iraq into Syria.


Following the vote today in Germany and


Following the vote today in Germany that other Nato members may also


join the coalition, I think this should be seen as a kind of stepping


up of the overall US led coalition effort. Yes, not necessarily very


wise to use specific figures but as indicative of people knowing what


they are doing, then yes. You have to build confidence in some way. The


fact is we can dispute the figures but we are talking about a large


number of people, rebels, differing groups that are there and may join


some sort of ground troop force? I wouldn't much dispute the 70,000


figure, as other 70,000 people in Syria with guns? Quite possibly.


There are a lot of different groups this is composed of. They very


widely in their ideology. -- they vary. That was specifically included


from the 70,000 figure. What happened was, they did not quite


make clear enough in my view what they meant by Margaret. The point


is, is the readiness to fight in any cohesive way, which is going to be


the challenge for the Prime Minister, in terms of Saint there


will be ground troops, because most military figures say you need ground


troops? If they were to fight crisis in


Raqqa, they would be leaving behind people with either fewer forces or


somewhat exposed. Earlier today, there was an excellent interview on


the Today programme with some of the southern -based rebels, who said, if


we face as is, will be attacked from the back by regime forces. So it is


much more complex than just, who are these people on the ground? But yes,


it is all tied very much into the Vienna talks and other discussions


such as the talks that Saudi are going to hold with rebel forces in


the next couple of weeks. That is the problem, it is a very


complicated picture. But if the coalition forces are being built up,


David Cameron has a better chance of trying to hold onto his support on


this issue. He may have a better chance of holding on to support


within Britain. Will it change things on the ground in Syria?


Probably not. He mentioned the Kurds as our allies, but our Nato ally


Turkey has been bombing Kurdish positions and has warned Kurdish


forces not to retake Isis held towns, because it's as if they are


too close to the Turkish border, it will retaliate massively. So I don't


see how we have a strategy to attack Isis when we are still in alliance


with countries like Turkey, which are assisting Isis in this war. They


would deny that they are assisting Isis. They are hitting the Kurds,


but you cannot go so far as to say they are doing that. There is


evidence that the Turks are buying oil from Isis. There are claims of


that. It is so complicated. Nobody is clear who is fighting for whom


want it gets Biondi air strikes. But as Cameron said, it is messy, and it


is a messy solution. Ultimately, his point was that the cost of inaction


is worse than the cost of action. And just to say that it is


complicated is not an argument for not doing anything.


David Cameron has admitted that he won't be able to get a deal


on his EU reform aims in time for the summit of European leaders


The Prime Minister, who has just returned from talks


in Bulgaria, says good progress has been made, but there are still


Mr Cameron made the announcement after speaking to the


David McAllister is a German member of the European Parliament and


Ms Merkel's representative for contacts in the UK.


He popped in to the studio yesterday.


I began by asking if Mrs Merkel had scuppered


We're talking about very complicated details.


The Prime Minister said he wanted to get the substance right, so it's


better to have a broad discussion at the council in December


and then find a solution as soon as possible, perhaps in February.


But she obviously put the brakes on it


if they had a conversation and he had already made clear following his


letter to leaders that he wanted a deal by the summit in mid-December,


Well, if you read the letter by the prime minister, he said it was his


ambition to get a deal in December, but he also said it was important


And we now see there are some issues presented by the British


Others are more difficult, and some are highly problematic.


So I believe that after the council, a working group will be set up


where certain details are negotiated and then we can get


a good deal in February, or even later.


Which is the problematic bit in terms of David Cameron's demands?


The most difficult one is the four-year ban on qualifying


because there is a fundamental principle of the European Union.


There can be no discrimination against EU citizens.


All EU citizens have to be treated equally.


He will not be able to get that, then, will he?


I do understand that this is a matter for political debate in this


country, that people are annoyed and that people believe this is unfair.


But we have to find a solution which is in line with


the existing treaties and the four principles of the single


market, because the single market is not only about services, goods and


But it is clear that David Cameron has said


and is reported to have said that he will campaign for Britain to leave


the EU unless he can get that four-year exemption from giving


in work benefits to workers coming from other countries in the EU.


He either gets it, or he will campaign to leave.


A lot of people, including me, have thoroughly studied the letter


by the Prime Minister, and I think the letter has been a very good


basis for the debate which we are now having in all 28 member states.


It is important to make the British reform proposals


a matter of all 28 member states.


that we have to make the European Union more competitive.


We have to fight red tape and bureaucracy


and make the European Union more effective.


There are a lot of good points the Brits have made.


A country like Germany is willing to help the UK where we can.


But there are some things which are problematic, and that includes


I don't see a political solution for a treaty change in the next few


The other thing is that we are very much in favour of the existing


principles of the single market and the European Union which are


So let's find a solution which makes it possible that we can


So you think a compromise is possible on that issue by February,


Well, there will be a debate at the council in December.


The Prime Minister will go into detail on his plans


for reform of the EU, and then the other 27 heads of member states will


I believe a fair deal for both sides is possible,


but it will be a fair deal which covers


the understandable interests of the UK,


but it will also have to cover the interests


Do you think David Cameron was trying to bounce leaders


like Angela Merkel into an agreement too quickly?


No, the Prime Minister, from the beginning, had his plan.


We knew he wanted to go to the December council.


He promised to present his proposals way ahead of the council.


He gave a speech at Chatham House so that everyone, not only in Brussels,


but in all other 27 capitals, knew what the British mission


On this basis, we will find a solution.


Sometimes, political debates take longer in the European Union,


because we are 28 members in our family.


David Cameron relies, to some extent, on Angela Merkel.


She is seen as a key ally for him in this renegotiation


and in general politically within the EU.


But her standing in Germany and Europe


with her open-door policy, as it was described here,


towards migrants and refugees coming from Syria


The European Union is a family of 28 sovereign member states


But of course, Germany and the UK have a special relationship.


Germany and Britain are partners in the G7 and G20, at the UN and Nato.


We Germans would like the British to be a strong and active partner in


Of course, because the European Union would be a different one.


It is up to the people in the UK to decide


but from a German point of view, we would like the UK to stay.


Because the British are the driving force


free trade and making the European Union more competitive


that the commission of Jean-Claude Juncker has now launched, like


the digital union, the energy union and the single market initiative,


Joining me now is Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan.


That timetable was always ambitious, by Christmas, but it will


be done in February. It has already been done. We are just waiting to


be done in February. It has already stage a row. I say it has been done,


because nothing of substance is being passed. The UK is pretending


to make demands, the EU is pretending to consider them,


to make demands, the EU is bottom line is that nothing will


change. We will still be members on the existing terms. But if nothing


of substance is going to be discussed, why hasn't everyone


signed up to it? Because you have to go through the


signed up to it? Because you have to aggression. It is a smoke screen. It


is being staged in the most openly cynical way. When the leader of an


EU member state is reduced to saying, we want more


competitiveness, a bromide like that, something that every national


politician for the last 40 years has said, and that that is now being


politician for the last 40 years has renegotiation, or recognition that


the EU has more than one currency, renegotiation, or recognition that


why not recognise that the EU has more than one language? How is


stating the bloody obvious a concession? That is when you can see


that nothing of substance is being asked for. What about the in work


benefits and curbing those's we know that goes against one


benefits and curbing those's we know cornerstones of the European Union.


If there is a compromise of that, that would be seen as a victory.


David Cameron began looking for an actual border control. He wanted to


be able to set a quota, a total number of people who could come in


from the EU, number of people who could come in


a very fair thing to do. There will be people watching this now, Brits


of Commonwealth backgrounds who have had huge difficulties just getting


auntie over for a wedding because of how we have had to crack down on


visas from non-EU nationals in order to free up unlimited space for


people with no connection to this country. All of that has been


plan about benefits that frankly, we plan about benefits that frankly, we


can do through domestic legislation anyway and doesn't require treaty


change. We have spoken on many occasions, though, and nothing would


satisfy you in that regard. That is not true. But to say that there


would be a complete status quo, is that accurate? Yes. I have


repeatedly set out not just what would satisfy me, but what would


satisfy most people. Parliament should ultimately be sovereign. In


other words, the EU should not automatically be able to track down


parliamentary statutes. We should have more freedom to trade with


non-EU countries and we should be able to opt out of areas of EU


policy that have nothing to do with economics or trade, such as criminal


justice, environment, defence, agriculture and fisheries. If we


could get those things, everyone would be in favour of it. Isn't he


right? There is nothing of substance in this and they are all playing


again. He has just listed things that he knows we will never get.


What is unreasonable? The sceptics are coming out with an impossible


wish list. And it is said that David Cameron is coming up with an


achievable wish list. Or they have been achieved already, Daniel Hannan


says. What is the deal they will do? If it has already been done, how


will they get four year ban on my grant benefits through? I suspect it


will be wrapped into the shift in domestic policies towards universal


credit. So there will be no discrimination? That's right,


because you can do that without any EU treaty change. The things I was


saying, that we should hire and fire our own law makers and have freedom


to have a treaty with India or Australia, what is unreasonable


about that? You are asking for a different settlement that is not on


the table. If it was, it would be fine. But it isn't. That is what all


the non-EU countries in Europe get. It is what the Swiss and Norwegians


do. It is what the Macedonians and the Turks do. It is not pie in the


sky, and we could have gone for a proper, economics only, semidetached


relationship. The Eurocrats were clear that that was on offer. We


have chosen not to go for it. I don't blame the PM for that. He has


never pretended to be Eurosceptic. Then where did he go wrong? Hay


takes a very different view of Britain's place in Europe from me.


He's happy with elements of political union. He didn't want to


opt out. Good luck to him. These are the arguments that will be played


out all the way up to the referendum. What do you think is now


going to happen in this campaign? I think that both camps in the


referendum campaign dominated by corporate interests. I am not


convinced that David Cameron will get anything out of this


renegotiation. If he did, would you back it? Well, he's not asking for


the things I would demand. David Cameron once the European Union to


accelerate the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which


will have terrible consequences for our sovereignty in that foreign


countries will be able to sue our government. That is happening now,


though. The things people don't like about Egypt, the way it allows


countries to bypass the system, the corporatism, the lobbying and the


rules on contracting out -- the things people don't like about


Ttip, those are all existing intrinsic features of the EU.


Speaking of referendums, Danish voters have rejected a government


proposal for deeper ties with the European Union at home -- on home


Copenhagen. Gavin, what's your take on what this result means for


Two things struck me about the referendum firstly how confusing it


is. And secondly, how many voters decided to vote with their hearts,


their gut instinct, do they want to embrace more EU or step away from


it? The government leaves it is the external crises that are factored


into this. It is terror on the borders, the migrant crisis that


played into people's feelings of your scepticism. Going back to that


question, it was deeply complex. Lots of analysts say you either say


yes, and embrace a more flexible system when it comes to areas of


law, home affairs and justice, or they say no and Denmark continues


its opt out. Leave affairs of law... I will give you an example.


This is an example of the yes and No campaign. This is the yes campaign.


This is a female Danish police officer. It is talking about the


lack of euro poll. People said, what does it mean? This is the striking


difference. More EU? No thanks. I spoke to the Prime Minister


yesterday. I asked how much of a blow he felt it was for Denmark.


We refused to take a step forward, you could say, and obviously,


I would like to have seen another outcome.


It is still my feeling that the Danes are in favour


of strong cross-border cooperation between the Danish police and police


The reason why the Danes refused to choose what we have proposed is


probably that there is this feeling of uncertainty, also given the fact


that Europe is right now faced with other major problems which we


haven't really solved, the refugee crisis etc.


Let's think about the British referendum and what they have been


saying about that in Denmark. Some of the Danish politicians have been


drawing parallels with the upcoming British referendum. Yes,


particularly Eurosceptic anti-immigration party, the Danish


people's party, and its leader. He believes sovereignty is at stake for


both countries. He says the Danes are like the British. The British


will watch this and realise there are factors, external issues, the


migrant crisis, for example, that will lead people to say, hang on,


gut instinct comes into this. In Britain it is about how simple


British people find the question when it comes to the referendum.


Let's talk about some of that home affairs legislation. There has been


a debate about whether we should be opting back into some of the


legislation. It looks as if Theresa May would like that to happen? Yes,


and I think they are making a mistake. That is what the Danes have


voted against. When this referendum was called, the more integration


side had a 58% to 22% lead. But the Danes bravely and level-headed Lee


ignored the scaremongering and voted for the safer option. Do you think


it is scaremongering? Yes, some of the arguments put or plainly false,


as in the euro referendum in Denmark, the Maastricht referendum,


and you can see that after the event. You can see how come the


Prime Minister was. As you know, politicians here have warned about


the dangers of coming out of Europe. They are zombie attacks! It is


idiotic, some of what they are saying. I do not think our people


will fall further and more than the Danes did. We were successful


sovereign country for a thousand years before the EU came along. We


are perfectly capable of surviving as a country trading with our


friends around the world. We are the fifth-largest economy, the fourth


largest military budget, we can just about make a go of it. But there is


going to be a House of Commons the bolt on this. -- vote on this. They


will get it through. Almost certainly they will have to rely on


Labour votes to get it through. There will be more than six Tories


who will vote against. The point is I don't think even now I would want


us to share DNA data with other police forces. But what Eurosceptic


MPs will say is we can do this on other basis. Isn't it sensible to


share some of this information with EU partners? There is cooperation


between police forces around the world. There is in trouble,


extradition treaties -- Interpol. Should it be run by Brussels? I have


a constituency case where somebody whose life was ruined by the


European arrest warrant. A case of mistaken identity. How do you give


that time back to a boy of that age? We opted into it without any


referendum because we did not have what the Danes have just had. Thank


you. When he became leader, one thing


David Cameron urged his party to do was to stop banging on about Europe.


I guess it hasn't quite turned out as he wished. Anyway, this Sunday,


Mr Cameron will have led his party for exactly ten years - one of just


four Tory leaders to have done so in the last century. Ellie Price has


been looking back at Dave's decade. Real change isn't just about


policies or presentation, or even, dare I say it, having a


young, vigorous, energetic leader. Come to think of it,


it's not such a bad idea. It was a speech that caught


the imagination of his party A freshfaced David


Cameron, just 38 years old, Until then, he'd been an outsider


in a strong field vying to become When I first heard David was


standing, my reaction was that that was ambitious, but not to be


taken terribly seriously, which I I rather foolishly


and grandly assumed that one day he would be a contender for the


leadership, but he hadn't been around


for anything like long enough. If Clarke was supposed by Cameron's


impressive campaign, Michael Howard, the outgoing leader, who had


employed Cameron as his special adviser


a decade before, was anything but. It was obvious to me


after the 2005 election that he was I had always thought that he had the


potential to become Prime Minister. In fact, I told his mother so about


ten years before the 2005 election. Greg Barker was an early


supporter of the Cameron campaign. He entered Parliament with him


in 2001 and quickly identified If we were going to take on


Tony Blair, we needed our own JFK-type


character. Young, televisual, but also with a


powerful message of change and hope. And it was that early Cameron


message of change, hope and optimism that


so characterised the first period of his leadership that


I found so attractive, which I think


is inherently still there today. He took trips to the Arctic with


a pack of huskies. He told his party to stop banging


on about Europe. But after six years of austerity


and with a referendum on Europe fast approaching, is his leadership


defined by Cameronism or pragmatism? He wanted to sort


of tilt the country back into a smaller state, bigger individual


responsibility sort of vibe. It was a pretty abrupt handbrake


turn into fiscal conservatism, fix the roof when the sun's


shining, all that kind of rhetoric. David Cameron didn't say "Drop


the green crap", But it's true that


with the economic crisis, with austerity, some of those


green policies So for someone like me,


who was there at the beginning and who has remained a passionate


advocate of green Conservatism, We already know there won't be


another decade of David Cameron's But will the man who promised


sunshine, but spent most of his time in Number Ten under an economic dark


cloud, be happy with his legacy? The one thing you can say is that he


has kept himself out of trouble He could also add, "I kept the


country largely out of trouble". He doesn't have an Iraq war


on his hands, yet. The party has always traditionally


run itself as a dictatorship, punctuated by regular


assassinations. He has announced his


intention to resign and retire. If he succeeds in doing that,


he will be one of the very few who escape the assassination


at the hands of his followers, because with practically everybody


else, that's how they went. Ken Clarke ending that report. You


were in the film. If the cards fall for Cameron and he wins the


referendum, if the battle against IS goes well, you warned it could be


another Iraq, if the economy improves, why not tell him to stay


on? Sometimes he jokingly suggest, have I done the right thing? But he


will go. And he knows he has to go. Did he needs to say he had to go? I


am fascinated by this question. People say he came back from the


famous interview with James Landale in the kitchen and said, I have made


a terrible mistake. But interestingly, while lots of other


people were panicking, Lynton Crosby was quite calm about it. He had seen


the polling and the polling was, it went down rather well, the idea that


you let a guy in for five years and that is it. The shift from a


five-year, to a five-year fixed parliament, it allows that


presidential term thing to fly in a way that it would not have done


otherwise. Many of his critics have said he is lucky in some regard,


despite the economic crisis, and that actually he makes it up as he


goes along to some extent. If that were the case, wouldn't Jeremy


Corbyn be making a bigger dent in his poll ratings? I think opinion


polls are often misleading. I don't think it is true that he makes it up


as it goes along. From the point of view of his city paymasters he has


done very well. With no real mandate in the last election, where they did


not have a majority, he teamed up with a party with different policies


and actually push through a fairly major restructuring of the British


state. He got 24% of the vote in the last election. A narrow majority. He


is pressing through a Thatcher style revolution without public backing.


From a Tory perspective, he is doing well. Busy pushing through as


ideological elite driven, in narrative as Margaret Thatcher did


in that sense? The cuts are a very significant. The key figure is, what


is the percentage of GDP that his state spending? That has been driven


down from 40% on a glide path to the mid-30s. In that ball figure, there


has been a big change. Undoubtedly. But the Lib Dems have pretty much


been annihilated in that last election and big divisions in


Labour? There are big divisions in labour. We need to see an actual


opposition. We have seen the opposition is holding the Commons to


account more than in the last Parliament. We have seen U-turns


like the tax credits. Cameron has changed the country for the worse.


It is time we had a real alternative to this strategy which was never


really given the endorsement of the British people. Thank you.


That's all for today. Thanks to our guests. The One O'Clock News is


starting over on BBC One now. I'll be back on Sunday with the Sunday


This is the FA Cup and anything can happen.


Download Subtitles