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.