04/12/2015 Daily Politics

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.