:00:36. > :00:39.Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:40. > :00:41.David Cameron's told us he'll negotiate a new relationship
:00:42. > :00:46.with the EU, but do his demands live up to his promises?
:00:47. > :00:49.40,000 homes in North West England are still without power
:00:50. > :00:53.as communities begin the clear up after the floods.
:00:54. > :00:56.The Environment Secretary says climate change is responsible.
:00:57. > :01:00.George Osborne cancelled cuts to tax credits in last month's spending
:01:01. > :01:03.review, but will the same families be hit when they
:01:04. > :01:11.And what's it like being a working class woman in the rarified
:01:12. > :01:24.With us for the whole of the programme today is the Conservative
:01:25. > :01:29.Welcome to the programme this morning.
:01:30. > :01:31.First this morning, we've become used to eye-catching statements
:01:32. > :01:34.from the Republic Presidential front-runner, Donald Trump.
:01:35. > :01:37.Last night he surpassed those with this line delivered to journalists
:01:38. > :01:40.in a press release and then to an audience of supporters
:01:41. > :01:46.Donald J Trump is calling for a total
:01:47. > :01:52.and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our
:01:53. > :01:58.country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.
:01:59. > :02:22.That was Donald Trump. How would you respond to that? Gosh, it's almost
:02:23. > :02:28.terrifying, isn't it, to think there is a possibility that this man could
:02:29. > :02:33.win the nomination and could end up being the president of the United
:02:34. > :02:41.States. I almost sends a tactic here because his whole campaign seems to
:02:42. > :02:44.be hinged on making sensational announcements. The frightening thing
:02:45. > :02:49.is, each time he makes one of these announcements, his popularity and
:02:50. > :02:52.poll rating seems to increase and that the frightening thing. I think
:02:53. > :02:56.what we need to watch very closely at what happens to his poll ratings
:02:57. > :03:04.after this. If his poll ratings continue to rise, after such a
:03:05. > :03:07.polemic and outrageous announcement, then that is actually quite worrying
:03:08. > :03:10.because although I say on one hand this man can never win the
:03:11. > :03:15.nomination, can never be the president of the USA, if his poll
:03:16. > :03:21.rating increases after that statement, then I think we need to
:03:22. > :03:27.worry. Jeb Bush, another nominee, said Donald Trump is unhinged. What
:03:28. > :03:32.sort of reaction do you think is required when you hear that sort of
:03:33. > :03:39.comment in order, as you say, to try and dampen down the popularity?
:03:40. > :03:43.Yeah, Jeb Bush, from the dynasty, well experienced in politics, his
:03:44. > :03:46.entire family were experienced in politics, he's someone you think
:03:47. > :03:52.would know how to respond appropriately. I don't think anybody
:03:53. > :03:59.actually knows how to deal with the phenomena at the moment that is this
:04:00. > :04:06.runaway success of Donald Trump. So, I think what Jeb Bush, I don't
:04:07. > :04:11.like the language, unhinged, I think there's different language she
:04:12. > :04:15.could've used, but to highlight the fact that Donald Trump's entire
:04:16. > :04:19.rhetoric is just sensationalist, for his own benefit, to serve himself.
:04:20. > :04:20.We will find out what happens fairly soon.
:04:21. > :04:25.Which of these figures is the odd one out?
:04:26. > :04:40.At the end of the show we'll see if Nadine knows the correct answer.
:04:41. > :04:45.Yesterday, the European Council President
:04:46. > :04:48.Donald Tusk wrote to EU leaders to update them on the progress
:04:49. > :04:51.He says that David Cameron has provided a significant
:04:52. > :04:53.and far-reaching agenda for discussion at December's meeting
:04:54. > :05:01.But how does Mr Tusk's response to British demands stack up
:05:02. > :05:05.against promises made in the Conservative manifesto?
:05:06. > :05:08.In May, the Conservatives said, "We will not let the integration of
:05:09. > :05:12.the eurozone jeopardise the integrity of the Single Market
:05:13. > :05:19.And the manifesto called for the EU "to break down the remaining
:05:20. > :05:26.Donald Tusk says there is a "very strong determination" to
:05:27. > :05:29.boost competitiveness across Europe, and that a solution can be reached
:05:30. > :05:35.to ensure no discrimination against non-eurozone countries.
:05:36. > :05:39.What's more contentious is the manifesto promise to say "no" to the
:05:40. > :05:44.concept of "ever closer union" - one of the EU's founding principles.
:05:45. > :05:46.But Donald Tusk says that "ever closer union" already "allows
:05:47. > :05:50.for various paths of integration for different countries."
:05:51. > :05:54.The big sticking point is over migrant benefits.
:05:55. > :05:57.The manifesto makes some very clear promises about what David Cameron
:05:58. > :06:02.EU migrants who want to claim tax credits and child benefit should
:06:03. > :06:06.There should be a new four-year residency
:06:07. > :06:13.If an EU migrant's child is living abroad, they should not receive
:06:14. > :06:20.EU jobseekers should not be able to claim any job-seeking benefits
:06:21. > :06:24.If jobseekers haven't found a job within six months,
:06:25. > :06:30.And when new countries are admitted to the EU, free movement
:06:31. > :06:34.of people should not apply until their economies converge more
:06:35. > :06:41.Donald Tusk says a change to migrant benefits is the "most delicate"
:06:42. > :06:43.demand from the UK, and one that will require "substantive political
:06:44. > :06:51.He admits that there is "presently no consensus" among other
:06:52. > :06:55.Well, last night George Osborne was in New York, where he was
:06:56. > :07:00.Here's what the Chancellor had to say.
:07:01. > :07:04.It's a complicated and robust negotiation, but the information
:07:05. > :07:08.that's been released today by the European Council shows we're making
:07:09. > :07:12.much more progress than people would have imagined in getting agreement
:07:13. > :07:16.across member states to address these British issues.
:07:17. > :07:19.As I say, ultimately, it will be for the British people to
:07:20. > :07:24.We're joined now by former Conservative MP Laura Sandys, who
:07:25. > :07:36.Welcome to you. Do you think what Donald Tusk says in his letter bodes
:07:37. > :07:39.well for David Cameron at the European Council discussions this
:07:40. > :07:43.month? I think he sounds very positive about the majority of the
:07:44. > :07:45.requests and I think it sounds as if there is strong consensus. There's
:07:46. > :07:48.been a lot of work done in the background to make sure that in each
:07:49. > :07:55.of the capitals around Europe there has been greater convergence. I
:07:56. > :07:57.don't think we are so out of step. Obviously the last issue about
:07:58. > :08:02.benefit is going to be an issue and that needs to be more negotiation,
:08:03. > :08:06.more diplomacy. You say there is strong consensus but there is no
:08:07. > :08:10.consensus as Donald Tusk on that. The stickler is going to be on
:08:11. > :08:14.migrant benefits because other EU leaders regarded as the scum in a
:08:15. > :08:19.tree. Other EU leaders have said there's no negotiation to be on
:08:20. > :08:22.that. I think there is and also already there has been quite a lot
:08:23. > :08:26.of flexibility on this issue about sending child benefit abroad for
:08:27. > :08:32.children who are not actually resident in the UK. But what about
:08:33. > :08:35.the four year in work benefits? It either discriminatory or not. I
:08:36. > :08:40.think there needs to be negotiation on that. Where? The point is we have
:08:41. > :08:44.different countries wanting different things so the idea was no
:08:45. > :08:48.consensus doesn't mean to say all European countries are against what
:08:49. > :08:52.we are proposing. You have to have an agreement on it. Of course.
:08:53. > :08:56.Things are tough, it's not an easy process and it's not easy to get
:08:57. > :08:59.changed. However, I think we've established quite a lot of the key
:09:00. > :09:03.demands and I think we are moving in the right direction. On the basis of
:09:04. > :09:06.a letter where he says there's no consensus and bearing in mind this
:09:07. > :09:10.meeting is happening very shortly, whatever chance the David Cameron
:09:11. > :09:15.getting a moratorium agreement on benefits for migrant workers for
:09:16. > :09:20.four years. I don't think it's huge. I think his request is reasonable
:09:21. > :09:25.but already having water down from their original intent, from ten down
:09:26. > :09:28.to four now, we will end up almost a no platform, no basis for David
:09:29. > :09:34.Cameron to come to Parliament and say, here is a re-negotiation. It's
:09:35. > :09:39.entirely sensible for the four year breakdown, no benefits to be paid to
:09:40. > :09:44.those whose children don't even live in the UK. It's all entirely
:09:45. > :09:48.sensible stuff. The letter says no consensus. If David Cameron comes
:09:49. > :09:53.back to Parliament with absolutely no consensus, then I think it's not
:09:54. > :09:56.going to bode well for going forward with a re-negotiation. If that is
:09:57. > :10:02.the deal, and the deal is not include any sort of ban on in work
:10:03. > :10:11.benefits, will you be voting out? Absolutely. Nothing will convince
:10:12. > :10:15.you? From my own perspective, a very large parts of Europe are in
:10:16. > :10:20.complete financial crisis. We have a huge problem with immigration. This
:10:21. > :10:24.only problem is, we spent ?350 million a day there. We could build
:10:25. > :10:27.a new hospital with that every week. You're not going to be convinced
:10:28. > :10:31.come what may, even if he does secure that. What about your
:10:32. > :10:36.colleagues who are waverers? Will increase the chances of them voting
:10:37. > :10:40.to leave? No, many of them will be very concerned be gone from ten main
:10:41. > :10:45.points we wanted to discuss down to four and even those four are now
:10:46. > :10:49.falling apart. I hope, Laura, the Prime Minister can come back and
:10:50. > :10:52.say, here is a package I have renegotiated, this is what I can
:10:53. > :10:56.bring to the table, but I don't think other member states are going
:10:57. > :11:01.to do it. I think whatever the point Mr came back with, the Dean has been
:11:02. > :11:04.clear about her positions I'm not sure it would ever be enough for
:11:05. > :11:07.some Eurosceptics which is fine. There are going to be a lot of
:11:08. > :11:11.others who might have been persuaded that won't be if you can't get
:11:12. > :11:16.anything on those in work benefits. Every single time the UK has gone in
:11:17. > :11:20.and batted for UK interests in Europe, we have been very
:11:21. > :11:24.successful. It might not be completely the four options on the
:11:25. > :11:29.table, but there are still movement on the benefits issue when it comes
:11:30. > :11:34.to children overseas, there will be some movement on it. It might not be
:11:35. > :11:38.able to get total consensus in the next two or three weeks, but we are
:11:39. > :11:43.talking about a February decision and that requires a lot more
:11:44. > :11:47.diplomacy. Just to move it on slightly, the real price would be to
:11:48. > :11:50.bring down levels of immigration. Do you think anything David Cameron is
:11:51. > :11:55.asking for will reduce net migration into this country? There is
:11:56. > :12:01.potential but those two issues are just highlighted, there is potential
:12:02. > :12:06.in what he's asking, people may not want to emigrate to this country as
:12:07. > :12:08.economic migrants that there is not the work there and they don't get
:12:09. > :12:11.the benefits they thought they may be able to to support themselves
:12:12. > :12:16.well become established in this country but, those two points will
:12:17. > :12:21.not be, even if we get to February, it will not be anything like enough.
:12:22. > :12:25.That's not a re-negotiation. It's not a concession, package. But for
:12:26. > :12:31.people who want to come out, none of it was ever going to be enough. What
:12:32. > :12:34.we're going to end up with is, if you look at the public, the public
:12:35. > :12:38.don't believe we have a strong voice in Europe. Actually, if we go back
:12:39. > :12:45.to the facts, and with a re-negotiation David Cameron is
:12:46. > :12:50.doing now, it shows we do. It's totally important, our relationship
:12:51. > :12:55.with Europe, it's been a non-euro country. Let's move on to that. As a
:12:56. > :12:59.non-euro country, let's look at Donald Tusk's I game, because he
:13:00. > :13:05.says there are parts of integration regarding closer union but that's a
:13:06. > :13:08.fob off to David Cameron, isn't it? We already accept different
:13:09. > :13:14.countries move at different paces to ever closer union. There doesn't
:13:15. > :13:17.seem to be anything more given to David Cameron on that particular
:13:18. > :13:21.request. No, I think there will be because there's a lot of detail
:13:22. > :13:25.behind us. What we are absolutely key about is we should not have come
:13:26. > :13:30.as a non-euro country, be discriminated against by decisions
:13:31. > :13:34.made by the euro countries. That is something absolutely crucial. We've
:13:35. > :13:38.also got to the wider benefits here. The issue about migration, I want to
:13:39. > :13:44.know which option stops migration because if we end up still in the
:13:45. > :13:48.single market, we will have to have free movement but we won't be at the
:13:49. > :13:54.table re-negotiating like we are now. We will be outside kicking our
:13:55. > :13:57.heels. How low would levels of immigration or even net migration be
:13:58. > :14:02.if we came out of the EU? I don't think anyone has made an analysis
:14:03. > :14:07.prediction in terms of numbers. That is one of the big claims by
:14:08. > :14:12.campaigners it would come down. It travels down to tens or 20s or
:14:13. > :14:16.thousands. Getting greater control of our borders is possibly the first
:14:17. > :14:21.step in controlling. It wouldn't stop people wanting to come and work
:14:22. > :14:24.here and would you want that? Of course, I trained as a nurse in the
:14:25. > :14:27.NHS and of course we would not want to stop people coming here to work
:14:28. > :14:30.but we want people who can contribute to the economy and have
:14:31. > :14:36.skills. There's point system already. We also have a situation of
:14:37. > :14:39.hundreds of thousands of people who are in the country as illegal
:14:40. > :14:46.immigrants and we don't even know where they are. We don't have
:14:47. > :14:50.control of our borders. Illegal immigrants are not European
:14:51. > :14:55.migrants. But how do we know that because they are illegal? We don't
:14:56. > :14:58.know where they are. Fundamentally, if they are legal, anybody with free
:14:59. > :15:06.movement across Europe are by definition legal. We don't know who
:15:07. > :15:11.they are. And where they came from. But they're not European otherwise
:15:12. > :15:15.they would not be illegal. The issue is 50% of migration be having this
:15:16. > :15:21.country comes from outside Europe and that is something we can take
:15:22. > :15:25.of. I actually think we are in an invidious position, Northern Ireland
:15:26. > :15:31.two, if we came out but also we would move the jungle in Calais to
:15:32. > :15:34.Dover so we would be dealing with these things rather than in the
:15:35. > :15:35.collective weight where we are actually managing a very complicated
:15:36. > :15:53.international migration problem. Is it the most important thing for
:15:54. > :15:58.the leaders of the EU when it is very fragile? I would like to see
:15:59. > :16:02.Europe much more forward thinking about the migration problem.
:16:03. > :16:06.Ultimately, what they need to understand is as leaving Europe is
:16:07. > :16:11.an absolutely extra central threat to Europe itself, and I think they
:16:12. > :16:14.are incredibly omitted to deliver a deal for us but also for them --
:16:15. > :16:17.existential. Thank you. Thousands
:16:18. > :16:18.of people struggling with flooding in Cumbria and Lancashire have been
:16:19. > :16:21.warned they could face further 16 severe flood warnings are
:16:22. > :16:25.still in force in the region. Yesterday the Prime Minister
:16:26. > :16:27.visited the worst hit areas. This time apparently wearing ?12
:16:28. > :16:29.wellies from Asda after his ?89 The issue was also debated
:16:30. > :16:33.in the House of Commons It is not enough for the
:16:34. > :16:46.Prime Minister and the Environment Secretary to pledge to deal with
:16:47. > :16:49.the devastation and damage caused. We do need a commitment
:16:50. > :16:52.from them also to do all they can to The Environment Secretary's
:16:53. > :16:56.predecessor was, as we know, not someone who is prepared to
:16:57. > :16:59.acknowledge the risks posed Does this Secretary of State agree
:17:00. > :17:04.that extreme weather events are unfortunately increasingly a feature
:17:05. > :17:06.of British weather and government The Honourable Lady is absolutely
:17:07. > :17:11.right about the extreme weather As we say, it is consistent with
:17:12. > :17:17.the trends we are seeing Climate change is factored in to all
:17:18. > :17:24.the modelling work the Environment Agency does but clearly, in the
:17:25. > :17:27.light of this extreme weather, we are going to have to look at that
:17:28. > :17:31.modelling and make sure it's fit My view is that it's really
:17:32. > :17:38.important that we remain fair to people right across the country,
:17:39. > :17:41.and the people of Cumbria understand why those decisions are being made
:17:42. > :18:02.and also get the proper protection Liz Truss ending that report there.
:18:03. > :18:05.Liz Truss says freak weather conditions are the result of climate
:18:06. > :18:12.change. Is that the settled view on the Tory backbenches? Gosh, I don't
:18:13. > :18:18.know if it is a settled view. There is so much discussion about this. So
:18:19. > :18:22.many experts' opinion, so many contradictory opinions, so many
:18:23. > :18:28.newspaper headlines. I did think anybody is 100% convinced. I don't
:18:29. > :18:34.have to agree with everything they are saying. That is right, so you
:18:35. > :18:39.don't think it is down to climate change? I don't know. I read
:18:40. > :18:44.somewhere in the 1500 in England it rained every day for ten years. I
:18:45. > :18:49.don't know. I know other town in the 1600 switch was completely under
:18:50. > :18:54.flood. You don't sound convinced. We do have freak weather conditions. We
:18:55. > :18:58.do have climate change happening obviously. I don't know what is
:18:59. > :19:01.happening with Storm Desmond, obviously. I don't know what is
:19:02. > :19:07.the result of climate change or is it a freak weather condition? I'm
:19:08. > :19:10.sure that building on flood plains, climate change, many other factors
:19:11. > :19:15.contributed flooding and what happens as a result of flooding.
:19:16. > :19:19.Should we accept it and live with it or should the government be spending
:19:20. > :19:24.more money and looking at increasing the flood defences which already
:19:25. > :19:29.exist? Absolutely. When we see pictures like we have seen this
:19:30. > :19:32.week, and what happens is, that we see different parts of the country
:19:33. > :19:36.every time something happens. I think what we have to do is to
:19:37. > :19:40.accept that maybe flooding is a part of life in this century and wherever
:19:41. > :19:45.we know there will be flood issues, make sure the money is put into it.
:19:46. > :19:51.It will not be once in a hundred years which is what the government
:19:52. > :19:56.has said in the past. No, it is happening more frequently. It may be
:19:57. > :19:59.a result of climate change. We have increased the budget. The government
:20:00. > :20:03.has increased the budget in real terms, both year-on-year, and I
:20:04. > :20:09.think what we need to do is to make sure we look at what has happened in
:20:10. > :20:13.the floods this time. One of the main problems is the water is not
:20:14. > :20:16.receding as much as it could do, because the measures that were put
:20:17. > :20:21.in place to prevent the floods in the first place, to do a good job,
:20:22. > :20:24.apparently, have now stopped the water receding as quickly as it
:20:25. > :20:29.could. I think there are lessons will stop.
:20:30. > :20:31.Increased costs, software problems, delays.
:20:32. > :20:33.It's been a tricky journey for Universal Credit since
:20:34. > :20:37.Iain Duncan Smith set out his vision for welfare reform back in 2010.
:20:38. > :20:39.And with George Osborne still planning to make ?12 billion worth
:20:40. > :20:42.of savings to the welfare bill by 2020, some argue that
:20:43. > :20:44.Universal Credit will end up hitting those very people cheering
:20:45. > :20:46.the Chancellor's decision to axe cuts to tax credits.
:20:47. > :20:48.So what difference will Universal Credit really make?
:20:49. > :21:18.Actually, Iain Duncan Smith was more ambitious than the Spice Girls, he
:21:19. > :21:27.wants six to become one. Six benefits into Universal Credit. He
:21:28. > :21:31.says it is a way of making work pay so that people do not see their
:21:32. > :21:36.benefits drop off when they start working. At the moment it is being
:21:37. > :21:41.offered in three quarters of job centres. People on Universal Credit
:21:42. > :21:47.are more likely to be in work than on Jobseeker's Allowance. 100 people
:21:48. > :21:54.on JSA who go into work, 113 going for Universal Credit. It is a
:21:55. > :21:58.remarkable figure. There are currently 141,000 people on
:21:59. > :22:03.Universal Credit. Each week, nearly 6000 people start a new claim. The
:22:04. > :22:06.government wants to roll it out to 7 million people. There is broad
:22:07. > :22:11.support for the principle of Universal Credit, but Labour says
:22:12. > :22:17.things may not be as they seem. Not least because of the U-turn on tax
:22:18. > :22:21.credits. I have listened to the concerns. I hear and understand
:22:22. > :22:26.them, and because there is an improvement in the public finances,
:22:27. > :22:31.the simplest thing to do is not to faze these changes in, but to avoid
:22:32. > :22:36.them altogether. Tax credits are being phased out anyway as we
:22:37. > :22:39.introduce Universal Credit. We heard the Chancellor talking
:22:40. > :22:45.about the fact that tax credits would not go ahead will stop what we
:22:46. > :22:49.did not hear about is that Universal Credit cuts will still continue.
:22:50. > :22:54.Families who are affected will have a lower income from the government.
:22:55. > :22:58.That is due to the fact they are reducing the work allowance. The
:22:59. > :23:02.work allowance is the amount a claimant can earn before their
:23:03. > :23:08.benefits start being reduced. Some critics worry that the marginal
:23:09. > :23:14.reduction rate is still high. It could prove a disincentive to
:23:15. > :23:19.decrease your hours. Who better to ask for clarification than the man
:23:20. > :23:23.who came up with the system. Under the existing system, some people
:23:24. > :23:29.could lose huge sums of money as they move from 16 to 17 hours.
:23:30. > :23:32.Somewhat heavily subsidised at 16 hours. We have put in transitional
:23:33. > :23:39.protection because they would never get the same money as they would on
:23:40. > :23:42.Universal Credit. At 17, 18 or 19 hours, they are better off and below
:23:43. > :23:48.those hours they are better off on tax credits. In some cases your pen
:23:49. > :23:52.marginal reduction rates of 95p in a pound and this is all part of the
:23:53. > :23:58.process of making welfare work and it is about making sure we save
:23:59. > :24:02.money in welfare by getting people back to work. We do not -- it is
:24:03. > :24:13.about getting the deficit reduced. If we do not then we will not have
:24:14. > :24:18.as many people in work. According to IDS, it is the only way to be.
:24:19. > :24:22.That was a Lee Price reporting there. -- any price.
:24:23. > :24:24.We're joined now by the Work and Pensions Minister,
:24:25. > :24:28.Justin Tomlinson and the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, Owen Smith.
:24:29. > :24:35.According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Universal Credit
:24:36. > :24:39.means a worse deal for 2.6 million working families. These families
:24:40. > :24:44.will receive ?1600 less than they would have done under the current
:24:45. > :24:49.tax credit system. Is this your government's idea of helping working
:24:50. > :24:54.people? In the report they acknowledge that is a static
:24:55. > :24:58.analysis. It does not look at rising wages, the increase in the personal
:24:59. > :25:03.tax threshold, it is taking a like-for-like today but it is not
:25:04. > :25:09.today, it is going forwards. This will be removing artificial
:25:10. > :25:13.barriers, it is providing a personal adviser to provide help to
:25:14. > :25:18.navigate. But on the figures that people can claim, particularly new
:25:19. > :25:22.claimants, that number of families will lose ?1600 less, just looking
:25:23. > :25:29.at those figures alone, that you cannot guarantee to families. But
:25:30. > :25:34.that is a static analysis if it was introduced today. But it is over a
:25:35. > :25:38.number of years, by which time the increase in wages... But you don't
:25:39. > :25:47.know that those 2.6 million families will have increased wages or benefit
:25:48. > :25:47.from the other things. We know the national living wages coming in, we
:25:48. > :25:51.are seeing an economy creating more jobs are more hours for people to
:25:52. > :25:55.work, doubling of childcare and the fact you will have a personal
:25:56. > :25:59.adviser who can help you navigate these things. At the moment we have
:26:00. > :26:02.a complex chaotic benefit system where understandably people are
:26:03. > :26:07.having to deal with that rather than focusing on being able to get into
:26:08. > :26:11.work and removing those barriers, the Secretary of State said those
:26:12. > :26:15.people are stuck at 16 hours, it is not good for businesses. But a
:26:16. > :26:25.single parent with one child on a part-time Living Wage will be ?2800
:26:26. > :26:29.a year worse off under Universal Credit. That is true. It is true
:26:30. > :26:31.that they will be ?2800 a year off in terms of their benefit. But by
:26:32. > :26:41.the time they have gone through that system... It will make up ?2800?
:26:42. > :26:49.People once they progress in work will be able to keep more money. It
:26:50. > :26:53.will not be ?2800. There is an increase in the personal tax
:26:54. > :26:57.threshold, an increase in the Dublin of childcare. It will provide a less
:26:58. > :27:01.complicated more stable system which supports people, not just in
:27:02. > :27:05.financial terms but with a personal adviser to help them navigate. Will
:27:06. > :27:11.they be better off or worse off, that single parent with one child,
:27:12. > :27:17.will they be better off? We will see as the changes come forward. What
:27:18. > :27:33.I'm trying to get you to admit is there will be losers. The Institute
:27:34. > :27:35.for Fiscal Studies has said there will be losers. I take on board what
:27:36. > :27:38.you say about the transitional arrangement and the Living Wage will
:27:39. > :27:40.go up and there will be extra childcare, but it will not make up
:27:41. > :27:43.2008 hundred pounds. George Osborne's cancelling of this tax
:27:44. > :27:46.credit cuts, has been pushed further down the line onto new claimants who
:27:47. > :27:48.will be worse off. They may be less worse off but they will still be
:27:49. > :27:57.worse off. The current -- a couple on the national Living Wage will be
:27:58. > :28:01.3000 pounds worse off. Going back to the tax credits, they were saying we
:28:02. > :28:06.understand why changes are coming forward but you have to allow extra
:28:07. > :28:14.supports, extra childcare, the changes to the rise in wages and
:28:15. > :28:17.other changes to filter through. Crucially, people will get
:28:18. > :28:20.personalised support, the artificial barriers are removed and we have
:28:21. > :28:26.already seen with the 8000 people who were sampled, 86% are now
:28:27. > :28:32.feeling they can go and get extra work. This is making a huge
:28:33. > :28:36.difference to people. Let's take it in the round. You have still got ?3
:28:37. > :28:41.billion worth of savings you want to make from the welfare bill in 2020,
:28:42. > :28:46.and it has to come from somewhere, but you are still picking the
:28:47. > :28:50.pockets of working families. You are working on the assumption that we
:28:51. > :28:54.are always having to take money from people. By taking people off
:28:55. > :29:00.benefits, helping them pay tax into the system, this is beneficial for
:29:01. > :29:05.the individual, beneficial for the economy... But not if you're losing
:29:06. > :29:09.money. The government said people currently claiming tax credits would
:29:10. > :29:14.be protected, protected from what? Protected from the new system of a
:29:15. > :29:17.shift on to Universal Credit. By admitting they are being protected,
:29:18. > :29:22.you are admitting other people will be much worse off under Universal
:29:23. > :29:26.Credit. That is because you are looking at that could 16 hour cliff
:29:27. > :29:30.edge approach. We will be smoothing that out so that every extra hour
:29:31. > :29:36.you will work, you will keep more money. You say that but actually,
:29:37. > :29:41.single parents must work at least 16 hours a week if they claim working
:29:42. > :29:50.tax credits. Under Universal Credit, single parents. To lose their
:29:51. > :29:58.benefit once they have worked the benefit -- ten hours. A single
:29:59. > :30:03.parent will start to lose their benefits are just ?5,000 under the
:30:04. > :30:08.new system. That is a massive cliff edge. You are highlighting the
:30:09. > :30:11.problem at the moment, there are six different benefits, highly
:30:12. > :30:15.complicated, people are struggling to navigate this complicated system.
:30:16. > :30:19.We will provide a simple system which supports people as they
:30:20. > :30:22.progress in work, but only with the childcare provision you have
:30:23. > :30:26.highlighted, rising wages, more jobs, more hours, having that
:30:27. > :30:34.adviser who can navigate you through that system, signpost you if you
:30:35. > :30:37.need extra training and making sure people get the benefits they are
:30:38. > :30:42.entitled to. There will be a 2 tier system.
:30:43. > :30:47.There will be those that start claiming if their circumstances
:30:48. > :30:51.change they will be identified as new claimants starting under
:30:52. > :30:55.Universal Credit will be worse off. You highlight the point about people
:30:56. > :31:02.circumstances changing. But you are not highlighting that. You won't
:31:03. > :31:05.have to wait to get support. This will be good of you have a
:31:06. > :31:10.fluctuating health issue, your hours change week to week, personal
:31:11. > :31:14.adviser to signpost you. This is a broadly supported scheme, a huge
:31:15. > :31:18.change which is being done in a controlled manner and at helping
:31:19. > :31:23.people who want to work more. Do you support Universal Credit? Yes, it's
:31:24. > :31:29.a really good idea. If you weather system which could sympathise six
:31:30. > :31:34.benefits. Unfortunately, it doesn't do the second piece, the job, which
:31:35. > :31:38.is make work pay. He can't slip away from the truth that you've outlined
:31:39. > :31:42.very clearly that against the current system, they are going to
:31:43. > :31:46.make ?10 billion worth of savings, they announce it on Friday last week
:31:47. > :31:52.and that money is going to come from people in work, out of the ?3
:31:53. > :31:56.billion a year change for the work allowance. If you are a single
:31:57. > :32:00.mother with two children working full-time on the minimum wage, you
:32:01. > :32:04.will be ?3000 worse off. It's exactly the amount of money they
:32:05. > :32:08.were going to save and tax credits. If you are in favour of Universal
:32:09. > :32:12.Credit and accept it's a complicated system, there has to be some sort of
:32:13. > :32:16.cut-off point. If you're going to make it more generous, which I
:32:17. > :32:20.presume is what you're saying, you're going to spend more on
:32:21. > :32:24.welfare? First of all, let's be clear, are we talking about welfare
:32:25. > :32:27.or support for people in work because that is what we are
:32:28. > :32:32.debating, not supporting people out of work. People think supported on
:32:33. > :32:39.low wages. That Bill will go up under Labour? You will put it up.
:32:40. > :32:47.No, the bill has gone up under the Tories. It's not fair to say the
:32:48. > :32:51.bill would not go up under your party. We would protect these
:32:52. > :32:56.people, we've campaigned for a full reversal of the tax credit cut and
:32:57. > :33:00.we got it, we are now campaigning for a full reversal of the Universal
:33:01. > :33:06.Credit cut. Working people the support, we will put that money back
:33:07. > :33:11.in if we were in power. We are crystal clear about that. Where
:33:12. > :33:14.would you get that ?3 billion of savings you said in the election you
:33:15. > :33:20.are going to reform the welfare bill? And you're not. Had I been
:33:21. > :33:25.Chancellor, unfortunately we did not get the chance to set the budget, I
:33:26. > :33:28.would've taken the extra ?27 billion he had in tax receipts and put that
:33:29. > :33:35.towards this relief. I might not have had a ?10 billion projected
:33:36. > :33:39.surplus at the end of the spending period, but it would make different
:33:40. > :33:42.political choices to use money in the system to support working
:33:43. > :33:47.people. That's a different choice the Tories made. The one choice the
:33:48. > :33:51.Tories made which outstripped labour and Ed Miliband Microsoft, they put
:33:52. > :33:58.the living wage up much higher. They beat you on that. It's not a
:33:59. > :34:04.question of who beat too. It's important for families. Why doesn't
:34:05. > :34:07.that count in this argument over welfare changes. If Justin Tomlinson
:34:08. > :34:11.is right in terms of a living wage going up and there's more childcare,
:34:12. > :34:17.that will bridge the gap to making people work a bit harder and a bit
:34:18. > :34:21.longer at getting more money. If it would, I would be supporting these
:34:22. > :34:25.changes but the truth is, Justin was not being straightforward. The ISS
:34:26. > :34:32.are factored in all of these things, except for the change to 85% of
:34:33. > :34:35.childcare costs being covered for three-year-olds and four-year-olds,
:34:36. > :34:42.it's a maximum benefit of ?700 if your child is three or four. But you
:34:43. > :34:47.will still be losing around ?3000 a year so does not make up for it and
:34:48. > :34:50.no way Iain Duncan Smith can cut the figures. The truth is working
:34:51. > :34:55.families are losing out and they would not be under Labour. The key
:34:56. > :35:00.point is, a lot of this is going forward into the future so we'll
:35:01. > :35:06.have to see what happens. 8000 people are on Universal Credit now
:35:07. > :35:14.against 8000 people on jobseeker's allowance. 86% felt they could not
:35:15. > :35:19.increase their working hours. 36% have gone into work. We are moving
:35:20. > :35:23.those barriers. We have a complex system. It's about the growing
:35:24. > :35:28.dynamic of the economy and something very important. Were you pleased the
:35:29. > :35:31.Chancellor cancelled that cuts to tax credits in the Autumn
:35:32. > :35:37.Statement? Absolutely because I did not vote for it. How money people
:35:38. > :35:39.have claimed credit, the Labour Party, Conservative backbenchers,
:35:40. > :35:47.the media, everybody is claiming credit for it. I'm not claiming
:35:48. > :35:51.credit. You just did, you said you removed it as a result of your
:35:52. > :35:52.campaigning. We now need to campaign to get the Universal Credit changed.
:35:53. > :35:55.Thank you. How in touch are those in the
:35:56. > :35:58.upper echelons of British politics Well back in 2012 our guest of the
:35:59. > :36:02.day, Nadine Dorries, made headlines when she used this programme to
:36:03. > :36:05.speak her mind about the two men Unfortunately, I think that, not
:36:06. > :36:10.only are Cameron and Osborne two posh boys who don't know the price
:36:11. > :36:15.of milk, but they are two arrogant posh boys who show no remorse, no
:36:16. > :36:20.contrition and no passion to want to understand the lives of others
:36:21. > :36:26.and that is their real crime. There is actually talk now that
:36:27. > :36:29.Cameron may not even go into the next election as Prime Minister
:36:30. > :36:33.because he has become so remote, so elite and so distant and so
:36:34. > :36:36.lacking in ability to compromise. It almost seems like he finds it
:36:37. > :36:38.impossible to put out a hand to actually really understand
:36:39. > :36:47.what it is other people go through. And we're joined now by the Labour
:36:48. > :36:58.MP Jess Phillips. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Let's
:36:59. > :37:03.look at those statistics. 32% of MPs going to private school, is that
:37:04. > :37:08.surprising? Not at all. How representative of the public would
:37:09. > :37:12.you say your cabinet is? I don't think Parliament is representative
:37:13. > :37:16.of the general public. I don't think MPs, their life experiences, the way
:37:17. > :37:21.they think, the way they vote. That's across the house, not just in
:37:22. > :37:26.my party. The same in the Shadow Cabinet? I think the Shadow Cabinet
:37:27. > :37:30.is probably more representative but it's something that could be wagered
:37:31. > :37:36.every single party in this place, every single group. This morning, we
:37:37. > :37:38.were both on the childcare Bill committee and I could speak
:37:39. > :37:43.specifically from my experiences of having some of the benefits and
:37:44. > :37:46.childcare problems and I think that the people sat opposite me were
:37:47. > :37:53.confounded because they can't argue with my personal experiences. Chloe,
:37:54. > :37:56.also on the committee, I don't think any of them had children in
:37:57. > :38:01.childcare which is one not argue to be fair. You made very good points
:38:02. > :38:05.and it a very good speech and I challenge anybody to read it because
:38:06. > :38:09.it was fascinating. There are only some of us, I'm the same, who can
:38:10. > :38:14.come to Parliament, who know what it's like to have been hungry. I
:38:15. > :38:18.remember hiding under the sink in our council has and my mum will kill
:38:19. > :38:23.me if I'm watching this, from the rent man because the rent man used
:38:24. > :38:28.to come and we didn't have the money to pay the rent because my dad had
:38:29. > :38:31.his feet amputated. He was off work on long-term sick and they were not
:38:32. > :38:36.benefit payments then. We know what it's like to struggle and I think
:38:37. > :38:40.Jess this morning has articulated their own struggles as a working
:38:41. > :38:46.parent. You grew up about 100 miles or so or less from each other. You
:38:47. > :38:49.describe it as working class families. Why do you now sit here
:38:50. > :39:04.representing different sides of the political debate? I can't imagine
:39:05. > :39:11.why Medina sits on that side. -- Medina. She is considerably more
:39:12. > :39:14.poor than mine. My own experience of poverty came in my adult life, to be
:39:15. > :39:21.truthful. My parents were very working class. My childhood was not
:39:22. > :39:27.uncomfortable, but my own experiences came when I have my own
:39:28. > :39:32.children. Right to buy is what sealed it for me. One of the very
:39:33. > :39:36.first policies. That's when it came in, 1997. We lived in a council
:39:37. > :39:42.house and were given the opportunity to buy it and it was a step out of
:39:43. > :39:47.poverty onto the ladder which was just amazing because everybody
:39:48. > :39:50.started planting their gardens, painting their fences, painting
:39:51. > :39:54.their front doors, improving their house. It made people aspirational
:39:55. > :39:58.and gave people pride to own their own house. The think Labour needs to
:39:59. > :40:04.be more aspirational? Do you think in order to capture people like the
:40:05. > :40:08.Dean and others, you need to be more aspirational? That word means
:40:09. > :40:12.nothing any more because get talked about so much of the Labour Party
:40:13. > :40:16.doesn't need as though it got the people at the bottom in the top.
:40:17. > :40:20.There's a huge swathe of a country which exists in the middle and it
:40:21. > :40:23.would put myself in that category. Now I'm at the top of the person who
:40:24. > :40:28.I was talking about in the committee, was a middle person. I
:40:29. > :40:33.think that the Labour Party don't talk about that enough. With regard
:40:34. > :40:36.to right to buy, you would be very lucky now in the same situation you
:40:37. > :40:43.would get a council house because of right to buy. Whilst your
:40:44. > :40:49.aspiration... And my granny brought her council has and are not adequate
:40:50. > :40:53.size people who did that, although my father criticised her at the
:40:54. > :40:57.time, there is a -2 aspiration and those people now can't aspire to
:40:58. > :41:01.have a home. But it's learning from those policies because the big
:41:02. > :41:04.mistake about that policy in that time was not ploughing the money
:41:05. > :41:08.which came in into building more council houses but that's not the
:41:09. > :41:11.case today because with right to buy and other policies the government
:41:12. > :41:14.bring in, there is a criteria that money will go back into funding will
:41:15. > :41:20.council houses and it's a big problem. That is the claim certainly
:41:21. > :41:24.but you previously called David Cameron and a George Osborne
:41:25. > :41:27.arrogant posh boys. They don't have the price of milk. They've done
:41:28. > :41:33.quite well despite that. They have, yes. The mail on Sunday wrote a
:41:34. > :41:42.headline which I had nothing to do with. Does it still matter?
:41:43. > :41:48.Basically, David Cameron came the leader of the party exactly ten
:41:49. > :41:53.years ago. Ten years ago yesterday. I think he's travelled a long road
:41:54. > :41:58.and is certainly a different person today than he was ten years ago. I
:41:59. > :42:07.think that, today, I wouldn't make those comments. Really? I would. I'm
:42:08. > :42:11.not including George Osborne in that comment and I think David Cameron is
:42:12. > :42:16.someone who is now, from my own experience, as a Prime Minister,
:42:17. > :42:20.when we went into the election, I was actually quite pleased he was
:42:21. > :42:25.the person. Do you think George Osborne is out of touch? I'm not
:42:26. > :42:34.going to make any comments. I think... Could he be the next
:42:35. > :42:43.leader? I would say the answer would be no. Over? No. So George Osborne
:42:44. > :42:47.is not made that journey in your mind David Cameron has. He still
:42:48. > :42:52.privileged and out of touch in your mind? George Osborne has spent the
:42:53. > :42:58.last ten giving sweeties to conservative backbenchers and Labour
:42:59. > :43:05.Party members. Buying friends. Giving out the jobs. He's run out of
:43:06. > :43:11.jobs to give people. He spent ten years buying the backbenchers and
:43:12. > :43:15.the frontbenchers, two, so that one day they will vote for George
:43:16. > :43:20.Osborne to be leader. If that happens, then I think what we need
:43:21. > :43:25.to do really, in all parties, is look at how the political system
:43:26. > :43:28.works, because I don't think it is right anybody of privilege should be
:43:29. > :43:34.able to come into Parliament and use their privilege and the education
:43:35. > :43:38.and background to secure the career progression into the role of Prime
:43:39. > :43:41.Minister into the future. If George Osborne becomes Prime Minister, that
:43:42. > :43:45.is how he has done it. Would you leave the party at that point? We
:43:46. > :43:51.may have this discussion another day. We have to put two people
:43:52. > :43:56.forward to the country and I don't believe George Osborne will be in
:43:57. > :44:00.those two people. I think it will be Theresa May Boris Johnson. What did
:44:01. > :44:07.you think of Nadine Dorries topping up her MP salary with reality TV
:44:08. > :44:13.appearance? I would do is to click dancing. Sometimes when people say,
:44:14. > :44:17.wide-eyed become an MP I play the long game because a female MP has
:44:18. > :44:21.never been on strictly come dancing. I hope you get your
:44:22. > :44:22.invitation for next season. You can permit your way out of the studio.
:44:23. > :44:24.Thank you. Now, how long does it take to decide
:44:25. > :44:28.whether to build a third runway Politicians have been thinking
:44:29. > :44:31.about it for at least 25 years and this government started the
:44:32. > :44:33.process of making the decision over three years ago - but it now looks
:44:34. > :44:37.like they need a bit more time. Heathrow says
:44:38. > :44:39.a third runway would add But last week a committee of MPs
:44:40. > :44:46.said the airport still needs to prove that a new runway would meet
:44:47. > :44:50.air quality standards. In 2009, Gordon Brown's government
:44:51. > :44:52.said they would build Then in 2010 the new Prime Minister
:44:53. > :45:02.David Cameron scrapped those plans. This was after he made a "no ifs,
:45:03. > :45:06.no buts" pledge that he wouldn't But in September 2012
:45:07. > :45:11.the government asked the economist Howard Davies to lead an independent
:45:12. > :45:16.commission into airport capacity. In July, the Airports Commission
:45:17. > :45:18.finally reported, giving a green The government said they'd make
:45:19. > :45:25.a final decision before the end of the year but it now looks
:45:26. > :45:28.like that could be delayed And joining me now are two
:45:29. > :45:36.Conservative MPs Tania Mathias - she's against expansion at
:45:37. > :45:46.Heathrow - Welcome to both of you. You must be
:45:47. > :45:51.delighted. It looks as if the government will kick this into the
:45:52. > :45:56.long grass. I have not heard anything officially. My concern is
:45:57. > :46:02.the same today as if there had been a decision. I have concerns about
:46:03. > :46:08.Heathrow with two runways, let alone three runways, and I believe we do
:46:09. > :46:13.need an answer for the UK's aviation capacity. You want a decision to be
:46:14. > :46:17.made one way or the other? I want a decision that would be made on an
:46:18. > :46:20.economic level, that works for the country and does not have
:46:21. > :46:27.environmental impact that Heathrow would have. According to the CBI,
:46:28. > :46:35.delaying on this issue could cost ?5 billion in lost exports. Do MPs bear
:46:36. > :46:37.responsibility in that? The Davis commission also talked about no
:46:38. > :46:42.night flights and that means there would not be flights to our markets
:46:43. > :46:48.and Southeast Asia. So I don't see how the economic benefit comes with
:46:49. > :46:56.a third runway at Heathrow. Royston, the CBI says the decision shows a
:46:57. > :47:02.failure in leadership and now looks like there will not be definitive
:47:03. > :47:06.decision. Is David Cameron being too indecisive? It is difficult. If you
:47:07. > :47:13.make a know with snow but commitment but then circumstances change, you
:47:14. > :47:17.have sort of tide a bit. -- ain't no ifs, no buts commitment. Politicians
:47:18. > :47:23.want a straight answer and sometimes when you do then that can come back
:47:24. > :47:27.to bite you. When I was leader of Southampton City Council, people
:47:28. > :47:34.advised us and politicians made decisions. We have had the Davis
:47:35. > :47:40.commission. If the decision is to do nothing, that is a decision, but
:47:41. > :47:44.until we do, no one, Tania in particular and her constituents,
:47:45. > :47:50.cannot move on. Do you think the government will just go for Heathrow
:47:51. > :47:53.eventually? It would be my favoured option. The government will make its
:47:54. > :47:57.decision based on all sorts of factors. I think if they made a
:47:58. > :48:01.decision based on the Davis commission and the economic case,
:48:02. > :48:06.then they would make a decision for a third runway at Heathrow. Do you
:48:07. > :48:14.think it is politics? Are they being cynical because Zac Goldsmith's the
:48:15. > :48:18.Conservative candidate for mayor who is dead against Heathrow expansion
:48:19. > :48:27.and says will resign the whip if a third runway goes ahead. Do you
:48:28. > :48:31.think that is why they are denying it -- delaying it? I don't think
:48:32. > :48:35.they are. We see a lot of people who are independently minded which is
:48:36. > :48:40.very good for your constituents. Some of the things you say and do
:48:41. > :48:43.for your constituents quite rightly will not sit with government
:48:44. > :48:48.policy. However this I am going to resign if I don't get my own way, is
:48:49. > :48:53.not something which I think is a good idea. Zac Goldsmith stood on
:48:54. > :49:01.that platform and there was the no ifs, no buts from David Cameron.
:49:02. > :49:06.That was 2009 from David Cameron. I remember because I am next door to
:49:07. > :49:09.Zach's constituency, I am in Twickenham, and I remember at big
:49:10. > :49:18.public meetings, it was very powerful when Zac was a candidate.
:49:19. > :49:24.He said I know people feel very strongly. What I am saying is, I
:49:25. > :49:29.want to fight as the MP for Twickenham, because I want to
:49:30. > :49:34.improve Heathrow right now, and I do believe with the environmental audit
:49:35. > :49:40.committee report, there is more we can do to make Heathrow better, not
:49:41. > :49:44.bigger. But if they go for that third runway, Tania, do you think
:49:45. > :49:48.there will be Cabinet resignations over this? We know Justine
:49:49. > :49:54.Greening, the MP for Putney, and her views which are very against a third
:49:55. > :49:59.runway. I don't know. I have two basic like other MPs, but I want to
:50:00. > :50:04.see an end result, however long it takes. My predecessor before last,
:50:05. > :50:10.Toby Jessel, in his maiden speech said almost the same thing I did in
:50:11. > :50:15.my maiden speech and that was in 1970. The point is to carry on the
:50:16. > :50:19.fight. When I have debated in Parliament, Toby, although he is
:50:20. > :50:25.retired, has said good, you are doing the same arguments, we have to
:50:26. > :50:29.keep fighting for residents. How can you recommend that the government
:50:30. > :50:32.plumps for Heathrow when the environmental audit committee has
:50:33. > :50:36.warned that issues of public health and noise pollution have not been
:50:37. > :50:41.dealt with, that they would be breaching EU guidelines? I think a
:50:42. > :50:46.lot of that has been answered in reports. We know wherever you put a
:50:47. > :50:50.third runway or another runway or another airport, you are going to
:50:51. > :50:54.have an airport pollution. You will have that. But I don't think in this
:50:55. > :50:58.case, with the new technology of aeroplanes, they are far different
:50:59. > :51:02.than they ever were before. I am a former engineer. I know how aircraft
:51:03. > :51:06.technology has changed over the years. They are far less polluting
:51:07. > :51:13.than they ever were and they are becoming less polluting. So why
:51:14. > :51:16.doesn't the government just say Heathrow? I am not talking on the
:51:17. > :51:21.half of the government... But you admit there is no question to
:51:22. > :51:28.answer. I am saying I think Heathrow is the right solution. I think what
:51:29. > :51:32.Tania is doing is the right thing for her constituents. This is about
:51:33. > :51:36.representation and I think Tania is doing a proper job. If you resign
:51:37. > :51:41.the whip and you are not in the party any more, your influence would
:51:42. > :51:46.be less. Tania is fighting in the party for her constituents. But
:51:47. > :51:51.should the government ignore MPs like Tania and Justine Greening?
:51:52. > :51:57.No, they should listen to everyone's opinions but... It is a
:51:58. > :52:02.fairly binary decision. If I was in Twickenham, I would like Tania
:52:03. > :52:06.fighting for me. Point of information, I love the fact you
:52:07. > :52:12.haven't engineering background but we are dealing with a serious
:52:13. > :52:18.increase to number of flights. It is not NIMBY -ism. If nitrous dioxide
:52:19. > :52:25.was red in colour we would see it all over London. And when we talk
:52:26. > :52:30.about WHO and EU 55 average decibel levels, we are getting to 83 and as
:52:31. > :52:34.you know, 83 decibels, that only came up because resident groups
:52:35. > :52:40.asked for more information. That is the A380. People realise Heathrow is
:52:41. > :52:45.not being a good neighbour. There is a lot more could do, for the UK as
:52:46. > :52:48.well as West London. We will hear a decision, even if it is one to delay
:52:49. > :52:54.in the next week. Thank you. The left-wing grassroots group
:52:55. > :52:56.Momentum, formed in the wake of Jeremy Corbyn's election victory,
:52:57. > :52:59.has said today it will move to bar non-Labour Party members from taking
:53:00. > :53:02.part in some of its meetings. The group has been under scrutiny
:53:03. > :53:05.over the extent to which it could be used as a vehicle for so-called
:53:06. > :53:07.hard-left activists to infiltrate the Labour Party and deselect
:53:08. > :53:09.insufficiently left-wing MPs. Yesterday,
:53:10. > :53:11.I asked Adam Klug of Momentum about reports that at a meeting
:53:12. > :53:14.of the group in Lambeth, there were leaflets calling for the deselection
:53:15. > :53:18.of local Labour MP Chuka Ummuna. Momentum does support reselection
:53:19. > :53:21.and deselection of candidates. This was from Conservative Home,
:53:22. > :53:28.Mark Wallace, his account. Do you deny that those leaflets
:53:29. > :53:36.were being handed out? I wasn't at the event
:53:37. > :53:38.but my understanding from speaking to people who were, it was an event
:53:39. > :53:44.hosted by Momentum, Lambeth and some Momentum's goalless
:53:45. > :53:53.for Labour to win the election in 2020, and to build the Labour Party
:53:54. > :53:58.and engage with the grassroots. If a small section of people came
:53:59. > :54:01.in, which I believe did happen, But they were handing leaflets
:54:02. > :54:07.at the door. Are you saying it was hijacked
:54:08. > :54:10.by these people? Do you condemn those leaflets
:54:11. > :54:17.and what they are saying about It is not the place
:54:18. > :54:21.for non-Labour Party members to be campaigning on the selection or
:54:22. > :54:23.deselection of candidates. Well, joining us now is James Ivens
:54:24. > :54:34.of the Socialist Party, You believe you were
:54:35. > :54:38.mischaracterised on this programme yesterday by Momentum, white? There
:54:39. > :54:46.was a lot of talking about hijacking. There is no move to
:54:47. > :54:50.hijack Momentum. We were arguing the Labour Party should be against
:54:51. > :54:55.austerity and against war and MPs who stand for austerity and war
:54:56. > :55:00.should be deselected. Were you not the man in the pink T-shirt is said
:55:01. > :55:04.to the couple sitting next to you, there were now two Labour parties in
:55:05. > :55:09.one and that people ought to be in control and your final point was
:55:10. > :55:12.Chuka Umunna must be deselected? I would support all of those things.
:55:13. > :55:16.It is not just the Socialist Party who are saying this, there are big
:55:17. > :55:20.sections of the Labour Party membership, particularly the new
:55:21. > :55:25.membership, and people who want to see it standing against war and
:55:26. > :55:29.austerity who are incensed. But thousands of people in Chuka
:55:30. > :55:35.Umunna's constituency have voted for him. But the membership has changed
:55:36. > :55:42.now. The Labour Party, there was a big surge in support of Jeremy
:55:43. > :55:47.Corbyn. Wide-out you join the Labour Party? We would like to. The
:55:48. > :55:53.Socialist Party is ready to join the Labour Party. We were excluded in
:55:54. > :55:58.the 1990s. We are currently not allowed to join. And you will not be
:55:59. > :56:04.allowed to join now. Momentum so you cannot go to their meetings. That is
:56:05. > :56:09.a mistake. We are there to defend Momentum and Jeremy Corbyn's
:56:10. > :56:13.anti-austerity leadership. You talk about this red scare being very
:56:14. > :56:18.unfair in this witchhunt, but you cannot be surprised that the
:56:19. > :56:21.majority of Labour MPs who did not support Jeremy Corbyn are concerned
:56:22. > :56:25.that people who are not members of the Labour Party are, as you have
:56:26. > :56:30.just admitted, trying to change policy and trying to get them
:56:31. > :56:33.deselected? They feel their career is on the line. There are millions
:56:34. > :56:36.of people is on the line. There are millions
:56:37. > :56:40.do not agree with the line they are putting which is cut back on jobs
:56:41. > :56:44.and services, son of public services, go to war, bomb civilians
:56:45. > :56:50.in Syria. A lot of people do not agree with that and I think ordinary
:56:51. > :56:52.Labour members should have every right to deselect them. We would
:56:53. > :56:57.absolutely want to affiliate the Labour Party. But you're only
:56:58. > :57:01.wanting to join the Labour Party to deselect MPs who do not reflect your
:57:02. > :57:06.views on certain issues but Momentum is a private group. Why is it so
:57:07. > :57:12.wrong for them to decide who comes to their meetings which are about
:57:13. > :57:17.the Labour Party of which were not a member. This was a Tory, this was a
:57:18. > :57:21.member of the Conservative Party who was at Momentum. We have every right
:57:22. > :57:26.to go in and argue this case. He has done this to whip up a witchhunt and
:57:27. > :57:28.this has been picked up by the right wing of the Labour Party who fear
:57:29. > :57:36.for their careers and who want to put a similar line to the Tory party
:57:37. > :57:39.and it seems the leadership of Momentum is now under enormous
:57:40. > :57:43.pressure. People want to move against Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.
:57:44. > :57:46.But if the majority of people feel like you have articulated, then
:57:47. > :57:56.Labour would have won the last election. People had a chance to go
:57:57. > :57:59.out and choose Labour or not. If, as you claim, all these people both in
:58:00. > :58:04.the Labour Party and out in the public feel like you do, then Labour
:58:05. > :58:12.would now be a government. But at the last election, Labour were not
:58:13. > :58:15.standing on an anti-austerity platform, they were standing on a
:58:16. > :58:20.pro-austerity platform. There is the old Blair project... Do you think
:58:21. > :58:24.you would have the numbers to win a general election? And do you think
:58:25. > :58:30.you have the right to say to 50,000 or 80,000 people who voted for these
:58:31. > :58:34.Labour MPs in their constituency, that their vote was invalid because
:58:35. > :58:36.you say so? I will have to break it there, James, thank you.
:58:37. > :58:40.There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
:58:41. > :58:42.The question was: Which of these is the odd one out?
:58:43. > :58:45.Donald Trump, Jeremy Corbyn, Angela Merkel, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi?
:58:46. > :58:54.Can I just say that I don't think you should be just I is the head of
:58:55. > :58:55.Identity think we are.
:58:56. > :59:00.All the others have been shortlisted for Time Magazine's