08/12/2015 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

David Cameron's told us he'll negotiate a new relationship

with the EU, but do his demands live up to his promises?

40,000 homes in North West England are still without power

as communities begin the clear up after the floods.

The Environment Secretary says climate change is responsible.

George Osborne cancelled cuts to tax credits in last month's spending

review, but will the same families be hit when they

And what's it like being a working class woman in the rarified

With us for the whole of the programme today is the Conservative

Welcome to the programme this morning.

First this morning, we've become used to eye-catching statements

from the Republic Presidential front-runner, Donald Trump.

Last night he surpassed those with this line delivered to journalists

in a press release and then to an audience of supporters

Donald J Trump is calling for a total

and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our

country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.

That was Donald Trump. How would you respond to that? Gosh, it's almost

terrifying, isn't it, to think there is a possibility that this man could

win the nomination and could end up being the president of the United

States. I almost sends a tactic here because his whole campaign seems to

be hinged on making sensational announcements. The frightening thing

is, each time he makes one of these announcements, his popularity and

poll rating seems to increase and that the frightening thing. I think

what we need to watch very closely at what happens to his poll ratings

after this. If his poll ratings continue to rise, after such a

polemic and outrageous announcement, then that is actually quite worrying

because although I say on one hand this man can never win the

nomination, can never be the president of the USA, if his poll

rating increases after that statement, then I think we need to

worry. Jeb Bush, another nominee, said Donald Trump is unhinged. What

sort of reaction do you think is required when you hear that sort of

comment in order, as you say, to try and dampen down the popularity?

Yeah, Jeb Bush, from the dynasty, well experienced in politics, his

entire family were experienced in politics, he's someone you think

would know how to respond appropriately. I don't think anybody

actually knows how to deal with the phenomena at the moment that is this

runaway success of Donald Trump. So, I think what Jeb Bush, I don't

like the language, unhinged, I think there's different language she

could've used, but to highlight the fact that Donald Trump's entire

rhetoric is just sensationalist, for his own benefit, to serve himself.

We will find out what happens fairly soon.

Which of these figures is the odd one out?

At the end of the show we'll see if Nadine knows the correct answer.

Yesterday, the European Council President

Donald Tusk wrote to EU leaders to update them on the progress

He says that David Cameron has provided a significant

and far-reaching agenda for discussion at December's meeting

But how does Mr Tusk's response to British demands stack up

against promises made in the Conservative manifesto?

In May, the Conservatives said, "We will not let the integration of

the eurozone jeopardise the integrity of the Single Market

And the manifesto called for the EU "to break down the remaining

Donald Tusk says there is a "very strong determination" to

boost competitiveness across Europe, and that a solution can be reached

to ensure no discrimination against non-eurozone countries.

What's more contentious is the manifesto promise to say "no" to the

concept of "ever closer union" - one of the EU's founding principles.

But Donald Tusk says that "ever closer union" already "allows

for various paths of integration for different countries."

The big sticking point is over migrant benefits.

The manifesto makes some very clear promises about what David Cameron

EU migrants who want to claim tax credits and child benefit should

There should be a new four-year residency

If an EU migrant's child is living abroad, they should not receive

EU jobseekers should not be able to claim any job-seeking benefits

If jobseekers haven't found a job within six months,

And when new countries are admitted to the EU, free movement

of people should not apply until their economies converge more

Donald Tusk says a change to migrant benefits is the "most delicate"

demand from the UK, and one that will require "substantive political

He admits that there is "presently no consensus" among other

Well, last night George Osborne was in New York, where he was

Here's what the Chancellor had to say.

It's a complicated and robust negotiation, but the information

that's been released today by the European Council shows we're making

much more progress than people would have imagined in getting agreement

across member states to address these British issues.

As I say, ultimately, it will be for the British people to

We're joined now by former Conservative MP Laura Sandys, who

Welcome to you. Do you think what Donald Tusk says in his letter bodes

well for David Cameron at the European Council discussions this

month? I think he sounds very positive about the majority of the

requests and I think it sounds as if there is strong consensus. There's

been a lot of work done in the background to make sure that in each

of the capitals around Europe there has been greater convergence. I

don't think we are so out of step. Obviously the last issue about

benefit is going to be an issue and that needs to be more negotiation,

more diplomacy. You say there is strong consensus but there is no

consensus as Donald Tusk on that. The stickler is going to be on

migrant benefits because other EU leaders regarded as the scum in a

tree. Other EU leaders have said there's no negotiation to be on

that. I think there is and also already there has been quite a lot

of flexibility on this issue about sending child benefit abroad for

children who are not actually resident in the UK. But what about

the four year in work benefits? It either discriminatory or not. I

think there needs to be negotiation on that. Where? The point is we have

different countries wanting different things so the idea was no

consensus doesn't mean to say all European countries are against what

we are proposing. You have to have an agreement on it. Of course.

Things are tough, it's not an easy process and it's not easy to get

changed. However, I think we've established quite a lot of the key

demands and I think we are moving in the right direction. On the basis of

a letter where he says there's no consensus and bearing in mind this

meeting is happening very shortly, whatever chance the David Cameron

getting a moratorium agreement on benefits for migrant workers for

four years. I don't think it's huge. I think his request is reasonable

but already having water down from their original intent, from ten down

to four now, we will end up almost a no platform, no basis for David

Cameron to come to Parliament and say, here is a re-negotiation. It's

entirely sensible for the four year breakdown, no benefits to be paid to

those whose children don't even live in the UK. It's all entirely

sensible stuff. The letter says no consensus. If David Cameron comes

back to Parliament with absolutely no consensus, then I think it's not

going to bode well for going forward with a re-negotiation. If that is

the deal, and the deal is not include any sort of ban on in work

benefits, will you be voting out? Absolutely. Nothing will convince

you? From my own perspective, a very large parts of Europe are in

complete financial crisis. We have a huge problem with immigration. This

only problem is, we spent ?350 million a day there. We could build

a new hospital with that every week. You're not going to be convinced

come what may, even if he does secure that. What about your

colleagues who are waverers? Will increase the chances of them voting

to leave? No, many of them will be very concerned be gone from ten main

points we wanted to discuss down to four and even those four are now

falling apart. I hope, Laura, the Prime Minister can come back and

say, here is a package I have renegotiated, this is what I can

bring to the table, but I don't think other member states are going

to do it. I think whatever the point Mr came back with, the Dean has been

clear about her positions I'm not sure it would ever be enough for

some Eurosceptics which is fine. There are going to be a lot of

others who might have been persuaded that won't be if you can't get

anything on those in work benefits. Every single time the UK has gone in

and batted for UK interests in Europe, we have been very

successful. It might not be completely the four options on the

table, but there are still movement on the benefits issue when it comes

to children overseas, there will be some movement on it. It might not be

able to get total consensus in the next two or three weeks, but we are

talking about a February decision and that requires a lot more

diplomacy. Just to move it on slightly, the real price would be to

bring down levels of immigration. Do you think anything David Cameron is

asking for will reduce net migration into this country? There is

potential but those two issues are just highlighted, there is potential

in what he's asking, people may not want to emigrate to this country as

economic migrants that there is not the work there and they don't get

the benefits they thought they may be able to to support themselves

well become established in this country but, those two points will

not be, even if we get to February, it will not be anything like enough.

That's not a re-negotiation. It's not a concession, package. But for

people who want to come out, none of it was ever going to be enough. What

we're going to end up with is, if you look at the public, the public

don't believe we have a strong voice in Europe. Actually, if we go back

to the facts, and with a re-negotiation David Cameron is

doing now, it shows we do. It's totally important, our relationship

with Europe, it's been a non-euro country. Let's move on to that. As a

non-euro country, let's look at Donald Tusk's I game, because he

says there are parts of integration regarding closer union but that's a

fob off to David Cameron, isn't it? We already accept different

countries move at different paces to ever closer union. There doesn't

seem to be anything more given to David Cameron on that particular

request. No, I think there will be because there's a lot of detail

behind us. What we are absolutely key about is we should not have come

as a non-euro country, be discriminated against by decisions

made by the euro countries. That is something absolutely crucial. We've

also got to the wider benefits here. The issue about migration, I want to

know which option stops migration because if we end up still in the

single market, we will have to have free movement but we won't be at the

table re-negotiating like we are now. We will be outside kicking our

heels. How low would levels of immigration or even net migration be

if we came out of the EU? I don't think anyone has made an analysis

prediction in terms of numbers. That is one of the big claims by

campaigners it would come down. It travels down to tens or 20s or

thousands. Getting greater control of our borders is possibly the first

step in controlling. It wouldn't stop people wanting to come and work

here and would you want that? Of course, I trained as a nurse in the

NHS and of course we would not want to stop people coming here to work

but we want people who can contribute to the economy and have

skills. There's point system already. We also have a situation of

hundreds of thousands of people who are in the country as illegal

immigrants and we don't even know where they are. We don't have

control of our borders. Illegal immigrants are not European

migrants. But how do we know that because they are illegal? We don't

know where they are. Fundamentally, if they are legal, anybody with free

movement across Europe are by definition legal. We don't know who

they are. And where they came from. But they're not European otherwise

they would not be illegal. The issue is 50% of migration be having this

country comes from outside Europe and that is something we can take

of. I actually think we are in an invidious position, Northern Ireland

two, if we came out but also we would move the jungle in Calais to

Dover so we would be dealing with these things rather than in the

collective weight where we are actually managing a very complicated

international migration problem. Is it the most important thing for

the leaders of the EU when it is very fragile? I would like to see

Europe much more forward thinking about the migration problem.

Ultimately, what they need to understand is as leaving Europe is

an absolutely extra central threat to Europe itself, and I think they

are incredibly omitted to deliver a deal for us but also for them --

existential. Thank you. Thousands

of people struggling with flooding in Cumbria and Lancashire have been

warned they could face further 16 severe flood warnings are

still in force in the region. Yesterday the Prime Minister

visited the worst hit areas. This time apparently wearing ?12

wellies from Asda after his ?89 The issue was also debated

in the House of Commons It is not enough for the

Prime Minister and the Environment Secretary to pledge to deal with

the devastation and damage caused. We do need a commitment

from them also to do all they can to The Environment Secretary's

predecessor was, as we know, not someone who is prepared to

acknowledge the risks posed Does this Secretary of State agree

that extreme weather events are unfortunately increasingly a feature

of British weather and government The Honourable Lady is absolutely

right about the extreme weather As we say, it is consistent with

the trends we are seeing Climate change is factored in to all

the modelling work the Environment Agency does but clearly, in the

light of this extreme weather, we are going to have to look at that

modelling and make sure it's fit My view is that it's really

important that we remain fair to people right across the country,

and the people of Cumbria understand why those decisions are being made

and also get the proper protection Liz Truss ending that report there.

Liz Truss says freak weather conditions are the result of climate

change. Is that the settled view on the Tory backbenches? Gosh, I don't

know if it is a settled view. There is so much discussion about this. So

many experts' opinion, so many contradictory opinions, so many

newspaper headlines. I did think anybody is 100% convinced. I don't

have to agree with everything they are saying. That is right, so you

don't think it is down to climate change? I don't know. I read

somewhere in the 1500 in England it rained every day for ten years. I

don't know. I know other town in the 1600 switch was completely under

flood. You don't sound convinced. We do have freak weather conditions. We

do have climate change happening obviously. I don't know what is

happening with Storm Desmond, obviously. I don't know what is

the result of climate change or is it a freak weather condition? I'm

sure that building on flood plains, climate change, many other factors

contributed flooding and what happens as a result of flooding.

Should we accept it and live with it or should the government be spending

more money and looking at increasing the flood defences which already

exist? Absolutely. When we see pictures like we have seen this

week, and what happens is, that we see different parts of the country

every time something happens. I think what we have to do is to

accept that maybe flooding is a part of life in this century and wherever

we know there will be flood issues, make sure the money is put into it.

It will not be once in a hundred years which is what the government

has said in the past. No, it is happening more frequently. It may be

a result of climate change. We have increased the budget. The government

has increased the budget in real terms, both year-on-year, and I

think what we need to do is to make sure we look at what has happened in

the floods this time. One of the main problems is the water is not

receding as much as it could do, because the measures that were put

in place to prevent the floods in the first place, to do a good job,

apparently, have now stopped the water receding as quickly as it

could. I think there are lessons will stop.

Increased costs, software problems, delays.

It's been a tricky journey for Universal Credit since

Iain Duncan Smith set out his vision for welfare reform back in 2010.

And with George Osborne still planning to make ?12 billion worth

of savings to the welfare bill by 2020, some argue that

Universal Credit will end up hitting those very people cheering

the Chancellor's decision to axe cuts to tax credits.

So what difference will Universal Credit really make?

Actually, Iain Duncan Smith was more ambitious than the Spice Girls, he

wants six to become one. Six benefits into Universal Credit. He

says it is a way of making work pay so that people do not see their

benefits drop off when they start working. At the moment it is being

offered in three quarters of job centres. People on Universal Credit

are more likely to be in work than on Jobseeker's Allowance. 100 people

on JSA who go into work, 113 going for Universal Credit. It is a

remarkable figure. There are currently 141,000 people on

Universal Credit. Each week, nearly 6000 people start a new claim. The

government wants to roll it out to 7 million people. There is broad

support for the principle of Universal Credit, but Labour says

things may not be as they seem. Not least because of the U-turn on tax

credits. I have listened to the concerns. I hear and understand

them, and because there is an improvement in the public finances,

the simplest thing to do is not to faze these changes in, but to avoid

them altogether. Tax credits are being phased out anyway as we

introduce Universal Credit. We heard the Chancellor talking

about the fact that tax credits would not go ahead will stop what we

did not hear about is that Universal Credit cuts will still continue.

Families who are affected will have a lower income from the government.

That is due to the fact they are reducing the work allowance. The

work allowance is the amount a claimant can earn before their

benefits start being reduced. Some critics worry that the marginal

reduction rate is still high. It could prove a disincentive to

decrease your hours. Who better to ask for clarification than the man

who came up with the system. Under the existing system, some people

could lose huge sums of money as they move from 16 to 17 hours.

Somewhat heavily subsidised at 16 hours. We have put in transitional

protection because they would never get the same money as they would on

Universal Credit. At 17, 18 or 19 hours, they are better off and below

those hours they are better off on tax credits. In some cases your pen

marginal reduction rates of 95p in a pound and this is all part of the

process of making welfare work and it is about making sure we save

money in welfare by getting people back to work. We do not -- it is

about getting the deficit reduced. If we do not then we will not have

as many people in work. According to IDS, it is the only way to be.

That was a Lee Price reporting there. -- any price.

We're joined now by the Work and Pensions Minister,

Justin Tomlinson and the Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, Owen Smith.

According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Universal Credit

means a worse deal for 2.6 million working families. These families

will receive ?1600 less than they would have done under the current

tax credit system. Is this your government's idea of helping working

people? In the report they acknowledge that is a static

analysis. It does not look at rising wages, the increase in the personal

tax threshold, it is taking a like-for-like today but it is not

today, it is going forwards. This will be removing artificial

barriers, it is providing a personal adviser to provide help to

navigate. But on the figures that people can claim, particularly new

claimants, that number of families will lose ?1600 less, just looking

at those figures alone, that you cannot guarantee to families. But

that is a static analysis if it was introduced today. But it is over a

number of years, by which time the increase in wages... But you don't

know that those 2.6 million families will have increased wages or benefit

from the other things. We know the national living wages coming in, we

are seeing an economy creating more jobs are more hours for people to

work, doubling of childcare and the fact you will have a personal

adviser who can help you navigate these things. At the moment we have

a complex chaotic benefit system where understandably people are

having to deal with that rather than focusing on being able to get into

work and removing those barriers, the Secretary of State said those

people are stuck at 16 hours, it is not good for businesses. But a

single parent with one child on a part-time Living Wage will be ?2800

a year worse off under Universal Credit. That is true. It is true

that they will be ?2800 a year off in terms of their benefit. But by

the time they have gone through that system... It will make up ?2800?

People once they progress in work will be able to keep more money. It

will not be ?2800. There is an increase in the personal tax

threshold, an increase in the Dublin of childcare. It will provide a less

complicated more stable system which supports people, not just in

financial terms but with a personal adviser to help them navigate. Will

they be better off or worse off, that single parent with one child,

will they be better off? We will see as the changes come forward. What

I'm trying to get you to admit is there will be losers. The Institute

for Fiscal Studies has said there will be losers. I take on board what

you say about the transitional arrangement and the Living Wage will

go up and there will be extra childcare, but it will not make up

2008 hundred pounds. George Osborne's cancelling of this tax

credit cuts, has been pushed further down the line onto new claimants who

will be worse off. They may be less worse off but they will still be

worse off. The current -- a couple on the national Living Wage will be

3000 pounds worse off. Going back to the tax credits, they were saying we

understand why changes are coming forward but you have to allow extra

supports, extra childcare, the changes to the rise in wages and

other changes to filter through. Crucially, people will get

personalised support, the artificial barriers are removed and we have

already seen with the 8000 people who were sampled, 86% are now

feeling they can go and get extra work. This is making a huge

difference to people. Let's take it in the round. You have still got ?3

billion worth of savings you want to make from the welfare bill in 2020,

and it has to come from somewhere, but you are still picking the

pockets of working families. You are working on the assumption that we

are always having to take money from people. By taking people off

benefits, helping them pay tax into the system, this is beneficial for

the individual, beneficial for the economy... But not if you're losing

money. The government said people currently claiming tax credits would

be protected, protected from what? Protected from the new system of a

shift on to Universal Credit. By admitting they are being protected,

you are admitting other people will be much worse off under Universal

Credit. That is because you are looking at that could 16 hour cliff

edge approach. We will be smoothing that out so that every extra hour

you will work, you will keep more money. You say that but actually,

single parents must work at least 16 hours a week if they claim working

tax credits. Under Universal Credit, single parents. To lose their

benefit once they have worked the benefit -- ten hours. A single

parent will start to lose their benefits are just ?5,000 under the

new system. That is a massive cliff edge. You are highlighting the

problem at the moment, there are six different benefits, highly

complicated, people are struggling to navigate this complicated system.

We will provide a simple system which supports people as they

progress in work, but only with the childcare provision you have

highlighted, rising wages, more jobs, more hours, having that

adviser who can navigate you through that system, signpost you if you

need extra training and making sure people get the benefits they are

entitled to. There will be a 2 tier system.

There will be those that start claiming if their circumstances

change they will be identified as new claimants starting under

Universal Credit will be worse off. You highlight the point about people

circumstances changing. But you are not highlighting that. You won't

have to wait to get support. This will be good of you have a

fluctuating health issue, your hours change week to week, personal

adviser to signpost you. This is a broadly supported scheme, a huge

change which is being done in a controlled manner and at helping

people who want to work more. Do you support Universal Credit? Yes, it's

a really good idea. If you weather system which could sympathise six

benefits. Unfortunately, it doesn't do the second piece, the job, which

is make work pay. He can't slip away from the truth that you've outlined

very clearly that against the current system, they are going to

make ?10 billion worth of savings, they announce it on Friday last week

and that money is going to come from people in work, out of the ?3

billion a year change for the work allowance. If you are a single

mother with two children working full-time on the minimum wage, you

will be ?3000 worse off. It's exactly the amount of money they

were going to save and tax credits. If you are in favour of Universal

Credit and accept it's a complicated system, there has to be some sort of

cut-off point. If you're going to make it more generous, which I

presume is what you're saying, you're going to spend more on

welfare? First of all, let's be clear, are we talking about welfare

or support for people in work because that is what we are

debating, not supporting people out of work. People think supported on

low wages. That Bill will go up under Labour? You will put it up.

No, the bill has gone up under the Tories. It's not fair to say the

bill would not go up under your party. We would protect these

people, we've campaigned for a full reversal of the tax credit cut and

we got it, we are now campaigning for a full reversal of the Universal

Credit cut. Working people the support, we will put that money back

in if we were in power. We are crystal clear about that. Where

would you get that ?3 billion of savings you said in the election you

are going to reform the welfare bill? And you're not. Had I been

Chancellor, unfortunately we did not get the chance to set the budget, I

would've taken the extra ?27 billion he had in tax receipts and put that

towards this relief. I might not have had a ?10 billion projected

surplus at the end of the spending period, but it would make different

political choices to use money in the system to support working

people. That's a different choice the Tories made. The one choice the

Tories made which outstripped labour and Ed Miliband Microsoft, they put

the living wage up much higher. They beat you on that. It's not a

question of who beat too. It's important for families. Why doesn't

that count in this argument over welfare changes. If Justin Tomlinson

is right in terms of a living wage going up and there's more childcare,

that will bridge the gap to making people work a bit harder and a bit

longer at getting more money. If it would, I would be supporting these

changes but the truth is, Justin was not being straightforward. The ISS

are factored in all of these things, except for the change to 85% of

childcare costs being covered for three-year-olds and four-year-olds,

it's a maximum benefit of ?700 if your child is three or four. But you

will still be losing around ?3000 a year so does not make up for it and

no way Iain Duncan Smith can cut the figures. The truth is working

families are losing out and they would not be under Labour. The key

point is, a lot of this is going forward into the future so we'll

have to see what happens. 8000 people are on Universal Credit now

against 8000 people on jobseeker's allowance. 86% felt they could not

increase their working hours. 36% have gone into work. We are moving

those barriers. We have a complex system. It's about the growing

dynamic of the economy and something very important. Were you pleased the

Chancellor cancelled that cuts to tax credits in the Autumn

Statement? Absolutely because I did not vote for it. How money people

have claimed credit, the Labour Party, Conservative backbenchers,

the media, everybody is claiming credit for it. I'm not claiming

credit. You just did, you said you removed it as a result of your

campaigning. We now need to campaign to get the Universal Credit changed.

Thank you. How in touch are those in the

upper echelons of British politics Well back in 2012 our guest of the

day, Nadine Dorries, made headlines when she used this programme to

speak her mind about the two men Unfortunately, I think that, not

only are Cameron and Osborne two posh boys who don't know the price

of milk, but they are two arrogant posh boys who show no remorse, no

contrition and no passion to want to understand the lives of others

and that is their real crime. There is actually talk now that

Cameron may not even go into the next election as Prime Minister

because he has become so remote, so elite and so distant and so

lacking in ability to compromise. It almost seems like he finds it

impossible to put out a hand to actually really understand

what it is other people go through. And we're joined now by the Labour

MP Jess Phillips. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Let's

look at those statistics. 32% of MPs going to private school, is that

surprising? Not at all. How representative of the public would

you say your cabinet is? I don't think Parliament is representative

of the general public. I don't think MPs, their life experiences, the way

they think, the way they vote. That's across the house, not just in

my party. The same in the Shadow Cabinet? I think the Shadow Cabinet

is probably more representative but it's something that could be wagered

every single party in this place, every single group. This morning, we

were both on the childcare Bill committee and I could speak

specifically from my experiences of having some of the benefits and

childcare problems and I think that the people sat opposite me were

confounded because they can't argue with my personal experiences. Chloe,

also on the committee, I don't think any of them had children in

childcare which is one not argue to be fair. You made very good points

and it a very good speech and I challenge anybody to read it because

it was fascinating. There are only some of us, I'm the same, who can

come to Parliament, who know what it's like to have been hungry. I

remember hiding under the sink in our council has and my mum will kill

me if I'm watching this, from the rent man because the rent man used

to come and we didn't have the money to pay the rent because my dad had

his feet amputated. He was off work on long-term sick and they were not

benefit payments then. We know what it's like to struggle and I think

Jess this morning has articulated their own struggles as a working

parent. You grew up about 100 miles or so or less from each other. You

describe it as working class families. Why do you now sit here

representing different sides of the political debate? I can't imagine

why Medina sits on that side. -- Medina. She is considerably more

poor than mine. My own experience of poverty came in my adult life, to be

truthful. My parents were very working class. My childhood was not

uncomfortable, but my own experiences came when I have my own

children. Right to buy is what sealed it for me. One of the very

first policies. That's when it came in, 1997. We lived in a council

house and were given the opportunity to buy it and it was a step out of

poverty onto the ladder which was just amazing because everybody

started planting their gardens, painting their fences, painting

their front doors, improving their house. It made people aspirational

and gave people pride to own their own house. The think Labour needs to

be more aspirational? Do you think in order to capture people like the

Dean and others, you need to be more aspirational? That word means

nothing any more because get talked about so much of the Labour Party

doesn't need as though it got the people at the bottom in the top.

There's a huge swathe of a country which exists in the middle and it

would put myself in that category. Now I'm at the top of the person who

I was talking about in the committee, was a middle person. I

think that the Labour Party don't talk about that enough. With regard

to right to buy, you would be very lucky now in the same situation you

would get a council house because of right to buy. Whilst your

aspiration... And my granny brought her council has and are not adequate

size people who did that, although my father criticised her at the

time, there is a -2 aspiration and those people now can't aspire to

have a home. But it's learning from those policies because the big

mistake about that policy in that time was not ploughing the money

which came in into building more council houses but that's not the

case today because with right to buy and other policies the government

bring in, there is a criteria that money will go back into funding will

council houses and it's a big problem. That is the claim certainly

but you previously called David Cameron and a George Osborne

arrogant posh boys. They don't have the price of milk. They've done

quite well despite that. They have, yes. The mail on Sunday wrote a

headline which I had nothing to do with. Does it still matter?

Basically, David Cameron came the leader of the party exactly ten

years ago. Ten years ago yesterday. I think he's travelled a long road

and is certainly a different person today than he was ten years ago. I

think that, today, I wouldn't make those comments. Really? I would. I'm

not including George Osborne in that comment and I think David Cameron is

someone who is now, from my own experience, as a Prime Minister,

when we went into the election, I was actually quite pleased he was

the person. Do you think George Osborne is out of touch? I'm not

going to make any comments. I think... Could he be the next

leader? I would say the answer would be no. Over? No. So George Osborne

is not made that journey in your mind David Cameron has. He still

privileged and out of touch in your mind? George Osborne has spent the

last ten giving sweeties to conservative backbenchers and Labour

Party members. Buying friends. Giving out the jobs. He's run out of

jobs to give people. He spent ten years buying the backbenchers and

the frontbenchers, two, so that one day they will vote for George

Osborne to be leader. If that happens, then I think what we need

to do really, in all parties, is look at how the political system

works, because I don't think it is right anybody of privilege should be

able to come into Parliament and use their privilege and the education

and background to secure the career progression into the role of Prime

Minister into the future. If George Osborne becomes Prime Minister, that

is how he has done it. Would you leave the party at that point? We

may have this discussion another day. We have to put two people

forward to the country and I don't believe George Osborne will be in

those two people. I think it will be Theresa May Boris Johnson. What did

you think of Nadine Dorries topping up her MP salary with reality TV

appearance? I would do is to click dancing. Sometimes when people say,

wide-eyed become an MP I play the long game because a female MP has

never been on strictly come dancing. I hope you get your

invitation for next season. You can permit your way out of the studio.

Thank you. Now, how long does it take to decide

whether to build a third runway Politicians have been thinking

about it for at least 25 years and this government started the

process of making the decision over three years ago - but it now looks

like they need a bit more time. Heathrow says

a third runway would add But last week a committee of MPs

said the airport still needs to prove that a new runway would meet

air quality standards. In 2009, Gordon Brown's government

said they would build Then in 2010 the new Prime Minister

David Cameron scrapped those plans. This was after he made a "no ifs,

no buts" pledge that he wouldn't But in September 2012

the government asked the economist Howard Davies to lead an independent

commission into airport capacity. In July, the Airports Commission

finally reported, giving a green The government said they'd make

a final decision before the end of the year but it now looks

like that could be delayed And joining me now are two

Conservative MPs Tania Mathias - she's against expansion at

Heathrow - Welcome to both of you. You must be

delighted. It looks as if the government will kick this into the

long grass. I have not heard anything officially. My concern is

the same today as if there had been a decision. I have concerns about

Heathrow with two runways, let alone three runways, and I believe we do

need an answer for the UK's aviation capacity. You want a decision to be

made one way or the other? I want a decision that would be made on an

economic level, that works for the country and does not have

environmental impact that Heathrow would have. According to the CBI,

delaying on this issue could cost ?5 billion in lost exports. Do MPs bear

responsibility in that? The Davis commission also talked about no

night flights and that means there would not be flights to our markets

and Southeast Asia. So I don't see how the economic benefit comes with

a third runway at Heathrow. Royston, the CBI says the decision shows a

failure in leadership and now looks like there will not be definitive

decision. Is David Cameron being too indecisive? It is difficult. If you

make a know with snow but commitment but then circumstances change, you

have sort of tide a bit. -- ain't no ifs, no buts commitment. Politicians

want a straight answer and sometimes when you do then that can come back

to bite you. When I was leader of Southampton City Council, people

advised us and politicians made decisions. We have had the Davis

commission. If the decision is to do nothing, that is a decision, but

until we do, no one, Tania in particular and her constituents,

cannot move on. Do you think the government will just go for Heathrow

eventually? It would be my favoured option. The government will make its

decision based on all sorts of factors. I think if they made a

decision based on the Davis commission and the economic case,

then they would make a decision for a third runway at Heathrow. Do you

think it is politics? Are they being cynical because Zac Goldsmith's the

Conservative candidate for mayor who is dead against Heathrow expansion

and says will resign the whip if a third runway goes ahead. Do you

think that is why they are denying it -- delaying it? I don't think

they are. We see a lot of people who are independently minded which is

very good for your constituents. Some of the things you say and do

for your constituents quite rightly will not sit with government

policy. However this I am going to resign if I don't get my own way, is

not something which I think is a good idea. Zac Goldsmith stood on

that platform and there was the no ifs, no buts from David Cameron.

That was 2009 from David Cameron. I remember because I am next door to

Zach's constituency, I am in Twickenham, and I remember at big

public meetings, it was very powerful when Zac was a candidate.

He said I know people feel very strongly. What I am saying is, I

want to fight as the MP for Twickenham, because I want to

improve Heathrow right now, and I do believe with the environmental audit

committee report, there is more we can do to make Heathrow better, not

bigger. But if they go for that third runway, Tania, do you think

there will be Cabinet resignations over this? We know Justine

Greening, the MP for Putney, and her views which are very against a third

runway. I don't know. I have two basic like other MPs, but I want to

see an end result, however long it takes. My predecessor before last,

Toby Jessel, in his maiden speech said almost the same thing I did in

my maiden speech and that was in 1970. The point is to carry on the

fight. When I have debated in Parliament, Toby, although he is

retired, has said good, you are doing the same arguments, we have to

keep fighting for residents. How can you recommend that the government

plumps for Heathrow when the environmental audit committee has

warned that issues of public health and noise pollution have not been

dealt with, that they would be breaching EU guidelines? I think a

lot of that has been answered in reports. We know wherever you put a

third runway or another runway or another airport, you are going to

have an airport pollution. You will have that. But I don't think in this

case, with the new technology of aeroplanes, they are far different

than they ever were before. I am a former engineer. I know how aircraft

technology has changed over the years. They are far less polluting

than they ever were and they are becoming less polluting. So why

doesn't the government just say Heathrow? I am not talking on the

half of the government... But you admit there is no question to

answer. I am saying I think Heathrow is the right solution. I think what

Tania is doing is the right thing for her constituents. This is about

representation and I think Tania is doing a proper job. If you resign

the whip and you are not in the party any more, your influence would

be less. Tania is fighting in the party for her constituents. But

should the government ignore MPs like Tania and Justine Greening?

No, they should listen to everyone's opinions but... It is a

fairly binary decision. If I was in Twickenham, I would like Tania

fighting for me. Point of information, I love the fact you

haven't engineering background but we are dealing with a serious

increase to number of flights. It is not NIMBY -ism. If nitrous dioxide

was red in colour we would see it all over London. And when we talk

about WHO and EU 55 average decibel levels, we are getting to 83 and as

you know, 83 decibels, that only came up because resident groups

asked for more information. That is the A380. People realise Heathrow is

not being a good neighbour. There is a lot more could do, for the UK as

well as West London. We will hear a decision, even if it is one to delay

in the next week. Thank you. The left-wing grassroots group

Momentum, formed in the wake of Jeremy Corbyn's election victory,

has said today it will move to bar non-Labour Party members from taking

part in some of its meetings. The group has been under scrutiny

over the extent to which it could be used as a vehicle for so-called

hard-left activists to infiltrate the Labour Party and deselect

insufficiently left-wing MPs. Yesterday,

I asked Adam Klug of Momentum about reports that at a meeting

of the group in Lambeth, there were leaflets calling for the deselection

of local Labour MP Chuka Ummuna. Momentum does support reselection

and deselection of candidates. This was from Conservative Home,

Mark Wallace, his account. Do you deny that those leaflets

were being handed out? I wasn't at the event

but my understanding from speaking to people who were, it was an event

hosted by Momentum, Lambeth and some Momentum's goalless

for Labour to win the election in 2020, and to build the Labour Party

and engage with the grassroots. If a small section of people came

in, which I believe did happen, But they were handing leaflets

at the door. Are you saying it was hijacked

by these people? Do you condemn those leaflets

and what they are saying about It is not the place

for non-Labour Party members to be campaigning on the selection or

deselection of candidates. Well, joining us now is James Ivens

of the Socialist Party, You believe you were

mischaracterised on this programme yesterday by Momentum, white? There

was a lot of talking about hijacking. There is no move to

hijack Momentum. We were arguing the Labour Party should be against

austerity and against war and MPs who stand for austerity and war

should be deselected. Were you not the man in the pink T-shirt is said

to the couple sitting next to you, there were now two Labour parties in

one and that people ought to be in control and your final point was

Chuka Umunna must be deselected? I would support all of those things.

It is not just the Socialist Party who are saying this, there are big

sections of the Labour Party membership, particularly the new

membership, and people who want to see it standing against war and

austerity who are incensed. But thousands of people in Chuka

Umunna's constituency have voted for him. But the membership has changed

now. The Labour Party, there was a big surge in support of Jeremy

Corbyn. Wide-out you join the Labour Party? We would like to. The

Socialist Party is ready to join the Labour Party. We were excluded in

the 1990s. We are currently not allowed to join. And you will not be

allowed to join now. Momentum so you cannot go to their meetings. That is

a mistake. We are there to defend Momentum and Jeremy Corbyn's

anti-austerity leadership. You talk about this red scare being very

unfair in this witchhunt, but you cannot be surprised that the

majority of Labour MPs who did not support Jeremy Corbyn are concerned

that people who are not members of the Labour Party are, as you have

just admitted, trying to change policy and trying to get them

deselected? They feel their career is on the line. There are millions

of people is on the line. There are millions

do not agree with the line they are putting which is cut back on jobs

and services, son of public services, go to war, bomb civilians

in Syria. A lot of people do not agree with that and I think ordinary

Labour members should have every right to deselect them. We would

absolutely want to affiliate the Labour Party. But you're only

wanting to join the Labour Party to deselect MPs who do not reflect your

views on certain issues but Momentum is a private group. Why is it so

wrong for them to decide who comes to their meetings which are about

the Labour Party of which were not a member. This was a Tory, this was a

member of the Conservative Party who was at Momentum. We have every right

to go in and argue this case. He has done this to whip up a witchhunt and

this has been picked up by the right wing of the Labour Party who fear

for their careers and who want to put a similar line to the Tory party

and it seems the leadership of Momentum is now under enormous

pressure. People want to move against Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.

But if the majority of people feel like you have articulated, then

Labour would have won the last election. People had a chance to go

out and choose Labour or not. If, as you claim, all these people both in

the Labour Party and out in the public feel like you do, then Labour

would now be a government. But at the last election, Labour were not

standing on an anti-austerity platform, they were standing on a

pro-austerity platform. There is the old Blair project... Do you think

you would have the numbers to win a general election? And do you think

you have the right to say to 50,000 or 80,000 people who voted for these

Labour MPs in their constituency, that their vote was invalid because

you say so? I will have to break it there, James, thank you.

There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was: Which of these is the odd one out?

Donald Trump, Jeremy Corbyn, Angela Merkel, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi?

Can I just say that I don't think you should be just I is the head of

Identity think we are.

All the others have been shortlisted for Time Magazine's