08/12/2015 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 08/12/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Download Subtitles