15/12/2015 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

The Prime Minister's EU Referendum Bill has passed its final

hurdle in Parliament, paving the way

for a vote that could see Britain leave the European Union.

We'll be looking at what obstacles remain.

Plenty of people have talked before of an electoral pact between Labour

Could that be their only chance of defeating the Conservatives?

Everyone's getting rather excited about the new Star Wars film,

but does one of the most successful franchises of all time really carry

And Christmas is coming and with it a crop of politicians

We'll have a look at some of the best.

All that in the next hour and with us for the whole

of the programme today is the former Labour MP Chris Mullin.

He's also a diarist and wrote the novel A Very British Coup

about a left-wing Labour leader who unexpectedly defies his critics

Apparently it's been selling very well.

And not all of the extra copies were bought by Jeremy Corbyn.

First today let's talk about plans for a referendum on Britain's EU

membership, which have moved one step closer after a Government

victory in the House of Lords last night.

Peers rejected a Labour Party proposal designed to give 16

and 17-year-olds a vote in the referendum, ending

the parliamentary back-and-forth over the EU Referendum Bill.

The Government now hopes it will receive Royal Assent and be

So with that hurdle out of the way, what are the other big milestones

The vote itself will have to take place no later than 31st

Anyone aged 18 or over by the date of the referendum will be eligible

to vote, but citizens from other EU countries will not.

The question on the ballot paper will be, "Should the UK remain

The campaign period for the referendum must be at least

ten weeks long, during which the lead campaign groups -

still to be officially designated by the Electoral Commission -

will have to abide by strict regulations.

The Government was defeated in an attempt to scrap the so-called

purdah period, meaning that for the 28 days before polling day

ministers won't be able to make any announcements which could influence

the result of the referendum question.

On Thursday, David Cameron will travel to Brussels

to make his case to other EU leaders at a summit of the European Council.

On Thursday David Cameron will travel to Brussels

to make his case to other EU leaders at a summit of the European Council.

The sticking point continues to be the Prime Minister's desire

to prevent EU migrants from claiming in-work benefits in the UK

for the first four years of their stay.

No agreement is likely to be reached this week,

but European Council President Donald Tusk has said he hopes

the summit will pave the way for an agreement by February.

But last night the European Scrutiny Committee, chaired by Conservative

MP Bill Cash, said that fundamental reform of the sort David Cameron had

envisaged would not be possible without treaty change,

itself not possible in time for the referendum.

Well Bill Cash joins us now, and our guest of the day

Your report is a reminder that it is a straight appeal to waivers to vote

to leave. It is a warning to voters across the board. Because in order

for David Cameron to achieve his objectives, it is essential if it is

to be binding that there is treaty change. That means an amendment to

the treaty or a protocol, so it is essential that the people who are

being asked to vote on this historic occasion, that they know that it is

meaningful and capable of delivery. The question before the voters will

be whether to remain or leave the EU. There will be those with fixed

views one way or another, irrespective of the renegotiation

and that is you, no matter what David Cameron brings back, you will

vote to leave? I have personally come to the conclusion having voted

yes in 1975 and for the single European act that the Maastrict

treaty and the treaties since then have evolved into a situation where

we have lost control over the most important parts of how we are

governed and the issues that are so fundamental to our democracy that

there is no alternative but to leave. So everything you say is

tarnished by your thoughts whatever happens you would vote to get out.

So saying the Prime Minister cannot get meaningful change, you will

always say that. Well this is a committee from all parts of the

House and we agreed the rrt and that report -- report and that report was

with some tweaks was agreed within the committee. So it this is an

all-party committee and it is important that people should know it

was not just from one point of view, it was actually across the board.

Chris Mullin, he is right, without treaty change they cannot be a

fundamental renegotiation and No 10 knows that treaty change is not

going to happen before the referendum takes place. Well I think

that is right. I don't think David Cameron ever intended to get into

any of this. He decided to have a referendum for short-term reasons to

get Bill and his mates off his back and in doing so lit a very long

fuse. As a result we are destined to spend the next two or three years

discussing this and maybe beyond that, discussing the consequences of

this. I come at it from a different view, I'm in favour of staying in.

At any cost? Well I'm in favour of staying in, I don't mind renegotiate

shup taking place. -- renegotiation taking place. I asked a business in

Sunderland what would be the consequences of withdrawal, and he

said an immediate collapse of inward investment. That is a wake up call.

Nissan said they didn't think it would make that much difference only

a couple of months ago. But basically Chris and I agree about

the inevengtiveness of -- ineffectiveness of a lot of what has

been going on. The report says the renegotiation strategy is reactive

and opaque. What is opaque about it? We do know, you may not think they

amount to much, but we no what the Prime Minister is demanding, it was

set out in the manifesto and it has been repeated in various letters.

Well first, as far as the letter is concerned, that was the letter that

was sent to Mr Tusk. That was only published because of an exchange I

had with a journalist during the course of the press conference, it

wouldn't have been made available to the public or to Parliament at all.

But it was the reprint of the what was promised in the manifesto? No,

it wasn't, it contained a lot of important questions, which had not

been advanced before. And actually was not going to be published. The

other thing is regarding this question of the refusal of the

government through the minister for Europe and the Foreign Secretary to

give us a full explanation of where they were on the benefits issue. We

did ask them to send us a copy of what they had in minuted and they

didn't -- mind and they didn't do it. That I regard as opaque. The

House of Lords have also been critical in their reports about the

extent to which the Government has been sufficiently transparent. So it

is opaque. Is it opaque, have you not known what the Prime Minister is

negotiating on? Well, I would hesitate to challenge Bill on the

details. You would be. Yes I think broadly speaking we know what he is

asking. I don't think it dawned on David Cameron until creptly that --

recently that it could lead to withdrawal. I asked Vince Cable, who

is a very thoughtful man, how, what the chances of withdrawal were. He

said if you asked me a year ago I would say 5%. Now I would stay about

40%. That is quite a change. David Cameron is in favour of staying in.

He has threatened exit. Do you think he would campaign for out. There is

a point, at which when you realise that the things you have been

seeking are simply not going to be accepted by the other member states,

and this business of getting accepted by the other member states,

treaty change is fundamental to that, if you can't get it through,

before the referendum, and the only thing you can offer the voter is the

fact that you have had an international agreement which itself

according to the former legal advisor to the European council

wouldn't be sufficient. Do you think bearing in mind there has been

resistance on inward benefit do you think he would drop that idea. It

looks like it in some shape or form. It is very much in the air at the

moment. But one thing is certain, it has not just legal implications but

it is political. The other member states, those countries in central

and eastern Europe, they have called it a red line and that is where they

are. They have no intention of allowing anything to get through.

That is what people say in negotiation. Do you think the Prime

Minister's gamble about saying he could in a certain circumstances

campaign for out is going to pay off in terms of pressure on the other

states. First, I don't believe him. I think he is in favour. I don't

think it dawned on him when he lit the fuse that is how it would end

up. The consequences are far reaches if we did vote to come out, the

Scots would demand another referendum and probably would vote

to go. The Prime Minister may go down as the Prime Minister who pr

presided over the break up of the United Kingdom I am sure is not what

he wants. Thank you. Now, it's nearly two weeks

since the House of Commons voted to extend British air strikes

targeting the so-called Islamic State group

from Iraq into Syria. But after the huge attention

on the parliamentary debate, what action has the RAF actually

been taking in the region? Well, once or twice a week

the Ministry of Defence provides Here's what had happened

up till last Friday. On the 2nd, 4th and 6th December,

British Tornados flying from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus launched bombing

raids against IS positions in Syria. The target on every occasion

was infrastructure in the extensive The oil field is one of the key

sources of revenue for IS. So far, there has been no RAF

bombing of the IS stronghold of Raqqa or any other position

in Syria, but RAF planes do fly routine reconnaissance

missions in Syrian airspace. Last week the focus shifted back

to Iraq, where British forces have been bombing IS targets

for over a year. On 7th December a pair of RAF

Tornados provided air support to Iraqi military operations

against IS in western Ramadi. A day later, Tornados launched two

Brimstone missile attacks on militants west of the city

of Kayaruh with three IS machine gun positions bombed later

that day north-east On 9th, support was provided

to Kurdish soldiers fighting A guided bomb destroyed an IS mortar

position near the settlement And three IS vehicles were destroyed

in a Hellfire missile attack The RAF saw further action

south-west of that town the following day,

with IS-occupied buildings and vehicles destroyed,

a mortar position eliminated, and a sniper killed

with a guided bomb. Well we can talk now to the BBC's

defence correspondent Even after all the debate, the media

focus on Raqqa and such places, the bombings have been confined to one

oil field. Yes, they have targeted the Omar oil field, they say it is

essential, because it is the essential source of finning for the

Islamic State -- funding for the Islamic State group and we have seen

US planes doing a similar thing. They have updated their air strikes

again today, the RAF, and they have been hitting again targets in

northern Iraq and the fact is it is easier at the moment to go after

targets in northern Iraq and Iraq itself, because there are security

forces, there are clear boundaries between what are the friendly

forces, the Iraqi security forces and the Peshmerga. The picture in

Syria is more confusing and if you're talking about Raqqa and if

you're going to go after what David Cameron calls the snake's head, that

is more difficult, because that is to be with civilians living next

door and possibly used as human shields. Is that it fear of civilian

casualties or the lack of a moderate force on the ground stopping that

extension to air strikes? The RAF claim they've not caused any

civilian casualties so far. I think that's going to be difficult as the

campaign... There are undoubtedly going to be civilian casualties to

some extent. The definite Secretary has acknowledged that. Also if you

haven't a clear army on the ground, a unified group fighting who can

call in these air strikes, can tell you what's begun going on f you

haven't your own forces on the ground in some way it's more

difficult to target. A lot was mentioned about the Brimstone

missile and why America wanted the RAF and Britain involvement in Syria

because of the Brimstone, actually it hasn't been used at all so far in

Syria. But in Iraq. Do we have reliable intelligence then that IS

have actually felt the squeeze, they are feeling the pain from the

bombing of their oil resources? I think the expectation is that this

is one of the funding streams for Islamic State, the oil, it's not the

only one, they extort money. They've money from various financial pots,

including raiding banks and the likes. But it's not the only way you

are going to defeat IS. In Iraq, of course, the key difference is the

fact that there are forces on the ground who are working with the

US-led coalition who may have individuals from that US-led

coalition helping them on the ground, calling in these air strikes

and you have not got that to such an extent in Syria. So that is the

clear difference at the moment. Right. As you have explained, and

outlined, northern Iraq is still the main theatre of operations for

British air strikes. Has the campaign there over the last year

had success? Yeah, we heard President Obama saying yesterday

that he believed there was success in taking away territory from

Islamic State, they've lost thousands of square miles in

territory, we can see what's happening in Ramadi at the moment,

IS is being pushed, they've been holding that city for a long time,

but they are being strangleholds. The noose is tightening there at the

moment. The key strategy, has been according to President Obama and

David Cameron, going after the leadership of Islamic State and

they've carried out targeted air strikes against individuals, they've

taken out high-profile names. But, we haven't seen that by the RAF in

Raqqa, for example, so far. These, of course early days, two weeks,

less than two weeks since the vote was approved in parliament. You

talked about the complications in Syria, it's a more complicated

situation. That's because the skies are very crowded with lots of air

forces operating. How is the relationship, if you can call it

that, with Russia? Has relationship, if you can call it

operational understanding at least f not a political one? Yeah, they have

that horrible word deconflicted, they have talked to each other to

make sure there are not going to be mid-air collisions, the sort of

incident which was essentially about crossing a boundary, the Turks

shooting down a Russian warplane, that's the kind of thing they're

desperate to avoid. There is a clear understanding, I think. That's not

their biggest worry. I think the hardest thing is targeting, getting

clear targets in Syria at the moment. The numbers at the moment

are stacked in much more targeting going on in Iraq than in Syria. And

you have to remember also that the British contribution is, even though

it's been doubled in the number of warplanes that have been sent since

that vote, the British County Councils is small. For example, the

RAF totally has carried out about 400 air strikes. -- contribution.

The US has carried conducted about nearly 9,000 air strikes. A lot of

these missions, they are flying over Iraq or Syria, carrying out

surveillance, are not using their weapons at all. Essentially in the

past year for the RAF we have seen about one in four missions have been

resulting in an air strike. That's a small proportion. Thank you very

much. We bid for someone from the MoD to

come on to the programme but none were available.

Now let's talk about the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn.

My guest of the day, Chris Mullin, is a former colleague of Mr Corbyn,

shares a lot of his politics and is altogether something

Here he is talking about Mr Corbyn when he was elected,

If you run into him on a train as I have done, he will immediately get

out of his box of sandwiches which are verying tearian, of course and

cut them in half. He is a good man. The serious point is this, do you

think if he does become leader of the opposition, do you see him as

electable, as a Prime Minister? It's unlikely, frankly.

Do you still feel that? Well, I think we are on - Jeremy is

certainly on a learning curve. We are all on a learning curve here. We

are in unknown territory. I feel that electing Jeremy was a high risk

strategy on the part of the Labour Party. But I think he needs to be

given a reasonable period to show what he can do and I don't think the

short time he has had so far and some of the misbehaviour that's

occurred amounts to a reasonable period. We are more than four years

away from a general election, in two years' time perhaps that will be a

time to assess. But it was only a few months ago you didn't think he

would be electable as Prime Minister. What makes you think now

he might be? He must be given a chance that's all I am saying. I am

not going to go around slagging him off as some people have done. He has

in some respects done better than expected, at Prime Minister's

questions he often holds his own. I think what the Labour Party as a

whole has to do, if he wants to stand a chance of winning the next

election, is address the nation and not each other. They're still at the

stage of addressing each other at the moment and they shouldn't,

individual MPs have been collaborating with the Murdoch press

and they shouldn't be. Who is misbehaving along those sort of

lines? Well, you can pay your money, take your choice. But I saw one

today, I think, in a newspaper saying she would stab Jeremy not in

the back but in the front, should the need arise. I think that's a

very foolish thing to say. They really need to start pointing their

guns outward at the enemy. The public do not vote for divided

parties. Jeremy is sa saintly decent man who has led a life that reflects

his principles and deserves to be given a chance. He ares rebelled. He

was a serious rebel and that makes it difficult to demand it now. He is

entitled however, to be taken seriously for and given a chance.

Right. You mentioned the Labour MP Jess Phillips, I think we can hear

what she had to say using the words that you just mentioned there. I

would do anything that I felt was going to make the Labour Party win

the next election because if I don't have that attitude all I am doing is

colluding with the Tories. That's making Jeremy better, I will roll my

sleeves up, if that's not going to happen, and I have said that to him

and to his staff, the day that it becomes that you are hurting us more

than you are helping us, I won't knife new the back, I will knife you

in the front. You didn't like her words there but actually put into

context what she's saying, being honest about her view there. The

great difficulty is our free press does not put things into context and

what will be quoted is that last couple of sentences. You learn after

a while, I mean, it took me a while to learn this, but you really have

to point your guns outwards and address the nation and not each

other. Are both sides guilty of that? As you know, both sides have

been briefing furiously about abuse being flung at Jeremy Corbyn and

abuse being flung at people that would describe themselves as

moderate Labour MPs rightly or wrongly? I am sure there have been

offenders on both sides, not Jeremy himself who maintain as great deal

of equimity in provocation I would say. Do you think he should have

reached out more across the parliamentary party when formulating

his shadow Cabinet? He has to some extent, but he could have done more.

All the talk about reshuffling the Shadow Cabinet so that he can mould

the Shadow Cabinet in his image more, do you think that's going to

alienate or bring people together? It can only work with those who are

willing to work with him. One of the first things that happened was a

number of people who were potential Shadow Cabinet material took their

ball away and said they weren't going to play. Then some of the same

people protesting that the balance in the Shadow Cabinet was unfair.

You can't have it both say -- both ways. My advice to anyone is to pull

together, you are all in the same team. That's what the electorate

expect. Do you think it was provocative to have Ken Livingstone

as co-convener of the defense review when there was a Shadow Defence

Secretary? Well, I am sure that both Ken and the Shadow Defence Secretary

are mature enough to work out a modus, the triedent issue is

difficult in the world of politics, I think only the Tory Party could

get rid of a nuclear missile system, it is bonkers spending ?30 billion

on this redundant missile system. In the world of practical politics I

don't think Labour could get away with it. What it will have to do

when the vote comes is allow another free vote. Should Ken Livingstone be

made a peer? Oh, God, that's not in my... That's way above my pay grade.

That was the talk so he could put in the Shadow Cabinet. It has been

dismissed. As you say, if there isn't a big pull for Jeremy Corbyn

to pick his team come in the future that's what he might have do to do.

Let's deal with Ken Livingstone. He is the most, without exception,

successful left-wing politician possibly in the history of the

Labour Party. He governed London one way or another for 16 years in

power, in office. And quite a lot of the things, I said left-wing, I

don't think Tony Blair would claim to be particularly left-wing. I

don't mean to disparage him. Of the left-wing politicians most have

never had office of any sort. But Ken has been in office for 16 years

one way or another actually quite a lot of the things he did on gays,

talking to Sinn Fein, and introducing a decent public

transport system in London, he demonstrated he can deliver. I think

it will be wise of Jeremy, Ken can be a loose cannon, we all know that

too and preferable if he wasn't too much of a loose cannon, but I think

he has something to contribute and don't blame Jeremy at all, if it's

from the House of Lords or wherever, I have no strong feelings within way

or another about that. Right. Now our guest of the day here,

Chris Mullin, has a suggestion for how Labour can win

the next general election. He's recently told

the New Statesman magazine: There's one thing I think Labour

are going to have to do if we are to stand any chance

of defeating the Tories next time. We are going to need

all the non-Tory voters we can find. Labour urgently needs

a Lib Dem revival. The Lib Dems can win seats in parts

of the country we can't. Jeremy needs to be thinking

about an electoral pact In a list of key marginals,

there needs to be just Well, one politician who'd long

talked of a left-leaning pact is the former Lib Dem MP

and coalition Minister Vince Cable. Do you agree with that thesis? Well,

with qualifications, if there is going to be a breakthrough as

happened in 19197 and the subsequent elections, it will be on the basis

that there is some common understanding by the Tory opponents,

we are in danger of getting a one-party state. But the

qualifications are very important. The opposition parties have to make

a common offer to the public. The public have to agree with them. One

thing we shouldn't forget is at the last election the Tories got in with

37% of the vote but a Tory splinter group, which is Ukip, also did well

and between them they got a majority. So we did have a

right-wing majority. You can't change that. Tactical manoeuvring

doesn't solve that problem. Where is your evidence, either of you, that

even if Jeremy Corbyn won over your evidence, either of you, that

the left-wing votes, for example, or if there was a sort of shared

platform with Greens and Lib Dems, that it would be enough to win a

general election? It wouldn't, for the reasons I have given. What Chris

said earlier, which is important, is we have to address the public. The

tragedy of what's happening in the Labour Party is that it's a sort of

inward looking conversation. Until they resolve that issue with their

own leader and people accept him or change him, there isn't an outward

looking proposition that people can rally to. Would you be in favour of

that sort of left-wing coalition with Jeremy Corbyn at the head or

would it be better without him? I think it would be easier with

someone else, given his history. As you know, in my own seat I lost

because a lot of what we used to call soft Tory voters were so

alarmed by the prospect of Ed Miliband and the SNP they went to

the Tories. Jeremy Corbyn would be even less appealing to that

particular group. So your thesis falls down at that point if people

like Vince Cable couldn't see themselves part of a left-wing

coalition under someone like Jeremy. Vince's first point is the right

one, the parties would have to make a common offer. Aspiring to be in

Government involves compromise and compromises would have to be made on

all sides. The Lib Dems recently emerged from a coalition with the

Conservatives and they had to make compromises there. That was because

they felt they could work together. They weren't sure about Gordon

Brown. They had to swallow quite hard and this will be a compromise,

I think it's one that should be more appealing to potential Lib Dem

voters. Is History is getting wonky here. We would have worked with

Gordon Brown, it wasn't a preference for the Tories that got us into the

coalition, it was political reality. Both sides did say that there would

be a better working relationship, they felt with Nick Clegg and David

Cameron. In terms of history, if you were to take the left-wing coalition

as you both broadly outlined wouldn't it just result in Labour

increasing its vote and share of the seats it already holds?

We are getting ahead of ourselves. You've to build. You have to start

by getting the public to accept that continued Conservative dominance is

doing harm to the country. That is the first negative story and you

have got to have something positive to offer instead and then you look

for common ground. And you have got to involve your act vifss on the --

act ivists on the ground. The piece you have written seems to concede

that Labour can't win an election on its own. I think that is right for

the foreseeable future, because of the loss of Scotland. I don't see it

coming back. Do you think it is just because of the loss of Scotland. I

wouldn't call this a left-wing coalition, I would call it a

non-Tory coalition. What about Ukip being part of it, in some of the

seats you need to win, the Ukip voters are the ones you want to win

back. Ukip is a bit of a one man band and we find it fades. They have

got a lot of votes. They did, but personally they're not a force I

feel we could be aligned to. You talked about Scotland being the

problem, the losses in Scotland, you still haven't addressed or given me

evidence to show that the sort of thing you're talking about would win

over Tory seats, which is what you need to do if you're going to win

the general election. The liberals used to hold three seats in

Cornwall. There was never a slightest chance of Labour ever

holding those. They are at a low base and I would expect them to go

up. There is a fundamental problem with that too, again a non-Tory

coalition of one you are outlining, how are Liberal Democrats going to

win back those former marginals on that basis? In 97 when the big

political break through occurred of last generation, it was because of

tactical voting. There was no formal pact, but an understanding that the

era of Tory government had gone and we wanted something knew and it was

assumed Blair would be Prime Minister. A lot seats voted for us

comfortable with the fact that a Labour or Labour/Liberal Democrat

Government would emerge. Until we can re-create that political

environment and that means winning the political debate we are not

going to progress. The present Tory government is laying waste to public

sector. Eventually the public will notice and that will pay some

dividends in terms of votes. Is this the start of political pact between

you two? What needs to happen we need to talk to each other. There

has been vicious tribal argument on what I would call the left from my

party through Labour and other groups. We need to talk to each

other and co-operate on particular issues. You're both welcome any time

to chat. Thank you. Now at May's general election

the Conservatives had their best results in Wales for more than 30

years, and the party will be under pressure to repeat its success

at next year's elections But it's Labour that is still

Wales's dominant party, controlling the Assembly in Cardiff

and getting the biggest share The Tories are hoping that an offer

of lower income taxes in Wales, using powers that are set to be

devolved, could give them a boost. Here's George Osborne making

the announcement in last For years Wales has asked for a

funding floor to protect spending there and now within months of

coming to office, this Conservative Government is answering that call

and providing that historic funding guarantee for Wales. I can announce

we will introduce the new funding floor and sit it at 115%. The Welsh

Secretary and I will legislate so the devolution of income tax can

take place without a referendum. George Osborne there.

Well, we're joined now by the leader of the Welsh Conservatives,

You want to take 5% off the higher rate of tax. That could cost ?255

million in Welsh revenue. How would you pay for it It is not taking it

off. The tax base would grow and bring entrepreneurs into Wales. Two

things we have identified so far that we wouldn't do what Labour are

doing, is free prescriptions. 40% taxpayers pay for free prescriptions

that would save ?40 million. Also tuition fees, Welsh students are

subsidised to a tune of ?3,6 hundred and they can take the grant and go

anywhere in the United Kingdom. That is a loss of ?7 ?70 million.

Importantly this can aprabgt entrepreneurs -- attract

entrepreneurs to Wales. This would only reduce bills by up to ?400, is

that enough to attract people to Wales? It could start the process of

showing Wales is open for business and sends a positive message that

you have a Welsh Conservative Government that believes the best

people to spend the money are the people themselves and we are more

competitive than other parts of United Kingdom. What we don't have

are enough entrepreneurs developing a large private sector to create

quality take home pay. You think that would shift business investment

in Wales, to justify your income tax changes. But how popular is the

policy, the Welsh political Politics Showed is support for income tax

devolution is weakest among Conservative supporters in Wales.

Because there is a fear what Labour and the others would do with the

powers, they have indicated they would increase taxation and we would

be opening up the political narrative. At the moment the

Assembly and the Government have no means to raise revenue. Now the

political debate and argument will move into game-changer mode and the

politicians you will eexpect will be delving into rour purses, for the

first time. You campaigned on improving public services, how do

you do that and cut taxes. You increase the tax base, because you

get more people earning more money. It is depends which part of the

political spectrum you come from. The left believe you take more of

people's income, the right believe you leave wit people to spend. Do

you think by cutting income tax you can still improve public services?

If I was Welsh I would be sceptical. It is dangerous to get into a

bidding war over income tax. When Margaret Thatcher left office the

basic rate of income tax and that is the fairest way to raise public

money, was 26 pence in the pound. After eleven years of Margaret

Thatcher. This gentleman is talking about putting down to 19 pence. If

you want to see a collapse of public services this is the way to do it.

Public services under Labour have been criticised, admittedly by the

Tory government, but they have been criticised and there is a lot of

evidence to support what the Conservatives have said,

particularly on health. I think under this government if they

continue down this road and may might not, you can expect all

nonstatutory public services to more or less collapse within the next

five or six years. That shows a lack of understanding of the devolution

settlement. And what is going on in Wales. Ultimately the government in

Wales, not just by political parties, but by independent think

tanks, this is a Labour Party that in power since 1999 and whether you

take independent analysis or political analysis, Labour have

failed to deliver for Wales. Except they still keep being voted back in.

On a smaller part of vote. Let's go back to income tax, because most

income tax in Wales is paid by the earners in the lower tax bands. You

will give a bigger reduction to those on higher incomes, that is how

it would work out, so they will benefit from the cut on the lore

band and the higher band and benefit twice. It is about the Welsh

Treasury being able to afford this. If you look at the 40% tax rate u

you're talking of a hit of about 12 to 15 million. If you talk of the

basic rate you have to find between 150 and 170 million. So we have

costed what we can do and invested in public services and delivering a

better state that gets the waiting list down and lifts education

standards to get better standards across the board. Thank you.

Theresa May is now the longest-serving Home Secretary

since Henry Matthews in 1892, overtaking Rab Butler's 2,007-day

She's survived what's meant to be one of the trickiest jobs

in the Cabinet, and is spoken of as a possible contender for next

Giles has been looking into the secret of her success.

Home Secretary Theresa May knows the drill. In the wake of the Paris

attacks, she was on the BBC, comfortable, reassuring the public.

It is the kind of confidence that comes with knowing the job and doing

it longer than anyone in modern politics. Inside the Home Office are

portraits of those who have been Home Secretary in the past and only

one has gone on to be Prime Minister. But the current incumbent

is the longest serving Home Secretary since the Second World

War. That is quite an achievement, given the job dents reputations

rather than makes them. Jack Straw said when he went into it he was

advised by a previous Conservative Home Secretary in the words, Jack,

somewhere in that department every day, in some corner is somebody

doing something that can ruin your whole career. I think that is...

Probably pretty accurate. Everybody makes mistakes. We are all fallible

human beings. If you're in another department, there is a reasonable

chance that the mistake you make will be in some dark hidden corner

when no one is looking. There are no dark hidden corners in the Home

Office. I would give you the powers... Theresa May is not perfect

and for some hasn't always got it right. Stand by your vision... She

upset the police federation and nearly didn't and couldn't depart

Abu Qatada. ImGriggs But he has endured. If you look at the list of

things she has done, it is actually liberal. You have modern slavery

bill and scrapped ID cards and she is the first Home Secretary that we

can do business can according to The Voice, a leader black newspaper. For

a Tory to have that reputation, her moves on stop and search, she is

very hard to pin point down. That is one of her quality and why she

survives, you can't put her in a box. It is either every day sexism

or a political truth that being the most senior woman in government may

have helped her secure her place in a cabinet with a Prime Minister

often accused of having a woman problem. The first woman to do the

job is generous in her appraisal. She is effective in the job that she

does. From everything I hear very hard working. It is a slight

function I think of the little double standards that happens at the

start of Parliament that she got away with some things, but good luck

to her. And I think you know I have every respect for the length of time

that she has done it and for some of changes she has made as well. There

seems no immediate threat of Theresa May leaving the Home Office. The

only question everyone are asking, is this a sight she might like us to

get used to in the future? We're joined now by

the Conservative MP Peter Bone. What do you think is the secret of

her success? She's extraordinarily good, to survive for that length of

time is remarkable. Success in staying that long, not necessarily

her record as Home Secretary. If you looked at what was said in the clip,

it's difficult to pin her down. I was involved in the modern slavery

bill, absolutely right thing to do, people will say that's from the

left. She's very tough on immigration. And I would argue the

EU Tough on immigration, but net migration figures have Soared. The

Tory Party has utterly failed on that. Absolutely the Government's

failed on it and it's... A lot of people believe if she was let free

from what she wants to do, she would solve the problem. You think she is

being hampered by the leadership on that particular issue, it's nothing

to do with her? They will say, that's your area and you have

failed. No, but you can't, for instance, say you want to reform the

European Court of Human Rights or you want to cut down the number of

immigrants without having collective support of the Government. She's

made so many hints and I think, you touched on it at the end, she's

clearly a very credible candidate to be the next Prime Minister when this

one has clearly said he will retire sometime before the end of this

parliament Rather than George Osborne? He is clearly a credible

candidate but if you ask me who attracts more, I would say perhaps

she does at the moment. They're both talented people and can be Prime

Minister, of course. You would rather it was Theresa May? I don't

think I said that. No, I am asking. I said she would, there is clearly a

number of Conservative colleagues who would be very good Prime

Ministers but Theresa May, someone who has held that office of state

for so long and done such a good job clearly has the right to be

considered as the next Prime Minister. Right. She certainly

succeeded where Labour Home Secretaries have failed and that's

to stay in the job for a substantial length of time. There were so many

of them. Clearly over a fairly long period of time. Jack Straw was there

four years and he was a successful Home Secretary. Yes, you are right.

If you go and see the Home Secretary as I have done from time to time,

there are pictures down the corridor and back up the other side...

They've run out of space! You have forgotten who they are.

Extraordinary list of people since the war. One of the sensible things

Cameron has done is not have reshuffles and that's the habit

Labour and I think the reshuffles and that's the habit

Government got into and that was destabilising for Government, you

can only make a difference if you are left somewhere, you make

mistakes at first, of course you do, if you are left somewhere long

enough to make a difference and she is a very formidable woman and yes,

she's done very well. Right. Done very well do you think from a policy

perspective too? Harry Coal in that film said his assessment is she's

quite liberal having wons been described as really hardline in many

ways, since liberal on things like stop and search, for example, and

there were too many white police forces in England and Wales. I don't

see her as a liberal Home Secretary, she did take on the Police

Federation and she faced them down and I have been waiting for a long

time for a Home Secretary to do that. Yes, on this immigration

business I bet she's been hinting that leave it to her and she could

solve the problem because she wants the votes of people like Peter Bone

and others. It's a huge change going on in the world in terms of

migration. It's difficult. Maybe that's one of the, I think that will

be one of the tests for candidates if we are talking about future

leadership, which way they go on the EU issue. I would think Theresa May

will maybe on the out campaign. You are a fortress Britain man? I am for

Britain in the world leading, not stuck in this European superstate of

backward looking countries. Would you like Theresa May to lead the out

campaign? The out campaign is a cross-party thing, there is going to

be no single leader. What about for the Tory side? You have just said

how strong she is. Doesn't have to continue. The person I would like to

lead from the Conservative is the Prime Minister when he realises he

can't get what he wants and he has hinted that's what he might do. I

want as many Secretary of States on the out campaign or leave side as

possible. I would have thought Theresa May is a possible one. Do

you see her as a future leader of the Conservative Party? Well, she is

certainly a candidate as Peter says. I think at the moment if the economy

continues to go in the way that it's going, it's likely to be George

Osborne. Well, you know, the economy can go either way at any time. You

can't rely - of course, we might have our second woman Prime Minister

again from the Conservatives. You know, it's a very interesting game.

But clearly she's done a very good job as Home Secretary. I think she's

got a lot of support, not only inside parliament but across the

country. Peter bone, thank you. Now there are two big galactic

events happening this week that have The first is the launch

of the the rocket carrying Briton Tim Peake on his landmark

flight to the International Space Everyone was watching,

including the Prime Minister. Here he is, watching the launch

on the TV at Number 10 about an hour ago, and he tweeted: It was great

to watch Tim Peake blast off But, of course, the big political

event of the week is on Thursday with the UK release

of the new Star Wars film. If you can't see the subtle

political messages in a story about an elite group of Jedi Knights

helping an idealistic Rebel Alliance fight against a totalitarian

Galactic Empire - then there's Let's have a look at what we can

expect from Star Wars: The force is strong in my family. My

father has it. I have it. My sister has it.

I have my tickets already. So that was a snippet

of the new Star Wars film which had its world premiere

in America last night. It's due to have its premiere

here in London tomorrow before it goes on general release

across the UK and is tipped to break Well, fans of the franchise

will debate most things it seems, and that even extends to discussing

whether the Star Wars universe We're joined by Stephen Bush

from the New Statesman, who thinks that the film

is a confirmation of the left-wing values of solidarity

and collective action. And we're also joined

by the journalist James Delingpole, Surprise, surprise! Welcome to both

of you. So you can obviously see the political side of this. What is the

message behind Star Wars? Well, it depends on which set of the six

films you take. In the first of the three the Jedi are an elite group

who try and fail to prevent the rise of the dark side. In the original

you effectively have a cross-coalition, on the one hand the

elite Jedi, and then small traders and the Ewoks who rise up against

what is clearly a kind of quasi-fasistic empire. You look at

the Storm Troopers and I think see where people think that's a cult and

the heros are left-wing Everyone wants to claim Star Wars for

themselves, everyone wants to project their own ideology on the

film. Can I just say I concede Ja Ja, I think he is what would happen

if Jeremy Corbyn was in charge. He is sort of the person who would be

overpromoted in the Labour world. Generally, I think it's pretty

obvious that the rebels, I am not going to talk about the more recent

ones which I can't stand, but the in the early classic Star Wars I would

say you were right on one thing, Hans and Chewbacca would be voting

It's clear that the tyranny is the tyranny of the left, not the right.

There is no way two characters which can do be against the free movement

of Labour. Maybe they're Lib tearians but Ukip voters... Is that

the key? Every successful left-wing movement in British history has been

able to get swash-buckling heros over to their side. Let's think of

who the politicians might represent. Obi, could that be Jeremy Corbyn? I

think Jeremy Corbyn is more like, if you look at Pete are Curbing in the

first film, that would be Jeremy Corbyn. I think Jabba is probably

someone like Al Gore, making his money out of something like carbon

credits. In the end who are the villains in terms of politically?

Can you see the point that perhaps the Storm Troopers could be

left-wing communists, Stalinists wanting everyone to be the same? No,

because the Storm Troopers are cloned, which is a classic of the

typical right-ling inherited privilege. They're not... The Jedi

talk about inheritance, forces within families. This is something

they passed on through generations and that is inherited one would

associate with Conservatives or Tories. The classic Conservative

position would be you shouldn't judge somebody even if they're a

Princess or a poor farmer as Luke starts out. We don't judge people on

their back combround. We judge them on behaviour. Do you think this is

sad, this discussion about seeing politics in Star Wars? Well, I am

way out of my departmenths here, I have never seep a Star Wars. I live

in Northumberland and I notice it's coming to the Playhouse after

Christmas, it's possible the Mullins will take a trip down there and

after which I will be better informed. I can't promise we will do

this argument again. Thank you very much. Enjoy the film.

Now we may not have got the Daily Politics Christmas Tree up yet.

It's still in the cupboard under Andrew's stairs.

But that's not because we lack the festive spirit -

perish the thought - it's just that for us,

Christmas isn't marked by the start of Advent or mince pies appearing

No, of course it's when we start to get Christmas cards

Here's our traditional look through the best of this year's

I have just realised that was us. Are you feeling festive as an MP?

Did you start early on Christmas cards? I did. I start signing them

on the train about beginning of November, batches of 100. One of the

great joys of not being an MP any more is that I don't send so many as

I used to. Did you like any of those? Yeah, there were some good

ones there. Peter Bone's was good. Yes, with the grumpy face. I suspect

a bit of Scrooge there. I did like the Corbyn one. Bus of the --

because of the bikes. Yes. Should these cards reflect the politician

and that does. I would say that's an idealogically Christmas card. What

about David Cameron's? It looks as though it was taken in May, the day

he walked back into Number 10 Downing Street. It's not very

Christmassy. I don't blame him for sticking it up there but it isn't

Christmassy. Right. Favourite Christmas cards from politicians,

should they have families in, that used to be the trend, it's usually

from a local school. A lot of them organise competitions in primary

schools. Some very good ones. I am looking forward to getting mine from

the Prime Minister and Jeremy Corbyn.

Thank you to Chris for being our guest of the day.

The 1.00pm news is starting over on BBC One now.

I'll be back at 11.30am tomorrow with Andrew for live coverage

of the last Prime Minister's Questions of 2015, and I promise