06/01/2016 Daily Politics

Jeremy Corbyn's first Shadow Cabinet reshuffle finished

His allies say it was 'small but significant' as he moved

to eject dissenters and tighten his control over his frontbench.

But with junior ministers now resigning in protest,

has it underlined his authority - or reduced it?

It's the first Prime Minister's Questions of 2016 -

as the Labour leader and David Cameron square off,

will the PM be asked about his admission that he can't

get the cabinet to hold the line over the EU referendum?

Hospital patients have been told to prepare for disruption next week

when junior doctors strike after talks with the government

And we'll speak to the former MP who thinks it's time

the public what they really think. biting their tongues and tell

back, it's time for them to get rude.

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

of the programme today it's the Conservative MP and former

And from Labour, a shadow minister who's survived unscathed

through a reshuffle so slow we've had time to watch most

And the new BBC adaptation of War and Peace.

It's Lisa Nandy and she is still the shadow energy

So after 36 hours the Shadow Cabinet reshuffle finally came to an end

at a quarter to one this morning, and the impact in the real world

I saw that it reduced Barack Obama to tears in the White House!

But Jeremy Corbyn has strengthened his grip on his front

bench and in key policy areas, even if not as much

Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn will remain in his job but has

agreed to agree with his leader, at least in public.

Maria Eagle was shunted from defence secretary to culture secretary,

replacing Michael Dugher who was sacked for "incompetence

The new shadow defence secretary is Emily Thornberry,

who unlike Maria Eagle opposes the renewal of Trident.

At midnight Pat McFadden was relieved of his duties as shadow

Europe minister, to be replaced by another Pat,

Well, Mr McFadden was given the push for showing "disloyalty"

to Mr Corbyn - let's have a listen to the shadow chancellor

John McDonnell and then Mr McFadden, both speaking

With Pat McFadden, unfortunately there was a series of times

when I think, to be frank, the views he had expressed

were undermining, challenging Jeremy's mandate, the overwhelming

mandate he has got from Labour Party members.

So Jeremy put a condition to Hillary that Pat McFadden had

Pat I think is immensely talented and he will make a major

I have been an MP for 11.5 years and I have never broken

So I don't think there is a question of loyalty at all.

But sometimes there is disagreement over issues, and Mr Corbyn has not

been happy with things I have said, especially about terrorism

Well, some Labour backbenchers have taken to Twitter

Backbencher Ian Austen said... The new MP Wes streeting said...

The former Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury Chris

Jonathan Reynolds resigned following the reshuffle. In his resignation

letter, he says... speak to one of those backbenchers,

the MP Ian Austin who was a minister Isn't it a well established part of

the British political scene that if you are a member of the shadow team

Opposition, you should go? I don't Opposition, you should go? I don't

think any of the people who have gone have criticised the leader at

all. This has been a terrible process,

all. This has been a terrible reshuffle is for many years and it

is a complete shambles. A journalist told me that Hilary Benn, Pat

McFadden was going to be sacked, not for criticising the leader but

because they voted a different way on a free vote. I don't think it is

about loyalty at all. Last night, actually, the explanation from the

leaders' office was of incompetence and disloyalty. Nobody thinks that

Pat McFadden is incompetent and neither that either of

Pat McFadden is incompetent and been disloyal. Are you seriously

saying that nothing they have said could be construed as critical of

the Jeremy could be construed as critical of

that your position this morning? Michael Duggan is calling for

loyalty. When Jeremy Corbyn rang pats last night and told him he was

loyalty. When Jeremy Corbyn rang sacked, it was because he criticised

ISIS and said they were responsible alone for the terrorist attacks.

That has alone for the terrorist attacks.

international issues and terrorism ever since we were elected on the

same day ten years ago. -- Pat. ever since we were elected on the

is not about loyalty at all. Pat has worked

is not about loyalty at all. Pat has Michael and Pat leaving the front

benches is a big loss. Mr McFadden Michael and Pat leaving the front

was like and respected MP, and has been sacked for stating that

was like and respected MP, and has terrorists are to blame for

terrorism. I don't know why Pat was sacked, I have not heard from Jeremy

about it, and I have to agree with Pat and what he said in The Chamber

about ISIS and the fact Pat and what he said in The Chamber

is responsible for terrorist attacks but I know that Jamie

is responsible for terrorist attacks him about that as well. I can only

imagine they had a conversation last him about that as well. I can only

Jeremy had confidence in him and for some reason he appears to have

decided he does not. This happened in the last Parliament. Ed Miliband

sacked by an habit for the same reason. The Shadow Chancellor said

this morning that he had been sacked for disloyalty. I don't really know

why that has happened. Why has he been disloyal? I don't know. Was

about Michael? He was sacked for been disloyal? I don't know. Was

incompetence, we are told. Are you aware of anything he has done that

is incompetent? -- note. I work for aware of anything he has done that

Michael in the last Parliament and he is effective and a great

campaigner and a nice bloke. Are you sorry to see the back of both of

them? I don't think we have seen the last of them because I think they

will contribute from the backbenches. Michael in particular,

it became increasingly apparent over the last few months that Michael was

unhappy with the direction the party was taking and I think it is right

that he should have a very strong boys about the future of the party

but you obviously cannot do that from the Shadow Cabinet. Jonathan

Reynolds, another junior shadow minister, he has gone this morning

and resigned in protest, do you think there will be more

resignations? Who knows? This has been a terrible process and has gone

on for three days but before that we had weeks of speculation driven by

the leaders' office, and the whole long list of ministers who were due

to be chopped, and I think it has been a really terrible unedifying

spectacle. Once we get the shambles out of the way, we need to focus on

May and the local elections, we have big challenges. Jeremy was elected

to win back support for disaffected unhappy former Labour supporters. We

will be looking to win London and win it well, begin to win some

ground back in Scotland and do well in the local elections. Why did it

take 30 hours of meetings and almost three days to make the minor

changes? I don't know. My experience of reshuffle is... You clearly have

not been involved in the reshuffle! If you want to stay in your job,

keep your head down and stop I have been in my office board but 24

hours. One aggro did anybody call you? It was always meant to be a

limited reshuffle and it turned out to be that. What about the rumour in

Westminster that they dangled Defence in front of you? I have no

idea where it came from. I was never offered it and I never had a

conversation about it. Did the leaders' office ever have a

discussion with you about your position? They must have spoken to

somebody! Jeremy was talking to Hilary Benn. We know that but not to

you? He talked to Maria and Emily. I had made it very clear from the day

I got the job that I was thrilled to be doing it, I want to keep it. No

alternative for you? No. What is Hilary Benn's modus operandi? He had

long discussions with Hillary about future directions and policy. Maybe

you did not hear Mr McDonald this morning may he said if he wants to

do another speech like the one on Syria, he would have to do it from

the backbenches. Is that your understanding? No, I heard Hilary

Benn talking about it and he said there were no conditions put on his

job, and I know him and to be honest, I cannot imagine he would

have accepted a deal to stay in his job if he could not speak. From the

front bench? Yes. What I think they would have agreed is that they will

come to a collect view on major questions of the day which is right

and important stop do you think it is wise to put Miss Thornbury in

charge of Labour's defence policy on the very day that North Korea has

exploded a hydrogen bomb? Is it wise? The party makes policy and the

party position is that we will renew Trident. Is it your position? Is it

right to review it. -- it is right to review it. It has rights to

review how we spend the money and I am open to having a discussion. Does

the position of North Korea to explode a hydrogen bomb impact on

your future decision? You have to look at where the threat is

currently and the major threat is from ISIS, we have just spoken about

it. There was a big question about whether we spent that proportion of

our defence budget on Trident which has no answer to that challenge. The

military members have raised that question and I'm glad we have a

party leader who can explore it. He has made up his mind. He has not

imposed his view on the party. Collective decisions in the party.

We need to leave it there. A busy morning and head. Thank you. --

ahead. Hospital patients have been told

to prepare for disruption next week as junior doctors in England prepare

for a series of strikes after talks Three strikes over the next few

months. The British Medical Association -

or BMA - agreed to cancel three strikes last month to re-enter talks

with the government over At this point the concilation

service ACAS was brought in - but talks have broken down

leading to strikes back on. Unless a deal is reached,

there will be a 24 hour walk out next Tuesday, followed by a 48 hour

strikes later in the month The strike action is likely to lead

to thousands of non-emergency operations and hospital

appointments being cancelled. The main sticking point

is around weekend pay Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt has

offered to increase basic salaries by 11% at the expense of overtime -

he says this is needed to create But the BMA says the offer

would mean doctors working more weekends for no extra money

and junior doctors had been "left We can speak now to a junior doctor.

But first of all, Alan Duncan, Junior doctors say this will mean

more weekends for no extra money, leaving staff tired and demoralised.

Is it time now for he is hunt to make further compromises? No, I

don't think this is true, by the way. The BMA may be saying that but

I'm not sure they are fairly representing doctors. I don't think

they are fairly representing the interests of doctors. What happened

at the meeting, 17 points they had been discussing, and 16 have been

agreed. And so will there was the issue of weekends. What we said

clearly in the election was that we wanted a seven-day NHS, so you are

not at a disadvantage if you are ill... Doctors say it is not true

that they do not work at the weekends, they do. But the structure

is not the same at weekends. So often as a patient you are at a

disadvantage at the weekend, which is what we are trying to overcome.

So there is this final issue, about how we reject the payments. The

Government is offering 11% increase in basic pay and trying to even

things out so there is much more certainty and smoothness over

weekends. That is a good objective. The BMA walked out within an hour,

announcing almost in advance that they were going to strike. I am not

convinced even though we have gone to a Cas that they are negotiating

honestly and fairly in the interests of Junior doctors. Do you accept

that the junior doctors will lose out on a certain amount of pay?

There is that 11% increase but also a 31% average payment taken away for

unsocial hours. When you take it in the round, many junior doctors will

be worse off under the new arrangements, why would they elect

for that? My understanding is that it is not as clear-cut as you say. I

cannot sit here and say absolutely nobody will be worse off. I am not

involved in the details of these discussions. But I firmly believe

that the basic offer is designed to make sure that people are not worth

off, but that the structure of pay is much more rational across the

seven-day week. We can ask a junior surgeon now. Hopefully you just

heard Alan Duncan saying that you will not be worse off under the new

deal being offered by the government - is that the case? Firstly, in

answer to what Mr Duncan just said, I feel very happy and confident that

the BMA are fully representing and understanding the needs of junior

doctors. Secondly, Mr Duncan was talking about 16 out of 17 points.

Yesterday he was talking about 15 out of 16. They do not seem very

clear on this. Let's talk specifically about this issue - are

junior doctors going to be worse off in terms of pay as a result of

changes which the Government says it wants to bring in? I will put this

to you. If you take what they have been saying at pay -- at face value,

the 11% pay rise, and the other changes, I would say this to you,

you could double my pay, and I would say, take that money and buy me

another doctor. Buy me another nurse, another physiotherapist,

because I cannot increase seven-day services above what we already

provide without the support of my colleagues, my paramedic colleagues

and without more doctors. You cannot provide more with a finite number of

doctors. We are already profoundly deplete and already working at

maximum capacity. We cannot do more. Nevertheless we were happy to

negotiate and try and work with the Government to do this. But still

they are not listening to our absolute concerns over safety. I

will come back to Alan Duncan on those points. But in terms of

negotiation, the Government has moved, it would say, because it has

offered this 11% rise on basic salary - where has the compromise

being from your side? In terms of compromise, it comes down to

absolute safety just in simple terms, you have a financial amount

of jam, very thinly spread, over one piece of toast, and the Government

are asking us to spread that same amount over two pieces of toast. We

are trying to say, it does not matter which way you spread it, it

will not work. I have looked at all the detail from the negotiation and

all it comes down to is trying to mini plate us to do something which

ultimately we are trying to say is unsafe. We want to help, we want to

increase seven-day services. We would love to provide those services

for our patients. But without the appropriate resort is an support, it

will not be safe. It needs to be safe.

will not be safe. It needs to be Duncan, it is not just about the

deal for the junior doctors, it is that there is not the funding to

resource these services, there are that there is not the funding to

not even the numbers of doctors, never mount how much you are paying

them? That is somebody on the front line, she knows. With respect, that

is slightly different line of argument than the one you were

putting earlier about the negotiations. I totally accept that

the demand for health care is massive compared with any budget one

could give in order to provide the service one wants to. That is why

big choices have to be made about resources and

big choices have to be made about you allocate them. You do

big choices have to be made about they are not enough resources being

spent in order to make their jobs easier and safer for patients? Every

politician over the last 50 years will say, there is never enough

money for the NHS. There are always demands on health which outstripped

the ability of any government to pay for it. But we think that having

this increase, in what we want to put into the NHS, we are trying to

rationalise it over weekends. All put into the NHS, we are trying to

would say is, please get round the table, not walk out after an hour.

Can I just say Liz and because we have run out of time, are you

prepared to negotiate further on this? Only if our concerns about

absolute safety are less to. There is a huge disconnect with the

reality of what is going on on the front line.

More developments on Labour. Hilary Benn's team up in arms over claims

that he has agreed to a six point feel not to criticise Mr Corbyn. It

is a lie, says one of Mr Ben's supporters. Whereas the Jeremy

Corbyn team are telling us that Mr McFadden was not sacked for opposing

terrorism. That is one, he was sacked for disloyalty on several

accounts to the new leadership. Now it's the New Year

and if, like the team here at the Daily Politics,

you're de-toxing after the Christmas break, we've got just

the thing for you. So put your wine glasses

and champagne flutes to the back of the cupboard in the hope

of winning your very own Daily Politics mug, perfect

for all non-alcoholic drinks. Whether it be a smoothie made

with kale - which apparently Or for all you Westminster

journalists watching, you might need a cup of coffee

to keep you awake after the long days and nights spent waiting

outside Jeremy Corbyn office waiting To win this mug though,

first you'll have to watch this... # And it hurts

with every heartbeat. Bouquets

have replaced brickbats, respectful tributes,

the sneers and the doubts. Supposing you ever got divorced

and you've fallen in love She just appreciates

the fact that we've To be in with a chance of winning

a Daily Politics mug, send your answer to our

special quiz email address Entries must arrive by 12.30 today,

and you can see the full terms and conditions for Guess

The Year on our website. It's coming up to midday here -

just take a look at Big Ben - Yes, the first

Prime Minister's Questions And that's not all -

Laura Kuenssberg is here, and she's been joined by the Labour

MP and shadow foreign affairs Laura bring us up to speed

with what's happening This is a moving story? Absolutely,

claims of lies on all sides this morning. 48 hours of blunt spoons,

rather than sharp knives, really. There is huge upset at the way this

has been handled, do not underestimate that. Massive upset

among the shadow cabinet and Shadow ministers who have decided to stay

on this and especially over the way Pat McFadden's departure was

handled. A lot of people think he has been unfairly treated. That is

denied of course by Jeremy Corbyn's team. The way this has unfolded

between last night and today, it has led already to the resignation of

the Shadow Rail Minister Jonathan Reynolds, and it has also led others

to be considering walking out of the door, and one of them is Stephen

Doughty. I have just written to Jeremy Corbyn to resign from the

front bench. I agreed to serve on Jeremy's front bench for a number of

reasons. I had well-publicised differences with him on foreign

policy and defence and security. But I recognised the mandate he had been

given by the party, and I also have areas where I wholeheartedly agreed

with him. Why have you resigned, question make on many issues,

including climate change another's. But fundamentally I agree with

everything Pat McFadden said, about not being seen to develop a

narrative that somehow the West is was possible. I had to look at my

own conscience in this situation, and when an individual like that has

been singled out for a sacking for words which I completely agree with,

I think it is the honourable thing for me to do to tender my

resignation. But Jeremy Corbyn's people say this to McFadden was not

fired for his remarks about terrorism, he was fired for

disloyalty to the leadership. Well, it is simply not true. It is really

sad actually the number of lies and unfortunate statements which are

coming out from the leader's office about this situation. I was with Pat

just after he was informed, and it was very clear what were the reasons

for his sacking. He is a team member, are not extremely principled

individual, who has always been clear about his own views, but he

has always loyally served the party. When an individual like that and my

own colleague is singled out for views which I also hold myself, I

think it is only honourable for myself also to leave the front

bench. You saying that we should not believe what we're being told by Mr

Corbyn's team? It is up to you what you think. I think that things which

are being briefed out this morning are simply not true. Undoubtedly

they will do it about other individuals, about me. One reason I

agreed to serve under Jeremy was actually his comments about the new

politics, about being open and transparent and straight talking.

And that seems to be the case for the first few weeks and months. I

was perfectly content with that even on areas where I disagreed with him.

His decision to give a free vote on Syria was absolutely right. But

unfortunately there is a tendency of some of those around him and within

his team to be conducting some pretty unpleasant operations against

certain people. And there are others as well. In addition to Pat McFadden

and Mr Dugher? It is extremely regrettable is, some of the stuff I

am aware of. When it comes down to issues of national security and

defence and terrorism, I have got very, very firm views on these

things, and many colleagues do as well. We cannot be seen to be

equivocating overdose. When an individual like Pat is singled out

for his views on those very issues, then it is a matter of conscience

for me. Given that I would have said exactly the same things, I cannot

continue on the front bench in that situation. What do you say to that?

I am sorry to see you go but I am excited about the fact that you

might come and do some more stuff on climate change. But I guess I would

also say as well that if I thought that Pat had been sacked because of

his views on Isil and the West and terrorist attacks, then I would be

agreeing with Steve. But that is what he thinks. Hang on, Alan. I

completely agree with his view on that. But I would say, so does

Jeremy Corbyn. How do you know that? Because I have spoken to him about

it. Are you saying that McFadden's views and Jeremy Corbyn's views on

terrorism are as one? No, but... Of course they are not. That was the

whole point of Jeremy Corbyn putting together a broad best shadow cabinet

and front bench, which he still has. Hilary Benn and Jeremy Corbyn have

got differences of opinion over things like Syria. They have been

very clear about that and they are keen to continue to work together to

reach the right answer. But at the end of the day there is not a single

Labour MP that I know of who thinks that the West

Labour MP that I know of who thinks terrorist attacks but we

Labour MP that I know of who thinks You have broken the story that there

is another shadow minister going, Stephen Doughty - do we expect more

today? I do. Maybe not very many, maybe not huge figures, very well

known to the public, but I think there will be at least two, maybe

more, who follow what Stephen Doughty has decided to do the course

of today. There will always be disagreement in Jeremy Corbyn's

Labour Party. He has the right to reshuffle his team, that is

absolutely important to remind. But after a very messy reshuffle, this

is a extraordinary. We have got different people publicly in the

same political party accusing each other of lying. Over very

fundamental things. I think there is a fundamental issue here. For me,

issues of national a fundamental issue here. For me,

defence though beyond party politics and internal machinations. And

personal point-scoring and settling, which has

personal point-scoring and settling, For me that is a very serious issue.

personal point-scoring and settling, that these are issues which go

beyond internal politics, then we will be in a very difficult

situation. You are will be in a very difficult

Nandy? Because I agree with Steve completely that this goes beyond

party politics. We have to go over to Prime Minister's Questions now.

Condemning terrorist attacks will not be a part of holding office? I

would say to my honourable friend that condemning terrorist attacks is

an essential component of aspiring to high office in this country and

that should the the case whether you are a shadow minister or Minister of

the Crown, and it is worth recalling what it is. Terrorists are entirely

responsible for their own actions, nobody forces anyone to kill

innocent people in Paris, blow nobody forces anyone to kill

the underground, behead innocent workers in Syria, he was absolutely

right to say that! Frankly, it speaks volumes that he cannot sit in

the Shadow Cabinet with the Leader of the Opposition. Thank

the Shadow Cabinet with the Leader Speaker. I would like to

the Shadow Cabinet with the Leader firefighters, mountain rescue

services, the police, armed services, engineers and workers, the

Environment Agency, and local government workers, and all the

volunteers, for all the work they did in

volunteers, for all the work they people on the floods that affected

this country. In January 20 14th following the devastating floods

this country. In January 20 14th that time, the Prime Minister said

and I quote, there are always lessons to be learnt and I will make

sure they are learned. -- 2014. Were they learned? Let me join the Leader

of the Opposition in thanking the emergency services, the police, the

Fire Services, the search and rescue teams who went around the country to

Fire Services, the search and rescue areas that were flooded, the

military, and as he says, what we saw was communities coming together

and volunteers carrying out extraordinary work. Having seen my

own constituency very badly flooded in 2007, having had floods while

Prime Minister, a number of lessons have been learnt. The military came

in far faster than before. The scheme was funded at 100%, more

money was got to communities more quickly. A lot of lessons have been

learnt. Are there more to learn? I am sure there are, there always are

and that is why I will review everything. As we do that, we will

make money available because we have a strong economy to build flood

resilience in our country. In 2011, ?190 million defence of floods was

cancelled, 1000 homes in Leeds was flooded in recent weeks, the

government is still only committed to a scaled-down version of the

project worth a fraction of its total cost when the Prime Minister

claimed money was no object in flood relief. When he meets the Leeds MPs

in the near future, will he guarantee the full scheme will go

in the near future, will he ahead to protect leads from future

flooding? -- Leeds. It is worth putting on record before we get on

to flood defence that this was the wettest December for over 100 years,

and actually, in Leeds and Yorkshire, it was the wettest

December ever on record, and that is why rivers in Yorkshire, it

including the Aire in Leeds was a metre higher than it has ever been

in stock in terms of floods defence is, no floods defence schemes have

been cancelled since 2010. The investment in flood defences was 1.5

billion in the last Labour government, 1.7 billion in the

government I lead is a Coalition Government, and will be over 2

billion in this Parliament. It has gone up and up and up and it has

gone up as we run an economy where we are able to invest in the things

that our country needs. One more point. Let us not forget this... We

inherited the Darling plan for our economy. A plan for 50% cut in

capital spending and DEFRA was not a protected department. We protected

that flood spending and increased it, something Labour would not have

done. Of course rainfall was excessive, of course the river

levels were high, but the Prime Minister has still not answered the

question on the Leeds flood protection scheme. I will give him

an opportunity too. In 2014, Cumbria applied for funding for new schemes

in Keswick and Kendall and both were turned down, both areas were flooded

again in the last few weeks. Does the Prime Minister believed that

turning down those schemes was also a mistake? We are spending more on

floods defence schemes is stacking up a whole series of schemes. Let me

make this point. If he is going to spend ?10 billion on renationalising

railways, where is he going to find the money for flood defences? The

idea that this individual would be faster in responding to floods, when

it takes in three days to carry out a reshuffle, is laughable! -- him.

Since I walked into The Chamber this morning, the Shadow Foreign Minister

has resigned, the Shadow Defence Minister has resigned, he could not

run anything! It is very strange that when I have asked a question

about Leeds floods defence, and Cumbria floods defence, the Prime

Minister still seems unable to answer. Canny now tell us if there

is going to be funding for those schemes? In October, Professor Colin

Mela, he warned the government about funding cuts to flood defences in

Yorkshire being formally discontinued in the future. Would

that be a mistake or so? Is he going to reverse the cut in the defence to

make sure that those cities and areas are protected in the next

round of floods which will no doubt come? We have increased and continue

to increase the spending of flood defences. We are spending more in

this Parliament, and for the first time, it is a six-year spending is

active which is ?2.3 billion extra on flood defences, money which would

not be available if we trashed the economy in the way he proposes. Of

course, after every incident of flooding, you go back and look at

what you have is then, what you have built, what you are planning to

spend, planning to build, and you see what more can be done, but the

head of the Environment Agency was clear that he had the money

necessary to take the action necessary, but we can only do that

with a strong economy, an economy that is growing, where more people

are in work, more people are paying taxes, we have got the strength to

solve this problem of floods and we will do it in a proper way. The

Prime Minister still has not answered on Leeds, on Cumbria, on

the warning from Professor Mellor, and like him, last week, I met

people in Yorkshire were affected by flooding and I met a young couple,

Chris and Victoria, whose home had been flooded over Christmas. It was

not very funny for them. This young couple lost many of their

possessions. Photos, children, toys, schoolwork, and they have the foul

stench of flood water in their homes as many families do in this country.

They are asking all of us wholly legitimate questions. Why was it

that the insignificant pump capacity of the barrier, alerted to in 2013

by a government report, was not dealt with and those pumps were not

upgraded, thus people were flooded in York and their possessions and

homes damaged? Those people want answers from all of us and in

particular from the Prime Minister. I have the greatest sympathy with

anyone flooded and we have to do what it takes to get people and

communities back on their feet and that is why we have put record sums

in more quickly to help communities in Cumbria, in Lancashire, and now

in Yorkshire, and we will continue to do that. On the question of the

pumps, that was about to be tended for extra investment and that

investment will now go ahead because the money is there. We are putting

in the money, we are putting it in more quickly, the military got

involved more quickly and to the couple who got flooded, we are also

doing something that previous governments have talked about but

never achieved and that is to have an insurance scheme so every

household in our country can get insured. That is not being done

before. Our lessons being learned? Yes. Are there more lessons? Yet.

But we do not need a lecture from the honourable gentleman! -- yes.

The reality is that flood defence scheme after flood defence scheme

has been cancelled, postponed or at stop many more homes have been

flooded, and too many lessons have been ignored. Why can't the Prime

Minister support our call for a coordinated cross-party approach to

flooding that looks at everything including Upland management in

making people's homes more flood resilient, and more protection

schemes properly funded? Does the Prime Minister agree with this? The

Fire and Rescue Service who have done a great job over the last few

weeks in all parts of this country, should now be given a statutory duty

to deal with loads to help us through any crisis that might occur

in the future? When he has worked out how to coordinate his own party,

perhaps he can have a word with me. On the issue of a statutory duty,

everybody knows what they have to do when let's take place, that is why

there was a magnificent response from the emergency services, the

Fire Services, the emergency rescue services, they have are backing to

do the vital work, and we will go on investing in flood defences, we will

increase the money on flood defences because we have a strong economy and

strong country that can back the action needed. 2016 is the 400th

anniversary of William Shakespeare's death. Does the Right Honourable

friend agree that our country should unite to commemorate his work best

at their special events at the RSC. The Shakespeare birthplace trust are

renovating the sight of his home, and his school is opening the

original classroom. Can I invite the House and the whole world to come

and celebrate the greatest living writer? I apologise for almost

interrupting his celebrity. The 400th anniversary of the death of

Shakespeare. Everything he has given to our language and culture and to

the world, it will be a fantastic moment for people to come and

Great Britain and come and see Stratford, and all the other places

that Stratford, and all the other places

with Shakespeare. Shakespeare provides language for every moment.

Consider what we are thinking about at the moment. There was a moment

where it looked like this reshuffle would go into the 12th night! It was

a revenge reshuffle so it was going to be as you like it! We can can

conclude that it has turned into a comedy of errors, perhaps much ado

about nothing! There will be those who worry that Love 's labours lost.

Thank you. Thank you for the warm welcome. Mr Speaker, the health

service is the role but junior doctors in Scotland are not banning

to strike next week. Why does the Prime Minister and the Scottish

Government has good relations with junior doctors and his government

does not? And now to the Scottish play! It raises an important

question and we have taken a different approach to the government

in Scotland. We have increased spending on the NHS by more than the

government in Scotland and that is the right approach but we are

determined to deal with the issue of having a genuine seven-day NHS.

Everybody knows, doctors know, patients know it, the BMA knows it,

there is a problem with the NHS at the weekend, and one of the ways to

correct that is to make sure we have new contracts, including with junior

doctors, to make sure not that they work longer hours, and in fact under

our plans, many will work less hours. Not to reduce doctors' pay.

No one who works legal hours will see a cut in their pay. 75% of

doctors will see a rise. This is a good deal for a good NHS and I'm

sure in Scotland they will at it as well.

The Scottish Government has been investing record levels in the NHS

in Scotland and it also works very hard to have the best possible

relations with the doctors and nurses and NHS staff. Would the

English Health Secretary speak to his Scottish colleague to learn how

to resolve the situation in England and stave off strike action, which

no-one wants to see, least of all Julia doctors? There should always

be good discussions between the Health Secretary in the United

Kingdom government and health ministers in the devolved

administrations. Obviously, one thing we think is important when we

make a decision to increase funding in the NHS, as we have done, ?19

billion more in this Parliament, that has consequences for Wales and

Scotland and Northern Ireland under the bonnet formula. And of course I

find it very depressing that the Welsh have decided under Labour to

spend less than we are planning to spend, and Scotland has done the

same thing. The local economy in my constituency, Bolton West, continues

to strengthen, great businesses relocating and growing in

Westhoughton. We are also seeing heritage trading frames investing ?1

million in equipping a new factory in Lostock, another company winning

new contracts and recruiting more staff in Norwich. Will the Prime

Minister agree with me that the northern powerhouse is not just

about our great northern cities, it is also about our Great North Run

towns? My honourable friend is absolutely right. It is instructive

that members opposite do not want to hear good news about businesses and

investment which is happening in the economy. Sometimes it can sound as

if the plan for a northern powerhouse is all about the cities.

Our view is that by linking up the cities, you also helped the towns

and the rural areas because you are rebalancing the economy and

increasing opportunity in the north of our country. In 2014, in response

to the flooding of the Thames Valley, the Prime Minister said that

money would be no object. In the light of his cuts to the flood

offences, his cuts to the fire and rescue service, his cuts to the

Environment Agency, can he say the same to the people of Leeds, of

Rochdale, York, of Whitby and of Teesside, or is it one rule for his

constituents, and another for ours in the north? She is completely

wrong about the funding, as I have explained in great detail. What we

put in place under this government is not funding at 85% of what a

council spends, but 100%. So what I said absolutely stands good. Thepm

has always been a staunch supporter of the Welsh TV channel S4C, so

could he use this opportunity to reinforce the future of the channel

and the commitment to safeguard its funding? I am happy to do that. S4C

is an important part of our broadcasting structure and it is

very well liked in Wales. We will meet the spirit of our manifesto

promise to make sure this continues to be a very strong channel. With

homeownership down to its lowest level in a generation, down every

year since he became Prime Minister, why did Tory MPs vote against

Labour's amendments to the housing bill last night, which would have

protected the publicly funded discount for new starter homes for

future buyers? Isn't that better value for money for first-time

buyers and for the taxpayer, you saw no? Well, the proposal. The homes is

a Conservative Party proposal put into our manifesto, opposed

throughout by the Labour Party. This is only happening because we have

listed a majority and put a housing bill through this House of Commons.

We are taking every step we can to help get more people on the housing

ladder. In London we are seeing Help to Buy now funding 40% of the homes

people want to buy, rather than 20%. We will see 200,000 starter homes

built during this Parliament. Because we are managing the economy

properly, interest rates are low and it is easier for people to get a

mortgage. With our help to save skin, people can put aside money to

help them with their deposit. We are on the side of the homeowner, and

above all those people who want to get on the housing ladder.

Mr Speaker, on Boxing Day, the village of crust and in my

constituency suffered the worst floods in living memory. We had

damage to schools, homes and businesses. Will my right honourable

friend join with me in praising the efforts of everybody who pulled

together to protect their community and will he ask is honourable friend

the member for Penrith and The Border to review the decision by the

Environment Agency to switch off the pumps in that particular place?

First of all let me pay tribute to her constituents, who worked around

the clock to help each other in what were appalling floods, with this

incredibly high-level of rainfall. Let me join with her in thanking the

emergency services again for all the work they did. After floods like

this there are always questions about which pumps were used, which

flood gates were opened, what decisions were made by the experts

on the ground. And it is very important, having seen many

communities flooded in my own constituency, to hold meetings in

the community to go through those decisions and work out what lessons

can be learned and whether the right decisions were made. I absolutely

pledge that that should be done if we have announced ?40 million for

the work across Lancashire and Cumbria for helping people out. And

we will make sure that the flood alleviation money for households and

businesses, the scheme is that we set up after 2013, that the money is

paid out as it can be. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. In the light

of last month's Paris climate agreement, in which all countries

promised to keep global warming well below 2 degrees, does the Prime

Minister agree that we must now urgently begin the process of

strengthening the EU's 2030 greenhouse gas reduction target to

50% below 1990 levels at the very least a position which he argued

for, I am glad to say, at the European Council? First of all let

me join her in once again recognising that Paris was a very

big step forward. Previous agreements, like at Kyoto, did not

include action by China or America. And now, you have got all the big

emitters as part of the deal. We did argue that the EU should go further.

We achieved I think a very aggressive package for the EU, but

that was the best that we could do in the circumstances. I think the EU

agreement helped to bring about the general agreement. Nobody should be

in doubt that Britain is playing a very major role. Let me give you one

statistic. I know there is a great interest in this house about solar

panels. I asked the question the other day, what percentage of solar

panels have been installed in Britain since this government took

office in 2010, expect it might be 50 or 60%. The answer is 98%.

Yesterday it was announced that the Foxhill housing zone in Bath would

receive ?313,000 of government funding to help kick-start work to

build thousands of new homes in the city. Would the Prime Minister agree

with me that this funding will help to reverse the lack of new building

under the party opposite and unable struggling families to get onto the

property ladder? I am delighted to hear about that development. The

fact is, we have built 700,000 houses since this government came to

office but there is a lot more to be done. Sometimes it might involve

specific planning permissions orders agreements between councils which

need to be sorted out. But we should not forget that the developers and

house builders will only go ahead with house-building if they believe

it is a benign economic environment with a strong and growing economy

and stable interest rates. That is the key to the success in housing.

The Prime Minister promised to cut the number of government special

advisers and the Chancellor wants to limit pay increases to public sector

employees to 1% of. So how does he possibly square that with now having

26 more special advisers than in 2010 and a 42% pay increase for the

Chancellor's own personal image consultant? There are fewer special

advisers under this government than there were under the last

government. Will my right honourable friend agree with me that it is more

than a matter of regret that the new Shadow Defence Secretary has seen

fit to take a donation from the immoral, thieving and ambulance

chasing lawyers leader a who, together with public interest

lawyers, specialise in hounding out brave service personnel in Iraq with

spurious claims? Is it time that we removed the latter from the

pernicious clutches of the Human Rights Act and honoured our

manifesto commitment for a British Bill of Rights? Taking his questions

in turn - yes, we should honour our commitment for a Bill of Rights and

I look forward to making progress on that. I think this organisation

Leigh Day, does have some that. I think this organisation

to answer. They were deeply involved in the inquiry where a

to answer. They were deeply involved claims completely fell apart and

there was it seems evidence which could have shown that those

there was it seems evidence which were false. I do think that it is

instructive that we have lost Shadow Secretary of State -2

believed in strong defence, who believed in strong defence, who

and instead we have got somebody believed in strong defence, who

apparently who takes funds from Leigh Day. I think that leaves us

with Leigh Day. I think that leaves us

Speaker, frankly, it goes to a bigger truth, which is, one day this

we shovel I suppose will be over, and we will be left with a

collection of and we will be left with a

doubt, who signed up to unilateral nuclear disarmament, who signed up

to backing up taxes, debt and spending, and one of the left-wing

programmes in living memory. This is a collective act they would have

taken part in. We should not be asking if the Leader of the

taken part in. We should not be Opposition would be happy about lead

central. The question is, what on earth is the member for lead central

and others doing in this Labour Party government? The Prime Minister

may be aware that there is also a Shakespeare connection to Knowsley,

where midsummer night dream for example was written, amongst other

place. I wonder whether he will lend his support to the proposal for a

Shakespeare of the north, which will complete the triangle of the Globe

theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon, and Knowsley, as a celebration of the

work of Shakespeare? I think this sounds like an excellent proposal.

We should not try and constrain Shakespeare to Stratford. We should

make sure this is a national, indeed international, celebration, so I

will look carefully at the proposal he makes. In Derbyshire, the county

council have announced plans to cut four care homes including Hillcrest

in my constituency, as well as some sheltered housing. This is clearly

an attack on the elderly and vulnerable in Derbyshire by an

authority with a proven track record of wasting taxpayers' money. Will my

right honourable friend look at this dismal situation to ensure all

Derbyshire presidents have access to good levels of care? I am happy to

look at that problem. Obviously, this is a Labour-controlled council

taking these decisions. What I would urge them to do is to look at the

proposals that we made in the spending review, at the fact that

councils are now able to use a surcharge on council tax to fund

additional social care, and to recognise that their job instead of

playing politics should be serving local people. Last year, the IMF

warned income inequalities is the most defining challenge of our time.

It is getting worse and it slows economic growth. By last night,

FTSE-100 chief executive is well have been paid more for five days

work than the average UK worker will be paid in the whole of 2016,

getting a pay rise of nearly 50% last year while the average worker

had a pay rise of less than 2%. So, will the Prime Minister support the

high pay centre's back and Asians for organisations to publish data on

the ratio of top pay to average pay? -- recommendations fully I am a

great supporter of these things. But since I have become Prime Minister,

income inequality has actually fallen, whereas it went up under

Labour. One of the biggest rings wasn't doing to help with income

inequality is, for the first time ever, to bring in a national living

waged. This is the year that we are going to see people paying no tax

until they have earned ?11,000. This is the year we will see a national

living waged at ?7 20. Those are big advances in helping the low paid in

our country. I would like to pay tribute as well to the countless

numbers of people and organisations who helped out during the recent

floods. Yesterday, I spoke with the chairman of the new insurance scheme

and I know that people who have been hammered by the floods will welcome

the fact that their premiums will be quashed and that they will not meet

eye-watering excesses. But he told me that it will not cover any houses

built since 2009 and it will not cover businesses, either. Will the

Prime Minister look again at the scheme to make sure that it is

properly comprehensive? We are looking very carefully at this,

particularly on the issue of businesses. We have had a number of

anecdotal stories from small businesses saying it is going to be

very difficult to get insurance. Meanwhile the insurance companies

are telling us they will not turn down any small businessesso we need

to get to the bottom of this before we get the final introduction of the

scheme in April this year. It was good to welcome the Prime

Minister and his Excellency the President of China, Chester airport

in my constituency recently to talk about investment. But what is in the

northinterest and the nation's interest is extra runway capacity in

the south-east. Why does the Prime Minister continue to procrastinate?

Can I thank him and everybody in Manchester who helped to welcome the

Chinese president at the excellent lunch in Manchester and the very

good visit to Manchester airport? In response to his question, I would

say that the environmental audit committee of this house, and indeed

the author of the original report, Howard Davies, have both said that

the problems of quality to raise new questions which the Government has

to answer. I am in favour of answering those questions and then

making a decision. Two years ago I think tomorrow, the House lost a

superb parliamentarian and much loved colleague in all parts of the

house. The honourable gentleman's predecessor, Paul Goggins. We

remember him with affection and respect and we think fondly of his

widow and their three children, who are all wonderful human beings and

we wish them well for the future. Thank you, Mr Speaker. My

constituency was decimated by the recent floods. It was reported in

the Bradford Telegraph And Argus earlier this week that the Bradford

district would not receive any of the extra funding the Prime Minister

announced for Yorkshire for flood defences. Will he take this

opportunity to confirm that that is not the case, that whatever money is

necessary to protect my constituency from future flooding will be spent?

And if he is struggling to find the money, the all could use money from

the overseas aid budget, because I am sure he believes that victims

flooding in Shipley should not be disconnected against in terms of

victims of flooding in other parts of the world? We will do what it

takes to make sure that families and communities and businesses can get

back on their feet. That's why we have invested record sums more

quickly into the affected areas. We have learned the lessons of previous

floods, where sometimes the schemes have been too bureaucratic and too

much time has been taken. Whether it is building bridges, repairing

roads, building flood defences, examining where the water went this

time and what more can be done, we will make sure that work is carried

out in Bradford, as everywhere else. Is the Prime Minister aware of the

valuable work of the National Wildlife Crime Unit not just in

enforcing the law but in promoting animal welfare and as part of the

international effort against the trade in endangered species? Is he

aware that the funding for it expires in a couple of months, and

DEFRA and the Home Office have yet to make a decision to continue it?

Can I ask him to prevail upon his right honourable friends to make

sure that this extremely important and valuable work is continued? My

understanding is that we HAVE kept the funding for this organisation.

It does important work to mystically and overseas. I will look very

carefully at what he suggests. I think there is still a decision to

be made about the future. My right honourable friend knows that the

legacy of thalidomide stills hangs over more than 500 people in our

country today. In the last Parliament, Mr Speaker, the Prime

Minister signalled very strong support to get a fair and just

solution to their problems. Can I invite my right honourable friend in

this Parliament to renew that pledge and to work with the all-party group

to ensure a just outcome? I am happy to make that clear. In the last

Parliament I met with some of my own constituents who have been affected

by thalidomide and they had a number of things they wanted

parliamentarians to do and a lot of people got behind their campaign. I

am happy to continue to work with them in this Parliament. Order.

Jeremy Corbyn to all lessons on the floods and whether the government

was investing sufficient money. And whether it is doing enough in the

future to stop it happening again. The Prime Minister pointed out that

Mr Corbyn had been in Malta while some of the floods were going on and

stop he did not point out that when his constituency was under water in

2007 he was in Africa. There were a number of Shakespearean quotations

from the Prime Minister about the Shadow Cabinet reshuffle. Love

Labour's lost, as you like it, a comedy of errors was another one.

The Prime Minister then went on to talk about less hours for doctors

which showed he has not quite mastered Shakespeare's language! Why

was the 190 million flood scheme cutbacks? This is a classic Andrew

Neil question, expecting me to know everything! My understanding is that

it was not cut back but the Environment Agency decided not to go

ahead with it because it would cause flooding elsewhere. You have to be

careful about making accusations. David Cameron, in saying that this

is how floods spending has gone up and will go up, as clearly held the

floor against original request was for a ?190

million flood defence and it original request was for a ?190

made to the government in 2010. It original request was for a ?190

was not turned down by original request was for a ?190

will now receive ?33 million which will not cover, actually, part

will now receive ?33 million which the city which was flooded recently.

The bit that was flooded get no extra defence. Look, this is an

The bit that was flooded get no don't know the exact details of the

decisions taken on don't know the exact details of the

the Minister, but Liz truss gave the answer is in great detail in 90

minutes and was very convincing in the way she did, as was David

Cameron the Prime Minister. the way she did, as was David

remember what she said? I was not there for all of it. It is the

issue, looking at the there for all of it. It is the

the e-mails and questions raised in the House today, people are

unbelievably concerned. Mark said David Cameron failed to

legitimate questions that Jeremy Corbyn asked on the government

handling of flood defences and government priorities. David said, I

find it rich for David Corbyn to stand up

find it rich for David Corbyn to fortnight to show his face in York.

find it rich for David Corbyn to Malcolm said, what a disgrace, all

our politicians are out of touch with the country. And yet said,

Jeremy Corbyn looks and with the country. And yet said,

a bumbling old lefty. This from Andy... I have never seen anything

as durable as David Cameron's performance today. Legitimate

questions were derided by Jeremy Corbyn. The sycophantic Tories do

nothing to raise the status of the House, physically on the issue of

floods. Don said, what are the useless politicians going to do? To

floods. Don said, what are the time they banned phones and tablets

from The Chamber? They are constantly in use and very annoying.

The Speaker let the men and now they all use them. Parliament should be

about listening. Not playing around. People are reading speeches on iPad.

They should People are reading speeches on iPad.

the quill pen! The Prime Minister claimed that

there were fewer special advisers and political appointments than the

last government. Well, there were 74 special advisers in July 2009 under

Mr Brown. It seemed a lot at the time but the run now 100 and three

under this government, as of November 20 14. The figure may be

higher. The Prime Minister was talking about the previous Coalition

Government of which he also led, but they had more special advisers

because the Lib Dems had their load as well. What happens, special

advisers have a terrible reputation in the press is people who do

ghastly deeds. People in the opposite of say they will cut

numbers but then they get into power and find them very useful. It has

happened before and it's happening now. We also understand that Kevin

Jones has quit the Shadow Cabinet. I think it is quite likely that others

in the shadow defence team who were being asked to serve under Emily

Thornberry who opposes renewing new killer deterrence may follow him

through the rest of the day -- nuclear. It is the official policy

to back Trident but that is the opposite of what Jeremy Corbyn wants

to do. The next seemed to unravel is that members of the defence team who

will serve -- won't serve a -- under somebody who is taking the opposite

view to them. The pro-Trident policy isn't going to last, is it? Let's be

realistic. The leader of the Labour Party is against it. The new Shadow

Defence Secretary is against it. The person hurt in to do the defence

review with that Shadow Defence Secretary, Mr Livingstone, is

against it. The NEC is appointed with people who are moving against

it, and there will certainly be a vote at the Labour Party conference

which could easily vote against it. That is the direction of trade,

isn't it? Yes, that is the context of all of this and that is one of

the reasons why there is this sort of race amongst Jeremy Corbyn

supporters to try and take over as much of the party machinery as they

possibly can before you get to that conference vote in September.

Remember, though, one important thing in all of this, there are some

big influential backers of Trident because of jobs and that includes a

lot of unions and that is one of the reasons a health Jeremy Corbyn win

this leadership race. There is disquiet about getting rid of it but

it is an important achievement of the reshuffle which has been messy

and has had some very dramatic and terrible consequences this morning

in terms of broken trust and hurt feelings. He has moved to neutralise

a very big row which was coming down the tracks very quickly, which was,

how will Labour cope with the boat to come in the House of Commons over

whether to renew Trident? He has moved to neutralise that with some

success but he has not been able to move his very big target, the Shadow

Foreign Secretary, Hilary Benn. I am glad you brought that up. We are

being inundated with briefings from Hilary Benn's people, saying,

nothing has changed army has not agreed to conditions commonly

carries on as before. -- nothing has changed, he has not agreed... What

did they talk about drawing that time, then? -- during. Jeremy Corbyn

is very, very fond of discussion. Drawing the one-to-one meetings,

there were not conversations about how his role which change, and yet

we have this briefing now from those around Jeremy Corbyn that there is

some kind of New World order in how things will operate. -- during the

Shadow Chancellor also said there will be this situation where anybody

on the front bench wants to say something that is not Jeremy

Corbyn's position, hang on a minute, I am just going to shuffle up to the

backbench and say what I really think. It is not a sustainable

position. Hilary Benn says he will not do that. I don't want to add to

the speculation on this because it has got out of hand but one thing

that is missing from this discussion is the fact that it is quite a big

change, not just for the Labour Party but for British politics. The

biggest change we have seen in my political lifetime. What is the

change? A change in leadership and change in the direction of the

party, and at the same time, don't forget that Jeremy and many members

of the Shadow Cabinet did not know each other very well before this

started and one of the rings that has happened over the last few

months is that we have been working through that and getting to know one

another. -- things. It has been them reaching an agreement on how they

work together going forward and it sounds like they have managed to do

that. I am sure there are no conditions. Would he resign if it

came to the next big confrontation on something like air strikes or

Trident? Would you expect Hilary Benn to resign? In the end, he is a

principled man and if they could not reach an agreement, keyword, but

what they did yesterday was find a way to mutually work together in a

respectful way. -- keyword. We do not know what the roles of this are.

And, indeed, Mr Benn himself. You have two figures on the record

saying two different things. The Shadow Chancellor John McDonald is

saying there is a new modus operandi. Hilary Benn is a new set

of conditions and ways of working, a bit like -- collective working.

Hilary Benn is saying, I have not been muzzled. You cannot both be

right. Most people around the country are seeing the headlines in

newspapers and will not pay attention to the tiny details but

for a political party to work, you have to have trust, people who can

work together, we believe you can be a team, and in the last 48 hours,

although Jeremy Corbyn has flexed his muscles and shown his authority,

in some ways, there have been -- there has been chaos around it, the

thin strands of trust that have been, some of them are snapping all

over the place in the does the Shadow Cabinet not better reflect

Jeremy Corbyn's views and in a sense, he has tightened his grip on

those key issues, not on Syria, but certainly on Trident? That is why I

say he has achieved one thing, which is neutralising the row over

Trident. A defence team will be along the lines of what he wants to

do. He has shown to assert his authority to some degree but for

things to work and for the party to be able to hold together, rather

than just become a much smaller, tighter band of people gathered

around Jeremy Corbyn... It is a strange situation where we we know,

as we have been told several times, the official Labour policy is in

favour of renewing Trident and yet we know that that is not the

direction that Mr Corbyn once. In a sense, this is why this has had

such wider appeal, for the many people who have signed up to be a

part of this, and we must not forget that, but he believes that the real

way of changing things is not in this Square Mile, it is not on the

green benches, not in the House of Commons, it is by having a

grassroots movement around the country, about expanding the way the

NEC makes policies, and there is that kind of extra-Parliamentary bit

about it. That is part of what he has been doing with Trident. He has

been very honest about his own personal views but he has not

imposed personal views but he has not

And that is quite significant. Were you aware of a number of your shadow

cabinet colleagues being prepared to resign if Mr Benn was fired? No. Was

that the case, Laura? That is what I was told by several of them, no

question. Now, people can say they was told by several of them, no

they really have done it if it came to pass? I spoke to many

they really have done it if it came colleagues across the shadow cabinet

and none of us had colleagues across the shadow cabinet

that there was a lot of briefing and speculation

that there was a lot of briefing and Hilary Benn getting sacked and about

a revenge reshuffle and Hilary Benn getting sacked and about

whip being moved, and in the end, none of that happened. I'm not sure

there was ever any none of that happened. I'm not sure

to happen. So why did it take almost two days for almost nothing to

happen? I think Jeremy wanted to have a chance to meet with people

and discuss things with them. He did not meet with you. It turned out the

media predictions just were not correct. Of course there is always

frenzied speculation, but the message from people close to Jeremy

Corbyn unquestionably was, he wanted new faces at defence - he has got

that, which is a success for him. And he has wanted a new face also in

charge of foreign policy. And he hasn't got that bit. And that

message was being conveyed. That was being conveyed by

message was being conveyed. That was now going to be allowed to go its

message was being conveyed. That was way after the deal is done and the

referendum campaign is are going to go? I am a mild,

non-frothing outer. My first act in the nineteen seventies... I am

asking you about this one, not 1975. Which way will you vote? I have just

told you. I am probably an outer. For me,

told you. I am probably an outer. pull a pretty big rabbit out of the

hat. I'm not sure the agenda he pull a pretty big rabbit out of the

put forward to try and get reform would suffice for me because I think

they would suffice for me because I think

benefits and movement of people. The key thing is, who makes our law. And

I think at the moment too much of our law is made by this artificial

construct, of Europe. This is the day when the Labour Party suddenly

labelled itself dysfunctional. Not at all. We are united Europe, unlike

you, and focused on the interests of the country, unlike you. We

certainly are. And we have got a new Shadow Europe Minister, in Pat

Glass, who has campaigned for a long time... Having got rid of a very

good, competent person in Pat McFadden, who is a great guy. He is,

but Pat Glass... The Prime Minister said on special advisers that there

were fewer than under the previous government, whether he was referring

to the coalition government... There are currently 92. There were more

than 100 and the coalition. Under Mr Brown there were 74. So there are

Fuhrer advises under Mr Brown Van there are now under Mr Cameron. Just

to clarify that. Can you name every single one of them? I will have to

write them all down! You will win a mug if you can!

Now, you might not realise it to look at the mild-mannered

exteriors of Lisa and Alan here, but underneath they and many other

MPs are seething with pent up rudeness they are desperate

They're probably just waiting until they no longer

Well, here's the former Labour MP Tom Harris with his soapbox...

It is hard to believe, I know, but sometimes it seems that people

go out of their way to be rude to politicians.

And sometimes, not often enough as far as I am concerned,

Graham Jones MP recently received an e-mail from a man who told him

that by voting for military action in Syria, he would have the blood

of tens of thousands of innocents on his hands.

And with refreshing northern directness, Graham replied,

I once had to physically remove a constituent from my advice surgery

because he had been particularly abusive.

And I told him that he would not expect to receive any help

Unfortunately, to my lasting regret, I never actually told him

In a country where honesty and transparency and the right

to protest, like this one behind me, are valued above all others,

it is significant, nay depressing, that our elected representatives

must avoid telling the truth to their constituents,

especially when that truth is what they actually think of them.

MPs have to take it, not dish it out.

It is their job to sit and listen and do as they are told

by the people who after all pay their very generous

If you want to tell your MP that he is murdering

But don't be offended if in return he tells you that

you are an appeaser of murdering, fascist, rapist, torturing scum.

Oh, and thanks so much for taking the time to write.

It is time for politicians to fight back.

Don't hold back in this interview, Tom. Tell us what you really think!

Is this the result of pent-up anger that you have wanted to unleash on

those constituents while you were an MP? It probably is! Did it do you

any good, raising your voice occasionally? It did not do me any

harm. I remember the occasion that I referred to when I had to physically

throw somebody out of my surgery. I was re-elected by an even bigger

majority after that. But you were not in a marginal seat? No. I think

part of the vast experience that I have is that people are generally

respect for and nice. So, you are talking about a few people here.

Sometimes you get abuse. But there is a low level of passive aggression

which sometimes you have to deal with. When you are out with your

family and people feel they have the right to come up to you and just be

a little bit undermining in front of your family and your kids. I guess

it is completely unacceptable. Are you being thin skinned on this

issue? I mean, was ever thus, people get very upset about issues of war

and peace, the economy, benefits, whatever it is. Isn't that your job

to kind of soak it up a little bit? No, it is not. I think MPs have got

as much right to be treated with respect, not deference, in the same

way as a GP or a head teacher should be treated with respect. If people

are rude to you I think it is perfectly acceptable to offer the

same level of rudeness back. Do you do that, Alan, if a constituent is

rude to you in that sort of way? Yes, you either humour it and brush

them off, but if somebody is consistently rude, yes. What I find

has completely changed, setting aside the deep vulgarity of social

media, is actually the e-mail, which has made people fire things off in

the dead of night, and they are very aggressive in their language. Quite

often I go back and say, I refuse to correspond with you until you are

prepared to be polite and considerate in your tone deaf I have

had to do that more and more over the last five years. Lucy, you are

relatively new MP, but do you think people have become more rude since

then? I think social media means people correspond in ways that they

would not. Also I think people shout at you because they are frustrated.

Tom compared it to the GP or the headteacher. You learn to work out

when people are actually just really, really frustrated and how to

handle that and help them climb down. Have you ever been frightened

in surgeries? You are a big chap, Tom... I am not! Would you ever be

scared and intimidated? I did have one constituent who came to see me

in a rage, demanding that I intervened because he had been

turned down for a gun licence because of an anger management

problem. I was not so much frightened as very clear! What did

you say? And very concise! Tom Harris, thank you very much. Let's

put you out of your misery and give you the answer to need guess the

year. The year was 2007. Steven Webster from Hemel Hampstead, well

done!