15/01/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

George Osborne says the UK's referendum on EU membership

The Chancellor says it would be unrealistic to a think

And is it likely to swing the public in favour of voting to stay in?

There's been criticism of the inquiry into allegations

of abuse, torture and unlawful killing of Iraqis

We'll speak to a former military chief and a lawyer acting

We'll be speaking to the newest party to field candidates

in this year's elections, and they claim they'll cause trouble

Absolutely, let's be radical, let's shake things up.

And the SNP head through the final frontier as MPs debate the British

All that in the next hour and with us for the duration two

of what the BBC's Department of Cliches still likes to call

Even though it's more than a decade since the last news organisation

And if you find these two there it's most likely they've just skived

Yes it's Guardian columnist Gaby Hinsliff and Sun political

First today, let's talk about Labour's review

It's been making waves because the party is beginning

the process of reassessing whether it should continue

to support the renewal of Britain's Trident

At present the party is officially in favour,

but leader Jeremy Corbyn, along with his new Shadow Defence

Secretary Emily Thornberry, are in favour of unilateral nuclear

Well, we had thought that Emily Thornberry would be aided

in her review by the former London mayor Ken Livingstone,

another critic of renewing the Trident system.

Carole Walker can tell us whether that is still the case. I understand

Ken Livingstone will not be doing what we thought he would be? He does

not have a formal rebuke... Roll on the defence review any more. He says

he is happy with that, he is happy with Emily Thornbury to lead it. She

has been doing that this morning, setting out terms of reference about

how the review will be conducted. We have the suggestion from Ken

Livingstone earlier in the week that the issue of Trident could be done

and dusted within eight to ten weeks, which raised quite a few

eyebrows, not least between Labour MPs. I am told that is not the case,

Trident will be looked at as part of a much wider review of how defence

policy will work under Labour, and it could take many months. Although

Emily Thornbury is hoping to have at least an interim proposal to put to

the party conference in the autumn. Ken Livingstone insists he is happy

about this, he says he suggested it. He has a wider role on this review

of something that he called Britain's place in the world, which

looks at foreign affairs as well. The defence review will feed into

this, but Ken Livingstone will not be involved in that defence review

getting under way at the moment. It sounds like Emily Thornberry has

parked her tanks on Ken Livingstone's lawn? Ken Livingstone

insists that he and she are in complete agreement, he is very busy,

he has his role on the NEC and various other tasks. I think the key

fact is that both he and Emily Thornberry agree on the Trident

nuclear system. They both think it is not what written should be

spending money on at the moment. Of course, that is what party leader

Jeremy Corbyn things. It is not what the majority of his MPs believed.

What will be interesting is when they come to this whole defence

review, which will be taking submissions from the public and also

military figures, academics and so on, as to exactly what it comes up

with and whether it can formulate a policy which meets what Emily

Thornberry, Ken Livingstone and Jeremy Corbyn believed. I understand

Ken Livingstone will still be co-convenor with the Shadow Foreign

Secretary, Hilary Benn, on a wider policy review entitled Britain In

The World. Hilary Benn And Ken Livingstone, That Sounds Like A

Marriage Made In Heaven?! It Could Be interesting, they clearly have

different views on lots of issues. Ken Livingstone was probably pretty

happy to allow Emily Thornberry to carry out the defence review, they

are pretty much an agreement on just about everything. This wider review

has yet to get under way, but I think the co-convening of Hilary

Benn and Ken Livingstone could be one to watch. Thanks for that and

for struggling through the wind. It looks like a beautiful day, cold,

chilly but clear blue skies in London this morning. Let's begin

with the Trident review. It looks like it is still happening, the

direction of travel is still towards Labour not wanting to renew Trident.

It will take a lot longer? I don't think anyone is exactly on the edge

of their sea to find out the answer of this review, we know what Jeremy

Corbyn once, we know that Emily Thornberry has been put in to

deliver it. We know the short term timetable is unrealistic. Labour MPs

are saying there is not even a proper consultation, you at least

have to pretend you are going through the motions. There is no

need, necessarily, to be there before the Parliamentary vote. And

only an interim report to the party conference. Most of us thought that

by the next party conference it would vote in line with Mr Corbyn

peers view not to renew Trident, that may not happen? This is Jeremy

Corbyn's people accepting reality. At the beginning of the week there

were people like Ian Nichol, the party general secretary, saying that

conference decides what the policy is on Trident. At the moment, we are

a party in favour of keeping Trident. The short-term wig fix was

never really going to work. The far bigger problem is that we expect the

Government to put a vote on Trident this summer. By the time it gets to

Conference, Trident will effectively be renewed. And Mr Livingstone, it

is hard not to see this as a clear demotion, he has been sidelined? I

think what Ken Livingstone wants is to be back in the middle of public

life. I interviewed him just before Christmas and he was clearly

thrilled to be centre of attention again. I don't think he will be

bothered about how he is the centre of attention, if he is not on the

defence review, I am fairly sure he will find ways to be out there and

influence. He wields an increasing amount of influence

behind-the-scenes. Lots of people in Corbyn Bliss offers our old

Livingstone staffers, I think you want to watch what Ken Livingstone

is doing in the background -- in Corbyn's office. Jeremy Corbyn put

Mr Livingstone as a co-convenor of the defence review, along with the

then Shadow Defence Secretary Miss Eagle. It would seem pretty clear

that Emily Thornberry has laid down the law on this, she did not want to

continue with Mr Livingstone in-lap 's vision? I would not necessarily

buy that. She does not want Trident to go ahead. If you are Jeremy

Corbyn, that is all that matters. You need a senior Labour figure

co-convening the review that does not like Trident. If you have Emily

Thornbury, why do you need Ken Livingstone? Jeremy Corbyn is wising

up a bit, rather than taking his party head-on, he is going around

it. The whole Cabinet reshuffle was about not taking the party head-on.

He is very tactical in that regard. If you see is a formidable roadblock

ahead, he either slows down and does not hate it all goes around it.

Which is different to the first three months, charged straight up

the mountain, now you can go around it and achieve the same thing. We

will speak to Mr Livingstone on the Sunday politics. But we were told he

would not give us an interview, so you can read into that what you

want. Let's talk about a story in and out

of the news over the last few weeks, to do with the conduct of British

soldiers in the Iraq war. Nearly 300 veterans of the conflict

have been contacted by investigators looking into allegations

of war crimes. The Iraq Historic Allegations Team

was set up in 2010 to investigate claims of murder, abuse

and torture of Iraqis. Some MPs and former forces chiefs,

as you perhaps might expect, aren't happy with the scope

of the inquiry and Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has criticised

the role of ambulance-chasing British law firms in

bringing cases forward. Here's the former Security Minister

and First Sea Alan West speaking It's outrageous the way

we are chasing the men and women who have been trying to protect us

many many years later, And also the fact, and if I can

ask the noble Minister, can we not do an urgent

investigation into firms of solicitors who I know use agents

in Iraq, and no doubt will in the future in Afghanistan,

to effectively ambulance chase And we are seeing constantly these

costing immense amounts of money. They cause mental anguish

to our men and women, so it affects this issue

we are talking about, and we really do need

to get a grip of this. There has, as the noble

Lord rightly points out, been extensive coverage

and publicity of this very issue in the press in recent weeks

and I share his concern. The fact of the matter is, though,

it isn't the government It is that, every time

there is a complaint raised, we have a duty to

investigate that complaint. It is not hounding the armed forces

personnel, but rather trying to get to the bottom of the complaint

as quickly as possible, and indeed many of these

complaints have been found But I share his concern

about the behaviour We're also joined from Birmingham

by Bethany Shiner from Public Interest Lawyers,

one of the law firms representing alleged victims of abuse

by British forces. Alan West, if British soldiers have

broken the law, shouldn't they face the consequences? Absolutely, they

should, it is a question of balance as to how much this is looked into,

how long it goes on for and how we look after them. These are young

men, often very frightened, scared, in danger of their lives, they often

need the benefit of the doubt and to be looked after. Wouldn't that be

taken into account in a proper legal process? Ex-soldiers are getting

letters through the post, I know this because people have been in

contact, accusing them of things, they are being asked things on the

doorstep they are getting very little support, they are frightened,

some of them have PTSD... PTSD? Post-traumatic stress syndrome.

We're not looking after them. The inquiry showed is that some of these

things are difficult. They said that a lot of the charges were without

foundation, I think the statement by the man who did the inquiry, it was

deliberate lies, reckless speculation and hostility to the

man. I think they got this balance wrong. There is no doubt, we know,

for example, that there was a man who works for the British Government

and also for some of these lawyers, he went around and one of the

distressed widows said, he came to my door and said, but, you can get a

money. Bethany Shiner, our British law companies employing Iraqis to

drum up business in Iraq? Unfortunately, this is the subject

of an SRA investigation. What is the SRA? Solicitors Regulatory

Authority, which are investigating following an MoD commissioned report

into such conduct. I am unable to comment much more than to say that

it is absolutely proper and appropriate that all of these

allegations are properly investigated in accordance with the

rule of law, and to say that public interest lawyers, and I'm sure the

other law form would say the same, do nothing but Edfors the role of

law. I was not asking you to comment, I was asking a factual

question, our British law companies like yourselves and others employing

Iraqis to go around and try to find people who may have a grievance

against British troops? A comment much more than to say...

That is a factual question. We deny such allegations. You don't employ

Iraqis agents? We do not employ Iraqi agents to conduct themselves

in any way outside the bounds of the law. But you do employ Iraqi agents?

I cannot comment more than what I've already said. I think what I've said

is quite clear. This list is authority have put before the

disciplinary trust and 99% of those cases are then taken further. But

that's not the case of public interest lawyers? It should be

happening in the next few weeks. Just to clarify, I understand about

not being able to comment on these proceedings, but another law firm

you are involved in, have been referred to these lizard is

regulatory authority and onto the tribunal which means they going to

be investigated. You have been referred to the SRA, but not yet to

the tribunal. Is that correct? Correct. Is that the next stage? How

long do have to wait to find out if that's happening? That would be mere

speculation for me to say. What I would like to say, though, we are

very concerned about how the focus is suddenly shifted onto the lawyers

and we see that this is a mechanism to try and deflect the public

attention away from the wrongs, away from very serious questions which

need to be asked and answered by the government to instead scapegoat

these issues, scapegoat the attention onto these lawyers. All

right. Scapegoating the lawyers? I don't think we are. I think we are

swinging it back in the right direction because there seems to be

a oration of the industry trying to bring complaints about British

soldiers before British courts and it seems like it's gone out of

kilter. It's right thing should be investigated. We know nasty things

happen sometimes. Generally, our people behave very well and it had

gone out of kilter and it's wrong for law firms to genuinely send

people out to get trade and there's no doubt this investigation by the

solicitors regulation authority has discovered things they are concerned

about. It will be interested to see what happened to the Public interest

lawyers, but I am concerned about that. It happens in numbers of areas

now for people to look upon actions which happen in war in places like

Iraq and Afghanistan as if you are having a summer day in Hyde Park and

address it and hide Park in that way, and it's not. These are

difficult circumstances. The Second World War, the Korean War, you could

provide thousands of cases. We have to get the right balance.

Particularly in Iraq, when we were in a war of our making, that we

chose to wage, on a country we chose to invade, it wasn't planning to

invade us, this was not Britain, 1939, 1940, that it is incumbent on

our troops who are there that they behave to the highest possible

standards given the circumstances of the war. I could not disagree with

that but I think the balance has got slightly wrong and these young men

and now women are out there really doing the work for us and I think

there was an element that we have to look after them as well as ensure

these other things happen. Your firm is representing over 1000 cases, I

think, involving British military. How much vetting, what kind of

betting do you do to verify that these claims are genuine? There's a

couple of things I'd like to say actually. Firstly, you are right we

represent over 1000. We only take on credible allegations. There has not

been any incidents, other than one enquiry, which found that there was

ill-treatment, let's not forget there was ill-treatment, findings of

ill-treatment of those detailed knees, other than that one instance,

the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, the European

Court of Justice has not had any questions as to the credibility of

any of our clients' allegations. Let me clarify a very important

misconception when were talking about Iraq. As the public are

forgetful to recall, the war stage was over within weeks. After that

point, it was an occupation. The laws are governed by... If the

international law which includes human rights law. The responsibility

of any occupying power, especially in the instances of custody, is

incredibly high. I understand. Let's remember, a lot of these cases are

not just Babar Moussa cases, but the majority are people unlawfully

detained. Horrifically treated. I understand the claims. I'm grateful

for your clarification on the status post of hostilities, of the soldiers

in Iraq, my question was, what work done to verify, given that have got

over 1000 cases, what were to be done to verify that these claims are

genuine because it would not be against human nature for some people

to jump on a bandwagon, would it? Well, I shan't speculate, but human

nature is human nature. I'm asking and other factual question. What

actual work to do to verify the claims? We take supporting

documentation first off, and that documentation is very important. It

is disclosed to the MOD. The MoD has a lot more information and a lot

more documentation than our clients do, but in any case, we disclose

that information. Those documents include for example, certificates

from the International Red Cross which prove the dates of the

detention, it may include detention numbers, it may include photographs.

Of course, witnesses to events. So we collect and process as much

information as we can and that is shared with the MoD. Don't you ever

have any doubts in some cases about what you're doing? The Iraq historic

allegations team has done just what you're doing? The Iraq historic

cases in five years, wrongdoings shown in just one of the 18. It

resulted in a ?3000 fine. That was it. Nobody convicted. ?31 million

public enquiry found there had been mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners but

the most serious allegations including murder where wholly

without foundation. Do we have any doubts about our work? In the light

of what I just read it. Ala work is about upholding the rule of law full

is our work is about accountability. Ala work is about representing

people and don't just represent Iraqis but we represent soldiers, ex

serving soldiers, and criminal soldiers as well, and ala work, no

matter who the client, is about addressing the grievance, securing

accountability, securing the truth, forcing the truth. What sort of fees

do you charge for this work? We are legal firm. British taxpayers paid?

We live in a very strong democracy. A democracy we should be proud of.

Legal aid is very, very important. I understand. I just want to

understand where the money is coming from and the answer is the British

taxpayer. What you make of this? Legal aid for Iraqi, British

taxpayers money, up to 1000 Iraqi citizens, there's a slight anomaly

there for common sense. What your talking about here, the scenario she

is presenting is, over ten years, ten years ago, there's been a vast

cover-up of industrial scale abuse and mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners

and citizens. I used to cover defence in Iraq on numerous

occasions. Whenever there was an incidents, the police will

investigate things that relate to the great upset other soldiers on

the ground and maybe there's one or two things which are crap through

which are there to be covered up. That's the nature of things.

Certainly the nature of war. The idea industrial scale abuse has been

covered up is nonsense. I can see why it's hard. Nobody wants a knock

on the door ten years after that, Dick talk in war, the past coming

back revisit you, but it is about how much support they offer them.

Some of them have been left to their own devices. You are cut off

especially if you have left the services. There is no help to go

through this. Also the numbers and the delays, there are 1500 cases

going through. With the best will in the world, that will take years.

This result, I think people could tolerate it. We will either bear.

We're going to move on. Bethany, thanks for joining us, did that the

legal situation was difficult for you to be able to answer all of the

questions. Thank you for joining us from Birmingham. We are holding you

hostage, Admiral, because you want to talk about Trident. I think we

are going to get Emily Thornbury, the new Shadow Defence Secretary

making a statement on the Trident review this morning. I'm not sure if

we have got that yet. We do, I'm told. It was made only a few moments

ago. She is reconfiguring labours approach to its attitude towards

Trident and the process by which it's going to be done. Let's hear

what you had to say. This is going to be a wide-ranging review. We are

going to looked all aspects of defence policy and clearly Trident

is part of that and my views on the record, I'm extremely sceptical

about Trident and I will not be afraid to answer difficult questions

and I need to hear the evidence about it and I will then come to

review. I go into this wanting to look at evidence before we make

policy. She says she wants a look at evidence before she makes policy. We

know that she historically and indeed currently she is against

Britain renewing their deterrent. Yes, and I'm sure that's why she was

put in her post I Jeremy Corbyn because of that. If she is genuinely

going to listen to all the arguments, then I think that's good.

I have no doubt at all in my own mind, but I think it needs a proper

debate that we need a deterrent. We have done more than any other county

to cut down the number of systems and warheads, everything, and it had

no impact whatsoever on any other nations trying to get them and we

are in a very dangerous world, but there's no doubt at the moment that

Labour policy is that we should replace the submarines. We're not

getting any deterrent, replacing them and that Labour policy in the

manifesto. That has to go through conference. To be changed. Labour

actually first gave our nation the deterrent. Under the Clement Attlee

government. There was a period of time within Labour when people said

let's get rid of it, let's go unilateralism. The early 1980s when,

of course, it was disastrous. The British public believe in the

deterrent, I think. If your party should change your end its historic

commitment to Britain's nuclear deterrent, where would that leave

you? I think if we said we were going to become unilateralist,

particularly if the other parts of the policy, Ken Livingstone of

course mentioned loosely not being a part of Nato... He was contradicted

by Jeremy Corbyn's office. I find that quite worrying if he's going to

be involved in our position in the world. Where would it leave you? I

would not take believe the Labour whip. What I found over the years

people who are anti-Trident, when they hear the arguments and see all

of the issues, they realise, actually, although none of us like

nuclear weapons, who on earth like nuclear weapons, but we need them

pragmatically, I fear. OK, thanks for being with us today.

Now let's talk about the referendum on Britain's membership of the EU.

Yesterday one Cabinet Minister, Chris Grayling, declared that

membership in its current form is disastrous and signalled

that he would be a leading figure in the out campaign.

Well, last night the Chancellor, George Osborne, described himself

as a Eurosceptic, but said he was confident that David Cameron

would secure a renegotiation deal that would allow him

and the government to campaign to stay in the EU.

Let's have a listen to Mr Osborne's exchange

Do you think the referendum is going to settle it?

You know, I think it will for at least a generation.

Some people have talked about a second referendum

This is the crucial decision of our lifetime.

Do we stay in the European Union, a reformed European Union

And you have another chance in negotiating...

Anyone who votes out on the assumption that a year or two

later you can have another vote to go back in, I think

is being unrealistic about the nature of the choice.

And I think it's really important the British people focus on the fact

this is the once in a lifetime decision.

So the Chancellor thinks this will be the only referendum on EU

He described it as the crucial decision.

He was responding to the idea floated by the out campaign that,

in the event of Britain voting to leave there could be a second

referendum on whether to accept the new relationship with the EU.

But, of course, the Government has already legislated to allow

for a further referendum should there be any transfer of powers

The so-called referendum lock, passed back in 2011,

came after David Cameron said, "Never again should it be possible

for a British government to transfer power to the EU without the say

The act provided for a referendum throughout the United Kingdom on any

With treaty changes expected within the next few years

as Eurozone countries head for further unification,

that means that even if the UK votes to stay in it may not be the final

time voters are asked to go to the polls over Europe.

Well, we're joined now by the Conservative MEP Dan Hannan.

Welcome. Let's peeled this bit by bit. First of all, the idea that we

could vote no in the upcoming referendum, Europe would take

fright, give us a turn of things we had not even asked for and we would

have on that. Is that a credible scenario? We have both been around

long enough to see what happens when there is a no vote. In Denmark,

Ireland, France. We both know that Brussels does not take no for an

answer, at least not the first time. I am not saying a second referendum,

but I think that if we vote no, that is when they will take seriously and

proper concessions will be on the table. That if we vote to stay, that

is it. You think they will ask us again? At that stage we have

acquiesced in the whole coming project. We have asked them to carry

on integrating. If they will not make series concessions before the

referendum, and much and how they will treat us after we vote to stay?

-- imagine how they will. Do you think there is a possibility of

Europe saying, don't go, let's look at this again and have another

referendum? All of the conversations I have had for years in Brussels

suggest that in the event of Britain voting to leave, some sort of

associate membership would quickly be put on the table, they have

basically worked that out. The broad principles have been agreed by

Federalists and antifederalists in Europe that we would have a free

trade only membership. My job would disappear, we would not be members,

but we would probably keep the bulk of the economic and financial links.

Hasn't the government indicated that if it is a no vote, it applies to

leave immediately under article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, and that just

sets the train on the tracks? But what do we mean by leave? It is very

important to stress there is a common market in Europe that

embraces EU and non-EU countries, it runs from non-EU Iceland to non-EU

Turkey, there are no tariffs, no trade barriers within that area.

Nobody is talking about Britain leaving that. We are talking about

withdrawing from the political institutions in Brussels and getting

a looser relationship. I would have hoped that Cameron would have

negotiated that amicably as part of these talks. Since that has not

happened and we are getting the same deal, as even Alan Johnson admitted

on Newsnight yesterday, the leader of the Labour yes campaign, it is

clear that the only way we can get that slightly looser deal is by

voting to leave. Can we move onto an act that I think a lot of people

forgotten about, the European Referendum 2011, part of the

coalition agreement in 2010. If we vote to stay in in the upcoming

in-out referendum, and nevertheless because of the needs of the Eurozone

there is quite substantial Treaty change around 2020, maybe 2021, as

the law stands, is it your understanding that we would need

another referendum on that treaty change? That had been mine and

everyone else's until I heard the Chancellor last night. By the way,

it is when, not if. It is clear that the rest of the EU will go... By the

way, it is very clear that we will be dragged into quite a lot of that

even if we are not in the euro. And the reporters what needs to be done

in the Eurozone and the relationship with the non-Eurozone Busta gulp it

talks about fiscal harmonisation. It is the question of when that

happens. I had assumed that we would have another referendum. Not an

in-out referendum? A referendum effectively blocking a future... The

type that Ireland has? Ireland, Denmark. You have to listen to what

ministers are saying, what George said in your clip. Are they trying

to get a mandate now we were to vote to stay in that would effectively

carry us through? We voted for the big principle of the thing, we don't

need any future votes. But the Referendum Act that establishes the

referendum we are about to have did not repeal the 2011 act, and I have

not heard any ministers say that in the event of a vote to stay in that

they will repeal the 2011 act? This is a political rather than a legal

way of tackling it. We have already seen since the 2011 act came into

effect quite substantive transfers of power from Westminster to

Brussels, particularly in the field of criminal Justice and home

affairs, which didn't trigger... A clever lawyer can usually find a way

of saying this does not involve the kind of treaty... There was an

unquestionable treaty change to do with a respective legalisation of

the bailouts, clever Government lawyers said it did not trigger the

act. We are gearing up for the Government saying, if we get a vote

to remain in, we will treat that as a mandate for a generation, forget

ever voting again. When we go to vote, we can vote to leave and there

will be the beginning of a new round of talks, if we vote this day, that

is it, gone forever, we are on that bus and we will not be able to get

off it. Had you forgotten about the 2011 act? It is engraved on my

memory forever more excavation Marco did not take the same thing from a

George Osborne interview that Dan Hannan did. He says it is not like

haggling in the souk, they will not chase you with a better offer. I

don't think saying there is no more in-out referendum 's is the same as

saying there is no more referenda ever about anything. Of course there

will be issues further along the line, do we want this, that all the

other, that is not the same as saying that somehow we have changed

our approach completely. Not one, not two, maybe three European

referenda in the next couple of years? We have not had enough in

recent times! We have had one every year, every six months. There were

two flaws in George Osborne Haas interview, one with his complete

inability to say by how much migration would be stopped by David

Cameron 's four-year ban on benefits and new arrivals. The next one was

definitely no second in-out referendum. He has absolutely no way

at all of knowing that. There are no rules written down anywhere about

why you can't have a second in out. The question for Darren and those

who want to be out, how do you know they're definitely will be a second

in-out referendum if we voted no for yes. You don't. That is the key

point, there are unknown 's and risks both ways. There are known

unknowns and there are black swans. The EU does not readily accepts a no

vote, we have seen that every single time. We can reasonably draw

inferences. But there are huge risks in staying in, not only in terms of

migration but in terms of the continuing euro crisis, the way we

will be dragged into more euro bailouts. One known unknown is that

if we stay in, how much more of this federalism and the costs will be

applied to us. If we stay out, we can get a trade... Finally on this,

because we will have plenty of time to argue the pros and cons on the

substantive issue, it is clear that the Prime Minister will lead the

staying campaign. The -- there needs no ghost come from the grave to

Telesis. You need someone to an capsular the outer campaign, who

should be? We don't need a single person, in the AV campaign, the

regional devolution referenda, there was no single figurehead. I think

there will be a coalition of business figures, financiers, trade

unionists, ordinary citizens, professional associations. If Boris

or Theresa May... Boris and Theresa May... Every army needs a general.

In the Scottish referendum, was it wise, looking back from the Unionist

point of view, to make Alistair Darling the sole spokesman? They

slipped ten points during the campaign. Nurturing the campaign,

but they did win... This is a campaign of an elite of politicians,

big businesses, megabanks, against the general population. Who does the

final debate with the Prime Minister? That would emerge during

the campaign, that I don't think there should be one person doing all

the reports from our site. It will be Chris Grayling? No idea, it will

be whoever is best. Now, since MPs voted in favour

of extending British air strikes against the so-called Islamic State

group from Iraq into Syria, we've been bringing you regular

updates on what sort of impact, according to the Ministry

of Defence, they've been having. And it was notable that

since the bombing campaign was extended at the beginning

of December, the RAF hadn't used the Brimstone missile,

which you may remember was put forward as a key reason why

the international coalition wanted So what's happened in

the last few days? On Sunday the RAF carried out

four missions, including using a Brimstone missile

for the first time to destroy a supply truck near the Isis

stronghold of Raqqa in Syria. The next day, on Monday,

an RAF Reaper drone flew the 1,000th sortie of its type since

they were committed to operations On Tuesday evening

RAF aircraft joined other coalition jets

in a strike on Mosul, I saw that the Americans may have

taken it some ices funds, Lou up the dollars, in other words, or at least

that is what it claims. -- Lou up the dollars.

At oilfields in eastern Syria they destroyed a mechanical

And in Al-Hasakah in North East Syria RAF jets targeted

Well, the man we turn to keep us up to speed on this is our defence

Jonathan, does this represent an uptake in activity, or is it pretty

much on a par with what we have had for several months? I think there

has been an uptake in act that he ever since those extra typhoons were

sent and two tornadoes were sent to Akrotiri. There has been a surge of

activity over Syria, whether that is because of a military priority or

political is a moot point, I think. If you look at the use of the

brimstone, which had not been used, as you mentioned, since the campaign

started in Syria, they were used to hate mobile cranes in an oilfield.

You could probably have used a different type of bond to do that

stop to make sure they Brimstone. I think the focus is still in Iraq. I

think the attack on the secret police headquarters by the RAF that

you mentioned by the Pentagon, the US and four against the cache

storage facility, otherwise known as the bank, to make sure they can't

give money to their fighters. You could see that the focus, the

military focus, is on the shaping up operation around Mosul. That will

clearly be the next target for the Iraqi security forces. They do not

give a timetable this time because they said it would last year and

they did not. Suspicious folk will be wondering how much of a PR

element to bear is in this. There has been talk on how the Brimstone

was not used, in our Britain -- briefing we were told the Brimstone

was used to take out a truck. That is a very expensive way of taking

out a truck. The missile alone costs over ?100,000? It is an expensive

weapons system with a radar on front to track and make sure it hits its

target, it can hit a target moving at 70 mph, I don't whether the truck

was moving at 70 mph, I doubt whether mobile cranes in the

oilfields were. But they have used it and clearly there was political

pressure. People have been asking, not least yourself, why the RAF had

not fired any Brimstone missiles. The focus has returned to Mosul.

What has happened in Mosul, with the strike by the Americans on that

bank, the cash storage facility, there were private briefings from

military officials, US military officials, that there would probably

be civilian casualties. What we have not had, obviously, from Britain,

ministers, the RAF, is any admission of civilian casualties. There has

not even an ad campaign in which there have not been civilian

casualties. I think there will be more scrutiny of this, as yet we

have had no confirmation of any civilian casualties. One final

question Jonathan, it might be hard to answer, is there anything you can

tell us about what is going on on the ground with coalition British

allied forces? We talk about the our war, we can monitor that and so on,

but is there any sense that specialist forces act that is on the

ground are increasing as well? The great thing about the SAS is people

can write what they like about them, they have been in Afghanistan,

Libya, everywhere. They have not been in Afghanistan recently. They

have been doing stuff around Iraq and Syria. The difference between

the Americans and Brits is the Americans say, yes, US special

forces, they have admitted this, are going in. We have not had any

comment at all from Britain as to what the SAS are doing. The SAS, we

know there are other British troops doing training in facilities around

Baghdad, mostly focused on IEDs, that is a massive threat in Ramadi,

they are also training the Peshmerga -- Peshmerga. But no comment at all

about what the SAS special forces are doing. Thank you.

Now, it's one of Britain's newest political parties and it's hoping

to make an impact in May's elections across England,

But to do that, the Women's Equality Party needs some cash and last night

it held a fundraiser in Central London.

We sent our Ellie along to see what it was all about.

NEWSREEL: A fundraising sale organised by the Tory

This is how they used to do it in the 1970s.

Party political fundraising at its most ladylike.

I enjoy working for the Conservative party obviously.

Last night's fundraiser was ladylike too.

So I've been given 15 minutes and I was thinking what shall I do?

Obviously, it would take longer with my skills.

It was largely a night of comedy with a serious message.

If I had seen the Labour Party or the Tory Party or any other party

Absolutely, let's be radical, let's shake things up.

The thing about equality is that you need someone to make

The idea of equality is everywhere but someone needs to come along,

a bit like a mum, and make sure that that's actually happening and that

all the rules are written down and everyone is playing nicely.

And there were plenty of mums in the audience

And those who, for various reasons, might describe

What people think about feminists is they've got no sense of humour,

they're extreme radical lesbians, which is also ridiculous

because we know that there is a continuum.

And I always used to say, you know, the problem is you've got your kind

of extreme radical feminists there and you've got your kind

of lipstick feminists there who still want to wear nice

The problem is, I'm one of those but I look like one of those.

People just need to be a little bit more forgiving.

I think women have to be a bit cleverer really about how they,

That's a bloody man interrupting again!

The Women's Equality Party launched last March and is planning to field

candidates in the Scottish, Welsh and London mayoral elections.

They say they have 45,000 members, which is more than UKIP.

I think any revolutionary out there should have a picture

of Nigel Farage on their bedroom wall with, "If he can do it anyone

There are plenty of people I understand who would like to see

Do you know what, in the last election, I thought,

I wonder if I would like to be Prime Minister?

I phoned up and asked if I could look around the house

You want to check the house out first, right?

I think that's a very female approach actually.

I want to see how big the bedrooms are.

And Sophie Walker, leader of the Women's Equality Party,

Why a separate party on this issue as opposed to fighting within the

major parties to get this issue up the agenda? Because all of the other

parties have competing priorities and they are simply unable to give

this the attention that it needs. We've been waiting a very, very,

very long time. The pace of change is clay seal and I think we needed

to set this political party up to be able to speak for the thousands and

thousands of people who are sick of living with gender inequality every

day. -- Glace seal. Children going to school without role models, who

want to see fully rounded role models. There's a to do something

about this. If you don't win a single seat, which I think people

might think is likely, doesn't that to your cause harm in the end? First

of all, it's absolutely very likely we will win seats. As a huge amount

of momentum behind us. We think we are contesting candidates for the

Greater London assembly, also in Scotland and Wales and looking at

the London mayoral election. Ala members will vote for candidates in

the next couple of weeks. With this voting system, your not going to win

any seats but hope to get some list under the PR system? I think we

genuinely will win seats. The growth and the speed of the growth of this

party has been really phenomenal. People have really had enough and I

think the model also appeals to people because we are a nonpartisan

political party, so we can come at this from two ways, firstly, saying

to the other political parties, we want to help and find common ground.

The traditional parties are still operating along this very

old-fashioned, very combative model in which they feel a quality is

something they have two each own it and decide who gets to give it out

piece by piece, and we are saying it's really shouldn't work that way.

People are joining from the Conservative, Lib Dems, labour and

Ukip and saying to us, we are going to give you a boat to get this done

to tell the other parties this needs to be at the top of their agenda. --

vote. Why shouldn't the top of the agenda rather than being on it when

the larger pay gaps in this country associated with ethnicity, religion,

disability, even looks. There's a beauty premium established by a

columnist. Why this one gap and not these are the gaps? Because this

speaks right across all of the other stuff, too. We are speaking for

women, which means also a quality for men, an economy which

flourishes, a society which flourishes, everything works better

this way and I think we are not saying we are a single issue party,

but people don't live single issue lives. Talking up the economy, for

example, there are 600,000 women in the country who would like to back

to work if they could afford the health care and the childcare and

the price of it means they can't. If we could get 10% of mothers who want

to work into the workplace, ?1.5 billion a year in terms of

additional tax revenues and in work benefits topping. Is this the right

way to go? I think they've rarely tapped into something. I have every

sympathy for giving the existing parties are put up the backside.

Jeremy Corbyn 's Labour Party does not look terribly female friendly to

be honest. He now has a majority of women in the Shadow Cabinet. None in

his inner circle apart from Diane Abbott for the Lib Dems have been

left for road kills others an opportunity there. The concern for

me would be there is a real problem with becoming a Ukip of the

centre-left, that the women's equality party takes lots of votes

in areas where there's lots of like-minded sympathetic women and

all it does is not win the seat but just keeps up possible like-minded

sympathetic candidate. That presumes we are a left-wing party and we are

not. We have people coming to us from right across... All your famous

names. There's lots of people behind-the-scenes who don't want to

be named to our supporters. There's lots of people behind-the-scenes

reporting is. There's a famous right-wing name joining you get a

Mac I dig going and so that? You've already got the hang of being a

politician by not answering the question. I find this really weird.

People presume that they tell us for stealing votes. The boats don't

belong to the other parties. They have to do in them and there's an

awful lot voters who say, you're not having my vote on this any more --

votes. I think you're onto something. Why can't you steal vast

tranches of votes on a group of issues off the establishment? On

that shock revelation that you have the backing of the Sun newspaper,

you can take that back to your party leaders and they will be overjoyed.

Thanks for being with us. Now any moment now,

if all goes to plan, Major Tim Peake will become

the first Briton to walk in space, to repair the International

Space Station. Back here on earth,

MPs, or at the least Scottish National Party's

MPs, have been getting Yes, it turns out the SNP

is packed with Trekkies. And in the Commons they were boldly

going, in the words of the famous split infinitive, where no

MP has gone before. Let's have a listen

Philippa Whitford opening a Commons Now, some people who follow

the media will be aware that our former First Minister,

the right honourable member for Gordon, has used as a travelling

pseudonym the name of that famous But for a debate as important

as this, I felt that we should And I therefore have a message

to the House of Commons "Space is one of the

last known frontiers. "Mostly untouched by

mankind in his politics. "In opening a debate on this

subject, it is my hope you take "the tenets

of Star Trek's prime directive "to universally and peacefully share

in the exploration of it. "I wish you all a wonderful debate.

My best, Bill. "So that it can live

long and prosper." And Philippa Whitford joins us now

from the BBC studios in Glasgow. I noticed William Shatner has not

lost his ability to split a definitive on the statement you read

doubtful that was it difficult to get a message from him? Surprisingly

easy. I can't claim the credit for it. It was the inspired move of my

parliamentary assistant who just wrote to several very famous Star

Trek people. Was he aware Alex Salmond has used his name to book

flights and hotels? Yes, that was covered in the media last year. Do

you check in as Deanna Troy? No, I don't. Press a week is vying to be

the spaceport for button bash Prestwick. What is a spaceport do?

It's something which struck me during the election. If you mention

space in the UK, people laugh. It's something we think Russia and

America do but not us. Sorry to interrupt because just as you are

speaking, we have pictures of Tim Peake leaving the space station to

begin his work of repair, the first person to walk in space. Please,

carry on. I interrupted you. Major Tim Peake is the reason we ask the

backbench committee to give us the debate yesterday in honour of his

spacewalk today but also to encourage people to realise that the

UK has a significant space industry. We have led for decades in what are

called small satellites which the size of a fridge rather than on a

bus, but we now have here in Glasgow company along with others who make

micro satellites, about one litre in size, so this whole industry is

growing that we have no launch site at all in the UK. Am I right in

thinking there's quite a few Star Trek fans in the SNP Parliamentary

party? I don't think it was only the SNP. We did, mind you, have Ian

Wright, the Labour MP who stuck to Star Wars. I understand one of your

colleagues is into fist bumping rather than a unhygienic

handshaking. Will we see the fist bumping now? I think I will be going

for elbow bumping if you're trying to do that. Just use alcohol gel.

Thank you very much for joining us. That's all for today.

Thanks to our guests. The One O'Clock News is starting

over on BBC One now. I'll be back on Sunday

with the Sunday Politics. We are expecting to see people

who can sell anything. It's the Oscar

for the mobile phone industry. The search for Britain's best

mobile phone salesperson is on. We are expecting to see people

who can sell anything.