15/01/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 15/01/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


Download Subtitles